ok, so who isn't a douche on this thread? :lol:

 

OK, got it - you have ferociously hung onto to various opinions throughout this thread that have been demonstrably incorrect - you've refused/failed to explain your opinions except to pile more opinions on top of them - you've failed to cite any source whatsoever for any contention you've made (interpretation) . . . and I'm making you out to be something?!??

Then we'll top it all off with a dab of name-calling as the final flag of pitiable desperation. I'd say you don't need my help whatsoever (opinion)

. . . referring to the highlighted phrase - I do not think that word means what you think it means

 

Dido .............. :rose:

 

Check ....

 

You, sir, are not only a douche within this thread - but in all of life! I know how inappropriately proud you are of that as well. Maybe, if you try really hard, you can become a genuine asshole! :laughing:

 

Did she ever actually say that?


But.....'Thank You' for the rose anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HDGKneybpk

 

I am in shock .................. three pages of "GOD"/Jesus and No 'Shake > Attack ..
nor -K- .............................
.............................................. wtf .............. You'd think Canada lost at Curling or something.

 

I'm willing to teach him a lesson or two in that respect!!

Do you think I'm qualified enough!

 

No, you have taken issue with my taking issue with King Nothing's one post. You then have still not told me how an interpretation(even though if you don't back it up with sources/examples then it's not an interpretation) is better than an opinion(I never once said they were the same thing; not once). You have continued to insult/talk condescendingly to me before I said a single bad word towards you. You have yet to actually refute anything I've said, and it's fucking common knowledge that if you try to present an opinion or interpretation without being specifically asked for it, you will fail and you have not actually answered the question/wrote the paper correctly.

It may be difficult to explain the difference between a douche and an asshole in simple terms but it is not at all difficult to point out when someone's being douchey. You saying things like "stubborn young man, would argue with a signpost, not surprised you're confused" is being douchey because it is specifically for image purposes, mainly that of you being a wise older man and me being a naive, stubborn kid, which I have never in my life been. You've done this a ton of times, and not once has it been the least bit accurate. Like I said, probably around 95% of the people in industrialized nations are at least a little bit douchey(except people who come from the few areas left that are forced to live in reality).

Kiss my ass, you douchey fuck.

Not possible; either you're a douche or you're an asshole.

 

He's probably drowning in a vat of local hooch somewhere......

trying to cleanse his spirit!

 

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.

- Tacitus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

-----

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day -- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.

- Lucian


What advantage did the Jews gain from their executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished.

- Mara Bar-Serapion

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/suetonius.htm

-----

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

- Talmud
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

-----

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day...

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man...For he was one who performed paradoxical deeds and was the teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews [and many Greeks?]. He was [called] the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him...And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Josephus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

Did Jesus exist, well I guess he must have as Yeshua was a common name back then.

 

Yeah, but they got the information from the same source you did.

 

Isn't it interesting that we think it's perfectly reasonable and rational not to believe in those gods of old?

 

A historical text with that many internal contradictions wouldn't still be selling very many copies. Especially since we have no idea who wrote most of it.

 

Blimey, I miss this shit. 3 pages and not a sensible bit of debate to be had, despite some valiant efforts to get one started.

At last, DL weighs in with something at least coherent.

Tacitus mentions Christ and refers to him in the way quoted. However, Tacitus was writing a hundred years or so after the events described, referring to the story as told to him by Christians in Rome. I don't think (and if I'm wrong I'll be happy to stand corrected) that the surviving official roman records are detailled enough to confirm who was crucified when and where in the provinces.

I think there's a lot tobe learned about Rome from reading Tacitus, but one of the main lessons is that spin was alive and well even in his day and that there's a difference between a first hand account and a repeat or re-interpretation of the hearsay evidence that came his way.

It's also interesting that some of the events depicted in the Gospels, such as the journey to Nazareth for census purposes, are not only unmentioned in Roman records but go against the way the Roman Empire operated.

Think about it: The whole population of the Empire has to return to the town of their birth to answer a census. That was millions of people who had spread across the empire through trade, diplomatic, administrative and miltary duties. Hardly a practical way to gather data on your populace, is it?

And what use would that information be, given that the people would then return to where they lived? Far more practical to carry out a census on the empire based on where people actually were.

Oh, and Herod wasn't king during the procunsulship of Pontius Pilate.

Neither of these historical discrepancies prove that Jesus didn't actually exist, but they do show that the "Gospel truth" is in error in several historical details.

(Does anyone need me to highlight which bits are research, which are quotes and which are my opinions, or can we just more on from that?)

 

Isaac Asimov, among others, made the same point you did about the totally irrational methodology for conducting a census...and the fact that there's no record of such a headcount. It appears to have been just a device for ensuring that Jesus be born in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of prophecy.

In fact, quite a bit of the content of the gospels suggests that they were fixated on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, whether the events actually happened that way or not. That's what happens when you have authors with an agenda.

 

But it is though.

Or are you suggesting the idea that millions upon millions of people have been conned into thinking some bloke called Jesus ever walked on Earth......without even going into the walking on water bit! lol

 

There is an awful lot of "historical" information in the new testament that cannot be backed up by any other contemporary source (more so in the old testament. Don't get me started on Exodus). Jesus is one of those items.

The main "evidence" for his having lived is that the gospels say he did. The fact checking of those gospels shows that a lot of the events portrayed are either unlikely, unverifiable or absolutely didn't happen. That doesn't count for much in the way of evidence in my book.

Again, it doesn't prove that Jesus didn't exist, just that his story wasn't as it is portrayed in the gospels.

I find it quite ironic that "Gospel truth" has come to be understood and used the way it is given the obvious fallacies that they contain.

 

If anything, the most damning proof of a negative (still, impossible BTW) is the complete lack of historical record of Pontius Pilate. To hold the office he had required that he would have held office in Rome with some degree of Imperium. At the very least, he would have had to been a propraetor; but since this was an unruly border province with multiple legions its far more likely he would have been a proconsul.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ntius-pilate-a-name-set-in-stone-1084786.html

History can forget an unrecorded Jew crucified in Judea, but Roman consuls don't appear out of thin air.

116 CE

@165 CE, your quote was from the Passing of Peregrinus, where Lucian was making fun of the gullibility of Christians

???@100 CE - ???@300 CE, but transcribed into a 7th Century document without independent historical authentication

Your own website debunks you. And the Talmud was written @200 CE.

No wonder you buried the best "proof" at the bottom of your argument. Josephus has been debunked for hundreds of years. Even if true, Josephus wrote @90 CE.

Cambridge History of Judaism, v3, 1999, p911-2:
“We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Orgen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Jeosphus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it."