Lets.

There are also evidences for Zoroastorians, and followers of Simon Magnus.

No, a Christian is one who BELIEVES in Christ. For the most part, Christians are so-so on the following. I've yet to see a Christian handle a venomous snake without protection or move a mountain with prayer or faith. And I've yet to see people like Billy Graham or Pat Robertson sell all their posessions as Christ commanded them to do in Matthew.

So, you can see that aren't too sold on the idea of actually FOLLOWING Christ, but they certainly must believe in him as that is a prerequisite.

Why?

There are other viable options, and more sound ones at that, then to have an actual person walking around. Orphic tradition and Heraclitic ideas were very popular in Israel at the time of the first and second century. This is due to (in no small part) the Hellenistic period preceeding the turn of the first century CE.

You are obviously not aware of what the Mythicist stance is, so take the time to read over it. You can check it out in the new board entitled, "The Jesus Mythicist Campaign."

Actually, it's quite the contrary. You see there is something called "argument from silence" which exists in the case of Christ. No evidence, no contemporary accounts, no eye-witness accounts. And all early accounts from the first century are Gnostic or Essene in nature. None are orthodox, as you'd expect. None place Jesus on Earth.

So, because the maxim is "He who makes the positive claim holds the burden of evidence" YOU, my friend are making the positive claim, and the burden of proof rests on YOU. Now get to it.

Several key things wrong here. First, you are assuming the nature of the Jews. And you are assuming they made it up with malice intent. I don't believe it was malice or treacherous. I believe they actually did think Christ was real, but not real in a human sense. This is where you reading that forum will help.

Another thing, you state "posing as Christ." Since "Christ" means "anointed" (I'm sure you knew that) what relevance would such a phrase have on the Jews? Especially when in Isaiah the Messiah's name is said to be Emmanuel. Somebody walking around saying "I'm the anointed!" is going to do nothing but get him sour looks and weird expressions.

You aren't thinking in terms of the big picture. You're starting from present day and working backwards. You need to start from before the first century CE and work forwards.

You are quite correct. The ironic thing is that Christians WERE being written off during their time. It wasn't until the third century that Christians became differenciated from the Jews. Before the third century, everyone considered Christians and Jews to be the same, and it wasn't until the mid second century that "Christian" the term came to be used. Before this, Christians called themselves "The Way", "Sethians", "Gnostics", "Mystics" and "Nazoreans"...some kept "Essenes." Nobody refered to them in such a way as "Christian" until much much later.

The problem was, however, that everyone thought the Christians were plagerizers. A Hellenized jew, Trypho, in his debate with Justin Martyr, criticised the Christians on stealing myths from the Greeks.

Lets look at this dialogue because I think this is strikingly similar to what we have in the case presented here. Justin Martyr, went from being a member of the Stoics - who were at the time scientists who dealt, by his own admission, in matters that were of the sceintific method and were atheists - became a Platonist, which in a way proves my point, as Platonists were knee-deep in Orphic tradition (when it coems to philosophy) and were very anti-science and anti-evidence. This was, however, the mainstream Christian of the day.

In order to be a Christian, one had to remove all references or ideals relating to science. Platonists were known for being the most intellectually void on matters of science, as the Orphic tradition passed down from Plato is such that it requires it.

In his discussion (Note, he was walking along to find solice, and instead found Trypho), Trypho states this (Which I find ironic considering this discussion took place during the first half of the second century;

1. "If, then, you are willing to listen to me (for I have already considered you a friend), first be circumcised, then observe what ordinances have been enacted with respect to the Sabbath, and the feasts, and the new moons of God; and, in a word, do all things which have been written in the law: and then perhaps you shall obtain mercy from God. But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing." "

Keep in mind, Martyr was almost laughed out of the company of Trypho and his friends. Being Jews themselves, and not having the slightest clue as to any man living under the name "Christ" or "Christ Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". But this isn't the worst of it. What is even more devestating is Justin's reply back to these accusations!

Trypho then suggests that Justin's Christ is just like Perseus and Justin replies (respectively);

1. "And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks." "

2. "Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by[Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that[the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he[the devil] brings forward sculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?

And we can not ignore Justin Martyr’s telling admission in his First Apology.

1. “And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. (First Apology, Chapter XXI; Analogies To The History of Christ)

What do you see similar in these telling admissions? That Justin neither denies the fact that there are similarities, nor does he seem like he fully understands the implications. For him it is easy to just say, “The devil forged them beforehand” or “the deceiver counterfeited these Gods.” How weak of an argument is that? He might have just as well shook his fist at Trypho and shouted, “SO?!”

This is not the tip of the iceberg, this is the grain of snowflake at the very top of that tip. Celsus, Lucian, and the greatest thinkers and rationalists of the day were criticizing Christianity, and showing the fraudulent nature of it’s beliefs long before the Rational Response Squad initiated the $666 challenge and the Jesus Mythicist Campaign.

In fact, so great was the criticism that the churches reasons for initially burning books and condemning writings was to try to stamp out the cynical and skeptical refutations it was receiving. And what is worse is that the Orthodox Church, to this day, still has a banned book list. And guess who and what are still on it? Yes, some of the very same books and authors who were on it some 1800 years ago.

If it hadn’t been for their ability to launch the ‘smear and slander campaigns’ against other sects of Christianity and paganism at the time and their ability to organize as they did, Christianity would not exist today and this is fact.

You seem to think that people intentionally made shit up for the purpose of extracting mindless drones. Sorry, but I don’t feel that way, and no learned Mythicist should. People really did believe in the stupidest most inane thing before Science was able to prove it all wrong. This is why myths are for the ancients. Science is for the modernizing world of today, and we’ll let the ancestors of the past rest in graves along with their incredulous beliefs.

Nope, but the majority is wrong, inaccurate, misplaced, made up and contradictory. And don’t call me Shirley.

It’s simple. They really believed in it. Just not the same way Christians believe in it today. Read the Jesus Mythicist Campaign forum for more information and understanding as to WHAT early Christians really believed, and why things are different now. Hope this has been informative.

At this point you're just covering your ears and shouting "LALA!".

If you claim that Tacitus really refers to a real man called Jesus, could you kindly explain why he calls him a superstition?

Rook corrected you on Suetonius passages, I just want to add that citing Acts 18:2 must have been a joke on your part, all it says is that Nero persecuted Christians... we know it happened, it says nothing of Jesus.

And if you think Mara Bar-Serapion was talking about Jesus could you tell me to which event was he refering when he wrote:

As far as I know they already had no kingdom before Jesus supposedly died.

Look, how can the calendar be based on the historic life and death of a real Jesus, if no one can give evidence that he even existed, let alone more or less exact dates of his birth and death.

Coincidence? Tell me what exactly the calendar is coinciding with?

Right, sorry.
I probably meant to use this part in reply to another part of your post.

And what is so amazing about that?
Do you think that every single religion and every single cult is based on real stories and people?

I ask you the same question, I asked in a post above: do you believe that Hercules was a real person?
There is evidence of people that worshipped him, is it the same as evidence for him?

What evidence do we have?
Writings, tons of wrightings of the people, and about the people we believe that existed.
I offered you evidence for Alexander, to show you exactly that - we have the writings of Aristotle, and we have the testimony of a man that interacted with him directly.

When it comes to Jesus we have nothing but writings about the people that believed in him. It proves nothing unless you think every single cult in existence is based on true stories.

Look, you have failed to provide a single source that could be used as direct evidence for Jesus, and notice I didn't even say contemporary this time.
I will read any book you recommend, but you have to tell me the claims within that book don't contain the same flaws we have pointed to you.

Yes I choose to trust scientist that they got things more or less right, but the difference between this and trusting people who say Jesus existed is substantial:

There is evidence for every accepted scientific theory. It is catalogued and made public. I can acces information about this evidence in the second I decide to look it up.
If I don't understand something, or even if I oppose the views of science when it comes to a particular theory, there are thousands, if not millions of people that will be willing to explain the theory, or my errors to me. No one will act as if they were threatened by my ideas.
Sure there will be rude people that tell me to go back to highschool, but there will be others that will explain everything.

Compare that to how the way you, and pretty much any believer, acts when confronted with the idea that Jesus never existed.

It is curious that none of these people wrote anything down about the subject, nor has anyone written about their testimony.

Wow, what a specific number.
515 eyewtinesses, could you list their names, and perhaps tell us who they were?

Again, by the same logic every cult in existence, ever, must be true.
If there were so many witnesses, so many people that could verify the validity of Christians' claims, it is very interesting that no one ever bothered wrtiting a single solitary word about it.

Look, the reason historians are willing to entertain the idea that Homer never existed is because we know very little about him. I assume there is some evidence for his existence, I never really researched it.
My point is that if you tell a historian that you don't believe Homer existed he'll say: "fair enough, there is some evidence that he existed, but I admit it's not as much as we have for other historical persons"
And if you ask him, he'll refer you to this evidence. He won't go: "What?! Are you implying that the Illiad and Odyssey wrote themselves / appeared out of thin air / were delivered by alens?" Which is pretty much the equivalent of your argument.

You might want to re-write this part, I think you got lost somewhere on the way...

The difference is that Alexander the Great claims that he has directly interacted with Aristotle, there are no Christian writings with the claim that they have seen or interacted with Jesus in any way.

As for the double standard, no not all texts should be measured the same way. Let's go back to the Superman analogy. Do you think future archeologists and historians should treat superman comics the same way as newspaper articles?

I'm talking about this thread

How much more childish can you get?
I said nothing about you beeing not welcome to comment, just about your attitude. You admitted that your attitude was wrong, but you have changed nothing in it after that.

Similiarly, I didn't say that doing research was a bad thing, on the contrary, but I said you learned nothing from the research you have done, you commited the same errors that everyone is pointing out over and over, and I'm not talking about grammar.

Todangst: You make it too difficult to resist responding to your ridiculous claims. You obviously are not reading this stuff correctly, and I am compelled to respond to your ignorance—more accurately, your ignoring of the reality of the situation—and your lack of knowledge of reality.

Let’s start in the middle of your last response…

I am not really sure what it is you think refuted means, but it is obviously not the acceptable definition. You have refuted nothing. You have only offered alternative thinking. Not real refutation.

My lack of knowledge of reality? Wow.... I wonder how I'm able to type on my keyboard at all...

As for your repeated claims that I just ignore your arguments, I've asked you politely to stop repeating that lie.

What a shock.

Now I'll have to repeat them all again.

As predicted. In the very same post.

No, you are wrong, and I already demonstrated why: because no one is insisting that we rely SOLELY on contemporary accounts.

I made this point clear enough even for you. In the part that you refused to even cut and paste, let alone respond to.

So you couldn't respond to it. You have to cut it out. Because you can't respond to it.

So here it is again. For you to dodge again:

************************

Notice how others on the board manages to understand it correctly:

Bingo.

Let's again, point out your errors here:

1) A call for contemporary accounts is not an insistence on relying solely on contemporaries. Please correct that error.

The point of asking for a contemporary account is to demonstrate that there is NO evidence of ANY actual eyewitness to jesus. Please correct that error.

All we can rely upon is legend, hearsay, and 'artifacts' of which, in this case, there is also NONE. The fact that you cannot cite ANY contemporary accounts demonstrates just how weak the jesus claim is.

Yet the jesus claim does not hold that jesus was a man, doing naturalistic things. It holds that he was a god/man, doing miraculosu things!

This leads us to error number 2 in your claim:

2) The claim for a resurrected messiah is not akin to claims about NATURAL events, such as the existence of philosophers and kings. Despite having this error repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to repeat it.

You cannot reasonably use the methods we might use for a natural claim, for a supernatural claim.

If we had no direct eyewitness accounts for president lincoln, we could infer his existence from historical events, artifacts, and the like, because the existence of a president is not only a natural event, but an EXPECTED event... some president ruled during tha time, after all.

But a claim for a god/man is not a natural event nor an expected event. It simply violates the law of parsimony to rely on inference alone to make a supernatural claim! It is the ultimate violation of occam's razor. Far more parsimonious explanations exist. There's no need for an 'actual jesus' for there to be legends of a jesus.

****************************************

So, I've shown where you are wrong. In return, you completely ignored the refutation, and just shouted "wrong"

What a joke.

So I repeat this as evidence to prove my point.

Incorrect. I've already demonstrated why your position is a strawman, because it's based on your misunderstandings of the points given to you. There is no insistence that we rely on contemporary accounts solely. So your entire argument is false, based on your strawman of my position.

Your inability to see this is simply painful at this point.

Did you even bother to read what you just wrote? You concede that they are supernatual events.

Ergo, you cannot hold to the same methods for natural events that you can for these events, for they are supernatural claims. You can't hold to a supernatural claim on anonymous assertion!

But we have no evidence of any such eyewitness accounts, yet sanely, rationaly, we would expect quite a deal of such accounts.

Yes, it's a great one, shows us that you don't even think over your own claims.

Here again is proof that you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. First, the existence of the writings of aristotle is axiomatic... they exist, someone wrote them. Second, their existence is a natural event, we need not challenge anything we know of the natural world to accept that someone named "aristotle' wrote them.

And there's more and more: The writing of Aristotle comes from ARISTOTLE. So the provenance for copies of his works is sound.... what matters is not holding to an actual original, but having a provenance from our copies to an original.

You really don't know anything about historicity. So stop arguing the matter, OK?

Seriously, you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. This is why my comments might seem odd to you... because you actually don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly. You don't have a clue! And you've just demonstrated it to the board.

We don't need the actual existent original to have a contemporary account. But we do need references to it. We can rely on copies of copies, as long as we have a sound provenance - a link from the copies to the original source.

In the case of a copy of the works of an author, we have a sound provenance. Aristotle wrote the works of aristotle, even if your copy was created in 2006.

No. What it will point out, again, is that you don't know what you're talking about.

You seem to have not explored the situation at all. As usual.

First of all, notice how you just ignored the fact that I did in fact correct you, and refute your flawed view of the situation. A call for contemporary accounts is not an insistence on relying solely on contemporaries. So you were wrong here, and I corrected you. Rather than admit it, you just ran past it.

Next, your claim that matthew, mark, john, and 'peter' (not Luke?) were contemporaries is actually in dispute by modern biblical scholars. The reality is that these works are anonymous works and the reality is that they were likely written at least 40 years after the supposed time of 'jesus' and more likely even later than that.

If you actually had any idea of what you were talking about, you'd realize that there was good reason to hold that mark was not an eyewitness account of anything, but instead a 'midrash' of OT works.

Here is some evidence of this claim that you will fail to investigate:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

By the way, if you read matthew chapters 24 and 26, you see wher
e the matthew author rules himself out as an eyewitness himself. You'd know this is you bothered to investigate anything you claim.

No, the reality is that they are anonymous works. The "gospels', save for John, all appear to be copies of Mark, and Mark appears to be nothing more than a "midrash' of the OT

There are several errors for you to concede

1) Your mistaken belief that a call for contemporary accounts is an insistence on relying solely on contemporaries. You were wrong. Concede the errorl

2) Your inability to recognize that a lack of any contemporary accounts calls into question any arguments from infernece

3) Your inability to recognzie that a supernatural claim is not on the same footing as a natural claim

4) Your blunder in assuming that the gospels are contemporary accounts, when in fact no serious scholar alive disagrees that the works weren't created decades after the putative life of 'jesus the messiah'

Again you have to lie and call my arguments against these works being contempories, 'ignoring them.' Again, I will point out that I am not ignoring your claims, but refuting them. So stop this lie. Please. I've asked you over and over.

So? The fact that a leader of that time proclaimed himself to be a god - a common occurence and belief of the time, wouldn't rule out the credibility of every claim he made. So your argument is nothing more ad hominem genetic fallacy!

Next, I would like to point out that, again, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about. Again you assert without knowing! Aristotle was Plato's student! The Eudemian Ethics, was edited by Aristotle's student Eudemus There are more contemporaries to Aristotle than just Alexander the Great!

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't even bother to investigate the situation.

And yet you assert anyway....

I've proven that this is the truth about you, yet again.

Now, you'll just cut this part out from the response, right?

And make me repeat it all again.

And then complain that I'm repeating myself!

Sigh, again with this lie.

I don't 'discount' it, I demonstrate the problems with the claim.

1) They are anonymous
2) The works appeared decades after the supposed time of jesus
3) they make supernatural claims, yet provide nothing more than assertions to back it up
4) Even the gospels themselves agree that requiring evidence is to be frowned upon (doubting thomas)
5) the gospels all appear to be midrash, as per the evidence I've given concerning mark

No, there is no double standard , and the holes are in your head.

There is a difference between a real life human being claiming to be a god - an egomanic delusion, perhaps culturally accepted, and 'four' anonymous people claiming to have eyewitnessed a god - again, another delusion, that may be culturally accepted.

The first situation was a normal occurence for the time - rulers believing that they were gods.. Today, we recognize this as egomania, and nothing more. And the fact that rulers believed themselves to be demigods does not rule out the veracity of everything they say. We know that these rulers did exist, and that they did accomplish certain things. These are natural claims.

The second situation, however, is a claim that some people actually did witness a god. Again, this was a normal occurence for the time.

But again, we know that these claims aren't true either... Even you agree that nearly all these claims were false...every single of one of them, except for one.

Right?

Oh come now....

You left out the word "a" between 'refuted' and 'nothing'

I hold your posts in contempt of the court of reason.

Yes. It. Is. Because it relates to whether the term "historical jesus' even makes sense in the first place. I've only made this point 10 times....

The topic concerns a 'historical jesus' and my point is that there can be no such thing as a 'historical jesus', because 'jesus' refers to jesus as per the gospels.

So finding a real life person named yeshau bar joseph who dabbled in carpentry, and died without being resurrected wouldn't be finding 'jesus' it would be refuting the existence of jesus.

How many more times do you need this point repeated?

I'm guessing about 10 more... so can you just cut and paste this 10 times yourself?

Because in nearly every case where I've investigated one of your assertions, youv'e demonstrated a flaw that indicates an ignorance of the matter.... so it seems that you aren't reading very much at all, concerning any of the claims you make here.

Again, for the 10,000th time, I will stress the obvious to you, in the hopes that it will sink into one of the holes in your head, and at least come in contact with your brain, and perhaps even pass through the dura mater and hit the few functioning neurons available....

Finding a real life human who inspired christianity, but does not actually fit the gospel accounts of jesus the christ, would be REFUTING THE BIBLE AND REFUTING THE GOSPELS. It would be demonstrating that 'jesus' as understood by christianity, didn't actually exist.

Here, let's try it this way, breaking it down into child sized pieces

If you find a natural cause for a supernatural claim, then you've refuted the supernatural claim.

Claims for jesus are supernatural claims.

Finding a real life jesus, who was not a deity, refutes the existence of jesus the christ.

Finding a tall man with an axe who inspired the legend of paul bunyan, refutes the existence of an actual paul bunyan.

LOL

Again, I will stress the obvious in the hopes of reaching through to you. To hold that 'jesus is a human who inspired a legend' but was not actually resurrected is a FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION because "jesus' refers to a deity who died and rose again to save mankind.

So whether or not your willing to hold to 'jesus as a man' is incidental.

There is no evidence that this man existed. merely a lot of claims that he existed.

There is no evidence that supports the actual existence of this 'man'

Every other religion can use the same logic.

The fact that you argue over santa claus does not validate santa claus to some extent. It merely proves the existence of the claim, not of any evidence for the claim.

No, we do not.

To ignore the fact that there isn't any actual evidence is astounding. You keep asserting this is so, but it isn't

And in nearly all cases, it is an anonymous assertion! The sole exception is paul, who openly admits to NOT being a witness!

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The fact that there is some minor external validity concerning geography and chronology doesn't make any of the supernatural claims valid.

Spiderman takes place in New York City. There's a real New York City, so... there's a real spiderman?

Think.

Archeologists have backed up the fact that some of the cities mentioned existed. But, something you don't realize is that in many cases, they refuted many of the claims in the gospels concerning geography, the exitence of cities... etc. You seem to be willing to count only the hits, and not the misses.

Ask rook about that. If you dare. Just take a look at how many geographic errors are in the gospels...

LOL

No, there are a lot of bad, weak references there, if you have the ability to examine them critically... something you refuse to do.

Which I'll again prove in the next post as well!

You know, Todangst, I saw how he tried to "educate" you, and I was going to weigh in. But I can see you got all ends covered, Elnathan is a joke, and he's definitely a clueless hack. Good job. Maybe now he'll actually read something.

You guys beat all I ever saw! You make a few frivolous comments, that simply pose alternate possibilities and claim it to refute what was posted. I expect that from to’t, but the others are really shocking. I thought at least Rook would have something good to offer, but to stand behind the todster and lend any credence to his ramblings is quite surprising. Shocking and disappointing

I guess I really shouldn’t have expected much different. It’s pretty much the same as other forums I have encountered. This one is the most emphatic, and has the most militant antitheists I have encountered. I had really hoped for something worthwhile. I had hoped that people were really open to a serious discussion but alas, it is not to be. It’s a shame too. We didn’t even get to the good stuff before you lost control. Oh well, not to worry. I am sure you will find someone else that you can coerce and convince of your great wealth of knowledge.

I started with such high hopes too. I really thought there would be something substantial to show you really had some basis for your stance. But, unfortunately, it appears you have even weaker arguments that the less radical forums I have encountered. The Greek quotes and references were pretty cool though. I really thought we were going somewhere with those, but they too fell short of the mark.

So just keep telling yourselves the same old lies, and keep repeating the same old drivel. But beware, that is the same sort of Neo-Conservative rhetoric that has gotten this country in the condition it is currently. If you tell a lie enough times, not only will people begin to believe it, you will begin to believe it yourself. Perhaps someday, you all will have lived long enough to realize these things, but, there may not be enough time for that—given the depths you have to rise above.

It is really sad too. There seem to be some intelligent people here, that could probably be really good at something. Unfortunately, you seem to have become consumed with a hatred for that which you have no understanding. Though you have convinced yourselves that you have it all figured out, you have been blinded from the truth. You seem more like a collection of religious rejects that have such a messed up view of what the truth is, that even the slightest hint of religions causes you to loose all perspective. It is really sad that such potential has been wasted on worthless drivel that has little or no basis other than what has been developed from some psychotic philosophy that feeds off the psychotic beliefs of others in the group, and are therefore able to justify such beliefs and behavior.

Perhaps you have found some common psychosis that has drawn this group together. It’s like a den of vipers. Your minds have been poisoned beyond the point of reason. The irony is—and I suspected this from the beginning—you actually consider yourselves to be rational responders, but the reality is that you are all so whacked that you would know what’s rational if it smacked you in the face. You call bullshit, while standing knee-deep in the stuff. I feel bad for laughing out loud at you because now it is apparent that you are really messed up and don’t even have a clue just how messed up you are. It’s sad really, and I feel bad for finding it funny.

I know this is all harsh and hard to take, but man, you people need help! Maybe I have taken too much cold medicine and have become a bit too unihibited. But I keep thinking the same thing over and over....you people are really whacked!

Just keep telling yourself that and soon you will actually start to believe it! Destroyed???....that's a great one! There was one source brought into question (based on pure speculation and supposition of someone else), and implied "it could be" about someone else, and you claim victory? You totally overlook all the other evidence and resources that were presented, and claim to be victorious? That's pathetic!

You--well, not really you Rook, you didn't have squat to do with it--claim to have refuted a single source (which you didn't refute, but merely suggested an alternative that wasn't proven) and claim to have destroyed all the evidence. Do you really think that long response really did anything. I really wonder how much of that was yours and how much was plagiarized?

Come on dude, your strawman sucked. Come up for some sunshine. Take a whiff of reality here. You got nothin'. Even what you think you had is lame. I hope your arm doesn't hurt from patting yourself on the back for such a victorious effort; and most of that was something you didn't even have much to do with. Get over yourself!

But thanks for the response, I don't feel so bad laughing now.!

Are you going to address todangst's points, or just keep crying that he is so mean?

Do you really want the answers? Or have you already formed an opinion? I doubt you will get much farther than this line, but, maybe you will surprise me and actually read the entire response—accurately?

First of all….I don’t recall saying todangst (note complete spelling of name?) was ever MEAN to me at all.

Second, I don’t remember ever crying about it. I remember a few other emotions, but crying was NOT one of them.

Third, are you a girl?

After that comes the fourth question; as to who it is you are asking about? There were at least two that presented even better posts than todangst, so it can easily be assumed that you might be including other users inadvertently. But since you specifically referred to that particular user, then we will go with him. M‘kay? 

After that comes the points. Now this is where it gets kind of confusing. Mainly because it is so difficult to know exactly what point it is that he is trying to make.

That brings us to the sixth point (of mine—in regards to (your) question-)) which is the address. This is an especially touchy area, because I have already asked Mr. Angst, to no longer respond to my posts. I asked him to confine his remarks toward me in one final response. Obviously, that was yet another point that Mr. Angst failed to recognize. Which should pretty much define why I might be reluctant to respond or address such posts.

Finally, Why are you so concerned as to why I would or would not address todangst’s points? And just which of those points would you like me to address. Shirley you don’t intent that I should be required to answer every one? And to what extent or depth would you actually desire such answers? (read: how much time do you have?)

There is a great deal of significance in this statement. If those people were not willing to testify to such events, Paul would have quickly been shown to be a fraud. Not just discounted as todangst does, but during his life and ministry. He would have lost credibility among the early Christians. Obviously that didn’t happen. Another significant point is that naming names was not important. It was the message and proof that Jesus was resurrected, not who saw him.

Finally, todangst claims there was a need to name these names, and that is simply ridiculous. The people of that day wouldn’t need names. They could have asked anyone on the streets, “Hey, you know anyone that says that Jesus rose from the dead?” and that person would have been able to quickly name several people that made such claims.

Another good reason why I felt little need to reply to tod’s comments can be easily seen in this quote.

Another reason why I felt little reason or purpose to respond to todangst silliness, is found most prominently here…

Peter is referring to 120 members of the early church that were gathered in one place. Paul is not referring to that gathering directly, if at all.

Something I would like to point out here is the context of these writings we refer to today as the New Testament. The New Testament is composed of letters to believers or groups of believers. It’s not like a few guys sat down together and decided to write a “book” about some guy named Jesus. The N.T. is a collection of letters written by the disciples of Jesus to help inform and encourage people of the new church.

Todangst digresses from those statements to the following…

Paul “admits” he was not a disciple of Jesus while Jesus was still alive. He admits that he even watched the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen to death, and basically cheered them on. He was on the road to Damascus to further persecute the followers of Christ, when He saw a vision, and “became” a witness. Paul doesn’t lie, he wasn’t an eyewitness to Jesus. He may have never seen the man. But something happened on that road that day that made a complete change in Paul’s mission.

Perhaps I condemn Tod too quickly. Perhaps the big problem with his understanding is his choice of versions to read. I have suggested before that he use the NIV, but it seems he continues to quote the KJV. That version is written in 600 year old English with some adaptations; it is very difficult to read, but many people still prefer it over the more modern text.

But the real reason I found no need to make a response to todangst should be pretty clear right here…

First, he calls bullshit while standing knee deep in the stuff. He has clearly shown that he is uniformed of the actualities of what he claims to be refutation, and then has the nerve to call bullshit?

The demand to “go get their names” is further proof that either he is unaware, or fully knows the ridiculousness of the statement. Not to mention the need to have the names in the first place (even if we had the names, so what? Could we verify them? Not likely—especially given that we are having such difficulty in one Man). Then turns around and say there may be some miracle that will allow me to find those names. It clearly indicates he has either lost perspective, or is indeed psychotic, and in great need of psychological help. Personally, I think it may be a cry for help, and that he really wants to believe the truth, but has been so unfortunate in finding anyone that can explain it to him properly.

But the reality is probably that he has become so emotionally caught up in his frustration that he has lost perspective and just wants to hurl insults and made ridiculous comments.

So, you see, there is really little reason to take what he posted with any serious consideration. But, evidently, he convinced you, and that make it very unfortunate. So, I actually did feel compelled to respond to such ridiculous drivel. (His, not yours)

You're making the error of comparing a natural, ordinary claim to a supernatural, extraordinary claim.

This error has been pointed out ad nauseum.

Unfortunately, you don't see how silly your own argument is. I don't have to violate naturalism to take your word for a natural claim.

But to take the word of someone on a supernatural claim requires me to overthrow basic laws of physics that have been verified trillions of times by billions of people over thousands of years!

So to equate "karen claims' for 'jesus claims" is a basic epistemological blunder. A blunder that is repeated and repeated again by theists in this thread, no matter how many times the errors is pointed out.

There is a difference between a naturalistic claim of no importance, and a supernatural claim of vast importance. The standards for evidence are different.

If you can't work this out, then you shouldn't even attempt to discuss this issue any further.

Ah, this old projection! A classic projection of theism!

Here's the reality: I have no problem with idea of going to heavenly bliss for all eternity, whereas you yourself, probably don't like the idea of dying and no longer existing....

However, discussing motivations in an argument is an ad hominem genetic fallacy, so let's leave this aside.

The reason we examine theistic claims for jesus and find them wanting is because they fail to stand up to natural standards of evidence, let alone a standard for a supernatural claim.

Paul concedes that he never met 'jesus' and that his sole contact was through a vision. Even your buddy "eln'" concedes this.

Please read those chapters yourself, and figure out that a vision isn't an actual witnesses of an event. Paul himself concedes he never actually saw 'jesus' while he was 'alive'. Again, your friend 'eln' even recognizes this.

If you don't know this, then again, you are unable to take part in this conversation.

Okay, here's the last attempt to reason with you. If you don't get it this time it will be obvious you are either not trying, purposely being obtuse, or are too blinded by your own opinion that you won't accept something that is really quite simple.

Second, the knowledge comes from the statements made by Peter and Paul. Do you really have no concept of this? Do you deny that if such a man as Jesus were alive and walking around, with thousands of followers, people in that area would know who he was? If/when Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to a large number of people, do you NOT realize that it would be easy to find them--which is the point of Paul making such a statement. In essence he was saying "If you don't believe me, go ask them yourself!"

You keep harping on the names. Do you really fail to see stupidity of that? Have you ever been to a concert? Can you find anyone that can prove you went to that concert? Surely there were thousands of other witnesses? How many of their names do you have? Where is your list? Yet you make such a ridiculous demand to produce as similar list from TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

It turned the man's (Paul's) life completely around. He went from arresting Christians, to spending the REST OF HIS LIFE preaching Jesus, because of what he saw on that road to Damascus. I am betting it was real enough to convince him that it really was Jesus that was talking to him to make such a life changing impact on him.

Aside from that, this is yet another of your scarecrows because it has absolutely nothing to do with the 515 in the first place!

Some how I think this is yet another lie. You seem to be too angry and hostile to be having any fun. Especially when you have gotten a real ass-whoopin’ here, that you are too embarrassed to admit to. You can boast and make all the loud and obnoxious claims that you want, but it still doesn’t change the fact that you got nothin’ man!

One last thing...please don't continue to misinterpret my frustration for anger or that so-called, crying... It just shows more ignorance on your part. Thanks!

Are you serious?

The analogy is not apt. The concert any of us went to has other trails of evidence to show it occurred. He might have a ticket stub. perhaps he does know at least one person there. The question is not who was there, but whether it happened. in order to verify this, we need to have some people who were there and their statements. That, it seems to me, was the point.

The point of showing the list is, in part, to show that the event actually happened, not that we need to know their names for its own sake.

This is essentially the same as any claim that today's christians make in attributing their changes in life to Jesus. it's simply ludicrous. One can say that we attribute our changes in life to a belief in Jesus, but not that it was actually jesus. in a debate about whether Jesus actually changes people's lives, we cannot say that because someone believes He does and that person changes, that it's true; that is circular reasoning.

paul's vision, if it occurred, does not make the vision of something real. perhaps he was halucinating. Perhaps he was lying. perhaps he was using artistic license to describe a change in opinion, perhaps brought on by guilt of having persecuted people he was slowly (or suddenly) becoming empathetic towards, which he described as being vision-like.

I could imagine Paul thinking, while on his way to Damascus, about what he'd been doing and it suddenly hits him that perhaps there is something to this Jesus guy, and perhaps jesus had a message that paul could use in presenting to the world an idea which he himself thinks is true. Perhaps he talked to some of jesus' followers (assuming he existed) or some people who followed similar would-be messiahs (assuming he didn't) to get a feel for what people were thinking. Perhaps paul really thought he met a spirit, associated it with a personality that actually existed, and associated with folk-movements in this very uprroting period in Jewish life.

There are som many possible explanations. To simply say that Paul claimed to have a vision, changed his life, therefore the object of the vision was true is like me claiming that a dream I had 5 years ago, which changed how I think about things, meant that the contents of the dream actually happened or were from, for example, Vishnu.

Coe on now....

Shaun

But no evidence exists for "just a man." No evidence exists for ANYBODY who singularly started Christianity, save Paul (and unless you want to equivocate Jesus and Paul as being one and the same person, you have a case which holds no water). Paul is the only person to ever talk of a Jesus before the fall of Jerusalem. And Paul himself states he never met Jesus:

Galatians 1:11-12, "γνωριζω δε υμιν αδελφοι το ευαγγελιον το ευαγγελισθεν υπ εμου οτι ουκ εστιν κατα ανθρωπον. ουδε γαρ εγω παρα ανθρωπου παρελαβον αυτο ουτε εδιδαχθην αλλα δι αποκαλυψεως ιησου χριστου." or, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

He also states over and over again that, "...ουκ απ ανθρωπων ουδε δι ανθρωπου αλλα δια ιησου χριστου και θεου πατρος του εγειραντος αυτον εκ νεκρων." or, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;"

He states fervently that Christ was revealed in him by the Lord God (Galatians 1:16), "αποκαλυψαι τον υιον αυτου εν εμοι ινα ευαγγελιζωμαι αυτον εν τοις εθνεσιν ευθεως ου προσανεθεμην σαρκι και αιματι."

His conversion story is that he never met Christ in the Flesh, nor did he know of him. In fact, for a man who was on the Sanhedrin to have missed Jesus' existence completely is beyond me. He doesn't know ANYTHING about the man Christ. He only knows of a heavenly Christ which exists within us all.

He states of himself, "And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." If people knew of Jesus Christ as a real person, why would they call Paul the Christ in the flesh? It's ironic, don't you think, that you can go on and on about there being "no biblical support" for the idea of Paul not knowing Christ. Yet Paul was considered an enemy to the Jews as he worked for the Sanhedrin (and the Pharisees) which were starkly hated by Hellenists who sought change in the Jewish community. For people to think of him as this Christ, means one thing.

That Christ never existed but was preached as a spiritual level of achievement which would make sense in this passage. It also fits in with other ideas of Jesus during the time. The Gos. of Thomas states that anybody can be the Christ (108), "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to that one." It is a position to be held, the achievement of knowledge is the Christ - the "anointed" one who has attained Gnosis.

Paul was very well familiarized with this Gospel, as he cites a line from Thomas in 1 Corinthians 2:9, "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" as in Thomas line 17, "I shall give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has no arisen in the human heart." Paul was the Gnostic Teacher, who had achieved "Gnosis," and his students and followers knew of him as the Christ as he had achieved the level of knowledge. This is his whole purpose for reciting this line.

More evidence that Paul was aware of the Gnostic ideology, and preached it, can be found in Romans 2:25-29, where he refers to a spiritual circumcision. This is also found in Thomas (53). There is other evidence as well.

When Paul states in Romans 6:3, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” there is no way this could be literal. Being baptized in Christ was to be anointed into the mysteries of the religion Paul preached. (1 Corinthians 4:1) It was to die and be reborn spiritually as Christ had died and been reborn spiritually. Such is seen many times in the writings of Paul. In the very next verse Paul makes my point. That we are crucified WITH Christ, as Christ was, “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (6:4) And we should look at what he says in 6:8, “Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.” Unless you are suggesting that people died WITH Christ when Paul lived…?

My favorite line to put out there to show Paul’s wisdom and his encouragement of the Gnostic ideals is Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Those who walk after the spirit are those who walk with Christ.

Another devastating verse is thus, “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.” Romans 15:19. If Christ had just lived and died, and rose again, and had shown himself to all these people, and an earthquake happened at his death, and people had witnessed him being marched down the street….why does Paul need to preach this to the people who witnessed it? Paul never witnessed it. Nor did he receive the information from any person or man but only though God. So how could he know MORE about what happened then those who witnessed the life of Christ? More damaging is Paul’s disagreements with Peter (Galatians 1) whom supposedly was with Christ from the start of his ministry? Wouldn’t Paul have to submit to Peter’s whim as Peter had surely been there before Paul and yet Paul disagrees completely with Peter on almost everything. Why is that?

The only suitable explanation, again, is that there were many ideas of Christ being circulated during the first century. Too many had differing ideas as to how to achieve Gnosis through Christ, and which ways that Christ should be accepted. Had Christ been a real person, shouldn’t his contemporaries have known what to do as was stated in Acts (written almost a hundred years after the fact, by the way)? Apparently this isn’t the case.

Another case, to back up my original point, is that Paul is equated in Corinth as the Christ as well, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:12.

And yet another commonality between Thomas and Paul is the idea of Christ as the bartender of spiritual enlightenment. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 10:45, “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” How similar a concept is stated in Thomas, “I am not your Rabbi. Because you have drunk, you are intoxicated from the bubbling spring I tended” (13) and also in 108 as stated above resembles this passage. Through the spiritual Christ (an anointing into the initiates) you are able to drink from the fountain of knowledge (Gnosis).

And of course, more evidence of people following Paul can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:1, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

I can continue to prove this all day. You want to continue to debate this point, or will you concede now? I have so much more to draw from. I hope you are honest enough to concede on this.

But not one source exists anywhere which can prove this point of yours. No one person ever talks of “Jesus the Man” throughout all of history. So regardless, your point is still refuted. It’s self-refuting actually.

Because the only mention of such a character as “Jesus” is supernatural!

If you wish to discuss the idea of a normal human named Jesus present your source from that period or within the first two centuries which prove there was “just a man” Jesus? Otherwise your case is bunk.

No reference exists.

There were also ignorant people who believed that Zeus and Hercules also existed as historical figures. Especially two thousand years ago when such myths were constantly euhemerized.

These people are as ignorant as you when it comes to the evidence, I’m afraid It’s not your fault or theirs, but rather those spreading misinformation - those who have not read or have seen the big picture.

But there is no other case! No other presentation. The only way one can look at Jesus IS supernaturally…as there is no evidence to the contrary. Using claims from the Roman historians to prove a “human” Jesus is incredulous, as Pliny calls it a vast superstition, Lucian mocked the idea of a “Human” Jesus, Celsus argued that Christians stole ideas of Christ’s life from Pagan beliefs – as did Trypho (as proved above which you never once responded to, either because you’re too chicken or because you are too ignorant- again the last option isn’t your fault). Criticism was coming from ALL SIDES. And as I proved to you in an earlier post Christians WERE criticized for the fact that NO EVIDENCE existed for Christ, and that Christ mythology was stolen from the Greeks and Egyptians.

Oh, really? Acts 26:18-20, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”

Shall I go through a list again? Here’s a quick inference into the visions of Paul and his counterparts: “It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth” (2 Corinthians 12:1-3)

Please, your knowledge of the Bible is troubling. Next time you make a statement like this I’m going to start blaming you for ignorance. Because now you’re claiming authority (or at least to know something of the Bible) when clearly you have none, and know nothing.

Done and done.

Acts and Galatians show a very different picture of Paul’s conversion. Trying to use Acts to prove something about Paul is like using somebody who never met you to try and prove you had polio. For starters, Paul’s own words are that he received his visions from God in Galatians, not from Jesus. He heard OF JESUS through God. Not of man nor by man. (See above)

Here are some MAJOR problems with Galatians and Acts:

1. Galatians states that Paul didn’t talk to anybody about his conversion for THREE YEARS during his time in Damascus and outlining regions. (Galatians 1:17) Yet in Acts, Ananias and the other disciples of Jesus were AT Damascus, healed Paul’s sight, and baptized him. A few days later, he was PREACHING about the Lord. (Acts 9:17-20)
2. In Galatians Paul didn’t SEE a Disciple/Apostle for THREE YEARS – until he saw Peter and James (That’s the ONLY TWO) in Jerusalem after those three years. (Gal. 1:18-19) In Acts, however, Paul spent a few days with many disciples in Jerusalem and Damascus (The Bible states “ALL the Apostles” – Acts 9:19)
3. Paul fled at once (RSV) to Arabia and THEN to Damascus in Galatians (Gal. 1:17), where in Acts, Paul had been on his way TO Damascus (Acts 9:3) then started to preach there at long accord (Acts 9:19-26) until the Jews there threatened to kill him and then he fled to Jerusalem after many days (Acts 9:25-26).
4. In Paul’s out words, none but Peter who stayed with him, and James were in Jerusalem. Yet in Acts, ALL the Apostles were there – and were not just there but were afraid of him. This was not the case in Galatians.
5. Paul says after 15 days he left for the regions of Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21) where in Acts, by somebody else’s accord, upon the attempts to kill him by the Greeks, Paul was smuggled out to Caesarea – and from there Tarsus.
6. After 14 YEARS in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, Paul returned to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus. (Gal. 2:1) but in Acts, Barnabas leaves from Antioch to Tarsus to find Paul, brought him back to Antioch for a whole YEAR. (Acts 11:25-16)
7. In Galatians, Paul took TITUS to Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1), where in Acts, Paul took Mark, whose surname was John. (Acts 12:25)

And shall I remind you of the fact that Acts has Jesus being hung, not crucified? They are not the same thing. I can go into this at length if you really want to debate me on this subject. I doubt you do.

I’ve done it for him. You can either cop-out like you did with my last post and pretend I never wrote a response to you, or you can accept the fact that you are wrong and be honest enough to admit it.

False, and I’ve shown this is the case.

I truly hope you correct yourself now. Please have the intellectual honesty to do so. I have respect for you, although I’m not sure of you yet. Prove to me you are an honest individual and admit to this mistake, so we can move on.

The best to you,

Rook

It's blatant dishonesty.... if they were doing that in business, they'd be charged with a 'bait and switch' fraud.

Actually, as per their own supposed 'worldview', it's a sin... they are taking their god's name in vain.

I would be curious as to how you hang pictures in your home? It was very apparent and well known how Jesus was executed to those he was talking to in your reference. This reference is more of a sarcastic remark than historical accuracy, and was a reference to a well known prophecy.

There are many references to Jesus Christ being crucified. It seem strange that you would pick this one testimony to conflict all the others. It is yet another example that you don’t understand what is being said in the Bible.