A few questions come to mind....

[OzmO]

Josephus, who covers the entire history of the region for the first few decades, has nothing more than a few lines to write about the most influential 'man' of all time? Why does he only have a couple of sentences? Why in general is there pitifully little biographical information on Jesus? Where does he go for about 20 years between his appearance in the Gospels and his 'childhood'?

BTW, you never got back to me on Nazareth, which according to the best archaeology didn't exist until the 3rd century CE.

I have no problem doubting Alexander's existence. Nothing hinges on his existence; perhaps it was multiple people generaling about. Who knows? Much less hinges on that. You are right, we lack the evidence for Alexander that we have for example for a Julius Caesar.

Aren't there personal letters from Alexander as well as numerous personal accounts from other poeple all from that time? 

[Deicide]

Aren't there personal letters from Alexander as well as numerous personal accounts from other poeple all from that time? 

These were not preserved directly. Rather they are first hand accounts commented on centuries later.

I think it likely that Alexander existed. The entire region was changed in just a few decades. That legacy could well testify to him.

[Necrosis]

wasnt josephus not even a comtemporary historian at the time or something? wasnt he not one of the twelve actual historians or some shit, i cant remember but his credentials where dubious.


dude walked on water, healed people and one dude writes a couple lines, thats it? thats the legacy of jesus from historians.

[Deicide]

wasnt josephus not even a comtemporary historian at the time or something? wasnt he not one of the twelve actual historians or some shit, i cant remember but his credentials where dubious.


dude walked on water, healed people and one dude writes a couple lines, thats it? thats the legacy of jesus from historians.

Yes, Josephus lived from ca. 37 to ca. 100 CE and yes he devotes whole chapters to describing various personalities of the region, sometimes more, always going into excruciating detail, yet we are to believe that the son of God himself, who performed never before seen miracles and changed the course of human history, only receives a few lines, not even a paragraph; pretty strange, huh?

[loco]

wasnt josephus not even a comtemporary historian at the time or something? wasnt he not one of the twelve actual historians or some shit, i cant remember but his credentials where dubious.


dude walked on water, healed people and one dude writes a couple lines, thats it? thats the legacy of jesus from historians.

Yes, Josephus lived from ca. 37 to ca. 100 CE and yes he devotes whole chapters to describing various personalities of region, sometimes more, always going into excrutiating detail, yet we are to believe that the son of God himself, who performed never before seen miracles and changed the course of human history, only receives a few lines, not even a paragraph; pretty strange, huh?

Josephus was not only a 1st-century Jewish historian, but he was also a member of the Jewish sect of the Pharisees.  He did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God or the Jewish Messiah, and he probably hated Jesus and his followers just as much as the Pharisees described in the New Testament did.  So Josephus either did not believe that Jesus performed any of those miracles or simply would have covered them up even if he had seen the miracles himself.  Nevertheless, Josephus does mention Jesus' greatest miracle, his resurrection.  Josephus does not confirm Jesus' resurrection, but he did mention it. 

Therefore, no Trapezkerl, it is not strange that Josephus mentions Jesus in the way that he did.  Now, if Josephus had been a devout follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be strange that he did not write more about his miracles.

[Deicide]

Josephus was not only a 1st-century Jewish historian, but he was also a member of the Jewish sect of the Pharisees.  He did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God or the Jewish Messiah, and he probably hated Jesus and his followers just as much as the Pharisees described in the New Testament did.  So Josephus either did not believe that Jesus performed any of those miracles or simply would have covered them up even if he had seen the miracles himself.  Nevertheless, Josephus does mention Jesus' greatest miracle, his resurrection.  Josephus does not confirm Jesus' resurrection, but he did mention it. 

Therefore, no Trapezkerl, it is not strange that Josephus mentions Jesus in the way that he did.  Now, if Josephus had been a devout follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be strange that he did not write more about his miracles.

Josephus mentions lots of would be messiahs, always going into a lot of detail; a lot more than for your godman.

[loco]

Josephus mentions lots of would be messiahs, always going into a lot of detail; a lot more than for your godman.

Yes.  So?

[columbusdude82]

Yes.  So?

SO: if you allow Josephus' writing to serve as testimony in favor of Jesus, you have to allow it to serve as testimony in favor of all the other self-proclaimed Messiah figures!

To do otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty!

[loco]

SO: if you allow Josephus' writing to serve as testimony in favor of Jesus, you have to allow it to serve as testimony in favor of all the other self-proclaimed Messiah figures!

To do otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty!

Correct.  Josephus' writings serve as testimony that Jesus really did exist, as did any self-proclaimed Messiah figures that Josephus mentioned.  Josephus' writings do not necessarily serve as testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, but in reply to those who say Josephus never mentioned any of Jesus Christ's miracles, Josephus did mention Jesus' most important miracle, his resurrection.

[mightymouse72]

kind of funny, i started this thread with a simple question:  show me evidence (atheist favorite word) there ISN'T a God

i've read nothing.  in fact, it's been turned back into proving the existence of God.  you guys are good at dodging the original question.

loco, mcway, thanks for your diligence in arguing with them. 

now that i see satan crapezturd back, i won't post much on the religion board. 

[ToxicAvenger]

 Is there any hard evidence that can prove that God doesn't exist??  

lets see..

1) billions of starving people in the world
2) millions of women that get RAPED...every day!
3) ever seen a 4 yr old die of hunger ya smug son of a bitch??
4) post your home addy so i can come rape your mom.....PS ask your god to stop me
5) i once asked god to suck my cock....i have yet to cum




...o wait..god lets all that happen...cause he works in mysterious ways....

no seriously..post your home addy..i'd love to fuck your mum  and then tell you its all gods plan ccca caac caa he works in mysterious ways...

[columbusdude82]

kind of funny, i started this thread with a simple question:  show me evidence (atheist favorite word) there ISN'T a God

i've read nothing.  in fact, it's been turned back into proving the existence of God.  you guys are good at dodging the original question.

loco, mcway, thanks for your diligence in arguing with them. 

now that i see satan crapezturd back, i won't post much on the religion board. 

Did you even bother to read my response to your first post? Or do you just choose to ignore it because it asks you to think?

[MCWAY]

Josephus, who covers the entire history of the region for the first few decades, has nothing more than a few lines to write about the most influential 'man' of all time? Why does he only have a couple of sentences? Why in general is there pitifully little biographical information on Jesus? Where does he go for about 20 years between his appearance in the Gospels and his 'childhood'?

Hmmm....could it possibly be that nothing significant, regarding His ministry or His purpose for coming, happened until such time? And, last time I checked, Jesus was a carpenter, by trade, not exactly front-page news material. The fact that a carpenter from Nazareth, (as the saying went, "Can anything good come from Nazareth"?) got two lines in a document, written by an official Jewish scribe under the employ of Rome, would indicate that this was no ordinary guy.

Furthermore, Jesus' status as the "most influential man of all time" is a relatively modern, one He certaintly didn't have in 1st century A.D. Remember that He died as a criminal by crucifixion and as another Hebrew saying went, "Cursed is everyone who hangs from a tree".


However, the fact that how we tell time was/is based on His life (B.C. and A.D.) shows the influence that Jesus had/has on Earth, to this day. I know some non-Christians prefer the terms BCE (Before Christian/Common Era) and CE (Christian/Common Era). But, B.C. and A.D. is still the way that many folks dictate time periods on Earth.

BTW, you never got back to me on Nazareth, which according to the best archaeology didn't exist until the 3rd century CE.

And you never got back to me on showing a copy of the Testmonium that has no reference to Jesus Christ.

I have no problem doubting Alexander's existence. Nothing hinges on his existence; perhaps it was multiple people generaling about. Who knows? Much less hinges on that. You are right, we lack the evidence for Alexander that we have for example for a Julius Caesar.

The point wasn't about what hinges or doesn't hinge with Alex's existence. The simple fact is you can accept the existence of Alex the Great, based largely on documents about him, penned two to four centuries after his existence. Same goes for Julius Caesar. Just as it is with Alex the Great, some of the earliest-known manuscripts, containing significant info on Caesar (i.e. The Gallic Wars), dates centuries after his lifetime.

Yet, for some reason, that becomes a problem, when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ, despite having information about Him FAR CLOSER to his lifetime than the info on Alex is to his time period.

[mightymouse72]

Did you even bother to read my response to your first post? Or do you just choose to ignore it because it asks you to think?

with posts like protein f, do you honestly expect me to keep posting on this??  do you see why i was sending you PM's on the subject.  there's too many idiots out here.

i asked for you to show me evidence against God.  you choose to give me arguements on faith.  enough of the brainless "ask me to think" comments.  if you're only point is to try to make the other person feel dumb then you are only showing how weak your arguement is. 
i asked you a question and you cannot answer it.  admit it.   


i don't know if this has been posted.  proof of some of the old testament books.  i'm sure you'll post a scientific study that says it's not real.  anyway....
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/dead-sea-scrolls.htm

[MCWAY]

SO: if you allow Josephus' writing to serve as testimony in favor of Jesus, you have to allow it to serve as testimony in favor of all the other self-proclaimed Messiah figures!

To do otherwise would be intellectual dishonesty!

Based on what?

The issue was the existence of Jesus Christ, not His divinty.

Correct.  Josephus' writings serve as testimony that Jesus really did exist, as did any self-proclaimed Messiah figures that Josephus mentioned.  Josephus' writings do not necessarily serve as testimony that Jesus was the Messiah, but in reply to those who say Josephus never mentioned any of Jesus Christ's miracles, Josephus did mention Jesus' most important miracle, his resurrection.

That's also why, we can say that the Greek version of the Testimonium has interpolations in it. The first passage that mentions Jesus plays up and confirms His divinty. However, the second passage that mentions Him does not, and neither do the passage in the Arabic version. All it states in that one is that the disciples said that Jesus has resurrected. Josephus does NOT have to believe that such is true (or that Jesus is the Messiah) to write that this is what Jesus' disciples believed and reported.

[columbusdude82]

Proteinf was, in his colorful way, outlining one major argument against the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent god, and that's the problem of evil (theodicy): why do bad things happen to good people.

That's a pretty strong argument if you ask me.

As for "asking you to think," what's so wrong with that? Or do you also abdicate thinking when you surrender your heart to Jesus?

And the link you posted, yeah I always get my archaeological information from websites that talk about Jesus and God That's the scientific method at work right there

[MCWAY]

Proteinf was, in his colorful way, outlining one major argument against the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent god, and that's the problem of evil (theodicy): why do bad things happen to good people.

That's a pretty strong argument if you ask me.

Because, as Paul so eloquently put it, The wages of sin is DEATH!. As mentioned on multiple occasions, that is indeed the worst part about sin and sinful behavior: The transgressors aren't the only ones who suffer for it.

Look deep into your life and I'm sure you'll find times, where someone else has suffered (on some scale), because of something that you've done wrong. I'm sure you can find cases, where you've suffered because someone else did wrong.

Kids suffer, because of their parents' sins; Wives suffer, because of husbands' sins (and vice versa); Employees suffer, because of their bosses' sins; etc.

Or, if you prefer a non-Biblical saying, "No man is an island". On certain and many levels, what you do can bless or curse somebody else.

In fact, one of the foundations of Christianity is based on "bad things happening to good people", namely Jesus Christ dying for the sins of mankind.

[MCWAY]

These were not preserved directly. Rather they are first hand accounts commented on centuries later.

That would make them, at the very least, second-hand accounts, as is the case with two of the Gospels (Luke and Mark), only the comments are done much sooner.

I think it likely that Alexander existed. The entire region was changed in just a few decades. That legacy could well testify to him.

And, that puts you right back at square one, believing that Alexander the Great existed, based on accounts far, FAR removed from his lifetime; but not doing so, when it comes to the existence of Jesus, who has historical documentation of His existence much closer to His lifetime.

[columbusdude82]

Because, as Paul so eloquently put it, The wages of sin is DEATH!. As mentioned on multiple occasions, that is indeed the worst part about sin and sinful behavior: The transgressors aren't the only ones who suffer for it.

Look deep into your life and I'm sure you'll find times, where someone else has suffered (on some scale), because of something that you've done wrong. I'm sure you can find cases, where you've suffered because someone else did wrong.

Kids suffer, because of their parents' sins; Wives suffer, because of husbands' sins (and vice versa); Employees suffer, because of their bosses' sins; etc.

Or, if you prefer a non-Biblical saying, "No man is an island". On certain and many levels, what you do can bless or curse somebody else.

In fact, one of the foundations of Christianity is based on "bad things happening to good people", namely Jesus Christ dying for the sins of mankind.

I don't buy that, MCWAY. Some loving God this is, who punishes children for the sins of the parents

[MCWAY]

I don't buy that, MCWAY. Some loving God this is, who punishes children for the sins of the parents

Whether you "buy that" or not ain't really my concern. That's the way it works in this world. I've used this analogy before, but it bears repeating, especially if you're a parent.

If you do something wrong, which causes you to lose your job, and you can't pay your rent, YOU and YOUR FAMILY will be kicked out on the street. The landlord isn't going to care that your kids did nothing wrong. You are corporately responsible for your family (in this instance) and what you do affects them.

BTW, this same loving God, blesses the children for the righteous behavior of the parents. I supposed you don't "buy that", either.

[columbusdude82]

Well, those are your opinions. I know better than to try to reason with you, since you are immune to reason.

Suffice it to say that many, many people (myself included) have found the "sin" explanation for the "problem of evil" to be unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

[MCWAY]

Well, those are your opinions. I know better than to try to reason with you, since you are immune to reason.

That would be your opinion, which isn't necessarily accurate (and in this case, is not).

Suffice it to say that many, many people (myself included) have found the "sin" explanation for the "problem of evil" to be unconvincing and unsatisfactory.

When you and those "many, many people" come up with an explanation (and a solution, to boot), let us know.

[columbusdude82]

Actually, for an atheist, there is no "problem of evil" to be solved.

Since we do not assume that there is an omnipotent, benevolent god to begin with, we do not need to explain why such a god would allow bad things to happen to good people

[MCWAY]

Actually, for an atheist, there is no "problem of evil" to be solved.

Since we do not assume that there is an omnipotent, benevolent god to begin with, we do not need to explain why such a god would allow bad things to happen to good people

But, there are evil things and evil behavior that happen in this world. Your disbelief in a diety holds no bearing on that. Nor does you disbelief in God change the fact that, sometimes, when you do wrong, other people suffer for it.

And, there more than enough of those things happening to pose a significant "problem of evil" in this world. Again, if you or any of the "many, many people" of your atheist ilk have some explanations and solutions, please bring them forth.

[columbusdude82]

That's where you're wrong. Since I don't believe in a higher power running the show, I don't have to explain why it would let bad things happen to good people, any more than I have to explain why it would let good things happen to good people.