| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"David Buckna" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2004 03:01:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<40683eeb$0$3054$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
My "qualifications" are stating historical facts.
"Tacitus?" :-) Whoops for you; history states he lived from 55-117 A.D. Do
you think he witnessed and wrote about Jesus? :-)
"Suetonius," lived from 69 - about A.D. 140. Whoops for you; couldn't have
seen and wrote about Jesus either, aye? :-)
"Josephus" lived from 37- 100 CE. Whoops for you; didn't see, witness or
write about Jesus first hand, did he? :-)
Now I've simply stated that if Jesus died at a consensus age of 33 none of
these men you and other Christians always bring up could have possibly
witnessed and wrote about him in a direct way. So what's your beef with
what I've stated?
The Talmud is oral hearsay that people tried to put into words years after
its supposed "facts." :-)
Biff
While it is true Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus were born AFTER the
death of Jesus, and were not direct eyewitnesses, they are considered
reputable historians of antiquity.
I guess the easiest thing for atheists and agnostics would be to say
all mention of Jesus of Nazareth [Yeshua] by these ancient historians
were just interpolations, but I don't think you'll find any experts in
first century near-eastern history from any college or university who
would seriously follow that line of thinking. If there is historic
evidence that Pontius Pilate (the Pilate Stone) and Caiaphas (his
ossuary) existed, why do some atheists and agnostics not even want to
consider the possibility that Jesus was a real person?
And to say that the "Talmud is oral hearsay" is laughable. When the
source is against you, just call it "oral hearsay"!
Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan
University will be one of the guests interviewed on the April 5 ABC
special, Jesus and Paul —The Word and the Witness.
See also:
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/mocker.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/redsource/archives/maier3.htm
===
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/jesus_paul_promo.html
In a special three-hour broadcast airing April 5, Peter Jennings takes
viewers back to a time and place when Christianity was a tiny movement
struggling for survival.
ABCNEWS.com
Jesus and Paul —The Word and the Witness
The Story of the First Christians and Two Men Who Changed the World
ABCNEWS.com
Two men sacrificed everything for the belief that God had chosen them
to change the world. They did.
In a special three-hour broadcast, Peter Jennings tells the story of
Jesus of Nazareth, Paul the Apostle and Christianity in its first
decades — a tiny movement that against the odds survived and then
triumphed over all the gods and goddesses of the Roman Empire.
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul — The Word and the Witness
will air Monday, April 5 from 8-11 p.m. ET on the ABC Television
Network.
The first century was barely 30 years old. Rome ruled the world from
Europe to the heart of the Middle East. The Caesars were gods and most
people knew nothing about a young Jewish peasant named Jesus of
Nazareth who was preaching along the Sea of Gallilee, at the edge of
the Empire.
When Jesus died on the cross, he left behind a small and frightened
group of followers struggling to make sense of his humiliating end.
Most Jews either rejected his message or ignored it.
"The idea of a crucified god really did not make sense in the first
century," says Ben Witherington, a scholar of the New Testament, in
Jennings' report. "It's not a message you make up if you're going to
start a religion in the first century A.D."
Yet within a few decades, against all odds, the tiny Jesus movement
began to spread, and in spite of ridicule, suspicion and persecution
it would ultimately displace the Caesars and remains the dominant
religion of the West over 2000 years later.
Many historians and New Testament scholars argue that Paul did more
than anyone to make that happen, even though he never knew Jesus.
After Jesus' death and resurrection, Paul becomes the main character
in the Bible story about the birth of Christianity.
Paul, who according to the Bible had a sudden conversion on the road
to Damascus, took the stories of the crucifixion and Jesus'
resurrection and preached them in a way that was appealing to a broad
audience.
If it weren't for Paul, says Karen Armstrong, a noted scholar and
author of the book, The History of God, "Christianity probably would
have remained a small sect within Judaism."
The program includes the perspectives of a wide variety of biblical
scholars — secular and religious, Christian and Jewish, liberal and
conservative. Both conservative and liberal scholars say it was Paul
who first articulated the ideas we have about the Jesus who was sent
by God to die to redeem the world's sins. The letters Paul wrote as he
traveled the Roman Empire formed the basis of the religion that today
we call Christianity.
Ironically, Paul "never anticipates that 20th century Americans are
going to be his audience," historian Pamela Eisenbaum told Jennings.
"He has no idea, because he thinks the world is going to end."
Although Paul is as controversial today as he was in the first
century, his words are read from pulpits throughout the world every
Sunday. But scholars tell Jennings that in Paul's own day he fought
bitterly with the closest friends and family of Jesus, who had a
different vision for their fledgling movement. Paul is described by
some as a madman and by many as a genius.
Paul has been accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-homosexual and a
male chauvinist. The program looks at the debate, while tracing Paul's
role in turning Christianity into a religion.
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul — The Word and the Witness
takes viewers back to a time and place when Christianity was a tiny
movement struggling for survival and tells the story of Jesus and
Paul, two men of remarkable faith, iron will, and radical vision.
Without them, the religion known today as Christianity would not
exist. Both sacrificed everything for the belief that God had chosen
them to change the world.
---
http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/PR_PeterJennings.htm
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1255232.html
David Buckna
.
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
06 Apr 2004 10:34:05 AM |
|
|
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404042309.3cdef089@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<40683eeb$0$3054$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
My "qualifications" are stating historical facts.
"Tacitus?" :-) Whoops for you; history states he lived from 55-117 A.D.
Do
you think he witnessed and wrote about Jesus? :-)
"Suetonius," lived from 69 - about A.D. 140. Whoops for you; couldn't
have
seen and wrote about Jesus either, aye? :-)
"Josephus" lived from 37- 100 CE. Whoops for you; didn't see, witness
or
write about Jesus first hand, did he? :-)
Now I've simply stated that if Jesus died at a consensus age of 33 none
of
these men you and other Christians always bring up could have possibly
witnessed and wrote about him in a direct way. So what's your beef with
what I've stated?
The Talmud is oral hearsay that people tried to put into words years
after
its supposed "facts." :-)
Biff
While it is true Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus were born AFTER the
death of Jesus, and were not direct eyewitnesses, they are considered
reputable historians of antiquity.
David, so what even if they were honest in relaying hearsay? :-) What's
that prove? What if your dad said he laid an alien before you were born
would your reporting the truth of his claim mean it actually happened? :-)
Since not, what do people's writings about Jesus outside of his supposed
lifetime do for us or prove?
I guess the easiest thing for atheists and agnostics would be to say
all mention of Jesus of Nazareth [Yeshua] by these ancient historians
were just interpolations, but I don't think you'll find any experts in
first century near-eastern history from any college or university who
would seriously follow that line of thinking. If there is historic
evidence that Pontius Pilate (the Pilate Stone) and Caiaphas (his
ossuary) existed, why do some atheists and agnostics not even want to
consider the possibility that Jesus was a real person?
Pilate has contemporary writings and records to prove his existence. I
don't know if I've ever seen any for Caiaphas...he may be a fictional
character as well as Jesus.
And to say that the "Talmud is oral hearsay" is laughable. When the
source is against you, just call it "oral hearsay"!
Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan
University will be one of the guests interviewed on the April 5 ABC
special, Jesus and Paul -The Word and the Witness.
See also:
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/mocker.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/redsource/archives/maier3.htm
===
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/jesus_paul_promo.html
In a special three-hour broadcast airing April 5, Peter Jennings takes
viewers back to a time and place when Christianity was a tiny movement
struggling for survival.
ABCNEWS.com
Jesus and Paul -The Word and the Witness
The Story of the First Christians and Two Men Who Changed the World
ABCNEWS.com
Two men sacrificed everything for the belief that God had chosen them
to change the world. They did.
In a special three-hour broadcast, Peter Jennings tells the story of
Jesus of Nazareth, Paul the Apostle and Christianity in its first
decades - a tiny movement that against the odds survived and then
triumphed over all the gods and goddesses of the Roman Empire.
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul - The Word and the Witness
will air Monday, April 5 from 8-11 p.m. ET on the ABC Television
Network.
The first century was barely 30 years old. Rome ruled the world from
Europe to the heart of the Middle East. The Caesars were gods and most
people knew nothing about a young Jewish peasant named Jesus of
Nazareth who was preaching along the Sea of Gallilee, at the edge of
the Empire.
When Jesus died on the cross, he left behind a small and frightened
group of followers struggling to make sense of his humiliating end.
Most Jews either rejected his message or ignored it.
"The idea of a crucified god really did not make sense in the first
century," says Ben Witherington, a scholar of the New Testament, in
Jennings' report. "It's not a message you make up if you're going to
start a religion in the first century A.D."
Yet within a few decades, against all odds, the tiny Jesus movement
began to spread, and in spite of ridicule, suspicion and persecution
it would ultimately displace the Caesars and remains the dominant
religion of the West over 2000 years later.
Many historians and New Testament scholars argue that Paul did more
than anyone to make that happen, even though he never knew Jesus.
After Jesus' death and resurrection, Paul becomes the main character
in the Bible story about the birth of Christianity.
Paul, who according to the Bible had a sudden conversion on the road
to Damascus, took the stories of the crucifixion and Jesus'
resurrection and preached them in a way that was appealing to a broad
audience.
If it weren't for Paul, says Karen Armstrong, a noted scholar and
author of the book, The History of God, "Christianity probably would
have remained a small sect within Judaism."
The program includes the perspectives of a wide variety of biblical
scholars - secular and religious, Christian and Jewish, liberal and
conservative. Both conservative and liberal scholars say it was Paul
who first articulated the ideas we have about the Jesus who was sent
by God to die to redeem the world's sins. The letters Paul wrote as he
traveled the Roman Empire formed the basis of the religion that today
we call Christianity.
Ironically, Paul "never anticipates that 20th century Americans are
going to be his audience," historian Pamela Eisenbaum told Jennings.
"He has no idea, because he thinks the world is going to end."
Although Paul is as controversial today as he was in the first
century, his words are read from pulpits throughout the world every
Sunday. But scholars tell Jennings that in Paul's own day he fought
bitterly with the closest friends and family of Jesus, who had a
different vision for their fledgling movement. Paul is described by
some as a madman and by many as a genius.
Paul has been accused of being anti-Semitic, anti-homosexual and a
male chauvinist. The program looks at the debate, while tracing Paul's
role in turning Christianity into a religion.
Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul - The Word and the Witness
takes viewers back to a time and place when Christianity was a tiny
movement struggling for survival and tells the story of Jesus and
Paul, two men of remarkable faith, iron will, and radical vision.
Without them, the religion known today as Christianity would not
exist. Both sacrificed everything for the belief that God had chosen
them to change the world.
---
http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/PR_PeterJennings.htm
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1255232.html
David Buckna
I was watching that ABC News Jesus Special and was laughing on the floor at
all of the simple claims of hearsay they took for granted fact. :-)
Hilarious. :-)
What ABC SHOULD have said was that there is no evidence whatsoever that
Jesus even existed let alone did anything else.
Biff
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Buckna" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
12 Apr 2004 12:50:01 AM |
|
|
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<4072cddb$0$1659$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
[snip]
Pilate has contemporary writings and records to prove his existence. I
don't know if I've ever seen any for Caiaphas...he may be a fictional
character as well as Jesus.
[I am posting my reply again as I don't see it on the thread]
Caiaphas was not fictional....
The Ossuary of Joseph Caiaphas
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/caiaphas.html
===
http://www.tfba.org/finds.php
Caiaphas Ossuary:
From the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem, this ossuary bears the
inscription "Yehosef bar Qafa: (Joseph, son of Caiaphas), and it is
dated to the Second Temple Period. Caiaphas is the name of the High
Priest who presided over the trial of Jesus.
[snip]
Pilate Inscription:
Discovered at Caesarea in secondary use in a later wall, this
inscription bears witness to a major New Testament figure and settles
the debate over Pilot's title of Prefect rather than the inferior
Procurator.
---
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/mocker.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar23.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
David Buckna
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aubz" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
06 Apr 2004 02:48:49 PM |
|
|
Biff scrivened news:4072cddb$0$1659$61fed72c@news.rcn.com in
alt.recovery.religion:
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404042309.3cdef089@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<40683eeb$0$3054$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
<<snipped for your convenience>>
http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/PR_PeterJennings.htm
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1255232.html
David Buckna
I was watching that ABC News Jesus Special and was laughing on the
floor at all of the simple claims of hearsay they took for granted
fact. :-) Hilarious. :-)
What ABC SHOULD have said was that there is no evidence whatsoever
that Jesus even existed let alone did anything else.
Biff
I'd have demanded a disclaimer..
--
"Archaeologists working near Mt Sinai have discovered what is believed to
be a missing page from the Bible.If verified by radiocarbon dating,the page
is believed to belong at the beginning of the Bible,and is reported to read
'To my darling Candy.This book is a work of fiction,and any resemblance to
any persons,living or dead,is purely coincidental'.The page has been
universally condemned by church leaders".
Groovy Funky Channel 27 News,Red Dwarf series 2,Better than life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
06 Apr 2004 06:32:36 PM |
|
|
"Aubz" <Aubz@NOSPAM.ha> wrote in message
news:Xns94C3D3AD5F96aubzblueyon@194.117.133.134...
Biff scrivened news:4072cddb$0$1659$61fed72c@news.rcn.com in
alt.recovery.religion:
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404042309.3cdef089@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<40683eeb$0$3054$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
<<snipped for your convenience>>
http://www.coralridge.org/specialdocs/PR_PeterJennings.htm
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1255232.html
David Buckna
I was watching that ABC News Jesus Special and was laughing on the
floor at all of the simple claims of hearsay they took for granted
fact. :-) Hilarious. :-)
What ABC SHOULD have said was that there is no evidence whatsoever
that Jesus even existed let alone did anything else.
Biff
I'd have demanded a disclaimer..
I think CBS should compete with ABC and present a "Dracula Special." It
could tell us how he used to fly around Transylvania and suck everybody off.
:-))
Biff
--
"Archaeologists working near Mt Sinai have discovered what is believed to
be a missing page from the Bible.If verified by radiocarbon dating,the
page
is believed to belong at the beginning of the Bible,and is reported to
read
'To my darling Candy.This book is a work of fiction,and any resemblance to
any persons,living or dead,is purely coincidental'.The page has been
universally condemned by church leaders".
Groovy Funky Channel 27 News,Red Dwarf series 2,Better than life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
12 Apr 2004 11:12:08 AM |
|
|
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed over to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404112204.53826756@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<4072cddb$0$1659$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
snip
Pilate has contemporary writings and records to prove his existence. I
don't know if I've ever seen any for Caiaphas...he may be a fictional
character as well as Jesus.
Caiaphas was not fictional.
The Ossuary of Joseph Caiaphas
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/caiaphas.html
===
http://www.tfba.org/finds.php
Caiaphas Ossuary:
From the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem, this ossuary bears the
inscription "Yehosef bar Qafa: (Joseph, son of Caiaphas), and it is
dated to the Second Temple Period. Caiaphas is the name of the High
Priest who presided over the trial of Jesus.
[snip]
Pilate Inscription:
Discovered at Caesarea in secondary use in a later wall, this
inscription bears witness to a major New Testament figure and settles
the debate over Pilot's title of Prefect rather than the inferior
Procurator.
===
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/mocker.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar23.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
David Buckna
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Buckna" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
12 Apr 2004 04:12:11 PM |
|
|
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed over to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
David Buckna
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404112204.53826756@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<4072cddb$0$1659$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
snip
Pilate has contemporary writings and records to prove his existence. I
don't know if I've ever seen any for Caiaphas...he may be a fictional
character as well as Jesus.
Caiaphas was not fictional.
The Ossuary of Joseph Caiaphas
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/caiaphas.html
===
http://www.tfba.org/finds.php
Caiaphas Ossuary:
From the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem, this ossuary bears the
inscription "Yehosef bar Qafa: (Joseph, son of Caiaphas), and it is
dated to the Second Temple Period. Caiaphas is the name of the High
Priest who presided over the trial of Jesus.
[snip]
Pilate Inscription:
Discovered at Caesarea in secondary use in a later wall, this
inscription bears witness to a major New Testament figure and settles
the debate over Pilot's title of Prefect rather than the inferior
Procurator.
===
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/mocker.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar23.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
David Buckna
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
12 Apr 2004 04:12:57 PM |
|
|
David Buckna wrote:
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed over to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
It seems that most people who come to the conclusion that Jesus was
real, start off from the basis that the NT books are based on real
events - ie, that one of their assumptions is that he is real. Of
course, that doesn't mean he isn't
--
#1636
Not BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
12 Apr 2004 09:38:17 PM |
|
|
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404121313.1ee537a2@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed over to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
David Buckna
Caiaphas' name was on something, that's the only thing we know for sure .
Do you even know if anything on or in it was carbon-14 dated to indicate it
came from close to 2000 years ago? Yes, no? But even if it did and there
was a High Priest named that, there is still no proof he ever handed Jesus
over to Pilate for execution, in fact there's never been any proof Jesus
ever existed at all.
You want me to name an atheistic professor who agrees with me? Probably
most if not all. I wouldn't know for sure but I would assume that in light
of the absence of any Jesus life evidence none would dare disagree with me.
However, if you'd like to give me even one bit of evidence Jesus existed, go
right ahead and try!
Biff
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404112204.53826756@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<4072cddb$0$1659$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
snip
Pilate has contemporary writings and records to prove his existence.
I
don't know if I've ever seen any for Caiaphas...he may be a
fictional
character as well as Jesus.
Caiaphas was not fictional.
The Ossuary of Joseph Caiaphas
http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/westsem/caiaphas.html
===
http://www.tfba.org/finds.php
Caiaphas Ossuary:
From the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem, this ossuary bears the
inscription "Yehosef bar Qafa: (Joseph, son of Caiaphas), and it is
dated to the Second Temple Period. Caiaphas is the name of the High
Priest who presided over the trial of Jesus.
[snip]
Pilate Inscription:
Discovered at Caesarea in secondary use in a later wall, this
inscription bears witness to a major New Testament figure and settles
the debate over Pilot's title of Prefect rather than the inferior
Procurator.
===
http://www.users.ms11.net/~dejnarde/mocker.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar23.htm
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm
David Buckna
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Laird" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
13 Apr 2004 10:42:23 AM |
|
|
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407b528b$0$27667$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404121313.1ee537a2@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed over
to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
David Buckna
Caiaphas' name was on something, that's the only thing we know for sure .
Do you even know if anything on or in it was carbon-14 dated to indicate
it
came from close to 2000 years ago? Yes, no? But even if it did and there
was a High Priest named that, there is still no proof he ever handed Jesus
over to Pilate for execution, in fact there's never been any proof Jesus
ever existed at all.
You want me to name an atheistic professor who agrees with me? Probably
most if not all. I wouldn't know for sure but I would assume that in
light
of the absence of any Jesus life evidence none would dare disagree with
me.
However, if you'd like to give me even one bit of evidence Jesus existed,
go
right ahead and try!
Biff
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus. Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they called
the Christ. Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus. There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for the
life of William Shakespeare. There are more "first hand" historical records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even me, will
be able to slap down your arguments. Do a little home work on the subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
13 Apr 2004 11:23:36 AM |
|
|
"Paul Laird" <smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote in message
news:x-6dnVTpHu_Cl-HdRVn-sw@scnresearch.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407b528b$0$27667$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404121313.1ee537a2@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is
no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed
over
to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
David Buckna
Caiaphas' name was on something, that's the only thing we know for sure
..
Do you even know if anything on or in it was carbon-14 dated to indicate
it
came from close to 2000 years ago? Yes, no? But even if it did and
there
was a High Priest named that, there is still no proof he ever handed
Jesus
over to Pilate for execution, in fact there's never been any proof Jesus
ever existed at all.
You want me to name an atheistic professor who agrees with me? Probably
most if not all. I wouldn't know for sure but I would assume that in
light
of the absence of any Jesus life evidence none would dare disagree with
me.
However, if you'd like to give me even one bit of evidence Jesus
existed,
go
right ahead and try!
Biff
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus. Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that
mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they
called
the Christ. Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus. There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for the
life of William Shakespeare. There are more "first hand" historical
records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the
writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even me,
will
be able to slap down your arguments. Do a little home work on the subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
Jesus is claimed by a consensus of Christians to have been killed at the age
of 33 or 33 AD. And the following men are your historical witnesses for
proof of Jesus existing. :-))
1. Pliny the Younger: Born 61/62 AD (before Aug. 24, 62)
2. Eusebius: Born 260 AD
3. Tacitus: Born 55 AD
4. Tertullian: Born 160 AD
5. Josephus: Born 37 AD
Paul, these men "historically witnessed" Jesus as much as you and I. :-))
Like not at all. :-))
The above proves that it is YOU who "needs to do *your* homework." :-))
Don't be ignorant and lazy, read up on your Jesus sources *first* so next
time you won't toss around utter nonsense and irrelevancy.
Biff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Laird" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
13 Apr 2004 12:54:54 PM |
|
|
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407c13f9$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"Paul Laird" <smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote in message
news:x-6dnVTpHu_Cl-HdRVn-sw@scnresearch.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407b528b$0$27667$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404121313.1ee537a2@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There is
no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed
over
to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof
of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a
speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do
you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
David Buckna
Caiaphas' name was on something, that's the only thing we know for
sure
.
Do you even know if anything on or in it was carbon-14 dated to
indicate
it
came from close to 2000 years ago? Yes, no? But even if it did and
there
was a High Priest named that, there is still no proof he ever handed
Jesus
over to Pilate for execution, in fact there's never been any proof
Jesus
ever existed at all.
You want me to name an atheistic professor who agrees with me?
Probably
most if not all. I wouldn't know for sure but I would assume that in
light
of the absence of any Jesus life evidence none would dare disagree
with
me.
However, if you'd like to give me even one bit of evidence Jesus
existed,
go
right ahead and try!
Biff
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote
history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those
men
you mention, including Jesus. Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that
mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they
called
the Christ. Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet
about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for
the
life of William Shakespeare. There are more "first hand" historical
records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the
writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even me,
will
be able to slap down your arguments. Do a little home work on the
subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
Jesus is claimed by a consensus of Christians to have been killed at the
age
of 33 or 33 AD. And the following men are your historical witnesses for
proof of Jesus existing. :-))
1. Pliny the Younger: Born 61/62 AD (before Aug. 24, 62)
2. Eusebius: Born 260 AD
3. Tacitus: Born 55 AD
4. Tertullian: Born 160 AD
5. Josephus: Born 37 AD
Paul, these men "historically witnessed" Jesus as much as you and I. :-))
Like not at all. :-))
The above proves that it is YOU who "needs to do *your* homework." :-))
Don't be ignorant and lazy, read up on your Jesus sources *first* so next
time you won't toss around utter nonsense and irrelevancy.
Biff
Okay Biff, I'll take you reasoning. Using YOUR context, we cannot accept
Gore Vidal's history of Abraham Lincoln since Vidal was born 60 years after
Lincoln died. Neither can we accept any historical document written by
anyone who was born after the events of which they write. So all
biographies are fakes, all history books are lies, and only Biff has the
answers. So tell me, Biff, what happens when you die? Who carries on your
fine tradition of scholarship?
Biff, you're worse than those who speak out of nothing but ignorance. You
pretned to bring truth when you bring nothing but lies. Your response to my
questions are nothing but smoke screens you throw up because you cannot
prove your points. Oh, by the way, you killed your own argument. You
posted the approximate birth dates of my five listed historians, yet how can
you rely on those dates; as they were all written by people who were born
AFTER the others died? Biff, consistency in logic is absolutely necessary
if you are going to win points in a debate.
Biff is a liar folks, and a poor one at that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
13 Apr 2004 01:50:54 PM |
|
|
"Paul Laird" <smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote in message
news:0eWdnThT55rwtOHdRVn-iQ@scnresearch.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407c13f9$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"Paul Laird" <smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote in message
news:x-6dnVTpHu_Cl-HdRVn-sw@scnresearch.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407b528b$0$27667$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404121313.1ee537a2@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
Caiaphas is thought to be a high priest in Pilot's time. There
is
no
evidence or mention of a "Jesus" at all who he supposedly handed
over
to
Pilot. Jesus has no proof of ever existing.
Biff
Caiaphas was a real person. [eg. his ossuary ]
Pontius Pilate was a real person. [eg. Pilate Stone]
Yes, I know you keep repeating the mantra that "Jesus has no proof
of
ever existing." but can you name even one professor with a
speciality
in first-century near-Eastern history who would agree with you? Do
you
know of any atheists or agnostics who are professors of ancient
history who would agree with you?
David Buckna
Caiaphas' name was on something, that's the only thing we know for
sure
.
Do you even know if anything on or in it was carbon-14 dated to
indicate
it
came from close to 2000 years ago? Yes, no? But even if it did and
there
was a High Priest named that, there is still no proof he ever handed
Jesus
over to Pilate for execution, in fact there's never been any proof
Jesus
ever existed at all.
You want me to name an atheistic professor who agrees with me?
Probably
most if not all. I wouldn't know for sure but I would assume that
in
light
of the absence of any Jesus life evidence none would dare disagree
with
me.
However, if you'd like to give me even one bit of evidence Jesus
existed,
go
right ahead and try!
Biff
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote
history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those
men
you mention, including Jesus. Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that
mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they
called
the Christ. Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet
about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for
the
life of William Shakespeare. There are more "first hand" historical
records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the
writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even
me,
will
be able to slap down your arguments. Do a little home work on the
subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
Jesus is claimed by a consensus of Christians to have been killed at the
age
of 33 or 33 AD. And the following men are your historical witnesses for
proof of Jesus existing. :-))
1. Pliny the Younger: Born 61/62 AD (before Aug. 24, 62)
2. Eusebius: Born 260 AD
3. Tacitus: Born 55 AD
4. Tertullian: Born 160 AD
5. Josephus: Born 37 AD
Paul, these men "historically witnessed" Jesus as much as you and I.
:-))
Like not at all. :-))
The above proves that it is YOU who "needs to do *your* homework." :-))
Don't be ignorant and lazy, read up on your Jesus sources *first* so
next
time you won't toss around utter nonsense and irrelevancy.
Biff
Okay Biff, I'll take you reasoning. Using YOUR context, we cannot accept
Gore Vidal's history of Abraham Lincoln since Vidal was born 60 years
after
Lincoln died. Neither can we accept any historical document written by
anyone who was born after the events of which they write. So all
biographies are fakes, all history books are lies, and only Biff has the
answers. So tell me, Biff, what happens when you die? Who carries on
your
fine tradition of scholarship?
Paul, you're getting really desperate for ammo, aren't you? :-))
Of course, much what Vidal claimed was backed up by Lincoln's contempories'
records. There were plenty of witnesses to Abe's important actions,
including from his enemies' eyes. On the other hand, there are no witnesses
to Jesus' life *at all.*
Just a tad of a difference, don't you think? :-)
Biff, you're worse than those who speak out of nothing but ignorance. You
pretned to bring truth when you bring nothing but lies. Your response to
my
questions are nothing but smoke screens you throw up because you cannot
prove your points. Oh, by the way, you killed your own argument. You
posted the approximate birth dates of my five listed historians, yet how
can
you rely on those dates; as they were all written by people who were born
AFTER the others died? Biff, consistency in logic is absolutely necessary
if you are going to win points in a debate.
Biff is a liar folks, and a poor one at that.
Paul, you *are* hard-up for answers. :-) Now it's ad hominem playtime for
wittle Pauwie? :-)
It doesn't matter if these men lived or were concocted; in many
independents' and CHRISTIANS' arguments they *did* and were born on the
dates below, therefore they could not have witnessed Jesus *at all*. :-)
Sorry. :-)
"1. Pliny the Younger: Born 61/62 AD (before Aug. 24, 62)
2. Eusebius: Born 260 AD
3. Tacitus: Born 55 AD
4. Tertullian: Born 160 AD
5. Josephus: Born 37 AD"
Biff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
14 Apr 2004 12:32:27 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:54:54 -0700, "Paul Laird"
<smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote:
Okay Biff, I'll take you reasoning. Using YOUR context, we cannot accept
Gore Vidal's history of Abraham Lincoln since Vidal was born 60 years after
Lincoln died.
That entirely depends. I understand you know next to nothing about
history, so allow me to help you a little bit.
Gore Vidal is not a historian. He is a writer. If he writes a novel
about Abe, claiming he was magically born out of a virgin in a wood
shack, no, we do not accept that. If he would refer to more common
events, that can be checked, yes, we would accept that.
We have many references about Abraham Lincoln. Created in his life
time. Now, Abe may or may not be an outstanding man, but he was surely
not the son of a god. He never did any miracles.
If he changed water into wine (or bourbon), or walked over water, like
to see some VERY good references about it. Extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof.
Supposing Gore Vidal would claim Lincoln to do that, no, I would not
accept his word for it. Even if the Kentucky Taddler wote that Lincoln
walked over water, or changed it into bourbon: same story.
If they write, as has been done, that Lincoln trained himself to be
lawyer, without going to law school: that is not extra ordinary, and
has been done by many others. That is something we can accept, all the
more so because we do have documents stating a Mr. A. Lincoln passed
the bar exam in his state.
Sadly, there is none whatsoever about this jesus of Nazareth. Even
worse: the village of Nazareth did not exist in his assumed lifetime.
Before, yes. After: that too. But not during the period 200 BCE - 70
CE. Even the bible is pretty vague about this 'city'. The writers
claim geographical features (cliffs, ravines) that are simply not
there.
Neither can we accept any historical document written by
anyone who was born after the events of which they write.
That entirely depends on the events and what they write about it. If
Tacitus writes about dragons, do we have to assume he saw one?
So all
biographies are fakes, all history books are lies, and only Biff has the
answers.
Seems to me that YOU claim to have all the answers.
So tell me, Biff, what happens when you die?
You don't know? You don't exist anymore. Any proof of something else?
Who carries on your fine tradition of scholarship?
Someone else, perhaps?
Biff, you're worse than those who speak out of nothing but ignorance.
Look who's talking!
You pretned to bring truth when you bring nothing but lies.
I haven't seen too many of Biff, and LOADS of you.
Your response to my
questions are nothing but smoke screens you throw up because you cannot
prove your points.
But you don't even have a point. You merely assert things.
Oh, by the way, you killed your own argument. You
posted the approximate birth dates of my five listed historians, yet how can
you rely on those dates; as they were all written by people who were born
AFTER the others died?
You mean the few ancient writers that mention christians? Who did not
mention jesus? (Crestos is NOT Christus)
Biff, consistency in logic is absolutely necessary
if you are going to win points in a debate.
And your highly unscholarly mudslinging is? What about those "Roman
records" you refer to? Found them? Where are they kept? Which museum?
Biff is a liar folks, and a poor one at that.
Shall we call this a pathetic ad hominem?
Any reason to cross post this to unrelated political groups?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
13 Apr 2004 03:47:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 10:54:54 -0700, Paul Laird in an attempt to impress
itself left the following brown spots on th carpet. Watch your step.
Follow ups set to AA, for Biff, & ARCB.
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407c13f9$0$2819$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"Paul Laird" <smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote in message
news:x-6dnVTpHu_Cl-HdRVn-sw@scnresearch.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:407b528b$0$27667$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
"David Buckna" <dabuckna@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:5ff8dc2e.0404121313.1ee537a2@posting.google.com...
"Biff" <nospam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<407abfcc$0$27672$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...
snip
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
Jesus is claimed by a consensus of Christians to have been killed at the
age
of 33 or 33 AD. And the following men are your historical witnesses for
proof of Jesus existing. :-))
1. Pliny the Younger: Born 61/62 AD (before Aug. 24, 62)
2. Eusebius: Born 260 AD
3. Tacitus: Born 55 AD
4. Tertullian: Born 160 AD
5. Josephus: Born 37 AD
Paul, these men "historically witnessed" Jesus as much as you and I. :-))
Like not at all. :-))
The above proves that it is YOU who "needs to do *your* homework." :-))
Don't be ignorant and lazy, read up on your Jesus sources *first* so next
time you won't toss around utter nonsense and irrelevancy.
Biff
Okay Biff, I'll take you reasoning. Using YOUR context, we cannot accept
Have a box car of matches, I take it language is not your first language if
you got that from what Biff wrote.
You claimed IRT you mythology that there were witness & historians hat
supported your claim. If the claim had been mundane, like say, xians
existed in +1st. Cen. Gr., you would be correct. But you fail, as mos of
your ill informed & educated in mythology do, to follow the bouncing ball.
Why are the not valid, for starters, what documentation do they provide
that can be verified. Is there a historical record for the writings to be
based on. There are zero historical writings that support the xian myth
with evidence from the appropriate era.
Gore Vidal's history of Abraham Lincoln since Vidal was born 60 years after
Your strawman & appeal to special exceptions is noted, wrong, but noted.
There are supporting documents verifying one Abraham Lincoln, & his role in
society.
pay attention to this part,
INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE, IOW, not based on what Gore Vidal wanted to believe.
Lincoln died. Neither can we accept any historical document written by
anyone who was born after the events of which they write. So all
Well, that does seem to fit in with the limited my way or highway of the
bleater brigade, but is as usual, just so much bellowing & swamp gas being
wafted across the usenet groups. Not new, just odious.
biographies are fakes, all history books are lies, and only Biff has the
If you say so, then given your demonstrated lack of knowledge across the
board, it must be false.
answers. So tell me, Biff, what happens when you die? Who carries on your
fine tradition of scholarship?
Certainly won't be someone like you that can't even figure out how history
is written, & the research required to verify it is not myth but actual
history.
Biff, you're worse than those who speak out of nothing but ignorance. You
As compared to you, a person known to lack basic knowledge about the
foundations of its myth.?
pretned to bring truth when you bring nothing but lies. Your response to my
As compared to you?
questions are nothing but smoke screens you throw up because you cannot
prove your points. Oh, by the way, you killed your own argument. You
As compared to your smoke screens & verbosity, Biff is the epitome of clear
& rational thought.
posted the approximate birth dates of my five listed historians, yet how can
you rely on those dates; as they were all written by people who were born
Because those people are supported with evidence. Granted, that's a concept
that is alien to apologetics, but it is there. You may have to leave the
church daycare center to find it, in fact you will need to do that, but it
is there.
& it is readily available to those that seek it, unlike your pantheon. I'll
go so far as to say faith is not even required.
AFTER the others died? Biff, consistency in logic is absolutely necessary
if you are going to win points in a debate.
So, when are you going to try following your own advice instead of erecting
strawmen?
Biff is a liar folks, and a poor one at that.
So you say, but then your assumptions are known as being nothing to get
excited over, so why did you try to denigrate him, other than your
inability to refute his information & the implications of it?
walksalone who would not having a monetary equivalent of what Paul thinks
he knows, but fortunately has more than what it is actually worth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
13 Apr 2004 08:16:21 PM |
|
|
Paul Laird wrote:
Okay Biff, I'll take you reasoning. Using YOUR context,
we cannot accept Gore Vidal's history of Abraham Lincoln
since Vidal was born 60 years after Lincoln died.....
Vidal based his book on actual, proven, eyewitnesses and
other historical facts. No such eyewitnesses and facts exist
for the biblical jesus.
Biff is a liar folks, and a poor one at that.
It seems you're the one that's been proven to be a liar.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
14 Apr 2004 12:32:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:42:23 -0700, "Paul Laird"
<smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote:
Do you REALLY need to cross post this to:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.republicans,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christianity,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.recovery.religion
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not. Eusebius is rather biased,
being a xtian bishop. The lines of Flavius Josephus are a forgery,
probably by ... Eusebius.
Some of the others mention christians, none mention jesus.
Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they called
the Christ.
Pontius Pilatus and Caiaphas in all likelihood existed. Now, about
those "retained Roman records": cites please. Where did you find those
retained records? In which museum are they kept? Why have no reputable
scholars found these records?
Remarkable they have never been found in the past 2000 years... gods
ways are surely mysterious!
Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
Why do people with no training in history (yup, that is you, my
friend) always claim that? This is pure mudslinging.
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
Golly, would you be so kind as to cite a few?
There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for the
life of William Shakespeare.
Such as? Cites, please.
There are more "first hand" historical records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Such as? Cites, please.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even me, will
be able to slap down your arguments.
I doubt if you can slap yourself without assistance.
Do a little home work on the subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
As indeed I do too. Not that I hold my breath over it.
Happy [Thai] New Year, and thank you for playing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
15 Apr 2004 03:53:05 AM |
|
|
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message news:<4o7p70lqolu1668ae9ke92erqpkqreu4ve@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:42:23 -0700, "Paul Laird"
<smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote:
Do you REALLY need to cross post this to:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.republicans,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christianity,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.recovery.religion
I agree entirely -- whoever originally did this, please desist.
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
But I'm not sure that Tertullian and Eusebius can be cited here,
neither being Roman historians.
Eusebius is rather biased, being a xtian bishop.
Ad hominem argument, surely?
The lines of Flavius Josephus are a forgery,
probably by ... Eusebius.
No-one but cranks and Ken Olson think that Eusebius wrote the
Testimonium Flavianum. Not even Ken Olson thinks the other reference
is a forgery.
The majority of modern scholars consider the Testimonium Flavianum
genuine but corrupt.
Some of the others mention christians, none mention jesus.
A distinction without a difference, and not true in point of fact.
Why not verify your facts?
Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they called
the Christ.
I cannot imagine what this refers to.
Remarkable they have never been found in the past 2000 years... gods
ways are surely mysterious!
Would you like others to sneer at your mistakes above, as you do here?
Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
Why do people with no training in history (yup, that is you, my
friend) always claim that?
Unfortunate comment, in view of your errors above, surely?
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
Golly, would you be so kind as to cite a few?
Why not? Apart from the New Testament, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
Irenaeus, Justin, gnostic writers, Lucian... the list goes on and on.
I think perhaps you had in mind 'first century non-Christian'?
There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for the
life of William Shakespeare.
Such as? Cites, please.
There are more "first hand" historical records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Such as? Cites, please.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even me, will
be able to slap down your arguments.
I doubt if you can slap yourself without assistance.
Do a little home work on the subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
As indeed I do too. Not that I hold my breath over it.
Happy [Thai] New Year, and thank you for playing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Biff" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
15 Apr 2004 10:48:45 AM |
|
|
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
Golly, would you be so kind as to cite a few?
Why not? Apart from the New Testament, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
Irenaeus, Justin, gnostic writers, Lucian... the list goes on and on.
I think perhaps you had in mind 'first century non-Christian'?
No Roger, we want you to cite people who never witnessed Jesus existing.
;-)))
Biff
"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0404150053.52679557@posting.google.com...
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message
news:<4o7p70lqolu1668ae9ke92erqpkqreu4ve@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 08:42:23 -0700, "Paul Laird"
<smalltoe10@ywave.com> wrote:
Do you REALLY need to cross post this to:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.
democrats.d,alt.politics.republicans,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,a
lt.religion.christianity,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.
recovery.religion
I agree entirely -- whoever originally did this, please desist.
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote
history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those
men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
But I'm not sure that Tertullian and Eusebius can be cited here,
neither being Roman historians.
Eusebius is rather biased, being a xtian bishop.
Ad hominem argument, surely?
The lines of Flavius Josephus are a forgery,
probably by ... Eusebius.
No-one but cranks and Ken Olson think that Eusebius wrote the
Testimonium Flavianum. Not even Ken Olson thinks the other reference
is a forgery.
The majority of modern scholars consider the Testimonium Flavianum
genuine but corrupt.
Some of the others mention christians, none mention jesus.
A distinction without a difference, and not true in point of fact.
Why not verify your facts?
Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that
mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they
called
the Christ.
I cannot imagine what this refers to.
Remarkable they have never been found in the past 2000 years... gods
ways are surely mysterious!
Would you like others to sneer at your mistakes above, as you do here?
Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
Why do people with no training in history (yup, that is you, my
friend) always claim that?
Unfortunate comment, in view of your errors above, surely?
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
Golly, would you be so kind as to cite a few?
Why not? Apart from the New Testament, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
Irenaeus, Justin, gnostic writers, Lucian... the list goes on and on.
I think perhaps you had in mind 'first century non-Christian'?
There
are more extant ancient writings supporting the life of Jesus than for
the
life of William Shakespeare.
Such as? Cites, please.
There are more "first hand" historical records
for the life of Jesus that for the existence of Socrates, Homer, or
Hannibal.
Such as? Cites, please.
Biff, if all you can do to support your ramblings is quote from the
writing
of others who never bothered to do the research - then anyone, even me,
will
be able to slap down your arguments.
I doubt if you can slap yourself without assistance.
Do a little home work on the subject
of ancient writings, then come back, quote your sources, and give your
scholarship. We'll be waiting.
As indeed I do too. Not that I hold my breath over it.
Happy [Thai] New Year, and thank you for playing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
15 Apr 2004 07:40:08 AM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2004 01:53:05 -0700, (Roger Pearse)
wrote:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheism,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.republicans,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.religion.christianity,alt.agnosticism,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.recovery.religion
I agree entirely -- whoever originally did this, please desist.
I doubt he will.
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
Tacitus and Plinius too?
But I'm not sure that Tertullian and Eusebius can be cited here,
neither being Roman historians.
Eusebius? He was what? I recall he was Roman. Not historian, but Roman
nevertheless.
Eusebius is rather biased, being a xtian bishop.
Ad hominem argument, surely?
No. Would you say that a statement of a pope or say, Rev. Fallwell in
favor of xtianity is NOT biased? Not an ad hom at all, merely an
observation of a fact.
The lines of Flavius Josephus are a forgery,
probably by ... Eusebius.
No-one but cranks and Ken Olson think that Eusebius wrote the
Testimonium Flavianum. Not even Ken Olson thinks the other reference
is a forgery.
Strangely enough I can't find any reputable websites that agree with
you. I can't get a lot of quality document where I live, so the web is
what I work with.
The majority of modern scholars consider the Testimonium Flavianum
genuine but corrupt.
As I can't check the majority of modern scholars, I hold my opinion.
Neither in favor or against, but highly suspecting this to be a
forgery.
That better?
Some of the others mention christians, none mention jesus.
A distinction without a difference, and not true in point of fact.
Why not verify your facts?
Ah, so Tacitus refers to jesus of Nazareth?
Serious question: what do you think about Nazareth? Did it exist or
did it not exist?
Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they called
the Christ.
I cannot imagine what this refers to.
Remarkable they have never been found in the past 2000 years... gods
ways are surely mysterious!
Would you like others to sneer at your mistakes above, as you do here?
As you do, you mean?
Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
Why do people with no training in history (yup, that is you, my
friend) always claim that?
Unfortunate comment, in view of your errors above, surely?
Would you like others to sneer at your mistakes above, as you do here?
:-D
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
Golly, would you be so kind as to cite a few?
Why not? Apart from the New Testament, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
Irenaeus, Justin, gnostic writers, Lucian... the list goes on and on.
More serious: any proof of WMD's? Yes, Pres. Bush, John Ashcroft wrote
all about it. That is roughly the same thing as you just wrote.
I think perhaps you had in mind 'first century non-Christian'?
Exactly. I don't exactly see even 1st century xtian writers as non
biased.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
15 Apr 2004 02:28:32 PM |
|
|
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message news:<9rms709k99pj8vj41a1kmsqrmlq15etj5c@4ax.com>...
On 15 Apr 2004 01:53:05 -0700, (Roger Pearse)
wrote:
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
Tacitus and Plinius too?
Tacitus, Annales 15:44; Pliny the Younger, Letter 96.
But I'm not sure that Tertullian and Eusebius can be cited here,
neither being Roman historians.
Eusebius? He was what? I recall he was Roman. Not historian, but Roman
nevertheless.
Um. Now that's a question... He was a Greek, of course, and wrote in
Greek and didn't know Latin. But he lived in the Roman empire. I
have no idea whether it makes sense to call him a Roman.
Eusebius is rather biased, being a xtian bishop.
Ad hominem argument, surely?
No. Would you say that a statement of a pope or say, Rev. Fallwell in
favor of xtianity is NOT biased? Not an ad hom at all, merely an
observation of a fact.
An ad hominem argument is one that dismisses the argument of x on the
ground that 'Oh x is a such-and-such so must be biased'. And,
frankly, I tire of this excuse. It's cheap and pointless.
The lines of Flavius Josephus are a forgery,
probably by ... Eusebius.
No-one but cranks and Ken Olson think that Eusebius wrote the
Testimonium Flavianum. Not even Ken Olson thinks the other reference
is a forgery.
Strangely enough I can't find any reputable websites that agree with
you.
No doubt. But then I don't think there are any quality websites on
the matter, apart from the academic one, josephus.yorku.ca. Have a
read of Alice Whealey's paper on that.
My statement is based on the exhaustive review (not online, sadly) by
J.Carleton Paget in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 52.
I can't get a lot of quality document where I live, so the web is
what I work with.
<sympathy> Today I learned that the Agents of Ignorance who operate
the interlibrary loan system here have increased the price of book
loans even further, to $30 a loan. (Prohibitive, in other words).
So the one thing that all of us can do, which is useful imho,
regardless of opinions, is to put material online.
The majority of modern scholars consider the Testimonium Flavianum
genuine but corrupt.
As I can't check the majority of modern scholars, I hold my opinion.
Neither in favor or against, but highly suspecting this to be a
forgery.
That better?
A substantial minority of scholars do think this. In fact I gather it
was a majority opinion ca. 1900. But Whealey reviews the
historiography, and is a professional, so get her take on that.
Some of the others mention christians, none mention jesus.
A distinction without a difference, and not true in point of fact.
Why not verify your facts?
Ah, so Tacitus refers to jesus of Nazareth?
Certainly, although he calls him Christ, as all the early pagan
writers do. Why?
Serious question: what do you think about Nazareth? Did it exist or
did it not exist?
I don't know anything about this one. It sounds like a manufactured
argument to me. It's obvious polemical utility makes me deeply
suspicious of it.
Not only that, there are retained Roman
records that mention Pontius Pilate, that mention Caiaphus and that mention
the small sect of believers called Christians who worshipped one they called
the Christ.
I cannot imagine what this refers to.
Remarkable they have never been found in the past 2000 years... gods
ways are surely mysterious!
Would you like others to sneer at your mistakes above, as you do here?
As you do, you mean?
Pardon me, but I'm not good at sneering or I could teach you the
difference with an illustration...
Biff, I see you still have not learned to remain quiet about
subjecrts of which you have no knowledge.
Why do people with no training in history (yup, that is you, my
friend) always claim that?
Unfortunate comment, in view of your errors above, surely?
Would you like others to sneer at your mistakes above, as you do here?
:-D
Not very impressive response, is it?
There are tens of thousands of ancient writings that mention Jesus.
Golly, would you be so kind as to cite a few?
Why not? Apart from the New Testament, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas,
Irenaeus, Justin, gnostic writers, Lucian... the list goes on and on.
More serious: any proof of WMD's? Yes, Pres. Bush, John Ashcroft wrote
all about it. That is roughly the same thing as you just wrote.
Nor that.
I think perhaps you had in mind 'first century non-Christian'?
Exactly. I don't exactly see even 1st century xtian writers as non
biased.
We don't know that they are biased *before* we assess the evidence.
Treating them as so makes *us* biased. But let's be honest here --
all you really want to do is ignore the evidence. Do feel free.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
16 Apr 2004 02:25:57 PM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message news:<9rms709k99pj8vj41a1kmsqrmlq15etj5c@4ax.com>...
On 15 Apr 2004 01:53:05 -0700, (Roger Pearse)
wrote:
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
Tacitus and Plinius too?
Tacitus, Annales 15:44; Pliny the Younger, Letter 96.
What did Pliny say? The only reference I know of is about Christians and
Christian beleif
--
#1636
Not BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Pearse" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
17 Apr 2004 03:35:09 AM |
|
|
Ash <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c5pcaq$mr2$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message news:<9rms709k99pj8vj41a1kmsqrmlq15etj5c@4ax.com>...
On 15 Apr 2004 01:53:05 -0700, (Roger Pearse)
wrote:
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
Tacitus and Plinius too?
Tacitus, Annales 15:44; Pliny the Younger, Letter 96.
What did Pliny say? The only reference I know of is about Christians and
Christian beleif
Hi Ash,
This is what people say, isn't it? I always found it barmy tho, since
Pliny explicitly talks about 'sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to
a god', and about Christians being obliged to deny Christ. (The
Penguin translation of Pliny's letters is one of my favourite books,
and I recommend it). Here's an online version of the English text:
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.html>
All the early non-Christian references use 'Christ' rather than Jesus,
although often pronounced 'Chrest' (cf. Tertullian's comment on this
in his Apologeticum). Indeed iirc the name 'Christian' comes from
people shouting it as an insult in the streets of Antioch, rather than
'Jesusian' which rather makes the same point.
Not that Pliny had any special knowledge of Christ or Christians, as
is obvious from his letter: all he knew was that they were illegal,
and supposed to commit dreadful crimes. What he records, he found out
on site, and so cannot be considered independent testimony about
Christ (although it is surely independent testimony that the early
Christians really did do as the texts we have say). But to say that
he doesn't refer to Christ is plain untrue.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: DID JESUS EVEN EXIST? |
17 Apr 2004 04:16:07 AM |
|
|
Roger Pearse wrote:
Ash <Ashamanic@winterfell73.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<c5pcaq$mr2$2@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Roger Pearse wrote:
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message news:<9rms709k99pj8vj41a1kmsqrmlq15etj5c@4ax.com>...
On 15 Apr 2004 01:53:05 -0700, (Roger Pearse)
wrote:
So Biff, you are calling at least 5 well-known, highly respected Roman
histortians liars. I refer to Pliny the Younger, Eusebius, Tacitus,
Tertullian, and Flavius Josephus (who was actually a Jew who wrote history
for the Romans). All of those historians make reference to all those men
you mention, including Jesus.
Sorry to burst your bubble. They did not.
All of these writers do indeed refer explicitly to Christ.
Tacitus and Plinius too?
Tacitus, Annales 15:44; Pliny the Younger, Letter 96.
< | | | | | | | | | | | |
