All of them…“I contain multitudes”.
/mic drop?
4 Likes
That’s a funny reply post. 
About that word “multitude”
It’s amazing that of the 9,000 or more people, who were part of the multitude of people that Jesus had an impact and influence on; that no person who lived during that time (outside the bible), ever wrote anything about any miracles that were performed before (not an isolated few people), but before a " multitude" of people.
Are you only able to search one word at a time? Or is it that you have to go through certain religious filters when using any search engines?
5 Likes
If you’re counting the tales from the Bible as “stories written by people living during that time,” there’s a whole bunch of others you should be counting:
The ones that currently form the Christian Bible are the ones that were approved by the Synod of Hippo and the [Council of Carthage] (Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia). There were other gospels that weren’t accepted into canon for various reasons, but they still can be looked upon as corraborative…
Wait, you’re the person who was earlier arguing that the Old Testament and the Tanakh are exactly identical, aren’t you?
Never mind. I’m not getting into another discussion about biblical canon with you.
2 Likes
9 Likes
9 Likes
The Bible is a fairly tale/mythological book written by men. The List of Gospels are also fairy tale/mythological writings of men. They are not credible historical and anthropological sources for the existence of any supernatural son of god named Jesus Christ.
Miracles performed in front of thousands (multitudes) of people, a crucifixion where an earthquake accompanied by darkness and dead bodies (saints) walking into a holy city, where everyone saw them–yet no historian, public official or citizen in Africa, Rome, Jerusalem or anywhere–who lived during that time wrote anything about these supernatural events.
If a crucifixion accompanied by darkness, an earthquake, and walking dead bodies had occurred–this supernatural event would have been the most documented event in world history. By the way what ever happened to the walking dead, saints or zombies?
There are no credible primary, secondary or tertiary sources that prove the physical existence of any Jesus Christ.There are no personal artifacts of Jesus. There is no anthropological evidence of the existence of Jesus, period.
Many African pharaohs and royal family members like Amenhotep III, Ankhenaten, Tutankhamen (King Tut), Queen Tye etc…lived thousands of years before the mythical Jesus. There is anthropological evidence of their existence, personal artifacts documenting their existence, their mummified bodies with writing that reveal who they were–yet nothing on Jesus who lived thousands of years after these Africans.
You can cite different Christian sects, added or deleted books all you want-- the fact is the books of the Jewish Tanakh are the same books found in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. This is just another example of how ridiculous mythical religious books are. Judaism is supposed to be thousands of years older than Christianity, yet the religious books are the same–but the religions are different.
What the poorly written (scientific errors, historical errors, contradictions, ridiculous and unsubstantiated historical accounts) scriptures of the Tanakh, Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible represent and condone–is male superiority, intellectual oppression, religious oppression, slavery, extreme violence, sexism and oppression of women and homophobia.
1 Like
I will not debate the person who is even more ignorant about biblical scholarship than I am.
I will not debate the person who is even more ignorant about biblical scholarship than I am.
I will not deb…
Now I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you have also received, in which you also stand, by which you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the message I proclaimed to you, unless you believed to no purpose. For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, the majority of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep.
-Saul of Tarsus, b. AD 5, d. AD 67.
Debating whether Jesus of Nazareth did anything whatsoever supernatural: yes, I can understand that. But debating his existence?
Saul of Tarsus is, at worst, a secondary source. He lived at the right time, and he is known to have corresponded with the apostles who supposedly witnessed the events directly. He doesn’t go much into the miracles in his writing, so those aren’t substantiated, but why would anyone delude him into believing in some Jesus guy that never existed? For the lulz?
Dammit, I fell for it.
5 Likes
Is there anyone here that’s suggesting the Bible’s not written by men? Why harp on a point nobody is arguing for?
The Bible is an unreliable chronology, much of which was invented by its human authors long after the fact and what chronology there is was transmitted from unreliable sources. It’s not a work of history, and is laden with mythology.
If you want to be formal though, it’s not a fairy tale, since fairy tales are a kind of folklore with a fairly well defined set of criteria the stories in the Bible don’t meet. If you’re using the term ‘fairy tale’ loosely to just say it’s not a literally true account of events, you’d be better off sticking to the more accurate ‘mythology’ to avoid raising arguments from pedantic people.
3 Likes
This is absolutely false. There certainly are credible secondary and tertiary sources. Josephus being a reliable primary source who not only wrote about, but was loosely associated with the execution of Jesus’ brother. Tacitus, who used Josephus as a source when writing the Annals, was one of the most meticulous and cautious of the Roman historians, and is as reliable a secondary source as any ancient historian. Their accounts do not confirm the fictional account of Jesus in the NT, but do confirm there was some guy those stories are based on. We’ve been over this, haven’t we?
There’s only one reason you’d want to impeach their accounts, and that’s because you want to reject strong evidence that contradicts a belief you’re attached to. If it wasn’t Jesus, but say Solon or one of the other ancient figures we only have secondary sources on you wouldn’t be bothering.
3 Likes
Will take that cuteness and deposit it into the gif bank, my good sir!
5 Likes
Using biblical characters to validate the existence of Jesus is not convincing or credible.
The New Testament is written by zealot Christians whose existence themselves are questionable and suspect. Matthew, Mark, Peter, John, Paul, where is George and Ringo?
My mother and grandmother’s favorite mythical character in the bible was Saul of Tarsus.
If Saul of Tarsus, a person who’s initial claim to fame was that of a rabid and zealot persecutor of Christians; a man who allegedly lived during the time the messiah and proclaimed Son of God (Jesus Christ), was a major thorn in the side of the Roman Empire, was performing supernatural feats before, not a select few, but multitudes (thousands) of people–Jesus should have been dead long before his actual and alleged crucifixion.
Here is an interesting source, I don’t agree 100% with it, but the observation and opinion on Saul of Tarsus is interesting.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm
Saul of Tarsus – a witness for Jesus?
One is informed by Acts that St Paul’s early day stance was as “Saul, the Christian persecutor”. Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen’s stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?
Paul’s role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman’s death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem (“at the feet of Gamaliel” – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.
Would not Saul, a young religious hothead (“exceedingly zealous of the traditions” – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC’s blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during “passion week”, surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?
Paul, another “witness for Jesus”, saw and heard nothing!
6 Likes
Meanwhile, at the copypasta factory…
Supervisor Joe is taking a well-earned lunch break, not realising that Junior Technician Donny has mistaken the “Penne al’Arrabiata x200” setting for the “Replace Pesto Toner” button.
Will Supervisor Joe finish his Carbonara and notice in time? How will Donny try to dispose of an excess of duplicated durum? Who is going to replace the Pesto Toner before it congeals?
Tune in next time!
6 Likes
@TobinL, why are you using Melz’s avatar?
Don’t tell me she got banned again.
6 Likes
Nope, none of the above.
That was just obligatory.
6 Likes
Josephus did not even live during the time Jesus allegedly lived. Josephus’s two ridiculous, discredited and short accounts of Jesus are nothing but hearsay and gossip. Josephus had a father–and he never wrote anything about any Jesus Christ who performed supernatural feats while claiming the be the Son of God.
Christian zealots have no credible anthropological proof that Jesus existed, be it the Testimonium Flavianum or the account of James.
Where is the anthropological evidence and documentation that Jesus Christ existed from anthropologists, and historians, public officials and citizens who lived during the time Jesus Christ allegedly lived?
Josephus was born just after the historical Jesus died (around 35 CE), lived in the period Jesus’ brother lived in, and as a part of the Judaean nobility, the events of Jesus’ brother’s execution mattered in his life very directly. For several months in 62 CE, there was no Roman procurator over Judea. The high priest Hananiah ben Hananiah called a Sanhedrin for criminal trials against his political enemies, including Jesus’s brother James, to have them executed. These events were part of the lead up to the First Jewish–Roman War which Josephus served as a general in, was captured, and which are what resulted in his work as a historian in Rome.
Josephus was an orthodox Jew, uninterested in Christianity, and had no reason to invent a complex account to justify Jesus’ existence, an existence he didn’t have much reason to care about.
Of Josephus’s two accounts, one is corrupt, but contrary to your poorly informed opinion, the other shows a level of linguistic consistency, internal consistency, and a MSS tradition that all point to it as reliable.
Because he is a source who serves as evidence of a historical figure some atheists have an alternate motivation to “prove” is false there is a lot of non-academic work to try to suggest his account of James’ execution is unreliable, but the academic consensus on the text is that it’s reliable, and given what would required to fake it the way it is there’s virtually no possibility it’s a product of later poorly literate, very stylistically distinct writers, whose Greek was very unlike that of Josephus.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and citing the sources you’re citing isn’t persuasive to anyone with an education on the topic, which I have.
Again, there’s only one reason you’d want to impeach Josephus (or Tacitus’) accounts, and that’s because you want to reject strong evidence that contradicts a belief you’re attached to. If it wasn’t Jesus, but say Solon or one of the many, many other ancient figures we only have secondary sources on you wouldn’t be bothering.
4 Likes
