Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:12:31 +0700
A moment if I might Jos? TIA.
On 11 Jan 2004 03:06:18 -0800,
(jack_the_mormon) wrote:
Jos Flachs <'wcruise'@ksc15.th.com> wrote in message news:<tduuvv41ktirdfir9btootpkfkhvtl3dj6@4ax.com>...
On 9 Jan 2004 17:01:20 -0800,
(jack_the_mormon) wrote:
More then a dozen? Name 1. Just 1.
Besides the standard non-christian sources: Tacitus, Suetonius,
Josephus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Talmudic Writers, Lucian the
Playwright;
Not this again, don't they ever learn that mentioning sheep is not proof of the shepherd?
Really, one would thionk they would be able to learn.
Kindly read the arguments why these sources are either incorrect or
doubtful at best. People use them on an almost daily basis, we debunk
them on a similar daily basis.
(sigh) I've read some. Most are desperate attempts by non-believers
Really, & the revidence that mentioning a group of people that beleive in something
is proof of the beleif is?? I've never encountered that evidence myself. Perhaps you
would like to go through that argumentation again.
Or maybe you would like to provide evidence for A mythological charecter by quoting
one of these authors instead?
Philo-Judaeas Seneca Pliny the Elder
Suestonius Juvenal Martial Arrian Petronius Dion Pruseus
Paterculus Appian Theon of Smyra Phlegon Persius Plutarch
Justus of Tiberius Apollomius Pliny the Younger Tacticus
Quintilian Lucanus Epictetus Silius Italicus Statius
Hermogenes Valerius Maximus Pompon Mela Quintius Curtius
Lucian Pausanias Valerius Flaccus Floris Lucius Favorinus
Phaedrus damis Aulus Gellius Columella Dio Chrysotom Lysias
Appion of Alexandria.
All were from the era or lived in the regions supposedly influenced by the missing
hero of the xian mythology. all were writers, who have som,e surviving writtings left.
Now which one of the above mentions a jesus of Nazarteth was it again?
to explain away what they don't want to be true.
No, what they do is establish that the claim that because there are xians,
there must be a jesus the christ as having no factual basis. A point you
have had explained to you ad nauseum.
Funny, I find the arguments countering exactly that. Especially the
newest one: some people claim that all those attemps are old hat,
tought up by atheists, a good century ago. As if science didn't
progress in the last 100 years.
Okay, here is a standard one: Josephus. The lines referring to jesus
are not fitting into the context, and cannot be written by a devout
Jew, which Josephus was.
What is your opinion on this one?
there are the non-biblical christian writers: Valentius,
Saturninus,
Clement - elder of Rome,
An early christian, is necessarily biased.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make his writings invalid as historical
documents.
Historical evidence is not normally accepted soley on the basis of what
a believer wants to be true. Now, if you have supplemental evidence that supports
the claims of those authors, which you don't, then you woiuld have something.
As it is, you have claims being forwarded by people wityh a vested interst, &
that is not of necessity valid evidence.
Agreed, but it does make his historical documents biased in favor of
xtianity.
Ignatius - bishop of Antioch,
An early christian, is necessarily biased.
Christian - but his documents are historically valid as evidence.
Not if they are supposed to proof the existance of jesus.
Justin Martyr,
An early christian, is necessarily biased.
Ibid above.
Polycarps and Quadratus; and then there are the New
Testament Biblical writers themselves which probably number (depending
on which historian you follow) between 6-20. I'm sure there are more
- those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
I wouldn't call NT writers not biased. Why would you?
I would call the writings of Polycarpus and Quadratus valid historical
documents.
I've read some of Polycarp, & yes, I would reject it as evidence for the claimed
cad, lad & spooky marquee routine. You see, the level of devotion to a myth does
not verify the myth, simply the devotion.
I take it Jack knows nothing about the Corybanes [sp], a rather devouted set of
followers of the goddess Kyble. They made the average follower of the xian myth
seem homebound as far as devotion went.
I have no opinion about P and Q. Haven't read them, so I honestly
can't say anything about them.
Polycarp is a good review of [propaganda techinques, that's about it.
And I would not casually throw out the entire bible as a
non-historical document just because I don't believe all the stories
contained therein to be true.
I agree if the bible only had a minor error here and there. But it
goes much further than that. Practically half of the bible is proven
manifestly incorrect, impossible or blatant forgeries. Especially the
NT to fit [often distorted] texts from the OT.
Not to mention what, 26 or more versions.
That is why I reject the bible as a historic source.
Considering that original source documents from 2000 years ago are
extremely hard to come by,
Why? Other events are much better documented.
We have quite a lot of documents from 2000+ years ago, but no core
documents of the xian mythology. A bit of a glaring error really, but xians are blind to that.
Really? To what other events from circa 30 AD are you referring to?
Please name me other contemporary writers from 30 AD who wrote about
obscure cults in the greater Israeli countryside. I'd be very much
interested in seeing such documentation.
Rather the question is, why are there no documents from the era involving
cult activity in the region, & there are no disinterested documents at all.
Yet, we haver diplomatic documents., a few personal letters, some scribings,
not exactly one hell of a loit, but enough to indicate the claims for the
foundation of the xian mythology are false.
None did, as you well know. None wrote anything about obscure cults in
the greater Judeac area until a generation later.
& then, none of these writers. Not that strange really, given the
distance to go vertify anything, given the inconvience, give the creduality
of people, why would they bother to check out the rumors xians were spreading.
I mean, its not as if gods were anything new, nor were saviours.
Yet, as time passed & the world shrunk, gods started getting hard to find.
Philo-Judaeas Seneca Pliny the Elder
Suestonius Juvenal Martial Arrian Petronius Dion Pruseus
Paterculus Appian Theon of Smyra Phlegon Persius Plutarch
Justus of Tiberius Apollomius Pliny the Younger Tacticus
Quintilian Lucanus Epictetus Silius Italicus Statius
Hermogenes Valerius Maximus Pompon Mela Quintius Curtius
Lucian Pausanias Valerius Flaccus Floris Lucius Favorinus
Phaedrus damis Aulus Gellius Columella Dio Chrysotom Lysias
Appion of Alexandria.
Besides, your question is rather loaded. I state that other events
(please take that world wide) are better documented. You answer by
making me proof your position correct.
Of course its load Jos, after all, by now Jack should realise there is no historical evidence,
yet he keeps trying to get others to prove it is out there.
Surely the singular most important event in the history of the
universe deserves a few lines?
(shrug) Strawman. You called it the "singular most important event in
the history of the universe" - I didn't.
So according to you, the opening of heaven, and forgiveness of mankind
by god's sacrifice is not the most important event ever? What kind of
christian are you then?
I only claimed there was
enough valid historical evidence (if your willing to hold Jesus to the
same evidentiary standard as other historical figures) to validate the
{Problem, as you have been informed, is that the claim for this jesus fellow me lad
is extraordinary. Its not like establishing evidence for Ben Franklin, it is supposeddly
vital to the well being of humanity. Yert we ccan establish evidence for Ben Franklin,
yet not this jesus bloke.
Not even using basic evidencial procedures can a case be made for this jesus, &
yet you expect others to go along with your lowered standards.
existence of a real Jesus, upon whom the biblical stories are based.
Which I never denied, but I merely ask for your proof. So far I am not
impressed, sorry. All I hear in this thread is old hat.
That is because you are seekibng what is not there, has never been there, nor will
be there in your lifetime. You can't disprove a non-existent thing or person. You can
just establish reasonable evidence that the claims are simply that, claims without merit.
Can you disprove Na'pe, I can't. Yet he has never existed evidence wise, though
there are those that would say otherwise. ere you of the band, you would know where
that supposed proof is, but you will never know for none of the band would show
it to any white person [& that is not a matter of skin but a matter of a way of life].
I would say that the 15+ original sources
listed above are enough to pass universally accepted historical
standards.
Not if they are sources that needd to establish their claimsa as actual. Now, those 15+
sources with additional uninterested party sources, you would be on to something.
Buit you don't have that, & you are not onto something.
Sorry, I barely come to 3. And that is because I'm not familiar [yet]
with Polycarpus and Quadratus.
Your casual dismissal of the writers listed does not constitute a
valid argument.
If you care to state specific reasons, for each
person listed, as to why their writings are complete fiction and
unusable as historical evidence - I would be interested in seeing your
evidence.
We do that practically every week here. You have been long around here
yourself to know that.
As soon as the debate opens, I'll add my points.
Well Jos, I hope you look good in purlpe if you are going to hold your breath
until evidence for the xian myths supposed founder is provided.
walksalone who notes Jack still simply asserts, & still provides no evidence.
Now, let's see iof he can find any contempory recording of tghe pimp on a stick from
disinterested party's. Be something to see, & it would be a first.
.
