Mythology with real places & people

Neither Josephus nor Tacitus were contemporaries (i.e. lived at the same time) of Jesus of Nazareth. They both very briefly mentioned via third hand knowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the supposed initiator of the Christian religious cult. Josephus was born circa 37 AD/CE some 7 years after Jesus of Nazerath's supposed crucifixion and Tacitus was born circa 56 AD/CE (over 26 years after Jesus crucifixion). Both could have witnessed the history of the early Church but not the actual life of Jesus Christ.IMHO, my educated guess would be that Jesus of Nazareth may have actually existed but that the early Church leaders, scribes, etc expounded, embellished, contrived and rewrote many of the events of his life. Of course I cannot prove this without a doubt in the same way that Christian apologists cannot prove that all the events in the Bible actually occurred verbatim as written in the Bible.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

No it doesn't.#1 Tacitus only mentions the cult of Christianity and its supposed origination from second hand sources. To say his mention of a "Christ" (notice he never mentions the name Jesus and there were many people running around at that time claiming to be "Christs" or annoited of God as a result of Roman occupation and suppression in Palestine) is confirmation of Jesus of Nazareth's existence is not just a far stretch of reality but an illogical leap.This would be like stating that non-Mormom historians/biographers who mentioning Joseph Smith's alleged story of his golden plates being given to him by the angel Moroni as advocating that these historians actually believed that an angel actually DID give these plates to Joseph Smith.In other words, even if the account of Tacitus is authentic and untampered, this is not evidence that Jesus of Christ actually existed much less that all the events mentioned in the NT concerning Jesus actually occurred.#2 JosephusThere has been debate both ways about the authenticity of Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum. Many experts in this field do believe that this account was tampered with. However, this will probably be continued to be analyzed for years to come. A lot of things do not make since of why Josephus an ardent Jewish historian and general would call Jesus, the Christ i.e. the Messiah and a lot of other things really don't add up in this account which has been rehashed over and over in this board (i.e. this account is not mentioned by Josephus contemporaries who . Therefore you cannot conclusively states that this is a 100% authentic source for an extra-biblical mention of Jesus Christ. Even if this passage was authentic, this only shows that Jesus Christ was possibly a real person but any information Josephus gleaned was from third hand sources at best and was never a witness to any of the events that occurred in the NT (except the destruction of Jerusalem).

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Good night all.BTW Peg,Why is it that you and all the other Christian apologists continue to pull out the same rubbish and reuse it over and over and over and over again. Each time to get burried under an avalanche of evidence saying otherwise. Why is it so hard to say "hmm, maybe I could be wrong" and at least say "you know I am not going to take your word but will study it on my own to see .I will admit we could all be wrong about Josephus and maybe he did actually mention Jesus Christ. However how does that prove that he did not just regurgitate the supposed story of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection as relayed by early Christian leaders of the time. How difficult would it be for in the span of 70+ years to elaborate on the life of some Jewish teacher and would be "messiah" in Palestine?If the cult of scientology created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard could become a household name in less than 10 years and become the 22 largest world religion in only 50 years in today's modern age, why would it be that hard to understand how the mythology of Christianity could be embelished and spread throughout the known world in less than 100 years.Another example of this is with the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) which attained a membership of people in less than 20 years there were over 100,000 adherants to the religion and today just a little over 160 years later there are over 13 million LDS members.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

So all the critics are tainted and biased? Wow, what a unsubstantiated claim. You are basically saying that every Bible scholar that disagrees with you is a liar.Um, I don't think so. Many of these historians and Biblical scholars are people who devote their whole lives to researching the Bible to determine the validity of its authenticity, claims, etc. Are you asserting that Albert Schweitzer, the famed Christian missionary doctor to Africa and humanitarian who saved thousands of people’s lives and devoted himself to an honest assessment and questioning of the validity of the supernatural origin and miracles of Jesus Christ, is a pathological liar?Could critics be wrong? Can the make mistakes? Of course. But to call them across the board dishonest and liars is despicable and disingenuous to their life's work.Do I think there is some mass conspiracy to discount the Bible's authenticity? No. As the late Carl Sagan stated outrageous claims require outrageous proof.The critical analysis of the claims of Christianity (and all religious or non-religious worldviews) is a follow-on result of the renaissance and age of enlightenment when people began to free themselves of the control of the Church and government of there critical thinking of the world around them and the established religious world views (such as Christianity). Or would you rather us go back to the theocractical, tyranical governments of the Dark Ages and before when any type of questioning of established religion was punished at the point of death? There are as many if not more critics, historians, scholars, etc that would dispute your claim. This is your assessment using little evidence you yourself have collected. This is a debate board, so whatever you claim here has to be backed up with evidence to make it credible.BTW, it has been hammered to death on this forum but I will say it again, many people have brought up tons of internal inconsistencies, errors, outright fabrications, questionable authenticity and scientific impossibilities that the Bible contains.
Also self-fulfilling prophecies inside the same disputed book does not a credible evidence make.Here is how your statement sound's to the rest of the nonreligious and non-fundamentalist ears:Skeptic: "How do you know that God and Jesus existed?"Christian: "Because the Bible says so?"Skeptic: "How do you know the Bible is correct?"Christian: "Because all of it's internal consistencies and also corroborating external evidence"Skeptic: "So by corroborating evidence you mean the mentions of Jesus by Josephus"Christian: "And Tacitus"Skeptic: "Tacitus does not mention Jesus ; only that a Christian cult at that time was supposedly following the teachings of a 'Christ' which got them in trouble with Roman Emperor Nero."Christian: "That is proof that Jesus existed."Skeptic: "No, it is only evidence that the Christian cult existed, nothing else"Christian: "And how about Josephus then"Skeptic: "There is much evidence that the mentions of Jesus briefly in his work could have been injected by Christian scribes centuries later and even if it were the case that Jesus was mentioned does not prove that he did since this was written 70 years after the supposed crucifixion."Christian: "Well, we Christians don't need this external evidence anyways since the Bible is internally consistent, without error, and because of the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible"Skeptic: "Here are some contradictions: two separate and Contradictory creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
The contradictory resurrection stories of Jesus. Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary?" visited Jesus after his death, Mark says Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, Luke says Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women and John says Mary Magdalene alone. Luke says the tomb was open, however, Matthew says the tomb was closed when the women came. Matthew says the women saw an angel at the tomb, Mark says a young man, Luke says two men, and John two angels. Matthew says this man/men/angels/whatever were outside the tomb when the woman/women arrived. Mark, Luke and John said inside. Luke says they were standing and Matthew, Mark and John says they were sitting. Matthew says the women met Jesus Christ after they left. Luke says they did not. Matthew says Jesus first met the disciples in Galilee after his resurrection, Luke says in Jerusalem. John says the disciples were convinced of the resurrection. Matthew says some doubted. Matthew, Mark and Luke say Jesus appeared to the disciples once after the resurrection. John says he appeared three times to the disciples before his assension into heaven. These are only two stories from the Bible. There hundred's more of similar type inconsistencies.So if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were telling this story of the resurrection of Jesus in a present day court room, could you honestly state that any of there stories would be considered credible? No, all four statements would be thrown out for blatant inconsistencies."Christian: "You do not understand the context of these stories. You just have to have faith that God grant's you that the Bible is true."Skeptic: "I rest my case" Again you lead off with a statement of faith i.e. the Bible never changes. And if this is true than we should still follow the practices commanded by God in the OT i.e. slavery, forced marriages, selling your daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-11), abortion (Hosea 9:11-16, Numbers 5:11-21, II Kings 5:16), child abuse (Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14 & 29:15), ethnocide, murder/rape/pillaging (Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20, Judges 21), infanticide (murdering babies and young children) (I Samuel 15:3, Psalm 136:10 and 137:9), murdering people for disagreeing with you or not following your religion, murdering people for working on the Sabbath, murdering homosexuals, murdering disobedient children (Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Mark 7:9) and children in general for capricious reasons (Judges 11:30-40). BTW your god of the Bible is definitely NOT pro-life. I thought your God and Bible never changes? Is that still an accurate statement. Personal experience is not credible evidence to anyone except yourself and is subject to your own skewed perception of reality. Therefore it is useless to bring it up in debate. So we should believe the supposed writings of a historian nearly 2000 years ago because they supposedly Jesus existed, disregard any other historians and evidence which does corroborate this account as well as anyone who disagrees with you and your skewed religious views of the world and history. Am I correct in this assumption Peg?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Correct spelling

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Is there not the distinct possibility that Jesus of Nazareth may have been a real historical person but not the one attributed with supernatural miracles and divine origins of the Bible?At most what Josephus attributes to, if his account is truly authentic, is that there was man name Jesus that existed and that the Christian sect at that time was centered on this historical figure. It does not prove that he is the Jesus (the Son of God and miracle maker) as described in the Gospels.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Both of which were recorded long after Jesus was dead and thus any prophecy would be vaticinium ex eventu, that is recorded as prophecy after the events of the already took place.The only prophecy which Jesus made of contemporary events that could take place after he died and that could possibly be written down by eye-witnesses before the events took place would be the fall of Jerusalem as shown in Mark 13:1-2: #1 The earliest manuscripts of the NT gospel widely accepted by NT scholars is the Rylands Papyrus (P52) which dates are still being debated from shortly before 100 CE at the earliest (but after the destruction of Jerusalem) to 150 CE. Most scholars accept the date of approx 116-138 CE as shown here:
Rylands Library Papyrus P52Another manuscript, the Dead Sea Scroll fragment 7Q5, is thought by a few ultra-conservative Biblical scholars to be even an earlier NT manuscript than the Ryland's Library Papyrus P52. The 7Q5 bit of manuscript no larger than your thumb found at Qumran contains 1 full Greek word 'kai' meaning the word 'and' and two portions of Greek words (6 undisputed letters in all) which vaguely match a passage in Mark 6:52-53. However it is not conclusive at all and too most Biblical scholars and experts find that it is highly unlikely to be a copy of the Gospel of Mark at all. You can read the counterarguments for 7Q5 being the earliest manuscript of the NT here: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus? by Dr. Daniel Wallace professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and recognized authority on Koine Greek grammar and New Testament textual criticism among New Testament scholars.and 7Q5Dr. Wallace states: Here is an image of the 7Q5 fragment Additionally even if 7Q5 actually predated the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE it does not contain this portion of Jesus' supposed prophecy which makes this a mute point.#2 Even if 7Q5 was a insignificant fraction of a Gospel manuscript which possibly predated the fall of Jerusalem; predicting the fall of Jerusalem is not unique to the sayings of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact the supposed writings of the prophet Micah states the following: Jerusalem and it's temple have been one of the most highly contested areas in the world for millennia and Jerusalem had been sacked, sieged, captured, destroyed and rebuilt numerous times before the events of Jesus' life supposedly took place (as described here, Jerusalem)a. Plunder of temple and city of Jerusalem by Egyptian pharaoh Shoshenq I. (c. 925 BCE)
b. Partial overthrow of Jerusalem by Jehoash, King of Israel. (c. 790 BCE)
c. Attack by Aram and northern Israel. (734 BCE)
d. Siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, fighting a revolt against the Neo-Assyrian Empire. (701 BCE)
e. Siege and surrender of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar II, who crushed a rebellion in the Kingdom of Judah and resulted in deportation of King Jehoiachin to Babylon.(597 BCE)
f. Siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar II, who fought pharaoh Apries's attempt to invade Judah. It ended in the destruction of the city and First Temple, and the exile of prominent citizens to Babylon. (587-586 BCE)
g. Probable sack of Jerusalem by the Persians. (350 BCE)
h. Destruction of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Soter, a general who served under Alexander the Great. (320 BCE)
i. Sieges of Akra (southern hill of Jerusalem) and the temple. (163-162 BCE)
j. Siege of Akra (southern hill of Jerusalem).(146 BCE)
k. Siege and leveling of Jerusalem's wall's by Antiochus VII of the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire. (134 BCE)
l. Brief and successful siege by the Nabateans (Arabs of southern Palestine and northern Arabia) (65 BCE).
m. Siege, capture and partial destruction by Roman leader, Pompey. (63 BCE)
n. Sack of Jerusalem's temple by Roman general Marcus Crassus. (54 BCE),
o. Capture and pillaging of Jerusalem by Parthians of the Arsacid Empire. (40 BCE)
p. Siege and partial destruction by Herod the Great and Solsius (37 BCE).So no less than 16 times (at least 6 times in the 100 years preceding Jesus birth) was Jerusalem and it's temple attacked during its Israelite history.So why would it be a stretch of the imagination even if Jesus had actually stated that the stones of Jerusalem's temple would be thrown down since the temple itself had been destroyed 2 times and rebuilt 2 times (once by the Babylonians and again by Herod the Great in order to rebuild a grander and more elaborate temple) in its history during Jesus' day.Is this really a prophecy from God or more of an educated prediction based on previous catastrophic events? The strife between the Jews and there Roman oppressors was very evident to all who lived in Palestine at that time and to make the predictions that Jesus did about the temple would really not be all that extraordinary but would actually be, predictable, to all accept those blinded by the Jewish zealots who foolishly (but bravely) thought they could wrest control from the Roman empire to gain total independence of Israel and Jerusalem.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Wow,Just got done with work and we have already skimmed light years past "Mythology w/ real places & people" and are now talking about Behe's infamous irreducible complexity argument. WTF? Can we please stick on one topic Peg & Nuggin. You two are about as bad about moving goal posts of topics as George Bush and Dick Cheney are about shifting the focus the war on terrorism from Afghanistan to Iraq. The literal translation of the verse you quote is this (from Young's Literal Translation):
"Because days shall come upon thee, and thine enemies shall cast around thee a rampart, and compass thee round, and press thee on every side,"The word rampart in Koine Greek is xapaka which means literally "a stake, i.e. (by implication) a palisade or rampart (military mound for circumvallation in a siege) -- trench".How else would you conduct a siege on a city but by encircling the entire city and building a rampart around it??? Is there another method to laying siege to a city in Roman antiquity to prevent people from going in and out of the city?Besides Jerusalem was under siege over 16 times prior to Jesus lifetime. How difficult would it be to predict it would be under siege a 17th time? This would be like me predicting next summer gasoline prices will go up? Is that really a prophecy or a prediction made on past observation? Who is being stupid here?And again for the thirteenth billion time. The entire gospel and Bible for that fact is susceptible to postdiction. There is no evidence that shows that writers could not have injected the information about the fall of Jerusalem after it already occurred. Internal evidence in the Koran states that Allah is the Almighty God and Mohammed is his prophet, so why are you not worshiping Allah and obeying the commands of Mohammed?Internal evidence means squat if it can't be substantiated via external evidence. And there is no way these books could not have been tampered in any way in the 100+ years before we have the first manuscripts of the NT? The oldest manuscripts of Luke and Acts date back to approximately 250 CE. How hard is it to write these events in after the occurred in the 200 years hence? Not only is it not hard but I would venture that it is inevitable that these stories would be manipulated. No. You assume it is written before its fulfillment. You have no conclusive way of knowing that later scribes and early church fathers did not add in details and self-fulfilling prophecies after the fact. I assume nothing. I am just bringing up valid points of how susceptible the Gospel story is to being tampered and changed after the events already occurred. Why are you ready to assume that everything in the Bible is uncategorically correct and all these events occurred exactly as the Bible states, without even questioning a little the possibility that these stories could be susceptible to manipulation?Why should we give your religion a pass on substantiated external evidence and the possibility that maybe, maybe people could be bending the truth a little; and not all the other religions?
Why not assume that Mohammed was telling the truth? Or Joseph Smith? Than why couldn't Buddha be real and Buddhism be the correct religion? Why are you not worshiping all the Hindu god's? Couldn't this religion be the correct one? Or how about the Egyptian god Horus? How about Zeus or Thor?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Again. I assume nothing. I am bringing into question your claim that it is written before these events took place.Even if Jesus actually did state what he stated in Luke about the seige of Jerusalem before it actually took place, at most it would be an educated prediction. At most given how many times Jersulem had been sacked and under seige in the past. And considering the Roman occupation of Palestine at the time and the seething Jewish resentment towards there oppressors, a seige of Jerusalem was inevitable. This would be like me making the prediction that sometime this year there will terrorist bombings and violence in and around Baghdad. Duh?? This is no different than astrologer's and other pseudoscientists and doomsdayers making unsubstantiated predictions of the future. It is all an educated guess base on observation of past events or it is postdictive in nature. NO ONE CAN 100% PREDICT THE FUTURE 100% OF THE TIME.Besides, why the obvious bias towards the Bible being true and not the Qur'an? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Bhagavad Gita? Or the Tao Te Ching? Or even the Apocrypha text of the OT and NT?There is an apparent prejudice against all other religious text by Christians and an apparant favoritism for your own religious text to be 100% inerrant without questioning whether these text could have manipulated post factum. Why are you not applying the same standards you apply to these other religious scripture to your own? How do you justify this? Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan