$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus
Offline The Rational Response Squad is proud to announce that we are giving believers of Jesus Christ a chance (again) to provide sufficient proof that he existed.
Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there. Our listeners are well aware that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ. This is your chance (again) to shut us up! Not only will you win $666, but we'll be forced to tell our audience that evidence exists, and our friend Brian Flemming will be forced to completely overhaul his movie.
AWARD FOR CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE: $666
The evidence must reconcile well with what we know of the time from Roman records and other writers of the day. They must also not conflict with cities, governments, places and people we know who actually lived during the time. Keep in mind the New Testament was written well after Jesus died, and serves as no proof of his existence.
What doesn't count as CONTEMPORARY evidence? Lucian, The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Those are the most common proofs, none of which were written while Jesus was alive.
ALL RESPONSES MUST BE POSTED ON RATIONAL RESPONDERS MESSAGE BOARD FOR PUBLIC VIEWING, NONE OTHERS WILL BE CONSIDERED. PASS IT ON!!!
Atheist, Atheism, Agnostic, Rational Response Squad
[This post reserved for future F.A.Q.'s]
First one:
Q. Are you guys for real? Will you really pay out money?
A. Yes. We will gladly pay out for this evidence. In fact we will gladly join up with you to attain movie deals, book deals, and worldwide fame for the evidence that you find. We'll work together with you to become multi-millionaires!
"I'm a sap, I'm too nice a guy. I'm giving Bob what I consider to be some real nice access to my channels. I put him on for an hour, and what happens when you're a nice guy, you get stepped on. I'm a little too loose with people criticizing me because it's interesting." - Howard Stern
There are physical items that have been purported to support the existence corresponding to Jesus. "The Shroud of Turin" is surrounded by controversy and is the single most studied artifact in human history. Although no piece of physical evidence has been introduced that conclusively proves that Jesus Christ existed, there is a fair amount of historical writing that suggests he did. Many secular historians say Jesus existed. Pontius Pilate (1 BC-AD 37) wrote: "At His coming the lame will leap as a deer, and the stammering tongue will clearly speak: the blind will see, and the lepers will be healed; and the dead will rise, and walk. And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." - First Apology 48
"They pierced my hands and my feet, was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were driven into His hands and feet. And. . . they cast lots for His clothes, and after they crucified Him distributed it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." - First Apology 35
This reference reveals that Christ performed amazing miracles and he died on a cross with his hands and feet pierced by nails. This WAS written while Jesus was living.
Lucian of Samosata lived during the second century. He was a satirist who was scornful of Christians. He wrote: "The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith..." - The Passing Peregrinus
This suggests that Christians worshipped Jesus and Jesus was crucified for what he taught.
Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, making is a history book, which is about Jesus.
Prove that he DIDN'T exist and include your shipping address. If you do, I'll mail you some cookies.
No, really, there isn't.
This is an apeal to authority, and not necessarily a factual one. Richard Carrier is a very well versed secular scholar and agrees with Doherty.
You did no research on this at all. In fact, you copied and pasted from a Christian website without even considering they were wrong!
These two quotes are from a work which never existed, in fact, and they come directly from a late second century source, Justin Martyr. He, himself, did not even have the origional copy of what he proported to have heard these quotes from, and in fact no such record from Pilate to any emporer exists, or is known to have existed in any substantial form or another. Not even Claudius or Tiberius seems to know of these reports you claim he had written, and no other figure in Galilee seems to have known of their existence either.
The ONLY other work attributed to be by Pilate, wasn't even written by Pilate, and is attested to have been written between 155-255 CE, quite a bit longer then 25 years after the supposed death of Jesus, isn't it?
So you have proven here you are more attuned at using other peoples works instead of doing your own research, and you have no desire to cross-reference works you choose to use. Try again when you study up some. These are merely quotes from a second century source without himself providing references other then hearsay. When you can produce the actual documents of Pilate, with these quotes in these writings, then I shall find these quotes acceptable. Happy hunting.
I'm just going to repost what I've already said about Lucian here because I'm too short on time to worry about it when I already have shown this to be inadequate more times then one man should:
The whole argument for Lucian is bunk. And the fact that it?s only a slight mention, if but two sentences, really doesn?t help your case.
So it proved the Christians worshipped somebody. Who?s arguing that point? This is irrelevant.
This is as I stated above Lucian?s reference to the Christians reaction to HIS CHARACTER, Peregrines! This is a failure on your part, because you probably just went to some Christian site, copied the butchered text, and pasted it as if that was all Lucian wrote in his entire life. Where in fact these statements you claim are applied to Jesus are actually about a man named Peregrines who, ?for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practicing it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus.? - H.M. Harmon (Lucian of Samosata : The Passing of Peregrines)
It should be noted too, that Josephus talks a lot about crucifixion in his works. In the 120 years that passed between Jesus' supposed existence and Lucian, thousands upon thousands were crucified in Palestine. In fact, in just one year, multitudes numbering 500 in one day, sometimes more, were sent to be crucified during the seige in 70 CE.
"...before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies." (War 5: Chapter 11)
To claim that the one man who was crucified is your savior is incredulous. So many myth's were flying around the time of Lucian it is impossible really to name them all. So many "saviors" crucified. And since Christ more have followed. Whether they be of the Chrestians and Christians, or of false prophets that are known to us such as Alexander and his followers (Also written by Lucian).
Incidentally...Alexander was claiming to be the son of Zeus (hm) and he was a sage, and an oracle. He preformed miracles that Lucian mocked.
"As a matter of fact, this trick, to a man like you, and if it is not out of place to say so, like myself also, was obvious and easy to see through, but to those drivelling idiots it was miraculous and almost as good as incredible."
"Well, as I say, Alexander made predictions and gave oracles, employing great shrewdness in it and combining guesswork with his trickery. He gave responses that were sometimes obscure and am?biguous, sometimes downright unintelligible, for this seemed to him in the oracular manner. Some people he dissuaded or encouraged as seemed best to him at a guess. To others he prescribed medical treatments and diets, knowing, as I said in the beginning, many useful remedies."
"By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumours in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead. " (sound familiar yet?)
If you had bothered to read my thread here about Biblical Contradictions, you'd clearly have seen that the Bile is no more a history book then Moby Dick. I've got a laundry list of historical problems in the Bible, problems that just don't add up with actual historicity. When you can show me where I err in these contradictions, I will take you on your word for it. Until that day however, the Bible remains as invalid and false as any other religious book in extant.
The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Thatr means it is up to YOU, as the alleger, to prove to me that your demi-god existed. Nice try though.
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
According to your challenge, does the believer have to find evidence for
(a) Jesus' existence
or
(b) Jesus' existence plus his performance of certain supernatural actions, e.g. walked on water, rose from the dead, and so on?
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
The first one.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
No Equilibrium, actually the second one. We're looking to find the supernatural Jesus. Like we said, the man we're looking for walked on water and healed the crippled. Of course, we'd be interested in evidence for a non-supernatural Jesus as well. We don't see appropriate evidence for either Jesus.
"I'm a sap, I'm too nice a guy. I'm giving Bob what I consider to be some real nice access to my channels. I put him on for an hour, and what happens when you're a nice guy, you get stepped on. I'm a little too loose with people criticizing me because it's interesting." - Howard Stern
I received this from an xian friend of mine in response to me reposting one of the $666 bulletins. He posted it as a bulletin and I replied. His posts are in italics; mine are not. Please be nice, as I know you will be, if he does indeed come here. His name is Daniel.
-------------
First, I would advise you to post your replies in our forum regarding the $666. We welcome Christians too, as long as they are civil. If you look on our board, you'll see there are several christians and other theists and we interact with them respectfully and without insult.
I'd like to respond to a few of your points, and I'm going to post it as a reply to the $666 thread mentioned above, and I'd really like you to go there to reply, and I will be monitoring it and replying too.
Proof for the existence of Jesus Christ is not required.
If I had "different" views about Chemistry from you and made claims without proof, you would ask me to prove what I believe. Religion is the only area where we permit people to make claims with absolutely no proof whatsoever and we feel that they cannot question these irrational beliefs. The Rational Response Squad doesn't share this belief.
I guess it is for your very original "rational response team".....which btw I don't understand because I don't understand how there is anything "rational" about trying to disprove what the majority of the world over believes
It is very much required for us. We don't believe irrational things without proof. I'd be the first to admit I was wrong if I was presented with proof that Jesus existed. There just happens to be nothing to support a Jesus figure existing on Earth.
and don't bother giving me any kind of "proof" to debunk that because it really doesn't matter. Like I said proof is NOT necessary, for true Christians who believe that Jesus existed and still exists actually, just in a different place, know that belief in Jesus is all about faith.
The burden of proof isn't on the one disbelieving the claim. It's upon the one making the claim. If I make a claim that there is a tiny teapot revolving around the sun that you cannot see with telescopes, you would have no reason to believe me unless I present you supporting proof.
The guy who posted this knows this WAY down deep in his heart and no matter how many of these pointless teams he joins or how many bulletins he posts with the number 666 in the heading, he can't deny what he knows to be true. But he will never ever let anyone know that he really knows the truth.
I do not know any of this "deep down in my heart". This isn't a "team" that is "against" people. We are a group that supports rational thought. We support people thinking rationally about their surroundings as I personally did. We support people freeing themselves from irrational believes that are completely unfounded. This naturally includes religion. The number 666 is simply the amount of money the Rational Response Squad is offering as a bounty. I just reposted the bulletin. Granted, it is an attempt to garner interest in the project. If I supposedly "knew" this "truth", why wouldn't I follow its teachings? That is also irrational.
But this isn't about Chris, this is about Jesus right?? Well I have no proof and have never seen any physical proof from when He was actually alive, most likely no such thing exists. So to you Jesus will never exist and I guess that's your decision to believe that way. But if you think belief in the Savior of the world requires some kind of physical proof...something you can see and feel and touch....then you've missed the whole point of the existence of Jesus Christ in the first place.
I think you missed the point of the post. The point is that there is no evidence for something that you believe in without proof. Take just a second to think silently to yourself why you believe in this god and this jesus figure. It is because you learned it at church. It is because your parents taught it to you. I know both of these things because I went to church with you for many years. I was definitely a believing, practicing Christian. You know this, since you were in Sunday school classes with me since we were little kids. The only reason you believe this is because people told it to you and you read it in a book.
We BELIEVE in Him and have FAITH that He walked this earth and performed miracles and then yes was killed and rose into the sky, only to return some day in the future, which He will, and the way the world is going now, that might not be too far away. Man I can only imagine what kind of "rational responses" I'm going to get from this thing. It doesn't matter really. One day hopefully you will see that "proof" doesn't matter...BELIEF in something is the only thing that makes this life worth living. Peace guys
All of that was in a book with no basis in reality for the "miracles". I hope you'll consider all of the points I mentioned above sincerely.
Sincerely,
-Daniel-
I sincerely hope you will come and post on the Rational Response Squad site, and this thread in particular. We will welcome you in intelligent dialog. Who knows? We may both learn something.
Seriously, fuck Ray Comfort. I hate him almost as much as Hovind.
That post really should've gone here.
If someone has contemporary proof it goes in this thread, if they want to comment on why they think Jesus shouldn't have contemporary proof or anything other than providing contemporary proof, it goes in this thread.
"I'm a sap, I'm too nice a guy. I'm giving Bob what I consider to be some real nice access to my channels. I put him on for an hour, and what happens when you're a nice guy, you get stepped on. I'm a little too loose with people criticizing me because it's interesting." - Howard Stern
Okay, firstly I understand you seem to have made your minds up already about the existence of God, and your question is set up more to make a mockery of Faith rather than a genuine wanting to examine the possibility of God existing. I hope you do give what I have to say a thought.
Firstly, when proving the existence of Jesus, It becomes apparent the Bible is going to be relied upon heavily for literary evidence. This begs the question 'Is the new testament reliable?'
Chinese whispers...
Many people compare the Bible's sources to a big game of Chinese whispers - one statement about Jesus is passed onto the next generation of writers, who then pass it down to the next, and so on. Each generation makes the statement less reliable, as more people have changed it. One verse often used in this theory is the one about Jesus walking on water. The initial writer may have wrote down that Jesus 'paddled across the lake to meet the disciples'. The next person in the chain decides that's far to boring, so changes it to swimming, then the next generation changes it to swimming in a storm, and by the end of the line we get the statement that Jesus walked on water in a storm.
There is one problem with this theory, though. If people kept deciding to change details to make the story more interesting, you'd soon have one final version saying Jesus surfed on water, another saying he hovered above it, another saying he was Jet biking across it - each version with minor differences. This is of course an exaggerated scenario, but the point remains - how come all of the texts we have of the bible agree?
Contradictions?
You may argue that there are minor contradictions with the bible - eg in Mathew 1 and Luke 3, where Jesus' genealogies are listed. Different names are mentioned, so there is a possible contradiction. An explanation of this could be Mathew may give Joseph's side of the family tree while Luke gives Mary's side, or that both genealogies are of Joseph's side, but one gives the biological line and the other gives a legal line (Hebrew laws of inheritance causes differences between the two). Minor variations in texts are often argued by historians to make the text more genuine - if the writers were lying, they'd make sure all their facts and details were correct, in case it was to be tested by someone. Two humans will never regard a situation in exactly the same way as each other.
Early Problems
This brings us to another stumbling block for the Bible's authenticity - what if the problem was at the top of the chain, before or with the first writer?
The question is - would any of these people have a motive or reason to make stuff up about Jesus. Usually people only lie to get themselves out of sticky situations or somehow benefit from lying. Judging that nearly all of the disciples died in painful ways because of the message they tried to sent out, there was little in it for them, fabricating stories about Jesus, if they knew he was a fraud. That leads on to the question of whether the disciples were therefore insane, believing in Jesus, and I'd be happy to discuss that too.
The scholar Craig Blomberg has estimated the time between Jesus' death and the writing of Matthew to 30 years - by then, there would still be hundreds of eyewitnesses around who could have easily denied any of the statements made in that book, completely smashing its credibility, but the book remains.
This has certainly convinced me of the Bible's reliability. If the bible is then reliable, what it says about Jesus must therefore have some truth in it.
Sorry about the length of the post - there's so much to discuss. I'm happy to answer any queries you have about this post - there's loads of conspiracy about Jesus e.g. hypnotizing people etc.
I hope this has been helpful
Sharky
Please stop projecting your dogmatic thinking onto others. We don't believe because there's no good reason to believe. Show us some good reasons, and we'll change our minds. Who wouldn't want to live forever in eternal bliss? If you're right, and you convince me, then that's where I'll be.
But if we're right, then your fantasyland dies... so it's pretty clear that the bias is far, far stronger for your side.
If you have evidence, present it.
So, you don't have any actual contemporary historical accounts.
And it is not. Read Rook's posts on this.
Actually, this is precisely what we do find. The book of Mark is the first account, and the most sober account of the gospels. There isn't even a virgin birth, nor was there even a resurrection story in the earliest editions.
By the time we get past the synopotic gospels, to the last gospel, John, we have the most supernatural and mysterious account of 'jesus' of all. We do end up with a scenario just like you've presented.
Tell me, do you even read the gospels yourself? If you did, you'd know this already.
Read Rook's refutation of this nonsensical attempt to dodge the problem.
Actually, there are many more stumbling blocks than this.
There's the fact that the books are anonymous.
There's the fact that the Matthew author even concedes he was not a witness.
There's the fact that even the earliest version, Mark, is clearly a midrash of the Old Testament and not an eyewitness account of anything.
If you are really so open minded as you imply, you'd read this:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
Sure. Because to them, 'jesus' was a concept. a teacher. The specifics didn't matter... what mattered was their belief...
They don't need to 'lie', they merely need to believe that what they are doing is right.
He's wrong, and obviously so, because if Matthew were writing by then, then why didn't Paul cite him?
Clealry even the book of Mark was not ready at that time, let alone the books that copied from mark: Matthew and Luke.
You're begging the question that 'jesus' existed in the first place.
If there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, then why didn't Paul ask any of them for a description of jesus? Why don't we even learn their names?
You've not really examined the matter.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
What's wrong with truthfully admitting you're not a witness. I could write a biography of a guy I haven't met before and still get all the details through eyewitness accounts.
Where is the evidence for that? Matthew is the gospel which often quotes the Old Testament (the reason for this is because it was aimed at a Jewish audience, hence the genealogy at the beginning, and the references to Jewish scriptures to prove the authenticity of Christ). What's supporting your generalised statements?
If you still want the writings of a direct eyewitness, and not a collaboration of eyewitnesses, 1 Peter was written by the apostle Peter, a diciple of Jesus (see http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/1Pet.htm). The 3rd verse in his first letter states
"3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"
So he, a man who witnessed everything first hand, believed in Jesus and the resurrection.
Though you say sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger cannot be used as they are not eyewitness, these non-Christian romans did write between them the following statements:
-Jesus was a Jewish teacher
-Many people believed he performed healings and other miracles
-Some people believed he was the long-awaited Messiah
-He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
-He was crucified under the authority of Pontious Pilate in the reign of Tiberious
Though these do not prove Jesus was the messiah, as the writers did not believe it, it does prove he existed, as these non-believers would have nothing to gain or loose by writing this.
If you are genuinely open minded, a really good book to read is The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel (amazon link is here), an atheist lawyer who set out to disprove Christianity once and for all, but found the evidence for Jesus all going the other way. See what you make of the evidence yourself.
Where did I lodge that as my complaint?!
Glad you can concede that he was not a eyewitness. 1 down, three gospels to go.
Right. You'd have to turn to secondary sources, or tertiary sources... you'd have to get to someone who was an eyewitness.
But what do we know of "matthew's' research methods? We don't even know who 'matthew' is... he's anonymous to us.
So we have an anonymous person, who's not an eyewitness... writing a gospel?
Do you see the problem?
The problem deepens when we realize that matthew, along with Luke, copied a great deal of their 'gospel' from Mark. Yet Mark's work is 'midrash' of the OT.
So what are they actually referencing? Sounds like the 'origin' is really a story, that used the OT to tell it.
I just gave some of it to you above.
Again: http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html
Take some time and read it.
So you say. But here's something specific to matthew that shows that he's not just 'quoting the OT' but in fact building his story from the OT.
Matthew takes from Zechariah and attempts to make this a prophecy about "Jesus"
Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Now, this reference to a king cannot be a reference to jesus at all.... for many reasons... but let's leave those aside as there's an even bigger blunder here. And the blunder proves that the matthew author was not just using the OT to 'prove the authenticity' of jesus as the christ, but in fact was creating a story whole-cloth from the OT
The matthew author refers to both references to the same animal (the writing style of repetition) here as if they are actually two animals and he uses the same terms:
21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
Bring THEM both. TWO animals.
21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.
THEM. BOTH.
21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"
This verse claims that Jesus ordered that BOTH ANIMALS BE BROUGHT TO HIM SO THAT the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 would be fulfilled:
[B]21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
RIDE THEM BOTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS TWO ANIMALS. BOTH.
But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.
******The matthew author has commited an error.***********
21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
So the matthew author is not just 'citing the OT' for the jews... he's taking his story entirely from the OT. The proof is that this ridiculous story could only be born of a confused misreading of the OT, and not an eyewitness account.
This blunder reveals the truth.
See Rook's refutation of this claim.
They can't. They aren't.
Most of that comes from Josephus, and the passage in question is considered a fraudulent insertion!
Please see Rook's refutation for more. You just can't build a case from these writers.
Read it. It's trash. If you're really open minded, go and read this refutation of his nonsense.
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/
Strobel is pretty ignorant of pretty much everything he argues over.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
At the time of writing, many eyewitnesses were still about, so surely any inaccuracies in the Gospel would be challenged by them. Isn't a collaboration of eyewitness accounts more reliable than a single eyewitness telling his own account of the event?
as for josephus' testimony, http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html seems to give a pretty balanced view. It looks like not all the sources have been tampered with - some are kept in original form and still mention the existance of Jesus.
check out http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html for more evidence.
You're begging the question here. You can't prove they existed in the first place.
This again begs the question that they existed. How many times do you intend to repeat the same fallacy?
Yes. So you'd think that their would be one. But there are none.
Even Paul, who mentions witnesses, never gives us their names. Nor does he ever interview them, and get info from them.
How odd.
No. There's no good reason to believe that there are any jesus references in Josephus
Here's why.
His major work was a history of the Jews.
If he had evidence of jesus, jesus would have dominated his history book.
Instead, jesus gets no mention. None.
That would be like the moon exploding in 1979, and Carl Sagan not mentioning it in Cosmos.
You can stop citing things to me that I read 10 years ago, and instead focus on reading something yourself. If you have any knowledge whatsoever of Josephus, you'd realize the problem I just pointed out. But your sole knowledge of "josephus' probably came from an internet search.
Again, read Rook's posts...... learn something about what you're attemping to debate. Oh, and please at least try to respond to what I say, you tend to just ignore it all.
Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates
: Operation Spread Eagle, Kent Hovind, Creation Science, Evangelism Ministries, Eric Hovind, Jo Hovind, Liar, Evolution, Copyright, Fraud, Youtube, Fair Use La
What I find interesting, and what proves to the inability of Sharkys to actually read Josephus, is that Josephus gives us so much incredible detail into various cultures and sects, even so much to tell us EXACTLY step by step how an Essene made a bowl movement. Yet he can't provide us with any sort of helpful information into Jesus' life. How interesting...
----------------------------------------
Please help me get my resources so I can finish my book more quickly.
My wish list.
Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
"You act ridiculously," said Ion, "to doubt everything. For my part, I should like to ask you what you say to those who free possessed men from their terrors by exorcising the spirits so manifestly. I need not discuss this: everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine, the adept in it, how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind, delivering them from their straits for a large fee. When he stands beside them as they lie there and asks : 'Whence came you into his body?' the patient himself is silent, but the spirit answers in Greek or in the language of whatever foreign country he comes from, telling how and whence he entered into the man; whereupon, by adjuring the spirit and if he does not obey, threatening him, he drives him out. Indeed, I actually saw one coming out, black and smoky in color." "It is nothing much," I remarked," for you, Ion, to see that kind of sight, when even the 'forms' that the father of your school, Plato, points out are plain to you, a hazy object of vision to the rest of us, whose eyes are weak." - Lucian, Lover of Lies
Well I mentioned this "contest" too 2 ministers that I work with and they both said Josephus is non biblical proof. Why do I have to remind Christian Ministers that Josephus was not an eye witness? and that out of almost 20 volumes of jewish history written by him, only a couple sentences refer to a "Jesus" ? And this passage below that many christians refer to was written AFTER HE WAS CAPTURED BY THE ROMANS- this is very important as it makes absolutly no sence in his point of view to mention the Jesus character unless he was made to, by force.
"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."
[Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]
And this is still written in a "past" tense.The above passage that Christians are clinging on to is very unaccurate "proof" of anything.Christians- read up on some the history of Josephus and see that the above sentence is/was written under duress,if it was even written by him at all and not "planted" there .
"When you understand why YOU dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I DISMISS yours"
Good advertising gimmick.
Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, & Gaming God.