How does one identify charlantry?

[numan]

Kind of like "ain't" and "irregardless" and most uses of "per se".

Well, "ain't" is almost always shockingly sub-standard in the USA, but in England still is in vogue with the upper classes, particularly the country gentry, where it is strictly confined to the first person singular : "I ain't....", or "Ain't I...?"

The problem is that the correct negative contraction of the first person singular copula is "amn't", which is difficult to pronounce correctly. In England, both "amn't" and "aren't" are pronounced ahnt, as in the refined pronunciation of "aunt".

It is easy to see how "ain't" arose from ahnt, and why so many Americans commit the dreadful solecism of saying "Aren't I...?" for the negative contraction of "am I not?" "Are" is strictly a plural form, and should never be used with the first person singular. That usage is even worse -- much worse -- than "ain't".

If I said, "I am superbly educated, aren't I?" it would be true, but a grammatical howler. Only "am I not" or "ain't I" can be considered correct.
.

 

[tipofthespear]

OK--Hold onto your hat here for this is just a question and not an accusation.

How do we know that Jesus and his disciples are not charlatans?

If one is going to be scientific, I think one should not even assume that Jesus existed.

There is no independent attestation to anything in the Gospels --- with the exception that Pontius Pilate was a prefect [not a procurator!] in Judea in the first century A.D. There is not a single mention of Jesus in any non-biblical writing of the first century A.D. [I discount the two fragments in Josephus. Only the longer fragment is significant, and it is all too obviously an interpolation by a later Christian scribe]

First century Judea was lousy with religious fanatics, rabbis and "Christs" ( that is, supposed "Anointed Ones" or "Messiahs" ). The Gospels could easily be ( and probably are ) a mish-mash of "wise saws and ancient instances" and confused recollections about any number of the religious lunatics who were wandering through Judea during that century. It would not surprise me that one of these "Christs" was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and that he had a brother named James; but neither would it surprise me that the whole story was woven out of pure fantasy and bits and pieces of various incidents which occurred during that century.

Even in our own time of incessant transfer of information, think of all the apocryphal stories woven about people -- as an example, Elvis Presley !!

I am quite sure far more people saw Elvis appear to them after his death than ever claimed to see Jesus after his "resurrection." · · ·
.

Are you discounting all the various historical documents from the Jewish Nation and the Roman Empire, and Arabic documents that recognize that Jesus existed? The documents most recently discovered known as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal the existence of Jesus....or are tangible historical documents not enough?

Is there a shred of scientific evidence that Jesus did not exist? Given all of the historical evidence that He did, which is most likely?

Just wondering..........in my opinion it is far more logical to recognize that Jesus did exist/walk this earth than to say He didn't......the burden of proof does not lie on believers, rather it lies on the unbelieving Scientific Community does it not?

"edited to include" the first time the term "Christian" was used was in Antioch as recorded in Scripture.............just saying........

 

[numan]

Are you discounting all the various historical documents from the Jewish Nation and the Roman Empire, and Arabic documents that recognize that Jesus existed? The documents most recently discovered known as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal the existence of Jesus....or are tangible historical documents not enough?

It is ridiculous to claim that the Dead Sea scrolls mention Jesus.

You are spouting gibberish. I wrote quite clearly, didn't I, that there was no independent attestation of the existence of Jesus in the first century AD !! And now you are dragging in stuff from later centuries!!

Naturally, I discount the Gospels, since they were written by religious fanatics -- or, at least, by people with an axe to grind. Moreover, while parts of the New Testament may technically have been written in the very late first century, most of the text did not take its final shape until centuries later.

Apart from the spurious interpolation in Josephus, the earliest references to the Christians are from the second century, notably a mention of troublesome religious fanatics in Anatolia by Pliny the Elder, and, in Tacitus, a reference to criminals involved in the Burning of Rome.
.

 

[peach174]

Kind of like "ain't" and "irregardless" and most uses of "per se".

Well, "ain't" is almost always shockingly sub-standard in the USA, but in England still is in vogue with the upper classes, particularly the country gentry, where it is strictly confined to the first person singular : "I ain't....", or "Ain't I...?"

The problem is that the correct negative contraction of the first person singular copula is "amn't", which is difficult to pronounce correctly. In England, both "amn't" and "aren't" are pronounced ahnt, as in the refined pronunciation of "aunt".

It is easy to see how "ain't" arose from ahnt, and why so many Americans commit the dreadful solecism of saying "Aren't I...?" for the negative contraction of "am I not?" "Are" is strictly a plural form, and should never be used with the first person singular. That usage is even worse -- much worse -- than "ain't".

If I said, "I am superbly educated, aren't I?" it would be true, but a grammatical howler. Only "am I not" or "ain't I" can be considered correct.
.

That is exactly where the word ain't came from.
It is used mainly in the Southern United States and it comes from the emigrants that came from the upper class county gentry of England and settled in the Southern United States.
The accent of the pronunciation of ain't and how it has evolved into the Southern drawl is what you hear today.

 

[tipofthespear]

Are you discounting all the various historical documents from the Jewish Nation and the Roman Empire, and Arabic documents that recognize that Jesus existed? The documents most recently discovered known as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal the existence of Jesus....or are tangible historical documents not enough?

It is ridiculous to claim that the Dead Sea scrolls mention Jesus.

You are spouting gibberish. I wrote quite clearly, didn't I, that there was no independent attestation of the existence of Jesus in the first century AD !! And now you are dragging in stuff from later centuries!!

Naturally, I discount the Gospels, since they were written by religious fanatics -- or, at least, by people with an axe to grind. Moreover, while parts of the New Testament may technically have been written in the very late first century, most of the text did not take its final shape until centuries later.

Apart from the spurious interpolation in Josephus, the earliest references to the Christians are from the second century, notably a mention of troublesome religious fanatics in Anatolia by Pliny the Elder, and, in Tacitus, a reference to criminals involved in the Burning of Rome.
.

That is so comical............"Naturally, I discount the Gospels............" and so very typical of antichrists the world over.............the only way to have it your way is to "conveniently discount" anything that disproves your view.......... (where are all the rotflmao smileycons when you need 'em?)

So please tell me: "Who exactly appointed you the determining power to judge who is a "religious fanatic" or not, and/or "those with an ax to grind," or not? As for the NT, "technically have been written............" comical..........pretty much all one can say........and another example of "convenient dismissal" of any possible evidence of your flawed belief system.

Article provided:

Do Other Nonbiblical Sources Confirm Jesus Christ's Existence? | United Church of God


(excerpt)

Do Other Nonbiblical Sources Confirm Jesus Christ's Existence?

Many people assume that, apart from the Bible, history is silent concerning Jesus of Nazareth. But in fact, several independent witnesses testify of Jesus' existence.

Let's notice a few.

Testimony from the Romans

Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56-120) was a Roman senator, consul and governor of the Roman province of Anatolia (covering most of modern-day Turkey) as well as one of ancient Rome's greatest historians. Late in his life he wrote a 16-volume history of the Roman emperors, the Annals.

No friend to either Nero or Christians, Tacitus writes that Nero blamed "a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace." He goes on to explain that "Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, 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 ..." ( Annals, 15:44, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ, 1998, p. 82).

A contemporary of Tacitus, Caius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 69-140), overseer of Rome's libraries and court official to several emperors, writes that the emperor Claudius "banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus [Christ] being their leader" ( Lives of the First Twelve Caesars: Life of Claudius, quoted by Grant Jeffrey, Jesus: The Great Debate, 1999, p. 163). This banishment of Jews from Rome is mentioned in Acts 18:2
.

Also, "Pliny the younger, the Roman legate of Bithynia-Pontus (what is now north-central Turkey) in the early second century, wrote to the emperor Trajan, requesting advice on how to deal with Christians who refused to reverence Caesar's image. Pliny noted that these Christians met regularly and sang hymns 'to Christ as if to a god' ( Letters 10:96.7). The phrase 'as if to a God' suggests that Pliny knew Jesus had been a person who had lived on earth but was reluctant to call him divine" (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 1987, p. 196).

From these historical sources, none connected in any way with the Bible, we see references to these facts: (read full article.........)

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES:

The Historicity of Jesus Christ: Did Jesus really exist?


Surprising Archaeological Find: Proof of Jesus' Existence? - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

The Historical Jesus I: His Existence

So, given this............PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT JESUS DID NOT EXIST...............or, your just "blowing smoke" in my opinion........it is a favorite weapon of the deceiver to do such, and his followers are well schooled in the tactic.....

 

[amrchaos]

It is a difficult task to disprove the existance of an individual from history.

Just to give an example, do you believe in Santa Claus? Of course most of us will say no, but can you show that Santa Claus, in all his manifestations, never existed?

Try it--and you will begin to see the problem with trying to show that such-a-such person does not exist.

In other words, to claim that Jesus did not exist is a losing argument. As long as there is someone who acted or behaved in a similiar fashion(Like Simon) one can point to that person and claim he is Jesus.

Even the argument of "there was no mention of jesus until XXX-A.D." does not curtail the possiblity that a movement involving a jesus existed centuraries earlier.

 

[numan]

Many people assume that, apart from the Bible, history is silent concerning Jesus of Nazareth. But in fact, several independent witnesses testify of Jesus' existence.

You idiot.
I specifically mentioned Tacitus and Pliny.

And the writings of both of them are from the second century. Neither was a contemporary of the hypothetical Jesus.
.

 

[numan]

Even the argument of "there was no mention of jesus until XXX-A.D." does not curtail the possiblity that a movement involving a jesus existed centuries earlier.

Better read some real history rather than the fairy tales in the Gospels.

The problems is that there were far too many Christs (or "Annointed" Messiahs) in the first couple of centuries A.D. -- and Judea, in particular, was lousy with them, until the Romans finally lost patience and stamped out the religious loony-toons in the second century.

Meanwhile, all sorts of Messiah-clones achieved various levels of popularity. The Gnostic Christs are nothing like the Gospel Christ, but probably had more believers in the first couple of centuries.

The only reason they are not more prominent in history is that the intolerant "Orthodox" Christians (that is, those who controlled the most swords and spears) stamped them out and destroyed as much of their writings as they could.
.

 

[Agit8r]

Well, if one speaks only of things in the natural realm, there is some chance that they are not a fraud.

But if one invokes an unseen and supernatural realm, they are at best telling some of Plato's "noble lies"

 

[amrchaos]

Even the argument of "there was no mention of jesus until XXX-A.D." does not curtail the possiblity that a movement involving a jesus existed centuries earlier.

Better read some real history rather than the fairy tales in the Gospels.

The problems is that there were far too many Christs (or "Annointed" Messiahs) in the first couple of centuries A.D. -- and Judea, in particular, was lousy with them, until the Romans finally lost patience and stamped out the religious loony-toons in the second century.

Meanwhile, all sorts of Messiah-clones achieved various levels of popularity. The Gnostic Christs are nothing like the Gospel Christ, but probably had more believers in the first couple of centuries.

The only reason they are not more prominent in history is that the intolerant "Orthodox" Christians (that is, those who controlled the most swords and spears) stamped them out and destroyed as much of their writings as they could.
.

That may be due to the fall of Israel (which actually happened centuraries earlier) and the activation of the Messiah meme. If the people are deeply fanatical and well conditioned, the rise of the Messiahs is just a natural reaction to the desperation of the religious leaders..

Like I said--choose one--who is to say he is not the Jesus the christians praise?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A charlatan uses people's vulnerabilities against them in order to take advantage of them.

Thanks kg. That's an absolutely perfect definition of religion.

Knowledge really is power.

 

[tipofthespear]

Many people assume that, apart from the Bible, history is silent concerning Jesus of Nazareth. But in fact, several independent witnesses testify of Jesus' existence.

You idiot.
I specifically mentioned Tacitus and Pliny.

And the writings of both of them are from the second century. Neither was a contemporary of the hypothetical Jesus.
.

Your ideology is asinine at best.........and you have not one sliver of evidence, Scientific or otherwise to disprove Jesus was a living human being while on this earth.......nor do you have one sliver of evidence to prove that the Gospels are a "fairy tale."

As well, you only want to speak of the Gospels..........and ignore the many prophecies of Jesus in the First Testament.............and you apparently discount the entire collection of Historical Writings of the Jewish Nation........

Sadly, you don't even rise to the level of "idiot" with regards to the reality of God or Jesus Christ............yours is a special kind of stupidity, and you should know that the "reward" awaiting you will be a "real education!"

 

[tipofthespear]

A charlatan uses people's vulnerabilities against them in order to take advantage of them.

Thanks kg. That's an absolutely perfect definition of religion.

Knowledge really is power.

QUOTED FROM ABOVE: "Thanks kg. That's an absolutely perfect definition of religion." END QUOTE.

I actually agree with you on this one. Sadly though, in your ignorance, you believe Christianity and religion are one and the same, and that is so far from the Truth as to reveal the depths of your ignorance concerning Christianity.