left biblioblography: THE NON-EMPTY TOMB: A MAJOR ARGUMENT POSSIBLY DEFLATED

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

THE NON-EMPTY TOMB: A MAJOR ARGUMENT POSSIBLY DEFLATED

This was in my Yahoo news content today.

This is always a pivotal argument for the xtians: how does one account for the empty tomb?

For a group of folks who put much stock (at least the Catholics) in relics and holy places, this is a major point of contention. Let's never mind that no one can agree where the bloody thing is: or that the quality of 'eyewitnesses' would be chucked out of any court, ancient or modern (the Jews of the first CE, as well as the Romans, never accepted hearsay testimony in their courts).

Part the one is mostly back story, the reader is welcome to view the link provided. Part the second is somewhat more to the meat of the matter (part the third will arrive tomorrow):

"I embarked on my own journey nearly 30 years ago, a quest that that began in an old London bookshop and sent me down a trail of evidence reaching from Palestine to Kashmir, and beyond to the Tibetan border. It suggests that after the crucifixion, Jesus did not ascend to heaven, but remained alive, escaped into Persia, and continued to travel east. This theory that Jesus became a father, lived out his final years in Kashmir and remains buried there today, bears odd resemblance to the "Da Vinci Code" theory.

The New Testament itself has puzzling passages, such as the one from Luke where Christ speaks to his disciples after the crucifixion. "Behold my hands and feet that it is I myself, handle me and see for a spirit hath no flesh and bones as ye see me have."
"

The gentleman named Saleem, continues:

"According to the family history and genealogical tables (written in Persian), the name clearly and explicitly mentioned is Shahzada Nabi Hazrat Yura Asaf. From him the lineage comes directly down to my father and to me. This man came here from
Afghanistan more than 1,900 years ago. He was a prophet, highly reverenced, some sources say of the highest reverence, who performed miracles.

"But the name," Saleem said carefully, "is always Yura Asaf, not Jesus."

The group that first claimed that Jesus and Yura Asaf were the same man was the Ahmadiyya movement, a controversial nineteenth century offshoot of Islam. Numerous Muslim and Persian documents - the Tafir-Ibn-I-Jarir, the Kanz-al-Ummal, and the Rauzat-us-Safa - have references that contribute to the theory of Christ's escape. Some of these also mention that Jesus was accompanied by Mary, and there is another burial place in Pakistan, along his theoretical route to Kashmir, known as Mai Mari da Ashtan, or "resting place of Mother Mary."

The Tarik-i-Kashmir tells of the prophet Yura Asaf arriving in Kashmir at a time coinciding with the supposed arrival of Jesus. An old Persian book, Negaris-Tan-i-Kashmir, tells how Jesus became a husband and father. The Bhavishya Mahapuroma, an ancient Hindu text, places him in Kashmir decades after the crucifixion, and in the old lamasery of Hemis in Ladakh, scrolls exist which reportedly attest to Christ's presence there at one time
."

I have seen this theory before, here.

Before anyone scoffs, here's an interesting passage from the above website:

"I was sent by Titus Caesar with Ceralius and a thousand riders to a certain town by the name of Thecoa to find out whether a camp could be set up at this place. On my return I saw many prisoners who had been crucified, and recognized three of them as my former companions. I was inwardly very sad about this and went with tears in my eyes to Titus and told him about them. He at once gave the order that they should be taken down and given the best treatment so they could get better. However two of them died while being attended to by the doctor; the third recovered.”

The above quote from Josephus is very significant. We are conditioned from birth to associate crucifixion with death. Many people will never have heard of the idea of survival of crucifixion. The idea of Jesus dying on the cross is something that is so widely accepted that its rarely questioned.

But what happened to Jesus Christ? We are fortunate to live in modern times, when science and the field of medicine lend us powerful tools of analysis, as well as a language of medical and scientific terminology. These things even allow us to determine what may have occurred physiologically to Jesus Christ during and, assuming he survived the crucifixion, even after his ordeal on the cross.


One of the more interesting features of said tomb is here.



This is perhaps the most unique aspect of any tomb found in the world. Unseen (that I know of) anywhere else in this world.

The question still stands: Which Jesus are we talking about here?

Of course, the truth of this would bring the blind, shambling giant of xtianity crashing down, a slung stone striking the behemoth in its sightless, cyclopean eye.

I do expect to hear some noise on this. After all, to paraphrase that song by the Whispers,
"And the bleat goes on...."
 Posted by Picasa

Stumble Upon Toolbar

71 comments:

Beowulf said...

Ra,

You can’t be serious. Now Jesus is a guru? Didn’t you say you believed Jesus never existed? Which is it? It must be one of those things were all your looking for is anything contra Christianity and side with it—no matter how ridiculous.

We have a guy who claims to be in the lineage of Jesus. What kind of evidence are we talking about here? Did you bother to check anything out?

Kanz-al-Ummal? Isn’t that some 9th or 10th century Muslim writing or something?

The group that first claimed that Jesus and Yura Asaf was the same--man was in the Ahmadiyya movement in the 19th century????

Rauzat-us-Safa, written by Mir Muhammad Bin Khawand in 1417 A.D.???

The Tafir-Ibn-I-Jarir, is that not an Islamic book? If so at minimum past 600 probably much much later.

Tarik-i-Kashmir? Are you serious here? Wasn’t that past the thirteenth or fourteenth century?????????

Negaris-Tan-i-Kashmir? 14th century (not even sure)

The Bhavishya Mahapurana?????? Since you don’t like theistic scholars, here’s what Acharya S has to say about it:

"Proponents of the Jesus-in-India theory hold up a number of other texts and artifacts they maintain "prove" not only Jesus's existence on Earth but also his presence in India. When such texts and artifacts are closely examined, they serve as no evidence at all, except of priestcraft. … Some of the "documents" are obviously fictitious, and others are downright ridiculous, such as the Bhavishya Mahapurana. A number of these texts merely relate the basic gospel story with embellishments depending on what the storyteller is attempting to accomplish."

The ET footprints found by the tomb documented by someone in the 18th-19th century in a letter sent to some who claimed to be the second coming of Christ! Why didn’t the red flags go up?.

Next thing you know, you’ll be citing Dan Brown as you next devastating evidence.

I find it telling that out of one side of your mouth you say Jesus never existed, and out of the other he was married and went to Persia. However, it’s always easier it is to construct a bad argument than a good one.

Essentially, you want people to agree with you regardless of how or why and regardless of evidence. Is that not the same thing that Christians are degraded for?

All you have done is undermine your own position and lose any credibility you might have had.

Maybe this was a joke and I missed it.

TheJollyNihilist said...

It's an interesting post, but I definitely am of the school that says Jesus never existed as a man. The evidence for Jesus' historical existence is jaw-droppingly underwhelming. And, even though I know I've mentioned this before, I can't get past the fact that not a single secular historian who lived at the same time Jesus is alleged to have walked the earth chose to mention him. There are mentions after Jesus' death, but no mentions from secular historians while Jesus was allegedly living.

But, for me, Jesus' historicity isn't terribly relevant to my atheism. After all, I know for a fact the Resurrection is scientifically impossible. That's enough for me to write the whole story off as fantastical fiction.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
You can’t be serious.
And the bleat goes on...
Didn’t you say you believed Jesus never existed?
Didn't I mention the word theory in the post? Or the word possibly?
Did you bother to check anything out?
Nope. I left it to my readers to make their own call.
Next thing you know, you’ll be citing Dan Brown as you next devastating evidence.
Hey, the blind shambling giant is still stumbling about, ain't it?
I find it telling that out of one side of your mouth you say Jesus never existed, and out of the other he was married and went to Persia.
I find it telling that you went straight into knee-jerk mode when I present a possible alternate theory. I also get sick of people assuming that I talk out of one side of my mouth when I'm simply demonstrating a degree of open-mindedness that is frequently assumed to be absent because I'm an atheist.
Essentially, you want people to agree with you regardless of how or why and regardless of evidence.
Hey, you wanna disagree w/the post, be my guest. It was a conversation piece only. You may want to avoid the appeal to ridicule, or the well-poisoning.
If I wanted people to agree w/me, I'd certainly not welcome you to my blog.
All you have done is undermine your own position and lose any credibility you might have had.
You can sod off.
Oh, & while you're at it, you might be so kind as to provide me w/the location of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
Which by itself would've put you on firmer footing, rather than going for the cheap shot.

Krystalline Apostate said...

FTM:
But, for me, Jesus' historicity isn't terribly relevant to my atheism. After all, I know for a fact the Resurrection is scientifically impossible. That's enough for me to write the whole story off as fantastical fiction.
Yeah, I feel much the same way. But I find the little detours & alternate theories a fascinating waste of time. I'm a big fan of fantasy stories.
Besides, I like to take a completely different route occasionally, just to see. 'The path least trodden', & all that.

karen said...

bf
Posting an alternate theory, whether it is substantial or not, equates to speaking out of both sides of one's mouth?
That's weird. I took RA's post to be an example of "For your entertainment, Ladies and Gentlemen...lookit what I found!"
Amusing was what I found it to be, until I read your reaction. Then I thought there might be more to it since thou dost protest so much.

How you coming on the location of that tomb? I'm thinking maybe we'll find Jimmy Hoffa in it.


RA
I don't know what you did, but your blog is in HUGE print on my friend's computer now!! hehe It's great!

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

Hehh... Karen! Brilliant Hoffa-comment!
The reason, by the way, I find bf so entertaining is his inabillity to read between the lines without getting the mental equivalent of eye-strain.

Beowulf said...

Karen,

“Posting an alternate theory, whether it is substantial or not, equates to speaking out of both sides of one's mouth?”

No. Taking out of both sides of the mouth is when someone asserts one thing one day and the opposite another. Like Jesus never existed, then Jesus married and went to Persia. Moreover, RA has said things like “& what 3rd CE inscription might that be? I want mention of the damn thing PRE-1ST CE. Something besides a few unearthed trinkets. I'm certainly not going to take testimony post ex facto.” Or “Besides, you've got NO RECORDS pre-1st CE.

Then posts on guru theories with evidence dating from the 10th century to the 19th century. One should hold themselves to the same standard they hold others (if in fact it was meant for more that just “discussion”).

“That's weird. I took RA's post to be an example of "For your entertainment, Ladies and Gentlemen...lookit what I found!" “

That’s weird, I took RA’s post to be :

“A major argument possibly deflated” or

“how does one account for the empty tomb?” or

“truth of this would bring the blind, shambling giant of xtianity crashing down, a slung stone striking the behemoth in its sightless, cyclopean eye.”

Amusing was what I found it to be, until I read your reaction. Then I thought there might be more to it since thou dost protest so much.

Thou dost protest because it did seem to be a deceptive ploy to discredit Christianity. It seemed so because RA was giving weight to the proposition. He said: “Before anyone scoffs…”then he provided the Josephus quote.

To scoff means:
*To mock at or treat with derision.
*To show or express derision or scorn.
*An expression of derision or scorn.

So it would seem then that one is at least generally to give credence to the aforementioned propositions provided in the post.

How you coming on the location of that tomb? I'm thinking maybe we'll find Jimmy Hoffa in it.

Hoffa? You’re just being condescending. IMHO, you and RA are attempting to divert attention from the weakness of evidence allegedly provided. I have no obligation, nor desire to provide and argument in lieu of the lack of one.

I do apologize to RA if I seemed a little “knee jerk” in my response. But from what I have presented, if this post was just for “discussion”, I think that point was not conveyed clearly.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

"Hoffa? You’re just being condescending."

Yes... but deservedly and accuratly so.

"IMHO, you and RA are attempting to divert attention from the weakness of evidence allegedly provided. I have no obligation, nor desire to provide and argument in lieu of the lack of one."

In other words:
If no one can, without a doubt,
prove you 100% wrong, your theory is just as valid as any other?

Welcome, then, to the age of ignorant babble.

udonman said...

Sorry bf I am with karen on this one just enertaing is all.

funny that hoffa was mentioned didnt I just see something on the news about F.B.I digging up ahorse pasture looking for him.

udonman said...

oops forgot something bf if your too lay down in a shallow grave and kept talking all of the manure you spew will burry you better than hoffa himself.

karen said...

bf
No. Taking out of both sides of the mouth is when someone asserts one thing one day and the opposite another. Like Jesus never existed, then Jesus married and went to Persia.
Not that Ra needs me to try to defend him, but are you saying that one is not allowed to change one's mind? Perhaps I have followed more of Ra's conversations than you have, but as I recall, he has always been willing to consider "evidence" contrary to what he states he believes. Sharing what he found in his mailbox here was, IMO, his way of saying "Here's what I've been presented with: let's take a look-see." I call that being open-minded. But what do I know.

Moreover, RA has said things like “& what 3rd CE inscription might that be? I want mention of the damn thing PRE-1ST CE. Something besides a few unearthed trinkets. I'm certainly not going to take testimony post ex facto.” Or “Besides, you've got NO RECORDS pre-1st CE.
Exactly. Which is why I thought he was presenting this for entertaiment value.
But if all the Indian locals believe that the guy was Jesus Christ, and Saleem has an intricately detailed geneology dating back to the guy in the tomb, who knows? Because if EVERYBODY(Read: not really everybody, but loud enough to sound like it) believes something, like Christ rising from the dead, well then it MUST be true, right? What did the Ahmadiyya group base their 19th century claims upon? Probably local oral tradition and the geneology. Just because they were the first to make a loud stink about it doesn't mean that the story wasn't quietly circulating. But you're right, it's not the kind of evidence that RA demands about the crucifixion.

That’s weird, I took RA’s post to be :

“A major argument possibly deflated” or

Notice the word possibly and the word deflated. Not destroyed: deflated.
Again, hints that this is not a serious argument.

“how does one account for the empty tomb?” or
simply an introduction to the story.

“truth of this would bring the blind, shambling giant of xtianity crashing down, a slung stone striking the behemoth in its sightless, cyclopean eye.”
Now THIS-sorry ra, if I'm off base-I just took to be an indulgent alliterative fix on my friend's part. He does so love the tool. And I do believe he meant that IF there could possibly be any truth to this, THEN... alliteration, alliteration, alliteration.

Thou dost protest because it did seem to be a deceptive ploy to discredit Christianity. It seemed so because RA was giving weight to the proposition. He said: “Before anyone scoffs…”then he provided the Josephus quote.
So you see deceptive ploys to discredit Christianity as a BAD thing then? :) Not that I agree that that's what this was.
But seriously, if this kind of post is enough to make you come out defending Christianity with guns blazing, you must be awfully afraid for its viability.

The Josephus quote does seem to try to lend some weight to the argument. It didn't matter to me because I already thought it possible to survive crucifixion without even knowing Josephus recorded such findings.
And it's a direct cut and paste from the story he was quoting. So my pea-brain just thought RA was providing more context. For those who might indeed scoff at the very idea of Christ surviving the crucifixion, RA adds the tidbit from Josephus, a scholar respected apparently from both sides of the argument. It doesn't necessarily lend weight to THIS claim of a dead and buried Jesus, but it should be taken into consideration of the general idea being possible, i.e.,

So it would seem then that one is at least generally to give credence to the aforementioned propositions provided in the post.

Were you aware of this Josephus quote before now? If not, I'd say the post was worth it just for that information. I'm guessing it was news to RA, or we'd have heard about it before.


Hoffa? You’re just being condescending
OK. If you say so. I just meant that there's about as much probability of finding the tomb with Hoffa in it as there is of finding either Hoffa or the tomb separately.

And Udonman
Yes, I did bring Hoffa up because of the recent news story about him. I was thinking, why the hell are we still looking for him? Was he buried with the secret to who really killed Kennedy? Or maybe he's got the Holy Grail (THAT'S how the Teamsters got so powerful!) Otherwise, WhoTF cares?

Hairless
Thanks Hon!

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen:
I took RA's post to be an example of "For your entertainment, Ladies and Gentlemen...lookit what I found!"
Exactly.
The Josephus quote does seem to try to lend some weight to the argument. It didn't matter to me because I already thought it possible to survive crucifixion without even knowing Josephus recorded such findings.
Well, given the rather short time JC was up on the cross, it's a thinker.
And it's a direct cut and paste from the story he was quoting.
Actually, it was from the Tombofjesus website.
So my pea-brain just thought RA was providing more context.
You sell yourself far too short, dear. That's exactly what I was doing.
But you're right, it's not the kind of evidence that RA demands about the crucifixion.
No, of course not. Horse of a different color altogether. This theory isn't in vogue, so I didn't touch on it at length.
Now THIS-sorry ra, if I'm off base-I just took to be an indulgent alliterative fix on my friend's part.
Gah! You know me all too well.
I don't know what you did, but your blog is in HUGE print on my friend's computer now!! hehe It's great!
Is it? To post a picture, I had to use Picasa, & do the post on the blog itself. I'm so ready to get rid of my 3rd party S/W.
In short, no, not a serious argument. Bit o' fun, was all.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Taking out of both sides of the mouth is when someone asserts one thing one day and the opposite another.
That's called hypocrisy, I believe, & leveling that charge is both irritating as well as uncivil.
So it would seem then that one is at least generally to give credence to the aforementioned propositions provided in the post.
Says who, exactly? It was for entertainment value, mostly. I'm certainly not going to label it as such, on your say so.
Perhaps I should check in w/you 1st, in the future?
IMHO, you and RA are attempting to divert attention from the weakness of evidence allegedly provided.
Man, those sleepless nights are starting to get to you a bit, ain't they?
I have no obligation, nor desire to provide and argument in lieu of the lack of one.
Oh, horse hooey. Translation: "I don't know."
do apologize to RA if I seemed a little “knee jerk” in my response. But from what I have presented, if this post was just for “discussion”, I think that point was not conveyed clearly.
Duly noted & accepted.
Next time, ask 1st, don't come out swinging, okay?

Krystalline Apostate said...

HMDK:
The reason, by the way, I find bf so entertaining is his inabillity to read between the lines without getting the mental equivalent of eye-strain.
1 would think that would be 2nd nature & all, what w/the overuse of allegory, ey?;)

karen said...

RA
Actually, it was from the Tombofjesus website.
My mistake. I read all 3 parts of the rather weak story, and did go to the other sites. I just didn't keep straight what came from which.

No, of course not. Horse of a different color altogether. This theory isn't in vogue, so I didn't touch on it at length.
I almost said something about this not being in vogue, just that it was something you'd happened upon. It's certainly not a story upon which millions are basing their lives and which they are willing to defend with their lives.
but my original post was getting long and I had to wrap it up and turn the use of the computer over. *sigh*

Gah! You know me all too well.
And it is SUCH a pleasure, my dear.

Re: the huge print...I dunno if it was you or something she did. I noticed later when I did a search on something
the search results were huge too. Like 3 entries filled the screen!
I forget if I checked out tony or michael that day, but one of their blogs was huge also. But everything is normal here at home.
Well, as normal as they've ever been anyway! ;)

udonman said...

Well, as normal as they've ever been anyway! ;)

I dont know why but I will take that as compliment.

Tony

karen said...

AHHHHHhhhhhhh.....Tony!
LOL
I didn't mean you or michael being "as normal as they've ever been"---I meant things with ME!!!
Ain't not never been no normal about that!

But DO consider yourself complimented, sweetcheeks!

udonman said...

It was just they way I read it and with the smiley come on

Krystalline Apostate said...

karen:
My mistake.
Not a biggie.
I read all 3 parts of the rather weak story
It's only strength, actually, is in its uniqueness.
almost said something about this not being in vogue, just that it was something you'd happened upon.
Exactly.
It's certainly not a story upon which millions are basing their lives and which they are willing to defend with their lives.
What an interesting image that invokes. My understanding is that it's considered a holy place, ergo, no archeologists are allowed to investigate further.
And it is SUCH a pleasure, my dear.
It's amazing how we think alike in some instances, is it not? But it is indeed a pleasure & a 1/2, m'lady, on my part. (better stop now, or Michael'll get jealous again).
But everything is normal here at home.
Well, at least your reading pleasure's been increased, ey? ;)

udonman:
Well, as normal as they've ever been anyway! ;)
I'm w/you on that 1: there's no true litmus test, besides conformity, ey?

TheJollyNihilist said...

Yeah, I feel much the same way. But I find the little detours & alternate theories a fascinating waste of time. I'm a big fan of fantasy stories.
Besides, I like to take a completely different route occasionally, just to see. 'The path least trodden', & all that.


Agreed. We atheists have a lot of free time, after all. We don't attend church. We don't pray. We don't study The Bible. With all that leisure time, we might as well indulge our enjoyment of fantasies. Hell, I enjoy a good ghost story now and then on Unsolved Mysteries. Just don't ask me to buy it.

Krystalline Apostate said...

FTM:
Just don't ask me to buy it.
While we're at it, I have a bridge on the Eastern seaboard I'm trying to sell. Interested? ;)

Anonymous said...

RA

The grave belonged allegedly to a certain Joseph of Arimathea. Had this guy been an invention christianity would'nt have survived scrutiny.

And hey, the first christian creed was Christ is risen.

In the same city nonetheless. All the evidence was there to be checked out by the enemien of christ. Disproving it would've been piece of cake.

-GooseHenry

karen said...

Goose
HUH?
Which grave belonged to J of A?
The empty one in the Bible? This one in RA's story?
I'm confused.

Aside from that, where've you been?
Busy with the bambino? How is he doing?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose, baby! How's it hanging?
Had this guy been an invention christianity would'nt have survived scrutiny.
Wasn't talking about him, now was I? I was asking where the bleedin' tomb is.
In the same city nonetheless. All the evidence was there to be checked out by the enemien of christ.
Idle speculation. The good ole 'negative proof' fallacy - here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-proof?method=22

say no to christ said...

I dont have time to read everything right now(I have to go to the gym)but I am really looking forward to reading all of it as soon as I get back. :) Great post RA!

say no to christ said...

Wow Bf, talk about talking out of both side of your mouth. You insist that Jesus existed and yet you posted something from one of my all time favorite scholars who insists that Jesus never existed.

As for me I dont think Jesus existed at the time the bible says he did if he even existed at all. Mother/Son worship is older than the bronze age and the saviour was called christ then too. All religions evolved out of ancestial worship and all ancestial worship traces back to mother worship. So I can see how some of the deities from different religions could possibly have lived at a much much earlier time. If you look at all the archaeological evidence, the bible doesnt hold up because the time lines never match up with the evidence. The evidence is usually much older than what the bible gives. I found a site online a few days ago that really made me take another look at where the biblical stories really came from.
This guy is a top notch scholar and he really makes a valid argument. I ordered a couple of his books so I can get a better understanding of his agrument.
http://www.ahmedosman.co.uk/home.html

I think Ra bringing these kind of theories to our attention really helps fill in the blanks and/or helps make sinse of how such absurd bliefs got started. To me that is what a true free thinker does to keep us all thinking.

Amy

GooseHenry said...

Hello, yes i am fine. Bambino is keeping me awake.

Speculation?

Then what do you call the theory about Jesus ending up in India?!?!

At least i base my theories on reading the lines, not between them.

say no to christ said...

Oh the link I posted is along the lines of the theory that Ra posted. Osman claimes that moses and akhnaten are one and the same and that jesus and tutankhamun are the same person as well. I love this kind of stuff. I'm a junkie when it comes to them. There like historical mystery novels.

Amy

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Then what do you call the theory about Jesus ending up in India?!?!
Well, I'd have to say, that's speculation also.
Wait, which theory? There's a few.
Anyways, I find these theories about JC fascinating.
All of them.

Krystalline Apostate said...

amy:
I think Ra bringing these kind of theories to our attention really helps fill in the blanks and/or helps make sinse of how such absurd bliefs got started. To me that is what a true free thinker does to keep us all thinking.
Hey, thanks.
I like to think I do my part.

udonman said...

Hey goose good to see ya over here and its nice to put a face to the name my friend.

GooseHenry said...

RA

Just how am i committing the negative proof fallacy? The one that is also called argumentum ad ignorantium?

Of all the "theories" concerning Jesus, would you agree that one probably is true?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Just how am i committing the negative proof fallacy?
Right...about....here:
Disproving it would've been piece of cake.
You make it sound as if everyone considered the alleged events earth-shattering enough to try to disprove them.
Since they didn't happen, no 1 cared enough about them to make the effort.
Of all the "theories" concerning Jesus, would you agree that one probably is true?
Which Jesus?
Oh, it's possible that someone of that name existed. But the evidence is slim.

GooseHenry said...

RA

I said disproving the claims would have been easy. Given that there were claims disproving them would have been easy right?

Which Jesus? I assume you are talking about the one christianity is based on?

say no to christ said...

Trying to put all the puzzle pieces together in the right order can be a daunting task cuz in ancient times the king, queen, princes and princesses were the gods incarnent. So, there were probably many jesus' and many marys and many jehovas depending on the location and peoples who were worshipping them. In Egypt the pharo was the human form of the god Amun and the queen was Isis in the flesh. for the first jews their king and queen were the incarnents of Jehova(the father), Asherah(the mother) and Joshua/Jesus(the son). Moses' son in the bible was joshua and that is the same name as Jesus. Ever wonder why there are so many mexiacans named Jesus? Its because jesus is the same name as Joshua. And the mexicans are of Hebrew descent.
http://www.ancientamerican.com/current.htm

Amy

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I said disproving the claims would have been easy.
Sure.
If they happened.
Given that there were claims disproving them would have been easy right?
I very much doubt that you can even prove that they even happened. So, another rhetorical dead end.

GooseHenry said...

Of course i have no proof. If i had there wouldn't be any room for belief/non-belief.

I just go with the evidence we got. Inductive reasoning.

Krystalline Apostate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Of course i have no proof.
Then you have nothing.
I just go with the evidence we got.
Have you looked up the definition of evidence?
Evidence is a synonym for proof.
Inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning, from WordNet:
"The noun inductive reasoning has one meaning:
Meaning #1: reasoning from detailed facts to general principles"
Keep trying.

GooseHenry said...

Well, if it's proof you demand you're in a tighter spot than me it seems... since there is none saying Jesus didn't exist

Inductive reasoning can also mean using the facts at hand to draw the most likely solution. It is inductive (as opposed to deductive) since any new info might change the likely conclusion

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Well, if it's proof you demand you're in a tighter spot than me it seems... since there is none saying Jesus didn't exist
Nu-UH!
Negative proof fallacy---again.
Stop shifting the burden of proof.
Here:
"burden of proof (logical fallacy)

Reversing the burden of proof is a logical fallacy whereby the normal burden of proof is reversed.

For example, it may be asserted that carrying a rabbit's foot improves luck on the grounds that it cannot be proven that it does not.

This is fallacious for two reasons: first, it requires proof of a negative, and second, it places the burden of proof on the challenger, not the proposer of the idea. Formally, before a claim is made, it should be proven, not asserted until disproven."
So far, batting zero.

GooseHenry said...

You make a logical fallacy when accusing me of a logical fallacy...

For example: Would experiments be carried out and they would show that carrying a rabbits foot significantly improves chances of winning the lottery it would be reasonable to think that the rabbots foot increases ones luck.

But if there was suddenly evidence that the lotteries had been staged we would logically assume that is all was a fraud.

Now concerning Christ our evidence consists of (apart from the gospels) historians referring to him as a historical character. This is the only evidence we can have since empirical experimentation isn't possible concerning a one-time historical happening.

Since no counterclaims to this claim has been unearthed we can for the time being assume that Christ existed.

So you are applying different standards when assessing what is probable or not.

say no to christ said...

Goosehenry

Can you please provide the historians that mentioned Jesus in their writings other than Josephus?

Many many scholars question and flat out accuse the church of fraud when it comes to the writings of Josephus. Elain Pagels is one of them and she is a scholar in christian history. She has made it very clear in many of her books that there is NO evidence of an historical Jesus and that the early christians knew that Jesus was only the spiritual self and were apalled at the idea of a literal Jesus. The ealiest christians were like buddhists and saw the devine/jesus as the higher self.

I would very much like to look into the other historians that wrote about Jesus. It would be a big help if you gave me the names. :)

Amy

Beowulf said...

Amy,

There is a good article called Extrabiblical Witnesses to Jesus before 200 a.d.. Regarding Josephus, there was undoubtedly tampering. However, to my understanding, most scholars hold to a partial authenticity of Josephus’s reference to Jesus. For a critical analysis see A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum

There are other scholars who are suspect about the Testimonium Flavianum. Pagels may not be the best to use as a reliable source of criticism as Mankowski (Jesuit) demonstrated here she conflated and falsified information in her writings.

Take care

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
You make a logical fallacy when accusing me of a logical fallacy...
Oh, Goose, Goose, Goose.
You know that ain't gonna work, why do you try?
Next thing you know, you'll be saying the fact that I disagree means I'm wrong.
For example: Would experiments be carried out and they would show that carrying a rabbits foot significantly improves chances of winning the lottery it would be reasonable to think that the rabbots foot increases ones luck.
Or wearing lucky underwear. Or any other bloody fetish.
Now concerning Christ our evidence consists of (apart from the gospels) historians referring to him as a historical character.
Aye caramba. This old worn-out canard.
Somehow, all the research I've done is invalidated because of what? Someone else's say so?
Let me guess what comes next: lessee, reading the newspaper analogy, anyone I present is simply confirmation bias, oh, etc, etc, etc, et al.
Since no counterclaims to this claim has been unearthed we can for the time being assume that Christ existed.
Negative proof fallacy.
You don't really need counterclaims to disprove something.
You examine the facts.
So you are applying different standards when assessing what is probable or not.
No, I'm applying the simple facts of the naturalistic world to the supernatural claims (& you can't prove the latter anyways).

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
I originally thought that I would end up saying that the Thallus' evidence for the death of Jesus was positive, but shaky at best, but my study has led me to a much stronger position. It seems clear to me now, in the context of the historiographical stature of both Thallus and Julius Africanus, that this early piece of scholarly evidence has EQUAL or GREATER credibility to even the official history of Tacitus or the official correspondence of Pliny (to be examined later).
That is just such an old, & very poor article.
I read this eons ago.
Here's the objective info on the alleged Thallus:
http://www.answers.com/topic/thallus-historian
(a brief snippet only)
"The name Thallus is too common to make a probable identification with any other known Thallus. The identication sometimes made with a certain Thallus of Samaria who is mentioned in some editions of Josephus' Antiquities (18.167) fails because that name only appears in those editions because of an idiosyncratic emendation of the text by John Hudson in 1720. The text as it stands reads ALLOS not THALLOS as emended by Hudson."
Not to mention that Eusebius in the 4th CE introduced him, which sheds a sinister shadow over the whole affair.
1st CE historian? & again, why didn't Origen, or Tertullian mention this cat?
Same old tired arguments.
Do better, please.

say no to christ said...

Bf

That link you posted about Elain Pagels is a Catholic news site. Do you really think that they would be fair and honnest? Most christians dont even buy into anything the catholic church has to say. And furthermore, they claim she did not explain things in proper contex. That is what all the christians say when ever someone explains religious writings how they really are. Happens all the time. I say the bible is sexist and christians say its only because I didnt read the bible in proper contex. Well, I know better and I know the history surrounding the bible and it is indeed sexist. Just like Pagels knows all the history surounding the NT and no doubt knows more about it than any bias theologian. That is why all the scholars go to her when it comes to information about the gnostic gospels and christianity. She is the top christian historian scholar.

And Ra pretty much summed up what I was going to say about Thallus. He was a syrian historian and that is all he knew about. He knew nothing of jesus and never wrote the name jesus. The so called evidence of an historical Jesus just doest exist and you cant prove what doesnt exist.

Amy

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
That link you posted about Elain Pagels is a Catholic news site.
It read like an underhanded ad hominem attack.
And furthermore, they claim she did not explain things in proper contex. That is what all the christians say when ever someone explains religious writings how they really are.
& here I thought it was just me.
I say the bible is sexist and christians say its only because I didnt read the bible in proper contex.
Oooohhh, that pesky moral relativism.
The xtians seem to practice it when it's convenient (but only then).
He knew nothing of jesus and never wrote the name jesus.
Not to mention that antique article provides ZERO scholarship.
Oh, wait, where have I heard that phrase before? I think somebody here (not you) has accused me of that? No links to anything outside of its own webpages.

GooseHenry said...

RA

1st of all, no matter how much research we do, fact still remains. 1st&2 century writers refer to Jesus as a historical person. Can you produce some historical document that supports your view that Jesus didn't exist?

Second i commit no negative proof fallacy. I can only do that if i have no positive evidence to begin with, which i have.

Moreover, you say you are applying facts of the naturalistic world to these supernatural claims.

Which confuse me, i thought we were discussing the textual evidence.

But it sounds like you cannot accept the resurrection. If that is so then there is no point discussing the textual evidence, because in that case your disbelief isn't due to lack of textual evidence, it is due to the fact that you cannot accept the resurrection.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
1st of all, no matter how much research we do, fact still remains.
What little facts there are.
1st&2 century writers refer to Jesus as a historical person.
You've got no eyewitnesses from the 1st CE. None.
Can you produce some historical document that supports your view that Jesus didn't exist?
Don't need any. Burden of proof remains unshifted.
Which confuse me, i thought we were discussing the textual evidence.
No, you're trying to redirect it there. But it sounds like you cannot accept the resurrection.
Got it in 1.
If that is so then there is no point discussing the textual evidence, because in that case your disbelief isn't due to lack of textual evidence, it is due to the fact that you cannot accept the resurrection.
Bingo!
Where's the tomb? Can you give me a geographic location?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Second i commit no negative proof fallacy. I can only do that if i have no positive evidence to begin with, which i have.
No, wrong-o.
Here it is, again:
http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-proof?method=22
"Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist."
Stop changing the definition to suit your purposes.
But then, that's what most xtians do: tailor verbiage to suit their convenience.

GooseHenry said...

RA

"1st&2 century writers refer to Jesus as a historical person.
You've got no eyewitnesses from the 1st CE. None."

Well, i trust the gospels but aside from that, the non-biblical attestations are way more than you have. People have been considered historical for much less.

"Can you produce some historical document that supports your view that Jesus didn't exist?
Don't need any."

Then your position is very weak.

"Where's the tomb? Can you give me a geographic location?"

I can't, but the apostles could, the evidence suggests. The evidence was there for all to see.

"No, wrong-o.
Here it is, again:
http://www.answers.com/topic/negative-proof?method=22
"Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist."
Stop changing the definition to suit your purposes."

I am not. I am agreeing with your definition. That is exactly why i claim to not commit it.

Beowulf said...

Mankowski didn’t just assert that Pagels quoted out of context; he demonstrated it. He provided her quotations compared the originals and demonstrated how her additions and omissions pervert the meanings.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Well, i trust the gospels but aside from that, the non-biblical attestations are way more than you have. People have been considered historical for much less.
Such as....? You may want to check the definition of historiography.
Then your position is very weak.
Keep trying to turn the tables. My position is neither weak nor strong.
I'm not making extraordinary claims here.
I can't, but the apostles could, the evidence suggests. The evidence was there for all to see.
Gee willikers, then. Here's this MOMENTOUS event, of which you claim all this HISTORICAL evidence, but 1 would think, w/all the hoopla, said tomb would be enshrined.
Instead, no 1 can find it.
I am not. I am agreeing with your definition. That is exactly why i claim to not commit it.
I'm afraid that's EXACTLY what you're doing.
Saying "There's no proof JC DIDN'T exist, there should be a counterclaim" is bogus. It's also a fallacy, whether you admit it or not. I'd lay out the examples, but you would just turn around & say, "What? You believe so-and-so DOES exist?"
You're a good guy, goose, but your debate skills are negligible at best. No offense.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
When what's-his-face starts off w/this bit of polluting the water tables:
I am going to demonstrate that Professor Pagels's media reputation as a scholar is undeserved, her reputation as an expert in Gnosticism still less so.
& ends in this manner:
I am not calling for academic sanctions but, more simply, for clarification. Pagels should be billed accurately -- not as an expert on Gnosticism or Coptic Christianity but as what she is: a lady novelist. Her oeuvre is that of fiction -- in fact, historical romance. Had New York Times reporters sought Barbara Cartland's views on discoveries in Merovingian religion or paleography, most of us would find it odd, but we'd expect them to make it plain that was romance, not history, in which she had the right to an opinion.
Not to mention his retreat behind scholarship, & then I look this up at answers.com:

"Elaine Pagels (née Hiesey, born February 13, 1943), is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. She was born in California, graduated from Stanford University (B.A. 1964, M.A. 1965) and, after briefly studying dance at Martha Graham's studio, began studying for her Ph.D. at Harvard University. She married theoretical physicist Heinz Pagels in 1969.

At Harvard, she was part of a team studying the Nag Hammadi library scrolls. Upon finishing her Ph.D. from Harvard in 1970, she joined the faculty at Barnard College, where she headed the department of religion from 1974. Her study of the Nag Hammadi scrolls was the basis for The Gnostic Gospels (1979), a popular introduction to the Nag Hammadi library. The bestselling book won both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the National Book Award and was chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century. In the book she argued that the Christian church was founded in a society espousing a number of contradictory viewpoints. Gnosticism as a movement was not very coherent and there were several areas of disagreement between different factions. Gnosticism attracted women in particular because of its egalitarian perspective which allowed their participation in sacred rites.

In 1982, Pagels joined Princeton University as a professor of early Christian history. Aided by a MacArthur fellowship (1980–85), she researched and wrote Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, which examines the creation myth and its role in the development of sexual attitudes in the Christian West. In both The Gnostic Gospels and Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, Elaine Pagels examines the way that women have been viewed in Christian history, and thus these texts have been important in the feminist study of religion."

& while Mr. Paul Mankowski does indeed hold a # of degrees (mostly in theology: gee, no conflict of interest there), wwweeellll, I'd have to say, that's called 'shooting the messenger', AKA poisoning the well, wouldn't you?
Thus far, am severely unimpressed.

Beowulf said...

RA,

Both Mankowski and Pagals come to the table with their own perspectives or “bias” (or whatever). Pagals has some impressive letters behind her name; nevertheless, did Mankowski not demonstrate her historical perversions or what?

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
did Mankowski not demonstrate her historical perversions or what?
Since I don't speak latin, I honestly don't know.
However, he took one portion of one chapter, disputed a miniscule part of the entire book (which I own, BTW), and from that unrepresented example, dismissed all of her entire work as...'A female novelist'.
Now, if I did that, what fallacies (plural) would you call that?
Be honest, please.
& while we're on the subject:
I recall some time ago, when SNTC presented you w/links to sources, they were dismissed as...? Pagan sources, if I remember rightly. The exact quote is:
"You just make assertions. These site’s are as about as authoritative as you are on this subject."
THE MYSTICAL, MAGICAL MENAGE A TROIS thread, to be exact.
So, you won't accept sources that disagree w/you?
W/apologies to the other theist here: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Terribly, TERRIBLY unimpressed.

Beowulf said...

Since I don't speak latin, I honestly don't know.

Right, clearly a dodge. Any one who can just read plain English can see the devastating blow to Pagals credibility.

However, he took one portion of one chapter, disputed a miniscule part of the entire book (which I own, BTW), and from that unrepresented example, dismissed all of her entire work as...'A female novelist'.

He demonstrated her methodology; which was to distort the meaning—clear and simple.

Now, if I did that, what fallacies (plural) would you call that?

You being you =)

Be honest, please.

Honestly ;-)

& while we're on the subject:
I recall some time ago, when SNTC presented you w/links to sources, they were dismissed as...? Pagan sources, if I remember rightly. The exact quote is:
"You just make assertions. These site’s are as about as authoritative as you are on this subject."


Did I quote a pagan source? Another dodge to avoid admitting Pagels manipulations? Is Mankowski a nobody who just made up a site for the price of a domain?

Please, make a legitimate comparison—your straw man attacks are week. How many sources did he list?????

So, you won't accept sources that disagree w/you?

No, I don’t accept pagan sources with zero references or substantiation of their material.

W/apologies to the other theist here: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Terribly, TERRIBLY unimpressed.


What’s is unimpressive is your refusal to admit that Pagals manipulated the texts as demonstrated, which you tactically avoid.

Do try better mmmkay?

Beowulf said...

p.s

For what it’s worth, I think his reference to pagals as “a lady novelist” a cheap shot.

p.p.s

Lighten up; life is short ;-}

mmkay?

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Right, clearly a dodge. Any one who can just read plain English can see the devastating blow to Pagals credibility.
It's most definitely not a dodge....I can go look it up. Just haven't yet.
He demonstrated her methodology; which was to distort the meaning—clear and simple.
Does she do that all the time? Was it possible there was an honest error made (if an error was made at all)?
You being you =)
I beg your pardon?
Honestly ;-)
Right, clearly a dodge.
Did I quote a pagan source? Another dodge to avoid admitting Pagels manipulations? Is Mankowski a nobody who just made up a site for the price of a domain?
No, no, no. Go re-read that again.
Please, make a legitimate comparison—your straw man attacks are week. How many sources did he list?????
Straw man? Sorry, I'm the Tin Man. I was talking about YOU, not him. Nice try at redirect.
No, I don’t accept pagan sources with zero references or substantiation of their material.
May as well throw out the whole bible then.
What’s is unimpressive is your refusal to admit that Pagals manipulated the texts as demonstrated, which you tactically avoid.
Hey, I'm not the huge Pagels fan. SNTC is. Actually, I recall finding a misquote (1) in her Gnostic Gospels book. I'm pointing out the failings in the 'analysis' you provided.
What's truly disappointing, is your inability to recognize that Mankowski made some serious errors in his brief encapsulation. Here, I'll list out the fallacies:
1. Strawman
2. Unrepresentative example
3. Poisoning the well.
He also fails to point out how degreed she is. I forget which 1 that is. Sin of omission?
Anyways, I will pick the book up soon, & actually critique it (& I will NOT play favorites, so don't start w/me).
& that mmmmkay thing, well, it makes you sound like a girl. Not an ad hom: I just don't think it's very masculine, is all.
p.s
For what it’s worth, I think his reference to pagals as “a lady novelist” a cheap shot.

Duly noted. There's hope for you yet. ;)
p.p.s
Lighten up; life is short ;-}

Spot on, my friend. Spot on.

GooseHenry said...

Goose:

RA

"Such as....? You may want to check the definition of historiography.
Then your position is very weak.
Keep trying to turn the tables. My position is neither weak nor strong.
I'm not making extraordinary claims here."

Neither am i. I just claim that we have evidence for the existence of Jesus. You claim otherwise without any evidence.

"I can't, but the apostles could, the evidence suggests. The evidence was there for all to see.
Gee willikers, then. Here's this MOMENTOUS event, of which you claim all this HISTORICAL evidence, but 1 would think, w/all the hoopla, said tomb would be enshrined."

Evidence suggest that the apostles could, right? Jerusalem has been sacked&conquered after that, no wonder no one knows where it was anymore.

"Saying "There's no proof JC DIDN'T exist, there should be a counterclaim" is bogus. It's also a fallacy, whether you admit it or not. I'd lay out the examples, but you would just turn around & say, "What? You believe so-and-so DOES exist?""

No. There is evidence Jesus existed. Therefore it is neither fallacious not irrational to assume so until other evidence is unearthed.

If you had evidence of pink unicorns we could assume they exist if counterevidence isn't produced.

"You're a good guy, goose, but your debate skills are negligible at best. No offense. "

You too, and i find your ironic humour very funny:)

I don't think this has anything to do with debating skills anymore... more about the way we look at things.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Neither am i. I just claim that we have evidence for the existence of Jesus. You claim otherwise without any evidence.
Okay, last time here. I don't need to provide evidence. You do.
Evidence suggest that the apostles could, right? Jerusalem has been sacked&conquered after that, no wonder no one knows where it was anymore.
Oy, that doesn't fly well at all. You keep claiming droves of people converted, what was the guesstimate you gave for 60-70 CE? Thousands? You lay claim to this twaddle that the xtian movement grew up almost overnight. How long did the alleged apostles live till? John was rumored to be in his eighties at Patmos.
Point being, that's a lame excuse. I could see records being destroyed or mislaid, but a tomb? Didn't it have an inscription of some kind?
No. There is evidence Jesus existed. Therefore it is neither fallacious not irrational to assume so until other evidence is unearthed.
What, a few brief mentions of the cult existing? You may want to look up the nature of anecdotal evidence. Oh, wait: I did that for you before, didn't I?
Did you ever read the Testimonium from cover to cover, BTW?
If you had evidence of pink unicorns we could assume they exist if counterevidence isn't produced.
You're joking, right? I could very well spray paint a horse pink, give it a party hat, & take a photo. Would that convince you?
Yeesh, next thing, you'll be claiming Bigfoot exists.
You too, and i find your ironic humour very funny:)
Hey, I think my debating skills are far better than yours. But what definition of irony are you using, before I take that the wrong way?
I don't think this has anything to do with debating skills anymore... more about the way we look at things.
Que?!?!?!?!?!? Isn't debate about opposing viewpoints?!?!?!?!?!!??
(I don't think I'll be adopting that ?!? anytime soon. Kinda wackinoid, you ask me)

GooseHenry said...

RA

"Okay, last time here. I don't need to provide evidence. You do."

Evidence of the existence of Jesus? The fact that we are discussing it assumes there is, doesn' it?

So far you've backed up your claim by poisoning the well&pointing out contradictions. If you don't think you need more than that then ok.

"Oy, that doesn't fly well at all. You keep claiming droves of people converted, what was the guesstimate you gave for 60-70 CE? Thousands? You lay claim to this twaddle that the xtian movement grew up almost overnight. How long did the alleged apostles live till? John was rumored to be in his eighties at Patmos.
Point being, that's a lame excuse. I could see records being destroyed or mislaid, but a tomb? Didn't it have an inscription of some kind?"

Well Jerusalem was under moslem rule for 800 years.

"What, a few brief mentions of the cult existing? You may want to look up the nature of anecdotal evidence."

Doesn't matter if it's extensive or not,you build a case from the evidence at hand. If one is objective that is.

"Did you ever read the Testimonium from cover to cover, BTW?"

No

"You're joking, right? I could very well spray paint a horse pink, give it a party hat, & take a photo. Would that convince you?"

Ready to stand for that claim when people start calling you a wacko? Persecuting you physically?

"Hey, I think my debating skills are far better than yours."

Ok. I wasn't commenting your comment about my debating skills though. When i said i find you ironic humour funny i simply meant that i find you ironic humour funny.

If you think your debating skills are better then mine, well that just might be.

"Que?!?!?!?!?!? Isn't debate about opposing viewpoints?!?!?!?!?!!??
(I don't think I'll be adopting that ?!? anytime soon. Kinda wackinoid, you ask me)"

I meant that since you cannot accept the resurrection you probably wouldn't no matter how much textual evidence was presented to you... am i right?

If not, then what would convince you?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Evidence of the existence of Jesus? The fact that we are discussing it assumes there is, doesn' it?
No, the fact that we're debating it at all, means a lot of things.
A. It's a construct that's gone unquestioned far too long, &
B. The historical 'evidence' is sketchy at best.
So far you've backed up your claim by poisoning the well&pointing out contradictions. If you don't think you need more than that then ok.
Well, I'd like you to point out where & when I poisoned the well, please. Pointing out contradictions is standard fare in squeezing out the particulars.

Well Jerusalem was under moslem rule for 800 years.
Terrible point. You forget, JC plays a substantial role in muslim cosmology.
Doesn't matter if it's extensive or not,you build a case from the evidence at hand. If one is objective that is.
True, but you don't build a case from anecdotal evidence. Only the religious do that.
Ready to stand for that claim when people start calling you a wacko? Persecuting you physically?
Terrible, TERRIBLE effort at redirect. We were talking about evidence & counter-evidence. Right back to argument from martyrdom, for the nth time.
Ok. I wasn't commenting your comment about my debating skills though. When i said i find you ironic humour funny i simply meant that i find you ironic humour funny.
Ummmm....thanks?
If you think your debating skills are better then mine, well that just might be.
I appreciate your courtesy. It can be disarming.
I meant that since you cannot accept the resurrection you probably wouldn't no matter how much textual evidence was presented to you... am i right?
Exactly. Your textual 'evidence' is abysmal, to say the least.
If not, then what would convince you?
We've had this discussion before.
A press of the flesh, a touch from on high, some sort of revelation. That, my friend, would be proof indeed.

say no to christ said...

bf

Do you understand the latin language and how to interpret it? Or any other of the ancient languages? I dont, but I am not taking a theologians translations over a highly acredited christian historians. What we have here is his word against hers and the biggest problem with Mankowski's claims are...
1) he is not a christian historian
2) he does not have the experience that she does in dealing with translations of religious texts
And
3)he is a theologian who follows an orthadox set of beliefs and has an agenda behind smearing Pagels good name.

Now I dont see myself as a big fan of hers, not like I am of Acharya S. or Barbra Walker, but I do follow Pagels work cuz it is reliable and unbias source.

Goosehenry

You keep going on and on about all the evidence of Jesus existance. Where is all this evidence you talk about? Every historian christains claimed to have mentioned Jesus turns out to be pure assumumptions on hopeful christians part and that just doesnt "fly well with me" as RA would say.

Amy

GooseHenry said...

RA

"No, the fact that we're debating it at all, means a lot of things.
A. It's a construct that's gone unquestioned far too long, &
B. The historical 'evidence' is sketchy at best."

Scholars would disagree with you. We have more evidence for Christ than for many others of the time (who are considered historical)

"Well, I'd like you to point out where & when I poisoned the well, please."

I mentioned some apologists. They were lousy or had said something about your martial art. The historians just repeat what they have been told etc.

"Terrible point. You forget, JC plays a substantial role in muslim cosmology."

Islam is terribly hostile to christianity

"True, but you don't build a case from anecdotal evidence. Only the religious do that."

The consencus seems to be that the evidence is there. Might be an appeal to authority, but then again considering it anecdotal is subjective. You build a case on no evidence at all.

"Terrible, TERRIBLE effort at redirect. We were talking about evidence & counter-evidence. Right back to argument from martyrdom, for the nth time."

For the nth time i don't deliberately try to redirect anything. I mean that if you don't believe your claims yourself, why would anyone else?

"Exactly. Your textual 'evidence' is abysmal, to say the least."

It is there. The major differene is between 0 and 1, not 3 and 4.
Whatever our opinion is about it, it is there. That is how you build a case. Why would the textual evidence for Christ deserve special treatment?

say no to christ said...

Goosehenry said: "Why would the textual evidence for Christ deserve special treatment?"

Cuz the early church fathers controlled all aspects of life and that includes religious writings, beliefs and everyday life. The early church fathers were so controling that they even determined when and how to have sex. When a religious organiztion takes complete control like the early church fathers did, tons of lies that get passed off as facts.

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
Scholars would disagree with you. We have more evidence for Christ than for many others of the time (who are considered historical)
Last time you said that, you backpedaled.
NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. I don't care what Holding claims.
I mentioned some apologists. They were lousy or had said something about your martial art. The historians just repeat what they have been told etc.
Well, then, let's do this: NO SUPERNATURAL apologists. Let's stick to the REAL facts.
Islam is terribly hostile to christianity
I'd advise you actually do some research. That's incorrect.
The consencus seems to be that the evidence is there. Might be an appeal to authority, but then again considering it anecdotal is subjective. You build a case on no evidence at all.
I don't have a case. You have nada, zilch, zip.
For the nth time i don't deliberately try to redirect anything. I mean that if you don't believe your claims yourself, why would anyone else?
Horse puckey. I've seen you redirect several times, here & elsewhere.
It is there. The major differene is between 0 and 1, not 3 and 4.
Whatever our opinion is about it, it is there. That is how you build a case. Why would the textual evidence for Christ deserve special treatment?

I have no idea what you mean about 0 & 1.
Good point. Why should the textual 'evidence' (if you want to call it that) deserve special treatment?
It doesn't. Ergo, easily dismissable as the lunatic ravings of a cult out of control.
It's not evidence. It's not even real.
It's just a story you're fond of, is all.

GooseHenry said...

RA

I am not talking about Holding, i am talking about scholars. In general

"Well, then, let's do this: NO SUPERNATURAL apologists. Let's stick to the REAL facts."

Ok. Fact: no matter what personal opinion we hold about the gospels, people have been considered historical with much less background info

"I'd advise you actually do some research. That's incorrect."

Now Islam is not hostile to christianity? Even in a secular state like Turkey it's hard to be christian, no to mention the moslem nations.

Tell a moslem that Allah has become a man and been killed

"Horse puckey. I've seen you redirect several times, here & elsewhere."

It ws unintentional then, sorry. Now back to the question: if you don't believe your claims yourself, why would anyone else?

"I have no idea what you mean about 0 & 1."

I mean the major difference is if the evidence exists or not. Not what value we subjectively assign it.

If the same amount of info that we have about Jesus would exist for some other "natural" character, would you see this character as historical?

Krystalline Apostate said...

Goose:
I'm still somewhat irked at the well-poisoning charge, so let's indulge in a little back story:
Back when I was researching xtianity (I was seriously going to become a convert), I came across an article on Tai Chi on letusreason.org. There were numerous errors, & zero scholarship invested. There were a few instances of anecdotal 'evidence' (that's NOT subjective). The claim was that chi (which is a fundamental principle in TCC) was occultic in nature. I tried to discuss this w/Mr. Rhodes. He claimed that the article was very well-researched, when in fact, it was not. He cited zero sources, outside of a few xtian black belts (which, in this country, are a dime a dozen).
Next, to Holding.
I can't stand this asshole. He pissed all over Thomas Paine's good name, consistently stoops to ad hominem, is (in my subjective opinion) exceptionally dishonest. His answer on agape was that, in the tradition of moses & JC, it's okay for apologists (or any other xtians) to go after apostates (I see this particular little contradictory behavior in a lot of online apologists).
These two guys (along w/McDowell) were very convincing arguments NOT to join your little cult.
Ok. Fact: no matter what personal opinion we hold about the gospels, people have been considered historical with much less background info
Like whom?
Now Islam is not hostile to christianity? Even in a secular state like Turkey it's hard to be christian, no to mention the moslem nations.
Only if you can't mind your own business, I'd guess. Jews, muslims & xtians are all 'people of the book', remember?
Tell a moslem that Allah has become a man and been killed
Do you know any muslims? Have you talked to any? Maybe you should go get some 'anecdotal' evidence before you go any further w/that.
Now back to the question: if you don't believe your claims yourself, why would anyone else?
My claims? Elucidate, please.
I mean the major difference is if the evidence exists or not. Not what value we subjectively assign it.
Oh, so now mathmatical values are subjective? Only if you program computers.
If the same amount of info that we have about Jesus would exist for some other "natural" character, would you see this character as historical?
Depends. Give me an historical character that has LESS historical 'evidence' than JC. Robin Hood never existed. Perfect example. Folk legend only. King Arthur: another legend, likely never existed. John Henry? Doubtful. Paul Bunyan? No. Johnny Appleseed? Could be, but romanticized.
& before you start in w/your usual circular logic:
None of these claimed to have risen from the dead.
So I will not give credence to ANY of them. So: ball's back in your court.
Personally, I'm a little sick of talking about religion.

say no to christ said...

Goodmorning all :)

I just read 'The Hebrew Pharaohs Of Egypt' by Ahmed Osman who was born in Cairo to Egyptian Muslim parents. He points out that the muslim and christian scriptures are the same, but the bible is more detailed. The gospels are a part of the Quaran, but they believe Jesus was a devine prophet and not god himself. That is the only difference between the two(except for who abraham was going to sacrifice, they believe it was Isaac, but Osman disagrees with the Quaran and agrees with the bible). Anyway he claims that the kings of the eighteenth dynasty... Amenhotep III, Amenhotep lV/Akhenaten/Moses, Semenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Aye who served in that order were of Hebrew descent and that Joseph is the grandfather/great grandfather of them all. He even uses that bible, the Quaran, Egyptian steles and writing to map out the connections. He says Akhenaten caused a religious uproar by shutting down all the temples to the other gods and banning the worship of all gods but his. This is what has caused the great rift between the Hebrews and Egytians to this day.

Right now I am in the middle of reading 'Moses and Akhenaten' The Secret History of the Exodus by Ahmed Osman. He claims that the exodus did happen but not exactly as the bible claims it did and that both sides(egyptian and hebrew) tried to hide the blood connections between them and the Egyptians tried to erase all traces of the Hebrew Pharaohs.

This of course isnt the full story, just a briefing I thought you all might be interested in. I have to say the books are pretty convincing.