Again, your name calling and personal attacks are relentless and simply go to underscore the poverty of your thinking and the fragility of your "faith". If your wild supernatural beliefs had grounds for support, you would not need to be so antagonistic, evasive, and fearful.
You insisted on argument from authority--even though it is a fallacious way to argue and suitable really for the uneducated and the uncertain. Nevertheless I accepted your appeal to authority and asked you to use him for actual evidence. Instead...you ran, scrambled, evaded--and misdirected with personal attacks and other red herrings.
You came to this thread to score points for Christianity. You came to dismiss atheism, humanism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all non-Christian paths as being less worthy and less Godly. Now I don’t personally mind the implications of this in a religious context because in my opinion it is all so very irrational and absurd. I can only pity any human being who, in seeking spiritual meaning, can find nothing more worthy or grand than to embrace the brutal and ugly self absorption of our primitive ancestors—may they rest in peace.
"You say they don't; that sir is a lie and that makes you the liar not me"
Oh! You are having a little hissy fit claiming that I said Josephus, et al, did not mention Jesus. BUNK! You know that was not my argument. I said repeatedly that there is no evidence for Jesus as depicted in the gospels. Whether or not certain characters were incorporated into the composite myth is irrelevant to our examination of the question of the historicity of Jesus the GospelGod. Nor is there any dispute as to whether or not Christians were a sect during the Roman occupation and thereafter. So don’t create red herrings.
The very fact that you hinge your entire “evidence” on these disputed passages which say nothing at all about the Jesus of biblical fame (who was world famous and mobbed by multitudes--:-)), speaks volumes to the question of historicity. After all, bums walked the earth with more press coverage and greater evidence than this supposed God. I mean, give your head a shake, man. Is your God so small?
You mentioned "Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger all mention Christ or his followers as well as Jewish sources"...I will dismiss them quickly as they are overwhelmingly rejected as evidence even among the most prejudiced and biased "scholars".
Although I have already addressed these passages, I will explain again what you seen unable to grasp...or what you intentionally wish to misunderstand: Even if one or more of these insignificant mentions were not Christian interpolations, it still relates only to a name—not to the GospelGod depicted in the Gospels. The question is not whether there may have been “Messiahs” which contributed to the Gospel mythology…there well MAY have been. They were a dime a dozen in those days--as were miracles, demons, hardship, poverty, and despair. No, the question is whether or not the JesusGod depicted in the Gospels is anywhere evidenced as a single individual in history. Even if we generously allow that the Tacitus reference was not interpolated (a generous allowance, indeed), it still gives no evidence to a GospelGod Jesus. It simply says that Tacitus (who was not alive when Jesus was purported to have lived) had heard about a Christian movement. It says nothing about the tales of the gospels. It provides no evidence for a magical being, and even the reference to the name is derived from hearsay.
None of them were alive when Jesus was supposedly alive. None of them said anything remotely supportive of the gospel myths and tales. And even if these brief comments were not entirely interpolations (and that is doubtful), it still is hearsay gathered decades in the future (Josephus wrote Antiquities around 90 AD.). And the hearsay is innocent and says nothing to support God Walking. Do you think if these or any others had believed they had heard about God Walking, that they would not have wrote volume after volume about it?? Obviously, none of these people believed in Jesus the GodMan. DO YOU GET THE PICTURE, YET??
Now why should we believe that people like Josephus, Tacitus, or Pliny the Younger (none of whom were born while Jesus supposedly lived) should have conveniently set down hearsay which was virtually stripped of any information, when the contemporaries of Jesus (for instance, Philo) had nothing to say about this famous man who attracted the multitudes from far and wide? Do they record any deeds of this famous teacher and worker of miracles? No. They did not. Make like a wizard and figure it out for yourself.
"Your constant attacks on Christians and Jews alike shows that you are also a bigot."
Greg? Why is it necessary for you to call names and make personal attacks as a substitute for argument? I just came from the funeral of a Jewish friend on Sunday. To have you insult me with your puerile tongue is rather unpleasant—especially because I know that your juvenile viciousness springs from the poverty of your arguments, the thinness of your thought, and the frailty and insecurity of your faith. All of this speaks to your vulnerability and to your terrible fear.
Your nasty charge of bigotry has no basis in fact. It springs from your hurt, and from your suspicion that the ground of your belief is quicksand.
I am not attacking Christians at all--nor Jews. If anything I am chastising the ignorant and the duplicitous. You came to this web site in order to promote Christianity and to assert that it is the only religion sanctioned by God. You have tried to push a vision of God which is brutal, ugly, and asinine. I, on the other hand, am open to any position which may be presented and defended. If one of us is a bigot it most surely is not me.
You believe that non-Christians (the majority of the human race) are separated from the True God and in the power of Satan. It is a question of justice for you that God will vindicate you by torturing all of us for eternity because we DESERVE to be tortured. If your charge of bigotry was true, it would yet leave me angelic alongside of your monstrous, arrogant, self-righteous, and insensitive self absorption.
You seem to think that if you pile on your lies and abuse sufficiently high, that it will substitute for compelling argument and will assuage the fear and doubt you hold. But I have never seen a tower of babble carry the day against clear logic and orderly thought.
I am truly sorry that you are unable to handle the discussion without engaging in puerile insults. If you cannot stand the heat, then you have no business being in the kitchen. Furthermore, if you cannot control your hostility and behave like a gentleman, then I suggest you hie yourself to a bible camp or some other place where you are not liable to insult or offend.
"99.9 percent of actual scholars in the related field, friend and foe alike, disagree with you. Jesus is an historical person as attested to by the bible and secular history."
That statement is so immature and pathetic that it is likely to damage your credibility for a long time. Suffice it to say that it exposes either a profound ignorance or a disturbing lack of integrity. You quoted TWO “scholars”—both of whom were anything but objective--being mere Christian apologists defending beliefs of obvious dubiety. On the other hand, objective scholarship has long exposed the absurdity of considering such primitive myths as being either unique or Divine. Here is a short reference to this tradition.
egodeath.com |
