Poor poor (non)Logicman :naughty naughty. First, YOU made the claim that the death of James was due to the persecution of the early Christians in Jerusalem and now you provide - not an answer - but instead, a kindergarten-level rejoinder that amounts to little more than "nuh-uh, I'm right and you're wrong, just because . . ." Couldn't possibly be owing to the ever so small fact that the passage from Josephus fails to support your claim - now could it?
Then you provide a quote from Edwin Yamauchi, Ph.D (Prof. Emeritus, Miami University), a well-educated scholar with strong evangelical beliefs, beliefs so strong he evidently refuses to read the papers put out by scholars who disagree with him. Of course, No.1 among those scholars, there is Richard Carrier, Ph.D, but there are also Robert M. Price, Ph.D, Bart Ehrman Ph.D, Thomas L Thompson Ph.D and others.
Like I've always said, you liberal types do love your THEORIES ("...may be a Christian interpolation.."). Hope springs eternal, LOL. It's a shame you don't have any EVIDENCE to support your latest theory.
You do love those left-wing loons I seen.
What happened to that prophecy that you believed? The one about Obama cancelling the election and holding on to power? Nothing loony about that.Like I've always said, you liberal types do love your THEORIES ("...may be a Christian interpolation.."). Hope springs eternal, LOL. It's a shame you don't have any EVIDENCE to support your latest theory.
You do love those left-wing loons I seen.
Like I've always said, you liberal types do love your THEORIES ("...may be a Christian interpolation.."). Hope springs eternal, LOL. It's a shame you don't have any EVIDENCE to support your latest theory.
You do love those left-wing loons I seen (sic).
The martyrdom of James was part of the purge of Christians. Apparently you can't see the forest for the trees.
. . . so he (Ananus) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent.
In post #690, non-Logicman wrote:
Once again I will post the words of Josephus:
Please tell the reading audience why the "most equitable of the citizens (of Jerusalem)" would complain to the king about the execution of James if it was simply "part of the purge of Christians".
I know it doesn't comply with what you have been taught and cling so tightly to but it was what it was and NOT any part of a "purge of Christians"
https://phys.org/news/2005-06-turin-shroud-fake.html
As concerns the so-called blood purportedly on the shroud, CSICOP says:
BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."
Is the Shroud of Turin Real? | History | Science
What!!? I am an atheist.Neo-creationist, your comment only provides evidence that the blood on the Shroud was that of a scourged Jesus. You did not watch the video(s) I see. That point was even mentioned in the TED Talk video by the Orthodox Jewish raised guy that became non-religious. Not that I expected you to watch the videos but they are there with science information. Not that you neo-creationist will accept science. Blood darkens--even over a day--that is true (as mentioned in the TED Talk video) but trauma victims flooded with a certain chemical found in their blood (which was found in the blood on the Shroud) remains red forever.
There was always a remnant (minority) of good Jews in Israel (i.e. Joseph of Arimathea, etc.), but they weren't running things at the time of Christ and beyond.
Glad to help you out.
Seriously, you see that "remnant (minority)" as inconsequential, yet for some reason, they were able to have Ananus removed from the position of High Priest and Jesus was then named to the role? Also, please remember that this took place some THIRTY YEARS after the supposed resurrection.
You aren't even helping yourself, much less any other person.
Tell that to Daniel and the 'good' (minority) remnant of Jews, who went along with the rest of the Jews into captivity in Babylon for 70 years.
So get a better argument, Somerville.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt but some folks simply refuse to acknowledge their lack of information when reality bumps into their beliefs.
20 years of arguing with "Christ deniers" does not appear to have increased your knowledge of history or any religious beliefs other than your own. Sad, really.
Have you ever won the "Jesus isn't raised from the dead" argument, Somerville? I've never see a victory from you on that. Oh, you huff and puff and try to blow the house down, but nothing of substance.
Get a new dog.
The bible is not evidence.
Flush
Have you ever won the "Jesus isn't raised from the dead" argument, Somerville? I've never see a victory from you on that. Oh, you huff and puff and try to blow the house down, but nothing of substance.
Get a new dog.
The verses - Mark 16:9-19 - contain the more "accepted" ending. Just one instance of many showing that the modern New Testament is not a true representation of what was originally written in the late 1st - early 2nd Centuries.The problem with the Gospel of Mark for the final editors of the New Testament was that it was grossly deficient. First it is significantly shorter than the other Gospels–with only 16 chapters compared to Matthew (28), Luke (24) and John (21). But more important is how Mark begins his Gospel and how he ends it.
He has no account of the virgin birth of Jesus–or for that matter, any birth of Jesus at all. In fact, Joseph, husband of Mary, is never named in Mark’s Gospel at all–and Jesus is called a “son of Mary,” see my previous post on this here. But even more significant is Mark’s strange ending. He has no appearances of Jesus following the visit of the women on Easter morning to the empty tomb!
(. . .)
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking.
(. . .)
In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”
One cannot 'win' an argument with a person who prefers faith over reality.
There is zero evidence outside of your sacred text and in fact, the oldest text of the Book of Mark, which is the oldest Gospel, does not have a resurrection. The final verses with the resurrection and subsequent appearances were added to Mark in the late 4th Century. The verses - Mark 16:9-19 - contain the more "accepted" ending...
I have the historical texts. You have unworkable arguments to the contrary.
Nice try.
1. Matthew is arguably the oldest: Sometime after 244 AD Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language"
2. Jesus is Risen in Mark 16:6, before the so-called 'addition' staring at Mark 16:9.
Jesus is Risen indeed!
Have you ever won the "Jesus isn't raised from the dead" argument, Somerville? I've never see a victory from you on that. Oh, you huff and puff and try to blow the house down, but nothing of substance.
Get a new dog.
Actually, we don't know if Origen wrote those words because we only have Eusebius's supposed quote from Origen...
Sorry, just because some strange young guy says Jesus is risen, don't mean it is true. Just as likely, would be disciples removing the body in an attempt to "fulfill the prophecies"
I have yet to see you provide evidence that the stories in the bible are more than just stories. That which is declared without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Also known as jesus. He never existed. He is a complete invention of those who started what is now known as the Church Of The Pedophile the RCC.
The historical record knows him not: Author Suggests Jesus Never Existed After Finding No Mention Of Him In Historical Texts
One of the many indicators of the invention of this myth is the title "jesus of Nazareth". Nazareth was established as a town about the same time those guys were busy inventing the mythical man and was not in existence at the time jesus was supposed to have been alive.
The Dead Sea Scrolls or Qumran Chronicles as they are sometimes called, were written by the Essenes. These folks were thoroughly involved in the religious goings on of the day. They make no mention of any miracle man or any of the antics up to which he is alleged to have gotten. The RCC was so appalled by this fact (though they knew jesus is a myth) they kept proper researchers from seeing the scrolls for over 30 years.
Why do people insist on ignoring these facts in favour of the myth? Fear mostly. After all the bible is one of the most violent yarns ever written. Wars, genocide, child abuse, women abuse, torture, murder, rape, incest. All are glorified in that vile tome. Small wonder the majority of wife abusers are xians.
Of course, from this pean to pain and misery sprang Islam. One can see even today the OT beliefs and teachings in "modern" day Islam.
The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus and his demise at the hands of Pontius Pilate in his "Annals" So the historical record does know him.
Skulls from a funerary about 2 miles from the Current Nazareth were carbon dated to 9000 BC. So it would certainly have been possible for someone to come from Nazareth at the time of Jesus. Nazareth was not founded after the death of Jesus.
Sorry. It wasn't hard to find this information.
I have no problem with your atheism but your provision of facts is certainly lacking.
What he said was that History had no record of Jesus. But it does whether it is true or not.Several points.
1) Reality wins has lost (he's banned)
2) The source of Tacitus is unclear. There is nothing in his writings (thought to be around 115 CE) that isn't relating something that is in the Gospels. Assuming that the writings are authentic and not a later interpolation , it woudl be evidence that Christians existed in the early 2nd century. It is not evidence that the beliefs or origin of those beliefs are true.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?