Virus- I'm sure you've mentioned your evidence for that assetion before, i was wondering of you could point me at it. I'm curious because, in all the critical studying i've done of the bible, The teachers i've studied with never really disputed the existence of an individual named jesus.

There are, apparently, Roman records to support the notion he was an actual person.


None I've ever heard of. Yeshua bar Yusef being a common enough name, I would be amazed to learn of a cite that verifies such a thing.

There's verifiable records of Pilate existing, but considering he was in charge of things, that's not a big surprise.

Yeah and Hanibal never existed so none of that stuff happened either.
Actually several sources independent of each other point to a Carthaginian commander by that name.

See post 1350


Acoriding to your logic, there are no causes of anything. The thoughts in my head are not Causing a reaction that is causing me to type this response to you right now.

Religion sets rules.
these rules cause things to happen. Whether it it through peoples intillectual, emotional, or physical reactions.
The same way me wanting to repair a wall causes me to get the material and tools and repair it.

Why and how these rules are origianlly set is an issue in itself.

:new_silly

Acoriding to your logic, there are no causes of anything. The thoughts in my head are not Causing a reaction that is causing me to type this response to you right now.

Religion sets rules.
these rules cause things to happen. Whether it it through peoples intillectual, emotional, or physical reactions.
The same way me wanting to repair a wall causes me to get the material and tools and repair it.

Why and how these rules are origianlly set is an issue in itself.

:new_silly


You are a true
intillectual,

if you are lucky Petter will come back and help you out.

Actually several sources independent of each other point to a Carthaginian commander by that name.

My point, surprise surprise, was the logic being used to make this assertion. Here this is a section from James Hannam(he is a good hole poker...just forgets to do that in some of his own assertions though):

"I want to wrap up by showing how easy it is to produce a scenario where we can deny the historicity of a major public figure. When I published this spoof on the Secular Web's discussion board it was taken seriously even though with hindsight it seems ridiculous. The comments in italics are annotations to bring out points of similarity with the various Jesus Myth ideas in currency.

I would invite any Jesus Mythologist to explain to me the substantial differences between their theory and the spurious one below.


To ask whether or not the great Carthaginian general Hannibal every actually existed might seem rather pointless. An exercise for a student learning about the nature of historical evidence perhaps but not something any serious scholar would waste time on. But maybe we should not be too hasty in acquiescing with the opinion of establishment historians (in other words, there's a plot by academics stifling debate).

In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources - incredible given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! We find when we actually try to pin him down he tends to recede further into the mists of time. His exploits, such as leading elephants over the Alps, are clearly legendary (the sceptic pretends to be incredulous but seems happy to buy his own amazing theory) and it is not hard to find a motive for the creation of this colourful character by Roman writers (as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists).

Rome and Carthage were great trading rivals in the Western Mediterranean and it did not take them long to come to blows. Rome signed a peace treaty but, under the leadership of the elder Cato desperately wanted to rid itself permanently of the competition. (this is actually true and so helps to hide when we slip into fantasy) They needed an excuse and the idea they came up with was brilliant. Like all ancient civilisations, the Romans rewrote history as it suited them to demonstrate their own prowess. (a useful and exaggerated generalisation) Consequently we should not be surprised to find that they invented a great enemy from Carthage to demonstrate the threat still existed and justify a further war to wipe them out.

The author of the fiction was Cato himself (we need someone to point the finger at and note how there is no distinction made between the background material above and theorising here) who we know wrote the earliest Roman History (true as well, actually). But it was intended simply as a justification for a further war with Carthage. It contained the details of Hannibal's alleged campaigns against the Romans including victories on Italian soil (it might well do but Cato's history has conveniently not survived). Cato brilliantly combined the truth with his own anti-Carthaginian propaganda with the intention of goading Rome into another wholly unjustified war with the old enemy (give the fabricator lots of credit for his invention). Once the war was over and Carthage razed to the ground, the Romans were able to ensure that only their version of history survived (this is important as it enables all other sources to be declared forgeries).

Therefore the myth of the great Carthaginian war leader became fact and later Roman historians like the notoriously unreliable Livy (we have to denigrate counter sources) simply assumed Cato's fabrications were true (because the ancients were stupid and simply could not do any research themselves).

You are a true

if you are lucky Petter will come back and help you out.

Oh Im at work with the flu. I dont care about sentance structure or spelling at the moment.
:new_squar

Oh Im at work with the flu. I dont care about sentance structure or spelling at the moment.
:new_squar

You have to spell check the word intellectual?

]There are, apparently, Roman records to support the notion he was an actual person...


:sleepy2:


"apparently".... sources??????

You have to spell check the word intellectual?


*Sob* My secret shame :sad11:

Once again captain reading comprehension, I have not said there is evidence of gods existence. Go back and reread the posts, what I did say is that there were some good logical models for the support of some religious thought, and my original assertion to TBK was religion does not cause evil.

so you're admitting there's no evidence of god?
considering there is NO evidence to support them, How can there be good logical models for the support of some religious thought?

If this is your point. Let's start with.

No evidence of god vs (ur logical models here) fill that blank please, so that religion isn't bullshit...and made up, or inferred through emotional projection and mortality salience.

If all you're saying is, religion isn't evil, and no wonder they came up with god....then you suck. This is the GREAT god debate thread...pick ur side and tell us why.

you want the obsessive compulsive semantic overshare page...next one over mate.

Jim Jude- I would love to be able to give you sources mate, but it was 10 years ago when i activly studied this and i haven't got my old refs and the thought of trawling through christian web sites etc to find supporting evidence, on my hols, doesn't exactly fill me with glee.

I say 'apparently' bercause there's room for scepticism in everything. I for one never really doubted the exisitence of a dude named jesus who got nailed to a post, on a hill.

But any of the other frills i.e. the whole wacky 'son of God' bit, really passed me by.

so you're admitting there's no evidence of god?
considering there is NO evidence to support them, How can there be good logical models for the support of some religious thought?


Seriously just pm petter and have him come help you.



No evidence of god vs (ur logical models here) fill that blank please, so that religion isn't bullshit...and made up, or inferred through emotional projection and mortality salience.

Thre is just a much deductive evidence for god as there is against him, so yes there can be models made


If all you're saying is, religion isn't evil, and no wonder they came up with god....then you suck. This is the GREAT god debate thread...pick ur side and tell us why.

you want the obsessive compulsive semantic overshare page...next one over mate.

I have poked a ton of holes in your high and mighty argument and you have yet to address them , you just move right along JUST like the groups you are saying are just stupid sheep.

...you get one more try before I tell you explicitly what I have been doing the whole time...I dont know how you havent figured it out I have not been very sneaky about it

Jim Jude- I would love to be able to give you sources mate, but it was 10 years ago when i activly studied this and i haven't got my old refs and the thought of trawling through christian web sites etc to find supporting evidence, on my hols, doesn't exactly fill me with glee.

I say 'apparently' bercause there's room for scepticism in everything. I for one never really doubted the exisitence of a dude named jesus who got nailed to a post, on a hill.

But any of the other frills i.e. the whole wacky 'son of God' bit, really passed me by.

There refs you have are not direct accounts so they will dismiss them as falsified documents or the like...see my above example that addresses this issue.

I think we should reserve all debate, on whether or not Jesus existed, to the appropriate thread.

Back to the point.

Which was.... er......

There refs you have are not direct accounts so they will dismiss them as falsified documents or the like...see my above example that addresses this issue.

Either that or as second and third hand accounts, which are about as valuable as outright historical falsification/revision.

I think we should reserve all debate, on whether or not Jesus existed, to the appropriate thread.

Back to the point.

Which was.... er......


Oh, yeah. Okay, so general consensus: God does not exist. Right? :dontknow: