Was Jesus the expected messiah or mashiach?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Was Jesus the expected messiah or mashiach?

If yes or no , Why? And where is this documented ?


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:TWD39

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God"

Our Father, who art in heaven. OUR father, O.U.R. Father. So tell me who is not the son of the living god?

 

 

LOL, you obviously know nothing about Christianity.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Feredir28 wrote:TWD39

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Feredir28

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

It stands only in your dreams.

40 years after the Jesus supposedly walked the earth is only for Mark. Matthew, Luke and John came much later.

Funny how that's the only point you take on. Did you forget the major part of the argument?  You remember - the part about the gospels being written by Greeks who never met any of the people supposedly involved in the story at the behest of a guy (Paul) who never met Jesus and taught his religion in opposition to the teaching of Jesus and his disciples?

We have works that were written by Caesar. We have works that were written by Caesar's opponents while Caesar was alive. What an old argument you bring up. Are you sure you're not a Poe?

I'm not writing off history as fiction. You are trying to promote fiction to being history. See the difference? I doubt you do (the way you abhor and ignore facts).

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Feredir28
Feredir28's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2011-01-08
User is offlineOffline
wrong again

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Feredir28 wrote:TWD39

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Certainly more than I expected in terms of comprehension :

  Certainly more than I expected in terms of comprehension :¬  A good part of TWD remarks tells us us to completely ignore the context of #52;#53 ? Desirous of this for your readers ?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Feredir28

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
What needs to be taken into account

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

The possibility that there were original recordings made by the Apostles in Hebrew. It's unlikely they would have written anything in Greek as they "were" Hebrews. At the time of JC the Romans were dominant.  Then some time later the recordings may have been translated into Greek for the Greek converts in Greece. What we may have are the ones sent to the Greeks and the others went to parts unknown. When the evidence that we have shows there was a persecution by the Romans could mean the recordings were hide, probably in the catacombs or a like place, and could still be there. Archeology has shown to be fleeting at times. New (old) things are found in different places constantly. IE- civilization is seen to have originated in the middle east. but at the same time and dates there were floks in what are now today,s UK. Then there,s the far East. How can one say the first civilizations weren't there first. The middle east needn't be the origin of civilization at all. The evidences of civilization there may have been better preserved and creates an impression it was first formed there. Lately every new pile of rocks found indicates civilization somewhere. So, how can one be certain. Not being a history buff I may be way off. The point being---all the evidence may not be known yet.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:jcgadfly

Old Seer wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

The possibility that there were original recordings made by the Apostles in Hebrew. It's unlikely they would have written anything in Greek as they "were" Hebrews. At the time of JC the Romans were dominant.  Then some time later the recordings may have been translated into Greek for the Greek converts in Greece. What we may have are the ones sent to the Greeks and the others went to parts unknown. When the evidence that we have shows there was a persecution by the Romans could mean the recordings were hide, probably in the catacombs or a like place, and could still be there. Archeology has shown to be fleeting at times. New (old) things are found in different places constantly. IE- civilization is seen to have originated in the middle east. but at the same time and dates there were floks in what are now today,s UK. Then there,s the far East. How can one say the first civilizations weren't there first. The middle east needn't be the origin of civilization at all. The evidences of civilization there may have been better preserved and creates an impression it was first formed there. Lately every new pile of rocks found indicates civilization somewhere. So, how can one be certain. Not being a history buff I may be way off. The point being---all the evidence may not be known yet.

The apostles would not have written anything in Greek. That's why I refer to the gospel writers as the gospel writers. They were not the apostles and probably never met them..

To acknowledge the possibility of the apostles writing the gospels in Hebrew exists (in my view) is to also acknowledge the possibility that "Reformed Egyptian" existed as a language and that Joseph smith alone could translate it. Or that David Kresh was an incarnation of Christ.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Our insight

danatemporary wrote:

Confusion about word studies by Jimenezj (source dated May6th)

 This word 'ignorance' is tossed about from all quarters. If there's a point made from an actual text, let's take a closer look then shall we ? But, First . . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Are you (Aussie) thinking this through . . ??

?? Confusion ??  All ribbing aside . . .

 Re :: Confusion about word studies by Jimenezj  ( I seem to recall you giving  Furry a bad time yourself)

Jimenezj wrote:
Timothy 3:16 It is very simple to understand. English translation :All scripture is given by inspiration Of God. Greek translation : All scripture is God breathed . The bible only talks about one God called YHVH. Genesis 1 If you (Nony)  do not understand this simple translation then you are: A. In denial B. Ignorant C. Or Afraid of the truth.  Which one is it?

 Please, whatever you are  subjected to, from the broader context of your comments in an older thread are you suggesting the words  Elohim and Elyon AREN'T found in the OT ?

   If you'd make an effort to not be as dismissive as in the past. Fore you have had a serious problem with hashing out parts you like while not hashing out the others, Is 53 Images.

 Points are left unaddressed.  Off the top of my head,  more than a few references to the Most High usual are rendered wrongly in the English translations.       This is a reference in the New Testament to the word: θεοῦ that is a Greek word, right ? In the thread from the 6th, this isnt what Nony had brought to your attention. Remember I am the curious one,.

TETRAGRAMMATON  יהוה*  

   On this Thread : For the sake of argument, There's an obvious question(s) to the eyes of  any reader from the Isaiah 53 passage concerning seeing his offspring(See :: Image). Likewise it might help to go back into the OT, (as a whole), not just the Hermeneutics you gravitate toward.

{Jimenezj wrote}

Jimenezj wrote:
I Agree, the Gospel is all around the world. The message of salvation has spread to the world. Jesus Christ accomplished what he came to do. Luke 4:18 Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." What comes next is Isaiah 61:2

     Note :: Image is of a passage in the same book of Luke, in the Canonical Gospel, and not the one cited in the 4th Chapter.

     

 

 

 

 (Images are pretty faint, it states)

 Isaiah passage

    

 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death, though

he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth

10 Yet it was the Lord’s (Yahweh's) will to crush him and cause him

to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied;[c] by

his knowledge My righteous servant will justify many, and he will

bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and

he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out

his life unto death and was numbered with the transgressors

For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

 

 ¬ Dana

 

 

Remission of sin doesn't happens because he came. It happens because of the understanding (note the link to scripture) or that the scripture is written. Scripture imparts knowledge to the individual, and then form that one initiates their own remission. He came to verify the scripture for  understanding. In the total end it remains up to the person to enact the deed. It's not an automatic process that just because he shows up that anyone is saved or changed. Sin is a mental state caused by the world we're in. He didn't do anything for anybody except impart understanding and die for the cause. Military floks do that all the time. The rest is left to the self. To go his way is voluntary, other wise how does repent get into the works.

Hope this helps.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

 

The Spiderman argument again?  I can easily turn that around and say just because I can walk the ruins of ancient Rome doesn't prove that the history isn't fiction.  Minted coin?  So what?   You can find blue prints to the Starship Enterprise and collector coins.  Doesn't prove it is real.  Let's disregard archaeology completely and thow out all history as fiction.  That's what you must do if you are going to be fair and apply the same standard that you do to Jesus. 

 

Each of the gospels are both diffferent and similiar.  There is no evidence of copying.  Matthew speaks to a Jewish audience showing how Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies.  Mark is more face paced, action based, focusing on the events in Jesus life.  Luke demonstrates the humanity and compassion side of Jesus.   John's focus is more on applying the faith in Jesus Christ to our personal lives. 

 

As for Josephus and Tacitus,  it is never been 100% proven that their references to Christ were faked.   Unless you can present hardcore evidence to demonstrate this, your statements are biased garbage as usual.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

 

The Spiderman argument again?  I can easily turn that around and say just because I can walk the ruins of ancient Rome doesn't prove that the history isn't fiction.  Minted coin?  So what?   You can find blue prints to the Starship Enterprise and collector coins.  Doesn't prove it is real.  Let's disregard archaeology completely and thow out all history as fiction.  That's what you must do if you are going to be fair and apply the same standard that you do to Jesus. 

 

Each of the gospels are both diffferent and similiar.  There is no evidence of copying.  Matthew speaks to a Jewish audience showing how Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies.  Mark is more face paced, action based, focusing on the events in Jesus life.  Luke demonstrates the humanity and compassion side of Jesus.   John's focus is more on applying the faith in Jesus Christ to our personal lives. 

 

As for Josephus and Tacitus,  it is never been 100% proven that their references to Christ were faked.   Unless you can present hardcore evidence to demonstrate this, your statements are biased garbage as usual.

It's your logic - don't get mad at me when I shove it back where it came from. The basis that you claim for believing in Christ (visiting Israel) is exactly as valid as my claiming Spidey's real because I can visit NYC.

Finding coins from the period that point to the existence of a figure in history is called archaeology. It's ironic how you only like archeological evidence when you think it supports your position.

I never said that Matthew and Luke were exact copies of Mark - just that the copied a lot from it. If you'd bother to read the gospels and look at textual criticism. you'd notice that yourself. I also didn't say John borrowed from mark.

We've been through the "100% proof" crap before. Only maths can be proved with 100% certainty. I don't ask for absolute certainty - merely academic consensus (which I have and can include Christians scholars in the group that accept that the TF was an interpolation and that Tacitus was changed).

You claim to have absolute certainty that Jesus was real and the son of Yahweh. Yet, somehow, you can't articulate any of it past "the Bible tells you so". I could make the same statements of bias about everything you've said but it's a lot easier and fun to show you where you're wrong. Let me know when you need another lesson.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

 

The Spiderman argument again?  I can easily turn that around and say just because I can walk the ruins of ancient Rome doesn't prove that the history isn't fiction.  Minted coin?  So what?   You can find blue prints to the Starship Enterprise and collector coins.  Doesn't prove it is real.  Let's disregard archaeology completely and thow out all history as fiction.  That's what you must do if you are going to be fair and apply the same standard that you do to Jesus. 

 

Each of the gospels are both diffferent and similiar.  There is no evidence of copying.  Matthew speaks to a Jewish audience showing how Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies.  Mark is more face paced, action based, focusing on the events in Jesus life.  Luke demonstrates the humanity and compassion side of Jesus.   John's focus is more on applying the faith in Jesus Christ to our personal lives. 

 

As for Josephus and Tacitus,  it is never been 100% proven that their references to Christ were faked.   Unless you can present hardcore evidence to demonstrate this, your statements are biased garbage as usual.

It's your logic - don't get mad at me when I shove it back where it came from. The basis that you claim for believing in Christ (visiting Israel) is exactly as valid as my claiming Spidey's real because I can visit NYC.

Finding coins from the period that point to the existence of a figure in history is called archaeology. It's ironic how you only like archeological evidence when you think it supports your position.

I never said that Matthew and Luke were exact copies of Mark - just that the copied a lot from it. If you'd bother to read the gospels and look at textual criticism. you'd notice that yourself. I also didn't say John borrowed from mark.

We've been through the "100% proof" crap before. Only maths can be proved with 100% certainty. I don't ask for absolute certainty - merely academic consensus (which I have and can include Christians scholars in the group that accept that the TF was an interpolation and that Tacitus was changed).

You claim to have absolute certainty that Jesus was real and the son of Yahweh. Yet, somehow, you can't articulate any of it past "the Bible tells you so". I could make the same statements of bias about everything you've said but it's a lot easier and fun to show you where you're wrong. Let me know when you need another lesson.

 

 

 

I have no problems at all with archaeology.  I can accept it for both biblical and non-biblical events.  But you can't because you have to maintain this delusion that there is not a SINGLE shred of evidence to support  Christianity and the Bible.  You must discredit archaeology as a valid form of evidence if it SUPPORTS the Bible.  That's biased intellectual dishonesty, and I'll gladly call atheists on it.  However, I quite understand why you NEED Jesus to NOT exist. 

 

The problem with your comments is you present them with 100% certainity.   "The Bible is fiction"   "Jesus never existed".   You are presenting it as PROVEN fact.   It's not.  That's your merely your opinion based on a foundation of arrogant stupidity.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Did Jesus Exist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLs

Answer from an atheist historian.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj

Jimenezj wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLs Answer from an atheist historian.

I have no problem with the existence of a teacher/Messiah claimant named Jesus. My issue is with those who claim he's the son of Yahweh.

There's no proof to either but I can buy an itinerant teacher named Jesus existing over the son of God. Neither quality makes him messiah.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Feredir28 wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

EXC wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Of course he was.  Isaiah 53 foretold the life of Christ in remarkable detail, hundreds of years before Christ was born.

Is possible that the writers of the NT read Isaiah 53 and then made the story fit? Or can this only be a miracle?

 

 

If they made the Jesus story up, they would have been easily be exposed as frauds by other Jews.

 

This was 40 years AFTER jesus supposedly died. Thinking that the Jews could have exposed the frauds is like asking the British to reveal the body of King Arthur. They would not be able to provide a body, same thing with the jews because there was never a body ever in the first place. There is no evidence of jesus existing in flesh anywhere else in Galilee or wherever.

The argument that the writers of the NT made the jesus story fit Isaiah 53 still stands.

 

40 years isn't even a full generation.  That would be like me claiming JFK was raised from the dead.  If you are going to claim that Jesus never existed then I might as well claim that Caesar never existed.  Oh, hey, let's just go ahead and write off ALL ancient history as fiction, huh?

 

My argument still stands. 

40 years is not a full generation NOW, consider that these are different times when the life expectancy was much shorter. 50 years ago, if you lived to be 45, you were considered "elderly." Back then, 40 years is a great deal. Besides, like I said, asking the Jews to provide a body is like asking the British to provide the body of King Arthur. They may look, but thanks to faith and the schemes of christians, if they find no body (which is likely to have always been the case) they can claim the body was resurected. Thank goodness they decided to not indicate where the tomb was or if it even existed for the jews to check. Its like me telling everyone on one of my farms up north that there is an alien spacecraft parked in my field. You have all the pwer to check and prove me wrong...but when you look and look and cannot find it, I will just say that the aliens took off back to their home planet and left no trace behind.

Nice try. Unlike Caesar, we actually do have evidence for him...such as documents written by his own hand. http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/caesarx.html

 

And we have four detailed gospels written from different perspectives which strongly suggest that this was not made up off the cuff.  Why gain did the apostles get from inventing Christianity?  Power?  No, the teachings in the NT are anti-pride and more about humility.  Why did each of them risk their lives and were tortured to death for a lie?  Why is there extra-biblical references to Christ?  How do you know for sure the life expectancy of a Jew back then?  In the OT, the gene pool was pure and man lived to be hundreds of years old. 

 

So we have documents with Christ's actual words, and I can go to Israel and visit the exact places where Jesus walked, lived and died.   If those standards are not enough then any ancient historical figure is fictional.  The writings of Caesar could simply be works of a fiction. How can you prove he actually wrote them?

To be perfectly honest we actually only have two "detailed gospels". Looking at the text show that Matthew and Luke borrowed a lot from Mark. So we have two gospels and two copies.

Again, the gospels don't have Christ's actual words as none of the writers were around to hear him speak. Their teacher (Paul) never heard them either. Why are there extra-bblical references to Christ? In the case of Josephus and Tacitus (and probably others), Christians manipulated the text after it was written.

I can go to New York and visit the exact places where Spider-Man walked and lived (He's not dead). By your logic, Spidey is real.  You really can't visit the exact places where Jesus supposedly walked because no one is really sure of their locations (there are at least three possible sites for Golgotha, for example)

How do we know Caesar's (I assume you mean Gaius Julius) writings weren't faked by another? We have many samples and we have noticed their similarities. We also have other objects that point to his existence (coins minted during his rule, for example)

Are you SURE you're not a Poe? These arguments have been shattered many times.

 

The Spiderman argument again?  I can easily turn that around and say just because I can walk the ruins of ancient Rome doesn't prove that the history isn't fiction.  Minted coin?  So what?   You can find blue prints to the Starship Enterprise and collector coins.  Doesn't prove it is real.  Let's disregard archaeology completely and thow out all history as fiction.  That's what you must do if you are going to be fair and apply the same standard that you do to Jesus. 

 

Each of the gospels are both diffferent and similiar.  There is no evidence of copying.  Matthew speaks to a Jewish audience showing how Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies.  Mark is more face paced, action based, focusing on the events in Jesus life.  Luke demonstrates the humanity and compassion side of Jesus.   John's focus is more on applying the faith in Jesus Christ to our personal lives. 

 

As for Josephus and Tacitus,  it is never been 100% proven that their references to Christ were faked.   Unless you can present hardcore evidence to demonstrate this, your statements are biased garbage as usual.

It's your logic - don't get mad at me when I shove it back where it came from. The basis that you claim for believing in Christ (visiting Israel) is exactly as valid as my claiming Spidey's real because I can visit NYC.

Finding coins from the period that point to the existence of a figure in history is called archaeology. It's ironic how you only like archeological evidence when you think it supports your position.

I never said that Matthew and Luke were exact copies of Mark - just that the copied a lot from it. If you'd bother to read the gospels and look at textual criticism. you'd notice that yourself. I also didn't say John borrowed from mark.

We've been through the "100% proof" crap before. Only maths can be proved with 100% certainty. I don't ask for absolute certainty - merely academic consensus (which I have and can include Christians scholars in the group that accept that the TF was an interpolation and that Tacitus was changed).

You claim to have absolute certainty that Jesus was real and the son of Yahweh. Yet, somehow, you can't articulate any of it past "the Bible tells you so". I could make the same statements of bias about everything you've said but it's a lot easier and fun to show you where you're wrong. Let me know when you need another lesson.

 

 

 

I have no problems at all with archaeology.  I can accept it for both biblical and non-biblical events.  But you can't because you have to maintain this delusion that there is not a SINGLE shred of evidence to support  Christianity and the Bible.  You must discredit archaeology as a valid form of evidence if it SUPPORTS the Bible.  That's biased intellectual dishonesty, and I'll gladly call atheists on it.  However, I quite understand why you NEED Jesus to NOT exist. 

 

The problem with your comments is you present them with 100% certainity.   "The Bible is fiction"   "Jesus never existed".   You are presenting it as PROVEN fact.   It's not.  That's your merely your opinion based on a foundation of arrogant stupidity.

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Progression and/or explanation completely halted

 So Where does that leave the thread ?

Re :: Progression of it and hope for explanation, halted

jcgadfly wrote:
.. Neither quality makes him messiah.

 

  Did the OP want to leave it at that ? Whatever series of steps was to be taken or the potentiality of the OP's intention has never been fully realized. The use of the two words itself speaks of confusion or a lack of clarity in the title. What there is a Hebrew word not dissimilar to an Aramaic word and then in its Greek translation: Messias, the Aramaic form of "Messiah," which is the english word. If it were translated into Greek it'd be Christos, where we get the term "Christ," the Anointed One (John 1:41, 4:25); and Marana, "our Lord," (In the liturgical formula Maranatha, "Our Lord, come!", etc.) Konia greek used in the NT Greek as Kyrios as generally meaning Lord (1 Cor. 16:22).  Or about a zillion factoids you could list WITHOUT setting-out to provide  much of a case. But, The progression of the efforts of the OP have apparently been halted. VERY halted. I am left guessing as to if this is intentionally or he was merely side-tracked? 

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, the Ehrman clip that

Well, the Ehrman clip that the poster who stated the thread linked to did no more than say that a man named Jesus likely existed. Nothing that claimed that he was "really" the messiah or the son of a god.

When the evidence he presents works against him what does he really have left?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I just finished reading

I just finished reading Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", where he makes the case that jesus was a historical person (criticizing many jesus mythicists in the process), yet not supernatural, i.e., not the son of god, not resurrected, and not coming back.  

His explanation for the messianism attached to jesus is that his followers thought that he -- as the messiah -- was going to overthrow the Romans.  When this failed miserably with his arrest and execution, some of the faithful redefined the messianic claim, with jesus returning (from the dead, in the disciples' lifetime) to settle the score.  A similar example would be the followers of Sabbatai Zevi justifying their belief that he was  the Jewish messiah, even after his arrest and conversion to islam.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Jesus most certainly claimed to be son of God.  Stop lying.

"When in Matthew 16:15-16 Apostle Peter states: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God"

Our Father, who art in heaven. OUR father, O.U.R. Father. So tell me who is not the son of the living god?

LOL, you obviously know nothing about Christianity.

I know Christians are illiterate if that is what you mean. Are we supposed to believe illiterate Christians or our own lying eyes?

Why would Christians accuse their favorite son of their favorite god of lying?

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
  jcgadfly wrote:I don't

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

 

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?  It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.  Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now.  Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.

 

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.   I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God.  A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure.  If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?

 

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.  That's called, "stating your opinion". 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:The fact that

TWD39 wrote:

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.

Quote for me the "contempt and vile behavior" of jcgadfly. Quote for me where jcgadfly says/shows he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. If you can't do this, TWD39, then you are a liar, and I KNOW Christians say lying is a sin.

 

TWD39 wrote:

If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.

The fact you treat atheists poorly doesn't seem to worry you at all.

 

TWD39 wrote:

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.

The Christian Bible is a book, and it does contain some myths.

 

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
TWD

I think you hit the bull's eye when you said,

" You don't want to face conviction for your sins........If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?"

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
. .

TWD39 wrote:
funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it ..

 

 

 

   Turin Shroud is a very interesting object, and worthy of its' own thread. You would find to your surprise there is interest on this board in the object, with a lot of science surrounding the examinations of claims about it. However, It is a controversial object and singularly able to stir more heat than light, pretty easy to wick-up. That does not mean it cannot be discussed. It requires critical thinking . . Mini-Updates

 There are 3 working papers posited and supported the hypothesis that the 1988 C-14
dating of the. Shroud of Turin was skewed due to such an “invisible” 16th Century
patch . Due to interweaving newer fibers with older
(a common practice of conservancy at the Vatican of the time)

 

The Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, from which it derives its most common name.  Some believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus and that his image was recorded on its fibers at his resurrection. Others contend it is a medieval hoax or forgery. The question of its true origins continues to be the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers, even today.

..That said, however, you might want to check the link BEFORE much else is further said  :

  •   The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shoud .. (article from iopscience.iop.org).

    Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a

    man on the opposite side. The body image is very faint and the 'other' face is even fainter...

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1464-4258/6/6/001/

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:I think you

Jimenezj wrote:
I think you hit the bull's eye when you said, " You don't want to face conviction for your sins........If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?"

 

What he hit was his own foot with a bullet. 

Because this :

 

Jimenezj wrote:
If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.

 

..does not make any kind of sense at all.

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:TWD39

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it ..

 

 

 

   Turin Shroud is a very interesting object, and worthy of its' own thread. You would find to your surprise there is interest on this board in the object, with a lot of science surrounding the examinations of claims about it. However, It is a controversial object and singularly able to stir more heat than light, pretty easy to wick-up. That does not mean it cannot be discussed. It requires critical thinking . . Mini-Updates

 There are 3 working papers posited and supported the hypothesis that the 1988 C-14
dating of the. Shroud of Turin was skewed due to such an “invisible” 16th Century
patch . Due to interweaving newer fibers with older
(a common practice of conservancy at the Vatican of the time)

 

The Turin Shroud is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have been physically traumatized in a manner consistent with crucifixion. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy, from which it derives its most common name.  Some believe the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus and that his image was recorded on its fibers at his resurrection. Others contend it is a medieval hoax or forgery. The question of its true origins continues to be the subject of intense debate among some scientists, believers, historians and writers, even today.

..That said, however, you might want to check the link BEFORE much else is further said  :

  •   The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shoud .. (article from iopscience.iop.org).

    Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a

    man on the opposite side. The body image is very faint and the 'other' face is even fainter...

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1464-4258/6/6/001/

 

 

It's a fascinating topic.  I don't think we'll ever truly know its origins though.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: It's a

TWD39 wrote:

 It's a fascinating topic.  I don't think we'll ever truly know its origins though.

In the meantime, let's go through all this :  

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html#heading-1rc

 

Btw, Dana, seems that paper you linked to didn't get to study the shroud directly. You need to be pretty close to the Archdiocese of Turin, before they even let you have a close look at scans of the thing. 

So yeah, we probably won't ever find out it's origins.

 

 


 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:I think you

Jimenezj wrote:

I think you hit the bull's eye when you said,

" You don't want to face conviction for your sins........If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?"

Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that the atheists in this thread don't want to take responsibility for their actions? Or are you also ok with lying?

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:  jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

 

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?  It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.  Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now.  Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.

 

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.   I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God.  A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure.  If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?

 

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.  That's called, "stating your opinion". 

Again with the straw man - I didn't make any claims about the Bible save that men wrote it to pursue an agenda. In the case of the gospels, that agenda was to sell Christianity, Paul's new religion.

I also never said that a man named Jesus (Yahshua) never existed, It was a common enough name that there were probably thousands of them. there were probably a few that claimed to be messiah. My issue has always been with your claim that there was a Jesus who was the son of Yahweh. On that, as with the archeological evidence that I would accept, the best you can do is attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Besides, I've told you what I would accept. I would accept archaeological evidence that was not claimed to be evidence based on " We know the Bible is right - how can we prove it?". I like this approach - "Is the Bible right? Let's look and find out".

I also pointed out where we agree. We both have no concept of sin. The difference between us is that I realize bad actions as harmful to others so I try to avoid them. You (thanks to the concept of forgiveness and Paul removing believers from the law) seek out situations where you can take those bad actions because all you have to do is play contrite and promise not to do them again so you can get absolution and keep taking those actions. Of course you feel rotten when you do things that harm others - the conscience is an evolved trait. All you did was call those actions sin and create forgiveness from a god so that you don't have to be accountable to the person that you wronged. that way you can keep doing those bad actions - after all, you only offended a God who will always forgive you.

Of course, since your God remarkably agrees with you in all things - the list of things you class as sins keeps getting smaller doesn't it?

That must be why you keep lying - that one's off your list. Oh wait, Paul said you could lie for Jesus. Was lying ever on your list of sins?

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?

Nothing could do that. A credible, contemporary mention of the person with a description matching the gospel person might be sufficient to show he did really exist.

Quote:
It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.

When it first appeared it was discredited by the local bishop and the confession of the man who made it is still in the local records. Skeptics need not bother with a thing that was never credible.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

 

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?  It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.  Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now.  Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.

 

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.   I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God.  A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure.  If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?

 

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.  That's called, "stating your opinion". 

Again with the straw man - I didn't make any claims about the Bible save that men wrote it to pursue an agenda. In the case of the gospels, that agenda was to sell Christianity, Paul's new religion.

I also never said that a man named Jesus (Yahshua) never existed, It was a common enough name that there were probably thousands of them. there were probably a few that claimed to be messiah. My issue has always been with your claim that there was a Jesus who was the son of Yahweh. On that, as with the archeological evidence that I would accept, the best you can do is attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Besides, I've told you what I would accept. I would accept archaeological evidence that was not claimed to be evidence based on " We know the Bible is right - how can we prove it?". I like this approach - "Is the Bible right? Let's look and find out".

I also pointed out where we agree. We both have no concept of sin. The difference between us is that I realize bad actions as harmful to others so I try to avoid them. You (thanks to the concept of forgiveness and Paul removing believers from the law) seek out situations where you can take those bad actions because all you have to do is play contrite and promise not to do them again so you can get absolution and keep taking those actions. Of course you feel rotten when you do things that harm others - the conscience is an evolved trait. All you did was call those actions sin and create forgiveness from a god so that you don't have to be accountable to the person that you wronged. that way you can keep doing those bad actions - after all, you only offended a God who will always forgive you.

Of course, since your God remarkably agrees with you in all things - the list of things you class as sins keeps getting smaller doesn't it?

That must be why you keep lying - that one's off your list. Oh wait, Paul said you could lie for Jesus. Was lying ever on your list of sins?

 

 

 

 

More baseless claims.  Disagree?   If I'm wrong, prove it with some real evidence to demonstrate that the authors of the Bible just made up the gospels and risked their lives to sell a lie.   It's YOUR claim, back it up for once.

 

Your comments on sin only demonstrate more ignorance of Christianity.  You seem to think we get saved and then do whatever we want because we have a get out of jail free card.  Part of the role of forgiveness is requiring that we forgive people who have wronged us.  Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue commiting the sin as well. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
TWD

James Ossuary

 The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus") 

On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You get into trouble if you dont do your homework first:

 

  re :: You can get into trouble if you dont do your homework first . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/ossuary/index.html

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

 

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?  It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.  Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now.  Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.

 

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.   I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God.  A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure.  If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?

 

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.  That's called, "stating your opinion". 

Again with the straw man - I didn't make any claims about the Bible save that men wrote it to pursue an agenda. In the case of the gospels, that agenda was to sell Christianity, Paul's new religion.

I also never said that a man named Jesus (Yahshua) never existed, It was a common enough name that there were probably thousands of them. there were probably a few that claimed to be messiah. My issue has always been with your claim that there was a Jesus who was the son of Yahweh. On that, as with the archeological evidence that I would accept, the best you can do is attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Besides, I've told you what I would accept. I would accept archaeological evidence that was not claimed to be evidence based on " We know the Bible is right - how can we prove it?". I like this approach - "Is the Bible right? Let's look and find out".

I also pointed out where we agree. We both have no concept of sin. The difference between us is that I realize bad actions as harmful to others so I try to avoid them. You (thanks to the concept of forgiveness and Paul removing believers from the law) seek out situations where you can take those bad actions because all you have to do is play contrite and promise not to do them again so you can get absolution and keep taking those actions. Of course you feel rotten when you do things that harm others - the conscience is an evolved trait. All you did was call those actions sin and create forgiveness from a god so that you don't have to be accountable to the person that you wronged. that way you can keep doing those bad actions - after all, you only offended a God who will always forgive you.

Of course, since your God remarkably agrees with you in all things - the list of things you class as sins keeps getting smaller doesn't it?

That must be why you keep lying - that one's off your list. Oh wait, Paul said you could lie for Jesus. Was lying ever on your list of sins?

 

 

 

 

More baseless claims.  Disagree?   If I'm wrong, prove it with some real evidence to demonstrate that the authors of the Bible just made up the gospels and risked their lives to sell a lie.   It's YOUR claim, back it up for once.

 

Your comments on sin only demonstrate more ignorance of Christianity.  You seem to think we get saved and then do whatever we want because we have a get out of jail free card.  Part of the role of forgiveness is requiring that we forgive people who have wronged us.  Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue commiting the sin as well. 

Sorry, little one. I don't prove claims that I didn't make. You do love that straw man fallacy. 

The evidence that I have that the gospels were written with an agenda in mind - John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."  This is a confession that they didn't and never intended to write historical documents. But then you haven't read the Bible so you can automatically reject it, right? 

The writers of the gospels didn't risk their lives for anything. The writers of the gospels were different from the disciples (not that you have any actual proof of their martyrdom besides Catholic tradition).

I don't seem to think anything of the kind about your magic forgiveness ritual. I see it happen all the time. You've been doing it since you got here. You lie on the forum, take some time off (presumably to ask Jesus to make it all better) and come back and lie some more.

Do you read what you post at all? I don't think so because you agreed with me. You wrote, "Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue committing the sin as well." Note that it only requires the willingness to not commit the sin anymore (i.e, you promist to try really hard to not commit the sin again [as I wrote earlier]). It doesn't require you to put any effort into not committing the sin - just the promise to be good.

Thank you for conceding the points and the argument. You are the best player on my side of the ball.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

 

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?  It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.  Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now.  Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.

 

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.   I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God.  A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure.  If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?

 

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.  That's called, "stating your opinion". 

Again with the straw man - I didn't make any claims about the Bible save that men wrote it to pursue an agenda. In the case of the gospels, that agenda was to sell Christianity, Paul's new religion.

I also never said that a man named Jesus (Yahshua) never existed, It was a common enough name that there were probably thousands of them. there were probably a few that claimed to be messiah. My issue has always been with your claim that there was a Jesus who was the son of Yahweh. On that, as with the archeological evidence that I would accept, the best you can do is attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Besides, I've told you what I would accept. I would accept archaeological evidence that was not claimed to be evidence based on " We know the Bible is right - how can we prove it?". I like this approach - "Is the Bible right? Let's look and find out".

I also pointed out where we agree. We both have no concept of sin. The difference between us is that I realize bad actions as harmful to others so I try to avoid them. You (thanks to the concept of forgiveness and Paul removing believers from the law) seek out situations where you can take those bad actions because all you have to do is play contrite and promise not to do them again so you can get absolution and keep taking those actions. Of course you feel rotten when you do things that harm others - the conscience is an evolved trait. All you did was call those actions sin and create forgiveness from a god so that you don't have to be accountable to the person that you wronged. that way you can keep doing those bad actions - after all, you only offended a God who will always forgive you.

Of course, since your God remarkably agrees with you in all things - the list of things you class as sins keeps getting smaller doesn't it?

That must be why you keep lying - that one's off your list. Oh wait, Paul said you could lie for Jesus. Was lying ever on your list of sins?

 

 

 

 

More baseless claims.  Disagree?   If I'm wrong, prove it with some real evidence to demonstrate that the authors of the Bible just made up the gospels and risked their lives to sell a lie.   It's YOUR claim, back it up for once.

 

Your comments on sin only demonstrate more ignorance of Christianity.  You seem to think we get saved and then do whatever we want because we have a get out of jail free card.  Part of the role of forgiveness is requiring that we forgive people who have wronged us.  Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue commiting the sin as well. 

Sorry, little one. I don't prove claims that I didn't make. You do love that straw man fallacy. 

The evidence that I have that the gospels were written with an agenda in mind - John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."  This is a confession that they didn't and never intended to write historical documents. But then you haven't read the Bible so you can automatically reject it, right? 

The writers of the gospels didn't risk their lives for anything. The writers of the gospels were different from the disciples (not that you have any actual proof of their martyrdom besides Catholic tradition).

I don't seem to think anything of the kind about your magic forgiveness ritual. I see it happen all the time. You've been doing it since you got here. You lie on the forum, take some time off (presumably to ask Jesus to make it all better) and come back and lie some more.

Do you read what you post at all? I don't think so because you agreed with me. You wrote, "Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue committing the sin as well." Note that it only requires the willingness to not commit the sin anymore (i.e, you promist to try really hard to not commit the sin again [as I wrote earlier]). It doesn't require you to put any effort into not committing the sin - just the promise to be good.

Thank you for conceding the points and the argument. You are the best player on my side of the ball.

 

 

 

If you are trying to annoy me,  you failed. I rather find you boring.  You can't demonstrate anywhere that I've lied either.  You've sunk into nonsense agaain trying to conjure up some misconception where it looks like I am actually agreeing with you.  Matthew 6:14-15 - you must forgive others to recevie forgiveness.   Hebrews 10:26 delivers a scary warning about Christians sinning deliberately.   Forgiveness requires repentance Matthew 4:17 and repentance requires not continuing to live in sin.  


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

I don't need to maintain the lack of archaeological support for Jesus, son of Yahweh. The archaeology does that well enough. The archaeology supports that Christianity and the Bible existed in the past. That, however, does nothing to support the truth of the God claim. the God claim is the one you're trying to support. You have to lie to do it - that's intellectual dishonesty.

I don't need Jesus to not exist. You need him to exist. See, if Jesus didn't exist you would not have forgiveness. Without forgiveness, you would lose the ability to absolve yourself of responsibility for those things you call "sins". You remember those, right? Those are the things you do to hurt other people so you can benefit.

That was also a very pretty straw man you built for yourself. I've never said any of those things you've said in quotes (that I recall). What I have presented is why it is most likely that the Bible is a collection of documents wholly created by man without the intervention of a divine being.

You have yet to counter that position because that would mean you'd have to open your eyes to facts, history and archaeology that you don't personally like.. Facts tend to really mess up blind, unreasoning faith.

 

So play devil's adovate and tell me exactly what kind of archaeological find must be discovered to convince you that Jesus is the son of God?  It's funny how an artifact like the shroud of turin has skeptics scrambling like ants to find any any way to discredit it.  Course, it sounds like you are backpedaling now.  Before, you needed to present the case that Jesus the man NEVER even existed so you can disregard Isaiah 53.

 

The fact that you demonstrate so much contempt and vile behavior towards my peaceful religion shows me clearly that you need Jesus to not exist.  You don't want to face conviction for your sins.   I feel the need for forgiveness because the Holy Spirit makes me feel rotten when I sin against God.  A Christian can't sin comfortably and eventually realizes that the consequences were certainly not worth the small amount of pleasure.  If Jesus doesn't exist, then I can happily sin all I want with no worries, and treat people however I wanted.  It doesn't matter.  We are all worm food in the end ,right?

 

Just bolding claiming that the Bible is a book of myths is not fact.  That's called, "stating your opinion". 

Again with the straw man - I didn't make any claims about the Bible save that men wrote it to pursue an agenda. In the case of the gospels, that agenda was to sell Christianity, Paul's new religion.

I also never said that a man named Jesus (Yahshua) never existed, It was a common enough name that there were probably thousands of them. there were probably a few that claimed to be messiah. My issue has always been with your claim that there was a Jesus who was the son of Yahweh. On that, as with the archeological evidence that I would accept, the best you can do is attempt to shift the burden of proof onto me.

Besides, I've told you what I would accept. I would accept archaeological evidence that was not claimed to be evidence based on " We know the Bible is right - how can we prove it?". I like this approach - "Is the Bible right? Let's look and find out".

I also pointed out where we agree. We both have no concept of sin. The difference between us is that I realize bad actions as harmful to others so I try to avoid them. You (thanks to the concept of forgiveness and Paul removing believers from the law) seek out situations where you can take those bad actions because all you have to do is play contrite and promise not to do them again so you can get absolution and keep taking those actions. Of course you feel rotten when you do things that harm others - the conscience is an evolved trait. All you did was call those actions sin and create forgiveness from a god so that you don't have to be accountable to the person that you wronged. that way you can keep doing those bad actions - after all, you only offended a God who will always forgive you.

Of course, since your God remarkably agrees with you in all things - the list of things you class as sins keeps getting smaller doesn't it?

That must be why you keep lying - that one's off your list. Oh wait, Paul said you could lie for Jesus. Was lying ever on your list of sins?

 

 

 

 

More baseless claims.  Disagree?   If I'm wrong, prove it with some real evidence to demonstrate that the authors of the Bible just made up the gospels and risked their lives to sell a lie.   It's YOUR claim, back it up for once.

 

Your comments on sin only demonstrate more ignorance of Christianity.  You seem to think we get saved and then do whatever we want because we have a get out of jail free card.  Part of the role of forgiveness is requiring that we forgive people who have wronged us.  Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue commiting the sin as well. 

Sorry, little one. I don't prove claims that I didn't make. You do love that straw man fallacy. 

The evidence that I have that the gospels were written with an agenda in mind - John 20:31 "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."  This is a confession that they didn't and never intended to write historical documents. But then you haven't read the Bible so you can automatically reject it, right? 

The writers of the gospels didn't risk their lives for anything. The writers of the gospels were different from the disciples (not that you have any actual proof of their martyrdom besides Catholic tradition).

I don't seem to think anything of the kind about your magic forgiveness ritual. I see it happen all the time. You've been doing it since you got here. You lie on the forum, take some time off (presumably to ask Jesus to make it all better) and come back and lie some more.

Do you read what you post at all? I don't think so because you agreed with me. You wrote, "Forgiveness requires a willingness to not continue committing the sin as well." Note that it only requires the willingness to not commit the sin anymore (i.e, you promist to try really hard to not commit the sin again [as I wrote earlier]). It doesn't require you to put any effort into not committing the sin - just the promise to be good.

Thank you for conceding the points and the argument. You are the best player on my side of the ball.

 

 

 

If you are trying to annoy me,  you failed. I rather find you boring.  You can't demonstrate anywhere that I've lied either.  You've sunk into nonsense agaain trying to conjure up some misconception where it looks like I am actually agreeing with you.  Matthew 6:14-15 - you must forgive others to recevie forgiveness.   Hebrews 10:26 delivers a scary warning about Christians sinning deliberately.   Forgiveness requires repentance Matthew 4:17 and repentance requires not continuing to live in sin.  

Yeah I can understand why you'd find the truth boring - stories of magic and gods (plural used intentionally - Christians worship three) are so much more exciting.

As for where you have lied - you keep ascribing to me beliefs and sayings that I have neither said nor believe. You need to go ask forgiveness so you can come back and do it again to me or someone else.

You used your words to agree with my position. You're lying when you deny your words. More stuff to ask forgiveness for. Be sure to tell God that you'll try really hard not to do it again (Until you need to).

Shame Jesus contradicted Matt 6: 14-15 and Matt 4:17 with Matt 5:19 - that's the one where Jesus said that you didn't need to obey his commandments to go to heaven. The writer couldn't keep his story straight.

Paul contradicts the Hebrews passage with Romans 4:15 - it should be one of your favorites "where there is no law there is no transgression (sin)." Paul had a hard time keeping his stories straight as well.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jimenezj wrote:
James Ossuary  The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus&quotEye-wink  On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Creationism won in the Scopes trial. So?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No Subject)

 (No Subject)

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
James Ossuary  The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus&quotEye-wink  On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Creationism won in the Scopes trial. So?

 

               "Nevertheless, the conclusions of the IAA committee were unanimous and seemed to put a definitive end to the claims that the James Ossuary bore an authentic inscription"  (source link in direct reply to, bottom of the page)

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:James Ossuary

Jimenezj wrote:
James Ossuary  The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus&quotEye-wink  On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

You do know that those are three very common names in Hebrew, right?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915

blacklight915 wrote:


 

Perhaps you would like to provide evidence that the atheists in this thread don't want to take responsibility for their actions?

 

 

 

It appears that the answer to that question is no.

For now.

Let's have patience and see what happens.

*crickets*


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
JC

All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in the correct biblical time and in correct Biblical relationship certainly confirms  Jesus Christ and Biblical James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name. This also confirms what Josephus wrote about Christ. "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah".

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:All three

Jimenezj wrote:
All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in the correct biblical time and in correct Biblical relationship certainly confirms  Jesus Christ and Biblical James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name. This also confirms what Josephus wrote about Christ. "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah".

1. The fact that a guy named Yeshua was famous does not mean that he was famous for being the Messiah/the son of God.

2. The majority of Christian scholars (let alone scholars in general) agree that the TF ("James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah&quotEye-wink was not written by Josephus but was added in much later by a Christian. It's bogus.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:All three

Jimenezj wrote:
All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in the correct biblical time and in correct Biblical relationship certainly confirms  Jesus Christ and Biblical James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name. This also confirms what Josephus wrote about Christ. "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah".

 

 

                     Josephus wrote NOTHING about a Christ, later christians wrote into Josephus a few paragraphs about JC;  that was quickly debunked [19th century] btw jesus christ is NOT a NAME it IS A Title [or designation] it means "gods' savior, annointed".  Early mystisist's used the designation for their unknown/unnamed spiritual being, other christians picked up the habit and evolved that into a real [albeit fictional] being.  

 

 

                            The whole story is fictional.

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Hello! The inscription was found to be inauthentic and bogus

#83 

Jimenezj wrote:
All three names used were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned, unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in the correct biblical time and in correct Biblical relationship certainly confirms  Jesus Christ and Biblical James, leader of the early church and author of the New Testament book bearing his name. This also confirms what Josephus wrote about Christ. "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ/Messiah".

  The inscription carved into the side of said object was found to be inauthentic and bogus, though they were disputed for a time. If you know for a fact their interdisciplinary review was both incorrect and wrong about the inscriptions found on it.  Dont delay presenting your overwhelming evidence to the IAA.  Submit your scientific findings to  Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) : רשות העתיקות‎. The IAA is-the independent Israeli governmental authority that deals with the Antiquities trade and does establish authenticity or inauthenticity with them. Dont ignore the facts nor their findings !!!!!! Your information indicates you havent kept up with this at all!! (From what I have read from you is fact checking entering in to any of these statements of yours ?)? Let's sit down with the data instead of quoting a News Paper.

 

 

 p.s.  -- Jesus' Brother's "Bone Box" closer to Being Authenticated good thing the IAA was on the case. Look at the year 2012! And dont pay attention to the creationists' websites claiming the IAA report (and findings) were  'deeply flawed'.

 

 

 

   

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Dana

The case is closed. If you want to reopen the case, feel free to present your evidence to the IAA. Read the decision again.

Jimenezj wrote:
James Ossuary  The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus&quot  On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
The other side of the story

Jimenezj wrote:
On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

http://jamesossuarytrial.blogspot.com.au/


“This was the first time that a court was asked to rule on a question of antiquities forgery,” Judge Farkash said last month, summarising testimony from experts in archaeology, the Bible, chemistry and geochemistry, geology, paleography and more. The list of witnesses read like a who’s who of the world’s leading scholars but as the judge wryly noted in his verdict, even the professors appearing for the same side disagreed with one another and sometimes even with themselves, changing their minds as time passed.

“If you, the world’s leading experts in this field, cannot agree with each other on the authenticity or otherwise of these items, how do you expect me, a mere judge, to reach a conclusion?” he said, before delivering his 475-page verdict on March 14.

 

Judge Farkash warned that the verdict did not mean the items were necessarily genuine or that the “Jesus” on the ossuary was Jesus Christ

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The case is

Jimenezj wrote:
The case is closed. If you want to reopen the case, feel free to present your evidence to the IAA. Read the decision again. Jimenezj wrote: James Ossuary  The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"  On March 14, 2012, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash stated "that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case is closed - the verdict doesn't stand with you. Is this another example of "Christian ethics"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Surprising the reversal didnt make the news !!

#95  Burden of proof is on you, ball is in your court, Mr. Jim. Sorry wasn't able to get the readers of this thread to look at data; instead of what you'd have this turn into. Translation: You take it up with the IAA, it's your claim. Dana has nothing whatsoever to do with YOUR CLAIM!! Perhaps you want to look at a thing called data and set out to weigh conflicting views, instead of trying to shift the burden on to me. Surprising the (IAA's) reversal didnt make the news!!  What is good is this is all part of the process. Seek answers!! Always a good place to start is w/ reputable archaeologists and experts in their fields of expertise. Stick to findings and data why dont you? Obviously,  the prosecution's case failed miserably, and you end up with a bad ruling. It happens. Court verdict is not what the IAA found!! Like in the course of human affairs there has never been dueling 'expert opinion' or 'expert testimony', not only in courts (both Pro and Con)? I would consider myself really stupid if I werent paying attention to the IAA, foregoing 'their' facts and considerations. What is said if it is ..'beyond reasonable doubt'? Doesnt indicate much. It could be a matter or laziness, though I am not sure in this instance, and nothing more than washing your hands of the matter. But, as long as I dont have to think, who cares. Can anyone be expected to devote the time needed to look into these matters ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1615
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
No-one is afraid of the answers,. Questions remain . .

Re : No-one is afraid of the answers,. Questions remain. Case is closed ??

 

{jimenezji wrote}

Jimenezj wrote:
James Ossuary  The Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus " )

I have watched documentaries about the IAA's Professor Goren, Dr Ayalon, and Dr. Dahari along with their colleagues at the IAA.  They have used multi-disciplinary scientific techniques to assess the inscription found on the box. In which they clearly show the patina was easily removed from the surface (at least that was what the viewer was led to think). Conservators and antiquities dealers know it should never be easily removed. (This is one of the primary reasons to go back and look anew).
 The findings and conclusions of Gornen and Ayalon can be divided into four areas. 1st. Results of the isotopic tests conducted. Pure calcite composition of the patinas. 2nd Results of the microscopic tests .. discovery of microfossils in the patina of the lettering zones. Which the IAA larger team assumed that the existence of marine microfossils indicates that the lettering patina is not authentic, according to the IAA. 3rd. Comparative results o the morphological tests, of the nature and strength of the substance inside the inscriptions' letters, to the morphology and attributes of the patina samples. Taken from the sites of the ossuary the team claimed to be authentic (part of the inscription was under-fire while the other was not attested that much). 4th. Presence of "transparent material" that something contained traces of gold and something contained bubbles, in the ornamentation of the stone oil lamp, which Goren assumed to be the indicative of modern epoxy glue or sodium silicate consistent with glue supplemental materials, possibly particles of the natural patina like value, to the ornamentations.
 For the sake of convenience, The Strongest proponent for the side of authenticity was Professor Wolfgang E. Krumbein of the University of Oldenburg, Germany Again, Most of the grooves have had the patina removed from it before his examinations. It would seem, the whole case surrounds and hinges on the patina,  the patina on the ossurary had traces of which were found in several letters in the beginning and end of the inscription, of not comprising of pure calcite. Its' composition consists also of apatite (calcium phosphate), whewellite (hydrated calcium oxalate) and both -- of  microbiological origin with quartz .. Problem is with either side "most of the original patina has been removed (by cleaning or a use of a sharp implement), the inscription was treated more than once over a period of several years .. part was cleaned especially vigorously  in order to make it more visible to the view", informs Krumbein.
            Who's ruling should be more trustworthy ? a.) A judge out of his depth; sabotaged by the handiwork of incompetence  b.) A specialized committee of dedicated professionals (not to discount Krumbein's view)? What-the judge didnt know of the 'evidence', was only what was presented in front of him. Something to take into account ? An example Goren's easily lifting the patina not shown. Defenses science experiment, of their own attempts at the craft, was shown. It more than calls for a checking into its' findings by proving or discredit(-ing) it, should be a natural desire of checking out the 'evidence' surrounding it.

 
 Difficulties among which have to do with either a real or faked patina. Whatever the case.  Judge Farkash reserved judgment on whether the ossuary or the stone tablet were authentic because of disagreements between the world’s leading experts. This leaves  it all  unresolved (by the court). Most unhelpful that is. If the fraud theory was taken into consideration, not the establishing of guilt or not, the broker/dealer was quite skilled, though the trial didnt find him guilty. Professor Goren's original findings seem pretty damning. On the other hand, one aspect of Krumbein's work is pretty compelling, and it being centered on a letter in the name Yeshua, could be worth a second look. A fundamental question yet remains as to why Professor Goren's findings indicate a lack of uniformity in the patina though.

 p.s. -- I wonder why a majority of archaeologists would side with one and not the other, while gabbing over the digital water cooler (and feel the science was the loser)? But, I mostly wonder why you wouldnt keep the original patina (real or fake) instead of removing it in the manner it was.