A Simple Question

[NITE OWL]

Joe@actsii

It took you 7 minutes to copy/paste those huge reams of someone else's work onto this thread.

Since it would take me hours to go through them point by point and refute them, you must forgive me for having better uses of my time.

However, should you decide to join the thread with your own thoughts and words then I would be happy to engage in such discussion with you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I don't know about anyone else, but I fly right by those long posts. If I wanted to read a book I'd go to the library.

Can't we debate with what's in our head? There's nothing wrong with using other sources, I do that all the time. But I put it in my own words, unless it's a scripture ref.

Messages get lost in those long posts.

[Token Atheist]

Oh really? You should not make statements like that without making sure that you are right.

Don't worry, I'm quite sure. If you had read the rest of this thread, you would see that I have already commented on some of these. However, for completeness I'll do so again...

Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

Firstly, this passage is almost certainly a later insertion into Tacitus's work. Not only does it contradict what Tacitus says about Nero elsewhere (that he preferred not to witness the executions he ordered), it is also - not visible in the English, but visible in the Latin - not written in the style of Tacitus. The phraseology is wrong. Finally, he gets Pilate's job wrong (he was a Prefect, not a Procurator). This last one is especially glaring since Judea was not a full province at the time so wouldn't have even had a Procurator - and Tacitus mentions this elsewhere, so he definitely knew about it.

Basically - score 0/1 so far - Tacitus simply did not write that. It was inserted into his work at a later date.

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD):

"Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city."

"After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief."

As I have already mentioned, the first quote there was talking about a Roman called Chrestus (a common Roman name) - not a Judaean called Christ. Score 0/2.

The second Suetonius quote says nothing about the existence of Jesus and simply shows that Christians existed in the 2nd century. No-one is doubting that. Score 0/3.

Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

The "Testimonium Flavium" has been known to be a later addition to his text for ages. Previous to the 4th century, the Church Fathers had explicitly said that Josephus did not mention Jesus.

Then, suddenly, Eusebius (the guy who said that it was okay to fabricate evidence providing it converted people because the ends justified the means) "found" a copy of Josephus which contained this passage. A passage that is completely out of context - the text flows much better without it, uses non-Josephusian style, and is basically completely out of place in the book that Josephus wrote.

Another obvious Christian forgery. Score 0/4.

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion:

"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me." [A solar eclipse could not take place during a full moon, as was the case during Passover season.]

Firstly, I don't know where you got that from - but the 52AD date is merely a guess. It is a guess made by Christian Apologists who want to place the document as early as possible so that they can use it as evidence. That is if we even assume that the Thallus quote is genuine...

What we actually have as evidence here, is a document written in the 4th century (by Eusebius, the admitted fabricator of evidence) that claims that Julius Africanus quotes Thallus who says the above. We have no actual copies of the Africanus document or the Thallus document. So all we have is the word of an admitted fraudster that he has read a book that quotes another book that discusses an alleged event.

Even if all this were true, we have no context from Thallus's work to know what his postion is. Is he reporting on what he believes to be a historical event? Is he reporting on the beliefs of Christians? We simply do not know. A third-hand quote without context and supplied by an admitted fraudster cannot be considered evidence for anything.

Score 0/5.

Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:

"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.

This merely shows that there were Christians around in 120AD. No-one is disputing that. It says nothing about whether there had been a historical Jesus around 80-100 years before that time.

Score 0/6.

Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."

As above - this is not evidence for Jesus, merely evidence for Christians.

Score 0/7.

Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:

"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.

And again, not evidence for the existence of Jesus, merely evidence for the existence of Christians.

Score 0/8.

The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]

These quotes do not exist in that original compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud. They only exist in the later 4th century Babylonian Talmud.

Even then, they merely talk about a person called Yeshu (anglicised to Joshua or Jesus). Since that was (and still is) a very common Jewish name, and no context is given as to when or where this execution took place (and the details such as the heralds contradict the Gospel stories anyway) there is no reason to think that this random "Yeshu" was the historical Jesus.

There is also nothing to say that the two Yeshu's mentioned in different parts of the Talmud are supposed to be the same person.

Score 0/9.

Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."

Once again, we have a (late) second century author demonstrating that Christians existed and reporting on their beliefs. This is not evidence that Jesus himself existed.

Score 0/10.

Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:

"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

Firstly, once again this date is a guess by Christian Apologists that is a good 100 years earlier than the estimates of historians. Mara Bar-Serapion almost certainly wrote in the 4th century, not the 1st.

Secondly, all this says is that the Jews did not gain from the death (the word "execution" is not in the original) of their wise king. It doesn't say when it happened. It doesn't say who this king was. Given the that this king (according to the quote) gave laws to the Jews, it is almost certainly talking about Josiah - since he introduced the Deuteronomic law, and the Babylonian Exile happened after his death.

Score 0/11.

So there we have it. 11 pieces of "evidence" that Jesus existed - none of which are actually reliable evidence of such once examined closely. Unfortunately, the average Christian does not examine them closely - since they appear on the surface to support the Christian case - so they just get copied from place to place and repeated as if they were airtight and reliable evidence.

[ruah brit]

Please vote and provide your own answers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is provable by prophecy that is about to be fulfilled. The weather on earth will soon disappear and extreme heat will come to the earth drying up all vegetation. The waters of the oceans lakes rivers etcetera will be turned to blood and things will get very vile all over the earth.

Re 11

6 These have power to shut heaven, so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy; and they have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to strike the earth with all plagues, as often as they desire.

Dan 12

5Then I, Daniel, looked; and there stood two others, one on this riverbank and the other on that riverbank.

6And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?"

7Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

This next scripture is Christ’s covenant for the first half of the week and Christ’s covenant through His witnesses for the second half of the week.

Da 9

27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate.

This is what will come to pass in the removal of the filth of the people of God before they enter the Kingdom.

Zechariah 13

8 And it shall come to pass in all the land," Says the Lord, "That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die, But one-third shall be left in it:

9 I will bring the one-third through the fire, Will refine them as silver is refined, And test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name, And I will answer them. I will say, 'This is My people'; And each one will say, 'The Lord is my God.' "

1Co 3

13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.

Jer 25

33 And at that day the slain of the Lord shall be from one end of the earth even to the other end of the earth. They shall not be lamented, or gathered, or buried; they shall become refuse on the ground.

34 "Wail, shepherds, and cry! Roll about in the ashes, You leaders of the flock! For the days of your slaughter and your dispersions are fulfilled; You shall fall like a precious vessel.

35 And the shepherds will have no way to flee, Nor the leaders of the flock to escape.

36 A voice of the cry of the shepherds, And a wailing of the leaders to the flock will be heard. For the Lord has plundered their pasture,

37 And the peaceful dwellings are cut down Because of the fierce anger of the Lord.

Deut 32

36 "For the Lord will judge His people And have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their power is gone, And there is no one remaining, bond or free.

37 He will say: 'Where are their gods, The rock in which they sought refuge?

38 Who ate the fat of their sacrifices, And drank the wine of their drink offering? Let them rise and help you, And be your refuge.

39 'Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.

Denise

[Joe@actsii]

Joe@actsii

It took you 7 minutes to copy/paste those huge reams of someone else's work onto this thread.

Since it would take me hours to go through them point by point and refute them, you must forgive me for having better uses of my time.

However, should you decide to join the thread with your own thoughts and words then I would be happy to engage in such discussion with you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I don't know about anyone else, but I fly right by those long posts. If I wanted to read a book I'd go to the library.

Can't we debate with what's in our head? There's nothing wrong with using other sources, I do that all the time. But I put it in my own words, unless it's a scripture ref.

Messages get lost in those long posts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Token Atheist & NITE OWL, I gave credit to the author of these articles. I never said that anyone had to refute them. I posted them because I think they are very good and informative on this subject. If you don't want to read them that is fine, I just thought some people would find them helpful.

As far as using my "own thoughts and words", I have found that when some one can say something better then me, I let them. NITE OWL, for the most part I have little to no desire to debate. I have no problem with people that want to, I even enjoy listening to debates. They can be very informative, but I have noticed that for the most part, debates do little to change peoples minds or views. I am sorry if the message gets lost, for there is a lot of good stuff in the above articles and from that website.

[Joy in the Journey]

A Simple Question, A Simple Question

Did Jesus Exist?

[Gerioke]

A Simple Question, A Simple Question

Did Jesus Exist?

[Token Atheist]

A Simple Question, A Simple Question

Did Jesus Exist?

 

Yes, Jesus existed, and it's provable by...                                      [ 30 ]  [96.77%]

No, Jesus did not exist. His existence is not provable because... [ 1 ]  [3.23%]

Total Votes: 31

Okay- there are three atheists involved in this thread ( IanC, Foglight and Token Atheist ) and yet only one of you voted that there's no God...what gives ? Or didn't two of you vote ?

Tim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I was the one who voted "no" - although I haven't yet had chance to go through the reasons that I think he didn't exist, only to point out some of the flaws in the argument that there is "lots of evidence" that he existed.

But the question isn't what you seem to think it is. I have no idea whether the other two voted or not, but since they have both said that they believe that a man called Jesus probably existed but that he wasn't God - there is your answer. The question is only asking whether people think Jesus existed, not whether they think he is God.

So it wasn't that only one of us voted that "there's no God". That is a misunderstanding of the question that we were asked.

[Arthur Durnan]

Does GOD exist is a non-sequitor. The REAL query has to be Do "ATHEISTS" exist? The query is most trenchant.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Token Atheist]

Does GOD exist is a non-sequitor.

I think you may wish to look up what the term "non-sequitur" means before you use it again.

A non-sequitur is a conclusion that has no logical connection to the premises that lead up to it. Note, that this does not include conclusions that do have a logical connection to their premises but where the logical connection is faulty.

For example:

1) Apples are fruit.

2) A "Granny Smith's" is an apple.

3) Therefore (1 and 2) Giraffes are tall.

The conclusion here is a "non-sequitur" because there is no logical connection between it and the premises that led up to it.

Example 2:

1) Apples are fruit.

2) A "Granny Smith's" is an apple.

3) Therefore a "Granny Smith's" is not a fruit.

This second conclusion is not a non-sequitur, since it is logically connected to the premises - albeit wrongly.

Since "Does God exist?" is a question, and not a conclusion at all, it is utterly impossible for it to be a non-sequitur.

Sorry.

The REAL query has to be Do "ATHEISTS" exist? The query is most trenchant.

That's an easy question to answer... let us look at this step by step.

1) An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

2) I do not believe in God.

3) Therefore (from 1 and 2) I am an atheist.

4) I exist.

5) Therefore (from 3 and 4) at least one atheist exists.

There you go. Basic logic shows that atheists exist.

Any other logical conundrums you wish me to help you with?

Regardless of whether or not you think that we are correct, or whether or not you think we are justified in our beliefs; simply claiming that we do not exist seems to be - in the most literal sense of the word - a state of denial.

[Token Atheist]

I think that there was probably a man that the stories are based around, though I dont think there is any evidence he was who many of you say he was.

The interesting thing here, is that the earliest Christian writings didn't base their stories around a man at all.

Take Paul, for example. In the letters of Paul (the actual letters of Paul, not the pseudographia that were written later and had his name applied to them), Jesus the person is never talked about.

People are used to today's Bibles, where the Gospels are put first, and by the time you read Paul's letters you are led to assume that he is talking about what the Gospels are talking about.

But Paul wrote his letters before any of the Gospels were written. And if you read Paul without the assumption that he is talking about what they say then you get a very different picture of his beliefs.

There is lots of talk about Christ - which is all Hellenistic mythology about "spheres of being" and such like - but what Paul talks about is all set in the "Heavenly" realm, like the other stories of gods that were around at the time.

He doesn't talk about a physical, human Jesus, who wandered around Galilee and Jerusalem doing miracles and teaching.

For example, he never quotes the words of Jesus to support his arguments - he always appeals to either direct revelation from "the Spirit" or to Old Testament scripture - as if he does not have any records of the words of a human Jesus.

He makes no mention of where or when Jesus lived, or any biographical details of his life - as if he does not have any records of this, either.

He never mentions any of the miracles that Jesus allegedly did, or any of the stories about him.

Basically (and we could go into much, much, much more detail here), Paul seems to have no knowledge of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Reading the text in the context that it was written, the Christ that he worships is described as a purely spiritual entity.

It is only when we get to the writing of the Gospels that someone has taken two religious groups - Paul's mythical Christ worshippers and a group following the "words of wisdom" and teachings of one or more Cynic philosophers - and combined them in the same way that modern New-Agers combine elements of different belief systems.

That 'someone' wrote the Gospel of Mark - transforming a single archetypal Cynic philosopher into the earthly incarnation of Paul's Christ.

Of course, most aspects of Christianity had not been invented yet. There was no virgin birth - Mark's Jesus seems to have been a normal man until the "spirit" descends into him at his baptism... There was no resurrection - The original text of Mark simply leaves us with an "empty tomb" mystery implying that Jesus has been taken up to Heaven...

It is only when the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke rewrote the Gospel of Mark that most of these extra features were added to the story - in Matthew's case, he took pretty much all his extras from the Septaguint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, arranging them in a Midrash so that the character in the story would be the "fulfillment" of various "prophecies" that he invented.

Of course, this is just the barest bones of a summary of current Biblical Scholarship on the matter - if you wanted to go into the details of the evidence for all this then it would (and does) fill books.