I am an atheist thread 3

[_A]

There are talking snakes in the gospels? Where?

In the old testament. There are plenty of impossible stories to use in the NT, though. Like someone coming back from the dead.
It doesn’t happen. Claiming it did would require quite a pile of evidence.

Why? If x amount of evidence is sufficient to establish one historical event, xshould be sufficient to establish another. The only question is whether you want to accept it.

No, if one is an ordinary claim, ordinary evidence will do. If the claim is beyond ordinary, then evidence beyond ordinary will be required.

It is quite simple, I don’t know how I can explain it better.

I’m not asking you to disprove all other possibilities. I’m just trying to figure out what you believe, so we can work together to determine if it’s a reasonable belief. You won’t tell me. You just shrug and say “I’m no historian”. What am I supposed to do with that?

I do not believe. I have been saying that for quite some time. Is it possible that you have been reluctant to accept this simple statement of mine?

What is his evidence? Tell me that, and I’ll be happy to discuss it. But I can’t discuss it if you just say “Ehhhh, I’m sure he has evidence somewhere.”

Well, there are hundreds of thousands of Jews, who believe that. You would do better to ask one, as I am just third-hand info. What impresses me about their belief is that it is older than yours, and still going as a religion. Their books are holier (to them) than your bible. Their beliefs are more true to them.
Why don’t you become a Jew?

I think what you are asking, in a general way, is why I do not accept the catholic faith.
It’s nonsense, as any atheist (OR learned Jew) can plainly see. If there is something in there worth believing, I have not seen it yet.

I would ask why you would treat your faith the same way that people treat facts. I would, but I have asked several ways, and all I seem to get for an answer is that faith word again…

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

It’s quite clear - it is just a book. If you want to claim more for it, you may, but those claims will require evidence. If the claims are small (such as the date it was assembled) then a small amount of evidence will do. If the claims are enormous, then enormous evidence will be required.

But, A, you are the one making the claim. YOU said that the Bible claims to be sufficient. Here’s the quote:

The theory that I have is like this - if the creator of the universe made a book that all humans were supposed to understand, it would be easily understood by all humans.
There is no such book in existence, as far as I know. There are several books making the claim. The one that makes that claim well will be the one that is easily understood by all humans.

Again. YOU said here that the Bible claims to be a book that all humans are supposed to understand. I say it’s not. You are making the claim, YOU have to provide the supporting evidence.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

In the old testament. There are plenty of impossible stories to use in the NT, though. Like someone coming back from the dead.

Just for your information, the old testament is not synonymous with “gospel”.

It is quite simple, I don’t know how I can explain it better.
I do not believe. I have been saying that for quite some time. Is it possible that you have been reluctant to accept this simple statement of mine?

I know you don’t believe that Christianity is true. Believe me, I accept that statement of yours completely.
But you must believe something about its origins. At least, any reasonable person would believe something about it. You implied it is a fabrication, but you won’t go into any further detail. I provided a couple of possible fabrication stories to discuss, and you shrugged and said “I’m no historian”.
You’re kind of stonewalling the conversation.

Well, there are hundreds of thousands of Jews, who believe that. You would do better to ask one, as I am just third-hand info. What impresses me about their belief is that it is older than yours, and still going as a religion. Their books are holier (to them) than your bible. Their beliefs are more true to them.

And here we go back to your old pattern. You make an assertion (Jewish evidence against Christianity). When asked for specifics, you punt.

Why don’t you become a Jew?

Because I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the fulfillment of Judaism.
Because Christian philosophy makes more sense to me than Jewish philosophy.
Because of religious experience in the Catholic church. I’m not presenting that as evidence to convince you, but you asked me why I don’t become a Jew. My personal experiences are part of the answer.
Because the supernatural is the most reasonable explanation for the early history of the church.
Because I have not seen any of this Jewish evidence that you tell me must exist.

I think what you are asking, in a general way, is why I do not accept the catholic faith.
It’s nonsense, as any atheist (OR learned Jew) can plainly see. If there is something in there worth believing, I have not seen it yet.

I would ask why you would treat your faith the same way that people treat facts. I would, but I have asked several ways, and all I seem to get for an answer is that faith word again…

You lost me here.

 

[_A]

But, A, you are the one making the claim. YOU said that the Bible claims to be sufficient. Here’s the quote:

The theory that I have is like this - if the creator of the universe made a book that all humans were supposed to understand, it would be easily understood by all humans.
There is no such book in existence, as far as I know. There are several books making the claim. The one that makes that claim well will be the one that is easily understood by all humans.

No I did not. I would appreciate your not speaking for me.

I say it’s not. You are making the claim, YOU have to provide the supporting evidence.

The word ‘bible’ is nowhere in my quote. The bible is claimed to be ‘enough’ by a christian minister I know…

Which claim do I need to support? Here are my words…

if the creator of the universe made a book that all humans were supposed to understand, it would be easily understood by all humans.
There is no such book in existence, as far as I know.

What claim is in there that you can’t accept?

I did go on to say that there were several claims like this being made about some books, and I still think there are such claims. I don’t have great evidence, so can concede that, but really, are you suggesting that none are making such claims, or just that your favourite church is not making them?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

No I did not. I would appreciate your not speaking for me.The word ‘bible’ is nowhere in my quote. The bible is claimed to be ‘enough’ by a christian minister I know…

I asked you what book you were talking about. You said “the various versions of the bible”. Here’s your post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3279324&postcount=1354

I did go on to say that there were several claims like this being made about some books, and I still think there are such claims. I don’t have great evidence, so can concede that, but really, are you suggesting that none are making such claims, or just that your favourite church is not making them?

I’m suggesting that my church is not making them. It doesn’t matter if a hundred people are wrong, so long as one is right.

 

[Filius99993]

No I did not. I would appreciate your not speaking for me.The word ‘bible’ is nowhere in my quote. The bible is claimed to be ‘enough’ by a christian minister I know…

Which claim do I need to support? Here are my words…
What claim is in there that you can’t accept?

I did go on to say that there were several claims like this being made about some books, and I still think there are such claims. I don’t have great evidence, so can concede that, but really, are you suggesting that none are making such claims, or just that your favourite church is not making them?

Wait, we don’t believe literally in the Bible. It’s much different than that. But we did kind of compile the Scripture for all the other churches to abuse.

 

[_A]

Just for your information, the old testament is not synonymous with “gospel”.

So you just accept the believable parts of the bible? Interesting technique (if that is indeed what you do) I look at the whole thing. That is why I don’t believe. There is much nonsense in there. Snakes don’t talk, the world was not covered by a great flood as is described, and Jewish people don’t come back from the dead. In fact NO-ONE DOES.

I know you don’t believe that Christianity is true. Believe me, I accept that statement of yours completely.
But you must believe something about its origins.

Nope, I do not. In fact, if I believed something about it, I would find that belief and do away with it, in the interest of clearing the way for learning.

At least, any reasonable person would believe something about it.

What are you asking me to believe, specifically? What is it that ‘any reasonable person’ would believe?

You implied it is a fabrication,

I did not. I have pointed this out to you a few times now, and hopefully, you will stop accusing me of hidden meanings. I simply pointed out that a ‘complete fabrication’ theory explains the facts as well as your ‘god’ theory. There are many possible theories, I do not have to refute all of them, as I am making no positive claims.

You’re kind of stonewalling the conversation.

No, just not willing to try to prove a claim I didn’t make.

And here we go back to your old pattern. You make an assertion (Jewish evidence against Christianity). When asked for specifics, you punt.

The fact that there are thousands of Jews believing that your little sect is wrong is clear. I don’t know the particulars of Judiasm, but I do know that they don’t accept Jesus as a god, and they continue to have their own synagogues, instead of joining your church.

Because I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the fulfillment of Judaism.

Leaving aside for the moment that ‘the Christ’ means little to me (wasn’t that just his last name at first?) I think an observant Jew would disagree that this is ‘fulfillment of Judiasm’. Have you interviewed a Jewish scholar to find out if it is Judiasm fulfilled, or are you relying on a Catholic authority to interpret Judiasm?

Because Christian philosophy makes more sense to me than Jewish philosophy.

I know only little bits about either, but you must see that just because you find it easier to understand does not make it right. I worry about you - if you are wrong, you are worshipping the wrong god (not a good position to be in - these gods can be quite jealous). If I am wrong, at least I haven’t committed that offense.

Because of religious experience in the Catholic church. I’m not presenting that as evidence to convince you, but you asked me why I don’t become a Jew. My personal experiences are part of the answer.

Do you give as much weight to a Jew’s personal experience? How about a Muslim?
An atheist?

Because the supernatural is the most reasonable explanation for the early history of the church.

You really think that an interfering (then disappearing) god is a better explanation than stories based in superstition?

Because I have not seen any of this Jewish evidence that you tell me must exist.

I have seen no evidence which would make me believe in walking dead.

You lost me here.

Sorry, I was rambling. I was just wondering out loud why it is that people treat their faith as if it were fact.
I don’t think I will get an answer…I was just rambling…

 

[lkddav]

Because the supernatural is the most reasonable explanation for the early history of the church.
.

Hello NE

What do you think is your best evidence for the existence of jesus christ, the son of god?

les

 

[_A]

I asked you what book you were talking about. You said “the various versions of the bible”. Here’s your post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3279324&postcount=1354

I’m suggesting that my church is not making them. It doesn’t matter if a hundred people are wrong, so long as one is right.

I always understood that the bible was divinely inspired, I guess I rejected the idea of interpreters (priests) with their hand out so long ago, I forgot you are supposed to let them do the understanding.
If you say so, then I will take your word for it, but why would a god need a big business to pollute his message? Why wouldn’t he have just made it clear?
Is it possible that people have been working so hard to make the bible make sense that they haven’t realized that it just doesn’t?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Alright, I think we’ve both said all that need be said.

For my part, I’m sorry I’ve let my temper get the better of me from time to time. I really was trying to have a reasonable conversation, but we just don’t seem to be clicking.

Peace!

 

[_A]

Alright, I think we’ve both said all that need be said.

For my part, I’m sorry I’ve let my temper get the better of me from time to time. I really was trying to have a reasonable conversation, but we just don’t seem to be clicking.

Peace!

NE, it is a pleasure talking to you, even if it does get heated.
I hope you continue to challenge, and offer your understanding.

Oh, and peace to you, too!

 

[c659smith]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

However this is only one part of a hypothesis and further types of evidence nust be shown which I will.

1. The Testimony of History

Cornelius Tacitus (55 A.D.) a heathen historian, who is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, recorded Christ’s crucifixion in detail as seen in his annals contained in 18 volumes.

Josephus (37-97 A.D.) A Jewish historian who wrote the history of his people in 20 volumes recorded the account of the life of Christ, His teaching, His miracles, and the detailed account of His crucifixion, which was ordered by Pontius Pilate. He mentioned also that Christ appeared to the disciples alive on the third day.

Lucian, the Greek, an outstanding Greek historian, wrote on the crucifixion of Christ and of the Christians who were willing to die for their faith in the Christ.

Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor sent to Tiberius Caesar a full report of the crucifixion of Christ. This report was one of the documents with which Tertullian, a Christian scholar, supported his famous defense of the Christians.

1. The Testimony of the Talmud

The Talmud is a holy book for the Jews. A copy published in Amsterdam in 1943 states the following information: “Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover.’ This information is found on page 42.

1. The Testimony of the Old Testament Prophecies

There are over forty-seven prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the death of Christ on the cross, all of which were literally fulfilled.

Some of these is Isa 53: 3-12. Other prophecies fulfilled are found in the following passages:

Prophecy

Fulfillment

Sold with 30 pieces of sliver
Zack. 11:12

Matt. 26: 15

Hated without a cause
Psa. 35:19

John 15: 25

His disciples left Him and ran away
Zack. 13:7

Matt. 16: 31-56

His pierced hands and feet
Psa. 22:16

Luke 23: 33

Casting lots for His garments
Psa. 22:18

John 19: 23-24

His serve thirst
Pas. 22: 15

John 19: 26

Given vinegar in His thirst
Psa. 59: 21

Matt. 27: 34

His acquaintances forsook Him
Psa. 31: 11

Matt. 14: 48-50

Piercing of His side
Zech. 12: 10

John 19: 34-37

He bore the sin of many
Isa. 53: 12

Heb. 9: 28

Intercession for His enemies
Isa. 53: 12

Mark 15: 28

Not one of His bones was broken
Ex. 12: 46-Psa. 34: 20

John 19: 33-36

1. The Testimony of Christ Himself

The death of Christ on the cross plays the most important and climactic role in His life. For this reason the writers of the Gospels gave considerable attention to this matter. In fact, more so than any other part of His ministry. Before His crucifixion, the Lord Jesus spoke on many occasions about His death on the cross and His resurrection. For He said, ‘Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death.” (Matt.20: 18). “From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day”. (Matt. 16:2).

For more detail please read these verses:

Matt. 17: 22; Mark 8: 31; 9: 31; 10: 32b-34; Luke 9: 22; 18: 31-33; John 3: 14-17; 10: 11; 12: 32-33.

1. The Testimony of the Gospel

One half of the Gospel of John and one third of the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are designated to the crucifixion of Christ.

1. The Testimony of John the Baptist

The message of John the Baptist was “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world”. (John 1: 29)

For up until then there had been many lambs, but now there is just one lamb – “the Lamb”

Up until then there had been many lambs chosen by men, but now there is one lamb sent by God “Behold the Lamb of God”.

Up until then there had been lambs that covered sin, now this lamb “takes away sin”

Up until then we had many lambs for the nation of Israel, now we have one lamb for the whole “world”.

In Genesis chapter four we read about one lamb for one person. In Exodus chapter twelve we read about one lamb for the whole family. In Leviticus we read about one lamb for the whole nation, but now Christ, the Lamb of God, for the sin of the whole world.

 

[Mr.Bee]

I always understood that the bible was divinely inspired, I guess I rejected the idea of interpreters (priests) with their hand out so long ago, I forgot you are supposed to let them do the understanding.
If you say so, then I will take your word for it, but why would a god need a big business to pollute his message? Why wouldn’t he have just made it clear?
Is it possible that people have been working so hard to make the bible make sense that they haven’t realized that it just doesn’t?

Unfortunatly A, I have to agree with you.

This is what I’ve experienced however and come to believe (fwiw)

I don’t doubt that Jesus existed and did what he did, and said what he said, in fact if we were to see, hear and experience what really happened, instead of reading about it in the Bible, we would most likely have a diferent and profound understanding.

Lately, since I have been recently struggling with my faith, and doubt, a few things have been explained to me from the Bible, and these minor details have actually had a major impact. Such things as subtle cultural nuances of Jesus’s day, or an explanation of a translation, sometimes make a big difference.

However, again, I agree with you, Why the heck does it need to be explained by someone with a PhD for me to understand?! seems pointless then. So I’ve abandoned reading the Bible and instead choose to listen to life.

But here’s the problem I see. Take the NT story of Jesus calling his disciples. If read literally the events would play out like thisforgive my paraphrasing) Jesus said: “Drop your nets and follow me, I’ll make you fishers of men” So the apostles obediently dropped everything, abandoned their businesses, families and responsibilities and blindly followed Jesus as if in a trance…

I don’t think so. There must be something missing from this story, don’t you think? There is an element that is impossible to write down in words that was present during this event. You had to be there to understand.

I get angry at people that emphatically declare they understand, or that it’s the “truth”. I find it way too confusing and flawed by human intervention to use it as an instruction manual. I believe one needs to question the Bible, challange it, ask for credibility, discern. Otherwise we run the risk of becoming sheeple and following instructions toward disaster

Unfortunatly the Bible is only part of the truth. The other essential part is life.

Yikes! sorry, I ramble

 

[c659smith]

Testimonial evidence part 2

1. The Testimony of Moses

In Deut. 18: 15 Moses spoke about Christ and this prophecy was fulfilled in Acts 3: 22

1. The Testimony of the Nicea Creed

In the year 325AD a group of Christian bishops gathered in the city of Nicea from all over Christendom and pinned down the Christian creed, which summarizes the doctrine of the church. The purpose of this creed was to guard against the heretics, which arose in the Christian church, in the creed they mentioned that Jesus was crucified during the time of Pontius Pilate.

1. The Testimony of the Symbol and Sign of the Cross

The cross-had been the emblem of the Christian church since its inception. They have raised it on the sleepless of their churches and engraved it on their tombs. Their kings wore it on the top front of their crown to remind them of the greatest love of God in the redemption of mankind. Such a symbol is also etched in a great number on the walls of the catacombs in Rome.

1. The Testimony of the Words of Christ on the Cross

No one else but the Lord Jesus would have uttered the seven words from the cross. For who can say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23: 34)

1. The Testimony of Joseph of Arimathea

When Joseph of Arimathea asked Pontius Pilate for the body of Jesus, his request was granted (Mark 15: 42-46), and if the body, which Joseph took from the cross, was not the body of Christ, surely Joseph would have known.

1. The Testimony of Judas Iscariot

The theory, which states that Judas was crucified in the place of Jesus, could not be true for the following reasons:

This will make God a deceiver.

The prophecy of taking the 30 pieces of silver from the chief priest would not have been fulfilled (Zech. 11: 12 and Matt. 26: 15).

The prophecy of taking the money and buying the potter’s field would not have been fulfilled. (Zech 11: 13 and Matt 27: 7).

Judas would have protested by saying I am not Jesus.

1. The Testimony of the Jews

The Jews asked Pilate to seal the tomb not for fear that Christ might come out, but they were afraid that His disciples might come and steal his body and say that He had risen.

1. The Testimony of the Lord’s Supper

“The Lord Jesus the same night He was betrayed took bread and when He had given thanks, He brake it and said. Take eat this is my body which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me… Foras oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup. Ye do shew forth the Lord’s death until He comes” (1Cor. 11: 25b-26).

Throughout history, Christians all over the world gather together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a reminder of God’s most wonderful act of love—that Jesus Christ shed His own blood as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of all mankind.

1. The Testimony of the Apostles’ Teaching

The teachings of the apostles were rooted in their firm belief in the death of Christ on the cross and in His resurrection. There will not be enough room to enumerate the apostles’ teaching in the epistles about Christ’s death and resurrection. Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost said to the Jews: ‘Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know; Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” (Acts 2: 22-23).

1. The Testimony of the Believers Baptism

When the believer is baptized he is testifying that he died with Christ, was buried and rose again into the newness of life. (Rom. 6: 3-6)

1. The Testimony of the Animal Sacrifices of the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, on the Day of Atonement. Sacrifices were required as redemption for the soul (Lev 17: 11). Jews and Christians have the doctrine of the atonement. The Jews celebrate the Passover, the Christians celebrate the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Christ, the Lamb of God became the ultimate sacrifice who gave meaning to all these sacrifices. If these sacrifices are not only the shadow of the real sacrifice, which Christ offered at the cross – then they are rendered meaningless.

 

[c659smith]

Testimonial evidence part 3

1. The Testimony of the Death of the Apostles

It is a well-known fact that all the apostles of Jesus, except for John, died as martyrs because of their faith in the death of Christ on the cross and His resurrection.

May God help you in making the right decision.

‘Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you… that Christ died for our sin according to the scriptures.” (Acts 3: 13-15).

“Being justified freely by his grace though the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Rom. 3: 24)

“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commandeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5: 6-8)

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10: 9).

“ For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness: but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” (1Cor. 1: 18)

“For I determined not to know anything about you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1Cor. 21: 1-2).

“ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.’ (1Cor. 5: 7)

For more information please read the following verses;

Acts 2: 36; 3: 13-15; 4: 10; Rom. 1: 4; 3:24; 4: 24-25; 5: 8; 6:3-4; 6:10; 10:9; 1Cor. 1:18, 23; 2:2; 5:7; 6:14; 11:26; 15:3-4, 17, 20; 2Cor. 4:10-14; 13:4; Gal. 2:20; 4:4; 6:14; Eph. 1:7; 2:13; 5:2; Col. 1:18, 20; 2:12, 14; 3:1; Phil. 2:6-8; 3:18; 1Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 5:10; 1Thim. 2:6; 2Tim. 2:11, 18; Heb. 2:9, 14-15; 5:8; 9:12, 14; 10:10, 14; 12:2; 13:12; 13: 20; 1Peter 1:3; 1:11, 18-19; 2:21-24; 3:18; 4:1; 5:1; 1John 1:7; 3:16; 4:10; Rev. 1:5-7; 5:9, 11

Now I can get 100 times the amount of testomies to include eyewitness testonies.

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

However this is only one part of a hypothesis and further types of evidence nust be shown which I will.

1. The Testimony of History

Cornelius Tacitus (55 A.D.) a heathen historian, who is considered to be one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, recorded Christ’s crucifixion in detail as seen in his annals contained in 18 volumes.

.

Think again…

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions “christus” who is Jesus

Tacitus: “But neither the aid of man, nor the liberality of the prince, nor the propitiations of the gods succeeded in destroying the belief that the fire had been purposely lit. In order to put an end to this rumor, therefore, Nero laid the blame on and visited with severe punishment those men, hateful for their crimes, whom the people called Christians. He from whom the name was derived, Christus, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man.” (Annals XV, 44)

It would be utterly ridiculous to use this, but still, some do.

(1) It is extremely improbable that a special report found by Tacitus had been sent earlier to Rome and incorporated into the records of the Senate, in regard to the death of a Jewish provincial, Jesus. The execution of a Nazareth carpenter would have been one of the most insignificant events conceivable among the movements of Roman history in those decades; it would have completely disappeared beneath the innumerable executions inflicted by Roman provincial authorities. For it to have been kept in any report would have been a most remarkable instance of chance.

(2) The phrase “multitudo ingens” which means “a great number” is opposed to all that we know of the spread of the new faith in Rome at the time. A vast multitude in 64 A.D.? There were not more than a few thousand Christians 200 years later. The idea of so many just 30 years after his supposed death is just a falsehood.

(3) The use of the Christians as “living torches,” as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs. Death by fire was not a punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State.

(4) The Roman authorities can have had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith. How could the non-initiated Romans know what were the concerns of a comparatively small religious sect, which was connected with Judaism and must have seemed to the impartial observer wholly identical with it.

(5) Suetonius says that Nero showed the utmost indifference, even contempt in regard to religious sects. Even afterwards the Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for political reasons, for their contempt of the Roman state and emperor, and as disturbers of the unity and peace of the empire. What reason can Nero have had to proceed against the Christians, hardly distinguishable from the Jews, as a new and criminal sect?

(6) It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It isn’t the most popular way to convert and bring people into their religion.

(7) The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. Why would he risk burning these by lighting human fires amidst all these shelters?

(8) According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, when the fire occurred.

(9) The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, “not even those of condemned criminals.”

(10) It is highly unlikely that he mingled with the crowd and feasted his eyes on the ghastly spectacle. Tacitus tells us in his life of Agricola that Nero had crimes committed, but kept his own eyes off them.

continued

 

[lkddav]

continued ( Tacitus

(11) Some authorities allege that the passage in Tacitus could not have been interpolated because his style of writing could not have been copied. But this argument is without merit since there is no “inimitable” style for the clever forger, and the more unususal, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitus, the easier it is to imitate. Moreover, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned we are, perhaps, interested only in one sentence of the passage and that has nothing distinctively Tacitan about it.

(12) Tacitus is assumed to have written this about 117 A.D., about 80 years after the death of Jesus, when Christianity was already an organized religion with a settled tradition. The gospels, or at least 3 of them, are supposed to have been in existence. Hence Tacitus might have derived his information about Jesus, if not directly from the gospels, indirectly from them by means of oral tradition. This is the view of Dupuis, who wrote: “Tacitus says what the legend said.” In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors.

(13) In no other part of his writings did Tacitus make the least allusion to “Christ” or “Christians.” Christus was a very common name, as was Jesus, in fact Jospehus lists about 20 in the time Jesus was supposedly said to have existed.

(14) Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.

(15) The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called “Christians.” Serapis or Osiris had a large following at Rome especially among the common people.

(18) The expression “Christians” which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, etc. were universally regarded as Jews. They observed the Mosaic law and the people could not distinguish them from the other Jews. The Greek word Christus (the anointed) for Messiah, and the derivative word, Christian, first came into use under Trajan in the time of Tacitus. Even then, however, the word Christus could not mean Jesus of Nazareth. All the Jews without exception looked forward to a Christus or Messiah. It is, therefore, not clear how the fact of being a “Christian” could, in the time of Nero or of Tacitus, distinguish the followers of Jesus from other believers in a Christus or Messiah. Not one of the gospels applies the name Christians to the followers of Jesus. It is never used in the New Testament as a description of themselves by the believers in Jesus.

(19) Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.

(20) This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian’s arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability.

(21) Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.

(22) This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.

(23) Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.

(24) There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works including by your supposed historian.

(25) The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.

(26) In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?

continued

 

[lkddav]

continued ( Tacitus )

(27) Richard Carrier explains that we are actually missing three years in Tacitus, “We are enormously lucky to have Tacitus–only two unrelated Christian monasteries had any interest in preserving his Annals, for example, and neither of them preserved the whole thing, but each less than half of it, nd by shear luck alone, they each preserved a different half. And yet we still have large gaps in it. One of those gaps is the removal of the years 29, 30, and 31 (precisely, the latter part of 29, all of 30, and the earlier part of 31), which is probably the deliberate excision of Christian scribes who were embarrassed by the lack of any mention of Jesus or Gospel events in those years (the years Jesus’ ministry, death, and resurrection were widely believed at the time to have occurred). There is otherwise no known explanation for why those three years were removed. The other large gap is the material between the two halves that neither institution preserved. And yet another is the end of the second half, which scribes also chose not to preserve (or lost through negligent care of the manuscript, etc.).”

(28) Suetonius doesn’t mention this event in his histories.

(29) And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus

les

 

[Paul_Munger]

Your god is supposed to have created all. It’s like miracles - I have heard people call a person who survives a plane crash a ‘miracle’. If that is true, then all the people who died in the crash were also a miracle. If your god did not want sin and death, it would either not exist, or he could not be called all-powerful.
The way I was led to understand it, even a fresh newborn baby has that ‘sin’ on them - though they have not done anything yet.But the bible is (so I am told) the word of a god, while you are just a guy interpreting it. There are many interpretations, just because yours ‘feels good’, does not mean it is the right one.Because someone suggested that he was all knowing and all powerful.
Furnace fire suggests torture by fire. Gnashing of teeth suggests pain. This is his promise, and threat. Your gentler interpretation is warm, but I see no reason to believe that it is anything other than common sense on your part. The bible is full of nonsense.

 

[lkddav]

Testimony · Documentary evidence

I will go down the line with evidence and while aany one alone may have a case for dispute it is the overall evidence (the numerous testominies) that makes testimony credible. I think testimonial evidence must come not only from the bible but from other sources which there is and makes this testimonial evidence credible.

However this is only one part of a hypothesis and further types of evidence nust be shown which I will.

1. The Testimony of History

Josephus (37-97 A.D.) A Jewish historian who wrote the history of his people in 20 volumes recorded the account of the life of Christ, His teaching, His miracles, and the detailed account of His crucifixion, which was ordered by Pontius Pilate. He mentioned also that Christ appeared to the disciples alive on the third day.

.

Notice the last line. Your own church states it is a forgery.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?)

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day” (Antiquities 20:200)

Many problems abound here. Firstly, this is the Arabic translation of the text. Many consider this a more accurate translation, it does not in anyway change the fact that it is an interpolation. I’m using it to show that even if we ignore that faulty greek translation which is not as accurately translated, this passage STILL does not appear until 300 years later when Eusebius, in the 4th century, cited all the “evidences” of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources. Eusebius, who admitted to forging multiple works, as well as lying for the sake of his beliefs, as Gibbon recounts: “I have repeated whatever may rebound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of our religion”

The text Gibbon speaks of is as follows:
"But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young
for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

‘Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.’ - d PLATO

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also
thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction."
(Chp. 31, Book 12 of Prae Paratio Evangelica).

Which is also verified by Robert Ingersoll, “The great religious historian, Eusebius, ingenuously remarks that in his history he carefully omitted whatever tended to discredit the church, and that he piously magnified all that conduced to her glory.” Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 293"

Apparently Eusebius was the first to use this passage because it didn’t exist during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The passage is not found in the early copies of Josephus. Are we to assume it magically appeared there? Please. If it had been authentic you would have heard more about the passage during the centuries prior when the early chruch fathers were struggling to gather any pagan articles on such a person as Jesus. Instead their silence is deadly to this argument.

continued