Written Evidence For The Exodus

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The purely academic point is that Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.  Thus Christianity does not have "zero credibility" as all other religions or cults do (who depend upon the unfalsifiable claim's of the leaders).

None of the historians, Roman or Jewish, living in jesus' time ever wrote a single word about him (don't make us have to debunk Josephus again).  Thus, based upon actual history, christianity has zero credibility.

[Guest SteveBennett]

The point I would make is this:

 

Look at how many counterpoints Pharisees or Atheists will go before they exhibit any sincerity in considering the fundamental point in case?

 

They don't WANT you to consider the evidence.  They don't WANT you to find your own way.  They want to TELL you what the modern peers of Jesus saw (or didn't see).

 

Who here watched the video?  Who here has commented on it?  Who here has is trying detract  you from considering the historical truth?

 

Ought you not to find such deviations patronizing?  Even condescending?   That such tactics would be used to pull you away from observing such an obvious truth as the video observes?

[mymistake]

The point I would make is this:

 

Look at how many counterpoints Pharisees or Atheists will go before they exhibit any sincerity in considering the fundamental point in case?

 

They don't WANT you to consider the evidence.  They don't WANT you to find your own way.  They want to TELL you what the modern peers of Jesus saw (or didn't see).

 

Who here watched the video?  Who here has commented on it?  Who here has is trying detract  you from considering the historical truth?

 

Ought you not to find such deviations patronizing?  Even condescending?   That such tactics would be used to pull you away from observing such an obvious truth as the video observes?

 

 

Your point is lies.  I've been sincere about this for decades.  I've considered all the fundamental points in this case.  Do you realize what fallacy you just used there?  I am happy to consider the evidence and like many others I have asked you to provide this evidence.  Instead  you make excuses as you obsess over your personal methodology.

 

The vid is an hour long.  That is a lot of time and bandwidth to waste on something you should have been able to explain by now.

[Guest SteveBennett]

The point is that 

 

Many are assigning labels to what the last linked video said.

 

but no one is showing their reasons for assigning those labels.

 

They only associate the labels they give with prior experiences.

[Fernweh]

The point is that 

 

Many are assigning labels to what the last linked video said.

 

but no one is showing their reasons for assigning those labels.

 

They only associate the labels they give with prior experiences.

 

Once again you presume to know the thoughts of others. Either you are projecting, a self righteous prick, or a troll. I'm leaning toward the latter.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I do not presume to know the thoughts of anyone.

 

I only know that Jesus was testable by the many, many, peers of his day.

 

And so he does not resemble the "zero credibility" of any other religion or cult this world has ever seen

 

There is a cause for us to all hope.  

 

I've presented everyone with the "bottom line" and it comes from a Jew who is not even in favor of Christianity.

 

Watch it, or don't watch it, no one will ever force anyone to believe anything.

[WarriorPoet]

I find it amazing at how many people here will try and dismiss the logic of the video.

 

Who here has ever heard a peer make an immediately falsifiable claim amongst them and yet an entire crowd of people believed them?

 

If people here are demanding that you not watch the video its because they are a modern type of Pharisee-- they know that the logic presented in the video will bring any modern rationalist (who strictly obeys the rules of rationalism) to faith in Jesus as the Christ.

 

If any video would cause an explosion on this forum. . . I would expect it to be the last one that was linked.

 

In the end, we all approach these issues in our own way.  No one forces anyone to watch, or reason toward, anything.

Congratulations Steve, you got one person to watch your video.

 

There are serious problems here though.  First, the video does nothing to convince anyone of faith in jesus.  The lecturer actually shows how christianity FAILS the test that he claims proves judaism true.

 

The lecturer does a very good job at setting up his argument with one glaring exception.  He is obviously a talented speaker, but I'm aghast that you would provide this video to us and claim that it does a good job of presenting the same arguments you are trying to make.  As our new "resident expert" on logical fallacy, how did you miss that the foundation of his ENTIRE argument is a mere assertion.  I picked up on this less than 5 minutes in, and nothing he said throughout the remaining 55 minutes did anything to address this problem.

[falemon]

I do not presume to know the thoughts of anyone.

 

I only know that Jesus was testable by the many, many, peers of his day.

 

And how exactly is Jesus testable today?

 

Are you suggesting that the Bible is testable? It sits behind a labyrinth of controversy.

[falemon]

SteveBennett, have you watched this video, showing you why God does not exist?

 

Or this one about self deception and why people believe strange things?

 

Or this, The stories we tell ourselves about death?

 

How about Fear and Faith?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksVbHxLRvY

 

Derren Brown demonstrates that the holy spirit is fake.

 

Yes SteveBennett, I can also make my posts stand out to attract the glances of deconverting Christians. And I can also post videos to help them understand the truth.

[Guest SteveBennett]

And how exactly is Jesus testable today?

 

 

The many questions which were testable to your grandfather are not testable by you.

 

The many questions which were testable by your great-great-great grandfather were not testable by you.

 

Did any of large group of any of our ancestors past claim to have seen God perform His miracles?

 

---------------

 

Do you see why I am so skeptical of these "no longer a Christian" claims?  It's because they require, in some sense or another, that God do this or that when this condition or that condition arises.

 

But then, His miracles would be no more predictable that Newton's laws (thus hardly making them a miracle at all).  Who could, then, say if God had spoken or performed a miracle?

 

Surely, if God ever chose to speak, He would have done it in an environment that was falsifiable.

 

What truly scientifically literate person would ever disagree? 

 

And after that, it is only the issue of the heart that remains-- which I honestly believe is the largest obstacle we all face.

[falemon]

What truly scientifically literate person would ever disagree? 

 

And after that, it is only the issue of the heart that remains-- which I honestly believe is the largest obstacle we all face.

 

It's nothing to do with the heart. By the way, I graduated in the sciences. Your reasoning is terribly flawed and you are not even aware of your presumptions or your bias. It's why you have specifically chosen not to respond to my questions about your training and experience in logic and reasoning.

 

You know nothing about logic, you have no formal qualifications and you are terrible at it. You lack the cognitive ability to process large amounts of logical data, which causes you to skip logical steps, replacing logic with assumptions in order to fit the conception inside your working memory.

[centauri]

If you watched the video, then you know I posted it because someone asked me:

 

"Mr. Bennett. . . Get to the point."

 

The purely academic point is that Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.  Thus Christianity does not have "zero credibility" as all other religions or cults do (who depend upon the unfalsifiable claim's of the leaders).

Two peers and writers of his time were Philo of Alexandria and Pliny the Elder.

They never mention anything about a famous wonder working rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

The New Testament states that the resurrected Jesus only appeared to cult members.

That's rather convenient.

Christian so-called credibility is built on self serving documents that are designed to convince people the tales are true.

Further compounding the problem is that there are internal contradictions in those tales.

You have never responded to the question of why the greatest event in history, the resurrection and public appearing of dead people in Jerusalem, isn't recorded by anyone other than one cult writer who had a habit of taking scriptures out of context in an effort to convince people his story had credibility.

Luke the "great historian" somehow missed this monumental event, as did every other New Testament writer. 

Perhaps it was made up, a fantasy embellishment designed to impress people of that time.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Yes, I've seen the first two videos.

 

Shermer has always acknowledged the existence of confirmation bias in everyone. . .  except for himself and his readers.

 

None of what Shermer says changes the fact that Jesus did miracles which were directly falsifiable by Jesus own peers.

 

Any of us can link videos of commentators 2000 years after the fact. . . but this historical fact remains.

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

If you watched the video, then you know I posted it because someone asked me:

 

"Mr. Bennett. . . Get to the point."

 

The purely academic point is that Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.  Thus Christianity does not have "zero credibility" as all other religions or cults do (who depend upon the unfalsifiable claim's of the leaders).

Two peers and writers of his time were Philo of Alexandria and Pliny the Elder.

They never mention anything about a famous wonder working rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

The New Testament states that the resurrected Jesus only appeared to cult members.

That's rather convenient.

Christian so-called credibility is built on self serving documents that are designed to convince people the tales are true.

Further compounding the problem is that there are internal contradictions in those tales.

You have never responded to the question of why the greatest event in history, the resurrection and public appearing of dead people in Jerusalem, isn't recorded by anyone other than one cult writer who had a habit of taking scriptures out of context in an effort to convince people his story had credibility.

Luke the "great historian" somehow missed this monumental event, as did every other New Testament writer. 

Perhaps it was made up, a fantasy embellishment designed to impress people of that time.

 

 

 

Actually whether or not Philo commented on Jesus is debatable.   Philo mentioned the "Theraputae" a group of extremely worshipful Jews unlike any the world had ever seen.

 

A group of Jews who forbade the drink of wine, but would nonetheless still drink it in a ritualistic manner whilst regarding it as blood-- a ritual which may only be regarded as Christian.

 

Remember-- "Christian" was only a term of mockery which was assigned to the followers of Jesus more than a century after He was crucified.  "Theraputae" simply never "stuck" with the mockers.  "Mini Christ"  i.e. "Christian" was a more befitting term of mockery that has stuck around until modern day.

[centauri]

 

And how exactly is Jesus testable today?

 

 

The many questions which were testable to your grandfather are not testable by you.

 

The many questions which were testable by your great-great-great grandfather were not testable by you.

 

Did any of large group of any of our ancestors past claim to have seen God perform His miracles?

 

---------------

 

Do you see why I am so skeptical of these "no longer a Christian" claims?  It's because they require, in some sense or another, that God do this or that when this condition or that condition arises.

 

But then, His miracles would be no more predictable that Newton's laws (thus hardly making them a miracle at all).  Who could, then, say if God had spoken or performed a miracle?

 

Surely, if God ever chose to speak, He would have done it in an environment that was falsifiable.

 

 

But one should be able to test a Christian based on claims made about them by their own holy book.

The New Testament does indicate that signs and powers would be displayed by believers.

They are also supposed to be able to manifest their desires by calling on Jesus.

I haven't seen much evidence that these claims are true.

[sdelsolray]

…

None of what Shermer says changes the fact that Jesus did miracles which were directly falsifiable by Jesus own peers.

…

If Jesus' miracles were fiction in the first instance, how would Jesus' own peers falsify miracles that never happened?  At most, all they could say is, "I personally did not witness a miracle."  That is not falsification, but merely a lack of evidence.

[falemon]

 

And how exactly is Jesus testable today?

 

 

The many questions which were testable to your grandfather are not testable by you.

 

The many questions which were testable by your great-great-great grandfather were not testable by you.

 

Did any of large group of any of our ancestors past claim to have seen God perform His miracles?

Is that what your entire case rests upon?

 

My answer is no. We'll help you to understand why that can be the only case over time, but you will soon realise that Christianity is a lie.

 

I've got videos too 

[Guest SteveBennett]

Still, I find it amazing that we find ourselves so far away from the topic.  

 

I already gave the bottom line of everything I'm driving at. The bottom line is, every religion or cult in the entire world follows this pattern:

 

( a ) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances;

( b ) as long as the claim cannot be checked.

 

The historical question becomes:

 

Were the crowds who knew Jesus' in a position to directly verify Jesus works? Or not?

 

[centauri]

 

 

If you watched the video, then you know I posted it because someone asked me:

 

"Mr. Bennett. . . Get to the point."

 

The purely academic point is that Christianity was falsifiable by the immediate peers of Jesus' time.  Thus Christianity does not have "zero credibility" as all other religions or cults do (who depend upon the unfalsifiable claim's of the leaders).

Two peers and writers of his time were Philo of Alexandria and Pliny the Elder.

They never mention anything about a famous wonder working rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

The New Testament states that the resurrected Jesus only appeared to cult members.

That's rather convenient.

Christian so-called credibility is built on self serving documents that are designed to convince people the tales are true.

Further compounding the problem is that there are internal contradictions in those tales.

You have never responded to the question of why the greatest event in history, the resurrection and public appearing of dead people in Jerusalem, isn't recorded by anyone other than one cult writer who had a habit of taking scriptures out of context in an effort to convince people his story had credibility.

Luke the "great historian" somehow missed this monumental event, as did every other New Testament writer. 

Perhaps it was made up, a fantasy embellishment designed to impress people of that time.

 

 

 

 

 

SB:

Actually whether or not Philo commented on Jesus is debatable.   Philo mentioned the "Theraputae" a group of extremely worshipful Jews unlike any the world had ever seen.

 

If it's really debatable, then present the document where Philo mentions Jesus of Nazareth.

Until then, you've got nothing but wishful thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

A group of Jews who forbade the drink of wine, but would nonetheless still drink it in a ritualistic manner whilst regarding it as blood-- a ritual which may only be regarded as Christian.

 

Remember-- "Christian" was only a term of mockery which was assigned to the followers of Jesus more than a century after He was crucified.  "Theraputae" simply never "stuck" with the mockers.  "Mini Christ"  i.e. "Christian" was a more befitting term of mockery that has stuck around until modern day.

 

Mention of a Jewish sect is not equal to mentioning Jesus.

 

 

[falemon]

Still, I find it amazing that we find ourselves so far away from the topic.  

 

I already gave the bottom line of everything I'm driving at. The bottom line is, every religion or cult in the entire world follows this pattern:

 

( a ) People are gullible and will believe anything, even claims that demand painful or suicidal observances;

( b ) as long as the claim cannot be checked.

 

The historical question becomes:

 

Were the crowds who knew Jesus' in a position to directly verify Jesus works? Or not?

Do these peers have descendants? Where are they today?

 

So, you're telling me people who met the Son of God would not pass down the faith to future generations? There were apparently 5000 men there!

 

What happened to Lazarus' lineage? Surely it's a story to tell the grandchildren, eh?

 

And have you seen these New Testament out takes  ? The Lost Gospels

[falemon]

Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch - one of the world's leading historians - reveals the origins of Christianity and explores what it means to be a Christian. When Diarmaid MacCulloch was a small boy, his parents used to drive him round historic churches. Little did they know that they had created a monster, with the history of the Christian Church becoming his life's work. In a series sweeping across four continents, Professor MacCulloch goes in search of Christianity's forgotten origins.

 

1. The First Christianity. He overturns the familiar story that it all began when the apostle Paul took Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome. Instead, he shows that the true origins of Christianity lie further east, and that at one point it was poised to triumph in Asia, maybe even in China. The headquarters of Christianity might well have been Baghdad not Rome, and if that had happened then Western Christianity would have been very different.

2. Catholicism: The Unpredictable Rise of Rome. Over one billion Christians look to Rome, more than half of all Christians on the planet. But how did a small Jewish sect from the backwoods of 1st-century Palestine, which preached humility and the virtue of poverty, become the established religion of western Europe - wealthy, powerful and expecting unfailing obedience from the faithful?

3. Orthodoxy - From Empire to Empire. Today, Eastern Orthodox Christianity flourishes in the Balkans and Russia, with over 150 million members worldwide. It is unlike Catholicism or Protestantism - worship is carefully choreographed, icons pull the faithful into a mystical union with Christ, and everywhere there is a symbol of a fierce-looking bird, the double-headed eagle.

4. Reformation: The Individual Before God. The Amish today are peaceable folk, but five centuries ago their ancestors were seen as some of the most dangerous people in Europe. They were radicals - Protestants - who tore apart the Catholic Church. In the fourth part of the series, Diarmaid MacCulloch makes sense of the Reformation, and of how a faith based on obedience and authority gave birth to one based on individual conscience.

5. Protestantism - The Evangelical Explosion. Diarmaid MacCulloch traces the growth of an exuberant expression of faith that has spread across the globe - Evangelical Protestantism. Today, it is associated with conservative politics, but the whole story is distinctly more unexpected. It is easily forgotten that the evangelical explosion has been driven by a concern for social justice and the claim that one could stand in a direct emotional relationship with God.

6. God in the Dock. Diarmaid MacCulloch's own life story makes him a symbol of a distinctive feature about Western Christianity - scepticism, a tendency to doubt which has transformed both Western culture and Christianity. In the final programme in the series, he asks where that change came from. He challenges the simplistic notion that faith in Christianity has steadily ebbed away before the relentless advance of science, reason and progress, and shows instead how the tide of faith perversely flows back in.

 

[Guest SteveBennett]

 

 

 

 

Mention of a Jewish sect is not equal to mentioning Jesus.

 

 

That's true, but then I'm not sure you understand the fundamental thesis that this absolutely critical, rational, video is pushing.

 

There is no credible claim in all of history that relies upon one, single, individual.

[falemon]

Why do Christian cults display the same "Holy Spirit" as every other church?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k4P5mRK_hE&list=RD1k4P5mRK_hE

[centauri]

 

The historical question becomes:

 

Were the crowds who knew Jesus' in a position to directly verify Jesus works? Or not?

You're assuming that there were "crowds" who knew Jesus, rather than a cult of devoted followers.

The only source for these stories are from cult writers.

[falemon]

 

 

 

 

 

Mention of a Jewish sect is not equal to mentioning Jesus.

 

 

That's true, but then I'm not sure you understand the fundamental thesis that this absolutely critical, rational, video is pushing.

 

There is no credible claim in all of history that relies upon one, single, individual.

 

What credentials do you have to determine whether it is rational? And yes, I'm calling you out. I'm tired of your evasive tactics.