Egyptian Account of Exodus.

a reply to: windword

You claimed that there was all kinds of evidence for a person named "Jesus of Nazareth". Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny and Suetonius do NOT mention the name Jesus, ever, let alone Nazareth!

I never claimed they referenced that name verbatim. This is you arguing out of pride, and its no where near as intriguing as when you are honest. In the context of Christianity or both Christianity and the explusion of the Jews under Claudius, the only person suetonius could have been referring to is Jesus. Unless you have some counter evidence please swallow the pride and quite making foolish arguments.

I never said those words didn't predate Christ. I said only he was famous enough to be spoken of without further detail. I also pointed out that Christus and Chrestus were different titles....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The scholarly consensus is against you.

Argument from authority

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence, as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That isn't a misconception. Most already understand this.

If most understand this, then why do so many of them treat it as one source when studying the NT documents. There is no evidence what so ever for a Q source other than complete speculation. None of the early church fathers quote or mention a Q source. There are no fragments of a q source. No references to a q source at all...so as I said earlier we have to look at the evidence we have and make an educated opinion. Your opinion of a Q source has nothing to substantiate its claim in history, therefore I reject it. Thats my educated opinion.

Please explain what you meant by subjective rather than objective claims. I know what the words mean, but its an odd use of them to me.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

WW isn't arguing out of pride, he's arguing out of frustration.

Personally, I find it no surprise that when you use the bible to reference the bible, you find exactly what you want to find.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

No its not always right, but unless you can produce so viable counter evidence there is no rational reason to assume the consensus is wrong. As I said earlier, the best we can do with history is make an educated opinion. So far you have offered up only your opinion versus the scholarly opinion. Yours loses without any counter evidence to support your view of the historical evidence available.

a reply to: windword

This is not an argument from authority. The person I said that to produced no evidence. I didn't say it as a refutation against evidence. I said as a refutation against an opinion that has not had one piece of evidence produced for its validity. I have mentioned specifics. None of those specifics have been refuted with a rational argument.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Eunuchorn

I think he was mocking your calling those things "historical facts". Just a guess. 'Fraid I agree with him..

The vast majority of NT scholars regardless of their world view will agree that those things I have said are considered historical fact. So it really doesn't matter if you agree or not. The scholarly consensus is against you.

Just because you and him don't like implications of those facts doesn't make them any less valid. You and him both have produced no counter evidence.

There are no such things as "facts", there is only implication, assumption, & extrapolation.


In the end, I'm simply not as convinced by hearsay as you are.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Personally, I find it no surprise that when you use the bible to reference the bible, you find exactly what you want to find.

Yea people with no quick form of communication from different timespans, and geological areas created 66 documents all about the same event. The death of Jesus. I'd say its a miracle that you find what I find when I research the Bible.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'll give you a rational argument when you give me rational specifics, not the specifics ingrained into your grandparents, parents, & yourself by an everlasting & power hungry force of long term conditioning.

Jeezus, wasn't this thread about the Kolbrin bible & the Egyptian version of the exodus?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I never claimed they referenced that name verbatim.

You claimed as much when you said:

I think its pretty clear there was a guy name Jesus of Nazareth who many came to believe was the Messiah.

I also pointed out that Christus and Chrestus were different titles....

You claimed "Chrestus" was a misspelling of "Christus", which is a common approach of Christian apologetics when they're faced with facts that contradict their claims.

Also, Chrestus was a common mispelling for Christus for those who were ignorant at least it was at the time of Lactantius.

However, it is now the scholarly consensus that the original Latin of this passage must have been the following:

"Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit"
This latter version with the word Chrēsto, not Christo, is what our earliest extant manuscripts relate. Contrary to what Christian apologist Josh McDowell and other fundamentalists assert, and despite the fact that the two words are evidently related through the roots χρίω and χράω, "Chrēsto," the ablative of Chrestus, is not an "another spelling of Christ." These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means "good," "righteous" or "useful"; while Christos denotes "anointed" or "messiah." Hence, although an earlier generation of scholars believed that this Suetonian passage reflected the uprisings of Jews against Christians in Rome, we are not certain at all that this purported "reference" in Suetonius has anything to do with Christ and Christians.

In addition, the event in which Claudius expelled Jews from Rome is recorded elsewhere in other histories - without the "impulsore Chresto" claim - and seems to date to around 49, 52 or 53 AD/CE, an incident that apparently was unrelated to a historical Jesus of Nazareth and cannot serve as evidence for his historicity.

SOURCE


Looks like this is another pious fraud and a Suetonius is another victim of Christian interpolation.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I'll give you a rational argument when you give me rational specifics, not the specifics ingrained into your grandparents, parents, & yourself by an everlasting & power hungry force of long term conditioning.

I've given you specifics from early writers that predate my grandparents, parents and me....nice attempt to dodge supporting your weak claim.

Jeezus, wasn't this thread about the Kolbrin bible & the Egyptian version of the exodus?

Oh you were perfectly ok with the topic earlier...now that I am calling you out on lack of evidence you want to pull up a red herring?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Eunuchorn

I'll give you a rational argument when you give me rational specifics, not the specifics ingrained into your grandparents, parents, & yourself by an everlasting & power hungry force of long term conditioning.

I've given you specifics from early writers that predate my grandparents, parents and me....nice attempt to dodge supporting your weak claim.

Jeezus, wasn't this thread about the Kolbrin bible & the Egyptian version of the exodus?

Oh you were perfectly ok with the topic earlier...now that I am calling you out on lack of evidence you want to pull up a red herring?

Uh, no, I just don't like going in circles. It's boring. & the Kolbrin bible will always provide me with far more entertainment than anything anyone could ever say about jesus.

a reply to: windword

*waves hand*
Just a simple mispelling, nothing rewritten or retranslated wrong here, noooo sir.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Oh you were perfectly ok with the topic earlier...now that I am calling you out on lack of evidence you want to pull up a red herring?

WHOA.

Whoa. Did you just really type this?
LOLOLOLOL!!!

Just suck it up, and have a rational discussion. "Lack of evidence" is the tool of those in opposition of your beliefs.
You're way behind in terms of producing evidence.

But, I understand, you're new at Apologetics. This probably isn't the best 'training ground' for you yet.



Unless, of course - you're ready for the exam. Because here is where that will happen.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Because they all use the same circular reasoning to prove themselves. They quote earlier books as evidence for the claims that they are making in the new books. Yet none of the original claims were ever proven with real evidence. So it is just one long circular chain of agreeing with itself.

Please explain what you meant by subjective rather than objective claims. I know what the words mean, but its an odd use of them to me.

Subjective claims are anything written down or said by a human. Objective claims are anything shown by physical evidence. The bible is a bunch of subjective claims since it is a book written by humans. None of the claims are tested or explained how to be tested in the bible so we have to just assume that these people are telling the truth. Quite a tall order when humans are prone to lie. If you want to make a subjective claim, you better be able to back it up with objective evidence.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The best part about that post was how he called my trying to get back to the topic of the thread title, a thread he created, a red herring.
LoL!

a reply to: windword

I never claimed they referenced that name verbatim.

You claimed as much when you said:

I think its pretty clear there was a guy name Jesus of Nazareth who many came to believe was the Messiah.

Here you are being dishonest again rather than having a discussion. In no way does this imply the words Jesus of Nazareth verbatim. You told me I had reading comprehension problems earlier. Seems like your the one experiencing that issue now.

You claimed "Chrestus" was a misspelling of "Christus", which is a common approach of Christian apologetics when they're faced with facts that contradict their claims.

Ok now lets look at what I actually said:

"There is a dispute over whether this a reference to Jesus because Chrestus is a correct spelling for a name. So the skeptical approach is that this is some other Jewish agitator. However this is unconvincing."

Now lets look at your source:


"These terms represent Latinizations of two different Greek words that sound quite similar: Chrēstos, sometimes a proper name, means 'good,' 'righteous' or 'useful'; while Christos denotes 'anointed' or 'messiah.' "


I already mentioned it. I just didn't go into as much detail. Already read that entire page before any who.

Also if you will read what I said about it being a mispelling you'll see that I referenced a 4th century time frame...it was just a side not that makes it more likely that this was a simple mispelled.

Looks like this is another pious fraud and a Suetonius is another victim of Christian interpolation.

Please explain to me how you jumped to this completely irrational conclusion.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Uh, no, I just don't like going in circles

We aren't going in circles. I produce evidence. You spout an uncorroborated opinions as though they hold any weight without counter evidence. I pressure you for it and you change the subject. Classic Red Herring.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Just suck it up, and have a rational discussion. "Lack of evidence" is the tool of those in opposition of your beliefs. You're way behind in terms of producing evidence.

Except I am the only one who has evidence corroborating their claims. Anyone can see that by simply re-reading the post. I have given Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny as evidence for Jesus existence and his crucifixion. People have done nothing to show these are not references to Jesus. They have simply said they are not. I have given logical proofs as to why these are references of Jesus of Nazareth, although any rational person wouldn't need input to realize these people are talking about Jesus the Christ.

But, I understand, you're new at Apologetics. This probably isn't the best 'training ground' for you yet.

Not new, been studying the Bible for over 3 years daily. You never answered why such a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Christians? What did they do to you?

I have sat here asking people to produce evidence of their claims. They haven't done that at all. Because all the evidence we have says these three sources are referencing Jesus.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because they all use the same circular reasoning to prove themselves. They quote earlier books as evidence for the claims that they are making in the new books.

Who or what is they? This argument isn't very clear and its also way to broad making it logically fallacious.

Subjective claims are anything written down or said by a human.

This is simply not true, and I'll show you with one claim:
"Something is itself." This isn't subjective, and it doesn't require any form of physical evidence to prove its validity. It is a simple truth statement.

Objective claims are anything shown by physical evidence.

This coming from the guy who made reference to the Q source earlier?

This may be true in Science, but not history. You said " None of the claims are tested or explained how to be tested in the bible so we have to just assume that these people are telling the truth. " No historical claim can be tested or explained how to be tested. You are trying to act as though we should have repeatable evidence for historical claims. Thats simply not the case. Can a historical claim ever be proven? No. As I have said multiple times we can only come up with an educated opinion. That doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid

edit on 10-3-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: The rest of my post isn't showing up trying to post edit to reveal

edit on 10-3-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-3-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)