Well, it seems I must pwn you know Quan.

Quan wrote:It is not garbage. You are just upset that scholars don't agree with your nonsense.

I'd rather look into the majority view of modern scholars. What would these books establish? Your insane point?

This is a rather ironic statement; would you agree then that I am right in believing the majority of scientists who hold evolution as being true?

Quan wrote:I am not kidding. These evidence absolutely hold weight, and you haven't shown how they don't. The date doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the paper. And so what if they were Christians?! You sound insane right now. Am I justified in NOT listening to Richard Dawkins because he's an atheist? C'mon, get real.

Fine then, I will show how they don't. (WARNING - the fallowing statements contain facts, if you are not partial to them look away)

I will first address a previous claim that you made: "The earliest account is about 2 years."
Let us first use some the writers of the accounts supposed by your fellow apologists -

• Josephus-born 37 CE.


• Pliny the Younger-born 61 CE.


• Cornelius Tacitus-born 55 CE.


• Caius Suetonius-born 69 CE.


• Lucian- born 120 CE.

Given that none of these men were born until Jesus had already passed away, we can safely conclude that none of these men had done any contemporary writing about Jesus.

And you gave me a link to Josephus as if the Testamonium has even an ounce of credibility, this is how I know you are a liar when you say things like you have read scholarly work, or when you assert that you know your history. Not one historian/theologian worth a damn would ever back a Eusebius forgery as being credible.

The Testamonium not only did not appear in any prior copies of Antiquities but earlier Christian fathers (ie. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) never once quoted it. All of them knew of Josephus' writings and would not have ommitted the passage had it been there.

Origen wrote that Josephus didn't even believe in Christ as the Messiah:

"I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people"[...] (Contra Celsus, BOOK I., Chap XLVII)

Please Quan, show me this majority of scholars who maintain that the Testamonium passage as credible.

Quan wrote:The Catholic encyclopedia is NOT as valuable as the works of the majority of biblical scholars. You are willing to read material from a "Catholic" encyclopedia, which is OBVIOUSLY written by Christians. But you won't read my references?! How hypocritical! I can give you link after link after link, to show that you are amazingly wrong, and so is Brian Flemming, that amateur film maker.

What are these works you speak of?

I have read your references and some, I did research on this long before I was an Athiest.

Brian who?

Quan wrote:yes, say more. What's your point? Are you going to accept the fact that the New Testament is over 99.5% accurate to the originals? If not, you are simply denying the obvious.

99.5% correct huh...

Ok lets see how correct the NT is when pit against our extrabiblical history.

"Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,...." (Matt. 2:16).

• In all of the some 40 chapters devoted to Herod, Josephus (a man who dispised Herod) never mentions this massacre, and doesn't even appear to know a thing about it. Surely, if you dispise somebody, pointing out their crimes would be the best way to destroy their charactor.
• No ancient historian mentiones the event.

"And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt. 27:51-53)

• No historian of antiquity talks of this event.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria" (Luke 2:1-2).

• Augustus never issued any such decree. Taxes were done provence by provence
• If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod (Matt. 2:1) then Cyrenius(Quirinius) could not have been the govenor because he didn't govern Syria until about 10 years after Herods death.
• And to add, nobody in Herods kingdom was taxed by the Romans because they were not part of Roman Syria.

"And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim,...." (John 3:23)

• No such place exists

I could go on but I'm getting tired of this...

Quan wrote:I have read real scholarly work. I'm sorry if you haven't. You seem to be more willing to listen to some strange amateur guy named Brian than actual scholars! Do you have any idea what you are talking about?! The whole Jesus myth has been COMPLETELY OBLITERATED BY THE SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY. It was never taken seriously. Not 30 years ago, not now. Scholars are laughing at the whole concept. If you really believe that crap you don't really need to be typing about Christianity. You probably believe in the Da Vinci Code too, lol!

Brian who?

The DaVinci code is bull as well. Given that we do not know the man Jesus existed, how are we to assume that he had a child, or wife?

Please, show me this majority of scholars who know Jesus existed, without having to summon a personal belief. Which can exist without any evidence whatsoever.