Oooooo...this guy is good. Watch out Aro !

well, it wasn't made up out of thin air. It borrowed from many religions out there, including Judaism, other mystery religions popular at the time, and other religions in the region. Listen to that Yale course vix linked to. Really interesting stuff in there. http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...tent/downloads

The other thing is that while I'm sure YOU accept that the NT was not made up out of thin air, I highly doubt you ascribe the same kind of credulity in all the other codified religions out there, that have also have thousands or millions of followers over the years and would probably suggest that they WERE made up out of thin air.

i cant imagine someone with the behavior of a 12 year old to be a professional doctor. I mean, do you yell at your patients everyday and tell them how ignorant they are when they disagree with you?

and based on reading your posts, it pretty obvious that you are fairly ignorant about a vast majority of Christian topics, so I would be happy to bet that you know *far less* about Christian history than Prax. Personally, I just know you are pretty ignorant because you make hilarious statements like this:

Jesus is a prominent, real historical figure now incorporated into our dating system, that is well and truly a part of Christianity, Judaism, Moslem faith.

Why not put your trust and faith in Jesus. You have nothing to lose, but everything to gain! For example you will have eternal life! You will not have to spend eternity in the fires of Hell. Put your selfish ways and concerns to the side and ask Jesus to lead you and He will give you direction. The Holy Spirit will guide you and give you foresight. Like I said you will have nothing to lose(except for your selfish ways) and everything to gain by simply putting your faith in Jesus.

Tacitus never mentions the name Jesus. He writes about Christians, and the only line which could be referring to Jesus reads, "Christus, from whom the name (Christianity) had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" That's it. Most consider this passage authentic, though some historians dispute its authenticity (and, as your date indicates, he was not contemporary either).

There are two passages in Josephus. One simply mentions him as James' brother when describing James:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he [Ananus, the Jewish high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, him 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...."

This is hardly anything that could be considered any sort of historical record, but many historians also argue it is a forgery. The other passage in Josephus mentioning Jesus is:

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of christians, so called from him, subsists to this time."

This is universally considered a forgery. And, of course, Josephus was not contemporary, either.

Suetonius: Suetonius never mentions Jesus. He wrote, "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome. " This is the only line in Suetonius referencing anything that could possibly be attributed to Jesus. Yes, it's actually spelled Chrestus in his writings, which is an actual name (different from Christus, as in the title of Jesus). Whether or not this is referencing Jesus is highly debated. Suetonius, also, is not contemporary.

Thallus: We don't have any of Thallus' original work, just writers much later referencing his work. What we have of Thallus is somebody from the 3rd or 4th centuries quoting somebody claiming to quote Thallus. That somebody from the 4rd or 4th century was Eusebius, who openly admitted he only recorded parts that would glorify the church. We do not know what Thallus specifically said (nor if he was actually referencing the crucifixion). And, Thallus was not contemporary.

Pliny: Pliny the Younger never mentions Jesus. He mentions Christians. And, he was not contemporary.

Lucian: Jesus never mentions Jesus either. and he wasn't even a historian. In a play, he does mention a guy whom the Christians worshiped. This is probably referencing Jesus. This is far from a historical account, though. And, again, Lucian was not contemporary.

Talmud: "Despite the numerous mentions of Edom which may refer to Christendom, the Talmud makes little mention of Jesus directly or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about one or more individuals designated "Yeshu" that once existed in editions of the Talmud, although details about Yeshu do not match the Christian beliefs about Jesus' trial and death. The Talmud says Yeshu was hanged, not crucified, on the eve of (before) Passover."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Can we now put to rest the thought that Jesus is as historically verifiable as Julius Caesar?

why not put your trust and faith in Muhammad?
why not put your trust and faith in Zues?
why not put your trust and faith in Buddha?
why not put your trust and faith in L. Ron Hubbard?
why not put your trust and faith in Satan?
why not put your trust and faith in the FSM?
etc, etc.

btw, before you tell me that i should just try and see, i already did. 20 years as a Christian, and I definitely did not have any direction in my life those 20 years. My life is better and happier than i ever was.

Buddha, Hubbard, et all are still in the grave. Put your faith in the One who conquered death. Death hath no sting on Jesus. Why do you think Satan was so worried about Jesus and tempted Him? He knew Jesus was the way, truth and life that was going to keep million and millions of people out of his pit of fire. And that was a threat to him. Just a question, but is your life better and happier now because you have full control over it. You have all of your lusts and worldly wants at your finger tips. I know we all struggle with that and I am not one to act holier than the other, but it is just a question to ask yourself.

only in your own ignorant world view.

my life is happier for many reasons, none are the ones you stated. your view of unbelievers is very shallow, and rather insulting to be honest.

which begs the question, why is my life happier and more peaceful now that I don't know God? I dunno, why don't you ask Him. I have no desire to know God, not just because I have no evidence to, but He has nothing to offer me. If you think this life is meaningless without an eternal life, then just imagine how meaningless eternal life is ... especially when all you get to do all day is praise and worship God. I prefer non-existence tyvm.

I believe there was probably a guy on whom the stories of Jesus were somewhat based in the same sense that there was probably a historical figure on whom the stories of King Arthur were based. I am not arguing that he did not exist. I am arguing that the details of him are scanty, as this character is not within the realm of verifiable historical figures such as Julius Caesar (the argument that sparked this discussion).

I denounced the evidence as being from eyewitness accounts, which means that the evidence we do have about him is hearsay (and scanty). My quotation above is consistent with this. The point is we do not have solid evidence about the details of his existence, but that is reasonable. This isn't 'you either accept the desperate attempts to demonstrate there is a lot of evidence for the existence of Jesus, or you reject that he ever existed.' The point is there is not a whole lot of historical evidence, but that's to be expected. My only position so far has been that he is not as historically verifiable as other prominent historical figures, such as Julius Caesar.

It means that the details of his existence, and his existence altogether, are in more question than that of other historical figures. My first response to Jib included my statement that it didn't matter to the conversation. But if you are going to argue that Jesus is as historically verifiable as Julius Caesar, you are going to get called out on it. Again, I cede that there probably was a guy on whom the stories of Jesus were based.

Because it isn't nearly as unquestionable as most other figures many people hold to such a high degree of certainty.

I don't think there are very many, if any, historians who would consider any of this evidence that he existed. The amount of people who believe in something, the amount of books sold on a subject, the amount of people who practice something, and the amount of people who have died for something has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. And nobody is claiming that the Bible or Christianity were just made up out of thin air. 'Made up out of thin air' or 'unquestionably true' is not a true dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And the standard 'Would you die for a lie' argument you are trying to use is horrifically fallacious.

Sacrificing belief in something that is true to believe in something that is false is, in and of itself, something to lose. We really should have a Pascal's Wager sticky.

haha pascal's wager....

The same could be said about any other religion out there... Why not believe in those because you have nothing to lose.

The way i see it is im pissing off less gods than you are.

That you believe this, certainly puts your absurd claims about science into perspective.

I agree.

+1, the whole concept of jesus, including the story, is borrowed from other religions..

If I asked God why your life is happier and more peaceful, could His answer be: “the light has come into the
world, and people loved darkness rather than light.”?


The good news today is this, God loves the world, loves the world so much that God refuses to let our darkness stifle or overcome the divinely given light. The light shines in the darkness, our darkness. The light of God in Jesus Christ will finally bring us home to God.

why??
__________________________________
oh and i found these factual errors..

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

--Fowl do not go upon all four.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

--Hare do not chew the cud.

Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..."

--Whale or Fish?

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."

--Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

Once again the word translated fowl here is 'owph', which means a creature with wings. It's the same word used in verse 21 and translated flying. The reference in both cases is referring to insects. Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the "legs above their feet". The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc., are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called "feet" in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/cudchewers.html

If the circumference is 30 cubits, then the diameter is 30 cubits/pi, which is 9.55 cubits. Rounding to the nearest whole number gives us the value of 10 cubits, which is the stated value. The bible does not claim that pi = three unless you are assuming that the numbers given are accurate to more than two significant figures. The Bible also does not claim that it was perfectly circular, just that it was roundish. The argument that 'the bible claims that pi = 3' is just nitty.

okay i see. i would just expect the bible to say 'around' 30 or something like that.

The author probably did not anticipate that people would have such a problem with the exact wording in the distant future

Jib: Have you abandoned our discussion on comparative religion here?

My little Asian hottie is correct here.

The Bible was never meant to be used for it's accuracy in measurements ...if you decided to build an Ark.

No time. Spent the weekend installing windows 7 and having all sorts of issues with stupid grub loader, then found out that I had my bios booting from the wrong drive.

Now I think that my HD is failing

Where did we leave off? there is a bunch of chatter ITT. I will see about you last post.

i like a lot of your answers, but this one is just plain false. we have lots of evidence of things 2,000 years old, and much older.

but besides that, jesus' easily could have performed miracles that left evidence that stood the test of time if he wanted to (if he really was god, i mean.)