Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Some Stuff To Ram Down Their Throats


raoul

Recommended Posts

for those of you engaged with the Christian cult apologists. The following is quite extensive and contains a variety of counter arguments against their beliefs. It's been created by some of us elsewhere and keeps growing with more information added as required. Warning - it is very long but contains some very useful facts. Feel free to use at your pleasure because we've been very effective with it. To date not one of the apologists has been able to attack it. In most cases they simply ignore it (for obvious reasons)..

 

 

The alleged secular sources for a historical Jesus?? An extensive excoriation of many of the Christian

myths floating around.

 

sources include: Barker, Ehrman, Moss, Arnheim, Doherty, Fitzgerald, Carrier, Remsburg, et.al. This essay is comprised of the work done by Hitchens Argumentum, MMaximuSS1975, NIKO, & George Vorillas, & many other Atheists

 

ALL serious scholars say that the Josephus quote is a fraud, put in by possibly Eusebius decades after Josephus died. Among many clues historians look for is continuity of a passage, ie: the subject matter flows in a way as to be understood logically and seamlessly. With Josephus' text the verse right before the forgery and right after it discuss the horrible events surrounding Pilate's killing of people. But, right in the middle of the story we have a jesus commercial as I call it! An obvious ADDITION made decades, maybe centuries, after the original writing by Josephus and, I might add, NO different than many parts of your bible which, in the nt, was repeated by orthodox fundies intent, just like YOU, on making the myths/legends of a christ going on and on.

 

The actual Josephus forgery was: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.“ (Ant., book 18, chapter 3)

 

**Author's comment** - Josephus was an orthodox Jew, albeit perhaps not a very religious one but still a non-Christian. By using the word, Christ, among other things, he was committing blasphemy and would have been dealt with accordingly by local Jewish officials.

 

Tacitus offers a vague reference to a Chrestus which was a name for something OTHER than the mythical Christos. Regarding any followers, Tacitus claimed a christ ( I say 'a' christ because many deluded prophets were going around during that time claiming to be a christ) was put to death as criminal, nothing about a magical comeback. Tacitus went on to CRITICIZE the followers for 'their hatred of the human race' and being PROSECUTED for their crimes such as their 'depravity and filth'. Nothing about a Jesus or resurrection or miracles, etc.

 

Pliny reference - In 112AD Pliny, the younger wrote, christians were singing a hymn to christ as to a god. Nothing about a jesus, etc. No different than saying hari kristnas were singing to lord kristna. And Pliny may have been referring to the other false christs going around claiming to be THE one and only. Suetonius (AD 70-160) recorded that Claudius expelled them from Rome for causing continual disturbances. As you can see, Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus say NOTHING about a specific jesus. This is of great importance since the apologists LOVE using those 3 sources to prove a jesus did live in ancient times. The sources just described mention NOTHING about a person and ONLY about the criminal element calling itself 'Christian'. Summing up those 3, in another work, Deceptions & Myths of the Bible by L.M. Graham, on page 443:

"it is a pernicious superstition" by Tacitus, "The new faith is a perverse and extravagant superstition" by Pliny, & "A superstituion vain and frantic" by Suetonius"

*Notice, all 3 call it a superstition which the apologists seems to ignore in order to cite

them as proof of anything.*

 

One other note - the apologists also misuse the Nero citation as some kind of proof of universal martyrdom perpetuated on this cult. According to respected historians(source: http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gba_christians.htm)shared on our non theist community by +MMaximuSS1975 Nero's actions may have been the result of the cultists actually setting fire to parts of Rome. Nero had arrested Christians in Rome for arson and for other antisocial behaviour - this same kind of behavior other critics throughout history have charged this cult with. Elsewhere, in this same source shared by +MMaximuSS1975, the article cited numerous cases where the cult actually did set fire to places of worship by other religions and even secular buildings. My premise is that Nero may have had justification for prosecuting (not persecuting) them Both Pliny and Tacitus say NOTHING about a specific jesus.

 

 

*author's comment* EVERYONE in a religious cult, xtian or otherwise, did that but the xtians were notorious for lying.

 

Celsius derided them for fabricating crap out of thin air and even Origen, a Christian, admitted to incredibly sloppy transcribing from one manuscript to another.

Philo Judaeus whom I'll speak of in more detail shortly was an ancient historian who lived at the SAME time that a jesus allegedly lived and even resided in the same area. Philo said SQUAT about him or even his alleged followers even though other events of that time were judiciously recorded by him. Justus of Tiberius, a Galilean, was another contemporary of that time and also wrote NOTHING about their lord or his supplicants. In fact, a 9th century xtian, named Photius verified the lack of historical writings by complaining about Philo and others not mentioning anything about the cult - a tacit admission of sorts.

 

 

From: http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm

 

By Richard Smith

Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time (41). Not ONE of them mentions a historical Jesus and/or any followers of his (some previously cited by me): Apollonius, Persius, Appian, Petronius, Arrian, Phaedrus, Aulus Gellius, Philo-Judaeus, Columella, Phlegon, Damis, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Pliny the Younger, Dion Pruseus, Plutarch, Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Favorinus, Ptolemy, Florus Lucius, Hermogones, Quintius Curtius, Josephus, Seneca, Justus of Tiberius, Silius Italicus, Juvenal, Statius, Lucanus, Suetonius, Lucian, Tacitus, Lysias, Theon of Smyran, Martial, Valerius Flaccus, Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Pausanias

 

Nicolaus of Damascus (c. late 1st century B.C.E. – early 1st century C.E.) was, among many other things, tutor of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, and personal friend, advisor and court historian to King Herod the Great. Nicolaus wrote a world history in 144 books up to the end of Herod's reign, relying heavily on Herod's personal memoirs and of course his own first-hand knowledge (Josephus cites Nicolaus as a principal source for his own account of Herod's reign). Only a few fragments of this work remain, but if the nativity story in Matthew really happened, it is somewhat incredible that none of it was mentioned by Nicolaus. He would have been an eyewitness when the wise men came to Herod’s court and so badly troubled the King (“and all Jerusalem with him,” Matt. 2:3) that he summoned all the chief priests and scribes for an emergency meeting to learn more about this rival messiah. He would have been on hand when Herod learned that the magi had deceived him, went into a rage, and dispatched his soldiers to kill all the infant boys in Bethlehem “and all its districts” (Matt.2:16). Yet, Nicolaus says nothing of this.

 

This phenomenon is not just restricted to the history writers of the first few centuries. Even in fiction writing there is evidence that Christianity remained a largely unknown religious movement on the fringe of society for hundreds of years. We know of at least half a dozen ancient pagan novels written between the late 1st and 3rd centuries. Yet notably, Christians are never encountered in any of them before the 4th century, even though these stories typically involved adventures across the whole known world and through all areas of society. For example, in Apuleius' Metamorphoses he encounters a number of cultists from various religions, but never a single Christian.

 

In the case of Jesus, his believers are left with two unhappy choices: either the Gospels were grossly exaggerating Jesus’ life and accomplishments, and Jesus was just another illiterate, wandering preacher with a tiny following, completely unnoticed by society at large – or he was an outright mythical character. One common reaction from apologists is to insist that there are huge gaps in the historical record of the first century, big enough to hide Jesus in. This is not just untrue – as we’ve seen, there were plenty of writers who had every chance and every reason to discuss Jesus in their surviving work – but this situation is worsened by yet another consideration. Christians themselves were responsible for the lion’s share of all ancient writings that survived. Remember it was the Church that for hundreds of years doggedly preserved the writings they approved of – and destroyed or simply neglected to maintain the ones they didn’t like.

 

 

Alleged Martyrdom? The following was taken from a lecture by Dr. Candida Moss, professor at Notre Dame

 

Die horribly? There is NO historical proof that mass persecutions took place. Yes, some PROSECUTIONS took place because xtians broke laws and Roman law was very harsh with not just them but everyone. There wasn't an organized penal system and executions were common for crimes we regard as minor. In fact you could be stoned to death for writing a derisive paper regarding a public figure.

 

In the 3 centuries from the time of beginning of this cult until Constantine made it the state religion, the Christians underwent only about 30 years of any kind of persecution and most of it, excluding the one enacted by Emperor Nero, was committed on a local level for the most part. Local neighbors rising up against some of the Christians for actual laws broken against the state among other reasons.

 

In addition, from Salon.Com:

 

Dr. Moss, in another interview, challenges some of the most hallowed legends of the religion when she questions what she calls “the Sunday school narrative of a church of martyrs, of Christians huddled in catacombs out of fear, meeting in secret to avoid arrest and mercilessly thrown to lions merely for their religious beliefs.” None of that, she maintains, is true. In the 300 years between the death of Jesus and the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, there were maybe 10 or 12 scattered years during which Christians were singled out for supression by Rome’s imperial authorities, and even then the enforcement of such initiatives was haphazard — lackadaisical in many regions, although harsh in others. “Christians were never,” Moss writes, “the victims of sustained, targeted persecution.”

 

In reference to some of the well known first martyrs. Polycarp, a bishop in Smyrna during the second century who was burned at the stake, and Saint Perpetua, a well-born young mother executed in the arena at Carthage with her slave, Felicity, at the beginning of the third century. Moss carefully points out the inconsistencies between these tales and what we know about Roman society There’s surely some kernel of truth to these stories, she explains It’s just that it’s impossible to sort the truth from the colorful inventions, the ax-grinding and the attempts to reinforce the orthodoxies of a later age. That word 'orthodoxy' once more comes into the discussion. Prof. Ehrman's 'Orthodox Corruption of Scripture'. Those of you familar with some of my earlier videos should recall what I spoke about regarding the orthodoxy and how they were the ones responsible for the incredible corruption of biblical texts - all of which was based on my extensive studies of Doctor Ehrman's excellent work in this area. He had also questioned the myth of wholesale Christian persecutions.

Moss also examines surviving Roman records. She notes that during the only concerted anti-Christian Roman campaign, under the emperor Diocletian between 303 and 306, Christians were expelled from public offices. Their churches, such as the one in Nicomedia, across the street from the imperial palace, were destroyed. Yet, as Moss points out, if the Christians were holding high offices in the first place and had built their church “in the emperor’s own front yard,” they could hardly have been in hiding away in catacombs before Diocletian issued his edicts against them.

This is not to deny that some Christians were executed in horrible ways under conditions we’d consider grotesquely unjust. But it’s important, Moss explains, to distinguish between “persecution” and “prosecution.” The Romans had no desire to support a prison population, so capital punishment was common for many seemingly minor offenses; you could be sentenced to be beaten to death for writing a slanderous song. Moss distinguishes between those cases in which Christians were prosecuted simply for being Christians and those in which they were condemned for engaging in what the Romans considered subversive or treasonous activity. Christians wound up in Roman courts for any number of reasons, but when they got there, they were prone to announcing, as a believer named Liberian once did, “that he cannot be respectful to the emperor, that he can be respectful only to Christ.” Moss compares this to “modern defendants who say that they will not recognize the authority of the court or of the government, but recognize only the authority of God. For modern Americans, as for ancient Romans, this sounds either sinister or vaguely insane.” It didn’t help that early Christians developed a passion for martyrdom. Suffering demonstrated both the piety of the martyr and the authenticity of the religion itself, and besides, it earned you an immediate, first-class seat in heaven. (Ordinary Christians had to wait for Judgment Day.) There were reports of fanatics deliberately seeking out the opportunity to die for their faith, including a mob that turned up at the door of a Roman official in Asia Minor, demanding to be martyred, only to be turned away when he couldn’t be bothered to oblige them.

“The idea of the persecuted church is almost entirely the invention of the 4th century and later,” she writes. This was, significantly, a period during which the church had become “politically secure,” thanks to Constantine. Yet, instead of providing a truthful account of Christianity’s early years, the scholars and clerics of the fourth century cranked out tales of horrific, systemic violence. These stories were subtly (and not so subtly) used as propaganda against heretical ideas or sects.

Today, these same kind of people continue to use the deeply ingrained belief in a persecuted — and therefore morally righteous — church as a political club to demonize their opponents. Moss sees a direct link between the valorization of martyrs and preposterous right-wing rhetoric about the “war on Christianity.” It’s a tactic that makes compromise impossible. “You cannot collaborate with someone who is persecuting you,” Moss astutely points out. “You have to defend yourself.”

As also stated by me in previous debates - I didn't buy this for the simple reason - I took 2 years of Latin which required a secondary study of the Roman culture - society, government, laws, etc. The one thing learned was that the Roman authorities were extremely tolerant of all religions. Look at the respect they paid towards the Jewish religion as shown, clearly in the bible. Also, didn't some of the alleged writers of various letters in the NT urge the people to respect those in authority - secular government. Remember what Paul said about a god placing such people over believers?

Dr. Moss shows how that behavior has continued down to our very day - the martyrdom of our poor believers. How many times have we heard the cultists claim they're being attacked by Satan and/or the enemy? This usually occurs after they've been exposed regarding some insidious behavior or crimes they've committed.

 

 

This was a small segment of an essay author used in a discussion a while ago:

 

Peter or Paul were ACTUALLY executed? If one is relying on Acts to support this fallacy - forget it. Acts has been discredited as nothing more than fiction. There were actually TWO copies of Acts passed around the churches with one containing 10 percent MORE info than the other one. The speech Peter allegedly made in the beginning of Acts is almost IDENTICAL to what Paul said near the end to the religious crowd. The Greek style and usage are IDENTICAL. In other words, ONE person wrote BOTH speeches.

 

Some early church fathers actually stated in parchments discovered that Paul went on to Spain after his final release from his Roman jail and lived out his life there.

 

 

Source: Chapter 2, Fitzgerald, David (2010-09-30). Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All - Kindle Edition.

He began by mentioning the so called eyewitnesses or just witnesses to a Jesus. He had a timeline showing that the majority of them did not even live during the time of this jesus and that most of their writing appeared 100 years or more after the alleged birth of this jesus. Few are even talking about Christ in any context. For the most part, they are discussing Christians, not Christ at all. The two who appear to even mention a Christ, namely those of Tacitus and Suetonius, are just snippets that happen to mention common Christian beliefs of their day in passing while actually discussing some other subject altogether, not making any grand pronouncements on Jesus’ historicity.

**author's comment**: the term, Chrestus, used by them was a common word meaning 'friend' among other things and had nothing to do with the messianic Christ.

Fitzgerald goes on to show us there were many first century writers, philosophers, historians, and other commentators who had good reason to notice Jesus, and despite apologists’ fervent denials, a wealth of their writings still exists today. But these perfectly respectable sources are never on Christian lists of historical witnesses. They include important figures like Epictetus, Pomponius Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria, Nicolaus of Damascus and more. And these are just the contemporaries; there are still later commentators who we would expect to have mentioned Christ, but did not.

Following are some living during or around the same time as this jesus.

Seneca the Younger (c. 3 B.C.E. – 65) Lucius Annaeus Seneca, philosopher, writer, statesman, and de facto ruler of the Empire for many years, had three compelling reasons to mention Jesus at least at some point in his many writings. First, though regarded as the greatest Roman writer on ethics, he has nothing to say about arguably the biggest ethical shakeup of his time. Second, in his book on nature Quaestiones Naturales, he records eclipses and other unusual natural phenomena, but makes no mention of the miraculous Star of Bethlehem, the multiple earthquakes in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, or the worldwide (or at the very least region-wide) darkness at Christ’s crucifixion that he himself should have witnessed. Third, in another book On Superstition, Seneca lambasts every known religion, including Judaism.1 But strangely, he makes no mention whatsoever of Christianity, which was supposedly spreading like wildfire across the empire. This uncomfortable fact later made Augustine squirm in his theological treatise City of God (book 6, chapter 11) as he tried mightily to explain away Seneca’s glaring omission. In the 4th century, Christian scribes were so desperate to co-opt Seneca they even forged a series of correspondence between Seneca and his “dearest” friend, the Apostle Paul! They were notorious forgers known for doing this elsewhere regarding letters from Paul or John to others discussing their various myths.

Seneca’s silence is compounded by the fact that his older brother was Junius Annaeus Gallio (died 65 AD), who actually appears in the Bible. According to the author of the book of Acts (18:12-17), Gallio was the magistrate who heard Paul's case and threw it out of court. If this is true, it’s curious that Gallio never seems to have told his brother about this amazing Jesus character that everyone was so excited about, since Seneca was very interested in just this sort of thing. But Seneca shows no sign of ever having heard of Christians or Jesus at all. It’s also strange that even in Acts, Gallio has never heard of Jesus. This makes no sense at all if Jesus was a famous miracle worker recently executed who had returned from the dead and remained in Jerusalem for forty days, as Acts also says.

Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias (died c. 101) was a native of Tiberias in Galilee (not far from Jesus’ hometown), was personal secretary to King Herod Agrippa II (who allegedly met the apostle Paul), and even wrote a history of the Kingdom of Judah covering the entire time when Jesus lived. And it’s very interesting to read what he says about Jesus: Not ONE word.

The MOST damning of all - Philo of Alexandria (c.20 B.C.E. – c. 50) Writer, political commentator and esteemed Jewish statesman, Philo was above all the greatest Jewish philosopher of the Greco- Roman world; he fused Jewish and Greek thought to create Hellenistic Judaism. Philo was one of the more prolific writers in the ancient world. Around thirty of his books still survive, among which are his commentaries on contemporary politics and events of note affecting the Jews. He was certainly interested in fringe religions, and not afraid to talk about them. He wrote a great deal on other Jewish sects of the time, such as the Essenes(a form of christianity as posited by some), but nothing on Jesus, or on Christianity either, even though his home of Alexandria was supposedly one of the early cradles of Christianity, ie: Eastern Church (Western Church was Rome). Philo was in just the right time and place to be a brilliant historical witness to Jesus. He lived before, during and after the alleged time of Christ, and he had strong connections to Jerusalem. He didn’t just spend time in Jerusalem – his family was intimately connected with the royal house of Judea. So when Jesus’ fame and new philosophy spread all across Judea and beyond, when Jesus had his triumphant procession into the Holy City, drove the moneychangers from the temple, was crucified, resurrected and ascended to Heaven, when Jerusalem experienced two major earthquakes, supernatural darkness, and all the dead holy people emerged from their graves and made their way though Jerusalem – Philo was on the scene through all of that. In fact, he could have quite literally been on the scene for all of that. Philo would have loved to have been able to speak firsthand with these great Jewish saints he wrote so much about. But apparently neither their return from the dead nor any of those other miracles made much of an impression on either him – or anyone else in Jerusalem – because he never makes the slightest mention of any of these events. This absence is particularly strange considering what a huge influence Philo had on Christian theology. The early Christians were Philo’s biggest fans. It was early Hellenistic Jewish thinkers like Philo who first combined Jewish thought with the idea of “The Logos,” i.e. the Word, as in “In the beginning was the Word,” and “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Philo also wrote of the pneuma (“breath”) as the inspiration of God, the supernatural power that flows from God into the human soul. The word pneuma appears almost 400 times in the New Testament, most notably as hagion pneuma – the Holy Spirit. As Frank Zindler has noted, without Philo, the idea of the Trinity couldn’t have been invented years later by the second century Christians.

Following are some living after jesus.

There are still many other candidates from the century or two after the time of Jesus that, although they would not have been eyewitnesses, still could have had reason to comment on Jesus, his teachings, or the miraculous events associated with him. Seeing how eagerly the Roman church pounced upon and preserved the barest mentions of Christ in pagan writings, we can be quite certain that if any of these writers had talked about him, the church would have done the same with their writings as well. Here are just a few:

Pausanias was a 2nd century Greek travel writer whose stops included Antioch, Joppa, Jerusalem and the banks of the river Jordan. He was fascinated by all kinds of gods, holy relics and sacred or mysterious things, frequently pausing in his descriptions to relate local legends or digress on the wonders of nature, including earthquakes and meteorological phenomena. Says NOTHING about a jesus or his followers

Aelius Aristides (117 -181) (not to be confused with the Christian apologist Aristides) was a famous Greek hypochondriac who wrote extensively on his own visions of various gods. He was obsessed with pursuing miraculous healing of his endless imagined illnesses, which stretched on for 38 years. He wrote his best work on sacred teachings, and his other writings are praised for their social history of Asia Minor (where many early Christian communities existed). Yet nowhere do Jesus’ sacred teachings or his impact on history appear.

Marcus Cornelius Fronto (100-166) wrote Discourse against the Christians, of which only a single fragment survives. But judging by the reactions to his work, Jesus’ exploits never seem to have been mentioned.

Maximus of Tyre (c. 2nd century) was a Greek philosophical lecturer who drew upon a wide range of philosophies and mysticism. In fact, it was Maximus who turned the early Christian theologians on to Platonism. But he has nothing to say about Jesus’ teachings.

Athenaeus of Naucratis (c. 200) A Greek writer living in Egypt, Athenaeus wrote the monumental 15-volume work Deipnosophistae, “Philosophers at Dinner,” which records a series of seemingly endless, meandering conversations that range over most every conceivable subject, with countless digressions usually starting from some dinner-related issue (food or music or linguistics), but running off to encompass other things (like luxury, humor and pornography). It is rather odd that in all these conversations, Christians or Christianity never once came up. This may be because Christianity was a small movement not on anyone's radar at the time – except this is almost 200 years after Christianity began and Egypt was supposedly one of the early centers of the faith. One of Paul’s rivals is Apollos, a popular Egyptian preacher (Acts 18:24-28), and Christian tradition claimed that Egypt had a line of bishops starting from the time of Mark.

Lucius Flavius Philostratus (c.170 – c. 244) Greek-born Roman courtier and writer. He is best known for his biography of Apollonius of Tyana, but he also wrote Lives of the Sophists, a collection of biographical sketches of illustrious men. Like Jesus, Apollonius performs miracles and healings, drives out demons, prophesizes, gains a large following and comes back from the dead. But Jesus himself gets no mention from Philostratus in either book.

Diogenes Laertius (c. early 3rd century) wrote Lives of the Philosophers, a monumental encyclopedia documenting in detail all the philosophical schools prominent in his day. Luke certainly painted Christianity as a philosophical school, so its failure to get even a brief mention suggests Christianity was still largely unknown even after two centuries.

Sextus Empiricus (c. 3rd century) wrote a massive collection of books refuting practically every philosophy that existed at the time, in elaborate detail. Just as with Diogenes Laertius’ compendium of philosophy, Christianity never gets a mention.

There are still more writers who covered a wide variety of subjects that might well have included Jesus or the events described in the Gospels, including Herodes Atticus, Lucius Apuleius, Aulus Gellius, Artemidorus Daldianus, and others. And these are just the writers we know about, yet not ONE of them refers to any historical jesus and/or any of the events described in their book of fairy tales - the bible.

One last thought - regarding Nazareth where the birth of the baby god was supposed to have occurred -

Christianity was the ultimate product of religious syncretism in the ancient world. Its emergence owed nothing to a holy carpenter. There were many Jesuses but the fable was a cultural construct. The nativity yarn is a concatenation of nonsense. The genealogies of Jesus, both Matthew's version and Luke's, are pious fiction. Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs. With multiple authors behind the original gospel story it is no surprise that the figure of "Jesus" is a mess of contradictions. Yet the story is so thinly drawn that being a "good Christian" might mean almost anything. The 12 disciples are as fictitious as their master, invented to legitimise the claims of the early churches. The original Mary was not a virgin, that idea was borrowed from pagan goddesses. The pagan world knew all about virgins getting pregnant by randy gods: The Mythical "Virgin Mother". Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road. "Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure"? Don't believe a word of it. Unlike the mythical Jesus, a real historical figure like Julius Caesar has a mass of mutually supporting evidence. - See more at: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/#sthash.zsp9PHhc.dpuf

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

As people rightly say, if you can disprove the first 3 chapters of genesis, then whole thing crumbles. The most impressive aspect of that article is how it goes back to christianities beginnings and proves christianity to be a cult, and a sham. That article also helped me in that it showed that my deconversion was well founded. I will have to read it a few times just make sure the info sticks so i can remember it the next time i need to fire back at those fiction pushers. Thank you raoul for posting that info. Keep fighting the real 'good fight' in exposing that death cult for what it really is, mythological hateful nonsensical garbage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This info could be very useful. Thanks for sharing and welcome back Raoul, even if it's only a brief visit. It is good to see you here again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies and perhaps an apology is in order. I've NEVER forgotten what this site has done for me and continues to do for others finally breaking the chains of religion. It's just that I'm heavily engaged elsewhere in the ongoing battle of words with what I now am convinced are delusional people. The more they spew out nonsense, unfounded assertions and all the rest of their idiocy, the more convinced I and many others over at google+, YouTube, etc. are. We have been tossing around a term lately which may really spell it out regarding the various religious followers - cognitive dissonance. I'm just becoming familiar with what it entails but from what I've seen, so briefly, I believe it fits them to a 't'.

 

One other thing, even though I'm not around here much all of you are still in my heart and mind. In fact, just yesterday someone made a YouTube video to help people who are trying to deconvert. In the comments section I immediately wrote about this place and gave them the HTTP address.

 

I'm trying to wean myself away from over there or at least cut down on the amount of work I'm doing there. As this occurs, I'll be over here more, sharing with you the various things, videos, books, etc. I've been involved in. Believe me when I say I've never been so busy yet so happy in my 70 years on this planet. I feel like a school kid again, learning or trying to learn so much.

 

Later folks. .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that was excellent! A treasure trove of information. Thanks for providing it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus

 

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

 

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note Ironhorse's argument.  Wait...there is no argument, just a cut and paste.

 

Let's see....

 

Josephus made a minor reference to Christ in one book he wrote as follows:

 

 

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"

 

 

Another reference to Christ is found in an earlier book:

 

 

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.“

 

Because the first reference above (the one in the later book) has not been challenged as authentically written by Josephus, the second reference (in the earlier book) cannot be challenged as authentic, including all the claims of magic sky fairy stuff which only appear in the second (earlier) reference.  And nevermind context...that only applies when I say so.

 

Yeah, that's quite an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse knows very well that we have discussed the TF and Ant. 20 many times.  Trolling again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Note Ironhorse's argument.  Wait...there is no argument, just a cut and paste."

 

~sdelsolray

 

 

This thread started with over twenty paragraphs that were cut and pasted.

It doesn't bother me. 

 

My reply I cut and pasted does continue the discussion. 

 

I agree there is disagreement on the Josephus reference to Jesus. 

 

This one by Josephus is much more difficult to dismiss. 

 

Search it out. Look it all up. We could go on forever playing tennis on trying to prove or disprove Jesus.

 

It will never be a settled fact by concrete evidence either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It will never be a settled fact by concrete evidence either way.

 

 

Because 2,000 years from now Jesus will still have not returned.

 

And 4,000 years from now Jesus will still have not returned.

 

And 6,000 years from now Jesus will still have not returned.

 

8,000?   10,000?   12,000 years from now . . . Jesus still doesn't show.

 

There will never be any concrete evidence for Jesus.

 

But don't you worry, Christianity will die out long before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This one by Josephus is much more difficult to dismiss. 

 

Search it out. Look it all up. We could go on forever playing tennis on trying to prove or disprove Jesus.

 

It will never be a settled fact by concrete evidence either way.

 

Never, Ironhorse? We do have the Bible. Let's talk about what it really says. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus

 

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

 

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20

In his work, No Meek Messiah, Michael Paulkovich tears that silly interpolation apart relying on other scholars' works. To be brief, the original Josephus citation may have been meant for another Jesus from another family referencing a son of Damneaus. (page 196)

 

In addition this reference was never mentioned by Origin or other early church fathers who would have used it to prove their cult's validity. It mysteriously showed up almost 100 years after Josephus' death. Most respectable scholars believe Eusebius, known as the church historian, plagiarized the original text to support his lies. After all, this is the same Eusebius who claimed it was okay to embellish (lie) for the faith (Dan Barker's Godless).

 

Lastly, no Jew even a Roman one would have ever used the term 'christ' in describing a religious person.

 

Nice try though. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Note Ironhorse's argument.  Wait...there is no argument, just a cut and paste."

 

~sdelsolray

 

 

This thread started with over twenty paragraphs that were cut and pasted.

It doesn't bother me. 

 

My reply I cut and pasted does continue the discussion. 

 

I agree there is disagreement on the Josephus reference to Jesus. 

 

This one by Josephus is much more difficult to dismiss. 

 

Search it out. Look it all up. We could go on forever playing tennis on trying to prove or disprove Jesus.

 

It will never be a settled fact by concrete evidence either way.

That's another lie spewed by you delusionals over at YouTube in order to avoid the incredible amount of facts. And no, it was NOT a cut/paste in the same manner as your amusing straw man about Josephus. ALL references in that essay were researched and much of the wording was in the various Atheists' own writings. You obviously missed a lot of the statements beginning with 'my comment' or 'member comment'. Personally I have read ALL of the sources cited, in fact, some of them like Fitzgerald's work, Nailed, several times.

 

Lastly, the major difference between YOUR cut/paste tripe and my essay is that yours is a lie as stated in my other reply to you. I have a lot more I can say about Josephus but it's been my experience with you apologists that it is a waste of time. Your cognitive dissonance prevents you from reading anything that doesn't comport to your god myths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It will never be a settled fact by concrete evidence either way.

 

 

Because 2,000 years from now Jesus will still have not returned.

 

And 4,000 years from now Jesus will still have not returned.

 

And 6,000 years from now Jesus will still have not returned.

 

All polling data supports your stance about it dying out. In fact, it may come sooner than any of us ever hoped for. Some have posited by 2050 it will be a minority in America.

 

8,000?   10,000?   12,000 years from now . . . Jesus still doesn't show.

 

There will never be any concrete evidence for Jesus.

 

But don't you worry, Christianity will die out long before then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse knows very well that we have discussed the TF and Ant. 20 many times.  Trolling again.

I'm aware of that tactic from over at YouTube, Google, and other places. They keep repeating the same mantra over and over again just like what Goering said about repeating a lie until people believe it to be true. You should see their anti Evolutionary Science tirades. They keep saying "we didn't come from monkeys". We keep replying "no we didn't but we and they are comprised of over 99% identical DNA which supports the view we both came from a COMMON ancestor" Their responses? "We didn't come from monkeys" LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note Ironhorse's argument.  Wait...there is no argument, just a cut and paste.

 

Let's see....

 

Josephus made a minor reference to Christ in one book he wrote as follows:

 

 

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:"

 

 

Another reference to Christ is found in an earlier book:

 

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.“

 

Because the first reference above (the one in the later book) has not been challenged as authentically written by Josephus, the second reference (in the earlier book) cannot be challenged as authentic, including all the claims of magic sky fairy stuff which only appear in the second (earlier) reference.  And nevermind context...that only applies when I say so.

 

Yeah, that's quite an argument.

 

As I informed the poor lad, Eusebius probably was the guilty part for that spurious interpolation. Early church fathers like Origen never used it in their battles with their opponents. But then it mysteriously shows up in later manuscripts about 100 years after Josephus' death - right around the time Eusebius was active. Hmmm....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there is disagreement on the Josephus reference to Jesus. 

 

This one by Josephus is much more difficult to dismiss.

The reference in AJ 20.200, which you pasted, is unintelligible unless "the one called Christ" had been mentioned previously in the work. So AJ 20.200 stands or falls on the TF in AJ 18. Since you already admit that the "Christ" references at AJ 18 are disputed, AJ 20.200 adds no certainty, since it can have probative value only if the TF at AJ 18 is reliable. Josephus, then, is not a reliable source about the historical Jesus. It does no good to try to add certainty to "Jesus of Nazareth might after all have existed/been well known" by bringing in a source that just might after all be about Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Search it out. Look it all up.

The above suggests that Ironhorse has searched out and looked up "all" about the TF. Apart from the internet translation that he linked (William Whiston's from the 18th century?), Ironhorse has cited nothing.

 

Ironhorse, give us a list, with your own comments and evaluations, of the academic publications on the TF that you have read. By "academic publications" I mean articles in refereed journals or discussions in refereed books published by scholarly presses. I do NOT mean links to Christian apologist websites.

 

Like others on here, I have read extensively on the TF and have pored over the Greek of Josephus many times. I have also gone into Slavonic Josephus and the Armenian translations. I shall present my findings once you have demonstrated that you can handle this material.

 

Otherwise, just fuck off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Search it out. Look it all up.

 

"The above suggests that Ironhorse has searched out and looked up "all" about the TF. Apart from the internet translation that he linked (William Whiston's from the 18th century?), Ironhorse has cited nothing."

 

~ficino

 

 

My suggestion was for others, to not take my word on this or anything. I'm not an expert or know ALL THINGS.

 

Search it out. Read about it. Look at all points of views. Think for yourself.

 

That's what I'm saying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think for yourself.

 

That's what I'm saying.  

 

 

That is rich!  Do you have any idea how backwards you have it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Search it out. Look it all up.

 

"The above suggests that Ironhorse has searched out and looked up "all" about the TF. Apart from the internet translation that he linked (William Whiston's from the 18th century?), Ironhorse has cited nothing."

 

~ficino

 

 

My suggestion was for others, to not take my word on this or anything. I'm not an expert or know ALL THINGS.

 

Search it out. Read about it. Look at all points of views. Think for yourself.

 

That's what I'm saying.  

 

No you're not.

 

You wouldn't claim that America is founded on Judaeo-Christian principles if you had searched it out, read around and looked at all points of view, Ironhorse.

 

You'd have discovered that America is founded on a lot of different things and wouldn't have made that claim.

 

Bias!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always crack up when a bible thumping fundy admonishes us to 'think for ourselves'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse, give us a list, with your own comments and evaluations, of the academic publications on the TF that you have read. By "academic publications" I mean articles in refereed journals or discussions in refereed books published by scholarly presses. I do NOT mean links to Christian apologist websites.

Repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.