quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Bearing all this in mind it is amazing how much we do know about this poor,itinerant Jewish mystic compared to similar figures of the period such as Judas the galilean.

He was a poor itinerant mystic because that's what the authors of the myth made him. They could have given him horns and made him travel to Africa on a pink unicorn but it still wouldn't have any bearing on what we "know" about Jesus any more than what we know about Bilbo Baggins.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
originally posted by Freethinker:

quote:

Care to list your best examples.
Including the names of some towns that existed at the time doesn't exactly lend any credibility at all.
Why are there no contemporary references (absolutely none) to either jebus or anything he did.
Given what the bible claims he did there would be certain to be independent corroboration.

Ok - off the top ... <Clip>

If I write a fiction but include the names of real places and set it against a background of real historical events, does that make the fiction true?
There was a point to me saying that no credibility in the account of jebus comes from including real place names.

quote:

What contemporary references would you expect there to be? Books we have from the period would take up a small corner of your desk. Jesus wasn't a significant historical figure at the time.

By your own account he supposedly did remarkable, extraordinary things. These would have been recorded. None of the supposed historical cross-references you list actually relate to jebus. Why do you suppose that is?

quote:

Roman authorities would not have been interested in stories of his miracles

Stories no. They would however have been very interested in someone who could feed an entire army from a basketful of food. That would be real handy tip to the military logicians.

quote:

History cannot be treated with a "scientific approach". The evidential rigor you demand on this forum would exclude many accepted historical figures such as Alexander the Great!

History, that is real history not your made up stuff, exactly is based on evidence. It is more subjective and open to challenge but still based on evidence.
You offer none.
Saying those aren't the rules is just lame.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

If I write a fiction but include the names of real places and set it against a background of real historical events, does that make the fiction true?

There was a point to me saying that no credibility in the account of jebus comes from including real place names.

More telling as to its authenticity is the inclusion of places which did not exist at the time of Jesus. These geographical mistakes show that the stories in which they are cited are mere invention by the later authors and that neither they nor their source actually knew the area or were witness to the tale which they present as true.

It is not the dates, names or events which are given and can be authenticated which give valid authentication. Rather, it is those which are obviously and demonstrably false which show the invented nature of the entire account.

Aside from those errors, what about the statements of Jesus regarding OT prophesies? On the many occasions when these don't match up we must assume, either the authors invented the claimed statements or, that Jesus truly said such. If the former then what credence can we give to any of their gospels since at least some (if not all) must be "invented". If the latter then Jesus must be a false prophet by falsely citing and altering OT prophecy to suit his claims to godhood. Either way it says little for any truth in the bible. Yet another fact which the religious ignore.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
descriptions of his sea journeys in terms of routes and time taken tie in very well with prevailing weather conditions in the area and the capabilities of ships of the period,

So what if they got something right - what does that prove? What about the account of a journey Jesus supposedly undertakes which makes no geographical sense and which has him visiting places which did not exist till the later time of Emperor Nero - So much for biblical historical accuracy (and truth). I am afraid that you are here hung by your own petard.

quote:

The Gospels: ...

You cannot quote the gospels as being proof of anything historical. They provably contain error, invention and ommission so cannot be trusted. Just because they got some names, places correct is no great feat of authorship given the were written post-facto. In truth the opposite is the case being written afterwards there should be no such silly mistakes.

quote:

What contemporary references would you expect there to be?

How about from Roman records or from the many hellenic greek writers of the time (some of whom even lived contemporaneously and in the same area as the NT events). Why do they not mention this noteworthy person or any of the claimed events which he performed. Sadly they all fail to do so though, tellingly, they do mention others who claimed to be messiahs. Were they really all in some fantastic conspiracy - Particularly with regard to the Hellenic Greek writers this seems unlikely as they don't appear to have vested interest in maintaining the party line of Judea-Roman socio-politics? More likely is the simple conclusion that the NT stories are mere invention.

quote:

Jesus wasn't a significant historical figure at the time.

Fine as far as it goes. However, some of the claimed miraculous events of his doing were noteworthy so why are the only mention of their actual happening restricted to his own PR book, the bible? Are you just ignoring this obvious ommission in the historical records to make your argument?

quote:

in a backwater of the Roman empire.

Where did you garner this gem of knowledge? Judea was not a backwater of the Roman Empire but rather a significant area to them for political and economic reasons. I suggest you actually do some research on the true significance or Judea to Rome before making such easily disprovable statements.

quote:

He was crucified as a criminal - the ultimate humiliation of the time for both Romans and Jews - a very good reason to be written out of history.

Again you are just trotting out a false premise to make your argument. There are many accounts in Roman records of people they put to death for annoying them, politically or criminally. They did not write them out of history just killed them physically - that is how they ended the problem. Want some names of some "naughty" contemporaries of Jesus whom the Romans recorded their treatment of? The Romans were quite willing to publically acknowledge and publicise treatment of those who went against the status quo.

quote:

Roman authorities would not have been interested in stories of his miracles and they would have thought that the Jewish authorities or his disciples had removed his body from the tomb.

If the tomb story truly had validity, the bible account of the affair is contradictory and uncorroborated. Unfortunately that is another fact from the bible which is extremely hard to equate to the known practice of the time. The Romans rarely allowed this to happen to those they crucified except for some wealthy citizens - And of course Jesus was neither. Oh, I know the theist line that it was a wealthy patron who gained this exception for Jesus but that would negate the Romans deliberate attempts to write him out of history, after all a tomb is a sort of veneration and celebration of a deceased person.

quote:

The Jewish authorities would have regarded him as just another "false messiah" and would have wanted to suppress stories about him.

If his quotes in the NT are correct this would be correct and he would be a false prophet.

quote:

The only people you would expect to write about him would be his followers and it's likely that they were illiterate. The gospels had to wait for the oral tradition to be handed down to Paul and the first generations of Christians.

LOL, and oral tradition is such a good medium for truth - No chinese whispers, then. But then isn't this all ignoring the divine inspiration of the biblical authors? Oral myth being transposed to paper would explain the mistakes but does not confer truth. Divine inspiration is more problematic unless the divinity is less than perfect.

Bearing all this in mind it is amazing how much we do know about this poor, itinerant Jewish mystic compared to similar figures of the period such as Judas the galilean.

quote:

Cynical comments about him in Josephus were probably altered by early Christian writers to cast him in a more favourable light but still support historicity. The first Roman records in Tacitus come exactly when you would expect them - when Christianity is spreading widely and coming to the notice of the authorities.

The Josephus forgeries were probably made to support and validate the bible not to cast him in a more favourable light. Apart from the obvious and silly Tacitus alteration he says naught for Jesus or his authenticity. Mentioning christians and christianity is not the same thing. Either way these alterations were most likely made much later than you claim.


So apart from lots of false premises (and erroneous conclusions arising therefrom) and dubious historical "facts" have you actually any real evidence to offer which proves the bible to be an accurate rendition of Jesus or that he actually existed.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
descriptions of his sea journeys in terms of routes and time taken tie in very well with prevailing weather conditions in the area and the capabilities of ships of the period,

So what if they got something right - what does that prove? What about the account of a journey Jesus supposedly undertakes which makes no geographical sense and which has him visiting places which did not exist till the later time of Emperor Nero - So much for biblical historical accuracy (and truth). I am afraid that you are here hung by your own petard.

Meant to add, this is an example of the often misused adage "the exception proves the rule". That is, an exception proves whether the rule is true or false. Here you say your rule is that the biblical accounts are historically and factually accurate. It follows, therefore, that if any exception exists then the rule is disproven - They do, so you lose. Sorry but if you wish to believe in nonsense it is never a good idea to argue it is fact merely because of your trust in your beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
The first Roman records in Tacitus come exactly when you would expect them - when Christianity is spreading widely and coming to the notice of the authorities.

To show how silly a false premise this is let us look at Celtic mythology and the Greco-Roman record of that. There is a some mention of Celtic gods in the literature (far more than for Jesus or christianity) however, it mostly tries to equate Celtic practices and their omni-competent gods with the Roman pantheon.

Yes, gods and goddesses such as Lug and Brigit (both members of divine trinities BTW), etc. are mentioned but that does not make them or the myth from whence they spring true. If it did then it really is problematic for your belief in the christian god being the only one. And of course that does not mean that such Celtic persons as Cú Chulainn (a famous Celtic hero, and son of Lug in some accounts) actually existed.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:

Hi Joliet,

good to have another viewpoint around here, you have made some well argued points. It is normally rather busier here with plenty of theists to knock down. I has all gone a bit quiet, particularly since the server started playing up. Do stick around and wait for them to pop their heads above the parapet.

quote:

Originally posted by zwaraaaa:
oh you guys

What's up, don't you have anything to defend your nonsensical argument with? Like all theists at the end of it all there is just the grandiose statements, bluff and bluster - never any factual evidence to back up the nonsense.

By choosing to ignore the questions put to you it merely confirms and exposes the lie of "biblical truth" which you espouse. So much for logical argument. ROTFLMAO

Freethinker and Joliet:

I'm sure your motivations for contributing to this forum have a little more substance than you imply.Your win/lose approach to discussion will make you feel good for a while but it won't teach you anything about real spirituality which depends on establishing a dialectic. You can keep on putting an infantile version of Christianity in a box and kicking the crap out of it, (aided and abetted by the fundamentalists) but all you will do is reinforce your own prejudice. How about engaging in some genuine dialogue?
Joliet:
Rather than going back over the same ground again, how about approaching things from a different angle:

If the gospels are completely "ahistorical" as you claim then how do you account for them? What were the motives of the people who wrote them? They do need accounting for..love them or hate them they have been some of the most widely distributed and influential documents in human history.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Your win/lose approach to discussion will make you feel good for a while but it won't teach you anything about real spirituality which depends on establishing a dialectic.

Why would you think I wish to learn about 'real spirituality' when I think it is utter hogwash. Just how much dialogue do you have with fairy believers to understand real 'fairy power'.
I cannot know what you think, but I imagine your attitude to fairy belief is similar to mine attitude to theism.

quote:

You can keep on putting an infantile version of Christianity in a box and kicking the crap out of it, (aided and abetted by the fundamentalists) but all you will do is reinforce your own prejudice. How about engaging in some genuine dialogue?

Everything about theism is infantile, there is no other version.
Just what do you consider 'genuine dialogue' then?
How about replying to the entirely reasonable question I and others have put on numerous occasions on the mutual exclusivity of the xian claim of omniscience, omnipotence and free will.
I have never seen any theist reply that was anything other than apologist, logically false or just plain garbage.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Freethinker and Joliet:

I'm sure your motivations for contributing to this forum have a little more substance than you imply.

Well you could ask me what my motivation for contributing is before deciding to conjecture on what you have second guessed it to be. As for FT I know not what his motivations are nor do I care. The question of ones motivation really is a red herring since what is of import is the questions being put not why someone put them.

If I were to conjecture on your motivation in making the above comment I would think it is some desire to side-step the questions put to you.

quote:

Your win/lose approach to discussion will make you feel good for a while but it won't teach you anything about real spirituality

WTF is real spirituality and what has that to do with dialectics? So what is it: a warm fuzzy feeling, being at one with the world, etc. All very nice but hardly objective or logical argument for establishing that spirituality truly exists.

Neuro-science studies have shown that all the spiritual experience effects can be induced by stimulation of the brain so logic suggests that it is natural (albeit caused by some slight aberration) - No god required.

quote:

which depends on establishing a dialectic.

LOL, a dialectic is a method of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments. In my reply to your statements I pointed out where your comments were illogical and false. You must show my assessment wrong or present logical argument. You are the one failing to establish any dialectic, not I.

Let's recap, in one of your statements you said (in summary):

The bible got some minor maritime detail correct so it must all be correct. = A false premise (an illogical argument).

quote:

You can keep on putting an infantile version of Christianity in a box and kicking the crap out of it,

Not my fault that it is so full of crap that when kicked that is what squirts out. If you present illogical and ill considered statements as argument then don't complain when they are exposed as such. Research and check your facts before posting and this may not happen.

quote:

all you will do is reinforce your own prejudice.

Leave the second guessing out, it does you no favour. We all have bias, so what. I personally am open to any evidence you present. If you show by logical argument that your theist view has merit then I'll gladly sign up. Can you honestly say the same?

Explain the co-existence of omniscience and freewill to me, convince me that it is valid that they can do so. As a theist you must believe in their co-existence so show me the logic of why you believe it to be so.

quote:

How about engaging in some genuine dialogue?

I await your answer to the above question or will you, like all other theists, just refuse to address the question.

quote:

If the gospels are completely "ahistorical" as you claim then how do you account for them?

They were invented to validate a breakaway sect just as there are many variants of the bible for all the various christian sects. That does not make them true. Here's a question, which version of the bible is the true one?

quote:

What were the motives of the people who wrote them?

Power, fanaticism - Who knows, though certainly socio-political validation and ingratiation with Rome is suggested by some of the gospels? I really care not to conjecture on something one cannot really prove.

quote:

They do need accounting for..

Why? Tolkein's books exist, so what. Does it matter whether he wrote them for monetary gain or purely because he enjoyed writing fantasy stories? It doesn't even matter whether he himself or his readers believe in Hobbits, Elves, et al. They are still all make-believe.

quote:

love them or hate them they have been some of the most widely distributed and influential documents in human history.

Again so what. That does not say anything for any truth in the bible. And lets not forget that much of bible distribution was done with a sword in the other hand. Would people have been so influenced were it not for the sword? I venture not and history shows it to be so. Want lots of examples?

Sorry GB but all you are doing is making bold open ended statements which say little and don't contribute anything to any argument as to the validity of the bible as a document of historical truth.

Hi Joobs!

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
If the gospels are completely "ahistorical" as you claim then how do you account for them? What were the motives of the people who wrote them? They do need accounting for...

How do you account for the stories of all the *other* gods and godmen down the ages? All the other fantastic fables of winged messengers, fire-breathing monsters and virgin births? You dismiss them without even knowing the slightest thing about them (I bet), even though countless thousands have believed in them. And yet the one myth your parents believe in (because their parents believed in it etc...), you decide is true, and you simply cannot understand how we godless heathens are able to apply the same reasonable tests to it that you apply to all the other fables.
Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament is a good start if you want to find out more about the origins of the Christian Myth.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
Hi Joobs!

He was banned after outing a conspiracy theorist and his insane lies. Rather than admit his nonsense the CT in question complained to the Mods that Joobs had insulted him by calling him a liar.

I believe Joobs argued the point with the Mods and asked them to consider the comment in context but they wouldn't so banned him. It seems that even when someone is caught lying you cannot state that. According to C4 Mods obviously a spade is not a spade.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
...and you simply cannot understand how we godless heathens are able to apply the same reasonable tests to it that you apply to all the other fables.

Luther often wrote that "Reason was the enemy of faith". Rather disingenuous and, given he was intelligent, he must have known that. Reason is neither enemy or friend. If reason shows your faith is ill-founded then that's it. Conversely reason may show your faith is actually well founded.

What Luther meant (and perfectly understood) was that religious faith is founded on unreasonable tenets and therefore reason should not be applied to it - Basically he was pleading for a special case. To him, faith in his myth system should just be accepted no matter how ludicrous it is. Of course in his duplicity he had no problem using the tool of reason to show why other myth systems and alternate christian doctrines were absurd.

So much for the honesty of a significant theologian.

quote:

Originally posted by blast99:
Hi Joobs!

That explains a lot.