|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 9, 2013 22:37:26 GMT 10
Yes. If you don't evaluate it yourself, you are a puppet.
(If I told you I was an expert, would you believe me too?)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 11:54:46 GMT 10
But calling someone an unspeakable bastard is OK ?? I was provoked - I am sick of Bullies
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:17:54 GMT 10
....But can I dance?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:38:35 GMT 10
Is that repetitious statement for your benefit, or mine?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:14:41 GMT 10
Yes. And so are you, but there is hope. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God."
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:54:17 GMT 10
Buzz, every conclusion you have made so far has been based on a shaky circular premise. If you want compassion, show some sign that you are repentant.
There is nothing in my religion that demands I be a doormat, while I endure your verbal abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 15:02:27 GMT 10
If you could just repeat that one more time.... Maybe, just maybe....someone here would buy your book.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 15:05:25 GMT 10
Yep. I have a tendency to outright reject false things.
Call it 'devaluation', all you like.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 22:00:42 GMT 10
its not false it is the reality - you want to reject the reality Mills and Boyce were the experts on the irrefutable fact that you reject out of hand because of your religious delusions well - there will be no Jesus coming and the end of days that will never ever happen but you believe it will. Just try and find One first century historian who mentions Jesus or any part of that story - there are none because its is false. I reject outright false things and Jesus and Christianity is outright false and Zoroastrian eschatology The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (ca. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44). Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (ca. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epistle of Pliny to Trajan X.96). Suetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Vita Claudii XXV.4). Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius. "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44 Tacitus was a professional historian and not a commentator, likely he referenced government records over Christian testimony. Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified. Once again, Jesus deniers show themselves to be unaware of historical critical methods and what contemporary sources mean in the context of the ancient world.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 11, 2013 0:43:08 GMT 10
will you be sleeping in tomorrow?
Kurt will be up at 5.30 am to start heading off to work to pay for your pension....
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 11, 2013 0:54:01 GMT 10
yeah...but I'm richer than you!
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 11, 2013 1:20:06 GMT 10
of course I'm richer than you, fool..
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2013 3:47:37 GMT 10
The Roman historian Tacitus, in his Annals (ca. A.D. 115), referred to “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (XV.44). an interpolationPliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote the Roman emperor Trajan (ca. A.D. 112), asking for advice about how he should deal with Christians who made it a practice to meet on an appointed day to sing a hymn “to Christ as if to God” (Epistle of Pliny to Trajan X.96). 112 CE? wow an eye witness? there were Christians but that is not evidence the stupid story is trueSuetonius, a popular Roman writer, declared that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they “were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Vita Claudii XXV.4). Chrestus was not Jesus and it could be an interpolationTacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius. an interpolation"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44 an interpolationTacitus was a professional historian and not a commentator, likely he referenced government records over Christian testimony. Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified. with all due respects to him his work could easily be interpolated.Once again, Jesus deniers show themselves to be unaware of historical critical methods and what contemporary sources mean in the context of the ancient world. rubbish - none of the story is true and it is not mentioned by Josephus or Justus of Tiberius or Philo Judeaus who were there the time the story was supposedly set and they mention not such much as a single word of it. If any of it was true Josephus would have written chapter after chapter after chapter about it and so would Philo - but they were silent because its nothing but lies.I'm afraid you can't be dismissive simply by accusing the writers of interpolation. You need proof. First off, I want to suggest that just by saying there are no non-biblical accounts of the Jesus, does not invalidate the historical Jesus at all. Jesus was not a political figure, and the Christians were a fringe group of misfits. It was not a historian's job to write accounts of such things. But some evidences you do need to deal with: 1. The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles. Therefore, there were plenty of people around who could have contested the post crucifixion appearances of Christ. But mysteriously, no one did. 2. If you want to maintain the extra biblical accounts are not valid because they were written after the fact by non eyewitnesses, then that indirectly supports the gospel accounts which were written by the eyewitnesses, by those who knew Jesus, and encountered him after his resurrection. --Which way do you want it? Jesus typically would not demonstrate anything miraculous to those who refused to believe in Him. It is, therefore, consistent with Jesus' method to demonstrate Himself to those who were in need of Him and who did not mock Him and doubt Him. Jesus plainly taught that He would not "perform" for those who denied Him. Like it or not, this is how He operated.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2013 4:07:16 GMT 10
Various theories have been put forward to explain why Tacitus should use the term " procurator" when the archaeological evidence indicates that Pilate was a prefect. Jerry Vardaman theorizes that Pilate's title was changed during his stay in Judea and that the Pilate Stone dates from the early years of his administration.[29] Baruch Lifshitz postulates that the inscription would originally have mentioned the title of "procurator" along with "prefect".[30] L.A. Yelnitsky argues that the use of "procurator" in Annals 15.44.3 is a Christian interpolationen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_ChristAlternative Answer Tacitus Annals, Book XV, sec. 44 is now considered by some historians as a later interpolation based on the following reason; 1. It is not quoted by the Christian fathers. 2. Tertullian was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed. 3. Clement of Alexandria, at the beginning of the third century, made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them. 4. Origen, in his controversy with Celsus, would undoubtedly have used it had it existed. 5. The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, in the fourth century, cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus. 6. It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century. 7. At this time but one copy of the Annals existed and this copy, it is claimed, was made in the eighth century -- 600 years after the time of Tacitus. 8. As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy. 9. Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin. No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable. 10. It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian. 11. The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not like Tacitus. 12. In fact, this story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ, is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a Christian of the fifth century. 13. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals." 14. At the time that the conflagration occurred, Tacitus himself declares that Nero was not in Rome, but at Antium. Many who accept the authenticity of this section of the "Annals" believe that the sentence which declares that Christ was punished in the reign of Pontius Pilate is an interpolation. This sentence bears the unmistakable stamp of Christian forgery. It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements. Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative. In all the Roman records there was no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. This sentence, if genuine, is the most important evidence in Pagan literature. That it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, no intelligent critic can believe. Tacitus did not write this sentence. wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_Roman_Historian_Tacitus_wrote_about_the_man_JesusAuthenticity See also: Annals (Tacitus)#Authenticity The title page of 1598 edition of the works of Tacitus, kept in Empoli, Italy. Most modern scholars consider the passage to be authentic.[40][41] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus' death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[40] William L. Portier has stated that the consistency in the references by Tacitus, Josephus and the letters to Emperor Trajan by Pliny the Younger reaffirm the validity of all three accounts.[41]Tacitus was a patriotic Roman senator.[42][43] His writings shows no sympathy towards Christians, or knowledge of who their leader was.[5][44] His characterization of "Christian abominations" may have been based on the rumors in Rome that during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism by Christians.[44][45] Andreas Köstenberger states that the tone of the passage towards Christians is far too negative to have been authored by a Christian scribe.[46] Van Voorst also states that the passage is unlikely to be a Christian forgery because of the pejorative language used to describe Christianity.[40] John P. Meier states that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.[47] Tacitus was about 7 years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome, and as other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians.[12] When he wrote his account, Tacitus was the governor of the province of Asia, and as a member of the inner circle in Rome he would have known of the official position with respect to the fire and the Christians.[12] In 1885 P. Hochart had proposed that the passage was a pious fraud,[48] but the editor of the 1907 Oxford edition dismissed his suggestion and treated the passage as genuine.[49] Scholars such as Bruce Chilton, Craig Evans, Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd agree with John Meier's statement that: "Despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine.”[34][50]Suggestions that the whole of Annals may have been a forgery have also been generally rejected by scholars.[51en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ*emphasis added, because we all know you aren't going to read it anyway.*
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2013 4:18:43 GMT 10
i am not on a pension - he feeds you not me all you do is sit on your arse and get fatter and fatter - and one day you will explode It's a good thing you don't participate in Character assassination, like those 'other' narcissistic people do.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2013 9:44:01 GMT 10
the word Christian was not used at that time. Since the alteration became known it has given rise to debates among scholars as to whether Tacitus deliberately used the term Chrestians, or if a scribe made an error during the Middle Ages.[17][18] It has been stated that both the terms Christians and Chrestians had at times been used by the general population in Rome to refer to early Christians.[19] Robert Van Voorst claims that many sources indicate that the term Chrestians was also used among the early followers of Jesus by the second century.[18][20] The term Christians appears only three times in the New Testament, the first usage (Acts 11:26) giving the origin of the term.[18] In all three cases the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus in Greek reads Chrestianoi.[18][20] In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians".[20] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#The_passage_and_its_context
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 12, 2013 10:55:21 GMT 10
It was used 3 times in the Book of acts. And it was used derogatorily (our modern equivalent to calling someone a 'fundy'), before that.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Mar 13, 2013 1:43:44 GMT 10
"The New Testament was written in Aramaic originally"
Not really Buzz.
All the New Testament was written in Greek.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 13, 2013 4:07:50 GMT 10
But calling someone an unspeakable bastard is OK ?? I was provoked - I am sick of Bullies I have an idea.... give Current Affairs or Today Tonight a call. I am sure they waiting for someone like you to call them... Tell them you're cyber bullied by Zombie followers. That's sure to get their attention.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 13, 2013 8:50:21 GMT 10
"The New Testament was written in Aramaic originally" Not really Buzz. All the New Testament was written in Greek. Fat is quite correct. This is evidenced by the crowd's response during the crucifixion when Jesus spoke in Aramaic: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani". Many of the crowd were Hebrew, but interestingly enough none of them knew what he was saying. It's more than likely Greek was the common tongue of the region.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 13, 2013 8:52:10 GMT 10
I was provoked - I am sick of Bullies I have an idea.... give Current Affairs or Today Tonight a call. I am sure they waiting for someone like you to call them... Tell them you're cyber bullied by Zombie followers. That's sure to get their attention. LOLZ
|
|