Jesus is still a historical figure in written history
Could you please prove that?
I used the name Jesus of Nazareth, because that's the name you presented as the legend. It can be shown Jesus did dwell in an Earlier Nazareth. Lee Strobel shows that in the Case for Christ. Jesus is still a historical figure in written history
There was no "earlier" Nazareth... There was no Nazareth at all until well after Jesus died. No way could Jesus be from Nazareth since it didn't exist while he was alive.
There are other Roman writers other than Philo who talk of Jesus. Even without the Miraculus, it is clear that Jesus or your "Jesus of Nazareth" was indeed a true historical person.
Josephus traveled through Israel back and forth, and practically combed the area, and wrote about the cities and villages etc. He never met Jesus and he never found Nazareth, at that was during Jesus lifetime.
Philo was a Jew philosopher that was influenced by hellenistic ideas, and he wanted to find a better way of explaining God and understanding God. He was open for change and new ideas. He was in Jerusalem for a while, and most likely traveled in Israel. He would have been a perfect candidate to write the first Gospel. He wrote many books and was high educated scholar. He wanted more of God, but Jesus never even talked to him? They must have practically stepped on each other, when Jesus was preaching to 5000 men (and not counting women and children).
They didn't write such things for the same reason you or I wouldn't today. They we're witnesses, and such is a needed to be a reliable source.
The Gospel of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John was first of all not written by the authors that have given the names to them, but by second or third generation of believers. Not first hand witnesses. I can tell that you have not studied the history of your own religion more than 5 minutes in your life. You better start reading up on this subject, because you're making a fool out of yourself, and I don't want you to do that. You need to step up in knowledge and skills.
As for the rest, you Create the loops. The Jesus Seminars Purpose was to find the historical Jesus. Do you know how they did that? They casts beads. No research, no debates, just beads. How are these reliable Historians.
The Jesus Seminar has been an ongoing work for almost 30 years as 200 scholars discuss and debate and study primary texts using all of the skills of textual criticism and evaluation in determining what is verifiable and what isn't.
The only reason you say they don't speak for "christianity" is because it isn't your flavor. I'm sure this would be news to them. Just because these folks don't start with the presupposition that the HOLY BIBLE is the innerrant word of GOD doesn't mean a thing. All it means is that they are still able to think for themselves, unlike you
.
A soucre that explains the virgin birth of Anakin Skywalker is not a reliable souce. The mere presence of that one name shows a bias in assuming you can compare fiction with fact.
Adonis born pre 2000 BC of virgin Astarte, for whom the spring festival of rebirth, Eastros was named, called both God the Father and Son, Crucified to save mankind and then resurrected.
* Horus born 1550 BC of virgin Isis (Egyptian name for Astarte) received gifts from 3 kings, was crucified on cross, many other similarities to Jesus story.
* Krishna born 1200 BC of virgin Devake, (angelic voice announced his birth to her) in a cave, (early Christian writings claimed Jesus born in cave, not manger) heralded by a bright star, while foster father in city to pay taxes, evil king Kansa tried to kill savior by ordering slaughter of all male children, visited by wise men with gifts, many sayings and teachings similar or identical to Jesus' teachings, performed many miracles and was crucified.
* Indra born 725 BC of virgin, walked on water, other miracles, similar teachings, crucified-nailed to cross.
* Mithra born of virgin 600 BC, Dec 25, born in a cave, magi brought gifts, shepherds worshipped, had 12 disciples, died on cross to atone for mankind's sins, ascended to heaven at spring equinox (Eastros). Held last supper with his 12, celebrated a type of Eucharist with wafers marked with a cross.
* Attis, born of virgin Nana 200 BC, hanged on tree, resurrected, called Father God, died as atonement of sins, followers celebrated his resurrection on Eastros by parading in streets carrying small decorated pine trees and exchanging gifts.
Josephus does make mention of Jesus, he just ignores the miraculous because he is writing of Jesus History, and the Jewish People never accepted his miracles. There are other Roman writers other than Philo who talk of Jesus. Even without the Miraculus, it is clear that Jesus or your "Jesus of Nazareth" was indeed a true historical person.
It's well proven that the verse where Josephus mentions Jesus is fake. It's very clear.
Josephus would NEVER write Jesus the Christ, since he was a dedicated Diaspora Jew.
It would be like you saying that Mohammed was a prophet sent by God telling you the true and new Gospel in the Quran. You would never say that, would you? So how can you think a Jew would call someone the Christ?
Robin Hood, William Tell and King Arthur are not the names written is historical documents. Jesus has the same name, just Jesus
That's a ridiculous argument! Jesus comes from Joshua, which means savior. It's the same name. So it's really not Jesus, but Joshua in Hebrew. But in Greek is 'Ihsoys (or something similar).
Again, Josephus had no reason to record that which was common knowledge. Herod was a violent ruler, and no one would argue the point.
Gnosticism and Docetism were two theologies that seemed acceptable because the witnesses of the true Christ had not been able to spread the truth as fast as those who created these myths.
I Do Not discuss things with those who will not show respect to those they discuss with. FYI, I began studying Docetism in September along with my Christian Thought class. You're posts prove rude and arrogant.
Again, read the History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson.
He's a Christian, and you'll get a little better insight in what is said here.
You do know that the oldest fragments of the Bible were found together with the Gnostic writings. The Gnostic religion is believed to have predated Jesus himself, but were influencing Christians already the first century. How could that be, when you claim these authors didn't have to write about the miracles because the miracles were well known?
Arthur first appears in Welsh literature. In a surviving early Welsh poem, the Gododdin (ca. 594), the poet Aneirin (ca. 535–600) writes of one of his subjects that "he fed black ravens on the ramparts, although he was no Arthur"  but this poem as it currently exists is full of interpolations, and it is not possible to decide if this passage is an interpolation from a later period. The following poems attributed to Taliesin are possibly from a similarly early date: The Chair of the Sovereign, which refers to "Arthur the Blessed"; Preiddeu Annwn ("The Treasures of Annwn"), mentions "the valour of Arthur" and states "we went with Arthur in his splendid labours"; and the poem Journey to Deganwy, which contains the passage "as at the battle of Badon with Arthur, chief giver of feasts, with his tall blades red from the battle which all men remember."
Another early reference to Arthur is in the Historia Britonum, attributed to the Welsh monk Nennius, who is said to have written this compilation of early Welsh history around the year 830. In this work, Arthur is referred to as a "leader of battles" rather than as a king. Two separate sources within this compilation list twelve battles that he fought, culminating in the battle of Mons Badonicus, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. According to the Annales Cambriae, Arthur was killed at the Battle of Camlann in 537.
Arthur makes an appearance in a number of well-known Welsh vitae ("Lives") of 6th-century saints: for example, in the Life of Saint Illtud, he is said to be a cousin of that churchman. Many of these appearances portray Arthur as a fierce warrior, and not necessarily as morally impeccable as in later Romances. According to the Life of Saint Gildas (died ca. 570), written in the 11th century by Caradoc of Llancarfan, Arthur killed Gildas' brother Hueil, a pirate on the Isle of Man.
Source: Wikipedia
King Arthur was mentioned in historical writings. Read the bold-face text above!
Lee Strobel shows that in the Case for Christ.
Nazareth is not even listed in the existing cities, towns, villages or huts by Josephus!
The word Nazareth, comes from the poor interpretation of that Jesus was a nazaree, or more accurately a nazir. The same thing as Simpson. He was a nazir. I think the meaning is "Dedicated to God".
Lee Strobel's arguments are fairly poor, and he sets up his "case" by putting words into the mouths of skeptics that can only set them up for a fall. He spends the entire book batting away soft blows but does not once ever attempt to take a strong hit.
I think you need to do a bit more reading. Lee Strobel's "Case"s have all been thoroughly exposed, refuted, debunked, defeated, and trashed. The sad part for you is that, unfortunately, you don't really have anyone better to turn to.
It's impossible to defend the errors, absurdities, stupidity, logical contradictions, lack of evidence FOR and wealth of evidence AGAINST Christianity and the bible. Apologist's powers only work on the weak-minded and those who already believe. You can fool a person who knows nothing of the bible into fear and conversion, but it won't work on me
I must, respectfully, correct your incorrect assessment of why people are atheists. I am an atheist. Your statement about me is very wrong. My rejection of Christianity is not because I can't believe in things I cannot see. My rejection of Christianity is because it has no credible verification historically. I was a Christian for many years and had no difficulty believing in an invisible God - until I really dug into studying the Bible. Fathom that?
You rationalize away why no historical writers, outside of the biased Biblical writers, mentions anything about Jesus. They do not mention anything about him - miraculous or just plain old human. Josephus didn't like the Romans - yet he mentions them extensively, so your comments are baseless. You're stretching to hang on to believe against the real evidence.
Your comment that the sun being dark for three hours was not mentioned because it was common knowledge and did not bear mentioning: I'm trying seriously to be respectful here... frankly it's an absurd reach to say that. Those same historians, who fail to mention that, include incredibly mundane things in excruciating detail on everything else. It is incomprehensible that they would not speak of massive earth quakes, the sun darkening, dead people crawling out of the grave and wandering around Jerusalem in plain site of everyone. Face it, there's no way this would only have been recording in the Bible.
You will find that the foundation of Christianity is perhaps it's very weakest point. It is for that reason I reject it, not because I cant' accept something I can't see. I accept gravity, but the difference is there is credible evidence for it. There is not for the Bible story of Jesus. Hence why this atheist doesn't believe it.
Thought class. You're posts prove rude and arrogant.
Your holy book says you shouldn't judge, only your imaginary friend can.
So shut up with the judgements, and just answer the questions and observations that I make at you, okay? Thanks.
More on Celsus. Quote taken from the article "Celsus on Christianity", Celsus quotes translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press.
"CELSUS, (178 CE) Wrote, "On the True Doctrine", known primarily from the polemic book, "Contra Celsum," written by Origen of Alexandria in response to Celsus' questions. Celsus' books, along with those of Porphry and others, were condemned by order of Valentinian III and Theodosious in 448 CE. Celsus' writing is one of the few writings made in response to christian claims that survives today in any form; the church, beginning with its first alliances with Roman power in Constantine's time, never took criticisms lightly; anyone with the audacity to question their claims was branded a "heretic", and their books were banned and burned, often alongside their authors. Celsus is one of the handful of critics who have not been written completely out of history."
Now, for a few Celsus quotes:
"It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters... are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the original writings, three, four, and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism."
"One ought to first follow reason as a guide before accepting any belief, since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived."
"What an absurdity! Clearly the christians have used the myths of Danae and the Melanippe, or of the Auge and the Antiope in fabricating the story of Jesus' virgin birth."
"After all, the old myths of the greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works on behalf of mankind - and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories of your followers"
"In all of these beliefs you have been deceived; yet you persist doggedly to seek justification for the absurdities you have made doctrines"
"Let's assume for a minute that he foretold of his resurrection. Are you ignorant of the multitudes who have invented similar tales to lead simple minded hearers astray? It is said that Zamolxis, Pythagoras' servant, convinced the Scythians that he had risen from the dead... and what about Pythagoras himself in Italy! - or Rhampssinitus in Egypt. The last of these, by the way, is said to have played dice with Demeter in Hades and to have received a golden napkin as a present from her. Now then, who else: What about Orpheus among the Odrysians,Protesiaus in Thessaly and above all Heracles and Theseus."
"They [christians] postulate, for example, that their messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of believing Christians, will be consumed in fire. An interesting idea - and hardly an original one. The idea came from the greeks and others - namely, that after cycles of years and because of fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession... This is responsible for the same silly opinion of some christians that god will come down and rain fire upon the earth."
"Not only do they misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even stoop to assigning words of the philosphers to their Jesus. For example, we are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.' Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.' Is one utterance more inspired than the other?"
"Christians, neeldess to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense."
