btw, jackburton, i'd rather deal with an honest athiest than a self deceiving christian any day, but let's be honest, there are almost as many self decieved athiests as there are self deceiving christians. denial is a way of life.
Originally posted by: LordJezo
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: thawolfman
Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: thawolfman
But seriously what was the deal with the baby?
Its a twist on "The Madonna"
Hmm?
You know.......
Mother Mary and the Christ child verses satan/evil and its "child"
satan wanted to so that it would always protect its young, wouldnt let him suffer..........
attempting to place more seeds of doubt with Jesus maybe
I was thinking it was a sign of things to come. Just as Jesus was born from God the antiChrist will be born of the devil.
I see I see
Thanks both!
-Ben-
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: JackBurton
You Christians are all the same, talking about things you know nothing about? As always, Atheists know more about your religion than you do.Originally posted by: Romans828
Try
Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another
But those of us who know Jesus no the truth
You give a nice lists of historians there. Have you read what those historians had to say about your Jesus, or are you merely repeating what your drones in your religious crowd pass off as support for their view? You are being lied to and you don't even care, as long as it paints the picture you want. Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?
More generalizations mixed in with a bunch of nonsense.
All of the historians mentioned above verify the writings within the Bible to some extent.
Actually, the Bible is one of, if not THE, most accurate Ancient texts in existence today. There are nearly 24,000 manuscripts, compared to 643 of The Illiad by Homer, or 7 of Plato's writings. Not to mention, the time gap between the date the Bible was written and the earliest known manuscript is much smaller than just about every other book. The gap is approximately 50-100 years, compared, once again, to the Illiad with a 400 year gap. The accuracy of the Bible is rarely disputed, even by historical scholars.
Obviously you have some sort of chip on your shoulder in regards to religion, specifically Christianity. I'm afraid I can't help you with that.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Oh... and to answer your question specifically, here is a link to Flavius Josephus' writings:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/josephus/
If you don't want to read all of the books, you can just read the parallels to the New Testament, specifically the parts about Jesus:
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm
Enjoy
http://wesley.nnu.edu/josephus/
If you don't want to read all of the books, you can just read the parallels to the New Testament, specifically the parts about Jesus:
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/ntparallels.htm
Enjoy
Here's some info o the Gospel writers and when the Gospels were written:
Matthew
The writer of the first gospel originally bore the name Levi but was also named, or possibly renamed, Matthew (gift of God). We know that he was the son of Alphaeus.
Being a tax collector he would be familiar with all types of fraud and deceit. He would be more distrustful than most people. This would make him very cautious about trusting the word of someone. Therefore his eyewitness testimony to the words and deeds of Jesus carries considerable weight.
Mark
His gospel contained the preaching of Simon Peter - one of the Jesus? twelve disciples. Therefore we have Mark relating to us the things Simon Peter said about the life and ministry of Jesus. There is hardly any incident related in Mark?s gospel where Simon Peter was not present and the recording of minute detail shows that we have the testimony of an eyewitness.
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.
John
The author of the fourth gospel, John, was one of the twelve - an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ. At the end of the Gospel of John we find these words.
This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true (John 21:24).
As an eyewitness he would certainly be in a position to correctly state the facts about the life and ministry of Jesus.
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
It is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62.
John is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
The accounts were written relatively shortly after Jesus' death, so there would have been eyewittneses to the events. Certainly, if the Gospels had been filled with historical errors they would have been challenged and rejected. Rather they have lasted into perpetuity.
Matthew
The writer of the first gospel originally bore the name Levi but was also named, or possibly renamed, Matthew (gift of God). We know that he was the son of Alphaeus.
Being a tax collector he would be familiar with all types of fraud and deceit. He would be more distrustful than most people. This would make him very cautious about trusting the word of someone. Therefore his eyewitness testimony to the words and deeds of Jesus carries considerable weight.
Mark
His gospel contained the preaching of Simon Peter - one of the Jesus? twelve disciples. Therefore we have Mark relating to us the things Simon Peter said about the life and ministry of Jesus. There is hardly any incident related in Mark?s gospel where Simon Peter was not present and the recording of minute detail shows that we have the testimony of an eyewitness.
Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.
John
The author of the fourth gospel, John, was one of the twelve - an eyewitness to the events in the life of Christ. At the end of the Gospel of John we find these words.
This is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true (John 21:24).
As an eyewitness he would certainly be in a position to correctly state the facts about the life and ministry of Jesus.
The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.
It is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.
Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.
Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62.
John is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
The accounts were written relatively shortly after Jesus' death, so there would have been eyewittneses to the events. Certainly, if the Gospels had been filled with historical errors they would have been challenged and rejected. Rather they have lasted into perpetuity.
The death sea scrolls are great historic documents. As they pre-date or are contemporary with Jesus Christ. The Gospel of ST Thomas was found 1947 i believe inQumran. I found the The Gospel of ST Thomas to be very intresting.
Check out this link for more info <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://members.aol.com/Wisdomway/deadseascrolls.htm">THE ESSENES AND
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AT QUMRAN </a> and Harvard Professor Elaine Pagels book: Beyond Belief
Check out this link for more info <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://members.aol.com/Wisdomway/deadseascrolls.htm">THE ESSENES AND
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AT QUMRAN </a> and Harvard Professor Elaine Pagels book: Beyond Belief
Originally posted by: Amorphus
I'm a troll, good sir? Do my ears decieve me?
This is not something you joke about. In fact, you are being immature. Jesus Christ is not an appropriate target for your (pl.) childish "witticisms". He died for a cause higher than anything of this world, so please, a little respect for the man, even if you are a disgruntled e-badass atheist.
I love jumping in a tlong thread after reading the first page, but hey, this caught me.
Yes, you can laugh at this. It's a hollywood production after all, not a fvcking miracle. TAke that in your sanctimonious pipe and smoke it. If you can't laugh about this at some point then you do need to take a step back. It's a dramatization for Christ's sake. How many of these are on religous channels every day?
More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol.
W.C Fields
Noted life expert
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: JackBurton
You Christians are all the same, talking about things you know nothing about? As always, Atheists know more about your religion than you do.Originally posted by: Romans828
Try
Cornelius Tacitus, a Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian
Suetonius, another Roman historian
Plinius Secundus, Pliny The Younger
Thallus, a Samaritan born historian
Phlegon, a First Century Historian
Justin Martyr in 150 AD
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in regards to independent secular accounts of Jesus Christ, it has this to say: "These independent accounts prove that in the ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th and 19th , and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."
It still requires faith though.......... Proving the "man" is one thing, Proving God is another
But those of us who know Jesus no the truth
You give a nice lists of historians there. Have you read what those historians had to say about your Jesus, or are you merely repeating what your drones in your religious crowd pass off as support for their view? You are being lied to and you don't even care, as long as it paints the picture you want. Tell me, what did Josephus say about your Jesus?
More generalizations mixed in with a bunch of nonsense.
All of the historians mentioned above verify the writings within the Bible to some extent.
Actually, the Bible is one of, if not THE, most accurate Ancient texts in existence today. There are nearly 24,000 manuscripts, compared to 643 of The Illiad by Homer, or 7 of Plato's writings. Not to mention, the time gap between the date the Bible was written and the earliest known manuscript is much smaller than just about every other book. The gap is approximately 50-100 years, compared, once again, to the Illiad with a 400 year gap. The accuracy of the Bible is rarely disputed, even by historical scholars.
Obviously you have some sort of chip on your shoulder in regards to religion, specifically Christianity. I'm afraid I can't help you with that.
Well, well...This thread is still going.
I like how you just throw a completely false statement like that out. But statements like that are totally expected from people like you.
So let me get this straight. If the Branch Davidians wrote a book about how they lived and how David Koresh was the second coming, you would believe it? Hey, it was an "accurate" account of what happened. You can verify there was a David Koresh and the Mount Carmel Center was burned down after an ATF standoff. Him, he MUST be the son of God, those are actual events that happened and can be verified.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
I think people need to realize their own arguments vs. just spouting off what they think the way it should be is.
Fact is you'd be extremely hard pressed to prove their was not a man crucified 'called' Jesus about the time of when the Bible and other old testament type texts. This story is majorly retold by many cultures/religions.
Now history aside, you *could* argue was he a prophet/son of God....that is sort of a justified stand, however, faith-based so there is no real way to say yea or nay on that.
Then you have who created things as another argument and even whether the Father/Son are the same entity....there are several key issues everyone tried to lump into one debate, which is impossible.
Also proving one little thing wrong does not prove everything up the chain wrong in succession, that's another tactic these kind of debaters choose....and another fact is most have no idea what it is to debate.
They say ignorant things that would be laughed out of any moderated discussion, or threaten, or a million other idiotic things.
Bottom line also is most have no idea really what went on with what they are arguing anyway.
Å
Fact is you'd be extremely hard pressed to prove their was not a man crucified 'called' Jesus about the time of when the Bible and other old testament type texts. This story is majorly retold by many cultures/religions.
Now history aside, you *could* argue was he a prophet/son of God....that is sort of a justified stand, however, faith-based so there is no real way to say yea or nay on that.
Then you have who created things as another argument and even whether the Father/Son are the same entity....there are several key issues everyone tried to lump into one debate, which is impossible.
Also proving one little thing wrong does not prove everything up the chain wrong in succession, that's another tactic these kind of debaters choose....and another fact is most have no idea what it is to debate.
They say ignorant things that would be laughed out of any moderated discussion, or threaten, or a million other idiotic things.
Bottom line also is most have no idea really what went on with what they are arguing anyway.
Å
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: JackBurton
I like how you just throw a completely false statement like that out. But statements like that are totally expected from people like you.
So let me get this straight. If the Branch Davidians wrote a book about how they lived and how David Koresh was the second coming, you would believe it? Hey, it was an "accurate" account of what happened. You can verify there was a David Koresh and the Mount Carmel Center was burned down after an ATF standoff. Him, he MUST be the son of God, those are actual events that happened and can be verified.
The accuracy of the Bible as far as historical accounting goes has been deemed very true. You are munging separate faith-based issues in an attempt to discredit that. Do you even understand what you are arguing or just trolling for the attention you don't get in RL?
Your comparsion is a good one....no one intelligent would say the Branch Davidian episode did not happen, no one would say he did not have followers that thought he was the Messiah....this is the same type of account you are saying is totally false. Get a clue man!
Most here are debating the 'did it happen' issue (in this topic) rather than 'who he really was'.
You are fighting the wrong cause here on an issue you are obviously not educated enough in.
Å
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: alkemyst
Originally posted by: JackBurton
I like how you just throw a completely false statement like that out. But statements like that are totally expected from people like you.
So let me get this straight. If the Branch Davidians wrote a book about how they lived and how David Koresh was the second coming, you would believe it? Hey, it was an "accurate" account of what happened. You can verify there was a David Koresh and the Mount Carmel Center was burned down after an ATF standoff. Him, he MUST be the son of God, those are actual events that happened and can be verified.
The accuracy of the Bible as far as historical accounting goes has been deemed very true. You are munging separate faith-based issues in an attempt to discredit that. Do you even understand what you are arguing or just trolling for the attention you don't get in RL?
Your comparsion is a good one....no one intelligent would say the Branch Davidian episode did not happen, no one would say he did not have followers that thought he was the Messiah....this is the same type of account you are saying is totally false. Get a clue man!
Most here are debating the 'did it happen' issue (in this topic) rather than 'who he really was'.
You are fighting the wrong cause here on an issue you are obviously not educated enough in.
Å
Yep.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter