This is hilarious
Stu: "Can't support what you say so you get pathetic, as usual."
Jem: "Please support what you say Stu."
Stu: "Grow up."
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
crazy christians:Interracial Couples Banned From Kentucky Church
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Stu: "Can't support what you say so you get pathetic, as usual."
Jem: "Please support what you say Stu."
Stu: "Grow up."
so you have nothing but bs to offer as your evidence that the bible is god inspired?
Quote from traderwann:
You are pretty funny. You think you made a point by saying I can't back up something which is not relevant to the bigger picture!? LOL, yeah that makes sense. This is just more distracting, avoiding, detracting, attacking, etc.
I stated explicitly that I don't call myself Christian, that I only read the actual text, did some corroborating research and found that 99% of what atheists offer is out of context or fails most tests of logic and reason. Look in the mirror before telling other people what to do! You may start with being able to actually follow along and remember what is said.
They used texts which are not claimed to be inspired by God or anything like that. It doesn't matter which specific one it could be anything, the point was to make a statistical comparison. If you understood at all what is being said you wouldn't have asked this!
Sigh. Ok. It is irrelevant all this. You don't understand clearly. The point is the result of the comparison, it doesn't matter how old the texts are or how many copies! If it gives an objective result then it gives an objective result. Period. This is what I mean about illogical and unreasonable stuff offered by athiests. They are willing to say anything. Further, there is more direct and indirect proof for what is written in scripture than there is for many commonly accepted historical texts. So you have to be intellectually dishonest hypocrite (biased) to go down this road, or just uninformed. Which one are you?
Quote from jem:
If the question is whether Jesus was a historical figure the answer is yes.
There are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus and almost all scholars concur the second mention is authentic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Josephus
Main article: Josephus on Jesus
Flavius Josephus (c. 37âc. 100), a Jew and Roman citizen who worked under the patronage of the Flavians, wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in AD 93. In these works, Jesus is mentioned twice, though scholars debate their authenticity. The one directly concerning Jesus has come to be known as the Testimonium Flavianum.
In the first passage, called the Testimonium Flavianum, it is written:
About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day.[71]
Concerns have been raised about the authenticity of the passage, and it is widely held by scholars that at least part of the passage has been altered by a later scribe. The Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion and controversy of interpolation. Louis H. Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937â1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part."[72] Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt.[73] There has been no consensus on which portions have been altered, or to what degree. However, Geza Vermes points out in an in-depth analysis of the passage that much of the language is typically Josephan, which not only supports the hypothesis that Josephus did write something about Jesus, but also may aid in determining which parts of the passage are genuine.[74] While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[75] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[76] since some portions are written in his style.[77]
In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[78] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[79] Hegesippus, in a work produced around 165-175, also has an account of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with Josephus regarding the death of James the Just (c70 CE vs Josephus' c64).[80][81][82]
In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,[83] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the 3rd century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.[84] However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any 3rd century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.[85]
The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome (died in 420 AD) and Michael the Syrian (died in 1199 AD) quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian indicates the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium in the 5th century, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.[citation needed]
Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars have argued that the version of the Tes
i guess you just missed the "first person evidence "part. no matter.its still questionable. what we have here are a couple of passing mentions,written 60 years after the fact,both of which are disputed, that basically say i heard stories about a man named jesus. nothing more. hardly valid evidence in any court of law.
"Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there is a fourth option: legend." (Bart Ehrman American New Testament scholar)
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
Not a single writer before the 4th century â not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. â in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephusâ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.
It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
Consider, also, the anomalies:
1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!
2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?
In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.
It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.
3. The question of context.
Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with "all sorts of misfortunes" which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).
Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the "fourth sect of philosophy ... which laid the foundation of our future miseries." That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, "which before we were unacquainted withal."
At the very point we might expect a mention of "Christians" (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!
"It was in Gessius Florus's time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."
"Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord." Sound a tad familiar?
Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.
Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate's attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy â placing Caesar's ensigns in Jerusalem â Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy â providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.
At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!
Immediately after, Josephus continues:
"And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..."
There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was "another terrible misfortune" for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).
With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The "aqueduct massacre" now justifies "another terrible misfortune."
Your jesus never existed author... just like Stu... misses the main piece of evidence from Josephus. The second passage of Josephus is virtually undisputed... your "expert" only addresses the TF version.
Odd for and "expert" don't you think.
"Josephus (c37-100 AD)
...
"At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.
In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:
1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.
In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything â now that is a miracle!""
www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
Odd for and "expert" don't you think.
"Josephus (c37-100 AD)
...
"At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.
In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:
1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophecy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.
In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything â now that is a miracle!""
www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
Quote from Free Thinker:
i guess you just missed the "first person evidence "part. no matter.its still questionable. what we have here are a couple of passing mentions,written 60 years after the fact,both of which are disputed, that basically say i heard stories about a man named jesus. nothing more. hardly valid evidence in any court of law.
"Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord. But there is a fourth option: legend." (Bart Ehrman American New Testament scholar)
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html
Not a single writer before the 4th century â not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. â in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephusâ wondrous words.
The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."
Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.
It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.
Consider, also, the anomalies:
1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?
The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!
2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?
In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.
It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.
3. The question of context.
Antiquities 18 is primarily concerned with "all sorts of misfortunes" which befell the Jews during a period of thirty-two years (4-36 AD).
Josephus begins with the unpopular taxation introduced by the Roman Governor Cyrenius in 6 AD. He presents a synopsis of the three established Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), but his real quarry is the "fourth sect of philosophy ... which laid the foundation of our future miseries." That was the sect of Judas the Galilean, "which before we were unacquainted withal."
At the very point we might expect a mention of "Christians" (if any such sect existed) we have instead castigation of tax rebels!
"It was in Gessius Florus's time [64-66] that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and made them revolt from the Romans; and these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."
"Nor can fear of death make them call any man Lord." Sound a tad familiar?
Chapter 2 notes the cities built to honour the Romans; the frequent changes in high priest (up to Caiaphas) and Roman procurators (up to Pontius Pilate); and also the turmoil in Parthia.
Chapter 3, containing the Testimonium as paragraph three, is essentially about Pilate's attempts to bring Jerusalem into the Roman system. With his first policy â placing Caesar's ensigns in Jerusalem â Pilate was forced to back down by unexpected Jewish protests in Caesarea. With his second policy â providing Jerusalem with a new aqueduct built with funds sequestered from the Temple, Pilate made ready for Jewish protests. Concealed weapons on his soldiers caused much bloodshed.
At this point the paragraph about Jesus is introduced!
Immediately after, Josephus continues:
"And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ..."
There is no way that Josephus, who remained an orthodox Jew all his life and defended Judaism vociferously against Greek critics, would have thought that the execution of a messianic claimant was "another terrible misfortune" for the Jews. This is the hand of a Christian writer who himself considered the death of Jesus to be a Jewish tragedy (fitting in with his own notions of a stiff-necked race, rejected by God because they themselves had rejected the Son of God).
With paragraph 3 removed from the text the chapter, in fact, reads better. The "aqueduct massacre" now justifies "another terrible misfortune."
This is what I just had to teach Stu... for the 50th time.
Quote from jem:
There you are pulling your atheist fraud again.
I repeatedly reference the virtually undisputed this passage in Antiquites
"so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and someothers (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned." (Antiquities 20.9.1)
which virtually all scholars accept as authentic.
--
you ignore the evidence which establishes Jesus' authenticity and base your misrepresentations on
Testimonium Flavianum -- which scholars agree was probably altered in the middle ages in some manuscripts.
What stirs you to be such a liar. Why lie about facts?
Quote from traderwann:
so you have nothing but bs to offer as your evidence that all scripture is a myth?
still waiting for that evidence you promised us. you are the one who said you could prove scripture was god inspired. did you just make that up or do you believe that because somebody told you so but you really havent researched it yourself?
the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Albert Einstein
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.Thomas Jefferson
i guess you still are missing the hypocritical biased intellectually dishonest part which has been mentioned MANY times, that you are applying two different standards of evidence, one for scripture and one for the rest of history, that is biased and you are clearly biased .... if you remember my point, it is that what most athiests offer as proof is out of context, biased and fails most tests of logic and reasonQuote from Free Thinker:
i guess you just missed the "first person evidence "part.
this is what you keep doing ... you will keep doing it until you stop doing it, there's not much else to be said
the bottom line is there are some anomalies or questions to scripture, BUT, you are not addressing them nor are you admitting there are equal amounts of anomalies and questions to many things in this world (biased, hypocritical again)
the end result is that true real Christians and/or other true, real religious types don't have many outright problems with other people as long as no harm is done, but most athiests have an inherent problem with Christians even when no harm is done, then representing the spectacular achievements of deception, many athiests are used as tools to blame real, true Christians for the actions of non-Christians which most real, true Christians would also condemn if you just asked instead of assumed!
it's a logical nightmare ... one can only shine a light into the mudpit of deceit to show there's a better alternative, one that actually makes sense
no really, so you have nothing but bs to offer as your evidence that all scripture is a myth?Quote from Free Thinker:
still waiting for that evidence you promised us. you are the one who said you could prove scripture was god inspired. did you just make that up or do you believe that because somebody told you so but you really havent researched it yourself?
the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
Albert Einstein
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.Thomas Jefferson
Quote from traderwann:
i guess you still are missing the hypocritical biased intellectually dishonest part which has been mentioned MANY times, that you are applying two different standards of evidence, one for scripture and one for the rest of history, that is biased and you are clearly biased .... if you remember my point, it is that what most athiests offer as proof is out of context, biased and fails most tests of logic and reason
this is what you keep doing ... you will keep doing it until you stop doing it, there's not much else to be said
the bottom line is there are some anomalies or questions to scripture, BUT, you are not addressing them nor are you admitting there are equal amounts of anomalies and questions to many things in this world (biased, hypocritical again)
the end result is that true real Christians and/or other true, real religious types don't have many outright problems with other people as long as no harm is done, but most athiests have an inherent problem with Christians even when no harm is done, then representing the spectacular achievements of deception, many athiests are used as tools to blame real, true Christians for the actions of non-Christians which most real, true Christians would also condemn if you just asked instead of assumed!
it's a logical nightmare ... one can only shine a light into the mudpit of deceit to show there's a better alternative, one that actually makes sense
lol. what the hell are you babbling about?