*************
M*W: I found this interesting article that discusses all the Jesus gods that mythology has known. Quotations are in italics:

The archetypal Jewish hero was Joshua (the successor of Moses) otherwise known as Yeshua ben Nun (‘Jesus of the fish’). Since the name Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu in Hebrew, Ioshu in Greek, source of the English spelling) originally was a title (meaning ‘saviour’, derived from ‘Yahweh Saves’) probably every band in the Jewish resistance had its own hero figure sporting this moniker, among others.

Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty-eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:

Too strange to be a coincidence!

According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.

But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!

Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.

Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophesy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."
– Josephus, Wars 6.3.

Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias. When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

But was there a crucified Jesus?

Certainly. Jesus ben Stada was a Judean agitator who gave the Romans a headache in the early years of the second century. He met his end in the town of Lydda (twenty five miles from Jerusalem) at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew. And given the scale that Roman retribution could reach – at the height of the siege of Jerusalem the Romans were crucifying upwards of five hundred captives a day before the city walls – dead heroes called Jesus would (quite literally) have been thick on the ground. Not one merits a full-stop in the great universal history.

But then with so many Jesuses could there not have been a Jesus of Nazareth?

The problem for this notion is that absolutely nothing at all corroborates the sacred biography and yet this 'greatest story' is peppered with numerous anachronisms, contradictions and absurdities. For example, at the time that Joseph and the pregnant Mary are said to have gone off to Bethlehem for a supposed Roman census, Galilee (unlike Judaea) was not a Roman province and therefore ma and pa would have had no reason to make the journey. Even if Galilee had been imperial territory, history knows of no ‘universal census’ ordered by Augustus (nor any other emperor) – and Roman taxes were based on property ownership not on a head count. Then again, we now know that Nazareth did not exist before the second century.

It is mentioned not at all in the Old Testament nor by Josephus, who waged war across the length and breadth of Galilee (a territory about the size of Greater London) and yet Josephus records the names of dozens of other towns. In fact most of the ‘Jesus-action’ takes place in towns of equally doubtful provenance, in hamlets so small only partisan Christians know of their existence (yet well attested pagan cities, with extant ruins, failed to make the Jesus itinerary).

What should alert us to wholesale fakery here is that practically all the events of Jesus’s supposed life appear in the lives of mythical figures of far more ancient origin. Whether we speak of miraculous birth, prodigious youth, miracles or wondrous healings – all such 'signs' had been ascribed to other gods, centuries before any Jewish holy man strolled about. Jesus’s supposed utterances and wisdom statements are equally common place, being variously drawn from Jewish scripture, neo-Platonic philosophy or commentaries made by Stoic and Cynic sages.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

Will the real Jesus please stand up?

While this is good information for people to know (it's too often a surprise to people who have grown up learning about the Christian stories), I do want to point out that the url (jesus never existed) is a bit contradictory to the content of this article.

They seem to be fine accepting that all these "Jesus'" existed, why should it be so hard to think that the commonly known one existed as well?

Certainly there is a *ton* of after-the-fact additions to what is now considered the Jesus story, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of there existing a true root story. If Jesus ben Stada existed, why not Jesus ben Galilee?

This whole argument almost single handedly rests on the census story, Luke obviously made an error.

If you don't like that Gospel read one of the other three :)

While this is good information for people to know (it's too often a surprise to people who have grown up learning about the Christian stories), I do want to point out that the url (jesus never existed) is a bit contradictory to the content of this article.

They seem to be fine accepting that all these "Jesus'" existed, why should it be so hard to think that the commonly known one existed as well?

Certainly there is a *ton* of after-the-fact additions to what is now considered the Jesus story, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of there existing a true root story. If Jesus ben Stada existed, why not Jesus ben Galilee?
*************
M*W: Because there is no documentation that a Jesus ben Galilee existed. I Googled him just now. Nothing. Nada. The following link is as close as I came to finding a Jesus ben Galilee.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

This whole argument almost single handedly rests on the census story, Luke obviously made an error.

If you don't like that Gospel read one of the other three :)
*************
M*W: Well, the other three gospels are not known for their telling of the census story or the birth of Jesus. So, where do we go from here?

*************
M*W: Because there is no documentation that a Jesus ben Galilee existed. I Googled him just now.


:roflmao:

*************
M*W: Well, the other three gospels are not known for their telling of the census story or the birth of Jesus. So, where do we go from here?

I'll answer your question with a question. Is there any proof where these other Jesus's were born?

*************
M*W: Because there is no documentation that a Jesus ben Galilee existed. I Googled him just now. Nothing. Nada. The following link is as close as I came to finding a Jesus ben Galilee.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

Have you tried looking for a book called the Bible? It's a best seller...

Will the crazy lady who states controdicting facts based off google searches please stand up.... Oh wait, she already did. Cookie?

*************
M*W: Because there is no documentation that a Jesus ben Galilee existed. I Googled him just now. Nothing. Nada. The following link is as close as I came to finding a Jesus ben Galilee.

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

It is true, that there is no currently known non-biblical first-hand documentation of the now-famous Jesus from the first 3 decades of the A.D. period. However, there are by far more people from that time period who did not get recorded than who did - a claim that the lack of written evidence is positive proof of the lack of existence of a person is a poor argument in my mind. Of those who were recorded in some fashion, many have been lost as the records themselves have been lost.

The best and earliest non-biblical reference we have to "the" Jesus in fact does come from Josephus, although his only reference is to some rabble-rousing followers of some dude he hadn't heard of before, these Christians. His followers, not specifically the man himself.

It must be considered that the books of the bible were chosen *because* they are written records of "the" Jesus. They are the very thing you are looking for; they just happen to have been bound into a single collective work that is now used for religious purposes. They are roughly contemporary accounts of "the" Jesus' life, and though clearly not pure histories, they are still written accounts from the time period in question. Adoption of earlier religious stories is blatant in the Gospels. Later editing of stories for political purposes is clear - from selective translation choices to ink difference in some older manuscripts showing different authorship of certain passages. Errors are blatant even between books: possibly mistakes, possibly failed attempts to give the Jesus story more historical weight than it actually had.

But all of this corruption of the texts doesn't completely invalidate them as a source of historic knowledge. The description of roman occupation, the social structure of societies in the areas, etc are all valuable. What these inaccuracies does is lessen the weight of the sources as an accurate source of information - the more items in the text shown to be untrue, the less highly regarded as true history the remaining unverified items should be considered. The books of the bible have shown themselves to be corrupted and biased sources for information in favor of Jesus' existence.


But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if all but Paul's letters were shown to be blatant falsehoods, then we still have Paul's letters as secondhand accounts from only 20-50 after the supposed death of "the" Jesus. Certainly not as good as the claimed first-person accounts, but still historical documents to be included in our assessment of the overall history of the area.


A question: Did Paul exist?

Have you tried looking for a book called the Bible? It's a best seller...
*************
M*W: The bible is not an historical document. Sorry.

A question: Did Paul exist?
*************
M*W: His existence is questionable. I don't think he existed. I'm trying to research why he was named Saul, then Paul. I think whoever he was, he may have been an astrologer with some other name. The NT has so much astrological data to the point I think the NT was an astrological calendar. I've mentioned this before, but I know it's far-fetched, and no one else knows enough to comment about it. I want to find out if Josephus actually wrote it or had an astrologer write it.

If there were a Saul/Paul, I think it was another name for Apollo (also not a real person).

I think he was a Roman astrologer or maybe even a Hebrew astrologer. But that's as far as I have gone on researching him.

*************
M*W: The bible is not an historical document. Sorry.

It's history and it's a document, how can you not believe this? It's not a question of belief, it is a simple fact.

It seems that both of these threads have reached the same root question: How do we validate ancient written records? How much credence do we give them? How do we parse the myth from the factual?

One important thing to keep in mind is that back in those days (2,000 to 4,000 years ago) the vast majority of people were not able to read or write. The principal control of the masses was done by a few who could. Those would write whatever they wanted, and people had no options at all.
The idea of trying to extract any historical facts from the Bible is ridiculous.
In my opinion, it will be ever nearly impossible to confirm any truth about the life of people like "Jesus".

The idea of trying to extract any historical facts from the Bible is ridiculous.
In my opinion, it will be ever nearly impossible to confirm any truth about the life of people like "Jesus".

By that logic humans should not study history and just assume that nothing is accurate but that would be kind of stupid. You have to remember that there was a time before video.

The Gnostic Society Library
The Gospel of Thomas
.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
.

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
What I find interesting about this particular Gnostic Gospel is that it consists of nothing but the spoken words of the Biblical Jesus. A lot of the quotes from this ancient text can be found in the Bible (with slightly different translations) but there are also things that you will not find in the Bible. Those are the real eye openers and it's no suprize to me that they were somehow left out. Just look who the original author was. I think this shows (independent from the Bible) that the Jesus of the new testament truly existed as a single person and that the Bible misrepresents his philosophical teachings. The only reason I can think of for The Church to leave so many of Jesus's words out of the new testament is because those words did not fall in line with their own philosophies.

One important thing to keep in mind is that back in those days (2,000 to 4,000 years ago) the vast majority of people were not able to read or write. The principal control of the masses was done by a few who could. Those would write whatever they wanted, and people had no options at all.

The idea of trying to extract any historical facts from the Bible is ridiculous.
In my opinion, it will be ever nearly impossible to confirm any truth about the life of people like "Jesus".
*************
M*W: It was a long time after that that people began to read. In fact, it was probably long after the printing press was invented that the "general public" had access to printed books. Even though people gained access to the printed word, most of them cound not read.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/printpress.htm

I would be curious to see the specific items in the bible that could be considered as historical. There's a lot of astrological stuff that has been proved to be historical.

http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/jesus_second_coming.htm

http://blog.beliefnet.com/astrologicalmusings/2010/01/bible-may-have-been-written-ce.html

http://www.astrologyzine.com/astrology-bible.shtml

People of "Jesus's day" could not read. A thousand years down the road to the Dark Ages, the people still couldn't read. It was five hundred after that, the printing press was invented, and by this time, the myths of Jesus had changed quite a bit since their first inception. The only people who could read were those who were taught by the Roman Catholic monks. Then the Reformation caused great changes, and the bible was changed accordingly. The King James Version has more than 3,000 mistakes (changes) from the original text.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm

When one realizes that the Epistles of 'Paul' (c.50-70AD) were written before the gospels (and could have been written in Rome by Romans (70-120AD); and the gospels were written after the death of 'Paul', and were also written after the fall of Jerusalem (c.70AD), which makes me think the validity of the gospels could be challenged.

There are umpteen websites in favor of the KJV, and those are managed by religious education and church organizations, so the truth needs to be compared through extra-biblical documents.

There is no new evidence today that Jesus existed. All the evidence occurred before people could read, and a thousand years before that! If Jesus were God, he would still be evident today. He is not, and if one thinks about it, he was not evident in the day he allegedly lived! The story of Jesus, the myth, was created after earlier dying demigod savior myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology

Here's a list of other "gods" besides Jesus:

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

Christians will refute all this data by saying the bible says this or the bible says that, but they refuse to look at any other documentation other than the bible, so their focus is very limited. They are afraid to find out the truth.

I would like those christians who read this post to question the data I have posted. I am not trying to cram atheism down your throats. I just want you to read what I've posted, and question it.

Great post, maxquijano! Welcome to SciForums.com!

That is a miracle M*W. All those similarities were discovered after 1970.

Let me ask you, who is "BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25"

I said it before and I will say it agian Jesus was not jewish he was a Mexican.

By that logic humans should not study history and just assume that nothing is accurate but that would be kind of stupid. You have to remember that there was a time before video.
*************
M*W: No, you're kidding me, right?

There was a time, even before I was born, where ancient nomads wondered by night and rested in the heat of the day. And they watched at night at all the stars and planets that guided them. As they watched, they gave names to the stars and connected them like shining dots in the sky. And they created personalities to these stars, and they came to believe these sky beings somehow controlled every aspect of their lives. The visions of these stars created many godly myths that trickled down through the ages. As they watched the night skies, it was a form of ancient entertainment, like video games are today.

Also M*W, you did not respond to this:http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2548971&postcount=176

For the record, i am not a religious person but this is interesting. I followed one link and tracked down a debate with the guy mentioned in the OP. He was very nice guy.

*************
M*W: No, you're kidding me, right?

There was a time, even before I was born, where ancient nomads wondered by night and rested in the heat of the day. And they watched at night at all the stars and planets that guided them. As they watched, they gave names to the stars and connected them like shining dots in the sky. And they created personalities to these stars, and they came to believe these sky beings somehow controlled every aspect of their lives. The visions of these stars created many godly myths that trickled down through the ages. As they watched the night skies, it was a form of ancient entertainment, like video games are today.

That is common knowledge. Although not really like a video game.

That is a miracle M*W. All those similarities were discovered after 1970.

Let me ask you, who is "BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25"
*************
M*W: Just because I posted websites, I am not familiar with everything on those websites. They were for references only. Regarda Buddha, there are others on this forum who can answer your questions, or you can do your own web search. I can't answer absolutely everything without relying on the Internet.

*************
M*W: Just because I posted websites, I am not familiar with everything on those websites.

Sorry M*W, this is not the who can post the most inane links forum.

It's history and it's a document, how can you not believe this? It's not a question of belief, it is a simple fact.
*************
M*W: Dave, there was a time I was a christian, and I believed the bible over everything else. Also, I was more or less prohibited from reading anything that was not sanctioned by the pope. I spent my time in a catholic library reading everything I could about christianity. So, you would have had to know me way back then to know where I have come from in regard to my religious education (I was a teacher of religious education at that time). And please don't discount my religious education because it was catholic. It was decidedly a christian education.

Now, I'm an atheist, but I have not forgotten what the bible said. I understand when and why it was written, and I know what changes the meanings of what the bible says. To a christian, the NT is infallible fact. I have been able to see the bible for what it is, because I am no longer a fearing christian. I am also not afraid to speak the truth, because I know there is no consequence to my doing so. I won't be hanged nor burned at the stake nor forbidden to write about what I have learned about Jesus, the bible, and christianity. I also understand that at one time you and I would have been on the same page, but that now we are not. I do not fault you for your failure to see the truth. You haven't been exposed to the truth, so you are in another place (the place I escaped from). I understand your fear and the rejection you would experience from your peers and family. They probably don't know you have come to an atheist website. I believe you must have a curiosity about atheism, or at least an interest in other religions, to come to a website like Sciforums.

No one can force atheism upon you. It doesn't work like that. I fought off the truth I was finding out about when I was a christian. The bible was the only source of information I would allow myself to read. I was born and raised in the bible belt, so christianity was everywhere.

Atheism is something one embraces when they've reached an understanding of what religion is and what religoin is not. You know you've come a long way from christianity when you look at those people closest to you and you see them as believing in something that you've found out the truth about. That's when you know you are not a christian. There is something different about the way you see these people. Then you begin to realize they believe in lies when you've found the truth. That's when you have this terrible burden lifted off you. By this time, it's going to be pretty obvious that your family and peers see you differently, and this can be scary for you. This is when your family and peers try to re-educate you. But you will stand your ground, and you may be a big disappointment to them. But you can't let them hold you down. There is no rush to atheism. It takes years and years to come about.

Right now you believe the bible is "simple fact," but you are still in that mind-control mode that christianity traps you with. Are you really sure you like the idea of having your mind controlled by something so questionable?

apperantly MW you have done ALOT of research regarding religion..

but the most basic question remains..

why..

how can i communicate this.

i believe in god..i have come to this belief not because of any church or christian. i have always questioned the motives of those types of ppl.


i have read the bible and attend church not because i have to, i attend to share what i believe to be true and to challenge others to not 'do as your told'

i always believed the bible to be a guide book not a rule book..because of the very last verse in the bible it called into question the accuracy/validaty(not the words i am looking for.unsure what word fits best here) of the bible,as i have said i have read it and found many passages that have helped me through life,it does not matter to me whether it is true or not..to me it has relevant advice to some situations in my life (yes there are some chapters in L.ron Hubbards book dianetics that have helped me also..)i tend not to throw the baby out with the bathwater..i can find good in all things..(and bad but i try not to focus too much on that(i said TRY!))

the way the world treats a person is to point fingers at you and say 'this is whats wrong with you'..i have found that SOME churches avoid this.it is in these types of churches that i have found god to be working in..

in my opinion you have a limited experiance with churches, it seems you have never found the right church, you have only found the pretentious ones, the ones pretending to be holier that thou..

and because of your experiance you have dedicated your focus on hating all things christian..you have neglected to find the good in it..just because hitler was bad doesn't mean all germans are..

have you ever listened to Dr. Dobsen's focus on the family?
have you ever heard any of that type of advice coming from a non-christian?
you may answer yes, but then i will say check the numbers..how many of those are christian and how many non-christians give that sort of advice?

your posts here in this thread is interesting, i look forward to reading more..it still won't make any differance to me, except to give me more data to back up what i think god is about, and as you have seen i do not always agree with what christianity says god is about..there has got to be more to god than that one little book says..

I believe because i choose to believe not because i am afraid of the alternative..

i think we are both the same in the one issue of the church trying to control ppl..you are on the atheist side of that arguement i am on the theist side of it..i also do not beleive the church should be like that, god gives us the ability to choose, by what right do some pastors have to take that away from us..

I also understand that at one time you and I would have been on the same page, but that now we are not. I do not fault you for your failure to see the truth.

And the truth is?



You haven't been exposed to the truth, so you are in another place (the place I escaped from). I understand your fear and the rejection you would experience from your peers and family. They probably don't know you have come to an atheist website. I believe you must have a curiosity about atheism, or at least an interest in other religions, to come to a website like Sciforums.

I assume the truth is found in them powerful web pages on the website you linked earlier?

Thanks for sharing, as it must be tough being stuck in a hard place and a rock.

At the very least someone should read their own links before they flood.


M*W: Just because I posted websites, I am not familiar with everything on those websites. They were for references only. Regarda Buddha, there are others on this forum who can answer your questions, or you can do your own web search. I can't answer absolutely everything without relying on the Internet.

For one thing the links are all basically the same because they all copy from each other.

Here is the question i asked M*W:

Let me ask you, who is "BUDDIAH – INDIA: Born of the Virgin Maya on December 25"

I am assuming it is this Buddha:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

I dont see many similarities but then it is also obvious that someone would have known if there were because it is and was widely known religion so someone would have caught on.

Another one is this chap below:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quetzalcoatl_telleriano2.jpg

Does not look all human to me though.

For one thing the links are all basically the same because they all copy from each other.


The most sensible thing I've heard all day.

And the truth is?
*************
M*W: Well, you're not paying attention. The truth you believe in is only concerning the past 2000 years. The truth as I see it goes all the way back to the beginning of human understanding of their place in the universe (such as it was in the beginning). I say that what you and I both believe are simply myths.


I assume the truth is found in them powerful web pages on the website you linked earlier?
*************
M*W: No, not entirely. I just found a few websites out of convenience , so I didn't have to get up and about on my bad leg. There are also books and other documentation on any number of the things I have posted. What I'm trying to tell you is that the bible is not infallible, and it is not the word of a god. I understand you deny this, but that is because you won't read anything extra-biblical yourself or you don't read it with an open mind.

A question: Now that you've read these websites, what do you think about all the other born of virgins, died and resurrected god-beings that were mentioned? Do you say this is true or not true? What if history refutes what you believe?

That is common knowledge. Although not really like a video game.
*************
M*W: Metaphor, John, metaphor.

The most sensible thing I've heard all day.
*************
M*W: Kind of like the gospels copy from each other, eh?

*************
M*W: Well, you're not paying attention. The truth you believe in is only concerning the past 2000 years. The truth as I see it goes all the way back to the beginning of human understanding of their place in the universe (such as it was in the beginning). I say that what you and I both believe are simply myths.


Read what I *think* in the other thread we have been discussing in, it's far out and should change your opinion of where I stand.



*************
M*W: No, not entirely. I just found a few websites out of convenience , so I didn't have to get up and about on my bad leg. There are also books and other documentation on any number of the things I have posted. What I'm trying to tell you is that the bible is not infallible, and it is not the word of a god. I understand you deny this, but that is because you won't read anything extra-biblical yourself or you don't read it with an open mind.

A question: Now that you've read these websites, what do you think about all the other born of virgins, died and resurrected god-beings that were mentioned? Do you say this is true or not true? What if history refutes what you believe?

I *think* they might be true too.

*************
M*W: Kind of like the gospels copy from each other, eh?

They didn't have the internet then.

They didn't have the internet then.
*************
M*W: You're right. They had scribes who wrote on parchment scrolls that were subject to human error. Maybe someday an archeologist will find a parchment scroll that was written, or dictated to a scribe, by Jesus himself. As yet, nothing has been found to prove Jesus existed. Everything that has been found to date offers no proof.

Side note: If Jesus was born in a time the Romans kept detailed records of vital statistics (births, deaths, land of birth, etc.), for census and taxation purposess, why is there no record of Jesus's birth, death or resurrection, or home of record on the Roman census records?

*************
M*W: You're right. They had scribes who wrote on parchment scrolls that were subject to human error. Maybe someday an archeologist will find a parchment scroll that was written, or dictated to a scribe, by Jesus himself. As yet, nothing has been found to prove Jesus existed. Everything that has been found to date offers no proof.

Side note: If Jesus was born in a time the Romans kept detailed records of vital statistics (births, deaths, land of birth, etc.), for census and taxation purposess, why is there no record of Jesus's birth, death or resurrection, or home of record on the Roman census records?

hmmm who is getting defensive now?

Maybe one day archeologist's will find the person who created the first website that promoted the age of aquarius? Stranger things have happened...

Now you're basically asking for Jesus' birth certificate, hell I can't find mine...

M*W doesnt give much to respond to.


*************
Side note: the Romans kept detailed records of vital statistics (births, deaths, land of birth, etc.), for census and taxation purposess,

So produce ONE.

The Gnostic Society Library
The Gospel of Thomas
.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
.

What I find interesting about this particular Gnostic Gospel is that it consists of nothing but the spoken words of the Biblical Jesus. A lot of the quotes from this ancient text can be found in the Bible (with slightly different translations) but there are also things that you will not find in the Bible. Those are the real eye openers and it's no suprize to me that they were somehow left out. Just look who the original author was. I think this shows (independent from the Bible) that the Jesus of the new testament truly existed as a single person and that the Bible misrepresents his philosophical teachings. The only reason I can think of for The Church to leave so many of Jesus's words out of the new testament is because those words did not fall in line with their own philosophies.I agree it's evidence that a particular Jesus existed (along with many others I'm sure). I like the gnostic text where the Goddess Sophia punishes Jehovah by castration for the crime of tricking humans into worshiping only him. Greek Orthodox still hold Sophia in high regard. Not as a Goddess, but, nevertheless still in high regard. Of course, back then, people who could read weren't as stupid as the people who are literate today. They understood that these stories were meant to taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, back then, people who could read weren't as stupid as the people who are literate today. They understood that these stories were meant to taken with a grain of salt.

And you know this how?

hmmm who is getting defensive now?

Maybe one day archeologist's will find the person who created the first website that promoted the age of aquarius? Stranger things have happened...

Now you're basically asking for Jesus' birth certificate, hell I can't find mine...
*************
M*W: And Obama can't produce his either...

M*W doesnt give much to respond to.

So produce ONE.
*************
M*W: I understand they are hidden underneath the Vatican. I wish I had known that when I was there.

I agree it's evidence that a particular Jesus existed (along with many others I'm sure). I like the gnostic text where the Goddess Sophia punishes Jehovah by castration for the crime of tricking humans into worshiping only him. Greek Orthodox still hold Sophia in high regard. Not as a Goddess, but, nevertheless still in high regard. Of course, back then, people who could read weren't as stupid as the people who are literate today. They understood that these stories were meant to taken with a grain of salt.
*************
M*W: I think "Sophia" means "wisdom." Was she a real Greek goddess or a metaphor for "wisdom?"

*************
M*W: And Obama can't produce his either...

So I hear :)

hmmm who is getting defensive now?
*************
M*W: I don't think I was getting defensive. How so?


Maybe one day archeologist's will find the person who created the first website that promoted the age of aquarius? Stranger things have happened...
*************
M*W: Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet. The Age of Aquarius was invented when the first nomads connected the stars and saw a woman/man holding a water jug. The constellation of Aquarius has been several mythical characters: John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, et al.


Now you're basically asking for Jesus' birth certificate, hell I can't find mine...
*************
M*W: I would settle for Jesus's death certificate. After all, he was born in a manger, but his death was supposed to be witnessed by several well-known characters in mythology: Mary Magdalene, Virgin Mary, Joseph of Arimathea, Pontius Pilate, Barabbas, et al..

M*W doesnt give much to respond to.
*************
M*W: WTF, and you do?????

*************
M*W: I don't think I was getting defensive. How so?


*************
M*W: Al Gore thinks he invented the Internet. The Age of Aquarius was invented when the first nomads connected the stars and saw a woman/man holding a water jug. The constellation of Aquarius has been several mythical characters: John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, et al.


Have we got any death certificates for these Nomads?



*************
M*W: I would settle for Jesus's death certificate. After all, he was born in a manger, but his death was supposed to be witnessed by several well-known characters in mythology: Mary Magdalene, Virgin Mary, Joseph of Arimathea, Pontius Pilate, Barabbas, et al..

They didn't have time to issue one it seems. Joking aside, why do you expect or ask for ridiculous evidence? As far as I know they didn't even issue death certificates then.

Have we got any death certificates for these Nomads?

They didn't have time to issue one it seems. Joking aside, why do you expect or ask for ridiculous evidence? As far as I know they didn't even issue death certificates then.
*************
M*W: The Romans historically were sticklers for documenting their events. However, there was no documentation of any christian events.

I have always questioned why Mark, the first gospel written around 70 AD, was after Jerusalem fell to the Romans. People scattered for fear of death by the Romans. Jerusalem was flattened. Where were the writers of the gospels then? It doesn't make sense they were in Jerusalem. I believe the gospels were written in Rome, except for John, which may have been written elsewhere, and that's questionable. Why after Jerusalem fell?

Flavius Josephus is a reliable reference about this, but even as a prominent historian of his day, he mentioned nothing about Jesus or christianity. The one small paragraph that was mentioned was later found to be a forgery. It seems that he was among the Jews of Jesus's day, and he said nothing.

*************
M*W: WTF, and you do?????

That is why i dont. I asked you to at least back up something very simple and you chose to only respond to the irrelevant fluff.

That is the second SPECIFIC thing i asked you about which may at least give you something that resembles credibility but now.....

And after all these are your claims, you should at least make an attempt. Now between not reading your own links and not answering your own claims can only mean one thing.

*************
M*W: I understand they are hidden underneath the Vatican. I wish I had known that when I was there.

Oh, you did actually respond.

If they are hidden (ALLEGEDLY (by you), with no proof) then why would you make the claim knowing it was made up?

obviously this belongs in pseudoscience.

Flavius Josephus is a reliable reference about this, but even as a prominent historian of his day, he mentioned nothing about Jesus or christianity. The one small paragraph that was mentioned was later found to be a forgery. It seems that he was among the Jews of Jesus's day, and he said nothing.

This is a little lie that you have allowed into your mind for sheer convenience. Most scholars agree that the passage you declare a forgery is in fact most certainly not.

Gullible is cute, up to a point.

Most scholars agree that the passage you declare a forgery is in fact most certainly not.Please provide evidence for that assertion. I vividly remember the reports of the discovery of that forgery, and I have seen absolutely nothing since then to refute it, much less a consensus of "most scholars." Not even the Jesuits, who would be honor-bound to tell us if they found Jesus's body.

Originally From Post #18 by Medicine Woman When one realizes that the Epistles of 'Paul' (c.50-70AD) were written before the gospels (...); and the gospels were written after the death of 'Paul', and were also written after the fall of Jerusalem (c.70AD), which makes me think the validity of the gospels could be challenged. If you follow this logic then we would have to challenge any biography published toady about George Washington. After all, it's been two-hundred years cense his death.
Originally From Post #36 by Medicine Woman Maybe someday an archeologist will find a parchment scroll that was written, or dictated to a scribe, by Jesus himself. As yet, nothing has been found to prove Jesus existed. Everything that has been found to date offers no proof. This too is faulty logic. My father was a Cherokee Indian (I never met the man) and because of this, my older brother and I should have been able to obtain a collage scholarship reserved for First Nation tribes. When my older brother went to apply for this scholarship he discovered that our ancestors decided to stay back and fight the white man i stead of being forced off their land. Today this is known as the Trail of Tears. Everyone who participated in this exodus had to sign some document before they could enter their newly founded reservation. It is from these documents that scholarships are granted. According to the U.S. government, my ancestors where never part of the Cherokee Nation and they have no official record of their existance. This happened in less than 200 years let alone 2000.
Originally From Post #31 by Medicine Woman The truth you believe in is only concerning the past 2000 years. The truth as I see it goes all the way back to the beginning of human understanding of their place in the universe (such as it wad in the beginning). I say what you and I both believe are simply myths. :cheers:

That is why i dont. I asked you to at least back up something very simple and you chose to only respond to the irrelevant fluff.

That is the second SPECIFIC thing i asked you about which may at least give you something that resembles credibility but now.....

And after all these are your claims, you should at least make an attempt. Now between not reading your own links and not answering your own claims can only mean one thing.
*************
M*W: John, get back to me when you're not drunk, and ask me SPECIFIC questions. The articles I posted from the web had references at the end of them.

Oh, you did actually respond.

If they are hidden (ALLEGEDLY (by you), with no proof) then why would you make the claim knowing it was made up?
*************
M*W: Someone else on Sciforums stated a while back that things were hidden (as in not available to the public). I had heard that several times and probably read it somewhere that I don't recall.

You, for one, are the worst for not writing anything credible (shall I name sources?). Also, you do realize that sometimes in the manner of writing things are included without being referenced material. You have to know what is prose and what is certifiable documentation. I know you have a problem in this area, so I won't come down so hard on you. Just stick to the easy stuff, John, and you will be okay.

obviously this belongs in pseudoscience.
*************
M*W: Then report me and ask the mods to put it there.

This is a little lie that you have allowed into your mind for sheer convenience. Most scholars agree that the passage you declare a forgery is in fact most certainly not.

Gullible is cute, up to a point.
*************
M*W: This has been discussed plenty of times on this forum. It has undoubtedly been found to be a forgery.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

References:

1. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion/Ktav, 1929).

2. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, (New York: de Gruyter, 1984)

3. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 56-88.

4. Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist According to Flavius Josephus' Recently Discovered "Capture of Jerusalem" and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources, trans. Alexander Haggerty Krappe (Methuen, 1931)

5. Paul Winter, "Josephus on Jesus and James" in E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973), pp. 428-441

6. J. Neville Birdsall, "The Continuing Enigma of Josephus' Testimony about Jesus," BJRL 67 (1984)

7. Ch. Martin, "Le Testimonium Flavianum. Vers une solution definitive?" Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 20 (1941), pp. 409-46

8. Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971)

9. L. H. Feldman, "Josephus", in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991)

10. Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1988), Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. See pp. 430-435, "A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus."

11. Karl H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973-1983)

12. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson, 1992)

13. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (Doubleday, 1988)

14. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (New York: Macmillan, 1974)

15. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel of Luke, X-XXIV, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 28a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985)

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

Marshal Gauvin [1818 - 1978] writes:

"Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus, which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient."

The article below offers a lot of peer-reviewed scientific publications. This was much too long to copy and paste.

THE CHRIST-MYTH. Translated from the Third Edition
(revised and enlarged) by C. Delisle Burns, M.A. T. Fisher
Unwin, London ; 1911.

This is a little lie that you have allowed into your mind for sheer convenience. Most scholars agree that the passage you declare a forgery is in fact most certainly not.

Gullible is cute, up to a point.
*************
M*W: No, that would be you.

If you follow this logic then we would have to challenge any biography published toady about George Washington. After all, it's been two-hundred years cense his death. This too is faulty logic. My father was a Cherokee Indian (I never met the man) and because of this, my older brother and I should have been able to obtain a collage scholarship reserved for First Nation tribes. When my older brother went to apply for this scholarship he discovered that our ancestors decided to stay back and fight the white man i stead of being forced off their land. Today this is known as the Trail of Tears. Everyone who participated in this exodus had to sign some document before they could enter their newly founded reservation. It is from these documents that scholarships are granted. According to the U.S. government, my ancestors where never part of the Cherokee Nation and they have no official record of their existance. This happened in less than 200 years let alone 2000. :cheers:
*************
M*W: The dates the NT books were written is common knowledge among historians. This cannot be compared to George Washington.

I'm sorry about your Cherokee ancestors. My ancestors hid out in the hills and caves and avoided the Trail of Tears, but I'm sure some of them were rounded up. Because of their great fear of being found out, they integrated into White society and never told anyone. My great grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee, but she died before I was born. She integrated into a Southern family, and nothing else was ever said about it. I wish I knew.

I agree with what you are saying about the Cherokee. There are babies being born today by the undocumented aliens who don't get birth certificates. My ancestors were immigrants, so I'm passionate about the plight of the illegals.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
The dates the NT books were written is common knowledge among historians. This cannot be compared to George Washington.
You're right. George Washington is probably a bad comparison but something tells me that three-hundred years from now people will not doubt the existence of Billy Graham or Joseph Smith. I'm sure that some of their followers will still be interpreting their words and these new insights will be printed into new books. The thing is, we use printing presses today so this opens the door for people who live two-thousand years from now to question the true existence and teachings of those men. You and I know that they both walked to Earth but how long do you think our impressions of them will still hold true? Washington, on the other hand, is too great a man to be lost to history ... or is he? We can already see the religious right trying to recast our founding principals to fit their agenda. The point I am trying to make here is that it doesn't take much to rewrite history and just because the gospels were written 70 - 400 years after Jesus's death doesn't mean that he didn't exist.

I'm sorry about your Cherokee ancestors.
Thank you. I only brought this up because it's a modern day example of the assimilation of a "lesser people" who were conquered by a much more powerful entity. This parallels the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and the historical whitewashing of dissidence. Just because certain groups of people were left out of the offical records does not mean that they didn't exist.

Please provide evidence for that assertion. I vividly remember the reports of the discovery of that forgery, and I have seen absolutely nothing since then to refute it, much less a consensus of "most scholars." Not even the Jesuits, who would be honor-bound to tell us if they found Jesus's body.

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

Nothing has been concluded as a forgery either.

*************
M*W: This has been discussed plenty of times on this forum. It has undoubtedly been found to be a forgery.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

References:

1. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion/Ktav, 1929).

2. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, (New York: de Gruyter, 1984)

3. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 56-88.

4. Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist According to Flavius Josephus' Recently Discovered "Capture of Jerusalem" and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources, trans. Alexander Haggerty Krappe (Methuen, 1931)

5. Paul Winter, "Josephus on Jesus and James" in E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973), pp. 428-441

6. J. Neville Birdsall, "The Continuing Enigma of Josephus' Testimony about Jesus," BJRL 67 (1984)

7. Ch. Martin, "Le Testimonium Flavianum. Vers une solution definitive?" Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 20 (1941), pp. 409-46

8. Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications, (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971)

9. L. H. Feldman, "Josephus", in The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991)

10. Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1988), Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. See pp. 430-435, "A Selective Critical Bibliography of Josephus."

11. Karl H. Rengstorf, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973-1983)

12. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson, 1992)

13. James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism (Doubleday, 1988)

14. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (New York: Macmillan, 1974)

15. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel of Luke, X-XXIV, The Anchor Bible, Vol. 28a (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985)

http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

Marshal Gauvin [1818 - 1978] writes:

"Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus, which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient."

The article below offers a lot of peer-reviewed scientific publications. This was much too long to copy and paste.

THE CHRIST-MYTH. Translated from the Third Edition
(revised and enlarged) by C. Delisle Burns, M.A. T. Fisher
Unwin, London ; 1911.

A nice peer reviewed site I see :rolleyes:

*************
M*W: The dates the NT books were written is common knowledge among historians. This cannot be compared to George Washington.


This doesn't make sense.

Are you agreeing that the NT books are authentic?

Acitnoids:

Thanks for your input, you have written what I think on the subject in a easy to understand fashion.

Regardless of your beliefs, thanks.

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

Nothing has been concluded as a forgery either.
*************
M*W: There were any number of Jesuses during the day.

This doesn't make sense.

Are you agreeing that the NT books are authentic?
*************
M*W: I'm agreeing that there were certain books written and included in the NT. I'm agreeing that is authentic, but I'm not agreeing that they are truthful or factual.

Acitnoids:

Thanks for your input, you have written what I think on the subject in a easy to understand fashion.

Regardless of your beliefs, thanks.
*************
M*W: Your input doesn't include peer-reviewed publications on the authenticity of what you are proposing.

*************
M*W: Your input doesn't include peer-reviewed publications on the authenticity of what you are proposing.

I did, you didn't.

The site you linked had an obvious bias against Jesus, the site I provided is peer reviewed.

*************
M*W: There were any number of Jesuses during the day.

Why do you start threads when you have no intention whatsoever in learning anything?

If you really want to find the Jesus you think didn't exist use your brain, otherwise get over it and live as though he didn't. Don't lose sleep over it, I'm sure he doesn't.

Why do you start threads when you have no intention whatsoever in learning anything?

If you really want to find the Jesus you think didn't exist use your brain, otherwise get over it and live as though he didn't. Don't lose sleep over it, I'm sure he doesn't.
*************
M*W: What makes you think I know nothing about Jesus or christianity? For god's sake, I taught christianity to junior and senior high school students as well as to adults for many years. So, please don't think I haven't learned anything. Let's say that now I have just learned more.

Also, what makes you think that I don't live a decent life? I probably live a more decent life than Jesus did himself. I really don't lose any sleep over it, I just want to make other people think about what I've learned. It's up to them if they follow it or not.

Now if you want to discuss the character of Jesus, we can do that. It won't be a very interesting read on this forum, so it would die out just like christianity is though.

The topics I have mentioned to have have already been covered extensively on Sciforums during the past nine years I've been here. Everything we are discussing today is old news.

I didn't say you know nothing about Jesus or Christianity, I was referring to the actual existence of Jesus as a historical figure. You believe he didn't exist, and seem pretty sure, so regardless of what people tell you your mind will not change.

Why do you create these threads?

*************
Now if you want to discuss the character of Jesus, we can do that. It won't be a very interesting read on this forum, so it would die out just like christianity is though.


have you read this one?
Character of Jesus. Charles Edward Jefferson (http://www.archive.org/stream/characterjesus00jeffgoog#page/n5/mode/1up)

The perfect human
never existed before
poetry made one.

The perfect human
never existed before
poetry made one.

so if this poetry made one is the ideal,why would ppl try hard to discredit him?

I didn't say you know nothing about Jesus or Christianity, I was referring to the actual existence of Jesus as a historical figure. You believe he didn't exist, and seem pretty sure, so regardless of what people tell you your mind will not change.

Why do you create these threads?
*************
M*W: To make people get off their brainwashed asses and think for themselves, something of which you are not capable.

have you read this one?
Character of Jesus. Charles Edward Jefferson (http://www.archive.org/stream/characterjesus00jeffgoog#page/n5/mode/1up)
*************
M*W: Thanks for posting that. I just love these old books, and I have collected several. I do believe the character of Jesus is interesing discussion. God only knows, I discussed it for years.

The perfect human
never existed before
poetry made one.
*************
M*W: What are you smoking?

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
Post #68

Originally Posted by davewhite04
Acitnoids:
Thanks for your input, you have written what I think on the subject in a easy to understand fashion. Regardless of your beliefs, thanks.
*************
M*W: Your input doesn't include peer-reviewed publications on the authenticity of what you are proposing.
I'm sorry, I couldn't figure out if this was directed towards me or dave. It it was aimed at me then please, tell me what you find unauthentic about my input and I'll see what I can do about finding some "peer-reviewed" publications for you.

Originally Posted by brennus
The perfect human
never existed before
poetry made one.
There is nothing like
a well constructed haiku
on a spring morning.
.
I find them to be
simplistic yet beautiful
like snow in winter.

I'm sorry, I couldn't figure out if this was directed towards me or dave. It it was aimed at me then please, tell me what you find unauthentic about my input and I'll see what I can do about finding some "peer-reviewed" publications for you.
*************
M*W: It was aimed at dave, who never provided any peer-reviewed refutation.


There is nothing like
a well constructed haiku
on a spring morning.
.
I find them to be
simplistic yet beautiful
like snow in winter.

**************
M*W: What is constructed about haiku?

M*W: What is constructed about haiku?
What isn't?
It's much as any written piece: it MUST be constructed, so that it makes sense.

con·struct (kn-strkt)
tr.v. con·struct·ed, con·struct·ing, con·structs
1. To form by assembling or combining parts; build.
2. To create (an argument or a sentence, for example) by systematically arranging ideas or terms.
3. Mathematics To draw (a geometric figure) that meets specific requirements.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/construct

*************
M*W: It was aimed at dave, who never provided any peer-reviewed refutation.


Your either thick or a liar or both.

One more time.

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

And that is me out of here.

Farewell.

m*w: This cannot be compared to george washington.


:facepalm:
:runaway:

*************
M*W: This has been discussed plenty of times on this forum. It has undoubtedly been found to be a forgery.


It's generally a mistake to go by hearsay on matters of controversy. The long passage about Jesus in Josephus was universally considered an interpolation (not the same as a forgery) a century ago. But times change, and the general view today among scholars is that it is genuine but corrupt, although some still believe it is interpolated. How corrupt is a matter of opinion. The short passage was always considered genuine, even a century ago, except by the occasional scholar.



- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63
(Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.)

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."


References:

1. H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion/Ktav, 1929).

2. Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, (New York: de Gruyter, 1984)

(etc)
[/quote]

I notice this is a list of books about the subject in general, with no specific references. Treat this as highly likely to be special pleading, unless you have verified each. The lack of page numbers is the revealing bit. The author seeks to give the impression that all these denounce the passage as forged. I rather doubt that any do.



Marshal Gauvin [1818 - 1978] writes:


Quite a long life, that!

But Gauvin has no claim to be heard. He wasn't a Josephus scholar.



Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus, which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is known to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient."[/I]


Were Eusebius and Gauvin alive, Gauvin would have had to pay Eusebius punitive damages for the libel.

Gauvin also betrays his lack of education by arguing that a passage only referenced by Eusebius must be a fake. But Eusebius' works are patchworks of quotations, which stand up very well where we can verify them, and give us riches of lost philosophers in other cases. 99% of ancient literature is lost. Only two writers now extant show any knowledge of Josephus Antiquities books 11-20. Arguing from a silence is always risky, and in this case insane.



The article below offers a lot of peer-reviewed scientific publications. This was much too long to copy and paste.

THE CHRIST-MYTH. Translated from the Third Edition
(revised and enlarged) by C. Delisle Burns, M.A. T. Fisher
Unwin, London ; 1911.
[/quote]

I don't know why this is an article; it looks like a very old book, probably full of hearsay.

Be sceptical. Whether Christianity is true or not, the Christ-myth stuff is a punishment wreaked on those too ill-educated to see the absurdity and too foolish to acquire an education.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

*************
M*W: To make people get off their brainwashed asses and think for themselves, something of which you are not capable.

An unfortunate comment from someone repeating, unchecked, hearsay off the web. :)

Only a conformist would demand people think for themselves in the exact words dictated to them by others.

A nice peer reviewed site I see.* * * * NOTE FROM ONE OF THE MODERATORS * * * *

Sorry, we don't have anywhere near the bandwidth to run this place like a true academy. The Moderators are all unpaid volunteers and we have our hands full breaking up flame wars, keeping the trolls in line, and tossing out the shoe bomber spam. If someone challenges an assertion then the peer review process kicks in. Evidence must be provided to support it, or else the line of argument must be dropped and never repeated in that thread or any other. But even that cornerstone of the scientific method is difficult to enforce.
There were any number of Jesuses during the day.Jesus is just the Latinization of the Hebrew name Yehoshuah, usually rendered in English as Joshua.
What is constructed about haiku?Haiku is a bloody word game. Five syllables, seven syllables, five syllables.

Yesterday it worked.
Today it is not working.
Windows is like that.

A crash reduces
your expensive computer
to a simple stone.

Having been erased,
the document you're seeking
must now be retyped.

-- The Linguistics Moderator

* * * * NOTE FROM ONE OF THE MODERATORS * * * *

Sorry, we don't have anywhere near the bandwidth to run this place like a true academy. The Moderators are all unpaid volunteers and we have our hands full breaking up flame wars, keeping the trolls in line, and tossing out the shoe bomber spam. If someone challenges an assertion then the peer review process kicks in. Evidence must be provided to support it, or else the line of argument must be dropped and never repeated in that thread or any other. But even that cornerstone of the scientific method is difficult to enforce.

Why is this directed to me?

Thanks

Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
Haiku is a bloody word game.
Whoa, hold your tougue man. Them are fighting words :fight: . Haiku is no more a word game than a limerick is. It is classified as one of the 51 types of poetry ( http://www.poemofquotes.com/articles/poetry_forms.php ). Granted, it may not be Allen Ginsberg's or John Ashbery's chosen style but it is still poetry. Traditionally it is written in the present tense and has at least one reference to a specified time of year known as a "season word" (ripening, die, bloom, harvest, ...) but these requirements are often overlooked in the West. What you presented as examples of haiku lack in all of these and amount to nothing more than krap (no offence intended). I find your post to be ripe with irony. First you state that:

The Moderators are all unpaid volunteers and we have our hands full breaking up flame wars, keeping the trolls in line, and tossing out the shoe bomber spam.
Then you go on to say that haiku is nothing but a word game. How is this no suppose to be taken as "tolling" or "flaming"? I can understand if you have no respect for this form of poetry but that does not give you the right to redefine what poetry is! You should know this seeing as you are also the Arts and Culture moderator :scratchin: .
.
P.S. My current emotional state should be taken more as sarcasm than anger. :thumbsup: I just felt the need to say something.

Why is this directed to me?You (sarcastically) lamented the fact that this website does not undergo adequate peer review. I agree with you, and explained why that is. The Moderators don't have the resources for it.

But that doesn't stop you, the general members, from performing peer reviews. If someone posts a controversial assertion, challenge him to provide supporting evidence.

But the problem with encouraging this is that performing a peer review properly requires a certain minimum level of scientific training, knowledge and attitude. The majority of our members are kids who don't have the qualifications, and the same is true of many (or even most) of the grownups.

The perfect human
never existed before
poetry made one.

Whoa, hold your tougue man. Them are fighting words :fight: . Haiku is no more a word game than a limerick is. It is classified as one of the 51 types of poetry.
Correct. They ALL are "word games".

Any form of writing (other than maybe a government/ scientific report [and you could also make a case for those]) is a word game in that each and every word is chosen for its effect, nuances and connotations.
Poetry particularly is a "game" (with rules, and Haiku's rules are basic but strict).
Don't you think that whatever is said in a poem could be stated more concisely, (maybe more clearly) and with considerably less effort if it were delivered as dry, factual prose?
But where's the fun in that?

A poem is designed to make you think in a particular way about something - it plays with words, with preconceptions and with language itself. (And, incidentally, shows the writer to be fairly smart - "Hey I wish I could have said it like that!").
Is that not a game? ;)

How many of these definitions can be applied to the construction of Haiku?

Main Entry: 1game
Pronunciation: \ˈgām\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gamen; akin to Old High German gaman amusement
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1) : activity engaged in for diversion or amusement : play (2) : the equipment for a game b : often derisive or mocking jesting : fun, sport <make game of a nervous player>
2 a : a procedure or strategy for gaining an end : tactic b : an illegal or shady scheme or maneuver : racket
3 a (1) : a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other (2) : a division of a larger contest (3) : the number of points necessary to win (4) : points scored in certain card games (as in all fours) by a player whose cards count up the highest (5) : the manner of playing in a contest (6) : the set of rules governing a game (7) : a particular aspect or phase of play in a game or sport <a football team's kicking game> b plural : organized athletics c (1) : a field of gainful activity : line <the newspaper game> (2) : any activity undertaken or regarded as a contest involving rivalry, strategy, or struggle <the dating game> <the game of politics>; also : the course or period of such an activity <got into aviation early in the game> (3) : area of expertise : specialty 3 <comedy is not my game>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/game

Don't you think that whatever is said in a poem could be stated more concisely, (maybe more clearly) and with considerably less effort if it were delivered as dry, factual prose?More clearly, certainly. But poetry is often more concise.

That's just part of the game. Find the fewest words possible to express your idea. And than watch from your grave as generations of hapless university students sit through interminable lectures explaining what it (probably) means.

I find poetry inscrutable--except for the Great Masters such as Ogden Nash and Dr. Seuss.

More clearly, certainly. But poetry is often more concise.
Agreed, I probably meant precise and with fewer nuances and possible meanings.


I find poetry inscrutable
Inscrutable? :eek:

Read a master:

if you like my poems let them
walk in the evening,a little behind you

then people will say
"Along this road i saw a princess pass
on her way to meet her lover(it was
toward nightfall)with tall and ignorant servants."
e e cuumings.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Correct. They ALL are "word games". Any form of writing (...) is a word game in that each and every word is chosen for its effect, nuances and connotations.

Poetry particularly is a "game" (with rules, and Haiku's rules are basic but strict).
Nicely articulated Dy. Man, "I wish I could have said it like that!" ;)

*************
M*W: Okay, can we get back on the on the original thread? Let's discuss sun god worship in ancient religions/myths:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0030SunGods.php

*************
M*W: Okay, can we get back on the on the original thread? Let's discuss sun god worship in ancient religions/myths:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/0030SunGods.php

perhaps a readers digest version from you would help..as i dont wanna spend my time reading all that..

perhaps a readers digest version from you would help..as i dont wanna spend my time reading all that..
*************
M*W: If I had a version I would post it. I don't want to get into anything too long and complicated, but to add just enough to browse and think about.

*************
M*W: If I had a version I would post it. I don't want to get into anything too long and complicated, but to add just enough to browse and think about.

:bugeye:

have you read it?
or are you just posting whatever the search engine found?
if you can't simplify it to gain interest,i don't want to click unless i have a reason to...

so how long have you been in this Anti-Christ mood?