You'd like that, because you can't understand why he was brought up to begin with. You call him a strawman because you don't get the importance of Paul to the subject matter, which once again shows how ignorant you are concerning the historical nature of this claim.

Allow me to explain. Paul is the only bridge between Jesus' death and Christianity. There is nothing else before Paul that is accepted by the church. Paul is the only link. That's a thirty - forty year gap between Jesus' supposed death, to the first time EVER, anybody writes about him. 30 years is a long amount of time to pass by without a single jot of ink to be scribed in your name, or about you, especially if you're claiming to be the son of God (Or claiming to BE God).

Paul isn't just vital to the case of establishing Jesus' historicity, but he is the ONLY case you have to establish it, and he's anti-historical when it comes to Jesus, as shown above. But since you are a hack, you don't get that. That's cool though.

Have you been paying attention?

Aristotle published and wrote his own works. Only a selected handful were published postumously.

Nope. Only a small handful of writings, which were hidden away during the time of the fall of the Greek Empire and during the subsequent wars after, around 70 BCE they were collected by Roman authorities, and recopied. They were then authorized into later additions some years later, the additions we use today. However Aristotle published over 45 books and dialogues. Many were lost, but philosophers and politicians dating back to the time of Aristotle (including Alexander the Great who was Aristotle's student) spoke of his works and his personality.

By the way, that would mean it was only around 500 years, not 900.

Several problems arise here, and mainly speak to how little you understand about the method by which to establish somebodies historicity. Here is a list I compiled to show you the differences between Aristotle and Jesus and why Aristotle is considered to be a real person and why Jesus likely wasn't.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ARITSTOLE AND JESUS
ARISTOTLE

1. 1. Facts about Aristotle’s life are not in question. We know when he was born, when he died (384-322 B.C.E), who his parents were, (Nicomachus – father – who was a physician to King Amyntas III, and Phaestis his mother) who his friends were and who his teacher was (Plato).
2. 2. Most importantly, over 45 works are attributed TO him, although some of those are said to be dictated by some of his students in one of his many schools which he taught at.
3. 3. Aristotle never claimed to be perfect, or a God, or even a son of a God. Nobody has a dogmatic philosophy on the life of Aristotle. If Aristotle didn’t exist, nobody’s world view would change.
4. 4. Aristotle changed the course of time, coming up with several new schools of thought, including new ways to look at math, science, philosophy, politics, and ethics. His original thoughts and views helped form and shape the politics of a world.
5. 5. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle.
6. 6. Every Greek philosopher and scientist throughout the ages has used Aristotle as a base for their works. Including Harpalus, Hephaestion, Nicomachus and Theophrastus. Even Aquinas used Aristotle.
7. 7. All of the information we have about Aristotle does not conflict with history.
8. 8. There is no reason to doubt the existence of Aristotle, because there is such a large amount of evidence for his existence, as well as nothing that conflicts with history and historical accounts of Aristotle and his life.

JESUS

1. 1. Jesus’ early life is obscure. We do not know his birth date, or even the year. We don’t have the year of his death. If you are claiming Jesus was just a man, of course nothing exists to prove a natural birth so this evidence is non-existent. We know nothing of his childhood, save at 12, then he vanishes again. And we know his parents first names.
2. 2. Jesus never wrote one book, one sentence, not even as much as a letter.
3. 3. Jesus claimed to be all three of these attributes, and more. And over 33 million people around the world follow the idea that Jesus was these attributes and more. If Jesus was shown not to exist, his message would be lost and people would no longer be Christian (Because the definition of a Christian is to believe in Christ as the Messiah, that he died for our sins).
4. 4. None of Jesus’ supposed teachings are original. Justin Martyr also admits to Trypho that Jesus’ teachings and that of the Christians were documented earlier in the Greek philosophies of Aristotle (ironically), Socrates, and Plato. All of the teachings of Jesus can be found in religions that existed hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. In John 1:1, a similar passage can be found in Heraclitus.
5. 5. No major figure in History ever had direct contact with Jesus. No historical commentary about any major figure in history ever places them near or around Jesus in any fashion. In all the volumes of Josephus, never once does it state that Herod murdered a great multitude of infants at the birth of some savior figure. Nor does it state anywhere that Pilate killed Jesus in any Roman record.
6. 6. No great work of science or philosophy ever came from Jesus, or one of Jesus’ followers. All are void of intelligent thought, and contain evidence of following in the footsteps of servitude.
7. 7. In the trial alone of Jesus, there contains anywhere from 14-27 infractions of Sanhedrin and Roman law. This does not include a large sum of historical contradictions outside of the trial, which traverse into the hundreds.
8. 8. In every aspect of Christ’s supposed life, there is reason to question his existence because of the errors, contradictions and fallacies not only within the Bible, but concerning the utter lack of evidence concerning the events of his life.
   Quote:

   Few doubt the extant of Alexander the Great. And let's not forget, he too "claimed" himself to have been a god. Who among you doubts A.G. was a real man? Why not Jesus?

   Alexander the Great actually accomplished certain feats in his life that are evident. For example, archeaological evidence of his camps, battles, seiges, we have physical evidence of his life.

   There is also a lot of contemporary accounts of his life. We also know his father, mother, friends, family, lifestyle and his childhood years. We know his battles, how they happened, when they happened, etc...

   There is a reason why we have such a wealth of information on these individuals, and that is because there is a method by which to establish if somebody is historical or not.

   Jesus is missing such a wealth of information, and in fact, nothing exists physically or in literature to validate his existence. The utter lack of anything for him is incredulous to say the least.

   And for your own reference, Hollywood is not the best place to get your facts. Alexander the Great never called himself a God. He was said to have been of the bloodline of a demi-God, that of Hercules. But he himself never claimed to be a God.

   Quote:

   The testimonies and letters that comprise the New Testament, are just that; testimonials from people who knew or had heard about a man named Jesus.

   Not a single book in the New Testament was written by somebody who new Jesus. You're just lying now.

   Quote:

   Many of these books and letters are personal accounts from eyewitness testimony to support the fact Jesus was real.

   Not a single one. I can't believe that you are this incompitent.

   Quote:

   Whoah...now, I hope I am not offending you here, that's not the intention...but stick with me for a little while longer okay?. Open those minds like you say you can.

   Look who is talking?! You are so full of it I can't see the color of your eyes past the brown stains. You need to seriously just stop talking, because nothing you say is remotely close to accurate. I challenge you to go to any historian at any university locally to you and tell them that the New Testament books are eyewitness accounts. They'll laugh at you.

   Quote:

   There are a multitude of other resources that make reference to the same historical items referred to by the writings of those original group, as well as those that followed after. Many of the prominent people mentioned in both the secular and non-secular that are verifiable people of the day. With the help of modern archeology, many of the places and customs written about by those disciples can be verified and authenticated.

   This doesn't prove Jesus.

   Quote:

   There are many resources, that describe the early Christian movement, and testify the instigator was a man called Christ.

   Early Christian movement? There were no "early Christians." The name "Christian" never appeared until the scond century. In fact for the early second century, Jews and "Christians" were all lumped together as Jews. Read Seutonius, Tacitus, Plutarch...of course ytou won't because that would be honest.

   Quote:

   Some of the second century writers relate to some detail what impact the movement had on contemporary society. were going on at the beginning of the very calendar system we use today.

   And here I thought we were using the Gregorian Calender established in the sixteenth century?

   The Dumbass Using Lucian wrote:

   Lucian of Samosata wrote:

   
   Lucian was a Greek satirest of the later halfo fo the second century.

   As Lucian said: ”The Christians you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, 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 the contempt of death an voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that 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 quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine
   

   Sounds pretty real to me, how about you?

   Watch how easy it is to reute Lucian. Ready? Get ready or you might miss it.

   Lucian, (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." Regardless of the fact that this is NOT AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT BUT WRITTEN 120 YEARS AFTER THE SUPPOSED DEATH OF JESUS, nowhere in any of his writings does Lucian mention the man's name, or the cult he brought into the world. This is a SPECIAL PLEADING argument by Christians, we are too ASSUME he is talking about Jesus.

   Except that THOUSANDS of people were crucified in Palestine, and many of these men were known to start new religions, especially around the time of Lucian. Palestine covers an area roughly hundreds of miles from north to south and east to west, it spreads from north of Damascus to the far south, past Masada and the Dead Sea. The ONLY thing this proves is that a man was killed because he started a cult.

   Quote:

   As translated by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that 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.

   This is a faulty and partial translation. The real translation is as follows (Another part of this translation below):

   1. "These deluded creatures, you see, have persuaded themselves that they are immortal and will live forever, which explains the contempt of death and willing self-sacrifice so common among them. It was impressed on them too by their lawgiver that from the moment they are converted, deny the gods of Greece, worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws, they are all brothers. They take his instructions completely on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods and hold them in common ownership. So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them."

   More on this below.

   Lucian does not name specifically the crucified figure as Jesus Christ. This whole argument is now bunk because it depends on Special Pleading. The plea is that we accept that Lucian is talking about Jesus of Nazareth, but clearly it isn’t certain.

   He does speak a LOT about Christians, in fact he ridicules them! He believes rather thoroughly that Christianity is a scam. Lucian satirized the Christians in his Passing of Peregrines (From which your quote derives) a story of a philosopher sage who at one point becomes a leader of the Christians to take advantage of their gullibility. His last statement says it all, “So any adroit, unscrupulous fellow, who knows the world, has only to get among these simple souls and his fortune is quickly made; he plays with them.”

   In fact, when he states, “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector….” He is speaking of his character he concocted, the sage philosopher, who the Christians worshiped and took on as their God, and who was better then all their (the Christians) scribes and priests.

   What is more amusing about your non-researched speculation is that you seem to think Lucian has some sort of knowledge concerning the existence of Jesus, where in fact it’s just not true.

   As Jeffery Jay Lowder, author of Josh McDowell’s “Evidence” for Jesus: Is It Reliable?, writes concerning Lucian, “Nevertheless, given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources, we will never know. Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified. (Take note that this is in the case that by some light the passage might refer to Jesus...not that it does.)

   He states, in his conclusion as well, “Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian are not independent witnesses to the historicity of Jesus.” Regardless of what references are made AFTER the fact, he’s not an eye-witness ergo he CANNOT be used to prove the existence of Jesus. He wasn’t even a CONTEMPORARY!

   So we have two main problems associated with Lucian:
   

   1. 1. Lucian was NOT a contemporary or eye-witness.
   2. 2. Lucian does NOT mention Jesus OR the cult this man who was crucified in Palestine started.

   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.

   And to make the argument that Lucian was discribing the culture of the Christians in relation to Christ, this is just plain absurd. 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" loved and died somehow. And since Christ more "saviors" have followed. Whether they be of the Chrestians and Christians, Simon the Magi (Or SImon Magnus), Marcion or one such as Alexander and his followers (Also written by Lucian).

   Incidentally...Alexander was claiming to be the son of Zeus (hmm) and he was a sage, and an oracle. He preformed miracles that Lucian also mocked. The following are excerpts from his works concerning Alexander:

   "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 am­biguous, 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?)

This is the best you can give me? This is the very problem with you, Elnathan, you don't do any independant study. All you would have to do is search for Lucian and see how far the distance is between Christs supposed death and Lucian. You could hgave easily read his works yourself to get the gist of what he was talking about. Instead you just blindly follow what some other dolt wrote about on a Christian website without looking into it, and once again, been shown to be the fraud you are.

Now go run along and play somewhere. I've said it to you once and I'll keep telling you, your level of knowledge in this field is trivial compared to mine. You are like a child playing with lions.

You forgot to add - "who most likely never existed either".

Really? So you can bring about evidence written before Paul? I'd love to see this.

He most certainly is. There is no one prose or gospel written before Paul. There is a considerable 30-40 year gap between jesus and Paul where not a thing is written. Are you even paying attention?

Scholars and historians, most whom teach at top ten schools like Cambridge and Harvard, Oxford and Cheney. What do you have to bring to the table?

By the way, calling something "crap" does not invalidate it. You need to back up your "crap" claim. For example, if you could present evidence of literature of some sort before Paul, that would prove your point. Otherwise, you're just trying to make yourself look smart again, and doing a piss-poor job of it.

Again, please present your contemporary accounts of jesus. So far you've proposed Josephus, Lucian and Suetonius, all of which were non-contemporary accounts and were easily refuted. In fact, they were refuted so well you ignored the parts of my posts dealing with them all together. As if they didn't exist.

You'd really like that, wouldn't you? if only that were the truth. It's ashame that you cannot present physical textual evidence to support this however. A damn shame. Keep on lying, brother.

The sad thing is, I don't have to lie to back up my points like you do. And what is even more sad is how easily one can see through your deception. So, in that case, you didn't try hard enough.

Word of warning. The next post you make that doesn't deal in truth, will be deleted, or you will be banned. I'm tired of warning you, and I've been more then tolerable towards your lies. I told you before, and this is your second warning - we do not tolerate lies for long, so the more you keep them coming, the more you will have to face the fact that you will be gone from here.

Now, back to the subject at hand....that is...you providing me with some textual evidence of an author beofre Paul who wrote about Jesus.

So you admit that you have no evidence that any of the apostles existed?

elnathan,

If we both agree upon the existence of Jesus and move toward some of the other points brought up such as the veracity of the claims in the bible. You contend that since the apostles not only worked vigorously to spread the gospel but ultimately died for it, that it lends credibility to the claim. Essentially, why would someone die for a lie. It was brought to your attention figures like David Koresh and Jim Jones ( to name just a few), where people believe wholeheartedly of the claims made by these men and died for them. What would be your response to this in contrast to the apostles?

Also since the apostles witnessed the miracles Jesus performed, and they died for their convictions you believe that Jesus did indeed performed miracles ( am I correct in my assertion?). However are you familiar with the miracles at Fatima? If so, do you believe them? Why or Why not?

Thanks

I really don't see how your post is helpful. There are plenty of reasons why theists in general, and Elnathan in particular have no interest in listening to reasoned debate, and instead seek to attack the person. The idea that he was the victim of some abuse is ridiculous.

As for avoiding personal attacks in posts, why not be the change you want to be first?

Please move on and keep your personal gripes to yourself.

You mentioned me by name. You're not able to follow your own posts, are you?

It won't be 'helpful.' And it wasn't intended to be 'helpful'. If you wanted to "help" Rook or myself you'd write to us, and talk to us.

And what you wrote involved blaming Rook and myself, without even considering what the theist himself said or didn't say, to bring on this purported behavior.

So there's not even a potential to help - just you acting holier than thou... even as you now show your true colors here.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words. You listed it as the large factor behind it:

You asked why he didn't listen, and listed the 'constant insults from me and rook' as the 'large factor'.

You blame the 'constant insults' yet don't consider that

1) who tossed insults first?
2) whether or not the theist ever had an intention to listen

The 'insults' are not the 'large' factor.

You don't seem to be able to follow your own words. You wrote on rook's supposed behavior and its effect on the conversation. That's what you focused on.

You really aren't very good at arguing points, because you're always having to distance yourself from your own words.

I don't. But this is RR. I'm a mod here. I have no choice but to run into you and other people looking to troll the board under the guise of 'being helpful'

One more post from you on this, and say bye bye. I've had enough you going on about personal issues.

If I said, "Hey Natural, how do you and todangst feel aout this?" I addressed it to you, but the fat that I also wasked todangst while addressing you gives him the reign to answer. Don't get into semantics, it's not worth it. The emphasis is mine. You are clearly blaming "us guys" (todangst included by the way) for profane language which is turning elnathan away. Whether you meant to or not, your words speak for themselves, as you state below, and they speak of exactly what Todangst is suggesting. The fact that you state very clearly a.) that we should wonder WHY elnathan is reluctant to listen and b.) our conclusions should be because of the large factor of profane language. This is clearly blame here. Don't try to act like the sugar-coating you applied to the terms made it any less then that. You can cloak one word for another, but an automobile is still a vehicle. Again, more poetry. You are still placing the blame on us for extracting said consequences. That is not an interpretation of your words, it's clearly what you said. Regardless of the fact that you think you were just pointing out cause and effect, somebody has to be the cause of an effect. No, what you said was: Why do you suppose that eln' is so reluctant to actually listen to what you and todangst have to say? I think it's pretty obvious that a large factor is the constant insults they get from you guys. If you don't see any blame in there you're just being dishonest. Your own words are as good as any. Hold on now. I've known Chris (Todangst) for a long time, and I know he is not the one to hold grudges. In fact he is the most tolerant and level-headed guy I know. If he has a problem with you that tells me that it is very substantial and I have reason to doubt your honesty. Because that is how close of a community we are. If you want to make him look like some sort of vengeful irrational person, best do it where the admin's of the boards don't know him. Becaus ehe is the farthest thing from that one human being can get in my opinion. I think you should be intimidated and I think you SHOULD walk on eggshells because you have a lot to prove to this community. You don't want to be threatened, then start proving to us that you are worth while to trust and that shouldn't be hard. So far I've seen a lot of dishonesty in your posts in this thread - including claiming (erroneously) that you weren't talking to todangst when clearly you were talking to both of us. I want you to understand that I have Chris' back, and if he tells me you're not good, you're gone. Because that is how we work around here. He has been very restrained about this situation, and I doubt he'd ever ask me to kick somebody, but be aware that all I need to hear is a word from him. Understand? Now, I want this conversation to be over with. If it doesn't pertain to the supposed evidences of Jesus posts in this thread will be deleted from here on out. Please, you re-opened a dead thread first, not him. He didn't come out and say, "Man that Natural guy is gonna be a dick and post something." YOU did. He was defending himself and most importantly ME when he felt that you were blaming us for something you weren't aware of. The fact that you are now jumping through hoops to get out of this is evidence to me that Chris is right. If you wanted to "help us" YOU could have taken this to PM's instead of publically trying to start something, which I can only assume based on your behavior was your intention. Now, this conversation is over, or I will not wait for Chris' words to take action. I hope I've made myself clear.

 

 

I've already demonstrated that you're just a troll with an axe to grind. You called me out by name. I've warned you to drop your vendetta and move on. Yet here you are again. 

And now for something completely different:

So far most of the evidence proposed for the "historical Jesus" is equally evidence for the Mythic Jesus (Rook you seem to be the expert on this) except Josephus and the testimonium which is in probability a later interpolation. Correct so far?

Internal evidence from Paul indicates a strong probability of his belief in a spiritual "Annointed Savior".  Now my quibble is on why in the verse relating his vision to the visions of Peter and the Twelve does he make a point of being born out of time?  This is a small point, but possibly a telling one that there was a man whom Paul's Christ was superimposed on.  Or that the original Twelve had some sort of shared vision which he could not take part in.