"Well Documented, Even Outside the Bible"

[Casualties14]

@seasoned vet

A recent article stated that Dion fasted for a period of time for Ramadan.........does this negatively affect your fandom of him?

Or the fact that he has a child out of wedlock. It is amazing someone could be an NBA fan when so many of the players and NBA culture in general are so far outside of something that seasoned vet believes and practices.

 

[AuxiliaryPie]

Or the fact that he has a child out of wedlock. It is amazing someone could be an NBA fan when so many of the players and NBA culture in general are so far outside of something that seasoned vet believes and practices.

now remember, typically (in my experience) religious folk just use what is convenient for them and disregard everything else. he'll probably reply with "well we have all sinned at one point, what is important is that he is raising his child well. and besides, only god can judge!" but then he probably blasts homosexuality even though supposedly only god can judge

 

[The Oi]

I don't really support making broad generalizations about "religious folk," etc. I generally don't agree with their belief in God, but honestly THESE days, most religious people are pretty easy-going and don't force beliefs.

Of the people I know that I'd describe as pretty religious, zero of them give me a vibe that I need to filter myself or my "sinful" behavior in front of them. And all of them swear in some fashion or drink and none are judgy.

Most Catholic people that I know, for example, think that the Catholic Church's take on homosexuality and that priests should be celibate is outdated, irrational and needs to change.

So you can say "most religious folk" and then criticize them as you did, but the reality is that they probably don't deserve to be criticized for basically living life without hurting others. I think the real solution is to criticize much of religion itself rather than the people who pick and choose from it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Of the four writers who discuss Socrates and his teachings, three were students or contemporaries of his (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes). None of these writers claim divine or supernatural attributes for Socrates. So citing what's known as the the "Socratic problem" and attempting to liken it to the problem we have with Jesus and our lack of contemporary sources for details about his life is misplaced and incorrect.

I'm not questioning Jesus' existence; I'm questioning the reliability of the documents that say he was a divine miracle worker some 40-150 years after the fact.

Not a single contemporary of Jesus writes about him. Not a single follower/disciple of Jesus writes about him. The earliest references to Jesus were written by followers of followers of Jesus who were attempting to promote their own religious agenda. No disinterested, neutral source writes about the veracity of the Biblical divine and miracle claims about Jesus.

Those facts are all correct, but I think you have to put them into the context of the time in which Jesus lived. The Romans believed nothing out of the ordinary about him -- there wouldn't be any reason for him to be mentioned by them. To them, he was just a very local crackpot, who was in Jerusalem for about a week only. Pliny the Elder doesn't write at all about minor things like that. Likewise, at least according to the Gospels, Jesus was disliked by the Pharisees, who were extremely powerful, as well. If you view it from that perspective, it isn't surprising that there weren't any contemporary accounts of him, because none of the people in the educated classes or power structure of the time had any interest in writing about him either. Better forgotten. And as noted above, most of the people of the time were illiterate and not able to write about him.

One of those classic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" deals.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the lack of such documentation proves his existence, or anything ridiculous like that. I'm simply pointing out that based on the stories in the gospels, I wouldn't expect anything to be written about him contemporaneously, and would expect stories about him to be passed on orally until you had enough support that it rose to recognition by the literate.

And this really doesn't have much to do with claims of his divinity, and I know you said that you are not arguing against his existence as even a great teacher. But others have pointed to that lack of evidence as meaning that even Jesus the man was an invention, and I'm just pointing out why I don't think that's a warranted conclusion.

I do think it's fairly comparable to the Socratic problem because given Socrates' alleged position in Athenian life, and his membership in the literate, privileged class, you'd sort of expect there to be more confirmation of his existence, rather than the Dialogues in which he seems more of an academic construct than a real person.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he didn't exist. Just that the Dialogues themselves always struck me as kind of odd. Are those Plato's thoughts, or Socrates? Eh, neither of them could carry Aristotle's jock anyway.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The Qu'Ran was written around five centuries after Jesus walked the Earth. By the time Islam began, the Christians had created a powerful political presence in the Middle East as well as Western Europe.

Many early Muslims were in fact converted Christians -- the Christian hierarchy in Rome and Constantinople had pissed off a lot of the semitic Christians in Africa and western Asia (other than in Anatolia) by rejecting their ideas in the various theological debates of the time, and by marginalizing the bishops from those regions. That all led to that region being very fertile ground for a new Prophet, although the Christian background of most of early Muslims is sort of demonstrated by the incorporation of Jesus into Islam.

 

[seasoned vet]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152639805037996&set=vb.335613912995&type=2&theater

 

[seasoned vet]

the human q tip is clueless. muslims were never Christians. they are muslims because they never believed Jesus to be who He is, Gods Son, the Christ. muslims and jews are who killed Jesus, kind of ironic, right? they knew He was some type of "prophet" but they didnt believe Him to be who He really was / is. but you see they have many written documents of His miracles because they knew of Him like everybody else, they just refused to believe and felt He was a blasphemer. ive read the Bible, mainly the NT in its entirety, and about to read it again, and reading it, theres a lot of verses speaking about the pharisees and sadducees that sound eerily similar to modern day muslims. and if they are eerily similar to modern day muslim descriptions, then what does that tell you about who they were back then? they are today who they were back then. muslims killed Jesus Christ just like they are killing CHRIST'IANS today. lets open our eyes and really look at the facts instead of going off some Hersey, lies, and propaganda. theres a lot of that out there. more lies than truth out here. and thats a fact.

 

[Tornicade]

Problem is, you're citing Pliny the Younger, who wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. My claim was that Pliny the Elder (different guy), a contemporary, didn't mention Jesus. Everyone else you cite wasn't a contemporary of Jesus either.



Of the four writers who discuss Socrates and his teachings, three were students or contemporaries of his (Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes). None of these writers claim divine or supernatural attributes for Socrates. So citing what's known as the the "Socratic problem" and attempting to liken it to the problem we have with Jesus and our lack of contemporary sources for details about his life is misplaced and incorrect.

I'm not questioning Jesus' existence; I'm questioning the reliability of the documents that say he was a divine miracle worker some 40-150 years after the fact. Moreover, the "secular" sources you quote don't attest to Jesus being a divine miracle worker. They simply state that Jesus lived and had followers, some of whom attempted to ascribe divine qualities to him. Those non-Christian writers don't claim that Jesus was in fact divine, so to cite them as bolstering the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus is misguided at best.

Not a single contemporary of Jesus writes about him. Not a single follower/disciple of Jesus writes about him. The earliest references to Jesus were written by followers of followers of Jesus who were attempting to promote their own religious agenda. No disinterested, neutral source writes about the veracity of the Biblical divine and miracle claims about Jesus.

Again, I can discuss the shortcomings of the references you gave regarding Josephus, Tacitus, and Thallus (as well as an oft cited statement by Suetonius), but I doubt the facts would make a difference to you.

Tacitus was a historian and his source of information was Romes own records. .

I think death is a pretty good incentive for christian opponents to not mention jesus in their works

Dr. James Smith's brilliant examination called The Christian's Defence

Flavius Josephus did not mention the town of nazareth at all yet archeology has proven it existed well before christian times.

Archeologist have found a monument with pontius pilates name
the tomb of the high priest Caiaphas has been found
The gospel of John is a eyewitness account of Jesus albeit anonymous.
the burial site of Jesus brother james has also been found
James also wrote a section of the bible and appears to have known his own brother since James was a witness to the resurrection.

the existence of many biblical figures has been proven by archaeological finds. So far biblical names that have been positively confirmed include Herod the Great, Herod Agrippa, Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas, David, many of the kings of Judah and Israel, and even Jeremiah's scribe, Baruch

all in all since2 thousands years have passed. and writing works appeared within 30 years of his death. couples that he was really only of noteriety for 2 to 3 years at the most. I relly havent seen any evidence that Jesus did not exist literally.

Jerusulem itself was sacked within 3 decades of when pilate ordered his death.

its only a matter time before the original works that the gospels were based on are found, AA the documents associated with the new testament were written within 40 years of Christ death.

you want to discount the works of the apostles because their works were published posthumously ... but a mass persecution of post resurections christians along with the burning of the jewish temple in jeruslem in the sixties is plenty of evidence to conclude jesus literally existed.


Many people questioned the bibles historical autheticity over the years but those darn acheologist keep fiding things like soddam and ghomorra thatshow these places not only existed but came to a bad ending.

Merneptah stele and one of mary's gospels were discovere in 1896.


funny how that year keeps coming up !

HIstorians of the 1st century both seemed to agree that Jesus was a man of influence and that he existed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

the human q tip is clueless. muslims were never Christians. they are muslims because they never believed Jesus to be who He is, Gods Son, the Christ. muslims and jews are who killed Jesus, kind of ironic, right?

You are ignorant. Mohammed wasn't even born until 570 A.D., and didn't start preaching until sometime after 610 A.D.. In other words, Islam didn't even exist until 600 years after Christ.

So can you explain how it is possible for Muslims to be responsible for the death of Christ when there weren't any Muslims for about 600 years?

And then try explaining what religion was predominant in that region before Islam existed.

 

[seasoned vet]

You are ignorant. Mohammed wasn't even born until 570 A.D., and didn't start preaching until sometime after 610 A.D.. In other words, Islam didn't even exist until 600 years after Christ.

So can you explain how it is possible for Muslims to be responsible for the death of Christ when there weren't any Muslims for about 600 years?

And then try explaining what religion was predominant in that region before Islam existed.

more irony. you are calling ME ignorant when you lack reading comprehension.

its quite simple if you follow along, ok.

modern day muslims were not "muslims" bakc when Jesus walked the earth simply because mohammad hadnt yet been sent to be the deceiver he is.

if you read what i said, i said clearly that scriptures describing the pharisees and sadducees perfectly describe muslims. i also said, "they are today who they were back then", meaning, these people clearly havnt changed. they were violent and hateful, just as they are today. (i actually just been exposed to a prophecy last nigh / this morning if you would like to read it.)

people who killed Jesus, the pharisees and sadducees were always after Jesus, trying to catch Him in a lie to sentence Him to death, but could never catch Him in a lie because Jesus IS the Son of God..

you following me?

the pharisees and sadducees believed Moses, but didnt believe Jesus to be the Gods Son, God in the flesh - just like muslims. they believe Moses, but they dont believe Jesuys to be the son of God. but this is not the only similarity between muslims and pharisees and sadducees.

the pharisees who wanted to crucify Jesus, couldnt catch him in a lie, but they couldnt deny the miracles He performed, so they just figured He was a prophet... sound familar? muslims have LOT of documents about Jesus. they have more about Jesus in the quran than they do mohammad!

so it was when mohammad, the deceiver came that those people who denied Jesus and killed him latched onto mohammad, which then, they formed the islamic brotherhood.

its no coincidence that the pharisees and sadducees killed Jesus, the Christ... and they are ALSO KILLING CHRIST"IANS today (noitce Jesus is CHRIST, notice the name Christ is in CHRIST'IANS. that is where the label christians came from. believing in Christ. so its no coincidence that the people who killed the Christ and are also killing CHRIST'IANS)

but this is how backwards muslims are in their logic. they believe Jesus to be a prophet, but a deceiver, a blasphemer, at the same time. basically they think Hes a double agent, but that is not possible. either He is good, or He is bad. they have Him as both. another indication pointing toward them being the pharisees.

i hope i spelled that out clear and simple enough for you, my friend.

next time you post at me, i dare you to try your best to not use an insult. can you do it? i know you can. i know you have better control over your emotions and self than that. i know you aint that weak.

 

[Soda]

more irony. you are calling ME ignorant when you lack reading comprehension.

its quite simple if you follow along, ok.

modern day muslims were not "muslims" bakc when Jesus walked the earth simply because mohammad hadnt yet been sent to be the deceiver he is.

if you read what i said, i said clearly that scriptures describing the pharisees and sadducees perfectly describe muslims. i also said, "they are today who they were back then", meaning, these people clearly havnt changed. they were violent and hateful, just as they are today. (i actually just been exposed to a prophecy last nigh / this morning if you would like to read it.)

people who killed Jesus, the pharisees and sadducees were always after Jesus, trying to catch Him in a lie to sentence Him to death, but could never catch Him in a lie because Jesus IS the Son of God..

you following me?

the pharisees and sadducees believed Moses, but didnt believe Jesus to be the Gods Son, God in the flesh - just like muslims. they believe Moses, but they dont believe Jesuys to be the son of God. but this is not the only similarity between muslims and pharisees and sadducees.

the pharisees who wanted to crucify Jesus, couldnt catch him in a lie, but they couldnt deny the miracles He performed, so they just figured He was a prophet... sound familar? muslims have LOT of documents about Jesus. they have more about Jesus in the quran than they do mohammad!

so it was when mohammad, the deceiver came that those people who denied Jesus and killed him latched onto mohammad, which then, they formed the islamic brotherhood.

its no coincidence that the pharisees and sadducees killed Jesus, the Christ... and they are ALSO KILLING CHRIST"IANS today (noitce Jesus is CHRIST, notice the name Christ is in CHRIST'IANS. that is where the label christians came from. believing in Christ. so its no coincidence that the people who killed the Christ and are also killing CHRIST'IANS)

but this is how backwards muslims are in their logic. they believe Jesus to be a prophet, but a deceiver, a blasphemer, at the same time. basically they think Hes a double agent, but that is not possible. either He is good, or He is bad. they have Him as both. another indication pointing toward them being the pharisees.

i hope i spelled that out clear and simple enough for you, my friend.

next time you post at me, i dare you to try your best to not use an insult. can you do it? i know you can. i know you have better control over your emotions and self than that. i know you aint that weak.

And the enlightened one drops another sweeping generalization.

I'd be pompous too if my life felt like it was as organized as Martha Stewart's silverware drawer.

 

[seasoned vet]

Right soda. You are so right. Once again, you bring nothing to the conversation. Just mindless jibberish. Anything I say you would insult. I could say 2×2=4 and so is 2+2. And you would be like, yo this idiot just doesnt stop. He said 2×2=4 and so does 2+2.

I dare you to use your brain. Its a terrible thing to waste, oh wise one.

 

[seasoned vet]

Its pretty simple, what I said. You take the info given and apply it.. anybody with a brain can understand it and do a task as simple as that.

But the ignorant will always spew some asinine garbage out from their mouth. Expect nothing less.

 

[Soda]

Right soda. You are so right. Once again, you bring nothing to the conversation. Just mindless jibberish. Anything I say you would insult. I could say 2×2=4 and so is 2+2. And you would be like, yo this idiot just doesnt stop. He said 2×2=4 and so does 2+2.

I dare you to use your brain. Its a terrible thing to waste, oh wise one.

You've called basically everyone here atheist and now say that all Muslims "were violent and hateful, just as they are today."

It's easy to convince yourself of things when you work in absolutes. I contend that you're a horrible teacher of Christianity.

 

[seasoned vet]

Brah... just go take a nap on the nearest freeway. Do yourself that favor. You just did EXACTLY what I said you would do. AND YOU DONT EVEN KNOW IT. Thats how mindless you are.