|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 508 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Please give me so-called "proof" of Jesus or God. | |||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings all,
quote: No they don't.There are NO historical records of the disciples deaths. Merely later myths and legends, often centuries later. quote:Poppycock! No such edict ever existed. quote:Nonsense - where do you GET this stuff? quote:Are you serious? Paul never saw the resurrection - he just had some sort of spiritual vision of Jesus. Paul did NOT give up wealth and power. Are you just making this all up or what? quote:False. One document claims 500 people saw Jesus - no names or details at all. We have NO idea about ANYTHING about these people. There is NO evidence "they were nonbelievers who commited there lives soon after" quote:Many Jews died for their beliefs, suicide bombers die for their beliefs, the Heaven's gate cult died for their beliefs... So what? Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings Almeyda,
First you claimed this -"Then we have the edict were anyone found with a Bible was killed. " Now,we all know there were persecutions - yes. But there was NEVER an edict to KILL those FOUND with a BIBLE. You insist"Actually, you would be wrong." and claim THIS is proof -"...an imperial letter was everywhere promulgated, ordering the razing of the churches to the ground and destruction by fire of the scriptures and proclaiming that those who held high positions would lose all civil rights, while those in households, if they persisted in their profession of christianity, would be deprived of their liberty" Well,this talks about "destruction of scriptures", it mentions those in high position "losing civil right", it says believers who persist be "deprived of liberty". Butit says NOTHING about KILLING anyone. Please point out where YOU think this passage says anything about killing anyone found with a bible. Then you claimed -"Underneath Rome lie some 900miles of caves where over 7 million christians, executed for there[sic] beliefs were buried." This is nonsense, and I said so. You then mentioned the fire in Rome and made some general comments as if that proved your wild claim - but never even MENTIONED the "900miles of caves" or the "over 7 million christians, executed for there[sic] beliefs." Do you have any EVIDENCE for that claim?Or did you just MAKE UP those figures, Almeyda? Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings all,
"This alone provides sufficient evidence for his existence. " Nonsense.Not one of the examples stand up to scrutiny - The Josephus passage has been tampered with by later Christans, it can hardly be considered good evidence. Josephus may not have originally said anything about Jesus at all. The Tacitus reference is from about 80 years later, not contemporary, and has several problems -* Tacitus does NOT give a source - he seems to be merely repeating Christian beliefs of his day. * Tacitus does NOT give a name in Roman manner (Roman records could not have used the name "Christ") * Tacitus get Pilate's title wrong - using the term from Tacitus' day, not Pilate's. So,the Tacitus reference is not evidence for Jesus at all, merely evidence for later Christian belief in Christ. Tertullian was a Christian father from well over a CENTURY later - far too late, and biased, to be evidence for Jesus at all. The Talmud stories about Jesus are from centuries after the alleged events, and tell very different versions of the story. Not evidence at all. "Let alone all the other evidence there is. It really is a bias against Jesus to deny his existence." What other evidence?Thallus? A Fraud. Suetonius? Not even about Jesus. Pliny? A vague 2nd century mention of Christ. The others are no better. None of the so-called "evidence" for Jesus' existance stands up to scrutiny at all. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings all,
SkepticToAll : "To say Jesus did NOT exist is a lot worse saying that man did not land on the moon." Really?For the Moon Landing we have photographs, TV, physical evidence, thousands of eye-witness reports from people wo are still alive. For a historical Jesus we have nothing until the Gospel stories arise a CENTURY after the alleged events. "Lets say for instance that Jesus never existed... To keep this 'conspiracy' the desciples had themselves martyred for a certain Jesus who did not exist! " There is no real evidence of early Christian martyrdom - only legends from long afterwards. Furthermore - no-one claimed a "conspiracy" - you have mis-understood the issue. The original conception of Christ (Paul et al) was as a spiritual being - the Risen Christ. The Gospels came much later, and were even later still mis-taken as history. "Check the sources - clearly there was a man named Jesus" Many of us HAVE checked the sources - there are NO contemporary records or mention of Jesus, only myths arising from long afterwards. "The current day Jew just has to say "Hey, this man did not exist!"" But the stories about Jesus of Nazareth did not arise until after Jerusalem had been TWICE ravaged by Rome and then razed to the ground, and erased from the map - no-one was left. When the Jesus stories did reach the Jews they rejected him (without actually realising the story was fiction.) Others DID say it was fiction - Celsus attacked the Gospels as "fiction", and "based on myths", that had been re-written over and over to fix contradictions - in the very period the Gospels arose (so of course the Church burnt every copy of his book.) Porphyry called the Evangelists "inventors, not historians". "You either accept Jesus as God or you think of him as some prophet or philosipher. ..I really don't see the point of this debate... " Then perhaps you should study the matter - the argument that Jesus was a myth has been advanced by numerous authors in recent years. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings Nazort,
quote: Really?The Bible consists of many books - * the OT, which says nothing about Jesus * the NT epistles, which talk of the Risen Christ, a heavenly being * the Gospels, conflicting stories which arose in 2nd century What makes YOU think this is proof for the existance of Jesus?
quote: Arrant nonsense.You have NO IDEA why the authors wrote, or what they gained, or what they hoped to gain. The Gospels are classified under RELIGION, not history - only faithful apologists think they are history. quote: Rubbish. There is NO evidence that any Gospel author believed hs work to be true history. There is NO evidence any Gospel author was tortured to recant - NONE. If YOU believe there is, please produce the evidence (no, not some opinions of later faithful.)
quote: So what?The Harry Potter books include real places and people - so according to you, they are TRUE stories ! quote: Many of us here HAVE studied those very questions, but it appears you have not. The chronology of Christian documents shows that the Gospels and their contents do not enter Christian history until mid 2nd century. See my chronology here -iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip And a chart summarising who knew what, when :iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip Consider the first dozen books of Christianity, in order as best I can (dates acccording to scholars, not traditional church legends) - (Paul 50s)Hebrews (60s) Colossians (70s) James (80s) 1 John (80s) 2 Thessalonians (80s) Ephesians (90s) 1 Peter (90s) Revelation (90s) Clement (90s) Jude (100s) Didakhe (100s) 2 John (120s) 3 John (120s) None of these first writings shows knowledge of the Ministry (or the Gospels or the Evangelists) - no miracles, no Sermon, no healings, no triumphal entry, no birth stories, no Joseph, no Mary, no Pilate, no Bethlehem, no Calvary, no trial, no empty tomb story ! (It's true there ARE a few vague spiritual comments about the Risen Christ which are now interpreted to refer to Gospel events, but none of them are clear.) Gospel evolution Mention of some Gospel elements begins in early-mid 2nd century - e.g. Ignatius, the Pastorals, Barnabas. The first mention of proto-Gospels is from about the 130s with Papias - he refers to writings by Mark and Matthew which are not quite like our moden Gospels. He considered these writings of little value. Eusebius considered Papias was not very smart (he did believe all sorts of other nonsense.) The first evidence for a Gospel is from Marcion about 142CE - his Gospel is now lost, but we know it - * was called just "the Gospel"* did NOT have the genealogies of Jesus * did NOT call Jesus son-of-David (several early Christians denied Jesus was son of David) The first written quotations of Gospel-like writings is from Justin in about 150 - he refers to "memoirs of the apostles" which are also "called Gospels". He does NOT name or number the Gospels. He does give many quotes - some match our modern Gospels, some do not. The first evidence for FOUR Gospels being important is possibly from Tatian's "diaTessaron" ((Harmony) From Four) dated perhaps 172CE. The first Christian to NAME the four Gospels was Irenaeus in the 180s. Aristides dates the Gospel Interestingly, one Christian church father Aristides refers to "...the Gospel as it is called, which (has been) preached a short time among them". This tells us that in his day - * the Gospel was un-named,* the Gospel had only been preached "a short time". Aristides wrote 138-161CE (we can tell because he named the Roman emperor), so this is further evidence that the Gospels were still un-named and fairly new in mid 2nd century. Summary The trajectory is as follows - * 1st century - no Gospels, no Evangelists known* early 2nd century - first mentions of Gospels, Evangelists * c.142 - first Gospel published (Marcion) * mid 2nd century - first quotes of Gospel-like material * c.172 - Gospels Numbered as Four. * c.180 - first Naming of the Four Gospels. * c.200 - first significant MSS of Gospels (e.g. P75) The Gospels developed over time, probably starting from early 2nd century, growing and changing thru the mid 2nd century, to finally crystalize in late 2nd century. Some changes still occured as late as 4th century (e.g. the Trinity.) But there is no evidence that ANY 1st Century Christian knew ANYTHING about the Ministry of Jesus. The Oral Tradition is as legendary as the Gospels. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings almeyda,
quote: So what?When Lord of The Rings overtakes the Bible, will you therefore switch to belief in Frodo? quote: How many from 1st century? None.How many from 2nd century? A few scraps only. How many from 3rd century A handful. The vast majority of the 24,000 come from CENTURIES later. quote:So what? There are MILLIONS of copies of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, that must make it 50 TIMES more true than the Bible - according to your argument. quote: Spoken like a true believer - all preaching, no facts.
quote:So? quote: No he didn't.
quote: Jesus claimed nothing.Paul and other un-known writers wrote a story in which Jesus made this claim. The miracles did not happen - they were NOT recorded in history. The resurrection was a story - there is no evidence for it. The Gospels are MYTHS. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings Nazort,
Thanks for your reply :-)
quote: Actually,the scholarly consensus is that the Gospels DO mention the destruction of the Temple (e.g. G.Mark Ch.13), which is one reason they are usually dated (shortly) AFTER 70CE. Scholars do not believe in prophecy. Anyway,if the Gospels were written before 70 - why did no Christian writer shows any detailed knowledge of them until mid 2nd century? Over a dozen of the first Christian writings, some even allegedly from James and Peter, show NO MENTION of the Ministry of Jesus - even where the context demands it. How do you explain this chart :iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip ? quote: Indeed,Hebrews may have been pre 70 CE, for this very reason. But,Hebrews says nothing about the Ministry of Jesus. In fact it's clear the writer of Hebrews had never heard of Jesus of Nazareth -* Hebrews refers to the coming as if its the FIRST, not the second * Hebrews mentions the new covenant WITHOUT mentioning the Last Supper * Hebrews describes the Son in platonic terms as a spiritual being * Hebrews shows no knowledge of Jesus' teachings or Ministry Earl explains this well -LIGAUBO - Daftar Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Deposit Pulsa Jackpot Terbesar The real point, Nazort, is that NO CHRISTIAN shows any knowledge of the earthly Ministry of Jesus (baring spiritual references to a "resurrection" etc.) until early-mid 2nd century. The Gospels and their contents come to light in stages over the 2nd century and once they were known they became vastly important, much copied and endlessly discussed. But, for about the first CENTURY of Christian history,NO-ONE shows the slightest knowledge of the Ministry of Jesus of Nazareth (merely spiritual formulae about the Risen Christ.) regards, Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
Yes,Josephus does represent one of the best pieces of external evidence for Jesus' existance. But -* it is not contemporary, * it has clearly been tampered with, * it is POSSIBLE that both mentions are interpolations. Such is the lack of evidence for Jesus, that this tiny, late, suspect piece is considered some of the best. All the other alleged "evidence" is even worse -* Thallus, Phlegon - essentially faked evidence * Suetonius - not about Jesus * Tacitus - brief repetition of 2nd century Christian belief * Pliny - 2nd century comments about Christians who worship a "Christ" * other, even later, nonsense... Iasion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024