On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:56:43 -0400, Darrell Stec
webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>Roger Pearse wrote:
>
>> On 10 May, 06:52, Uncle Vic
withheld.com> wrote:>>> One fine day in alt.atheism, Christ's Love
yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>2. What scientific evidence do you have that there ever was a Jesus
>>>>>Christ, miracle-working son of a god?
>>>
>>>> Multiple contemporary historians wrote of Jesus Christ.
>>>
>>> No, they did not. Â They wrote of the existence of Christians, who
>>> believed in Jesus Christ.
>>
>> Firstly we have the NT, written by people who knew the man and their
>> associates, contemporary with him.
>
>What a lie. Except for Fundie bible school teachers not one scholar asserts
>that the gospels were written by the people whose names appears on them.
>The gospels are anonymous, the earliest of which is considered by old
>mainstream scholar to have been written sometime after 70 CE. Even Paul
>states he never got his information from any man. His theology was
>developed from epileptic hallucination. Nobody knows who wrote any of the
>other Epistles especially the pseudoPauline ones.
>
>Every indication leads to a second century date for even the earliest NT
>book. And you Roger cannot prove otherwise.
>
>> Secondly we have scattered references in passing to him and his
>> followers (naturally) in pagan and Jewish texts such as Tacitus,
>> Suetonius, Pliny and Josephus. These are not contemporary, but then
>> in ancient history that is rather misleading; Tacitus, Suetonius,
>> Cassius Dio and Josephus are the main primary historical sources for
>> the entire period of the first century.
Suetonius says he saw Augustus Caesar ascend bodily into heaven.
>You left out quite a few more and you know it. You keep repeating this lie
>every time you are corrected.
Pearse knows that the only mention of Jesus per se in that list, is in
Josephus. Rendered doubtful and untrustworthy by the obvious
tampering.
A few centuries later Photius says that Josephus didn't mention Jesus.
Manuscript copies are like leaves on a tree because of detail changes
each time they are copied. It means that Photius' version was down a
different branch than Eusebius' - even if Eusebius wasn't the
perpetrator of the forgery.
The other stuff mentions Christians as followers of Christ, not Jesus.
Christians make the connection the writers didn't, using the hindsight
of the Christian tradition.
But in any case many of these are also doubtful. For example Tacitus
saying "we executed the anointed one" rather than some variant on "we
executed Yeshua bin Yussuf".
Whoever wrote these expected the reader to know who Christ was. Which
suggest later insertion because Christians were considered Jews at the
time.
>>> The paragraph in Josephus is a forgery,
>>> inserted by Bishop Eusebius some 300 years after Josephus,
>>
>> There is no evidence of forgery, but it may be corrupt or
>> interpolated. No scholar other than Ken Olson believes that Eusebius
>> wrote it. There are two passages in Josephus.
>
>You mean Ken Olson and every other scholar that refers to his work, don't
>you?
And the interpolations aren't forgery?
"May be"? The passage was obviously not written by a Jew.
Besides which the chapter was copied from his earlier Wars Of The
Jews, where the passage is absent.
>>> .. an orthodox jew,
>>
>> A traitor to his people.
Yet he remained a Jew.
>Which would make those interpolations even more suspect rather than less.
>
>>> wrote the book you attempt to quote from, "The Antiquities of the Jews."
>>
>> Which you have not read.
>
>How do you know? Besides neither have you otherwise you would not have made
>such a stupid statement that other Joshuas did not appear in his works.
>
>>> What contemporary historian gave us a historical account of the Slaughter
>>> of the Innocents?
>>
>> The NT.
Now he's being just plain stupid.
>CONTEMPORARY witnesses by historians? That is wrong on three accounts. The
>gospels are not contemporary nor is anything else in the NT. The accounts
>were not by eyewitnesses. And they were not written by historians. I
>doubt you would provide evidence for any three of those points. In fact I
>know you can't. So far not one scholar has. Even worse, you know it. But
>then like your hero and idol Eusebius, you think lying for Jesus is a good
>thing. You would fit right in with those redneck rubes here in the US
>Bible Belt as they think the same thing.
What is Pearse, in real life? What is his background? What are his
qualifications?
>>> How could they have missed that?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>I understand why you might have had you lived back them, current events is
>not your forte and you stick your head in the sand.
>
>>> One of these historians even chronicled the life of Herod the Great in
>>> detail, yet conveniently forgot to mention this monumental event.
>>
>> Conveniently for atheists. If he *had* mentioned it -- a minor detail
Why does he say things like this about atheists that he knows aren't
true?
>Minor? Where do you think these murders occurred?
I've thought for a while that the large Jewish community in
Alexandria, led by somebody who was related to both the Ptolemies and
Herod Agrippa, puts a different light on the story of the flight into
Egypt.
The leader was Philo's brother the Alabarch, whose son married
Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa 1.
If anybody would have been expected to mention the slaughter of the
innocents, it would have been Philo.
>> among the misdeeds of Herod -- then of course atheists would take it
>> for granted and find some other way to vituperate; or else would
>> allege that it was forged.
Another Pearse lie.
We wouldn't give a toss about any of this if Christians had the sense
to keep their beliefs where they are appropriate.
But they don't.
So we demand they either put up or shut up.
And unlike them, we check out their pathetic attempts to put up, and
find all sorts of problems.
Which instead of addressing they attack us instead.
Inventing all sorts of "motives" they know we don't have.
To put it bluntly, if they can't put up they should shut up.
>Only if the material said that Herod believed the new born to be the son of
>god and the christ child. Then yes, atheist would have one more evidence
>of tampering, forgery and outright fabrication among all the rest that
>apply. Otherwise it would be just another devasting evil perpetrated by
>Herod and would not be scrutinized any more than any other historical
>reference. But then again, you know you are lying once more.
Yep.
>> Heads Christians lose, tails they win --
>> if you don't care what the facts are and are merely rationalising, of
>> course!
>
>It is obvious you never let facts get in your way.
He never has.
>>>> There is much more evidence that He existed as a man than for
>>>> most other historical figures of approximately His time, including
>>>> Julius Caesar and Cleopatra.
>>
>> There is certainly more evidence for him than most other people known
>> at the time. But no, that doesn't include people of that eminence,
>> about whom many people wrote. (Where does this come from?)
MacDowell? He seems to be the source of both the "more evidence" lie
and the standard list of "evidence".
>>> ...which you have conveniently forgotten to cite. Â But let's give you the
>>> benefit of the doubt here. Â OK, Jesus existed as a man.
>>
>> Which no-one but a fool doubts.
Another Pearse lie.
People doubt it because none of the claimed "evidence" actually
supports it.
Like most fundamentalists he doesn't realise that every time the same
stuff is offered as "evidence", every personal lie instead of
responding to the problems, etc, is another data point against.
So far it is a heck of a lot against and none for.
But do Christians actually need evidence? As long as it is their
belief taken on faith, that is all they need. Which is why the
non-fundamentalists and the intelligent ones don't make the same
claims the fundamentalists do.
>Here you define fool as any educated, intelligent person including scholars
>who do not hold to your unintelligent, foolish fundie views.
And any non-scholar who sees the obvious problems with what is offered
as evidence.
>>> You seriously need to re-assess your religious beliefs. Â You need to be
>>> shown that you cannot deny reality in favor of the supernatural. Â And you
>>> need to be shown that your religious bullshit beliefs are as far from
>>> reality as one can get. Â You're right up there with woo-woo UFO
>>> sightings, voodoo dolls, sacred cows, and jebus cheese sandwiches. Â Grow
>>> the fuck up already.
>>
>> This from someone who can't even state his religious beliefs?! Oh,
>> right, I forgot, do the parrot thing, willya: "I don't have one-so-I-
>> don't-have-to-think-and-can-just-throw-stones-and-drink-and-fornicate-
>> like".
Another Pearse lie.
He knows we don't have any. We're atheists. Which means we're not any
kind of theist.
But like the other fundamentalists he can't accept others seeing his
most foundational beliefs as "just part of somebody else's religion.
As far as he's concerned it's real otherwise he wouldn't believe it.
So it is just as real for everybody else too including non-Christians
who have to have some dishonest reason for not being Christian.
>Roger levels this claim with anyone who dares oppose his ignorant fundie
>viewpoint. Anyone who disagrees with him he claims cannot state their
>religious views notwithstanding the fact that atheist have no religious
>views as the sole definition of atheist is one who does not see any
>evidence for gods and therefore does not believe they exist, Roger's gods
>included (yes gods, he believes in at least three of them as do most
>Christians).
Yep.
>> Atheists... god's way of giving everyone someone to look down on.
A bigoted, nasty lie.
>Roger, that is the definition of a Fundie, know it all like you who though
>mentally and educationally challenged looks down upon anyone who does not
>accept your Fundie viewpoint, and that includes most of the world's
>Christians, not to mention the bulk of the world that is primarily non
>Christian.
It's the same mentality as the Ayatollahs who executed people who
didn't believe their extreme fundamentalism, for "waging war against
God on Earth".
>> Roger Pearse
