Proof How Your Religion Could Be Made Up

[sealybobo]

The only two events that most scholars agree on are Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by Pontius Pilate

 

[sealybobo]

I gather from the lack of replies that theists understand it is very possible that their religions are made up. They only choose to believe their particular religions stories just like people of other religions do.

And then to tell people that god told your ancestors that the test to get into heaven or to not go to hell is that we have to believe you and your particular church?

And, once again. Why do you care?

Actually, why do you care? For example, I'll vote for a theist but apparently you guys won't vote for an atheist.

The Immoral Minority New polls shows that Americans would rather vote for an elderly pot smoking philanderer than vote for an Atheist. Oh come on

But people are getting smarter and things are getting better for us.

More Americans willing to vote for an atheist president - Religion News Service

True, 53 percent of Americans said they are least likely to choose a candidate who doesn’t believe in God, but in 2007, that number was 63 percent.

And those who said a candidate’s lack of belief didn’t matter to their vote rose, from 32 percent in 2007 to 41 percent today.

Stiefel — still dismayed that even pot smokers or philanderers were viewed more favorably than atheists — predicted Tuesday (May 20) that the shift will be even greater as more unbelievers come out of the closet.

I'm an agnostic, I vote for whoever I think will do the best job. However, invariably, the purpose of thse threads is for the atheist to say "look how smart I am, look how dumb you are rah rah rah." It's infantile and useless. So why do you do it?

I don't think religion is good for us. It held science/us back 2500 years. And it continues to. I'm just glad I live in the time when you don't have to be a Christian. They use to kill atheists.

There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities

scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them, what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later.

 

[westwall]

I gather from the lack of replies that theists understand it is very possible that their religions are made up. They only choose to believe their particular religions stories just like people of other religions do.

And then to tell people that god told your ancestors that the test to get into heaven or to not go to hell is that we have to believe you and your particular church?

And, once again. Why do you care?

Actually, why do you care? For example, I'll vote for a theist but apparently you guys won't vote for an atheist.

The Immoral Minority New polls shows that Americans would rather vote for an elderly pot smoking philanderer than vote for an Atheist. Oh come on

But people are getting smarter and things are getting better for us.

More Americans willing to vote for an atheist president - Religion News Service

True, 53 percent of Americans said they are least likely to choose a candidate who doesn’t believe in God, but in 2007, that number was 63 percent.

And those who said a candidate’s lack of belief didn’t matter to their vote rose, from 32 percent in 2007 to 41 percent today.

Stiefel — still dismayed that even pot smokers or philanderers were viewed more favorably than atheists — predicted Tuesday (May 20) that the shift will be even greater as more unbelievers come out of the closet.

I'm an agnostic, I vote for whoever I think will do the best job. However, invariably, the purpose of thse threads is for the atheist to say "look how smart I am, look how dumb you are rah rah rah." It's infantile and useless. So why do you do it?

I don't think religion is good for us. It held science/us back 2500 years. And it continues to. I'm just glad I live in the time when you don't have to be a Christian. They use to kill atheists.

There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities

scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them, what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later.

That's fine. Others (the majority of the people on this planet) disagree with you. Yes, we're not in the middle ages anymore, the atrocities they did back then are so 300 plus years ago. That being said, atheistic progressive countries have murdered far more people, in the last 110 years, than all the religions have managed to murder in the last 2,500 years.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not arguing that the Mormon story is better than the Jesus myth. Its way dumber. But I want to use mormonism as an example of how a lie can be told and yet millions will believe it.

If the Mormon faith is all a lie made up 215 years ago why can't christians imagine maybe Jesus didn't really perform miracles. Maybe he didn't really rise from the grave.

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

How can christians look at jehovas Muslims and Mormons and not see they're no different? It baffles me.

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

 

[sealybobo]

I gather from the lack of replies that theists understand it is very possible that their religions are made up. They only choose to believe their particular religions stories just like people of other religions do.

And then to tell people that god told your ancestors that the test to get into heaven or to not go to hell is that we have to believe you and your particular church?

And, once again. Why do you care?

Actually, why do you care? For example, I'll vote for a theist but apparently you guys won't vote for an atheist.

The Immoral Minority New polls shows that Americans would rather vote for an elderly pot smoking philanderer than vote for an Atheist. Oh come on

But people are getting smarter and things are getting better for us.

More Americans willing to vote for an atheist president - Religion News Service

True, 53 percent of Americans said they are least likely to choose a candidate who doesn’t believe in God, but in 2007, that number was 63 percent.

And those who said a candidate’s lack of belief didn’t matter to their vote rose, from 32 percent in 2007 to 41 percent today.

Stiefel — still dismayed that even pot smokers or philanderers were viewed more favorably than atheists — predicted Tuesday (May 20) that the shift will be even greater as more unbelievers come out of the closet.

I'm an agnostic, I vote for whoever I think will do the best job. However, invariably, the purpose of thse threads is for the atheist to say "look how smart I am, look how dumb you are rah rah rah." It's infantile and useless. So why do you do it?

I don't think religion is good for us. It held science/us back 2500 years. And it continues to. I'm just glad I live in the time when you don't have to be a Christian. They use to kill atheists.

There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities

scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them, what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later.

That's fine. Others (the majority of the people on this planet) disagree with you. Yes, we're not in the middle ages anymore, the atrocities they did back then are so 300 plus years ago. That being said, atheistic progressive countries have murdered far more people, in the last 110 years, than all the religions have managed to murder in the last 2,500 years.

Number 37 and 38 at Why there is no god

1. Atheism leads to a worse society.
   Atheism and secularism correlate highly with the well-being of individuals and societies by almost every possible measure.
   
   Atheism is correlated with better scientific literacy, lower poverty rates, higher literacy rates, higher average incomes, less violence, lower divorce rates, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower STD infection rates, lower crime rates and lower homicide rates.
   
   Atheism inspired Nazism/Communism/Social Darwinism.
2. An ad hominem deflection which demonstrates a failure to understand that atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s), with no inherit moral, political or philosophical baggage, and thus no line can be drawn from it to the aforementioned ideologies. In the same vein, democracy could be called atheistic. Hitler was religious and publicly decried atheism. Or at least he used religion to con the people.
   
   “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” – Adolf Hitler
   

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not arguing that the Mormon story is better than the Jesus myth. Its way dumber. But I want to use mormonism as an example of how a lie can be told and yet millions will believe it.

If the Mormon faith is all a lie made up 215 years ago why can't christians imagine maybe Jesus didn't really perform miracles. Maybe he didn't really rise from the grave.

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

How can christians look at jehovas Muslims and Mormons and not see they're no different? It baffles me.

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

 

[westwall]

I'm not arguing that the Mormon story is better than the Jesus myth. Its way dumber. But I want to use mormonism as an example of how a lie can be told and yet millions will believe it.

If the Mormon faith is all a lie made up 215 years ago why can't christians imagine maybe Jesus didn't really perform miracles. Maybe he didn't really rise from the grave.

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

How can christians look at jehovas Muslims and Mormons and not see they're no different? It baffles me.

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

Who says they don't? You make some rather large assumptions there. Just to muck things up a bit Pliny the Younger also references Christ in a letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 BCE...

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"-Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96

Plus he is mentioned around 70 BCE in the Babylonian Talmud...

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”-The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281


So, there are other sources that show he existed. What I find amusing is the fact that atheists will make assertions that Jesus didn't exist and then point to the fact that there are so few records....ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the ancient peoples weren't literate!

They require modern era levels of authentication when they are looking back at ancient peoples. The Bible is a history with some creationism thrown in. Whenever archeologists actually look at areas referenced in the Bible, the biblical account is shown to be factual. That is just as true for the Old Testament, as for the New Testament.

A reasonable person would then conclude that if the book is talking about a historical event, then it is probably as correct as any historical account can be given that much of a remove. Only in the minds of militant atheists does the Bible become no more than fantasy book, and the very real people being referenced, objects of derision.

People thought that the Iliad was merely a poem till they actually started looking and lo and behold Troy really did exist.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not arguing that the Mormon story is better than the Jesus myth. Its way dumber. But I want to use mormonism as an example of how a lie can be told and yet millions will believe it.

If the Mormon faith is all a lie made up 215 years ago why can't christians imagine maybe Jesus didn't really perform miracles. Maybe he didn't really rise from the grave.

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

How can christians look at jehovas Muslims and Mormons and not see they're no different? It baffles me.

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

Who says they don't? You make some rather large assumptions there. Just to muck things up a bit Pliny the Younger also references Christ in a letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 BCE...

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"-Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96

Plus he is mentioned around 70 BCE in the Babylonian Talmud...

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”-The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281


So, there are other sources that show he existed. What I find amusing is the fact that atheists will make assertions that Jesus didn't exist and then point to the fact that there are so few records....ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the ancient peoples weren't literate!

They require modern era levels of authentication when they are looking back at ancient peoples. The Bible is a history with some creationism thrown in. Whenever archeologists actually look at areas referenced in the Bible, the biblical account is shown to be factual. That is just as true for the Old Testament, as for the New Testament.

A reasonable person would then conclude that if the book is talking about a historical event, then it is probably as correct as any historical account can be given that much of a remove. Only in the minds of militant atheists does the Bible become no more than fantasy book, and the very real people being referenced, objects of derision.

People thought that the Iliad was merely a poem till they actually started looking and lo and behold Troy really did exist.

Of course the coming messiah was prophecized. The new cult called christianity used that prophecy to their advantage.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not arguing that the Mormon story is better than the Jesus myth. Its way dumber. But I want to use mormonism as an example of how a lie can be told and yet millions will believe it.

If the Mormon faith is all a lie made up 215 years ago why can't christians imagine maybe Jesus didn't really perform miracles. Maybe he didn't really rise from the grave.

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

How can christians look at jehovas Muslims and Mormons and not see they're no different? It baffles me.

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

Who says they don't? You make some rather large assumptions there. Just to muck things up a bit Pliny the Younger also references Christ in a letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 BCE...

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"-Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96

Plus he is mentioned around 70 BCE in the Babylonian Talmud...

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”-The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281


So, there are other sources that show he existed. What I find amusing is the fact that atheists will make assertions that Jesus didn't exist and then point to the fact that there are so few records....ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the ancient peoples weren't literate!

They require modern era levels of authentication when they are looking back at ancient peoples. The Bible is a history with some creationism thrown in. Whenever archeologists actually look at areas referenced in the Bible, the biblical account is shown to be factual. That is just as true for the Old Testament, as for the New Testament.

A reasonable person would then conclude that if the book is talking about a historical event, then it is probably as correct as any historical account can be given that much of a remove. Only in the minds of militant atheists does the Bible become no more than fantasy book, and the very real people being referenced, objects of derision.

People thought that the Iliad was merely a poem till they actually started looking and lo and behold Troy really did exist.

They were referring to Joseph smith 1800 ad

 

[westwall]

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

Who says they don't? You make some rather large assumptions there. Just to muck things up a bit Pliny the Younger also references Christ in a letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 BCE...

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"-Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96

Plus he is mentioned around 70 BCE in the Babylonian Talmud...

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”-The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281


So, there are other sources that show he existed. What I find amusing is the fact that atheists will make assertions that Jesus didn't exist and then point to the fact that there are so few records....ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the ancient peoples weren't literate!

They require modern era levels of authentication when they are looking back at ancient peoples. The Bible is a history with some creationism thrown in. Whenever archeologists actually look at areas referenced in the Bible, the biblical account is shown to be factual. That is just as true for the Old Testament, as for the New Testament.

A reasonable person would then conclude that if the book is talking about a historical event, then it is probably as correct as any historical account can be given that much of a remove. Only in the minds of militant atheists does the Bible become no more than fantasy book, and the very real people being referenced, objects of derision.

People thought that the Iliad was merely a poem till they actually started looking and lo and behold Troy really did exist.

Of course the coming messiah was prophecized. The new cult called christianity used that prophecy to their advantage.

These are accounts, written by non christians describing church services that are already extant. Further, in Pliny's letter it is quite evident that they had already been occurring for quite a while. We're not talking about prophecy here, we're talking about a fully functional church, in multiple places around the Mediterranean.

 

[westwall]

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

Who says they don't? You make some rather large assumptions there. Just to muck things up a bit Pliny the Younger also references Christ in a letter to the Emperor Trajan around 112 BCE...

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind"-Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96

Plus he is mentioned around 70 BCE in the Babylonian Talmud...

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”-The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281


So, there are other sources that show he existed. What I find amusing is the fact that atheists will make assertions that Jesus didn't exist and then point to the fact that there are so few records....ignoring the fact that 99.9% of the ancient peoples weren't literate!

They require modern era levels of authentication when they are looking back at ancient peoples. The Bible is a history with some creationism thrown in. Whenever archeologists actually look at areas referenced in the Bible, the biblical account is shown to be factual. That is just as true for the Old Testament, as for the New Testament.

A reasonable person would then conclude that if the book is talking about a historical event, then it is probably as correct as any historical account can be given that much of a remove. Only in the minds of militant atheists does the Bible become no more than fantasy book, and the very real people being referenced, objects of derision.

People thought that the Iliad was merely a poem till they actually started looking and lo and behold Troy really did exist.

They were referring to Joseph smith 1800 ad

They are? Now who is using ad-homs to cover for the fact that they have no argument to support them? I am referencing well known historical documents. Why don't you do the same instead of resorting to silly games.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

well actually it is....of course, there are a few fools who believe the crap that gets posted on the atheistsRUs websites. but who gives a fuck what those idiots believe......

 

[PostmodernProph]

‘Agnostic Atheism’

best defined as "I'm so confused I don't know WHAT I believe any more"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm not arguing that the Mormon story is better than the Jesus myth. Its way dumber. But I want to use mormonism as an example of how a lie can be told and yet millions will believe it.

If the Mormon faith is all a lie made up 215 years ago why can't christians imagine maybe Jesus didn't really perform miracles. Maybe he didn't really rise from the grave.

The virgin birth story isn't even original.

How can christians look at jehovas Muslims and Mormons and not see they're no different? It baffles me.

If Jesus was a myth, who was it Nero was persecuting a decade before publication of any books of the new testament?

Was Nero a myth too?

Some critics call into question the Nero story and call it a forgery. Around the date of Nero's Fire, 64 AD, there were no "multitude of Christians" in Rome. At this time, there was not even a multitude of Christians in Judea. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that Nero would refer to Christians in this way. This is also the only mention of Christians in the work of Tacitus, despite the fact that he wrote several volumes. Also, the supposed persecution of the Christians by Nero is not recorded by any other historian of Nero's time. If the persecution of Christians were really that widespread, wouldn't other historians be writing about it?

JESUS CHRIST - NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Sad you Christians don't even know this stuff.

LOLz

...and Tacitus made up the story out of whole cloth because....?

LOLz

Amazing

LOLz

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was Tacitus the first Brian Williams?

LOLz

"I'm going to make up an entire groups, Christians, because well it's cool" -- things never said by Tacitus to appease Sealy and other people who don't think

LOLz

 

[RandomVariable]

Yet another evangelistic atheist thread in yet another vain attempt to belittle those who freely choose to believe differently.

Choice? Who got a choice? I did not get a choice. Not that I am complaining.

 

[RandomVariable]

I gather from the lack of replies that theists understand it is very possible that their religions are made up. They only choose to believe their particular religions stories just like people of other religions do.

And then to tell people that god told your ancestors that the test to get into heaven or to not go to hell is that we have to believe you and your particular church?

And, once again. Why do you care?

Actually, why do you care? For example, I'll vote for a theist but apparently you guys won't vote for an atheist.

The Immoral Minority New polls shows that Americans would rather vote for an elderly pot smoking philanderer than vote for an Atheist. Oh come on

But people are getting smarter and things are getting better for us.

More Americans willing to vote for an atheist president - Religion News Service

True, 53 percent of Americans said they are least likely to choose a candidate who doesn’t believe in God, but in 2007, that number was 63 percent.

And those who said a candidate’s lack of belief didn’t matter to their vote rose, from 32 percent in 2007 to 41 percent today.

Stiefel — still dismayed that even pot smokers or philanderers were viewed more favorably than atheists — predicted Tuesday (May 20) that the shift will be even greater as more unbelievers come out of the closet.

I'm an agnostic, I vote for whoever I think will do the best job. However, invariably, the purpose of thse threads is for the atheist to say "look how smart I am, look how dumb you are rah rah rah." It's infantile and useless. So why do you do it?

I don't think religion is good for us. It held science/us back 2500 years. And it continues to. I'm just glad I live in the time when you don't have to be a Christian. They use to kill atheists.

There are different hypotheses regarding the origin of the texts because the gospels of the New Testament were written in Greek for Greek-speaking communities

scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them, what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later.

That is like saying you don't think science is good for us because of atomic bombs.

 

[sealybobo]

Was Tacitus the first Brian Williams?

LOLz

"I'm going to make up an entire groups, Christians, because well it's cool" -- things never said by Tacitus to appease Sealy and other people who don't think

LOLz

Who cares if a small but growing sect called christians was growing at the time? Anything written about the miracles was hearsay.

Greeks were invited into the synagogues and they liked the rituals and community but it takes a lot to become a Jew. So they made a new religion for gentiles. Very easy to join. Believe be baptized and give to the church and the rest is all symantics.

 

[westwall]

Was Tacitus the first Brian Williams?

LOLz

"I'm going to make up an entire groups, Christians, because well it's cool" -- things never said by Tacitus to appease Sealy and other people who don't think

LOLz

Who cares if a small but growing sect called christians was growing at the time? Anything written about the miracles was hearsay.

Greeks were invited into the synagogues and they liked the rituals and community but it takes a lot to become a Jew. So they made a new religion for gentiles. Very easy to join. Believe be baptized and give to the church and the rest is all symantics.

And, yet again. So what. Oh yeah, not trying to be a dick or anything but it's "SEMANTICS".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was Tacitus the first Brian Williams?

LOLz

"I'm going to make up an entire groups, Christians, because well it's cool" -- things never said by Tacitus to appease Sealy and other people who don't think

LOLz

Who cares if a small but growing sect called christians was growing at the time? Anything written about the miracles was hearsay.

Greeks were invited into the synagogues and they liked the rituals and community but it takes a lot to become a Jew. So they made a new religion for gentiles. Very easy to join. Believe be baptized and give to the church and the rest is all symantics.

Yeah maybe Obama is a myth too