Scientists slowly proving the bible is right.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
What I am saying, you idiot, which should be perfectly obvious to all but the most dumb brained deceitful JC queers like yourself, is that Christian apologetic scholars never actually have had anything that can be rightly or honestly called historical evidence for your iron age boy friend savior.
so when I give you this quote from wikipedia.... in order to protect your atheist meme you do not acknowledge the existence of the citation?
Why not just be an agnostic? I really do not get your zeal.
You can still think Christians are idiots...
Why is it so hard to admit that some top scientists think our universe looks designed or that very few if any serious scholars think Jesus is just a myth...
admitting those facts does not make you Christian... it just makes you rational....
so anyway here is the quote... with the correct citation which says "all scholars"....
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[66]
The above quotation from the Antiquities is considered authentic in its entirety by almost all scholars.[9]
The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person, but is a fictional character or mythological archetype created by the early Christian community.[1] Some proponents argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity.[2] The idea remains a minority one. Most scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence.[3]
# ^ For example, see Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145. He writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." -
* Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of." in The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief, ed. Tom Flynn. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446: "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches, who either discount much of its material as inauthentic, or justify it by more novel interpretations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[59] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[60][Need quotation to verify] As such, New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[61]
note - there are no challenges at the top of the article calling it biased.... so if one goes up after I post this it will be strikingly similar to the one that went up last time after we had this debate....
# ^ For example, see Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, 2002; first published 1989, p. 145. He writes: "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." -
* Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of." in The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief, ed. Tom Flynn. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446: "Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive figure. They are aware that much that is said of him, and by him, in the New Testament is no longer taken at face value even by scholars within the mainstream churches, who either discount much of its material as inauthentic, or justify it by more novel interpretations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory
see also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[59] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[60][Need quotation to verify] As such, New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[61]
note - there are no challenges at the top of the article calling it biased.... so if one goes up after I post this it will be strikingly similar to the one that went up last time after we had this debate....
here is some secular evidence for you.
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious âChristiansâ (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lordâs Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69â140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:
"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".
In ALL the voluminous historical records, there is no attestation whatsoever from any writer, recorder or scholar living at the time Christ is supposed to have lived. That is a big problem for christian apologetics - whether they be scholars or not, to get over.
Considering the claims made by christians for the personage named christ, and how so many records were being made on just about every event, it is untenable that no one would supply any contemporary record at the time about a Jesus or Christ, if there had been a Jesus or Christ.
Every reference comes decades or centuries later and ALL are of highly dubious and questionable provenance.
None of them are independantly supported historically, as any historical document indeed would be expected to be.
It is being generous to say they are ALL described as Christian interpolations.
Forgery is what such things are called in the real world.