|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2002 : 17:23:37 [Permalink]
|
Expert testimony
quote:
Get a grip on ya self. Sure but I'm fictitous entirely.
---Queen Meave
And if you don't believe her I have several Pookas in my house who will swear on the Bible that they aren't real either |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
 |
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2002 : 09:06:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Infamous, Lucian of Samosata is writing about Christians not Jesus. Before Constantine there were Christians. A "Christ" was "an anointed one" which is a title and not a person. Being only a title it was applied to a whole class of god/demigod and even as a Greek translation of the Jewish word "messiah."
Apollonius of Tyana headed a religion devoted to the god Christna who was a "Christ" and, as RD pointed out in one of his quotes, the god Serapis was a "Christ." The Dionysian, Orphic and Pythagorean movements all had "Christ" figures.
There were Christians before Constantine but nothing to show that they had ever heard of Jesus
That's BS. This kind of irrational argument is displayed by anyone backed into a corner. It makes you look like a believer.
Why would, say, Mithra worshippers call themselves "Christians" instead of "Mithraites" or something similar? The Dionysian, Orphic, Mithra, etc. movements were all said to have "Christ" figures after the fact, that is, long after Mithra and his buddies was dead and gone, it was noted that their deities were similar to Jesus. Then they were labelled (loosely) as Christians.
quote:
Origen like all the early church fathers exists only in books that come from after Constantine. Origen comes straight from Eusebius.
This in itself would not be enough to raise suspicion except all the dated bibles, all the art and all the churches come from this time and after too. All the physical evidence goes back to the begining of the fourth century and stops.
Why, then, would Constantine have had a book written which insults and satirizes the life of Jesus, the center of the religion he was trying to promote?
And you do realize that there is a general lack of records of anything in Israel from that time period, don't you? The burning of Jerusalem had something to do with that. Only recently have we learned that Caiaphas (the Jewish high priest, according to the New Testament) was a real person.
quote:
Mara Bar-Serapion is just too big a stretch to even consider. It doesn't mention Jesus, and talks about a king-which Jesus was not.
Obviously Bar-Serapion was speaking figuratively about Jesus when he was referring to a king. Jesus was often called "king of the Jews", and that was what they hung on the cross when he was crucified.
And ReasonableDoubt, about King Amon: yes, he fits some of the description, but not all of it. Yes, he was a king. Yes, he was assassinated. But did he live on in his teaching, like the person Bar-Serapion was referring to? King Amon left no more of a legacy than President Millard Fillmore. Jesus, on the other hand, was often referred to as "king of the Jews", he was executed at the request of the Jewish people, and the religion he started continued after his death. He fits the description perfectly.
quote:
Encyclopedia Brittanica shows why I don't buy a copy of the set. Can anything be more ridiculous than this puerile Christian blather?
More ridiculous? Try puerile anti-Christian blather.
This debate continues to display all of the characteristics of a completely unfounded conspiracy theory. You cite fear and threats to show why your conspiracy remained hidden. The same idea is behind the Men in Black myth.
Furthermore, this conspiracy is completely denied by any reputable scholar. The only people we have supporting the continuation of this conspiracy theory are a few pseudohistorians, fringe theologians, and anti-religious sh*t-stirrers. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2002 : 10:18:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
Jesus, on the other hand, was often referred to as "king of the Jews", he was executed at the request of the Jewish people, and the religion he started continued after his death. He fits the description perfectly.
Often? Or in a story, written at least a generation later by 'Mark', and then incorporated into the subsequent gospels? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2002 : 11:12:19 [Permalink]
|
Why would, say, Mithra worshippers call themselves "Christians" instead of "Mithraites" or something similar?
Mithra's followers did not call themselves Christians.
The followers of Christna called themselves Christians.
The Dionysian, Orphic, Mithra, etc. movements were all said to have "Christ" figures after the fact, that is, long after Mithra and his buddies was dead and gone, it was noted that their deities were similar to Jesus.
"That's BS. This kind of irrational argument is displayed by anyone backed into a corner. It makes you look like a believer."
This whole lot were around for a long, long, time before the Jesus fiction was inspired by them. "Before the fact, not after it. They were Christs--Greek meaning 'the anointed one'--first. It is a type of god or demigod. The same type of demigod as Christna.
Why is Jesus called 'the Christ' if the term had no meaning? It's not his last name you know. It's the type of demigod he was.
Then they were labelled (loosely) as Christians.
Why would Jesusites call themselves Christians when they didn't worship Christna?
Just noting a consistency in your replies. Frauds are exposed and you keep believing. You shut your eyes to the evidence--the hallmark of a true victim.
That's funny, I was going to write exactly the same thing about you. And, by the way, what evidence are you talking about? So far all you have done is bluster, you've exposed nothing but you inability to remain civil.
Why, then, would Constantine have had a book written which insults and satirizes the life of Jesus, the center of the religion he was trying to promote?
Celsus is used as a "straw-man." He is portrayed as an Epicurean and probably a Platonist. That means his philosophy is similar to a modern day Skeptic's. He is presented for the sole purpose of having his arguments knocked down and ridiculed by the most Catholic Origen.
Present day Apologists like to pull him out of context to repeat and extend the straw-man argument, just as you are doing.
And you do realize that there is a general lack of records of anything in Israel from that time period, don't you? The burning of Jerusalem had something to do with that. Only recently have we learned that Caiaphas (the Jewish high priest, according to the New Testament) was a real person.
And you do realize that destroyed records and records that never existed look exactly alike. And you realize, don't you, that it is you who are claiming to have information for which no records exist? Because if the records don't exist, for whatever reason, for Skeptics then they don't exist for Credulists.
Obviously Bar-Serapion was speaking figuratively about Jesus when he was referring to a king.
There is nothing the least bit obvious about it. You are assuming that the Jesus story of today (and not the original one) is a fact and then you twist Bar-Serapion into speaking "figuratively." You could say he was speaking figuratively about Herod's pet hamster Mendel (whom he called "the little king"), with as much conviction.
This debate continues to display all of the characteristics of a completely unfounded conspiracy theory.
Nice try…but when you are trying to support your theory of a Superman with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal, who can walk on water and raise the dead. A Superman who nobody saw and who left no records. Versus politicians who parlayed a myth into making themselves the richest most powerful people on Earth…who left scads of records. There is no contest. "Conspiracy theory"…gee, there's no chance that such nice people as the Emperors of Imperial Rome would ever do anything underhanded is there?
"You will believe that a man can fly...er, umm...make that; ascend into heaven."
You cite fear and threats to show why your conspiracy remained hidden. The same idea is behind the Men in Black myth.
Are you completely ignorant of European history? Have you never heard the name "Theodosius the Great" Why do you think that all of Europe suddenly gave up Hellenism, their family religion for millennia?
The only people we have supporting the continuation of this conspiracy theory are a few pseudohistorians, fringe theologians, and anti-religious sh*t-stirrers.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Not a very convincing argument…the religious believe it so it must be true…LOL.
So how come no Xians will come anywhere near the Gnostic question? How do you know that the Christianity that the Mithric Caesar, Constantine, chose is the historic one and not the so-called Gnostic version? It's a simple question.
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2002 : 12:24:25 [Permalink]
|
Slater seals his commitment to the absurd with this baseless statement :Celsus is used as a "straw-man." He is portrayed as an Epicurean and probably a Platonist. That means his philosophy is similar to a modern day Skeptic's. He is presented for the sole purpose of having his arguments knocked down and ridiculed by the most Catholic Origen.
Present day Apologists like to pull him out of context to repeat and extend the straw-man argument, just as you are doing.
quote:
What positive proof could he have to make such a statement???? Perhaps Slater has UNCOVERED some secret church documents explaining how all these writers were INVENTED over 300 years history concerning a myrrad of personalties concerning intricate details of history ect...? But alas I'm afraid all of us conspiracy buffs we will JUST HAVE TO SETTLE FOR SLATER'S WORD THAT IT WENT DOWN THE WAY HE CLAIMS. Because he doesn't have ONE SCINTILLA OF PROOF TO OFFER US,DO YOU SLATER? And you so called Skeptics Swallow his mindless dribble like good little cult members,pathetic,truly pathetic.
|
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2002 : 15:38:46 [Permalink]
|
Speaking for settling for peoples word Troll Bait, I don't see you presenting any proof of historic Jesus. After five boards you still have a fictional super hero.
BTW quotes are for setting apart what other people have said. Not for your new post. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2002 : 20:38:04 [Permalink]
|
Slater you can lead a skeptic to facts but you can't make him think;here is in nutshell is just some of the evidence that you stubornly refuse to acknowledge: quote:
Paul's Epistles
• Paul's epistles were written in the interval 20-30 years after Jesus' death. They are valuable historical documents, not least because they contain credal confessions
which undoubtedly date to the first few decades of the Christian community.
Paul became a believer in Jesus within a few years of Jesus' crucifixion. He writes in his first letter to the Corinthians ‘For I delivered to you first of all that which I
also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve.' This makes clear that belief in the death of Jesus was there from the beginning of Christianity.
The four gospels
• The four gospels were written down in the period 20-60 years after Jesus' death, within living memory of the events they describe.
The events which the gospels describe for the most part took place in the full light of public scrutiny. Jesus' teaching was followed by large crowds. There were very
many witnesses to the events of his life. His death was a public execution.
Manuscript evidence for the Bible and its transmission
The manuscript evidence for the Greek scriptures is overwhelming, far greater than for all other ancient texts. Over 20,000 manuscripts attest to them. While there
are copying errors, as might be expected from the hand of copyists, these are almost all comparatively minor and the basic integrity of the copying process is richly
supported.
Futhermore, when Western Christians study the Hebrew scriptures during the Renaissance, they found them to agree remarkably closely with their Greek and Latin
translations which had been copied again and again over a thousand years. There were copying errors, and some other minor changes, but no significant fabrications
of the stupendous scale which would be required to concoct the story of Jesus' death.
Likewise when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered they included Hebrew Biblical scrolls dating from before the time of Jesus. These too agreed very closely with
the oldest Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts of more than a thousand years later. Again, no fabrications, but evidence of remarkably faithful copying.
Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of history
Clearly there are events recorded in connection with Jesus' life that non-Christians will not accept, such as the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection.
However what is beyond dispute is that Yeshua (‘Jesus') of Nazareth was a figure of history, who lived, attracted a following in his life time amongst his fellow Jews
and was executed by crucifixion by the Roman authorities, after which his followers spread rapidly. Both secular and Christian sources of the period agree on this.
The primary sources for the history of Jesus' public life are the gospels. These were written down relatively soon after his death — within living memory — and we
have every indication that these sources were accepted as reliable in the early Christian community, during a period when first and second hand witnesses to Jesus'
life were still available.
m.durie@linguistics.unimelb.edu.au
Dr Durie is an Anglican Minister at St Hilary's Anglican Church Kew. He is also a senior associate of the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of
Melbourne, with the honorary title of Associate Professor, and was formerly head of the Department of Linguistics and Language Studies. He has written several books on the language
and culture of the Acehnese, an Islamic people of Indonesia, and was elected to the Australian Aca |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 12/19/2002 23:08:15 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 00:02:19 [Permalink]
|
Yeah it looks great when you pick and choose from your favorite "experts". You would get an "F" in school for your poor references. Hell, for all we know you made all the above you wrote up. No, it was probably someone else since you excel at cutting and pasting and little else.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 04:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
Hell, for all we know you made all the above you wrote up.
Don't be silly. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 04:58:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
Infamous, Lucian of Samosata is writing about Christians not Jesus. Before Constantine there were Christians.
Unless it is deemed a fabrication or interpolation, it seems pretty clear that Lucian is speaking of the Jesus cult or something indistinguishable from it. For example:
quote:
11. It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.
- from THE PASSING OF PEREGRINUS; emphasis added
Of course, given that this is presumed written over a century after the fact, it is of very modest probative value.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 06:46:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
quote:
11. It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.
- from THE PASSING OF PEREGRINUS
[removed ReasonableDoubt's emphasis; added my own]
Fascinating! I've never heard that Jesus was supposed to have written many books.
How could someone claimed to be so well-known, and said to have composed many books, not have anything written about him by contemporaries (something would have survived, one would think), nor have any of these books, which would have been cherised and revered by his followers, survive? |
| Edited by - Tokyodreamer on 12/20/2002 06:47:19 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 07:26:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
Fascinating! I've never heard that Jesus was supposed to have written many books.
Nor have I ever heard of Jesus referred to as the "head of the synagogue". But there are two questions here and, in my opinion, they deserve to be dealt with separately:- Was Lucian of Samosata referring to Jerusalem-based, Judeo-Christian cult and cult leader?
- Was Lucian of Samosta accurate in his characterizations?
Do you have any reason to believe that the answer to the first question is "No", or that the answer to the second is of any relevance? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 07:59:42 [Permalink]
|
Ah, I have once again made an ass out of, well, just me, by assuming the pronoun "he" in the quote was supposed to be Jesus.
The "he" who did all these things was Peregrinus, who was set "down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."
The man who Peregrinus was placed second to could have been Jesus, though there seems to be no way to tell whether this cult worshipped a myth or a real person and founder.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 08:17:35 [Permalink]
|
It's actually quite a good story! I recommend reading it, it's very funny.
(Unless seeing Christians portrayed as gullible idiots offends you...) |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2002 : 08:30:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tokyodreamer
... there seems to be no way to tell whether this cult worshipped a myth or a real person and founder.
No, there is not. Under any interpretation, Lucian can only be reacting to hearsay. My question to you, however, was somewhat less general. Do you feel it reasonable to believe that Lucian was not satirizing a Palestine-based Judeo-Christian cult and ridiculing their "cult-leader". Does it seem reasonable, for example, that Lucian would mockingly refer to a Gnostic or Mithraic cult-leader as "prophet", "lawgiver", and "head of the synagogue"? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
