Egyptian Account of Exodus.

a reply to: Tangerine

I know people who claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials. Is that proof that extraterrestrials exist? I fear that you might say yes.

Not in the least. This argument is a logical fallacy called a Faulty comparison. Comparing the existence of a historical person to aliens.. really grow up ...

a reply to: Tangerine

originally posted by: Tangerine
I know people who claim to have been abducted by extraterrestrials. Is that proof that extraterrestrials exist? I fear that you might say yes.

you mentioned extra terrestrials (ET's)

the case against Jesus doesn't hold water, in fact the most annoying thing about it is its elementary fashion.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
egregiously tampered with in general

I'd say so...

As of November 2014 the full Bible has been translated into 531 languages, and 2,883 languages have at least some portion of the Bible

example of a pretty basic language; have you ever learned any Spanish? everything is backwards!

en.wikipedia.org...

the English language is dominant for a reason, not only is it efficient but it is expressive, english simply has words other languages do not.

William Tyndale is solely responsible for styling about 90% of what we know as modern english... Shakespeare directly quoted the Geneva Bible over 5000 times in his works.

Can anyone imagine an English speaking world without Shakespeare?

en.wikipedia.org...

www.reformation21.org...

prezi.com...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I know exactly what "The Bible" is. Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

Argument from omniscience.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

Argument from Personal incredulity

^^^^^ Argument from trollery!

Honestly, if you have to go to the Josephus citation, a known forgery, for confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you're pretty desperate. As with everything about Jesus Christ, with the Josephus citation its impossible to tell where the lie ends and truth begins.

a reply to: windword

Honestly, if you have to go to the Josephus citation, a known forgery, for confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you're pretty desperate. As with everything about Jesus Christ, with the Josephus citation its impossible to tell where the lie ends and truth begins.

Oh there are plenty of them besides Josephus. Tacitus mentions him. Pliny mentions him. Suetonius mentions him. I think its pretty clear there was a guy name Jesus of Nazareth who many came to believe was the Messiah. He was crucified for that reason under the reign of Pontius Pilate. He was buried. Then later after his death people claimed to have seen him. They also died for what the believed they saw. These are all historical facts none of which require a belief in a higher power.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Not one those sources ever mentioned the name Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the son of Joseph!

a reply to: windword

Either your unaware or being deceitful, however you were respectful earlier so for that:

Tactius Annals book XV

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Cross reference Gospels and Paul. Overwhelming historical evidence says this is Jesus. Completely irrational to say otherwise without counter evidence.


Suetonius Lives of Caesars-Claudius Sec. 25:

Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he(Claudius) expelled them from Rome.

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. Suetonius mentions this person without giving any other detail. He expected his readers to know who he was referring to, and at 120 AD there is no other Jewish agitator that famous...

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

If you'll continue reading that page it mentions the time frame that is given and cross references Tacitus. I think it references Luke earlier as well.

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.

Talking about Christians....singing to Christ..as to a God....again...irrational to conclude this isn't a reference to Jesus without counter evidence.


And just a question on the Josephus reference, What evidence do you know of that says the reference of Christ being crucified by Pilate is a interpolation or forgery? Any manuscript of the "Testimonium Flavianum" has the same thing in it...so...you are basically just speculating because you don't like the conclusion.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

Honestly, if you have to go to the Josephus citation, a known forgery, for confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, you're pretty desperate. As with everything about Jesus Christ, with the Josephus citation its impossible to tell where the lie ends and truth begins.

Oh there are plenty of them besides Josephus. Tacitus mentions him. Pliny mentions him. Suetonius mentions him. I think its pretty clear there was a guy name Jesus of Nazareth who many came to believe was the Messiah. He was crucified for that reason under the reign of Pontius Pilate. He was buried. Then later after his death people claimed to have seen him. They also died for what the believed they saw. These are all historical facts none of which require a belief in a higher power.

And Frodo carried the one ring to the volcano of doom.

a reply to: Tangerine

Whats that? You have nothing intelligent to say?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think he was mocking your calling those things "historical facts". Just a guess.

'Fraid I agree with him..

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

I know exactly what "The Bible" is.
Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

you could have fooled me...

it's still the number 1 best selling book worldwide since it came off the Gutenberg Press circa 1450, it's given away freely in most instances.

www.newyorker.com...

in... the non-fiction category

You werent fooled, just conditioned, & conditioned well.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

And, aside from your precious tome (The Bible), what evidence do you have of ANY OF IT? Please?

...this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

That's really not the best testament to its validity...pun fully intended.

a reply to: AinElohim

example of a pretty basic language; have you ever learned any Spanish? everything is backwards!

As a matter of fact, I am fluent in Spanish. That education began at age 8 - and continued, including a Bachelor's degree in Spanish Language/Literature/Culture from a secular Public University. After that, I worked as a professional - I even taught Spanish to beginning speakers for a time, using my own curriculum - and worked directly with Spanish-speaking people for years.

It isn't "backwards". But that isn't the point - the point is that as a professional, I KNOW how difficult translation is from one language to another - ESPECIALLY between two works of poetical prose. MUCH nuance can be distorted, left out, mis-translated and missed altogether. The only way to have perfect translation is to have one person work from language A to language B, then have an independent other person translate it back into A, and see if the two A versions are the same.

Rather off-topic, but it's one of my major problems with antiquities study. It was way, way too easy for 'copyists' and 'scribes' to insert whatever they wanted, or leave out whatever they wanted, or change meanings entirely with a sort of sleight-of-pen ..... for example, (off the top of my head) typing House instead of Hose.

Anyway, thanks for asking.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yeah I never learned any Spanish, beyond what I picked up on the Terminator movies... no need, we should just bust that wall down and they'll all be speaking English anyway. I have no problem with the south and central Americans, after all everyone is an American deep down inside



Regarding your take on the translation of the Holy Bible... I don't think it would have been as easy as you claimed, this book was a 'known-world' phenomenon even before the printing press was invented. There were just too many floating around in each Church and Monastery. The oldest accounts and texts we have are a match, minus the Latin which was tampered with intentionally.

The English version of the Bible (Tyndale Bible) is directly from Hebrew and Greek text, bypassing the RCC version altogether.

---

RCC version at the advent of the Tyndale Bible was the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale himself was martyred for translating the Bible into English so the commoner could have a direct link to God and spirituality, and also to expose the RCC establishment.

Tyndale caused such a damaging blow to the RCC, that 50 years after being burned at the stake his bones were ordered dug up and re-burned, then cast into the River Swift.

I defie the Pope and all his lawes. If God spare my life, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boy that driveth the plough to know more of the Scripture, than he doust. -Tyndale

Here is Protestantism... en.wikipedia.org...

Considered heretical at the time by the RCC, to understand the word of God they wanted to control peoples language and it was only supposed to be read and conveyed in Latin.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

That isn't a misconception. Most already understand this. The thing is that all the claims in the bible are subjective evidence and aren't objective evidence. The books also tend to be biased towards each other to the point that they are pretty much one source anyways. If all the books are talking through the same religious lens, then they aren't independent sources.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

I know exactly what "The Bible" is.
Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

you could have fooled me...

it's still the number 1 best selling book worldwide since it came off the Gutenberg Press circa 1450, it's given away freely in most instances.

www.newyorker.com...

in... the non-fiction category

You werent fooled, just conditioned, & conditioned well.

"fact" can not be denied... it's not very scientific or rational.

I was surprised when I found out too.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

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!

Also, Chrestus and Christus are two completely different titles, both with rich traditions.

Simply put, Chrestus meant "Good Man", and is the root word from where we get the "Family Crest". Christ is the Latin translation of the Greek word "Χριστός", and Latin wasn't widely used by ordinary people during the first century. Χριστός was used as a religious title, and was shared with Pagan Cults and Jews.

Both titles pre-date Jesus of Nazareth and were in use well before the advent of Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity, so the claim that the word "Crestus" or "Christus" was born with a man's followers is flat out wrong.

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: AinElohim

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Any of what? Also this is one of the most common misconceptions produced by people who don't believe in the Bible. Its not one source, but rather 66 sources that span a period of 1500-2000 years.

I know exactly what "The Bible" is.
Unfortunately, most of you followers do not.

It is fan-fiction at best, and hearsay at worst. And egregiously tampered with in general.

you could have fooled me...

it's still the number 1 best selling book worldwide since it came off the Gutenberg Press circa 1450, it's given away freely in most instances.

www.newyorker.com...

in... the non-fiction category

You werent fooled, just conditioned, & conditioned well.

"fact" can not be denied... it's not very scientific or rational.

I was surprised when I found out too.

I'm not exactky known for my support of science & "rationality". Though, many would say the same about most religious folk.

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.

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.

That's a good point, majority rule is always right.

Wait a minute......