“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1573 May 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
Shibolet: Rome acknoweledges the books of Josephus as partly Roman History and Josephus mentions Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.
I hope you realize that most scholars consider the mentions of Jesus in Josephus to be additions put in later by Christian monks. There is serious doubt that Josephus counts as a contemporary (even nearly so) source recording Jesus.

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#1574 May 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
To Inhotep:
Shibolet: Rome acknoweledges the books of Josephus as partly Roman History and Josephus mentions Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.
Inhotep: These individuals exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.
Shibolet: The books of Flavius Josephus are not considered holy books. Read "The Antiquities of the Jews" about Joseph, Moses and the Exodus.
Josephus existed a thousand yrs after the supposed Moses. He is not an authority on the matter. He reports Urban legend not located in the buybull, like claiming that Moses fought in Egyptian wars against Nubia and married a Nubian princess.
Shibolet wrote:
To Inhotep:
Shibolet: It's obvious! According to Egyptian tradition they would erase from their monomunts and records any mention of anything that
caused shame and humiliation to the nation.
Such an event should have been recorded by outside sources as well, like enemies, vassal ruler, and contemporary Jewish documents. None of which mentions the legend.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1575 May 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Good old Aristotelian causality. Doesn't it give you pause that Aristotle was wrong about so many things?
He never thought a donut was infinite.

Anyhow, it's more fitting to Thomas Aquinas.

No matter to whom the attribution, your attempts to refute it have been concocted and lame.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1576 May 15, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you realize that most scholars consider the mentions of Jesus in Josephus to be additions put in later by Christian monks. There is serious doubt that Josephus counts as a contemporary (even nearly so) source recording Jesus.
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..."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1577 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As is everyone who demonstrates you incorrect. You're right when you're right and when you're not right just ignore it and say you're right anyway.
<quoted text>
That's a thousand above you.
<quoted text>
That is wise. This is one of those times that as a student you should sit down, shut up, learn to be humble, and just learn in general. But you're the brat who's always on the naughty-step.(shrug)
<quoted text>
She said it's long past yours should wipe yer stinky buttt.
skipped
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1578 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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
What, 3 decades after the guy's alleged death you say?

Thought so.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1579 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He never thought a donut was infinite.
Anyhow, it's more fitting to Thomas Aquinas.
No matter to whom the attribution, your attempts to refute it have been concocted and lame.
And completely ignores the work of Kant and Hume on the question of causality. Aquinas is simply Aristotle re-worked for Christians.
Imhotep

Lady Lake, FL

#1580 May 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
To Inhotep:
Inhotep: Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.
Shibolet: Rome acknoweledges the books of Josephus as partly Roman History and Josephus mentions Moses and the Exodus from Egypt.
Inhotep: These individuals exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.
Shibolet: The books of Flavius Josephus are not considered holy books. Read "The Antiquities of the Jews" about Joseph, Moses and the Exodus.
Inhotep: Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context.
Shibolet: Josephus' books are living evidences for that effect.
the Israelites.'
Doesn't it count as an evidence of our historical stamina?
I thank you for a well thought out response!
However you should check this out...

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.

Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)

When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.

In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):

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

The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."
In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.

All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.

'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!

Caesar by comparison is easily verified. ;)

Sidebar:
Do you find this compelling or boring?

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristiani...

It was admirable try but that dog definitely won't hunt!

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1581 May 15, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you realize that most scholars consider the mentions of Jesus in Josephus to be additions put in later by Christian monks. There is serious doubt that Josephus counts as a contemporary (even nearly so) source recording Jesus.
-----

Yes DS, I am well aware of that fact. The name is pious forgery. Until the time when interpolations about Jesus were forged into Josephus' books they remained more in the class of documentary Literature. All of a sudden they started being promoted by the Catholic Church with those forgeries. About ten years ago I had to set up an apointment to read old copies of Josephs in the Rabam Holl of the Tel-Aviv Central Library and I looked for any of those referencs and I found none. When I asked about the reason, I was
told that those books were copies from the originals. Then, in the Los Angeles Library I checked some of them and there they were.

When I said that Josephus' writings were partly acknowledged as Roman History I was referring to the campains of Vespasian and Titus in the Roman conquest of the Land of Israel and destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1582 May 15, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> Josephus existed a thousand yrs after the supposed Moses. He is not an authority on the matter. He reports Urban legend not located in the buybull, like claiming that Moses fought in Egyptian wars against Nubia and married a Nubian princess.
<quoted text> Such an event should have been recorded by outside sources as well, like enemies, vassal ruler, and contemporary Jewish documents. None of which mentions the legend.
-------

It is fruitless to argue with negative preconceived notions.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1583 May 15, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I thank you for a well thought out response!
However you should check this out...
Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character.
Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
Tacitus, Roman Politician and Historian,(c. 56-120 CE)
Suetonius, Roman Historian (c. 69-c. 122 CE)
When addressing the mythical nature of Jesus Christ, one issue repeatedly raised is the purported "evidence" of his existence to be found in the writings of Flavius Josephus, the famed Jewish general and historian who lived from about 37 to 100 CE.
In Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews appears the notorious passage regarding Christ called the "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF"):
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
The are: No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity."
In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed.
All of these historians were born well after the alleged events.
'Hearsay' is not 'evidence' for a reason!
Caesar by comparison is easily verified. ;)
Sidebar:
Do you find this compelling or boring?
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristiani...
It was admirable try but that dog definitely won't hunt!
-------

I am not betting anything to corroborate the historicity of Jesus. He could have existed but not the "Christ" preached by Paul whose biological background was engendered to back up Pauline forgeries.

About the notorius passage regarding Jesus in the "Testimonium Flavianum" brings a strong evidence of forgery because a Jew would never admit that the Prophets of Israel had foretold about Jesus and much less referred to his resurrection, considering that Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection.
Imhotep

Groveland, FL

#1584 May 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-------
I am not betting anything to corroborate the historicity of Jesus. He could have existed but not the "Christ" preached by Paul whose biological background was engendered to back up Pauline forgeries.
About the notorius passage regarding Jesus in the "Testimonium Flavianum" brings a strong evidence of forgery because a Jew would never admit that the Prophets of Israel had foretold about Jesus and much less referred to his resurrection, considering that Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection.
I have found that if one takes the time to research the origins of the world's religions they will come out quite surprised by the results.

I am a humanist or secular humanist if you will.
I have never been involved in organized religion.

That's why my outlook is quite different from most of the posters in these forums.

I have always been fascinated with mythology and nothing suits this hobby more than religion!

But I have to admit if I had to select a religion it would be Jainism.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1585 May 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What, 3 decades after the guy's alleged death you say?
Thought so.
The historian Tacitus would have been alive then.

Are you saying the historian was lying?

For what reason, since he discounted the christian narrative?

Or are you just flapping your lip again?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1586 May 15, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Yes DS, I am well aware of that fact. The name is pious forgery. Until the time when interpolations about Jesus were forged into Josephus' books they remained more in the class of documentary Literature. All of a sudden they started being promoted by the Catholic Church with those forgeries. About ten years ago I had to set up an apointment to read old copies of Josephs in the Rabam Holl of the Tel-Aviv Central Library and I looked for any of those referencs and I found none. When I asked about the reason, I was
told that those books were copies from the originals. Then, in the Los Angeles Library I checked some of them and there they were.
When I said that Josephus' writings were partly acknowledged as Roman History I was referring to the campains of Vespasian and Titus in the Roman conquest of the Land of Israel and destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Then why were you citing Josephus as a credible historical source about Jesus?

Yes, in certain areas of history, Josephus is a credible source. In the area of Jesus...no.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1587 May 15, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
I have found that if one takes the time to research the origins of the world's religions they will come out quite surprised by the results.
I am a humanist or secular humanist if you will.
I have never been involved in organized religion.
That's why my outlook is quite different from most of the posters in these forums.
I have always been fascinated with mythology and nothing suits this hobby more than religion!
But I have to admit if I had to select a religion it would be Jainism.
All religions are false. They are false because the doctrines and rules are believed to be "Truth".

This means others are not in possession of "Truth". Thus, it is in the service of EGO that the religion is used.

The ego is the devil. Metaphorically. It is the only devil there is or ever was, and if something calling itself "religion" serves it, then it cannot be a good thing.

There is only one "Truth". It can never be put into words, it can only be experienced.

Jesus tried to convey this by saying "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life". The Hindus called this the "Atman", the in-dwelling god.

When you are enlightened of that inner truth, you become aware of the essence identity - the part of God in every living thing.

This is your natural state. You are the truth. It is the condition in which you came here. Psychologists refer to the infant's perspective as "oceanic consciousness" - seeing others as part of itself. They are hungry, and to them, a breast appears as if from within them.

This "Truth" comes from no physical event or act of any person in history. It is eternal and all attempts to put it into words formed from 5 vowels and a few consonants only limits it.

Once it is described, the description is in error. These descriptions, however, are used to serve the ego with an illusion of superiority, and thus divide and harm all who contact it.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1588 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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..."
But, Buck, you should note that I was talking of Josephus and not Tacitus.

Also, Tacitus is not talking of a man named Jesus. He is talking of a religion named Christianity. That Christianity existed at the time is not in question. However, the existence of an historical Jesus is in doubt. There are some excellent arguments against his historical existence.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1589 May 15, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And completely ignores the work of Kant and Hume on the question of causality. Aquinas is simply Aristotle re-worked for Christians.
The ages have Aquinas and Aristotle.

On Topix, we have Polymouth and The Dude.

We are so blessed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1590 May 15, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
But, Buck, you should note that I was talking of Josephus and not Tacitus.
Also, Tacitus is not talking of a man named Jesus. He is talking of a religion named Christianity. That Christianity existed at the time is not in question. However, the existence of an historical Jesus is in doubt. There are some excellent arguments against his historical existence.
So Tacitus is talking about a religion, not a man?

So the historian is saying a religion was executed, put to death by Pontius Pilate.

He's saying a religion was the leader of a religion.

And the religion died out for a while after the religion was killed, but the religion sprung up again in Rome.

Was it the religion that led the religion that sprang back up, or was it the religion that was led by the religion that spring back up?

Which one was dead when it sprang up?

Was the religion that led dead? Or was it the religion that followed the dead religion that was dead?

Obviously, you are too advanced in your knowledge of this histoy for me to understand you.

That is assuming you are a man named Darwin's StumpHump, and not just a religion.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#1591 May 15, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The ages have Aquinas and Aristotle.
On Topix, we have Polymouth and The Dude.
We are so blessed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Be7Og9Gc_KYXX
Jesus strikes again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1592 May 15, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus strikes again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =p6z0Zay9itkXX&feature=end screen&NR=1
Good one, Falice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 min dirtclod 14,664
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr EXPERT 234,651
Christianity Created Hitler 9 hr Uncle Sam 213
Why Evil Disproves Atheism 10 hr Luke1981 7
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 10 hr NoahLovesU 1,245
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 10 hr NoahLovesU 2,844
The Consequences of Atheism 11 hr ChristineM 77
More from around the web