BF2S Forums Don't you just hate Christain Extremist

topal63 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

topal63 wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding the historical Jesus problem.


There is no such thing as evidence for non-existence. There is such a thing as evidence that implies existence, but not the converse. Also, you will find that the scholars (you're thinking of) will say they accept that Jesus proablably existed. And that is merely a belief.

Also, I doubt you've actually examined the evidence as it is basically non-existent. The actual (Biblical scholarship) evidence amounts to argumentation and not actual evidence.

I'm not saying he existed, but I can't say he didn't.  Besides, it's not my job to examine the evidence, I'm not archaeologist.  Did you watch the documentary of Discovery Channel about The lost tomb of Jesus?  What I say is we don't know for sure he didn't exist.  Not as a guy who resucitated and walked over the water, but as a person who was involved into politics.

Yes, I watched it, it is recycled old news. Nothing new actually.

Also saying a face-less, nameless person (as Jesus, the name, is not a Jewish name; it is a Greek name construct) who did not come from the non-existent town of Nazareth; that this mythical figure which is an amalgam/conflation of Greek mysticism, God-man dying myths, Jewish messianic thought - sprinkled with a few buddhistic & Greek philosophical ideas, but cannot be identified as a real person - is a historical person is an absurd opinion (IMO).

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-10 10:12:39)

David.Podedworny wrote:

If christ did'nt exist then how do we have the bible?

sergeriver wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Nazareth was founded after 135 CE. It is non-existent prior to that date. So Jesus in his so called time (life) would not be from a city (or living in it) that would be founded a century later.

Since the time of its first recorded reference, the city has been known by its Hebrew name, ‘Nazer’. We do not know when the area was first settled, but archaeological excavations in the Kufze cave close to Nazareth show that it was lived in during the Stone Age -- between a million years and thirty thousand years BC. The human remains unearthed there are among the oldest ever found.

I don't knwo about the million, lol, but maybe it existed when Jesus is supposed to have lived.

imortal wrote:

Think about Martin Luther King for a moment.  If we did not have radio, newspapers, or televisions, and people had to spread the story around, How would he be perceived now, only 50 years after he died?  What kind of "Yeah, I was right there" stories people would make up to feed off his fame?  Give it a few hundred more years, and is it unreasonable to assume that a religion would blossom around his teachings?  And would that be a bad thing, considering what MLK was preaching?

sergeriver wrote:

topal63 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Since the time of its first recorded reference, the city has been known by its Hebrew name, ‘Nazer’. We do not know when the area was first settled, but archaeological excavations in the Kufze cave close to Nazareth show that it was lived in during the Stone Age -- between a million years and thirty thousand years BC. The human remains unearthed there are among the oldest ever found.

I don't knwo about the million, lol, but maybe it existed when Jesus is supposed to have lived.

But when was that Nazareth founded? The one the cave is next too? The historical record demonstrates that no such place was mentioned prior to 135 CE. The Gospels appear in the Historical record around 150 CE. The appellation Jesus of Nazareth is an English translation of a Greek translation (or rather Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew conflation: Yeshua Netsor). And then a town was assumed to exist and found its way into the Gospel accounts.

The city, town, settlement, whatever you want to call that, was there at the time Jesus is supossed to have lived.  If it was called Nazareth or any other name that I don't know.

Nazareth itself was not a site of historic or major strategic importance &, thus, did not merit notice in any ancient text apart from the gospel references to it as the place of Jesus' origin. The earliest non-Christian reference is an inscription discovered in the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima that names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the Hadrianic war (135 CE).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 10:53:29)

topal63 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

topal63 wrote:

But when was that Nazareth founded? The one the cave is next too? The historical record demonstrates that no such place was mentioned prior to 135 CE. The Gospels appear in the Historical record around 150 CE. The appellation Jesus of Nazareth is an English translation of a Greek translation (or rather Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew conflation: Yeshua Netsor). And then a town was assumed to exist and found its way into the Gospel accounts.

The city, town, settlement, whatever you want to call that, was there at the time Jesus is supossed to have lived.  If it was called Nazareth or any other name that I don't know.

No it was not - there is no evidence in existence suggesting it was. You missed the point. It is known to have not existed prior to 135 CE.

Even any fairly knowledgeable Christian apologetic will acknowledge it is missing from the historical record:
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/nazareth.html

Nazareth itself was not a site of historic or major strategic importance &, thus, did not merit notice in any ancient text apart from the gospel references to it as the place of Jesus' origin. The earliest non-Christian reference is an inscription discovered in the synagogue of Caesarea Maritima that names Nazareth as one of the places in Galilee where the priestly families of Judea migrated after the Hadrianic war (135 CE).

This is the point: the appellation Jesus of Nazareth is an English translation of a Greek translation (or rather Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew conflation: Yeshua Netsor).
http://englishatheist.org/nazareth.shtml

Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-10 10:51:37)

sergeriver wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Nazareth was founded after 135 CE. It is non-existent prior to that date. So Jesus in his so called time (life) would not be from a city (or living in it) that would be founded a century later.

Since the time of its first recorded reference, the city has been known by its Hebrew name, ‘Nazer’. We do not know when the area was first settled, but archaeological excavations in the Kufze cave close to Nazareth show that it was lived in during the Stone Age -- between a million years and thirty thousand years BC. The human remains unearthed there are among the oldest ever found.

I don't know about the million years stuff, lol, but maybe it existed when Jesus is supposed to have lived.

topal63 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

There is no such thing as evidence for non-existence. There is such a thing as evidence that implies existence, but not the converse. Also, you will find that the scholars (you're thinking of) will say they accept that Jesus proablably existed. And that is merely a belief.

That's not entirely true.

About the evidence for non-existence (although put like that it doesn't sound right). You could have evidence that something did not exist. For example if lots of credible ancient documents were found detailing a Roman plot in which Jesus was made us a a character - that would be evidence Jesus was not real.

Personally I think there probably was a person called Jesus, who was probably some sort of radical activist who gained notoriety by being executed for his radical and outspoken beliefs.

Whilst there are no writings about Jesus by people who met him, apart from dubious biblical sources, there are writings about him by historians such as Tacitus, not long after his death. This most likely explanation for this is that he was not well known until after his death.

Debunking a claim (finding evidence contrary to a claim) - is not the same as evidence for non-existence. There is no such thing in existence to date as evidence for Christ. If evidence were found that weighs against the idea of an actual Christ; then you would have (a.) no evidence for an historical Christ; and (b.) evidence that weighs against an historical Christ. As of now the case is just (a).

Tacitus was born some 20 years after the supposed myth of a god-man dieing. He would have been writing his annals about 110 CE (but no such ancient Tacitus texts exists), you do realize that that any Tacitus Texts in question, are copies; copied/ written from other sources some 700 or more years later. The mention of the “Christiani” therein are not Chirst nor are they Christians. This is evidence of the Jewish revolts and the Temple Destruction (historical fact). It is not evidence of Jesus Christ - in any way.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … reans.html

Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.

Bertster7 wrote:

Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.

There is little consensus as to the historical nature of the sect identified by Tacitus in Annales 15.44 as the Christiani. Nor is there any firm consensus on the authenticity and historicity of all of that fragment known as Tacitus' fragment 2 (= Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-7), whose references to "Christiani" are widely suspected of being later Christian interpolations. Much of this fragment is thought, nevertheless, to be from the lost portion of the fifth book of Tacitus' Historiae.

It is reported that Titus had first deliberated, in a council called up for the purpose, whether he should destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed improper to some that a sacred shrine, famous beyond everything mortal, should be destroyed, a shrine which could serve as a testimony to Roman moderation, but if torn down would provide a continual evidence of their cruelty. But, on the other hand, others, even Titus himself, argued the Temple had to be torn down above all things, so the religion of the Jews and Christians could be swept away even more completely. For these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless arose from the very same authors. The Christians appeared from among the Jews, so with the foundation torn away, the offspring will easily pass away. And so by the will of God, once everyone's mind was inspired to the task, the Temple was destroyed.

Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse, an templum tanti operis everteret. Etenim nonnullis videbatur, aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri, quae servata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in primis templum censebant, quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur: quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus profectas. Christianos ex Iudaeis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile perituram. Ita Dei nutu accensis omnium animis templum dirutum.

After seizing the Temple, which he nevertheless admired because of its workmanship and antiquity, Titus deliberated for a long time whether to set on fire this inspiration of the enemy, or spare it as a testimony to his victory. But since the Church of God had already grown very fruitfully throughout the whole world, this temple was essentially vain and pointless, and suitable for no good use to anyone, so by the will of God it had to be destroyed. And so, once the emperor was pronounced by the army, Titus burned the Temple in Jerusalem.

Quod tamen postquam in potestatem redactum opere atque antiquitate suspexit, diu deliberavit, utrum tamquam incitamentum hostium incenderet, an in testimonium victoriae reservaret. Sed Ecclesia Dei jam per totum orbem uberrime germinante, hoc tamquam effetum ac vacuum, nullique usui bono commodum, arbitrio Dei auferendum fuit. Itaque Titus imperator ab exercitu pronuntiatus, templum in Hierosolymis incendit.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-10 11:32:44)

topal63 wrote:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … reans.html

Bertster7 wrote:

Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race.

The translation (English interpolation) above is just that - it is not the original first century Tacitus Text. That (original) does not exist.

There is little consensus as to the historical nature of the sect identified by Tacitus in Annales 15.44 as the Christiani. Nor is there any firm consensus on the authenticity and historicity of all of that fragment known as Tacitus' fragment 2 (= Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-7), whose references to "Christiani" are widely suspected of being later Christian interpolations. Much of this fragment is thought, nevertheless, to be from the lost portion of the fifth book of Tacitus' Historiae.

Thought to be - equals - might be; and nothing more.

Severus quoting Tacitus (Sulpicius Severus Chronica 2.30.6-8):

It is reported that Titus had first deliberated, in a council called up for the purpose, whether he should destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed improper to some that a sacred shrine, famous beyond everything mortal, should be destroyed, a shrine which could serve as a testimony to Roman moderation, but if torn down would provide a continual evidence of their cruelty. But, on the other hand, others, even Titus himself, argued the Temple had to be torn down above all things, so the religion of the Jews and Christians could be swept away even more completely. For these religions, although hostile to each other, nevertheless arose from the very same authors. The Christians appeared from among the Jews, so with the foundation torn away, the offspring will easily pass away. And so by the will of God, once everyone's mind was inspired to the task, the Temple was destroyed.

Fertur Titus adhibito consilio prius deliberasse, an templum tanti operis everteret. Etenim nonnullis videbatur, aedem sacratam ultra omnia mortalia illustrem non oportere deleri, quae servata modestiae Romanae testimonium, diruta perennem crudelitatis notam praeberet. At contra alii et Titus ipse evertendum in primis templum censebant, quo plenius Iudaeorum et Christianorum religio tolleretur: quippe has religiones, licet contrarias sibi, isdem tamen ab auctoribus profectas. Christianos ex Iudaeis extitisse: radice sublata stirpem facile perituram. Ita Dei nutu accensis omnium animis templum dirutum.

A contemporary of Severus, Paulus Orosius (History Against the Pagans 7.9.4-6), records a very similar story in completely different words. Comparing the two, it is undeniable that Severus and Orosius are drawing from a common source (or from each other). Yet Orosius makes no mention of "destroying the Christians" as a reason for destroying the Temple voiced by Titus or anyone else. Instead, Orosius says:

After seizing the Temple, which he nevertheless admired because of its workmanship and antiquity, Titus deliberated for a long time whether to set on fire this inspiration of the enemy, or spare it as a testimony to his victory. But since the Church of God had already grown very fruitfully throughout the whole world, this temple was essentially vain and pointless, and suitable for no good use to anyone, so by the will of God it had to be destroyed. And so, once the emperor was pronounced by the army, Titus burned the Temple in Jerusalem.

Quod tamen postquam in potestatem redactum opere atque antiquitate suspexit, diu deliberavit, utrum tamquam incitamentum hostium incenderet, an in testimonium victoriae reservaret. Sed Ecclesia Dei jam per totum orbem uberrime germinante, hoc tamquam effetum ac vacuum, nullique usui bono commodum, arbitrio Dei auferendum fuit. Itaque Titus imperator ab exercitu pronuntiatus, templum in Hierosolymis incendit.

Two different interpretations of Tacitius.

topal63 wrote:

The mention of the “Christiani” therein are not Chirst nor are they Christians.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

religion is a gateway drug.