Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[Godless]

. I'm not a Christian, and I don't care about the mythology or the politics of the whole issue. I'm just sick of anti-christians because the only reason why it persists is because it is fashionable to be anti-christian.

Fashionable!? Were the hell have you been? These atheist forums or "science" forums are about the only place were being anti-RELIGION is fashionable, otherwise in the real world we have to put up with dip shits who think of us like this.

Godless

 

[Woody]

MW said:

Honestly, the longer you're on the forum, the more ignorant you become! Sodom and Gomorrah, for the fifteenth zillion time, is not a story about male homosexuality or even incest. It's a story about one being inhospitable to strangers.

It's really stupid for you to argue against a dictionary, maybe you should write your own. Here's what mine says:

sodomyOne entry found for sodomy.

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-111 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
- sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective

Can you find a dictionary that agrees with you?

 

[(Q)]

We were discussing the Ten Commandments, which are contained within the Bible. I provided a biblical person to backup a biblical question.

I have concluded that no matter what I write you will just throw it back in my face, along with another question. If I thought you had the slightest interest in finding an answer I would continue, but I think this is not the case, based on the evidence.

I have no idea what you're talking about, I'm not throwing anything back in you face.

You referred to Noah as having practiced morality long before the ten commandments. I merely explained that the story of Noah is one of the best stories ever told as far as gods complete lack of morality.

If you wish to show otherwise and back up your claim of morality in regards to Noah, then please do so.

 

[TheVisitor]

There are two races on earth in competiton....many times they can be born as brothers in the same family, the one has representation in another dimension, being an attribute of God, one of his children, believing in the Spirit, inspired by it to do good.
Having faith in that kingdom that springs up from within, looking to the unseen, which is the creator of all thats seen.
The other is earthly, sensual, carnal. A child of this world, not God, not receiving revelation from god but being created as vessels for demons.....the spirit of destroyers which devour any good, attempt to stifle any hope, wither any love that might sprout from humanity in an attempt to reach out from their abode in chaos and drag others down into the misery that is their existence.

Which are you....?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Why spend all this time on these unbleavers, thay have made up their minds, and as I said before we're right and so have nothing to loose, their wrong and have every thing to loose, if you use your own sences you know we are more than just a body, and there is more to life than our sences can show us, so why spend all the angst trying to get the message to these people, the message is offered freely to accept or reject, it's there lose, and yes Jesus was recorded in history, by the Romans.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

MW said:

It's really stupid for you to argue against a dictionary, maybe you should write your own. Here's what mine says:

sodomyOne entry found for sodomy.

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-111 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
- sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective

Can you find a dictionary that agrees with you?

*************
M*W: The argument, Woody, is NOT the definition of the word "sodomy." It's your misinterpretation of that word. Using biblical references for the word "sodomy" is still incorrect. The word "sodomy" was erroneously created from the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, this is entirely based on inaccurate definition as per the book of Genesis. Is Genesis in error, or were the theologians who interpreted it incorrectly?

I gave you a reference which you could look up which explains the derivation of the word "sodomy" which comes from "sodium" and does not imply "male homosexuality" at all,as christians want to believe.

The bible cannot be interpreted with a modern dictionary. In fact, no ancient manuscript can be understood by modern word usage.

Imagine swapping today's lingo for a person 2,000 years ago who, by a time warp or time machine, returned and heard a conversation here, or worse yet, saw some rap on MTV:

"Yo main, yo baby mama, she be a crack ho. She stays at da crib in da hood." I'm not sure even a modern dictionary could interpret this shit, much less than the lingo of 2,000 - 5,000 years ago.

Just like the wikipedia quote by davewhite where I mentioned that everyone on the forum should read it... Had dave read it in its entirety, he would have realized that it discounted everything he was 'trying' to prove. Or maybe he wouldn't.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Why spend all this time on these unbleavers, thay have made up their minds, and as I said before we're right and so have nothing to loose, their wrong and have every thing to loose, if you use your own sences you know we are more than just a body, and there is more to life than our sences can show us, so why spend all the angst trying to get the message to these people, the message is offered freely to accept or reject, it's there lose, and yes Jesus was recorded in history, by the Romans.

*************
M*W: If the reason you came to this forum was to convert us, you came to the wrong place. This is not a christian forum, and your prosletyzing here is against forum rules.

Further, you people have not been able to offer the rest of us any knowledge of value, nor any proof, that your supernatural dying demigod savior existed in the first place. That means all you people have failed miserably as christians at your self-imposed crusade.

One last chance before you go, exactly where did the Roman authorities have a record of an historical Jesus? The buzz word here is "Roman authorities." Contemporary writers like Josephus, et al., be they Roman or otherwise, are not "Roman authorities." All the manuscripts of the day that mention a Jesus, have been proven to be forgeries by, no doubt, church authorities.

 

[TheVisitor]

M*W*, give it up.....please
Your riding a dead horse into the ground.
Don't you know when you've lost a round.
Ding!....

Or as Bones would say; ..."Its dead Jim"

"Your calender says Jesus came"

 

[Buffalo Roam]

MW, touchy arn't we, didn't prosletyze you, apparently some one has and you made your choise, why then are you so adamant in prosletyzing your point of view, the First Amendment is on my side it dosen't say freedom from religeon, it say's freedom of religeon, and that is what the message I get from your post is that you want freedom from religeon. Guess what you all ready do.

The Secular Sources and How Historians View Them.



A. Several Extra-Biblical records


1)Skeptics will often alledge that "no extra biblical evidence for Jesus' existence exists." This is far from the truth. All of these following historians, of first and early second century, mention Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure who existed in the first century CE, or they mention Christ.

* Thallus (c. 50-75AD)

*Phlegon (First century)

* Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93)

* Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120)

* Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)

* Galen (various writings, c.150)

* Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).


* Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)

* Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

*Lucian (Second century)

*Numenius (Second cent.)

*Galerius (Second Cent.)


No one ever questioned Jesus' existence until the 19th century. Not one of his opponents from the first 19 centuries ever questioned that he really existed.

Yamauchi summarized quite well the findings of the secular sources regarding Christ:


"Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings, we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that: (1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher; (2) many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; (3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; (4) he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; (5) despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by 64 A.D.; (6) all kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women, slave and free-worshiped him as God by the beginning of the second century." (1995, p. 222)

 

[Buffalo Roam]

So am I gone, if you don't like my reference's, to me if you wipe me out you have just admitted defeat, as most of these scholars have far better credintals to make a judgement than you as to if Jesus did or didn't exist, so what are your bonifides?

 

[Woody]

M*W:

The argument, Woody, is NOT the definition of the word "sodomy." It's your misinterpretation of that word. Using biblical references for the word "sodomy" is still incorrect. The word "sodomy" was erroneously created from the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, this is entirely based on inaccurate definition as per the book of Genesis. Is Genesis in error, or were the theologians who interpreted it incorrectly?

As I asked before, show me a dictionary that agrees with you.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W:

As I asked before, show me a dictionary that agrees with you.

*************
M*W: Woody, as I told you, the answer cannot be found in a dictionary. A dictionary is biased toward the most common "usage" of a word. That doesn't make the dictionary factually true or historically correct.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

So am I gone, if you don't like my reference's, to me if you wipe me out you have just admitted defeat, as most of these scholars have far better credintals to make a judgement than you as to if Jesus did or didn't exist, so what are your bonifides?

*************
M*W: As far as I am concerned, you are on perpetual ignore. Have you actually read your references? Have you questioned them according to contemporary writings? Have you read other authors' works about your particular writers? Do you have a command of the languages of the day (Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin Greek?).

Wiping YOU out does not mean that I am defeated. I have made it clear that I am a former christian but now an atheist. I'm also not just a garden variety of 'atheist', I am anti-christian. You can aptly call me an antichrist. That would be fitting. There's a difference. I have spent more than 30 years' researching this character of Jesus. The longer I searched, the more Jesus faded away into ancient mythology.

You've got to be delusional to think that your references have better credentials to prove Jesus was an actual historical person than anyone who is alive today with have a brain! You haven't taken into account the number of forgeries imbedded in the writings of your references.

Back in those days, everything was hand-written as there were no printing presses until the 1500s. The general population couldn't read. They had to believe what they were told by the church -- or die!

Defeat doesn't come because you disagree with me or that I disagree with you. Defeat comes when one refuses to understand that what he believes to be true is really a lie.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Your anger is astounding, I truely feel sorry for you, with all the anger you project it should be readily apparent to all that the is no reasonable discussion that can take place with you, if you want to convince your self that Jesus dosen't exist because of some trauma that happened in your life, go ahead it is your choise, but I think you have just unmask your true irrational. I truely feel sorry for you!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Your anger is astounding, I truely feel sorry for you, with all the anger you project it should be readily apparent to all that the is no reasonable discussion that can take place with you, if you want to convince your self that Jesus dosen't exist because of some trauma that happened in your life, go ahead it is your choise, but I think you have just unmask your true irrational. I truely feel sorry for you!

*************
M*W: I am angered by lies that are perpetuated by fools. I do not need nor want your sympathy. Why do you 'assume' my belief is a result of 'some trauma in my life?' There was no 'trauma', I just learned the truth. That is something you need to do.

 

[TheVisitor]

*************
M*W: lies that are perpetuated by fools. I do not need nor want your sympathy.

You don't want sympathy...?

Look at this nation; look at this people; what signs and wonders has happened right here, proved to be of God.
The son of man has been revealed right here in America, showing the sign of the messiah; discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Proved of God, and yet, people will laugh at It, make fun of It, say it's mental telepathy or something another.
They don't understand.
The Angel of the Lord has appeared, it looks like a big Pillar of Fire.
Thousands times thousands has seen It. It's appeared visibly.

You may have studied christianity for years, but unless you've been exposed to the light for this day, this hour.....what God's doing now, that little germ of God's life lying dormant inside you will not get quickened to life.

So if you are a daughter of God, and all you've heard is denominational dogma and creeds..........it all may sound bogus to you.
Cause that is.... and could be called "lies perpetuated by fools" by someone who wont settle for anything but the truth.
Keep looking.

 

[Woody]

MW says:

Woody, as I told you, the answer cannot be found in a dictionary. A dictionary is biased toward the most common "usage" of a word. That doesn't make the dictionary factually true or historically correct.

Well, actually a dictionary is biased toward the definition of a word. Also, it's not just a dictionary -- it's the history of the word's development. I give you the choice of any dictionary -- show me where the word "sodomy" agrees with your view.

Ok, I get it -- everybody else is wrong and you are right. Gotta like that time machine you're using. You're a better tale spinner than Grandfather Clock on Captain Kangaroo. I can't knock the girl for tryin! You were there when it happened -- right MW? LOL

 

[Sarkus]

Well, actually a dictionary is biased toward the definition of a word. Also, it's not just a dictionary -- it's the history of the word's development. I give you the choice of any dictionary -- show me where the word "sodomy" agrees with your view.

Woody, the word "sodomy" probably does relate to the ancient city of Sodom, and for the very reasons that the Dictionary purports.
But it does NOT make that reasoning historically correct / accurate.

i.e. Just because the dictionary says it is due to the homosexual activities of Sodom does not mean that homosexual activity actually went on, or indeed was the cause of the destruction of the city.
The dictionary - especially a simplified one - will only explain the reason the WORD has come about - and the understanding behind it. The dictionary does NOT claim that the reasons are historically accurate.

For a more detailed understanding of the destruction of Sodom:
http://www.usbible.com/Sin/sodom_and_gomorrah.htm


So in summary - yes, the word "sodomy" is almost certainly derived from the city of Sodom - but only because of the widespread (i.e. by 99% of the population) misunderstanding of the cause of the destruction of Sodom.

And now the very word "sodomy" is used to perpetuate the highly unlikely and misunderstood version of events.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Because of the depth of your anger. You ingore any thing that dose not agree with your theisis, or is incovient to your arguement, wich mean you argue from passion and not logic, and the way you attack anyone who you deam ingnorent and question their intellegence. This means you are not secure in your own self so you have to prove every one else is less intellegent than you?
ps: yes I have read these, and much more.

 

[Sarkus]

Because of the depth of your anger. You ingore any thing that dose not agree with your theisis, or is incovient to your arguement, wich mean you argue from passion and not logic, and the way you attack anyone who you deam ingnorent and question their intellegence. This means you are not secure in your own self so you have to prove every one else is less intellegent than you?

Who is this aimed at? You've posted it after mine, so is it me??
If it's MW - please ensure you address it appropriately.