More and better miracles than Jesus

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Claire » Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:07 am

Chapabel wrote:Here's the truth about you SEG...

You try to act like an intellectual, but in reality you're just a cheap copy and paste antagonist. You have not studied Christianity at all. You are Christian illiterate. You simply do engine searches that cast Christianity in a negative light and present your findings as evidence. You fail to verify your "evidence" and what you show forth as "proof" is nothing more than opinions from unnamed sources found a personal blog called "Sparkle's and Glitter's". What an absolute joke. None of your evidence would stand up to academic scrutiny. You are a hypocrite pretending to be as some type of intelligent debater and all the while exposing yourself as straight up ignorant. And the cherry on top is the fact that you don't have the gonads enough to accept who you are. So you go right on pretending to be something you aren't. Continue acting smart and trying impress those dumber than you. It doesn't work for me because I can see through your little charade. In an effort to save face I'm sure you'll respond in some way. Go ahead and show some more of your hypocrisy and ignorance. Reach out to your little lap dog for comfort and consoling, I'm sure she'll jump to your defense. I can hardly wait... :roll:
Just as I defend or agree with SEG at times, I've also critiqued his debating style, and other patterns of behavior I observe, when called for. I've done the same with you and others.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that just to take a dig at him. I was merely stating a fact that he lashes out when faced with a challenging situation, especially against those he hates. It's part of being human, and we can all point to a time in our own lives where we've behaved the same way.
Except me. I would never hate anyone just for their silly beliefs. I never resort to childish ridicule either. Except when he deserves it. lol!
Except you? No. There's no escaping feeling hatred towards a person or situation at times. As I said, it's part of being human, but I am of the opinion we have the capability to choose to have the will to avert from hatred, no matter the behavior of another, and at times succeed in directing our focus not only on what that person is doing or saying, but also finding out where that behavior is coming from and why. It can lead to envisioning oneself in the situation or circumstances of another person, so as to understand or empathize with their perspective, opinion, or point of view. So, before being quick to judge someone for their actions, we should always try to put ourselves in their shoes.

I don't want to have hatred for Chapabel, so whenever I say or think something with hate behind it I put myself in his shoes, then I'm taken a step back, and that hate and anger turns to charity and patience. So, I can do that, disagree, and be firm with him, without straying away from the teachings of Jesus. Though I won't always succeed, I have the will to keep trying again.

Chapabel says and thinks things about me with hate too, but the difference between us is he chooses to stoke that fire of hate, rather than douse the first sight of flames, and without remorse afterwards. Pretty soon he's standing in a forest fire wondering why he's getting his bum burnt from all sides. As long as he continues to re-make that choice, he chooses to ignore the teachings of Jesus, which is to be charitable and refrain from judging others, even towards those we call our enemies, which he has referred to me as. Please note: I say ignore because he's not ignorant of Jesus's teachings, that of which he preaches and claims to practice himself, and therefore makes his behavior all the more grievous.

But, that's between him and God ultimately.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Now, what I find peculiar is with all Chapabel's talk about numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus's resurrection, and him believing them to be true, at the same time he believes Jesus, the living God, no longer directly talks to people.
Are you on the turn Claire?
No, but I don't have to be in order to find it puzzling.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by SEG » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:23 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:36 am
Chapabel wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:42 pm
You dismiss eyewitness accounts. You reject secular writers who mentioned Jesus.
Let me make this crystal clear. I don't dismiss actual eyewitness accounts of Jesus, and that is rather easy - there are none. There are only silly second accounts from the unknown authors of the gospels, which are copies of copies of copies written decades after he was supposedly dead. There are also no secular contemporaneous of him either. Your very best evidences are from writings of Josephus which all serious scholars know have been fiddled with at the end of the first century and hearsay accounts of people talking about Christians in the second century.

I know this is awkward for you to read, but prove me wrong if you can. I'm all ears :roll: :roll: :roll:
You dismiss the eyewitnesses you yourself presented for Baba.

Now why would I do that Chappy? For the same reason that I would dismiss a crowd of gullible people witnessing a magician on stage pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat. Are they witnessing magic that is breaking the laws of nature, or is it sleight of hand? What this audience doesn't see is the hat, and the surface it is placed on, will have a hidden opening in them, through which the rabbit stored in a compartment in the table or chest can be pulled. So yes, the crowd are eyewitnesses, but they are being duped by what they can't see and a clever, devious magician. You don't try and work out if it's a trick or not, you sit and clap with your stupid fat hands declaring, "it's magic!"
If you reject your own eyewitnesses why would I waste the effort to present eyewitnesses of Jesus? The evidence that supports the truth of Jesus Christ is plentiful but you choose not to believe it.

I've just explained how I reject eyewitnesses when they are being duped. Your problem with the evidences for Jesus are twofold. They don't appear in ANY contemporaneous texts and there are NO eyewitness accounts that aren't contained in copied STORIES about Jesus or are only about Christians. You don't want to produce these lousy evidences, because they will make you look even more gullible than you actually are.
That’s on you Sport, not me. The only awkwardness here is your uneducated and ridiculous posting. You’re too ignorant to discern truth from fiction. Instead of trolling blogs looking for evidence among biased opinions, why don’t you really educate yourself if you truly want to know the truth? The more you post the more ignorant and pathetic you look.

Whoops, who said that?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by SEG » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:56 am

Too bad we haven't the imbed video function. Here is a good video that explains how faith "healing" is done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXVEwmzmnPQ
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Chapabel » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:52 pm

SEG wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:23 pm

Your problem with the evidences for Jesus are twofold. They don't appear in ANY contemporaneous texts and there are NO eyewitness accounts that aren't contained in copied STORIES about Jesus or are only about Christians. You don't want to produce these lousy evidences, because they will make you look even more gullible than you actually are.
It is foolish remarks like this that makes you come across as ignorant. I don't know if you are being deceitful or you really are this unfamiliar with the subject matter. I suspect you don't want to know the truth, so you blindly latch on to whatever false information that suits your agenda of disparaging Christianity. There is in fact contemporaneous writings concerning Jesus Christ. A quick, pain-free web search would have revealed this to you. From the website https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died
What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
From the website https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancien ... an-sources
Evidence from Tacitus
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....
There are numerous more sites that support the fact that Jesus Christ was indeed a known figure by ancient writers during the first century. But I already know your argument. You will blabber something along the lines that these writings are still years or decades after the fact and you would be correct. But what you fail to understand is 2,000 ago, the technology for instant news was not available. There was no internet, satellites, TV or any other type of media we have today. Also, the population was vastly illiterate, so even if stories of Jesus were circulated in local papers (which did not exist either) the people would have been unable to read about Him. Even the Gospel writers penned their accounts years later. The most common explanation was they truly believed Jesus would return during their lifetime. As the years stretched into decades they wrote their accounts to dispel misinformation circulating about Jesus. Such as the misinformation you attempt to spread for instance.

So if that is your argument, then your ignorance of ancient times would be as bad as your ignorance of Christianity. Basically you are arguing from a position of ignorance and willful blindness. Feel free to troll a butterfly and rainbow blog looking for evidence against Jesus.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Claire » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:31 pm

What I find peculiar, Chapabel, is with all your talk about numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus's resurrection, and you believing them to be true, at the same time you believe Jesus, the living God, no longer directly talks to people.

Perhaps you'd be capable of putting aside your hatred for me for a moment and explain how you reconcile that? Or, does someone else have to ask in order for you to answer?

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Chapabel » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:05 pm

Claire wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:31 pm
What I find peculiar is with all your talk Chapabel about numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus's resurrection, and you believing them to be true, at the same time you believe Jesus, the living God, no longer directly talks to people.

Maybe you can put aside your hatred for me for a moment and explain how you reconcile that? Or, does someone else have to ask in order for you to answer?
Firstly, there is nothing to reconcile Claire. God speaks to people today through the indwelling Holy Spirit. Only those saved can hear His voice because only the saved are tabernacles for Him. That's why the concept is foreign to you. Since you've never been saved or converted, you have never experienced the indwelling and subsequent guidance of the Holy Ghost. Secondly, even those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit do not receive any new revelations from God as you claim Maria did. Everything needed for salvation, sanctification and glorification are already contained within the Bible. Remember, even the Catholic church rejects the writings of Maria. I urge you to confess your sins to Jesus and humbly ask Him to come into your life and save you. Repent from your heresy of a works salvation and place your faith in Jesus Christ and His finished work. Until you do that you will continue down the broad path.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Claire » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:08 pm

Claire wrote:What I find peculiar is with all your talk Chapabel about numerous eyewitness accounts of Jesus's resurrection, and you believing them to be true, at the same time you believe Jesus, the living God, no longer directly talks to people.

Maybe you can put aside your hatred for me for a moment and explain how you reconcile that? Or, does someone else have to ask in order for you to answer?
Chapabel wrote:God speaks to people today through the indwelling Holy Spirit.
That's true. But, God can also speak directly to people, just as He did when on Earth. But, you don't believe that Jesus, who you say is resurrected and living, continues to directly speak to people on this Earth or in Heaven. All because you assume He has nothing else to say. He won't share His experiences on Earth, thoughts, new knowledge humans were unaware of, repeat information already known, and elaborate if someone didn't digest correctly, have a response to what others say to Him, comment on how a person lived their life, on and on.

We are to spend eternal life with a living, mute Jesus.

He may as well be dead the way you portray Him.
Chapabel wrote:Remember, even the Catholic church rejects the writings of Maria.
I've informed you on the Catholic Church's actual position regarding The Gospels As They Were Revealed To Me, later renamed Poem of the Man-God. Apparently you didn't understand but that's okay. I'd be happy to go over this again if you'd like.
Chapabel wrote:Since you've never been saved or converted...
You're right, I've never converted to that of a Baptist Christian, and until I do I'm unsaved, and will never experience the indwelling and subsequent guidance of the Holy Ghost. That's what you say.

But, then there's what God says.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Chapabel » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:03 pm

This is why I no longer waste time responding to you Claire. Again I don’t know if you are intentionally playing dumb, or you really are this dense. I explained how God speaks to believers through the in dwelling Holy Ghost. You cannot comprehend this because you are not saved. Your question about living in eternity with a mute Jesus shows how out of touch with Biblical Christianity you truly are. I regret replying to your post so I will resume ignoring your foolish posts and stupid questions.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1869
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by SEG » Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:50 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:52 pm
It is foolish remarks like this that makes you come across as ignorant. I don't know if you are being deceitful or you really are this unfamiliar with the subject matter. I suspect you don't want to know the truth, so you blindly latch on to whatever false information that suits your agenda of disparaging Christianity. There is in fact contemporaneous writings concerning Jesus Christ. A quick, pain-free web search would have revealed this to you. From the website https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died
What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
Yeah? This article shows that the writer (Even though he teaches at Cambridge!) is ignorant of the arguments, just like you.

See: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12334
Gathercole clearly hasn’t done any research on the subject. That’s not a good sign for someone teaching at Cambridge. Your responsibility as a scholar is to address the latest peer reviewed literature in your field on the subject you are addressing. Gathercole does not seem to even know On the Historicity of Jesus exists, much less that it was published by a respected peer reviewed academic press in biblical studies. He certainly never addresses anything in it. Instead he naively apes Christian apologetics, ignorant of even basic contemporary debates on the data he relies on.

Nevertheless, Gathercole blithely insists we have tons of evidence Jesus existed. Oh do we?

What Evidence Was That Again?
Gathercole’s Guardian article starts off by claiming:

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings.

This is false. No Jewish or Roman historical text contains any reference to Jesus for at least sixty years. That’s more than “a few decades.” And one text, two average lifetimes after the fact, is far from “widespread.” And that reference, in the Antiquities of Josephus, is widely recognized as a forgery. And indeed, quite demonstrably is a forgery, down to every last word (see OHJ, Ch. 8.9). The second reference in Josephus that Gathercole mentions was also not written by Josephus but inserted centuries later (as the latest peer reviewed literature demonstrates: see my Journal of Early Christian Studies article on it, reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, and summarized in OHJ, Ch. 8.10).

We have to wait twenty more years before we get any other reference to Jesus as a historical person, in the Annals of Tacitus (contrary to Gathercole, Pliny, Tacitus’s friend and contemporary, never refers to Jesus as a historical person). And that reference is probably also a forgery (as the latest peer reviewed literature demonstrates: see my Vigiliae Christianae article on it, reproduced in Hitler Homer Bible Christ, and summarized in OHJ, Ch. 8.10). But even if it isn’t (indeed even if the reference in Josephus isn’t), neither of those references has any indicated source but Christian hearsay, which by then was just aping the Gospels. Consequently, neither of these sources can corroborate the Gospels. They are not an independent source. It is incompetent (or dishonest) of a historian to cite sources that aren’t independent as if they were multiple or independent sources.

No non-Christian ever noticed Jesus, or ever found any record of him outside the Gospels.

Including Josephus and Tacitus. Even if anything in them about Jesus were authentic.

That’s a problem. Although it’s not a huge problem—if we accept the Gospels all lie about how famous Jesus was, and thus conclude against their wild narratives that Jesus was actually a nobody, then it’s entirely expected no one would notice him in the literature of the era. The real problem for the historicity of Jesus is the absence of any reference to Jesus visiting earth in the earliest Christian documents. Because those “dozens of Christian writings” Gathercole refers to, are just the Gospels, which are wholly mythical and absurd and unsourced and a lifetime too late (OHJ, Chs. 8 & 9), and the Epistles, most of which are forgeries (a fact concealed by Gathercole)—and those that aren’t, never place Jesus on earth. They only describe him as someone seen in visions, and known about from hidden messages in scripture and communications from heaven (OHJ, Ch. 11).

What Are We Comparing Jesus To Again?
Gathercole then inserts his foot in his mouth by asking us to:

Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD 500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.

Um, historians mostly agree Arthur never existed. Even those who think he did exist, agree it’s a stretch to claim any certainty he did. And really, there is no evidence he did. So, Gathercole is citing a non-existent person who was invented and placed in history later, as an example of how we should conclude Jesus existed. This makes exactly no logical sense.

Let’s try some better examples: the Roswell legend (complete with intact flying saucer and recovered alien bodies) was invented in less than 40 years time, and still believed by millions, even though 100% false; John Frum and Tom Navy, were invented in less than 40 years time, and still believed by thousands, even though they never really existed; Ned Ludd was invented in less than 40 years time, and believed by thousands, even though he also never existed (see the index of OHJ: “Roswell myth,” “cargo cults,” “Ned Ludd”). The Gospels were written over 40 years after the fact. More than enough time, as all precedents show, for such a man to be invented. We don’t need to cite King Arthur. Or Daniel. Or Moses. Or Abraham. Or Hercules. Or Osiris. Or any of dozens of other supposedly “historical” persons who never really existed.

Why Are We Still Acting Like the Gospels Are Histories?
“The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed,” Gathercole claims. Neither is true. The early evidence (the Epistles of Paul that weren’t forged) give no clear or earthly details about Jesus at all (OHJ, Ch. 11). And the first time we hear about Jesus as a person walking around the planet like some regular Joe with superpowers, is not early. The average human lifespan then was 48 years (OHJ, Ch. 4, Element 22). Anyone who was an adult in 30 A.D., would probably have been dead by 70 A.D. And indeed, we have no evidence any of the first Christians were alive after that year. Guess when the Gospels start being written? After 70 A.D. Most of them decades after 70 A.D.

So when Gathercole says of the Gospels that “these all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses,” he is making that up. We can verify not a single eyewitness was alive when any Gospel was written. And when Gathercole says the Gospels “provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine,” he’s also not telling the truth. Mark, the first Gospel written, is famous for getting the geography and culture wrong. Matthew had to “fix” those telltale errors decades later, in his rewrite of Mark. And Luke, who claims to have researched his story, makes basic historical errors (such as confusing the chronology of Jewish rebellions, and placing the birth of Jesus in the “wrong” decade). And even what he gets right, he just lifted from reference books of the era (like Josephus).

Gathercole insists it’s “difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure” when and where “there was strong suspicion of Judaism.” Actually, it’s not even remotely difficult to imagine (OHJ, Chs. 3, 4, 5, and 10). Many pagans were already converting to Judaism even before Christianity came around, despite the “strong suspicions” of some who disliked that fact. So this may be evidence of Gathercole’s lack of imagination. But Gathercole’s lack of imagination is not evidence Jesus existed. Jesus actually was invented in the Gospels as a Gentile-friendly, Greek-speaking, Cynic-sounding, Jewish demigod, no different than the invented Egyptian demigod Osiris or the invented Syrian demigod Adonis or anyone else of like kind. While many Gentiles were already converting to or admiring of Judaism, Paul came along and made it even easier to sign up (by eliminating circumcision and the grueling ritual and dietary requirements). The Gospels were made up decades after Paul had died. And they were fabricated in Greek, because they were written for the Gentile and Hellenized Jewish audiences that were already in the market for an exotic salvation cult just like the Christians were selling.

Just as “gospels” were invented for every other foreign culture’s savior god that the pagans were popularly flocking to, the Christians did exactly the same with theirs. That makes his invented historicity typical of the exotic foreign savior gods of the era. Not unimaginable.

How Do We know?
Gathercole then says:

Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

First, this is false. Some Jews and even some Christians did question whether Jesus lived. Second, even apart from that, Gathercole’s argument is dishonest (OHJ, pp. 349-56). Because the very period in which the historical Jesus was invented, the 70s to 120s A.D., is when we should hear people challenging that invention. But we are not allowed to hear what anyone said in that period. All criticism of Christianity in that half century was erased from history. Even all debate among Christians in that half century was erased from history. Which is suspicious. But even suspicion aside, we still can’t argue from the silence of documents we don’t have. We don’t know what the critics of a newly minted historical Jesus were saying in that whole human lifetime of Christian history. So we cannot say “there was never any debate” about it. Any debate there had been, was deleted.

By the time we get to the “Jewish Rabbis” and the “Lucian and Celsus” Gathercole is talking about, we are in the second half of the second century, one hundred and fifty years after the time Christ is supposed to have lived. None of those people would have had any way of knowing Jesus didn’t exist. All they had were the Gospels. Which they just assumed were recording myths about an actual man. Because they had no other assumption or information to go on. Well, except the Jewish Rabbis in Babylon. Christians there were telling them that Jesus lived and died a hundred years before Pontius Pilate (OHJ, Ch. 8.1). Evidently, even Christians who insisted Jesus existed couldn’t agree on what century he lived in.

That doesn’t sound like a real historical person to me.

Conclusion
This is representative of the bankrupt methods and arguments the so-called “consensus” of Jesus’s historicity is based on. False claims and bad logic are spun into, as Gathercole puts it, “abundant historical references” that “leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died.” Somehow no historical references, becomes abundant historical references; and late hagiographic myths become histories; and forgeries become evidence; and texts showing some challenged a historical Jesus, becomes “no one” challenged a historical Jesus; and somehow we magically know what existed in entire lifetimes of missing texts discussing the reality of Jesus. And instead of citing the only peer reviewed academic book on the question of the historicity of Jesus published in almost 100 years, Gathercole cites Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrman: neither of whom has ever published any peer reviewed book or article on defending the historicity of Jesus.
Evidence from Tacitus
Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....
Wrong again! This has nothing to say about Jesus of Nazareth, it mentions hearsay about Christians.
There are numerous more sites that support the fact that Jesus Christ was indeed a known figure by ancient writers during the first century. But I already know your argument. You will blabber something along the lines that these writings are still years or decades after the fact and you would be correct. But what you fail to understand is 2,000 ago, the technology for instant news was not available. There was no internet, satellites, TV or any other type of media we have today. Also, the population was vastly illiterate, so even if stories of Jesus were circulated in local papers (which did not exist either) the people would have been unable to read about Him. Even the Gospel writers penned their accounts years later. The most common explanation was they truly believed Jesus would return during their lifetime. As the years stretched into decades they wrote their accounts to dispel misinformation circulating about Jesus. Such as the misinformation you attempt to spread for instance.

So if that is your argument, then your ignorance of ancient times would be as bad as your ignorance of Christianity. Basically you are arguing from a position of ignorance and willful blindness. Feel free to troll a butterfly and rainbow blog looking for evidence against Jesus.
There were numerous people that should have written about him and didn't bother. I wonder why?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: More and better miracles than Jesus

Post by Claire » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:44 am

.
Last edited by Claire on Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply