[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

But we are not discussing the murder of emperor Gaius and the subsequent accession of Claudis, which as he had the records of he went into great detail about. When it comes to your boy Jesus, he does not go into much detail at all, so obversely did not have any official records to work from, just the word of some obscure Jewish cult.

There is even debate as to weather the texts we have today are all by Josephus, with much weight to the argument that some of it was added hundreds of years latter to support Christian propaganda.

In Antiquities 20.9.1 he refers to him as "Jesus the so-called Christ" yet in Antiquities 18.3.3 he says "He was the Christ" this does not look like the work of one author.

Listen. I am tired of this pointless discussion. All I was saying in the first place is that there are references to Jesus as a real person who lived and died from sources other than the Bible and from people who did not consider Him to be anything special and did not follow Him. Josephus or anyone else - does not matter to this discussion. You yourself just quoted a couple references to Jesus from Josephus or someone else (you said it did not sound like the two references were by the same author). The point is, there ARE mentions of Him, that is all I was trying to say. In dialogues with you, it seems, that you get hung up on one small side point, blow of way out of proportion and carry on about it for hours totally missing the real subject of discussion. I find that frustrating and I do not think it is a productive way of interacting with people around you. When I posted the link in my last post, all I was pointing out was that Josephis DID USE government sources, as is mentioned in the article. This was not an article about Jesus but it did snow that Josephus consulted Roman government documents.

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbjesus.aspx?pageid=8589952897

http://www.starcourse.org/sources.html

This second link shows references to Jesus by other extra biblical sources.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Listen. I am tired of this pointless discussion. All I was saying in the first place is that there are references to Jesus as a real person who lived and died from sources other than the Bible and from people who did not consider Him to be anything special and did not follow Him. Josephus or anyone else - does not matter to this discussion. You yourself just quoted a couple references to Jesus from Josephus or someone else (you said it did not sound like the two references were by the same author). The point is, there ARE mentions of Him, that is all I was trying to say. In dialogues with you, it seems, that you get hung up on one small side point, blow of way out of proportion and carry on about it for hours totally missing the real subject of discussion. I find that frustrating and I do not think it is a productive way of interacting with people around you. When I posted the link in my last post, all I was pointing out was that Josephis DID USE government sources, as is mentioned in the article. This was not an article about Jesus but it did snow that Josephus consulted Roman government documents.

You are tired of it because I keep pointing out that you are wrong, Josephus was not contemporary with your "hero" and there are NO contemporary record of his existence.

Yes Josephus used Roman records, as I have already acknowledged, and when he had records to reference he went into great depth, but when he talks about Jesus there is no such depth.

This second link shows references to Jesus by other extra biblical sources.

NONE of those, not a single on of them, is contemporary with the alleged life of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger (c.61 CE - c.112 CE)
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (CE 56 – CE 117)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius (ca. CE 69/75 – after CE 130)
Josephus (37 – c.100 CE/CE)
The ealrest referance ofBabylonian Talmud Sanhedrin is 57CE
Rabbi Ishmael or Ishmael ben Elisha (90-135CE)


Let us just take one event

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

Now you think an earthquake and a city being invaded by an army of zombies would have made the historical record. Yet there is NO historical record that matches those events.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

You are tired of it because I keep pointing out that you are wrong, Josephus was not contemporary with your "hero" and there are NO contemporary record of his existence.

Yes Josephus used Roman records, as I have already acknowledged, and when he had records to reference he went into great depth, but when he talks about Jesus there is no such depth.

NONE of those, not a single on of them, is contemporary with the alleged life of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger (c.61 CE - c.112 CE)
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (CE 56 – CE 117)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius (ca. CE 69/75 – after CE 130)
Josephus (37 – c.100 CE/CE)
The ealrest referance ofBabylonian Talmud Sanhedrin is 57CE
Rabbi Ishmael or Ishmael ben Elisha (90-135CE)


Let us just take one event



Now you think an earthquake and a city being invaded by an army of zombies would have made the historical record. Yet there is NO historical record that matches those events.

http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=186

Enough already.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=186

Enough already.

Posting links that just rehash the same sources that I have already discredited does nothing to aid your case.

Come on show me a historical record, written at the time that confirms with the bible tells us all about the earthquake and the army of zombies.

I'm waiting.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

You are tired of it because I keep pointing out that you are wrong, Josephus was not contemporary with your "hero" and there are NO contemporary record of his existence.

Yes Josephus used Roman records, as I have already acknowledged, and when he had records to reference he went into great depth, but when he talks about Jesus there is no such depth.

NONE of those, not a single on of them, is contemporary with the alleged life of Jesus.

Pliny the Younger (c.61 CE - c.112 CE)
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (CE 56 – CE 117)
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, commonly known as Suetonius (ca. CE 69/75 – after CE 130)
Josephus (37 – c.100 CE/CE)
The ealrest referance ofBabylonian Talmud Sanhedrin is 57CE
Rabbi Ishmael or Ishmael ben Elisha (90-135CE)


Let us just take one event



Now you think an earthquake and a city being invaded by an army of zombies would have made the historical record. Yet there is NO historical record that matches those events.

We obviously disagree and deeply so. I am a Christian and you are not. What you refuse to "acknowledge" though, is that there is evidence to support both of our positions. We are talking about a period of time 2000 years ago, so any evidence from that era is bound to be obscured by the sheer number of years between us and the source, plus, of course, the lack of advanced technology, computers, printing and copying equipment. As a result, you choose the portions of the evidence that support your view and I choose those that support mine. The main thing that I want to point out to you is this: all the sources I brought to your attention are as close as possible to being objective because they are not what you would consider "interested" parties, they are non-believers, just like you, and some of them quite hostile (such as Pharisees - the guys who put together the Talmud). So these people would really have no interest in helping out the Chrisitan cause, and as such, they would be as objective or even purposefully biased in the opposite direction. Another thing I want to draw your attention to is the fact that in spite of 2000 years the Christian faith is still alive and well, and people still know about Jesus and His life and death and resurrection, as obscure and insignificant He appeared to His contemporaries. If there was nothing to Him and and His life, would so many people be willing to die for their adherence to Him (just look at what the early Christians went through). Why would so much be written about Him and so much commotion and debate would occur around His person? So, in the end, we can disagree but there is no need for dishonesty and derailing the other person'a points and arguments by focusing on the unimportant and minor things.

[Donovan A. Mordecai]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Posting links that just rehash the same sources that I have already discredited does nothing to aid your case.

Come on show me a historical record, written at the time that confirms with the bible tells us all about the earthquake and the army of zombies.

I'm waiting.

Why do you insist on badgering that Good Christian? She has patiently given you every piece of evidence needed to come to the conclusion you should have reached by reading The Bible. What more could you possibly need?

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Posting links that just rehash the same sources that I have already discredited does nothing to aid your case.

Come on show me a historical record, written at the time that confirms with the bible tells us all about the earthquake and the army of zombies.

I'm waiting.

You have not discredited anything, you simply stated your point of view. You seem so arrogant and full of yourself and you give yourself so much credit with so little to show for it. Your attitude is that of a person who is really starved for attention and approval, and I pity you.

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/jesus-crucifixion-120524.htm

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

We obviously disagree and deeply so. I am a Christian and you are not. What you refuse to "acknowledge" though, is that there is evidence to support both of our positions.

There is evidence to show that they was a cult in the 1st century CE that had a story about someone called Jesus, this story very closely follows that of mythical characters from earlier cults, such as Horus.

We are talking about a period of time 2000 years ago, so any evidence from that era is bound to be obscured by the sheer number of years between us and the source, plus, of course, the lack of advanced technology, computers, printing and copying equipment.

There are contemporary records of ,for example, Pontius Pilate. Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – c. 50 CE) talks of him, yet not of Jesus.

If Jesus had existed and done what is claimed, someone WOULD have made a note of it AT THE TIME.

As a result, you choose the portions of the evidence that support your view and I choose those that support mine.

You clutch at straws in the vain hope what you say will be accepted without inspection.

The main thing that I want to point out to you is this: all the sources I brought to your attention are as close as possible to being objective because they are not what you would consider "interested" parties, they are non-believers, just like you, and some of them quite hostile (such as Pharisees - the guys who put together the Talmud). So these people would really have no interest in helping out the Chrisitan cause, and as such, they would be as objective or even purposefully biased in the opposite direction.

Again all there prove is that there is evidence to show that they was a cult in the 1st century CE that had a story about someone called Jesus.

Another thing I want to draw your attention to is the fact that in spite of 2000 years the Christian faith is still alive and well, and people still know about Jesus and His life and death and resurrection, as obscure and insignificant He appeared to His contemporaries. If there was nothing to Him and and His life, would so many people be willing to die for their adherence to Him (just look at what the early Christians went through). Why would so much be written about Him and so much commotion and debate would occur around His person?

Because those that follow the myth have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth. If the amount of time a religion has been around it a measure of its validity, why then, when you rejected Judaism, did you turn to Christianity when Buddhism and Hinduism, to name a couple, have been about for longer?

So, in the end, we can disagree but there is no need for dishonesty and derailing the other person'a points and arguments by focusing on the unimportant and minor things.

Whether or not Jesus actually existed is a minor thing to you? I thought you said you were a Christian, so isn't belief in his existence the foundation of you entire life?

It is understandable that when something comes along that may show such foundations are built on sand you are reluctant to accept it.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

You have not discredited anything,

You cited what you claimed were contemporary sources, I showed that they were not.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Why do you insist on badgering that Good Christian? She has patiently given you every piece of evidence needed to come to the conclusion you should have reached by reading The Bible. What more could you possibly need?

Nah she not done that.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

You cited what you claimed were contemporary sources, I showed that they were not.

You missed everything I said and only picked out what you thought was advantageous to your case. Even the fact that the time frame you referred to is called 1 century CE (or AD) points to the significance of the obscure non-existent guy named Jesus: they actually count time in accordance with His birth. Don't you find it fascinating? I agree that followers of a faith will be interested in its propagation, but no other religion ever came close to getting this much momentum or ever had this much influence on the world as a whole. Not even close. For a guy who did not exist Jesus did pretty well.

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/jesus-crucifixion-120524.htm

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

You cited what you claimed were contemporary sources, I showed that they were not.

You showed that the sources were not contemporary enough to your liking. No reputable scholar would even bother to argue that point. They do argue the veracity of the sources, like those of Flavius, and claim that they were written later by Christians, but there are plenty of answers to those objections and I have shown you links to them.

[Jo Freddie]

Re: Hello, Friends!

You missed everything I said and only picked out what you thought was advantageous to your case.

Let me remind you have the little discussion started.

There are accounts by historians who were Jesus' contemporaries and unbiased ones at that. Josephus is a good example of such a historian - he was a Roman citizen and his accounts are available and have been proven valid. He wrote about Jesus' birth and life and also recorded events surrounding His resurrection. I am not sure that he was a believer himself but he did record events accurately as a historian employed by the Roman government. Look him up: Josephus Flavius.

I pointed out that you were wrong, factually wrong, you got the facts wrong.

But your never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Even the fact that the time frame you referred to is called 1 century CE (or AD) points to the significance of the obscure non-existent guy named Jesus

Yet the days of the week are named after Norse and Roman Gods, these are just quirks of history, and do not alter the FACT that your original statement was WRONG.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Let me remind you have the little discussion started.



I pointed out that you were wrong, factually wrong, you got the facts wrong.

But your never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story.


Yet the days of the week are named after Norse and Roman Gods, these are just quirks of history, and do not alter the FACT that your original statement was WRONG.

My original statement was wrong TO YOU, as I already explained. There is nothing FACTUALLY wrong with what I said. There WAS a Jesus, there WAS a Josephus and many others who wrote of Him, and not necessarily favorably, as you pointed out. You shift your ground and use linguistic and semantic trickery to make me sound unreasonable, while you yourself are being dishonest. You simply ignore the parts of my posts that don't fit your agenda, and pick out the ones you can turn around, pull out of context and ridicule. The thing is, I don't have to prove Jesus to you. It is not my responsibility and not my job. If and when you are ready, you will come to know Him yourself. In the mean time, I am entitled to my opinion, which I defended adequately in spite of what you may say, and you are entitled to yours.

[Irinka the repentant jewess]

Re: Hello, Friends!

Let me remind you have the little discussion started.



I pointed out that you were wrong, factually wrong, you got the facts wrong.

But your never one to let the facts get in the way of a good story.


Yet the days of the week are named after Norse and Roman Gods, these are just quirks of history, and do not alter the FACT that your original statement was WRONG.

Also, I posted a link twice now that you ignored as well.

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/jesus-crucifixion-120524.htm

It is not honest to conduct a discussion the way you do. Smart-alec comments, picking and choosing bits of your opponent's responses while ignoring other bits, shifting the focus of discussion - none of it makes you look good and all of it speaks volumes about your lack of integrity. I won't even begin to go into all the gory details about the guy you choose to associate with.