Ashley's two dozen

Well whether one agrees or disagrees it would take a helluva a lot of work by the OP who while he boasts of his opening arguments being "at length" the only one providing a case at length at all is the one for the existence of Christ. AshleyD this the most impressive piece of work on the subject I have ever seen on the internet. Included in her work are all of the objections I have ever seen also but she seems to have handled those quite convincingly also.

I got to tell you Ashley I think you hit this one out of the park and the Mods too, if you don't get an applause on effort alone they should be ashamed of themselves. This is truly impressive and worthy of publishing IMO.

I am saving this to my favs and laying it on anyone who ever asks me the question about Christs existence again. Just being overwhelmed with that much data while saving me the time and trouble of all that research in and of itself, is something I think anyone would or should appreciate.

I think isaion has his work cut out for him.

I sure don't envy him but

he asked for it.

GREAT JOB!

- Con







[edit on 3-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Conspiriology


odd...
i believe i've actually seen each and every single one of these arguments rebutted in my time on ATS. some i've even tackled by myself.

...but nobody tends to look at the posts that were around before they joined and i dont' feel like addressing old stuff again.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...but nobody tends to look at the posts that were around before they joined and i dont' feel like addressing old stuff again.

On one hand, I don't blame you for not wanting to rehash this tired debate once again. I didn't either until I saw my name in this thread title- something I won't do to you. On the other hand, I was a bit more thorough than just looking around for posts on ATS but also ran some Google searches using the material Iason has posted in his ATS threads and his replies to other ATS threads concerning this topic.

Upon doing so, I found oodles of other forums and threads where he has pasted the same information time and time again, often times verbatim. It looks like we're dealing with a career forum warrior in this case.

I've been collecting them and answering them a little at a time while saving them in MS Word just in case Iason returns here and decides to paste his arguments used on those other forum into this thread. Just thinking ahead.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...but nobody tends to look at the posts that were around before they joined and i dont' feel like addressing old stuff again.

On one hand, I don't blame you for not wanting to rehash this tired debate once again. I didn't either until I saw my name in this thread title- something I won't do to you. On the other hand, I was a bit more thorough than just looking around for posts on ATS but also ran some Google searches using the material Iason has posted in his ATS threads and his replies to other ATS threads concerning this topic.

Upon doing so, I found oodles of other forums and threads where he has pasted the same information time and time again, often times verbatim. It looks like we're dealing with a career forum warrior in this case.

I've been collecting them and answering them a little at a time while saving them in MS Word just in case Iason returns here and decides to paste his arguments used on those other forum into this thread. Just thinking ahead.

Well is he coming back to answer these or was he just testing your reflexes

- Con

reply to post by AshleyD


Did it ever cross your mind the author of the thread cares less for your views or "proof" and more for the number of hits and responces they will get by using your name?

Originally posted by Incarnated
reply to post by AshleyD

 

Did it ever cross your mind the author of the thread cares less for your views or "proof" and more for the number of hits and responces they will get by using your name?

Mmmmm no but that is interesting incarnate to say the least

- Con

Originally posted by Incarnated
Did it ever cross your mind the author of the thread cares less for your views or "proof" and more for the number of hits and responces they will get by using your name?

I definitely knew he had no interest in looking at the evidence but I assumed the use of my name in the title was to grab attention and to make me feel obligated to do something I already made clear in a couple of other threads I was not interested in doing. If I had wanted to make a thread about this subject I would have or if I had wanted to debate this topic with me being the official 'pro' member I would have at least suggested this go down in the debate forum. That is, had I been offered any say so in this matter.

It's not that I dislike this topic- it's a blast. I'm just exhausted and know the OP is not interested in looking at the evidence with an opened mind. So, I didn't answer the OP for him because I knew he wouldn't listen, I didn't do it do defend my ego because everyone knows I have debated this topic a zillion times on here, I didn't do it for God because God doesn't need a defense. I replied to this thread for the sake of fence-riding onlookers who would have assumed my silence on the matter would mean there really is pitiful evidence for Jesus' existence. Hopefully this helped some people.

I was furious at first when I saw this thread but have calmed down a lot. One thing I have noticed is that people will not let you calmly walk away from a debate around here. They will taunt you in threads, U2U's, profile comments, and in this case.... making new threads!

Figured I'd post what I have so far. These are answers to some of Iasion's objections found elsewhere on ATS. To not rehash things we have already discussed, these rebuttals are limited to things not already answered in this thread.



IASION'S CRITICISMS OF JOSEPHUS

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :
* the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.)

* Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present c.200CE.

We've already explored the Testimonium in depth previously in this thread but the argument concerning Origen is simply untrue. From Origen's Commentary on Matthew:

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Origen admits Josephus did not personally believe Jesus was the Christ (an honest admission) but still documents Josephus' acknowledgment that Jesus was believed by some to be the Christ and goes on to assert the destruction of Jerusalem after James' death was due to God’s wrath. 'The so called Christ' and 'called Christ' statements have been explained earlier.

* The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

The main objection here is since no one before Eusebius quoted the Testimonium must be a later interpolation. This is nothing but speculation.

Other objections answered in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IASION'S CRITICISMS OF TACITUS

* Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
* Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
* This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)
So,
this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus,
it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus.

We have already answered the objection about the terminology of procurator and prefect. We have also answered the possibility of him using Pliny as a source. That leaves us with the argument that Tacitus wrote his history based on Christian testimony, therefore making this passage worthless. Even though we have already addressed this one as well, I want to point something out.

This is one of two catch-all safety nets critics use when investigating sources attesting to Jesus' historicity. When all else fails, claim it was either a Christian interpolation or the excerpt was taken from Christian testimony. It doesn't matter if this can be substantiated or not- it's just a way to throw cogs of doubt into the works.

Other objections answered in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IASION'S CRITICISMS OF SUETONIUS

Roughly 80-90 years after the alleged Gospel events, (about 75 years after the war) Suetonius refers to a "Chrestus" who stirred the Jews to trouble in Rome during Claudius' time, but:
* this "Chrestus" is a Greek name (from "useful"), and is also a mystic name for an initiate, it is not the same as "Christos"
* this Chrestus was apparently active in Rome, Jesus never was.
So,
this passage is not evidence for Jesus,
it's nothing to do with Jesus,
it's evidence for Christians grasping at straws.

We have already addressed the 'Chrestus' issue in depth but an interesting factoid is that this event is also recorded in the book of Acts when Paul encounters a married Christian couple who were refugees from Rome when Claudius expelled the Jews.

Other objections answered in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IASION'S CRITICISMS OF IGNATIUS

The letters of Ignatius are traditionally dated to c.107, yet:
* it is not clear if he really existed, his story is suspicious,
* his letters are notoriously corrupt and in 2 versions,
* it is probable that his letters were later forgeries,
* he mentions only a tiny few items about Jesus.
So,
Ignatius is no evidence for Jesus himself,
at BEST it is 2nd century evidence to a few beliefs about Jesus.

I don't know of any historian who questions Ignatius' existence. He left volumes of letters behind so trying to dismiss his entire existence, thus his testimony of Jesus' existence, simply by saying 'it is probable his letters were later forgeries' or all later distorted is somewhat absurd. However, for the sake of intellectual honestly there are some pseudographical/spurious texts associated with Ignatius and his writings are divided into 'recensions.' See: HERE for an even-sided commentary on Ignatius' writings and the updates on the scholarship relating to his writings.

Concerning your objection Ignatius didn't write much about a historical Jesus. Ignatius mentions some very valuable information about Jesus as a man of history (shown earlier) although his letters, like Paul's epistles, were aimed at churches and church leaders. Like the early apostles, they evangelized orally and wrote letters to each other for direction in the church after spreading out geographically. It really is not that surprising he limited his correspondence to church leaders on church issues instead of theology that was taught orally. He was writing to his companions who already knew of Jesus so there was no reason to 'preach to the choir' in other words.

Ignatius explained in full:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IASION'S CRITICISM OF GALEN

Late 2nd century, Galen makes a few references to Christians, and briefly to Christ.
This is far too late to be evidence for Jesus.

On this author I actually agree with Iasion which is why I did not previously mention Galen. The date of authorship is not necessarily the problem in my opinion but in this case it is almost certain he gathered his information from Christians. Therefore, I agree with Iasion in that this is not a solid case for Jesus' historicity.

In case anyone would like to read what Galen has to say anyways, his comments on Christ and Christianity may be read HERE.

IASION'S CRITICISMS OF PAUL'S TESTIMONY OF A HISTORICAL JESUS.

Notably Paul, (like all the 1st century writings), show NO mention of a historical Jesus of Nazareth as found in the Gospels - there is no 1st century mention of any of these major elements of the Gospel story -
* Joseph and Mary and Bethlehem and Nazareth,
* the birth stories, the Magi, the Star, the flight to Egypt,
* Herod and the massacre of the infants,
* John the Baptist or the baptism in the Jordan,
* the trial before Pilate (and Herod?),
* the raising of Lazarus or any miracles of Jesus,
* the cleansing of the temple, the trumphal entry,
* the Sermon on the Mount or any teachings by Jesus,
* the passion of Jesus, or the transfiguration,
* Peter the rock and "the keys",
* the denial by Peter, or betrayal by Judas,
* the empty tomb !!

First of all, I am curious to know what your intentions are with this objection. Due to Paul's position among the Jewish priests it is possible he was at least aware of Jesus but for the most part not even Christians believe Paul was an eye witness to Gospel events. So even if he had mentioned such things, you would have said that. Although Paul does mention some Gospel events, like Ignatius, Paul focused on epistles- not Gospels. It is also mentioned numerous times in his epistles that evangelized the Gospel orally in person but used his epistles for communication with church leaders to handle difficult issues. Not to mention the numerous times he was said to have gotten in trouble for spreading the Gospel orally in public.

Although Paul did mention some things about a historical Jesus, this was not the focus of his letters that have survived until our time.



That's all for now.

[edit on 6/5/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Yeah I think you nailed it whammy, another Atheist bites the dust on yet another great aggregation of many arguments they are losing to Christian logic and understanding. From Science to the histriocity of Christ, seems a new "kinder gentler" Christian has begun a new era at ATS. The kind that doesn't take any BS, the kind that can take all the condescending crap any Atheist can throw at em no different are they than a bunch of monkeys they say are our ancestors slinging dung.

Here we see ATS's most articulate, patient and intelligent Christian apologist being called out by one of the internets most vocal anti Christian revisionist historians in a graffiti contest where he usually air brushes history with his own brand of Atheist history, to confuse those considering belief in Christ as lord and savior.

What prevails here is what Atheists like Madness, ( who couldn't "tackle" this anymore than he can understand english words like "kind") Astyanax and others like them, (not all are like this) get their butts kicked and like madness who also never returned to the thread on Genesis use of the word kind and the number of them who couldn't seem to substantiate macro- evolution in the why darwin thread www.abovetopsecret.com...' where Dave and his buddy got owned also.

this one doesn't return to offer his admission of defeat.

The otherday I had posted to an Atheist who corrected me on a Bible passage and the person sending u2u was surprised I posted the Atheist I was responding to was right and I stand corrected. I responded saying we're Christians, We do that sort of thing when we are wrong, we admit it and in many cases if it warrants an apology, we show remorse asking forgiveness. While it has never been shown we also forgive, the opportunity to forgive has never been asked of us and the threads are left or abandoned like this one.

Left by those Atheists who go on to set us up for bait and alert threads or smear and attack Christians under the transparent guise and name of creationists who they have alleged are Killing ATS.

They are using the same tactics exposed by Ben Stein in the movie Expelled. These Atheists used the same tactics again to attack and discredit the movie for busting them like it did.

Rather than correct their actions the movie so accurately illustrated, they chose to continue using questionable procedures of specious, spurious means until finally,, the United States Government had to step in.

This time they got busted again and what we have always said about them was proven in recently investigated hearings by the United States Senate and they were found guilty of just what I am saying they do here on ATS and all the way to top levels of Science.

Guilty of lieing.

Guilty of fabricating and manufacturing evidence in Science to advance their Atheism.

Guilty of Spying on innocent American Scientists who disagreed with them

Guilty of using riducule and harrassment tactics to stifle further research that proves anything other than their Darwinian myths about origins.

Guilty of collusion writing peer reviews in collaboration with others having a Bias to ruin the careers of others with disenting ideas and opinions.

Guilty of using taxpayers money to bribe other Government officials into participating with schemes to destroy the lives of Christian Scientists and to finance all the above.

They have asked me for the link to those hearings and again and again I posted it so many times to Dave, I forget the number but in each one of those requests, they made no comment after.

They just simply won't stand for being corrected much less apologise or admit they were wrong. Like piltdown man the hoax that took over forty years to correct from being taught in out Science books. Imagine the years wasted on other areas of Science and History by this reluctant to admit they are wong Atheist's.

As long as we allow this kind of "Science" and so called "Morality" to lead Science and Rewrite history, they will continue to get exposed as liars, charlatans, crooks and thugs having no remorse for their ill conceived actions. When they decided to make an all out assault on God with their books and posts, they unknowingly awakened a sleeping giant in all of us called the holy spirit. That holy spirit motivates the Christian with a supernatural understanding of any subject the lord would have us learn and as proven once again,,,

the Athiest's that do this,,

get owned



This time it wasn't just us Christians at ATS saying it

This time it wasn't some Movie by Ben Stein sayin it

This time it was the critical thinking of United States Senators and Congressman in a Congressional inquest and Senate hearings and the evidence before them was overwhelmingly obvious.

This time they were found guilty again,

only this time it is different

because this time it is,

undeniable.


- Con

























[edit on 6-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
More likely you are unable to address them or you wouldn't be making excuses.

...i'm not making excuses, i just don't feel like discussing this topic anymore. no matter how you look at it, there's no conclusive decision to be made on the subject. there's just how convinced you are.
we don't have conclusive evidence that jesus existed, we don't have have conclusive evidence that he didn't

Just like you most often are Maddness, the OP clearly got owned

arrogance, you might want to see what jesus said about it in the bible.
that's all i'm going to say about that

and -so far- has been afraid to defend his own thread.

or maybe the OP just has a busy schedule.
hell, i took about a week or so off of ATS, and i'm really contemplating doing it again due to the surging levels of ignorance.

Just a reminder ladies and gentlemen...

...Civility and Decorum are Required.

Many of you have heard this song and dance before..so...it is indeed a relevant notion that this topic now return to the topic at hand...Ashley's two dozen.

There is no room in the topic for a 'discourse' on the members who post here.

Thank You.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by MemoryShock]