Now, I have posted on many threads and I simply am having trouble keeping track. I was gone for a week and many of them got away from me. Therefore, I am regathering here.

The Historicity of the Bible is not in question here, we are simply assuming it is true, because though many of you would like to say it is all bull, some of the greatest secular historians have stated that it is a wonderfully accurate piece of history. You can argue with me on this too if you want. But consider these things first.

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.

Now, I will not be gone again since school is coming up. So i will answer regularly. Post away and please stay on topic, Thanks!

In this thread http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/005667.html

"Of course [God] is interacting with us daily. You see people pull through diseases that were told that they would surely die. You see single mothers raising successful children. You see nature itself as a witness of His creation. You see love."

Could you elaborate on how God is interacting with us daily?

Could you present a recent well documented account occurrence of divine healing that has occurred (something that can't be attributed to probability)

And do you not claim that A single mother can not raise a successful child with out you Christain God?



[This message has been edited by Q777 (edited 07-26-2006).]

I think it's possible that the bible is true, although not always in a literal sense.

I also think it's more likely that a lot of it is often misunderstood.

Personally I think J was the real deal as was B.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.

Or what they say about what he said isnt true.

Can you list some of these secular historians?

And why would him being considered moral not make him a liar? What about all the catholic popes who were considered holy and moral who fucked children?

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:



The Historicity of the Bible is not in question here, we are simply assuming it is true, because though many of you would like to say it is all bull, some of the greatest secular historians have stated that it is a wonderfully accurate piece of history. You can argue with me on this too if you want. But consider these things first.

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.



"What is truth?" How often has history been rewritten to reflect the propaganda of the rulers? The Romans ruled Palestine and according to the bible, the Roman governor authorised the crucifixion of Jesus. No matter that the later Roman Catholics try to blame the Jews, it was by Roman authority and decree that jesus was crucified.

The Roman Emporer Constantine saw it was politically expedient to adopt xianity, so he decided on the final doctrines of the RC church. That's like if the Nazis had won the war, what version would they give of the genocide? Think about it check out Neo-Nazi beliefs. Who could rely on a religious system like the Rc's to tell the 'truth'?

Check out RC history, they killed/murdered/tortured to death millions. http://www.ccel.org/f/foxe/martyrs/home.html

They burned their books and tried to obliterate all othe stories about Jesus. However in spite of centuries of this despotism they failed and we see the Nag Hammadi library, The Essene gospels and many other alternative stories regarding Jesus have survived. Who would be most likely telling the 'truth', the persecutors or the people they murdered?

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html http://www.thenazareneway.com/ http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm

Perhaps the truth is the Romans, to cover up their culpability in Jesus murder invented some 'truths' and adjusted history to make the bible 'interpretations/truths' fit their political agenda? http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/ http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_ideas_salvation.html

Or: Google 'Pagan Christs'

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Well as we all know or should know is that the bible was not being written at the same time the events in the bible were taking place. long after the events in the bible took place, such as jesus and all his miracles, the bible began to be written. what this means is that most, if not all accounts of the bible are stories passed down from generation to generation over many many years. it doesnt take much time for stories to be altered at all if youve ever played the game "telephone" in a class room. its played where someone starts a sentence and tells it to the person behind him/her and it goes all the way around the class to the last person. about 2 minutes and 20 kids later the sentence has changed from "the sky is blue" to "babies cry at night" (that was something right off the top of my head) which is something completely different. and thats just a simple fuckin sentence. but the bible, were talkin about long detailed stories about all of the accomplishments of say jesus and dont forget if your trying to make someone sound good people have a tendency to embelish on certain topics to make whoever they are trying to talk about that much better. i think most of it if not all of it is bullshit.

Alright now you must understand that some of you are asking more thorough questions then others. Some will get answers immediately, some might take a while, but i will try my best to at least get one post in a day so be patient with me if you will and I promise i will get to all of you.



quote:Originally posted by The_Big_Beef:

Well as we all know or should know is that the bible was not being written at the same time the events in the bible were taking place. long after the events in the bible took place, such as jesus and all his miracles, the bible began to be written. what this means is that most, if not all accounts of the bible are stories passed down from generation to generation over many many years. it doesnt take much time for stories to be altered at all if youve ever played the game "telephone" in a class room. its played where someone starts a sentence and tells it to the person behind him/her and it goes all the way around the class to the last person. about 2 minutes and 20 kids later the sentence has changed from "the sky is blue" to "babies cry at night" (that was something right off the top of my head) which is something completely different. and thats just a simple fuckin sentence. but the bible, were talkin about long detailed stories about all of the accomplishments of say jesus and dont forget if your trying to make someone sound good people have a tendency to embelish on certain topics to make whoever they are trying to talk about that much better. i think most of it if not all of it is bullshit.

Now honestly, do some research for me ok? The entire new testament has been estimated to have been completed around 100 A.D. Mathews gospel was written shortly after 70 A.D. Mark around 64-65 and Luke shortly before 70 A.D. F.F. Bruce, pg 12, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Now this is a negligable amount compared to most historical documents. There is also the fact that people were still around from the time of Jesus, and if you remember, the christians were not exactly popular. Yet still there were no works that refuted christianity. But they had plenty of enemies. There were the jews who were constantly trying to look for something wrong with it. There were skeptics who were still around at the time of Christ who probably did not agree with him. There were the Romans who did not want a rebelion. There were also the Christians themselves who would not undergo such torture needlessly and also were around to witness the ressurection. Thus they would be very cynical if questionable papers arose about Christ or if myths were being formulated. If you consider the Galic Wars, Plato and Homer as reliable then I find it hard to believe that you would question Christianities historicity. Though it was noted by other historians as well. I will list those in a later answer so just keep your eyes pealed.

Your Friend

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

Can you list some of these secular historians?

And why would him being considered moral not make him a liar? What about all the catholic popes who were considered holy and moral who fucked children?

Now Now, you know it is best not to assume. The whole catholic thing has been blown way out of proportion so give me evidence of several popes that have molested children and I will concur that the rumor is mildly true. As for the morality issue. He would contradict himself and therefore we, many many many years later, would see him as a liar because ... well his name would have been less important or everyone could see his lies clearly. Josephus, the Talmud, Pliny the Younger, and Tacitus for starters. I will have to dig a little deeper to find more.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

The entire new testament has been estimated to have been completed around 100 A.D. Mathews gospel was written shortly after 70 A.D. Mark around 64-65 and Luke shortly before 70 A.D. F.F. Bruce, pg 12, If you consider the Galic Wars, Plato and Homer as reliable then I find it hard to believe that you would question Christianities historicity.

Where did i ever say that i thought homer was reliable? i know that he wrote a bunch of stories like the Illiad and the Odyssey right? i also know people actually believed those stories as true. those were his famous writings and basically people back then sort of considered those as what the christians today condsider the bible (im sure there were more than just those but those are his famous epics). but he made those epics up from his head not actual accounts anyways. im not sure about plato or the galic wars so enlighten me if you want on that subject otherwise ill just look it up later. did you ever think that jesus' apostles wanted to build him up so that people would accept him as something more than just a human that stood for all the good things in life and more of say like a god or somethin to that effect?

Your claims for the Historicity of the Bible fail its purpose. Your

“Secular historians” make little mention of Jesus and usually denote an entirely different subject.

Talmud-

Despite the numerous mentions of Edom which may refer to Christendom, the Talmud makes little mention of Jesus directly or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about individuals named Yeshu that once existed in editions of the Talmud. These passages do not necessarily refer to a single individual and many of the stories are far removed from anything written in the New Testament. Many scholars are convinced that these people cannot be identified as the Christian Jesus.

Josephus-

Is argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian; he characterized his patron Emperor Vespasian as the foretold Messiah. : "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "if it be lawful to call him a man … He was [the] Christ … for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." These seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently, most secular historians (and even many Christian scholars) dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation.

Pliny the Younger-

Around 112, in a correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, a reference is made to Christians. In it, Pliny asks for the advice on how to handle Christians who refused to worship the emperor, but instead worshiped "Christus" as a god. However, Pliny simply recounts what the beliefs of the arrested were; he does not mention the name "Jesus".

Tacitus-

A common suggestion is that Tacitus got his information from Rome's archives - perhaps from a letter or account written by Pilate, though the existence of any such letter is pure speculation. Nor is there any evidence that any records of Jesus's trial were held in Rome. The fact that Tacitus never refers to "Jesus", but only to "Christus" ("anointed one") suggests that he did not use archival sources, in which this title is unlikely to have been used, but rather derived his information directly or indirectly from Christians.

By saying that Jesus was either crazy, a liar, or telling the truth is wrong because they are other alternatives. 1. He was misquoted in the Bible, and did not claim to be Lord. 2. The stories about him were made up, or embroidered with fictitious material by the early Christians. Note that the possibility that he was a "lunatic" is not easily discountable. Even today in the western world there are numerous people who have managed to convince hundreds or thousands of followers that they are the Lord or his One True Prophet. People like L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones…

“Yet still there were no works that refuted Christianity.”

“Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wandering… We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguiled them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction” (Tacitus- The History- Book V, Chapter 3-4- A.D 70)

“Thus they would be very cynical if questionable papers arose about Christ or if myths were being formulated.”

The most powerful groups in early Christianity were the Christians centered in Alexandria (in Egypt) and those in Rome, and so the form of Osiris-Dionysus at these two locations could reasonably be expected to have had the greatest influence. In Alexandria it was Osiris-Horus, a partial merging of the identities of Osiris and Horus, Osiris dying and being resurrected as Horus. Just to name a few parallels:

•By the first century Isis was seen as the mother of Horus. She was traditionally known as Meri, meaning beloved, which is phonetically near-identical to Mary, the name of the mother of Jesus, and was the most common recipient of the epithet - if Meri was used without a particular deity being mentioned it usually referred to Isis.

•Burial in a cave, and subsequent resurrection. The Gospels state that after his death, Jesus was buried in a cave, and subsequent narratives state that after this tomb was found to be empty, Jesus was seen to be resurrected. Mithraism also sometimes held that after the death of Mithras, he was buried in a cave, from where he was resurrected; this is thought by scholars to derive from the earlier idea that Mithras had been born from a rock, an allegory for the universe as seen from outside it, while the cave represented the universe from the inside, hence the death in the cave being the in-universe equivalent to the birth from the rock - thus birth coming from death.

•The Marriage at Cana, during which the New Testament states that Jesus turned water into wine, is similar to a narrative concerning Dionysus, who was originally the god of wine. In the pre-Christian Dionysus version, priests attending to a wedding at which Dionysus is present bring vessels of water to a building, which is then sealed, and when later reopened the water has been turned to wine. As the earliest surviving record of this miracle of Dionysus is from the late first century writings of Tatius, Christian apologists have argued that it was copied from Jesus' actions. However, as Jesus' miracle is only reported by the Gospel of John, which is dated by most scholars to 95-115 AD, advocates of the Jesus myth counter that the earliest surviving evidence, of water into wine at a wedding miracle, concerns Dionysus not Jesus.

•The Passion of Jesus has a number of features which are argued by Jesus-Myth-theory advocates to be borrowed from Dionysus. Just before his actual crucifixion, the narrative portrays Jesus as being tortured - during which his captors make him wear a purple robe and crown of foliage, both of which were said to be ordinarily worn by Dionysus (due to being imperial symbols). Advocates of the theory that Jesus was derived from myth contend that although temporary, the similar appearance during the torture scene was a deliberate reference by the early gospel writers to Dionysus, in a similar manner to plays and dramas when an actor breaks the fourth wall and reveals their disguise to the audience.

The Christian Historians knew of this and defended it thus:

The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. (Tertullian)

Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvellous tales - Justin Martyr, First Apology



“There were the Romans who did not want a rebellion. There were also the Christians themselves who would not undergo such torture needlessly and also were around to witness the resurrection.”

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917–1963), U.S. Democratic politician, president. Commencement address, June 11, 1962, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.

Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf

Speaking about lies-

• Mark: c. 68–73

• Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.

• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85

• John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

“If you consider the Galic Wars, Plato and Homer as reliable then I find it hard to believe that you would question Christianities historicity.”

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?

2. Where was it produced (localization)?

3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?

4. “If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true."

Ceasar’s and Plato’s writings have been proven historically accurate because of the aforementioned. Homer’s also have been proven to have been historically accurate in depicting the myths of Ancient Greece. Christianity, by having controversy in 1, 3 and 4 is considered less historically accurate.

N.B

Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it. Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

He (Pope Alexander VI 1492-1503) unashamedly promoted his illegitimate children’s interests, so much so that many believed that he enjoyed an incestuous relationship with his daughter, Lucrezia. This hasn’t been proven, but Alexander’s many sexual relationships lent enough truth to the rumors that it was near impossible to believe otherwise. More and more illegitimate children were claimed to have come about as a result of Alexander’s rampant libido. Romans became ablaze about it.

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0811b-almanac.htm

http://www.users.bigpond.com/billmastermind/moments10.htm

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045–1046,1047–1048) Accused by Bishop Benno of Placenta of "many vile adulteries and murders." Pope Victor III referred to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."

http://poorimpulsecontrol.redrag.net/2005/04/23/a-potted-history-of-the-popes-benedict/

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/popes/benedict-ix/

When ultimately the King's good success disposed the Pope in favor of reconciliation, Paul II (1464-1471) died, on July 26, 1471 of a heart attack while engaging in sexual acts with a page boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Paul_II

http://www.icedlabs.com/blog/2006/07/sex-predators/

Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/popes/john-xii/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII







[This message has been edited by hespeaks (edited 07-27-2006).]

+1 to everything said by the above poster. Also, I have to take issue with the assertion that Christ or his followers were regarded with respect of any kind by the Jewish community. That's simply not true. Long after the last gospel was written, the Christians were still a minor sect of Judaism, and no one really paid much attention to them. Virtually no one at the time believed Jesus to be the Messiah. In large part, this was due to the large number of cult leaders, contemporary to Jesus' own cult following, that were wandering around Judea claiming to be the Messiah. Jesus was no novelty. In fact, the miracles attributed to him were identical to the claims of pretty much every other leader (healing the sick, raising the dead, and so forth). For most Jews, the Messiah didn't show up until about 132 CE, in the form of Simon bar Kokhba, who led a revolt against Roman rule that lasted a whole three years before being annihilated. Let's hear it for saviors.

Explain how your belief in christ lives up to each of the essential components of critical thinking.

http://www.totse.com/en/ego/self_improvement/afieldguidetoc174154.html

This one is the clincher: "evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim"

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 07-27-2006).]

Hespeaks,

Honestly? Pliny refers to Christus and you think it is something else? and so does Tacitus, and Josephus makes direct reference of Jesus though it is a small reference and you deny it any worth? Jesus wasnt exactly a HUGE political figure. Many historians did not really care much about a carpenter with followers. Sooo if that is not good enough for you then look at the places and people mentioned in the Bible. There is also the fact that the new testament writings were used by early church fathers from AD 90-160 and there for the Gospels must have been floating around for a while. All these myths ... what do you want to prove? Do you think that Christ was real at all? As for the 4 steps, the first is of date and orgin and all that jazz YOU KNOW the date and origin and who wrote it. The authorship is in question? By whom? if you have a problem with the authorship then state the problem dont state that other people have a problem with it. As for the fourth one ... i do not quite see what you mean. The History of Christ gives you his birthplace, people around at the time, places he went, and it explains who he was and what he did. The Galic Wars and Plato are considered much more accurate? Why? because it took about 200 - 300 years of circulation before we even found the first copy? How do we know that those writings are not just fabrications? There is much more time to allow such a thing to happen. Though I understand that the claims of the Bible are a lot heavier. Keep them coming, and if I hav e not answer thoroughly enough then tell me, I will keep the answers coming.

Real. PUA,

If you already have an intrinsic defeater then why are you even bothering to argue. I do not see how i can argue at all if you have already stated that I can give you no evidence that will convince you, beware of preconcieved notions. Lol and i agree with you, Christianity is falsifiable, as soon as you show me the bones of Christ, or something that proves the Gospels completely wrong. But seeing as how you are claiming an intrinsic defeater and claiming that I can give you no evidence to the contrary i might look at your own critical thinking skills before you take a crack at mine.

Redzed,

Haha, now come on my friend. The New Testament documents have been dated back long before constatine and the true catholic Church was formed way before the Roman Catholic Church ever came into play. There are thousands of new testament documents and from these came the doctrines of the church. Not from what constantine decided. The earliest documents we have are parts of john from 130 AD, there are also many apostolic fathers who used the Gospels and the rest of the new testament in their writing AD 90-160 and we can use these as well to ensure that the Bible we have today is sound in accuracy. And I am not Roman Catholic haha I am a Lutheran.

The Big Beef,

Jesus Christ's desciples would have no reason to make him out to be God and then die for it if it was not true. The romans did not really care if they believed in Christ, so long as they did not profess him as God, so all they would have to do was say "well yea he really was just a great teacher" instead they wrote full histories of him and most of them died trying to profess the truth. There is also the fact that they would have no reason to lie really, for if you lie you have to have something to gain from it. And all they gained was suffering and death. If you are questioning their character then i would like to ask you why exactly you think that they ar e liars?

The above goes for you too abrahim ^

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Redzed,

Haha, now come on my friend. The New Testament documents have been dated back long before constatine and the true catholic Church was formed way before the Roman Catholic Church ever came into play. There are thousands of new testament documents and from these came the doctrines of the church. Not from what constantine decided. The earliest documents we have are parts of john from 130 AD, there are also many apostolic fathers who used the Gospels and the rest of the new testament in their writing AD 90-160 and we can use these as well to ensure that the Bible we have today is sound in accuracy. And I am not Roman Catholic haha I am a Lutheran.

If you choose to remain ignorant that is up to you, if you look at the sources referenced and do some research yourself you will find that Constantine did indeed choose the books included and as for Luther, he also was involved in some very nasty persecutions of those who did not agree with him.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

People have done crazier things especially in society today (cults and what not). i really dont have an answer for you about why they would lie. perhaps to protect the secret that he really wasnt anything except for a man. besides they would have been killed regardless. they could have lied and died for that lie so that others would follow. such as when constantine came to power he made christianity the religion of rome. personally i think it was a pretty smart move on their part if they wanted everyone to believe the way they did.

Case of the Historians -*Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

•Around 112, in a correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, a reference is made to Christians. In it, Pliny asks for the advice on how to handle Christians who refused to worship the emperor, but instead worshiped "Christus" as a god. However, Pliny simply recounts what the beliefs of the arrested were; he does not mention the name "Jesus". Pliny's words are

"Christians... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. " [15]

He never said that Jesus existed or not but that they “sang responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god”; they believed that this “Christus” was a God.

Tacitus-

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. (book 15, chapter 44 of Annals (c. 116):

Some scholars, such as Gordon Stein, have suggested that this passage could be a later textual interpolation by Christian scribes[1]; others, such as Georges Ory, that the name was originally Chrestus, with Christus being a later substitution[2].

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

The fact that Tacitus never refers to "Jesus", but only to "Christus" ("anointed one") suggests that he did not use archival sources, in which this title is unlikely to have been used, but rather derived his information directly or indirectly from Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

Josephus-

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3

The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate the earliest quotations of the Testimonium. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum. Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Cels, i 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Comm. Matt., x 17), and "he says nothing of the wonderful deeds that our Lord did" (Stromateis, ii 2) but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ and claims that he performed "wonderful works". Three passages stood out: "if it be lawful to call him a man … He was [the] Christ … for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." These seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently, most secular historians (and even many Christian scholars) dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Conclusion: Nonetheless, the works of four major non-Christian historians contain passages possibly relating to Jesus: Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus. But these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. The absence of any mention of Jesus by writers such as Philo, Seneca the Elder, and Plutarch seems to indicate that if Jesus had existed, he must have been a relatively minor figure since these writers mention many people who are of much lesser historical significance. No archival or archaeological evidence referring to him exists from the period when he is said to have lived, even though the writings of several contemporary authors have survived.

Just because a work denotes places, and people doesn’t prove its validity. Homer’s myths depicted the cities of the Ancient World and mentioned people like Agamemnon, are it therefore true? Again you make a supposition without research. “The Apostolic Fathers were a small collection of Christian authors who lived and wrote in the late 1st century and early 2nd century who are acknowledged as leaders in the early church”.

“All these myths ... what do you want to prove? Do you think that Christ was real at all?”

The idea that elements of beliefs about Jesus, and the Jesus narrative in the New Testament, are actually syncretisms from myths of his era.

Historical Method

1.Origin-

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

• Mark: c. 68–73

• Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.

• Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85

• John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship over most of the last 2 millennia has generally come to different conclusions assigning earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50's. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

• Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's

• Matthew: c. 50 to 70's

• Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's

• John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50's to 70

3.Authorship-

Although the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel is traditionally ascribed to St. Matthew, a tax collector who became an Apostle of Jesus. The early church fathers were unanimous in this view. Results of modern critical scholarship, however, have departed from that tradition, with the vast majority of experts agreeing Matthew the Apostle could not have written the Gospel which today bears his name. Critical biblical scholars, like Herman N. Ridderbos in his book Matthew, do not consider the apostle Matthew to be the author of this Gospel. He cites a number of reasons such as the text being in Greek, not Aramaic, the Gospel's heavy reliance on Mark, and the lack of characteristics usually attributed to an eyewitness account. [3]

Francis Write Beare agrees, and goes on to say in his book The Gospel according to Matthew "there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation.

Although the author of Luke is generally considered to be anonymous, there is some suggestion that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul. The earliest surviving witnesses that place Luke as the author are the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), the writings of Irenaeus (c. 180), and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue (second half of the 2nd century).[1][2] The general consensus is that Luke was written by a Greek for gentile Christians.

The text (Gospel of John) itself states only that the Gospel was written by a follower of Jesus referred to as the Beloved Disciple, traditionally identified with John the Apostle, believed to have lived at the end of his life at Ephesus.

Scholarly research starting in the 19th century has questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context exist.

4.Occam’s Razor

Since supernatural activity isn’t recognized by science; The Jesus narratives fail to explain a large number and variety of facts such as the emergence of Christianity, “many more than any competing explanation”, since theories just as the Jesus-myth I described and the theory “apparent relationship between Gnosticism and Christianity as being based on an historical figure acting as the focal point for the linking of Jewish religious traditions and political history with a mystery religion, a syncretism—ultimately more popular among Gentiles than Jews—which would become Christianity.” are more plausible.

“The Galic Wars and Plato are considered much more accurate? Why? because it took about 200 - 300 years of circulation before we even found the first copy? How do we know that those writings are not just fabrications? There is much more time to allow such a thing to happen.”

•Your claim is ridiculous in so many ways. Commentarii de Bello Gallico (literally Commentaries on the Gallic Wars in Latin) is an account written by Julius Caesar about his nine years of war in Gaul. Historians (Suetonious and Plutarch) generally believe that Caesar existed and the wars occurred. And get this, if there was no Gallic War, then how did Rome conquer France?, if Caesar was defeated than how did he became lauded as one of the greatest military commanders in history (Since the Gallic Wars are considered is magnum opus) and how did he become strong enough to overturn the Pompey administration at the time and become dictator of Rome? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_War#The_Gallic_Wars_in_literature_and_cultu re

•In the Byzantine Empire, the study of Plato continued. The Medieval scholastic philosophers did not have access to the works of Plato, nor the knowledge of Greek needed to read them. Plato's original writings were essentially lost to Western civilization until they were brought from Constantinople in the century before its fall, by George Gemistos Plethon. Medieval scholars knew of Plato only through translations into Latin from the translations into Arabic by Persian and Arab scholars. These scholars not only translated the texts of the ancients, but expanded them by writing extensive commentaries and interpretations on Plato's and Aristotle's works (see Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Platonic_scholarship

They must have found the “first copy” before you did lol

•“First, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world.” (Thomas Paine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_from_the_Bible

An excerpt from the History Channel’s documentary on how the Bible was compiled, and how it was influenced by politics and the major bishops. And…

Council of Trent: on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books. The Old Testament books that had been in doubt were termed deuterocanonical, not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval. Beyond these books, some editions of the latin Vulgate include Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Esdras (called 3 Esdras), 2 Esdras (called 4 Esdras), and the Epistle to the Laodiceans in an appendix, styled "Apogryphi".

Thirty-Nine Articles: in 1563, of the Church of England, article 6, recognized the Roman Catholic Canon including the Deuterocanonicals with the caveat "for example of life and instruction in manners ... [but not] to establish any doctrine."

King James Bible: of 1611, included deuterocanon and apocrypha from the Vulgate and Septuagint.

Westminster Confession of Faith: in 1647, of Calvinism, decreed a 39-book OT and 27-book NT, all others labelled as apocrypha [26].

Synod of Jerusalem[27]: in 1672, decreed the Greek Orthodox Canon which is the same as the Roman Catholic but includes Psalm 151, 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Odes, Letter of Jeremiah. The Greek Orthodox generally consider the Septuagint to be divinely inspired.

Thomas Jefferson: in 1819, produced the Jefferson Bible, by excluding sayings of Jesus which he felt were easily determined to be inauthentic ("like picking diamonds from dunghills" -To Adams, 24 January 1814).

Vatican I: on April 24, 1870, approved the additions to Mark (v.16:9-20), Luke, (22:19b-20,43-44) and John, (7:53-8:11) which are not present in early manuscripts.

Pope Pius XI: on June 2, 1927, decreed the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute.

The Jesus Seminar in 1993 ranked sayings of Jesus for authenticity by consensus vote and published The Five Gospels : What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. In addition to the canonical four gospels, the fifth gospel is the Gospel of Thom

So your claim that the Bible was already indisputably canonized before the Catholic Church is invalid. Next time argue from facts and research not emotion.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Real. PUA,

If you already have an intrinsic defeater then why are you even bothering to argue. I do not see how i can argue at all if you have already stated that I can give you no evidence that will convince you, beware of preconcieved notions. Lol and i agree with you, Christianity is falsifiable, as soon as you show me the bones of Christ, or something that proves the Gospels completely wrong. But seeing as how you are claiming an intrinsic defeater and claiming that I can give you no evidence to the contrary i might look at your own critical thinking skills before you take a crack at mine.

Retard, did you even read the guide? You have to pass EVERY SINGLE aspect of the critical thinking guide for the belief to be reasonable. You admit that you fail sufficiency test, thus you admit you admit to failing at critical thinking. You can easily convince me if you show evidence of christianity that passes the all aspects of critical thinking.

Ok one question for all. If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead, will you become a Christian? I would like a consensus on this before I delve any deeper into this.

Oh and Real. PUA, you are right, you have to pass every single one, so I looked at the first one and since you didnt pass I thought you might want to change a little of your critical thinking as well, and i never claimed that Christianity is false, I claimed that it could be proven false if you come up with something that makes it so, which no one here has done yet.

[This message has been edited by Truth is all (edited 07-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Ok one question for all. If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead, will you become a Christian? I would like a consensus on this before I delve any deeper into this.

I would be awe-stricken (and still HIGHLY skeptical) - but I would not convert. You would still have to prove to me God's omnipotency. Then, you'd have to somehow prove to me God's benevolence.

Kickstarting a dead person would not be sufficient, else I would right now be worshipping my father's heart surgeon.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

The above goes for you too abrahim ^

I don't believe in the timeline of Jesus or many of the stories connected to him, or the people they claim were connected to him.

If 1000 men die for a man whom they call God, it will never make that man God, because God is greater, a man is only a man and will always be a man, Created by God the One.

I do not believe Jesus ever claimed to be God, ever considered himself the SON of God, and ever claimed to be able to forgive anyone elses sins.

Jesus was the Messenger of God, Bringing God's Message to the People. His Message was simple and the same as mine: Worship the One God and Submit yourself to God, be righteous and pious and good and live well. A warning of the ressurection and judgement too.

God is no one's father simply because God is not a man, nor in the image of man, nor ejaculated in anyone, nor impregnated anyone, nor adopted anyone. God is God, the Creator, The One. Jesus knew and believed that. Jesus was the pais of God, the pais of man. The Servant of God, The Servant of Man. He was the son of Marium.

Lots of people might believe something that is false, even die for it, but that doesn't make it true. Listen to the true message of Jesus: Worship the One God. The Way to Paradise is not through belief in blasphemy or claims that God has a son or that God came to Earth as a man, but through being good, charitable, righteous, pious, upright, dignified, spending a life in positive ways, helping yourself and others, worshipping and submitting yourself to God, and making good judgements and decisions. You are not born a sinner, you are born innocent, you have all the power to avoid sin and do right and to achieve paradise. It is in your hands, only you can ask God for forgiveness. God, not Jesus, not Mary, not anyone but God, the One, the Supreme, the Only one capable of the ultimate gift and the ultimate forgiveness.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Ok one question for all. If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead, will you become a Christian? I would like a consensus on this before I delve any deeper into this.

I claimed that it could be proven false if you come up with something that makes it so, which no one here has done yet.



If you proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead, it would still not mean that he, a man, is God, but that God, the all powerful rose Jesus from the dead, just as he bestowed Jesus the ability to perform miracles, and Moses, and others. A Man can never be God.

No one has disproven Christianity, according to you, as much as no one can disprove an invisible, undetectable, tiny little creature that flies around in your room. The creature can't be seen, it can't be detected by any senses or equipment, it has special abilities which allow it to do amazing things. Anyone can make claims and claim they can not be disproven. Jesus is a man, a man can't be a God, don't be an idol worshipper. There is only God worthy of worship, worship God the all powerful. God is not a man, is no ones father or son, God is not in any image, but all images are within God, God is all encompassing, infinite.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Ok one question for all. If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead, will you become a Christian? I would like a consensus on this before I delve any deeper into this.

Oh and Real. PUA, you are right, you have to pass every single one, so I looked at the first one and since you didnt pass I thought you might want to change a little of your critical thinking as well, and i never claimed that Christianity is false, I claimed that it could be proven false if you come up with something that makes it so, which no one here has done yet.



The burden of proof is on the one making the claim (That Christianity is true). I would like to see you prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" lol, that Christ ressurection occured.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

Ok one question for all. If I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Christ rose from the dead, will you become a Christian? I would like a consensus on this before I delve any deeper into this.



It would not for me you would have to prove a lot of other things but I would very much enjoy to see you evidence.

Good job plagiarizing CS Lewis, original poster.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:



Now honestly, do some research for me ok? The entire new testament has been estimated to have been completed around 100 A.D. Mathews gospel was written shortly after 70 A.D. Mark around 64-65 and Luke shortly before 70 A.D. F.F. Bruce, pg 12, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Now this is a negligable amount compared to most historical documents. There is also the fact that people were still around from the time of Jesus, and if you remember, the christians were not exactly popular. Yet still there were no works that refuted christianity. But they had plenty of enemies. There were the jews who were constantly trying to look for something wrong with it. There were skeptics who were still around at the time of Christ who probably did not agree with him. There were the Romans who did not want a rebelion. There were also the Christians themselves who would not undergo such torture needlessly and also were around to witness the ressurection. Thus they would be very cynical if questionable papers arose about Christ or if myths were being formulated. If you consider the Galic Wars, Plato and Homer as reliable then I find it hard to believe that you would question Christianities historicity. Though it was noted by other historians as well. I will list those in a later answer so just keep your eyes pealed.

Your Friend

i believe our earliest copy of the gospels dates to around 200-300 ad. we have no idea what the originals said. we do know that scribes frequently added on stories that sounded good, a common and verified practice during that time.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth.

Stop stealing arguments from The Case for Christ without citing them.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

i believe our earliest copy of the gospels dates to around 200-300 ad. we have no idea what the originals said. we do know that scribes frequently added on stories that sounded good, a common and verified practice during that time.

True... i actually did some research today because i was bored as hell. besides many of the stories about jesus seem as though they were taken from stories of other religions. christianity has no originality at all.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

There are three things to consider when thinking of Christ. Either he was Crazy, a Liar, or he was telling the truth. Now if he was crazy ... well that wouldn't make much since seeing as how He healed crazy people, and plus He was highly esteemed and had no crazy traits really haha. Being a Liar .... that wouldnt make much since seeing as how He was and is considered a great moral teacher. Now ... if he was telling the truth ... then there is a lot to consider, but the truth seems to be the only thing that is a plausible choice.

1.) "Crazy" doesn't prevent someone from being charismatic or intelligent.

2.) Lying doesn't mean he can't espouse good morals.

3.) Besides this, those aren't the only three options. His followers could've mangled what he said, or he could've believed that he was the Son of God without being crazy, or etc. etc. etc.

Well, what makes the bible more believable than the other thousands of religion's holy books/fables/tales? All I know is that a lot of historians claim that the bible is historically inaccurate, and that a good portion of the book was taken from other ancient religions. I also know that many of the historical documents (the dead sea scrolls) and any other religious relics pertaining to christ are locked up in the vatican and unavailable to the public. So, looking at Christianity from a historical point of few, it doesn't hold up all that well.

Your proof of the bible doesn't consider a large number of things, listed below are just a few random thoughts.

If we look at the DMT theory of spirituality, then jesus just has a more active penial gland allowing him to be more connected to the spirit world. Its a weird theory, but it has been proposed by people who have read the results of the DMT experiments which make up the book DMT the spirit molecule. (The author is also the scientist who conducted the experiment)

Also the bible is inaccurate in several areas, (I'd say mostly small errors with geography, but errors none the less) possibly rewritten, and we know for sure it has has books removed, possibley edited, and probibly censored.

Have you considered the fact history could have been mixed with theology?

We could do it in this day and age. Take history, add belief of choice, credit those beliefs for affecting history, and the present, then publish the book.

That could very well be what the church did.

As for Jesus, (Crazy, Liar, or True,)(you forgot he could be made up considering a pagan belief is remarkably similer to that story) either way he was a great philosopher, and his teaching could benifit humanity in this day and age.

My personal suggestion to christians/chatholics/whatever is stop converting people/trying to prove your right, and start helping people, actually living Jesus's word. Helping the sick, the poor, etc. Positivly influence the world, end some suffering. Also charity's typically (pretty much always) don't do this so you are going to need to directly contribute.

Thats my personal advice to christians, and anyone who doesn't like seeing people suffering.

Damn I'm tired...

Ok guys, I am sorry it is taking so long. But it is going ot be a little while. I am doing some thorough research. So if this gets bumped down then it will be back sometime soon. I am going to make sure I give you a thorough answer. If that is not good enough then I will delve deeper. Ok well thanks for all the posts and I will get back to you as with pure truth.