What are the chances of Jesus...

[QUOTE="blackmagesm"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="R0cky_Racc00n"][QUOTE="Premier1101"]what are the chances we find out he was real?notconspiracy

Argument from authority. Since you seem so fond of pointing out other peoples logical fallacies I thought I should point out yours.

(also I don't support the christ myth so don't accuse me of that)

How exactly? You only said in your post that no mainstream scholar supports the christ myth, and thought that should be enough. You relied on the authority and the majority of scholars to support your claim which is appealing to authority and majority.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="blackmagesm"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="R0cky_Racc00n"][QUOTE="Premier1101"]what are the chances we find out he was real?blackmagesm

Argument from authority. Since you seem so fond of pointing out other peoples logical fallacies I thought I should point out yours.

(also I don't support the christ myth so don't accuse me of that)

How exactly? You only said in your post that no mainstream scholar supports the christ myth, and thought that should be enough. You relied on the authority and the majority of scholars to support your claim which is appealing to authority and majority.

For some reason, I seem to recall reading/watching about a somewhat large number of people who existed at the time of Jesus who also claimed similar statuses.luke1889

I know there were many cult leaders around palestine.

Oh, and how does the existence of several people claiming to be the messiah detract from the evdience which suggests that jesus of nazereth was the messiah?

[QUOTE="luke1889"]For some reason, I seem to recall reading/watching about a somewhat large number of people who existed at the time of Jesus who also claimed similar statuses.notconspiracy

I know there were many cult leaders around palestine.

Oh, and how does the existence of several people claiming to be the messiah detract from the evdience which suggests that jesus of nazereth was the messiah?

Don't take my comment to mean anything; I was just thinking aloud. I've not got the time to look for the source.

Don't mind me.

1: I always said they are unknown like the authorship of the annals are unknown. The Gospels and the Annals are both anonymous

2: There were guards. The Gospel of Matthew attests to this. You might be tempted to say that the other Gospels dont mention this. problem: this isn't a contradiction. saying that the other gospels dont mention the guards is a fallacy known as "argument from silence" also the non-christian "debators" in the 1st-3rd centuries attest to the guard by claiming that the guards fell asleep.

3: No actually it is merely quoted in the bible

4: Its not necessarily weak evidence because the explanations other than the resurrection for the post resurrection appearences & the empty tomb are best explained by the resurrection

5: It certainly is a possibility with no evidence. all copies of the Antiquities and the Annals mention Christ. its unlikely that the entire testimonium was forged, and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the passage wherein Tacitus mentions Christus was forged.

6: To my knowledge there are no ROMAN accounts of Judean cult leaders, much less each and every single one of them.

7: on what grounds do you dispute the historicity of the empty tomb?

8: Precisely, they did not document each leader, which were common at the time. Jesus preached to crowds of at maximum 5000 men.

notconspiracy

1. You agree the authership is unknown. We should stop there...

2. A "fallacy" means a demonstrable flaw in an argument. Your saying that becuase the majority of accounts leave this important bit out, we should accept the one account that includes it? Please demonstrate the flaw in thinking that doubt can be introduced into the actual events? "Argument from silence"? What rot.

3. But that adds no weight. We have already established that.

4. Best explanations are not always the correct ones. "Best" is a subjective evaluation. You try and explain events that may well not have happened.

5. Your "assertions" of likelihood have no substance, aside from your own opinion. Likelihood still infers doubt.

6. You've already mentioned accounts of 1 cult leader.

7. Has the needle got stuck again? It is based on varying accounts from unknown authorship, with scant else evidence to support it.

8. Were you there? Please cite a reference for this claim. Then perhaps you would also like to explain its relevence.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

BTW, Chrestus is derived from teh Greek word "Christos" which means "the annointed one" There was only one Christus or Chrestus that was venerated by early christians. Second, most scholars regard the first passage wherein Josephus mentions Jesus as partially or mostly genuine as the term "wise-man" is usually used by Josephus, and a christian scribe probably would not have referred to Jesus as a mere wise man. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus a second time when he talks about the martyrdom of his brother, James, and there really is no serious scholar actually disputes the validity of this second passage.

notconspiracy

That's odd, because Josephus testement on Jesus has been much criticised:

"The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part"

Do you know what authenticity means?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

BTW, Chrestus is derived from teh Greek word "Christos" which means "the annointed one" There was only one Christus or Chrestus that was venerated by early christians. Second, most scholars regard the first passage wherein Josephus mentions Jesus as partially or mostly genuine as the term "wise-man" is usually used by Josephus, and a christian scribe probably would not have referred to Jesus as a mere wise man. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus a second time when he talks about the martyrdom of his brother, James, and there really is no serious scholar actually disputes the validity of this second passage.

RationalAtheist

That's odd, because Josephus testement on Jesus has been much criticised:

"The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part"

Do you know what authenticity means?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

[QUOTE="luke1889"]For some reason, I seem to recall reading/watching about a somewhat large number of people who existed at the time of Jesus who also claimed similar statuses.luke1889

I know there were many cult leaders around palestine.

Oh, and how does the existence of several people claiming to be the messiah detract from the evdience which suggests that jesus of nazereth was the messiah?

Don't take my comment to mean anything; I was just thinking aloud. I've not got the time to look for the source.

Don't mind me.

If I may, Luke,

There is some testemony in the Dead Sea scrolls to support the belief in 2 messiahs.

There is also information on Zoroaster and Horus here, where Christianity could have borrowed some ideas from...

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

BTW, Chrestus is derived from teh Greek word "Christos" which means "the annointed one" There was only one Christus or Chrestus that was venerated by early christians. Second, most scholars regard the first passage wherein Josephus mentions Jesus as partially or mostly genuine as the term "wise-man" is usually used by Josephus, and a christian scribe probably would not have referred to Jesus as a mere wise man. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus a second time when he talks about the martyrdom of his brother, James, and there really is no serious scholar actually disputes the validity of this second passage.

notconspiracy

That's odd, because Josephus testement on Jesus has been much criticised:

"The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part"

Do you know what authenticity means?

No, read it carefully, it says this in the first paragraph:

"The other passage mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. The authenticity of this latter passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers." Dismissive stuff, huh?

Despite my link to the value that can be ascribed to the text, you still manage to infer more meaning out of it.

You then lie (again) about the validity of the text.

1. You agree the authership is unknown. We should stop there...

2. A "fallacy" means a demonstrable flaw in an argument. Your saying that becuase the majority of accounts leave this important bit out, we should accept the one account that includes it? Please demonstrate the flaw in thinking that doubt can be introduced into the actual events? "Argument from silence"? What rot.

3. But that adds no weight. We have already established that.

4. Best explanations are not always the correct ones. "Best" is a subjective evaluation. You try and explain events that may well not have happened.

5. Your "assertions" of likelihood have no substance, aside from your own opinion. Likelihood still infers doubt.

6. You've already mentioned accounts of 1 cult leader.

7. Has the needle got stuck again? It is based on varying accounts from unknown authorship, with scant else evidence to support it.

8. Were you there? Please cite a reference for this claim. Then perhaps you would also like to explain its relevence.

RationalAtheist

2: Argument from silence IS a fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

3: Nor does it detract from its weight, as you asserted by referring to it as "biblical scribblings"

4: The best explanation usually is right by occams razor. Im still waiting for any explanation for the events, but you continue to insist "no, it didn't happen"

5: oh, you want me to back up my assertion. Well, in the passage wherein Tacitus mentions Jesus, it is both EXTREMELY critical of Christians, and it is written in the exact same literary sty-le as the rest of the annals. The only way this could be a forgery were if the entire annals were a forgery.

This actually was an idea floating around during the 19th century, that the entire annals were forged in the 14th century, but manuscripts from the 10th century destroyed this theory.

6: The annals were not in the Dead sea scrolls.

7: How do the accounts very? and why did the Jewish leadership accuse the disciples of stealing the body? you know, enemies attesting to this fact? the Jerusalem factor? are you purposely ignoring my evidences for the empty tomb?

8: Were you there? I almost laughed because that's what creationists always say when talking about evolution.

anyway, the Gospels talk about Jesus preaching to crowds, and the largest one was of 5000 men. Its relevant because during his ministry, contrary to popular myth, he wasn't actually all that popular. He was a carpenter for 30 years and ministered for only 3 years. This would explain why no noted historians talk about the life of Jesus during his lifetime.

This along with the fact there really were no historians in 1st century Palestine other than Flavius Josephus.

1. I could look it up. You are digressing.

2. its your term. Read it up. My assertion is not that there is no contrary evidence, but the alternative accounts omit this detail. I offer positive evidence that there was doubt over the guards, rather than arguing froma position of silence.

3. We are not talking about evidence for or against, since disproof is another logical fallacy.

4. If the events did not happen, then how can I explain them? At this point, we are not even discussing the significance of the alledged events, only whether they happened.

5. Obviously, it is not the only way. Why could not a small part have been changed? I expect you to back up all your assertions.

6. Did I say they were? what is your point?

7. You should know that. we have already discussed it. I question whether the Jewish leadership did question the disciples. I doubt that it happened as we only have texts that are suspicious to rely on for evidence.

8. Well you know seem to know about the crowd numbers (I'm still waiting for a citation). I'm also curious about Jesus' working and preaching durations. Did he do a bit of part-time preaching in the switch between jobs?

Evolutionists would always be able to provide a whole host of evidence to back up their evolutionary assertions.

1: you said that i said that there were accounts of Jewish cult leaders in the dead sea scrolls by mentioning a roman account of one. this roman account was in the annals, and the annals were not among the dead sea scrolls

2: There is no contrary evidence other than the other accounts which omit this detail. however, this is an argument from silence. I offered the Gospel of matthew, and the fact that Jewish and pagan debators claimed that the guards fell asleep whilist the disciples/some guy stole the body of Jesus

3: im not sure how that is relavent

4: They most likely happened as I provided evidence for them. You still have not addressed this evidence, or explained it.

5: why could not a small part be changed? prove that it was changed

6: you stated that I brought up a Roman account of a Jewish cult leader, but in that point we were talking about hte dead sea scrolls. You said the Dead sea scrolls contained Roman accounts of Jewish cult leaders of palestine

7: The Jewish leadership accusing the disciples is not in the Gospels, but in the works of Tertullian and Justin Martyr.

8: crowds of 5000? In John's Gospel, this is mentioned in chapter 6. In Mark's Gospel, this is mentioned in Chapter 6. In Matthew's Gospel, this is mentioned in chapter 14, and in Luke's Gospel this is mentioned in chapter 9.

and the "were you there?" bit was not really relavent.

1: you said that i said that there were accounts of Jewish cult leaders in the dead sea scrolls by mentioning a roman account of one. this roman account was in the annals, and the annals were not among the dead sea scrolls

2: There is no contrary evidence other than the other accounts which omit this detail. however, this is an argument from silence. I offered the Gospel of matthew, and the fact that Jewish and pagan debators claimed that the guards fell asleep whilist the disciples/some guy stole the body of Jesus

3: im not sure how that is relavent

4: They most likely happened as I provided evidence for them. You still have not addressed this evidence, or explained it.

5: why could not a small part be changed? prove that it was changed

6: you stated that I brought up a Roman account of a Jewish cult leader, but in that point we were talking about hte dead sea scrolls. You said the Dead sea scrolls contained Roman accounts of Jewish cult leaders of palestine

7: The Jewish leadership accusing the disciples is not in the Gospels, but in the works of Tertullian and Justin Martyr.

8: crowds of 5000? In John's Gospel, this is mentioned in chapter 6. In Mark's Gospel, this is mentioned in Chapter 6. In Matthew's Gospel, this is mentioned in chapter 14, and in Luke's Gospel this is mentioned in chapter 9.

and the "were you there?" bit was not really relavent.

notconspiracy

1. Er, no I didn't. Isn't "thread page history" a wonderful means of proof!

2. No - I've already said why it is not. alternative accounts conflict. So was Jesus stolen or did he rise?

4. Liklihood infers doubt. It would be you who would need to substantiate the evidence if there is doubt about it already.

5. If its a possibility, then my work is done. Its (edit) MORE (/edit) of a possibility than the whole thing being changed as it was written 100 or so years after Jesus supposedly lived. The whole text included far more stuff about other events. So the probability or liklihood favours a small change explaination, rather than a large change. And seeing how that mistake crept in to this and just those other 2 documents - curiously the only other ones to allegedly describe Jesus, this can only reasonbly be explained by tampering.

6. No you are confused. Please stop this "you said I said" stuff. I am not putting words into your mouth.

7. Is this some new bit of information?

8. Where does it say there were crowds of NO MORE than 5000 like you said? of course I refer to Jesus poularity with the crowds, as evidenced here and here.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

1: you said that i said that there were accounts of Jewish cult leaders in the dead sea scrolls by mentioning a roman account of one. this roman account was in the annals, and the annals were not among the dead sea scrolls

2: There is no contrary evidence other than the other accounts which omit this detail. however, this is an argument from silence. I offered the Gospel of matthew, and the fact that Jewish and pagan debators claimed that the guards fell asleep whilist the disciples/some guy stole the body of Jesus

3: im not sure how that is relavent

4: They most likely happened as I provided evidence for them. You still have not addressed this evidence, or explained it.

5: why could not a small part be changed? prove that it was changed

6: you stated that I brought up a Roman account of a Jewish cult leader, but in that point we were talking about hte dead sea scrolls. You said the Dead sea scrolls contained Roman accounts of Jewish cult leaders of palestine

7: The Jewish leadership accusing the disciples is not in the Gospels, but in the works of Tertullian and Justin Martyr.

8: crowds of 5000? In John's Gospel, this is mentioned in chapter 6. In Mark's Gospel, this is mentioned in Chapter 6. In Matthew's Gospel, this is mentioned in chapter 14, and in Luke's Gospel this is mentioned in chapter 9.

and the "were you there?" bit was not really relavent.

RationalAtheist

1. Er, no I didn't. Isn't "thread page history" a wonderful means of proof!

2. No - I've already said why it is not. alternative accounts conflict. So was Jesus stolen or did he rise?

4. Liklihood infers doubt. It would be you who would need to substantiate the evidence if there is doubt about it already.

5. If its a possibility, then my work is done. Its less of a possibility than the whole thing being changed as it was written 100 or so years after Jesus supposedly lived. The whole text included far more stuff about other events. So the probability or liklihood favours a small change explaination, rather than a large change. seeing how that mistake crept in to this and just those other 2 documensts - curiously the only other ones to allegedly describe Jesus, can only reasonbly be explained by tampering.

6. No you are confused. Please stop this "you said I said" stuff. I am not putting words into your mouth.

7. Is this some new bit of information?

8. Where does it say there were crowds of NO MORE than 5000 like you said? of course I refer to Jesus poularity with the crowds, as evidenced here and here.

2: No Gospel accounts say that he was stolen. Non-christians claimed the body was stolen. everyone attests to the fact that it was indeed empty

4: I have provided evidence to establish the resurrection. would you like me to restate the evidence?

5: The only way this particular passage would be an interpolation were if the entire annals were forged. The exact same writing ****is used in this passage as the rest of the annals.

6: ehh, I might be confused. whatever.

7: that wasn't typed correctly. Justin Martyr and Tertullian write about the Jewish leadership accusing the Disciples of stealing the body, thus substantiating my "enemy attestation" evidence of the empty tomb of Jesus. Again, If it were so questionable whether the tomb were empty, or even if Jesus had a tomb, then why would the enemies of christianity admit that the tomb was empty?

8: The Feeding of the 5000 was the largest crowd which Jesus ministered to in the Gospels. Again, he didn't have the largest following. this is why so few contemporary historians from around Rome document his ministry.

what are the chances that I'm his re-incarnation? C_BozkurT_C

I'd get involved. But when it comes down to brass tax, I'm no scholar, or historian. Most of what is written in the Bible, if not all, trickles down through history and through so many tongues that it can possibly have the chance to have been miscommunicated. After all is said, not done, it all boils down to faith. Whether you believe it, or not. There's isn't sufficient evidence on any side to prove whether something is genuine or not. Facts... which is what most people want to see not just believe, isn't present within the proof. Everything was written ages before our time. So that irrefutable proof that we demand, never occured while we lived. We will always have word of mouth of occurences in history. It depends entirely on you to sort out the fact from fiction and choose to believe it or not.Kekei-Genkai

second, the New Testament as we have recieved it is very accurate. Most of it is translated directly from fifth renew Greek manuscripts. The greek manuscripts of the new testament are less removed from their originals than any ancient document, in essense, of all the ancient works, the New Testament is the most reliable of all of them.

being another one of those crazy paranoid people who claimed to be the messiah?Ilived

Notconspiracy,

1. Hardly grounds for a proper discussion...

2. You just contradicted yourself yet again, i.e non-christians being part of everyone. You also included this very "evidence" in your previous assertion.

4. I think you have done that enough. Evidence in itself is not proof - there is evidence of UFOs too, in those "terms" (i.e witness testimony). Do you believe that?

5. How can you state that with any certainty. I just described another way and you have given no rebuttal for it. It would have been easy to copy the ****of writing.

6. See #1. Why are you confused? Did you want to debate this properly, or are you weedling out of points you can't respond to?

7. One possible explanation is that they heard about this miracle third-hand. Seeing as Justin Martyr was born in 100AD and Tertulian was born in 160 AD, they both certainly would have no direct experience of Jesus.

8. Again, I asked you to cite references for this claim. I provided 2 from Christian sites that dispute your own view. Once again, you simply re-state the claim, ignoring my rebuttal.

Notconspiracy,

1. Hardly grounds for a proper discussion...

2. You just contradicted yourself yet again, i.e non-christians being part of everyone. You also included this very "evidence" in your previous assertion.

4. I think you have done that enough. Evidence in itself is not proof - there is evidence of UFOs too, in those "terms" (i.e witness testimony). Do you believe that?

5. How can you state that with any certainty. I just described another way and you have given no rebuttal for it. It would have been easy to copy the ****of writing.

6. See #1. Why are you confused? Did you want to debate this properly, or are you weedling out of points you can't respond to?

7. One possible explanation is that they heard about this miracle third-hand. Seeing as Justin Martyr was born in 100AD and Tertulian was born in 160 AD, they both certainly would have no direct experience of Jesus.

8. Again, I asked you to cite references for this claim. I provided 2 from Christian sites that dispute your own view. Once again, you simply re-state the claim, ignoring my rebuttal.

RationalAtheist

2: non christians attesting to the fact that the tomb was empty. that is evidence for the empty tomb.

4: There is no such thing "proof" in the real world. you definitely should know that

5: I can state that they were not forged based on the fact that they were written in the exact same literary st-yle as the rest of the annals, and they put christians in a very critical light. A christian interpolator would not and could not have done any of these things

6: we were discussin the Dead Sea scrolls and about how they document a Jewish cult leader. how is that relavent again?

7: This sort of thinking is midieval, in other words, In the Middle ages, Historians only relied on eye-witness testimony. Only very miniscule amounts of ancient history have eye-witness testimony to back them up

8: I cited references from all 4 Gospels (biographies of Jesus) which prove that Jesus ministered to crowds at maximum of 5000. Those 2 christian sites were somehow asserting that Jesus was attracting this sort of audience weekly which is bull****.

Not very high.

if jesus was around today he would be in a mental home

if jesus was around today he would be in a mental home

danpez8900

If Jesus was around today He would be 2,000 years old.:|

Although it is often considered absolute fact that Jesus existed and was real, there is still not that much evidence of him being real. Check wikipedia for more information. So if there is a chance that he wasn't even real, then there is a possibility that he was just a normal man who was able to rally disciples together by offering a good afterlife.

cgi15

www.Catholic.com

[QUOTE="danpez8900"]

if jesus was around today he would be in a mental home

Dracargen

If Jesus was around today He would be 2,000 years old.:|

[QUOTE="cgi15"]

Although it is often considered absolute fact that Jesus existed and was real, there is still not that much evidence of him being real. Check wikipedia for more information. So if there is a chance that he wasn't even real, then there is a possibility that he was just a normal man who was able to rally disciples together by offering a good afterlife.

da_nolo

www.Catholic.com

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Ilived"]being another one of those crazy paranoid people who claimed to be the messiah?sSubZerOo

This is only shown through testimony of blind followers.. There were alot of messiahs then, some believers claimed they can heal wounds and diease as well.. Penn and Teller go into depth with this.. This is not to say Jesus may or may not be the messiah.. I just find the reasoning behind why you think so to be flawed. You make it sound like you saw it your self.

who are you to say they were blind followers?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

7: Christianity rapidly spread throughout the Roman empire

These 7 facts, well 6 facts the 1st is just a necessary prerequisite, need to be explained. I submit the resurrection as an explanation. do you have any other?

Hewkii

first, I don't really want to do this, so I'll just make this post and leave. regarding issue #7, if a leader converts to a specific religion or sect he usually carries the rest of the people with him (see: Henry VIII).

but the leader of rome tried to kill off Christianity...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Ilived"]being another one of those crazy paranoid people who claimed to be the messiah?jlh47

This is only shown through testimony of blind followers.. There were alot of messiahs then, some believers claimed they can heal wounds and diease as well.. Penn and Teller go into depth with this.. This is not to say Jesus may or may not be the messiah.. I just find the reasoning behind why you think so to be flawed. You make it sound like you saw it your self.

who are you to say they were blind followers?

Pleae PLEASE don'tbring back this thread.. It is pointless bakc and fourth argueing where niether side agrees.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

[QUOTE="Premier1101"]what are the chances we find out he was real?Premier1101

The 4 canonized Gospels

the heretical gospels

the Pauline epistles

The 1 Corinthians 15 creed

Tacitus

Josephus

Suetonius

Mara Bar Saropian

Pliny the Younger

Early church fathers including (that I can name off the top of my head) Tertullian

Clement of Rome

Papias

Eusebius

Those are people, not DNA, clothes, hard evidence, anything concrete, sorry bud, word of mouth=fail

then what are the chances that any history actually happened? it's by word of mouth and historical evidence... Christianity has both historical evidence and word of mouth... why don't you question socrates or plato's existance. we have more proof of Jesus's than of those two...

[QUOTE="Premier1101"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

[QUOTE="Premier1101"]what are the chances we find out he was real?jlh47

The 4 canonized Gospels

the heretical gospels

the Pauline epistles

The 1 Corinthians 15 creed

Tacitus

Josephus

Suetonius

Mara Bar Saropian

Pliny the Younger

Early church fathers including (that I can name off the top of my head) Tertullian

Clement of Rome

Papias

Eusebius

Those are people, not DNA, clothes, hard evidence, anything concrete, sorry bud, word of mouth=fail

then what are the chances that any history actually happened? it's by word of mouth and historical evidence... Christianity has both historical evidence and word of mouth... why don't you question socrates or plato's existance. we have more proof of Jesus's than of those two...

word of mouth = real if written within same time period by at least two different seperate sources.. why do you think history butts heads with other time scales? {read slowly starting here}a guy seeing god is seen as crazy for no witnesses, a group of peole who see god are waived off as a wierd anomaly or something supernatural, but not holy... to be real, something has to be proven from different angles. Black holes cant be proven cause there is no direct angle, we cant go touch one to see it's there, we assume that it is there, and we assume that history happened. Yes, scientists and geoligists have linked angles to prove history.. but not all history is definable. We just take it to be so cause we cant prove it wrong. Just what we expect to be right.

then what are the chances that any history actually happened? it's by word of mouth and historical evidence... Christianity has both historical evidence and word of mouth... why don't you question socrates or plato's existance. we have more proof of Jesus's than of those two...

jlh47

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

7: Christianity rapidly spread throughout the Roman empire

These 7 facts, well 6 facts the 1st is just a necessary prerequisite, need to be explained. I submit the resurrection as an explanation. do you have any other?

jlh47

first, I don't really want to do this, so I'll just make this post and leave. regarding issue #7, if a leader converts to a specific religion or sect he usually carries the rest of the people with him (see: Henry VIII).

but the leader of rome tried to kill off Christianity...

A leader tried to do that, another converted, and thereafter as well.da_nolo

Why did you bump this topic if that's all you were going to say?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

BTW, Chrestus is derived from teh Greek word "Christos" which means "the annointed one" There was only one Christus or Chrestus that was venerated by early christians. Second, most scholars regard the first passage wherein Josephus mentions Jesus as partially or mostly genuine as the term "wise-man" is usually used by Josephus, and a christian scribe probably would not have referred to Jesus as a mere wise man. Also, Josephus mentions Jesus a second time when he talks about the martyrdom of his brother, James, and there really is no serious scholar actually disputes the validity of this second passage.

RationalAtheist

That's odd, because Josephus testement on Jesus has been much criticised:

"The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part"

Do you know what authenticity means?

No, read it carefully, it says this in the first paragraph:

"The other passage mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. The authenticity of this latter passage has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers." Dismissive stuff, huh?

Despite my link to the value that can be ascribed to the text, you still manage to infer more meaning out of it.

You then lie (again) about the validity of the text.

If anyone desides to actually learn about the reasons behind something...you go to the source, not looking up what someone else stated. Thats the only way to truly understand the reasons behind the words and a clearer presentation of the Word. For more information, Catholic.com is a wonderful website filled with Catholics and non-Catholics (other Christians, Jews, Islamic, Estern religions, and athiests as well). A visit would be helpful in any material and for any material.

I don't see why we bother with these debates? We all know Atheists are screwed either way after they die.. orazinac

I don't see why we bother with these debates? We all know Atheists are screwed either way after they die.. orazinac

[QUOTE="orazinac"]I don't see why we bother with these debates? We all know Atheists are screwed either way after they die.. fanofazrienoch