Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258512 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173455 Aug 4, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And what do these dates have to do with historical writing? How is history recorded? Somebody either witnesses it and writes it down, or somebody talks to somebody who was there at a specific event or series of events and writes them down. They don't need to be contemporaries of the events. A perfect example is Bruce Catton and the American Civil War. Bruce Catton was born in 1899. The American Civil War ended in 1865. That's a thirty-four year gap, and yet Catton's books are still highly regarded as some of the best writing on the subject! How did Mr. Catton learn what he did about the American Civil War? He talked to veterans! What are veterans? People who have served in a military organization in the past.
"As a child living in a small town in Michigan, Catton was stimulated by the reminiscences of the Civil War that he heard from local veterans."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/100...
<quoted text>
Hearsay applies only in court cases where there is a risk of civil and/or criminal liability to the accused. That's the reason. It doesn't apply to history. All of history is "hearsay" if not witnessed by the recipient of the report. There are no photographs of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. We have photographs of Lincoln's funeral train and his coffin, but none of the act itself.
For those who will want to claim irrelevance or otherwise dismiss this, I'll amputate the legs right off that potential argument before you can even raise it:
It's relevant because the principles of ethical historical research are still the same for any event not witnessed by the writer, regardless of event, time period, etc.:)
I'll dissect your Mithras comparison in my next post. Not sure it will be today as we're expecting company for dinner. I'd invite you if you were closer.:)
What's for dinner? I'd love to come! ;)

I think the easiest way to state this would be when you're looking at something like 'hearsay' the correct example would probably be this...

Rameses II recorded virtually everything that happened in his life In stone. it's on temples all over Egypt.

A pregnant virgin, a new star in the sky, birth announcements that somehow reach all the way to wise men from the east, a flight to Egypt and a massacre of babies? If it all sounds too outrageous to be true that's because it is.

Are Christians any better than anyone else? And just what is the truth about that modern saint Mother Teresa? Was Christopher Hitchens correct?

"Jesus better documented than any other ancient figure" ?

Don't believe a word of it. Unlike the mythical Jesus, a real historical figure like Julius Caesar has a mass of mutually supporting evidence.

http://jesusneverexisted.com/exist.html

I've noticed your posts sometimes contain scripture here's the site I think you will really enjoy. ;)

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Since: Mar 11

Henderson, KY

#173456 Aug 4, 2013
Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier amongst several secular experts agree with me so I am clearly with secular historians.

You before said Jesus' life and execution were a matter of the historical record... Now you say that one doesn't need to establish historicity?

You lied and got caught and are back peddling as fast as you can. Apology accepted.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>You don't need one to establish historicity. This is according to the experts. You must think you know more than them. You need to learn historical investigation.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173457 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who leans towards atheism and is no apologist for the Christian faith. Even Muslim scholars do admit historical Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =eV9JVEtDS8EXX
Sometimes ideas take time to percolate. Let it all float around in your head for a while and perhaps the light will come and you will realize your mistake.
Bart Ehrman's youtube video is nothing more than his opinion and innuendo. The truth is...he does NOT know!
Mostly (Let this float around and percolate in your head for a while)...there were numerous scholars recording "history" around the mediteranean at the time "Jesus" supposedly lived, and not one of them even mentions him...converting the masses and performing miracles.
NOT ONE MENTION OF HIM!?
No one who has EVER written or spoken about Jesus EVER saw him, knew him, or even was alive when he SUPPOSEDLY existed.
...add that to the fact that christianity didn't emerge till over 200 years after his "death"....and that's the nail in the "historical" coffin.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#173458 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Hey I would be satisfied with some god regrowing a person't lost arm or leg for them as a miracle. It's easy to have a plant pretend they are blind and then when an ancient holy man touches their forehead they jump up and declare thy have been healed. Restoring a severed limb is a bit tougher.
<quoted text>
The Abrahamic god does not restore flesh and blood, with one exception.

The houri, the Islamic piece of ass as reward, is forever being deflowered and then re-hymened. A continous virginal package, and this horde of see-through sluts are apparently deserving of every bit of the god's time and energy. Seriously, not a single suicide bomber has ever changed his mind after sampling those holy holes.

“Exit Stage Right”

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#173459 Aug 4, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts [Hardcover]
Joan Konner (Author)
3.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (29 customer reviews)
List Price:$16.99
Price:$11.55 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
Deal Price:
You Save:$5.44 (32%)
Only 4 left in stock (more on the way).
http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Bible-Illu...
Lol

I have seen atheist posts on Topix way more dedicated
Than the Christians .Jews and others they make fun of.

One group travels thousands of miles to small towns
With Nativity scenes so they can say it's offensive to
Them.

I find that zealotry right in line with extreme
Religiosity .

It's a religion

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173460 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You don't need one to establish historicity.
Actual HISTORY, and HISTORICITY are two different things.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> This is according to the experts..
Got any "experts" on Jesus, that ever met, saw, or knew him?
No?

“Exit Stage Right”

Since: Aug 13

Location hidden

#173461 Aug 4, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Bart Ehrman's youtube video is nothing more than his opinion and innuendo. The truth is...he does NOT know!
Mostly (Let this float around and percolate in your head for a while)...there were numerous scholars recording "history" around the mediteranean at the time "Jesus" supposedly lived, and not one of them even mentions him...converting the masses and performing miracles.
NOT ONE MENTION OF HIM!?
No one who has EVER written or spoken about Jesus EVER saw him, knew him, or even was alive when he SUPPOSEDLY existed.
...add that to the fact that christianity didn't emerge till over 200 years after his "death"....and that's the nail in the "historical" coffin.
Any writings as old as the OT and NT scripture WOUKD normally be hailed
As great finds.

But because it's JESUS they are writing about they have to be fake.

Talk about convoluted thinking . They originally called the people the followers of the Way .

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173462 Aug 4, 2013
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen atheist posts on Topix way more dedicated
Than the Christians .Jews and others they make fun of.
So, being "dedicated" is a bad thing?
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
One group travels thousands of miles to small towns
With Nativity scenes so they can say it's offensive to
Them.
No, they traveled to small towns to protect our RIGHT to separation of church and state. It's really not about religion, and more about RIGHTS.
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
I find that zealotry right in line with extreme
How is dedication, and protecting our RIGHTS as Americans anything close to "zealotry" or extreme?
LOL!
Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.
Atheism is the LACK of belief. So your point makes no sense, and is moot.
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Religiosity .
Ignorantosity.
Clearly, a mere lack of belief in God cannot be a religion. Atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that.
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a religion
WRONG :)
Saying "Atheism is religion" is a sign of desperation that the best argument you have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist, but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it. Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign you have run out of arguments.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173463 Aug 4, 2013
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Any writings as old as the OT and NT scripture WOUKD normally be hailed
As great finds.
They can be great finds...but that doesn't make them FACT, or non fiction.
It merely makes them great finds, and nothing more.
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
But because it's JESUS they are writing about they have to be fake.
No...not exactly.
It's because NONE of the writers of the bible ever met Jesus, knew jesus, or were even alive when he supposedly existed.
That's makes it FICTION in most logical thinkers mind.
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about convoluted thinking .
More like CRITICAL and LOGICAL thinking.
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
They originally called the people the followers of the Way .
So? Okay?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173464 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier amongst several secular experts agree with me so I am clearly with secular historians.
You before said Jesus' life and execution were a matter of the historical record...Now you say that one doesn't need to establish historicity?
You are referencing the minority report. Does either Price or Carrier hold teaching positions? Are they tenured?

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/...

''The Quest of the Historical Jesus: Supercilious Pseudo-Scholars, and the Omission of Inconvenient Critical Scholars.

Carrier begins his book by arguing that the Quest for a historical Jesus has been a failure because it has reached no consensus on criteria or results.[6] He does not seem to realise that this is partly because he has included under the general umbrella of ‘Jesus scholars’ virtually anyone who has written about him, regardless of competence or bias. If he had included only recognised academics in top tier universities with qualifications in ancient history and New Testament Studies, he would have got a different result. As it is, he includes ‘scholars’ such as Burton Mack, who left the Church of the Nazarene to became a methodologically incompetent radical, and Stanley Porter, who is an equally incompetent Christian fundamentalist. Of course they don’t end up with the same picture of Jesus, and this is partly because both of them are totally incompetent in method. It does not follow that we should all drop reasonable historical criteria and use Bayes’ theorem instead, as Carrier has unwittingly demonstrated by means of his own extensive incompetence.

Notably incompetent are his discussions the “Criterion of Embarrassment.”[7] Carrier begins with a blunt declaration of a typical mythicist view:‘The assumption is that embarrassing material “would naturally be either suppressed or softened in the later stages of the tradition.” But all extant Gospels are already very late stages of the “Gospel tradition”, the Gospel having already been preached for nearly an entire lifetime across three continents before any Gospel was written’.[8]''
You before said Jesus' life and execution were a matter of the historical record...
And i referenced it in the wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...

Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]

^ a b c d Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
^ a b c d e f g h i Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
^ a b c Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
^ a b c Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus
Now you say that one doesn't need to establish historicity?
No. I said you do not need contemporaries to establish historicity. The historicity of Jesus does not need and contemporary person. It would be nice but historicity can be established without.
LCN Llin

United States

#173465 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You are referencing the minority report. Does either Price or Carrier hold teaching positions? Are they tenured?
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/05/...
''The Quest of the Historical Jesus: Supercilious Pseudo-Scholars, and the Omission of Inconvenient Critical Scholars.
Carrier begins his book by arguing that the Quest for a historical Jesus has been a failure because it has reached no consensus on criteria or results.[6] He does not seem to realise that this is partly because he has included under the general umbrella of ‘Jesus scholars’ virtually anyone who has written about him, regardless of competence or bias. If he had included only recognised academics in top tier universities with qualifications in ancient history and New Testament Studies, he would have got a different result. As it is, he includes ‘scholars’ such as Burton Mack, who left the Church of the Nazarene to became a methodologically incompetent radical, and Stanley Porter, who is an equally incompetent Christian fundamentalist. Of course they don’t end up with the same picture of Jesus, and this is partly because both of them are totally incompetent in method. It does not follow that we should all drop reasonable historical criteria and use Bayes’ theorem instead, as Carrier has unwittingly demonstrated by means of his own extensive incompetence.
Notably incompetent are his discussions the “Criterion of Embarrassment.”[7] Carrier begins with a blunt declaration of a typical mythicist view:‘The assumption is that embarrassing material “would naturally be either suppressed or softened in the later stages of the tradition.” But all extant Gospels are already very late stages of the “Gospel tradition”, the Gospel having already been preached for nearly an entire lifetime across three continents before any Gospel was written’.[8]''
<quoted text> And i referenced it in the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[21][22][23][24]
^ a b c d Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
^ a b c d e f g h i Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (Jul 4, 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6
^ a b c Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
^ a b c Eddy & Boyd (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus
<quoted text> No. I said you do not need contemporaries to establish historicity. The historicity of Jesus does not need and contemporary person. It would be nice but historicity can be established without.
Interesting!
thanks.
will observe the "Dawkinistas" response

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173466 Aug 4, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
Bart Ehrman's youtube video is nothing more than his opinion and innuendo.
Ehrman is an expert and reflects majority consensus of the experts in history and New Testament. He is also an agnostic who leans towards atheism. He is one of yours.
there were numerous scholars recording "history" around the mediteranean at the time [QUOTE] Name them. Name all them scholars.[QUOTE] "Jesus" supposedly lived, and not one of them even mentions him...converting the masses and performing miracles.
Why should they? Its backwater Palestine and Jesus is a dirt poor preacher and pacifist. The world took notice after the Jesus movement went global [relative to the Roman world at that time] and there were mass conversions.
No one who has EVER written or spoken about Jesus EVER saw him, knew him, or even was alive when he SUPPOSEDLY existed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/d...

''It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.''

I do post these links for a reason and i know most do not read them because if they did they would know their points have already been addressed by experts in their own camp.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173467 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
And i referenced it in the wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
Although scholars differ on the reconstruction of the specific episodes of the life of Jesus, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.....
I have to ask....are you NOW making a point of historicity, or historical record? They are two different things.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn ...states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".
Notice the key word there?
"Almost"....."a lmost universal assent".
Which means not everyone agrees with it, and there is no proof of the baptism and crucificxion.
Just a bunch of opinions.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I said you do not need contemporaries to establish historicity.
Actually, you originally said this:
"Jesus' life and execution were a matter of the historical record"
It seems as though you realize there is NO (zero zip nada) historical records of Jesus, and now you back peddle to "historicity". IMO
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be nice but historicity can be established without.
...but historical record can not.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173469 Aug 4, 2013
Let's make this easy:
Yes or no questions....
Are there any HISTORICAL RECORDS whatsoever of Jesus existence?

Has anyone that has even written or spoken of Jesus, ever meet, know, or even LIVE at the time of Jesus?

I'll help you out a little ~ the answer to BOTH questions have TWO letters, end with an 'O', and rhyme with go!
Thinking

Royston, UK

#173470 Aug 4, 2013
You're assuming anyone could be f**ked to read godbot cult and paste.
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting!
thanks.
will observe the "Dawkinistas" response

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173471 Aug 4, 2013
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I have to ask....are you NOW making a point of historicity, or historical record? They are two different things.[QUOTE] quit being so anal.
[QUOTE] "Almost"....."a lmost universal assent".
From the Huffington Post article.

There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands?-- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#173472 Aug 4, 2013
"and"

How?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>The historicity of Jesus does not need and contemporary person. It would be nice but historicity can be established without.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173473 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Ehrman is an expert
How can someone be an expert on "Jesus"? No one who has written or spoken of him, ever met, knew, or even lived in the time of him.
So he's an expert on other people's opinion of history...not Jesus.
LOL
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> ...and reflects majority consensus of the experts in history and New Testament.
You do realize what he says about the new testament...right? Do you take his "expert" opinion on the New Testament as FACT or merely his opinion? Get my point?
Anywho....again, just because SOME people agree on his opinion, doesn't make it fact...and it certinaly doesn't make it historical record.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> He is also an agnostic who leans towards atheism. He is one of yours.
That doesn't make what he said fact. It's still just his opinion.
I know who he is :)
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Why should they?
For the very same reason they documented other historical facts. There are many many many...yet not ONE mentions Jesus.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Its backwater Palestine and Jesus is a dirt poor preacher and pacifist.
So? That point has no logic.
There are tons of historical records in that very same area at the very same time. NONE MENTION JESUS.
You don't think a dirt poor backwater person changing the masses and creating miracles was news worthy?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/d...
''It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.
Key word here..."scarcely". That means some where mentioned, but not a lot. Compare that to Jesus not being mentioned at all.
...and it is very likely that Josephus, and Pontius Pilate never existed either.
So, your point that they are not mentioned either is not a very strong point for jesus existence.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line.
That's one reason why I can never take the religion seriously.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased.
But in order to be a RELIABLE source, you'd have to have met, knew, or at least lived in the time of Jesus. NO ONE THEM DID!
The only records of Jesus are hearsay, and they are dismissed for that very reason. Not bias. It has nothing to do with bias. It is called critical thinking and logic.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.''
Huh? That makes NO sense.
We know she exists because we can see her, hear her, etc...
He provides NO evidence she is real. The mere fact that she is REAL, proves she is real . UGH
Example: in 200 years, when people research Sandra Fluke...they'll find a birth cert, drivers license, news paper records, death record, etc..
See the difference between her existence and Jesus existence? ONE has records, the other doesn't.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
I do post these links for a reason and i know most do not read them because if they did they would know their points have already been addressed by experts in their own camp.
I like it when people use their own mind, and present their own thoughts and opinions.
MOSTLY, no expert has addressed ANYTHING other than giving their opinions.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173474 Aug 4, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
From the Huffington Post article.
There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands?-- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.
I don't get the point you're trying to make :)
what is your point?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173475 Aug 4, 2013
your argument is not with me but with experts in your own camp who reject Jesus myth theory and you embrace. More on Carrier.

''Among many details which illustrate Carrier’s total inability to understand Jesus’ culture is the story of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest and execution. He declares,

‘The authorities did not need Judas… to find or identify Jesus. Given what Mark has Jesus say in 14:49 (and what Jesus had been doing in Jerusalem only days before), the authorities knew what he looked like, and they could have seized him any time he appeared in public.’

It was fortunate for the Jewish people of the time that the Sagan, the chief priest in charge of security in the Temple, was wiser than Carrier. He will not have forgotten what happened in 4 BCE, when Herod Archelaus was faced with a serious protest in the Temple. Archelaus sent people to talk to the protesters, but when Passover came round and support for them increased, he sent in a cohort led by a tribune, so some 500 soldiers led by an officer: the crowd stoned them with such violence that most of the cohort were killed. Archelaus then sent in his army in force: the result was 3,000 dead Jews and the wreckage of a major festival (Jos. War II, 5-13: Ant XVII, 206-8). This is arguably what the chief priests were avoiding by not arresting Jesus in public in the Temple, yet Carrier shows not a glimmer of awareness of the event in the time of Archelaus ever happening..''

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 20 min Quivering Lip Lib... 87,529
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 33 min Wisdom of Ages 703,574
The American Dream is DEAD DEAD DEAD. (Oct '17) 4 hr Hock Fung Soc Tu 23
Looking to finally settle down. Need some sugge... 4 hr Plock Yan Yuk Foo 2
Why are women from USA prefer casual dating ove... 5 hr MGTOW 2
The Good Man Donald Trump 7 hr MexicoWill Pay4Wall 2
Prostitutes at Taiji Massage in Port Charlotte 7 hr FredG5 1
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 hr science is god 996,409