No historical Jesus

[Steven_R]

Never saw anyone spend all day worried about Mother Goose.
But you feel the need to spend your day denying Jesus because deep inside you know he's the real deal.

I deny the divinity of Jesus the same reason I deny the existence of Spider-Man. Both are fictional characters. Great backstories, if somewhat inconsistent.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Never saw anyone spend all day worried about Mother Goose.
But you feel the need to spend your day denying Jesus because deep inside you know he's the real deal.

I deny the divinity of Jesus the same reason I deny the existence of Spider-Man. Both are fictional characters. Great backstories, if somewhat inconsistent.

You sure spend a lot of time and effort denying someone who doesn't exist.
But you spend the time because you know Jesus does exist.

 

[Alex.]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. He detested both Christians and Jews.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[ Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

"44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated."

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger on the Early Christians
nonchristianaccounts
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there is a historical Jesus has been established several times a cross referenced and checked.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. He detested both Christians and Jews.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[ Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

"44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated."

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger on the Early Christians
nonchristianaccounts
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there is a historical Jesus has been established several times a cross referenced and checked.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

 

[Indeependent]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. He detested both Christians and Jews.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[ Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

"44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated."

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger on the Early Christians
nonchristianaccounts
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there is a historical Jesus has been established several times a cross referenced and checked.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

 

[HaShev]

Well, this thread will no doubt change many Christian minds...

Are the threads on this board intended to change minds?

No, I'd guess most are just to flame and annoy, not unlike what might happen on a grade school playground, and this would be another example.

Why that is, who knows. There are clearly many here who are just hateful and angry and bitter and use this board to express that at every opportunity. The OP is a prime example, daily. We all do it now and then, but he is over the top.

The psychology of partisan ideology is fascinating.
.

You just managed to do everything you accused others of doing while avoiding any refutation, thus you are all ad hominom attack and no substance or intelligent reference to why the OP is wrong.
Basically you give people no rights to debate falsehoods if you are the supporter of that falsehood.
You inadvertantly called Christians who do as you accuse: hateful, angry, bitter.
Interesting cause in Rev the fallen morning star causes them to be like wormwood a poisonous bitter herb.
The false prophet causes The Flock to be poisonous and bitter.

 

[Alex.]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. He detested both Christians and Jews.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[ Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

"44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated."

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger on the Early Christians
nonchristianaccounts
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there is a historical Jesus has been established several times a cross referenced and checked.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down your brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading your horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

 

[HaShev]

Never saw anyone spend all day worried about Mother Goose.
But you feel the need to spend your day denying Jesus because deep inside you know he's the real deal.

Never did our policies, Gov'ts, freedoms, security, advances, be controlled by people who believed mother goose was real.

Would you debate a candidate running for office who did? What if they belived in Santa Claus?

 

[Indeependent]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

 

[Alex.]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

Read the links, read the posts. I have proved my point.

You were a waste of time when you started posting in this thread and that has not changed.
BFJ

 

[Fishlore]

The idea of an historical Jesus has been pretty much discarded by academic historians since the publication of the works of Albert Schweitzer. Since the consensus that the available sources do not support traditional belief, hermeneutics has evolved in an interesting way.

The original idea, that there was a populist preacher in the Galilee executed for his preaching who was subsequently attributed divine status and miraculous powers (including resurrection from the dead) as his story spread beyond the Jewish community in Jerusalem to the Hellenized communities converted by the Apostle Paul, has been reversed by a more recent hypothesis.

Many of the younger generation of scholars now theorize that the Christian religion which spread with rapidity beginning in the early second century CE was entirely fabricated from pre-existing features of Jewish and pagan belief system and the pseudo-historical figure of rabbi Yeshua -- for whom there was no historical model -- was subsequently inserted into the center of the new mythology to give it a grounding in time and space.

Whatever one believes about the Gospel story, the statements about miraculous cures and resurrection remain within the province of faith, not history. Jesus was not a Christian and in the murky void between those two entities a religious faith was born.

 

[Indeependent]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what
You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

Read the links, read the posts. I have proved my point.

You were a waste of time when you started posting in this thread and that has not changed.
BFJ

Sure.
"Look judge, I promise you someone will testify on my behalf 40 years after I'm dead...I promise!".
Remind me never to use you as a lawyer.

 

[Alex.]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

Read the links, read the posts. I have proved my point.

You were a waste of time when you started posting in this thread and that has not changed.
BFJ

Sure.
"Look judge, I promise you someone will testify on my behalf 40 years after I'm dead...I promise!".
Remind me never to use you as a lawyer.

This is not a court room and in here you are not a lawyer. Speak to the issue >>No historical Jesus

I provided 3 sources those sources have been vetted by qualified experts then peer reviewed and here along come you an acerbic, egotistical, chuckle head with no more than a hobbyist's interest in the issue attempting to discredit well established and respected educational institutions, educators and other professionals with bluster and baloney all because you lost a debate on an internet forum.

BFJ

 

[Indeependent]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

Read the links, read the posts. I have proved my point.

You were a waste of time when you started posting in this thread and that has not changed.
BFJ

Sure.
"Look judge, I promise you someone will testify on my behalf 40 years after I'm dead...I promise!".
Remind me never to use you as a lawyer.

This is not a court room and in here you are not a lawyer. Speak to the issue >>No historical Jesus

I provided 3 sources those sources have been vetted by qualified experts then peer reviewed and here along come you an acerbic, egotistical, chuckle head with no more than a hobbyist's interest in the issue attempting to discredit well established and respected educational institutions, educators and other professionals with bluster and baloney all because you lost a debate on an internet forum.

BFJ

Ad hominems...how lovingly "Jesus Like" of you.

 

[Alex.]

I just know Alex is out there someone in his backyard digging up a piece of papyrus.

The sweat rolling down you brow at being shown you have nothing was worth the time I spend reading you horsecrap.

Produce your experts.

Once again, you are resorting to ad hominems.

There's no way you took any course in critical analysis in college.
Experts are required to produce evidence admissible in court to PROVE A CLAIM.
I'm not the one claiming an improvable fact is true, YOU ARE.
Where's your evidence?
You can stop posting now as you've already left behind an ample trail of postings bereft of evidence.

Read the links, read the posts. I have proved my point.

You were a waste of time when you started posting in this thread and that has not changed.
BFJ

Sure.
"Look judge, I promise you someone will testify on my behalf 40 years after I'm dead...I promise!".
Remind me never to use you as a lawyer.

This is not a court room and in here you are not a lawyer. Speak to the issue >>No historical Jesus

I provided 3 sources those sources have been vetted by qualified experts then peer reviewed and here along come you an acerbic, egotistical, chuckle head with no more than a hobbyist's interest in the issue attempting to discredit well established and respected educational institutions, educators and other professionals with bluster and baloney all because you lost a debate on an internet forum.

BFJ

Ad hominems...how lovingly "Jesus Like" of you.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, this thread will no doubt change many Christian minds...

Are the threads on this board intended to change minds?

No, I'd guess most are just to flame and annoy, not unlike what might happen on a grade school playground, and this would be another example.

Why that is, who knows. There are clearly many here who are just hateful and angry and bitter and use this board to express that at every opportunity. The OP is a prime example, daily. We all do it now and then, but he is over the top.

The psychology of partisan ideology is fascinating.
.

You just managed to do everything you accused others of doing while avoiding any refutation, thus you are all ad hominom attack and no substance or intelligent reference to why the OP is wrong.
Basically you give people no rights to debate falsehoods if you are the supporter of that falsehood.
You inadvertantly called Christians who do as you accuse: hateful, angry, bitter.
Interesting cause in Rev the fallen morning star causes them to be like wormwood a poisonous bitter herb.
The false prophet causes The Flock to be poisonous and bitter.

Huh?
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Never saw anyone spend all day worried about Mother Goose.
But you feel the need to spend your day denying Jesus because deep inside you know he's the real deal.

Never did our policies, Gov'ts, freedoms, security, advances, be controlled by people who believed mother goose was real.

Would you debate a candidate running for office who did? What if they belived in Santa Claus?

Well, considering every great President we've had has believed in your so called Mother Goose, were does that put your argument against? Sounds like we need more believers.

 

[Boss]

In a court of law there is ZERO admissible evidence for Jesus.

No, if this were something a court would hear a case on, you'd be laughed out of court by the judge.

Now if the court is a kangaroo court happening in your vapid little head... maybe so. Because you've abandoned reason and adopted a crazy radical view that no serious scholar has. You've admitted that you refuse to look at the evidence because you think all the scholars are lying.

 

[Indeependent]

In a court of law there is ZERO admissible evidence for Jesus.

No, if this were something a court would hear a case on, you'd be laughed out of court by the judge.

Now if the court is a kangaroo court happening in your vapid little head... maybe so. Because you've abandoned reason and adopted a crazy radical view that no serious scholar has. You've admitted that you refuse to look at the evidence because you think all the scholars are lying.

I have a Master's Degree in Legal Forensics.
I am a Systems Analyst.
In my position, I have to produce an ACTUAL result.

I know MANY highly educated Religious Catholics.
They all admit it's Faith based and not Historical.

Your case would be laughed out of court.
Your "Scholars" produced as evidence...
[] TNT
[] Post-Mortum Heresay

TNT is NOT evidence.
Post-Mortum Heresay is NOT evidence.

I know you hate to lose, but you lost.

If there's one thing I learned in Graduate School is DO WHAT YOUR BOSS TELLS YOU TO DO.
These "Scholars" are as full of crap as the "Caffeine is GOOD/BAD" "researchers".
I have more PhDs per square foot in my 3 Temples than you have in your town.
Most of the PhDs I know didn't know they were being manipulated until I had conversations with them.
I know how research works.

Let's look at this from ANOTHER angle...
If you and Alex follow Scholars opinions all the time...
WHY ARE YOU ON THIS FORUM?
Just read what the Scholars have to say.

 

[OZman]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

 

[Boss]

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in one page of his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44. He detested both Christians and Jews.

"Scholars generally consider Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate to be both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[ Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus."

"44.3. The originator of the name, Christ, was executed as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius; and though repressed, this destructive superstition erupted again, not only through Judea, which was the origin of this evil, but also through the city of Rome, to which all that is horrible and shameful floods together and is celebrated."

Tacitus and Pliny the Younger on the Early Christians
nonchristianaccounts
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that there is a historical Jesus has been established several times a cross referenced and checked.

People who heard about him wrote about him. That's hearsay. Did you hear about this guy who does magic in Egypt? He can perform miracles and he is known to be the son of god. They stoned him to death the other day.

So if you write about him, that's hearsay. You didn't see him for yourself. And he may even be a real man. But the son of god? Performed miracles? Mother was a virgin? If I told you about such a person in Egypt today, would you accept it as a fact?

Many many many Greeks swallowed the stories back then and IN FACT many Americans swallow it today. That doesn't make it true.

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what

The Bible is considered primary source. The historians I have mentioned are considered to be a secondary source.

A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:

• PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias

Primary vs Secondary Sources

Mother Goose is not a source that proves the Old Lady Who Lives in a Shoe is real.

And if I write about the little old lady after reading about her in Mother Goose, that isn't evidence.

Don't waste my time.

You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

• Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
• Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
• Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
• The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.

So Paul of Tarsus was a real person who wrote extensively about Jesus and his message.

Now... I have no idea how to maneuver through your minefield of rejection when it comes to evidence... you seem to want some kind of a historical quote from a non-Christian, talking about Jesus in his writings or something? Of course, Paul of Tarsus is about as close as you'll get to that... but you don't accept him because... why again? Oh... he wrote part of the Bible!

The New Testament of the Bible is a comprehensive set of books from people writing about Jesus. It's like the Jesus Documentary box set. But that's not "evidence" for you.

In short, what you have spent days here demanding is that someone change your stubborn mind that refuses to accept evidence of any kind if it contradicts your preconceived belief. Maybe you're retarded and don't comprehend this but no one can ever make you change your mind.