Australian Politics Forum - Atheists open churches around the world

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Atheists open churches around the world Reply #150 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:23pm Thanks for the link. The current debate is on whether there were eyewitnesses to Jesus however. Maria says there are but hasn't shown any yet. We are all eagerly awaiting.
Back to top	Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act IP Logged

Bazza

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 331

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #151 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:25pm

Robert Van Voorst

In Jesus outside the New Testament, Robert Van Voorst gives 7 reasons why historians are confident Jesus lived:

The Apostle Paul did not say a lot about Jesus (an argument sometimes used by sceptics, but this is an argument from silence and therefore invalid without positive evidence). But Paul did know about Jesus, and was unlikely to write a lot of historical detail in letters.

The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.

The development of the early christians' understanding of Jesus which can be seen in the gospels (another argument sometimes used) is not sufficient to justify the belief that they were inventions.

No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.
Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bazza

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 331

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #152 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:26pm

Bart Ehrman and 'Did Jesus exist?'

In his recent book, Ehrman gives a number of reasons why we can be sure Jesus existed and lived a life broadly as described in the gospels:

The gospels and Paul's writings are extremely useful independent historical sources. Even though they were written by people with a particular viewpoint, they cannot be discounted because most ancient sources had viewpoints, and historians have learnt to discount biases.

Likewise, any discrepancies in the stories don't take away
from the significant agreement on the main facts.
Historians can discern a number of sources behind these documents, in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) and dated within a few years of his life. This is unprecedented in ancient history.

Paul, who lived at the time of Jesus, didn't know Jesus (as far as we know), but knew one of his closest followers, Peter, and his brother, James. As Ehrman pithily says: If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

No Jew would invent a story of a crucified Messiah, for this was a scandal to a Jew. Only the historical fact that Jesus truly lived and was crucified can explain this.

The alternative theories proposed to explain the facts are often based on unhistorical and misrepresented 'facts' and incorrect methodology. For example, theories about dying and rising gods are not based on real historical information, but on old books whose research has been discredited, and there are no comparable pagan stories of virgin births, as is claimed. (See Was Jesus a copy of pagan gods?.)

Those who believe Jesus was a myth often resort to self-serving methodology when confronted with inconvenient facts. Many attempt to gloss over textual evidence against their theories by claiming the inconvenient text is a copyist's interpolation.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bazza

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 331

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #153 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:29pm

Maurice Casey

In Jesus of Nazareth, historian Maurice Casey is adamant that professional scholars regard the question of Jesus' existence to have been settled years ago, and quotes the findings of EP Sanders in The Historical Figure of Jesus in support (see Jesus in history). He argues that those (generally non-experts) who think otherwise base their conclusions on ludicrously late dates for the Gospels, incorrect comparisons with pagan myths, tampering with ancient texts to remove inconvenient evidence, poor application of accepted historical methods and disregard for the work of major scholars in the field.

Why the controversy?

People have their beliefs and disbeliefs, and some on either side of the question may allow these to interfere with their judgment. It is safest to learn from the experts. Some people believe we should reject everything that cannot be absolutely proven, but this is not appropriate for a study of history, where we can obtain probability, but not certainty (see below).

But can we trust the historians?

Some historians have their biases, but we can surely trust the scholars who are recognised and respected by their fellow historians - as are the scholars I have quoted above. Those who propose that Jesus didn't exist have to claim some sort of conspiracy among thousands of scholars from reputable universities all over the western world.

Can we know historical truth?

We cannot directly observe the past, so history can only be known through writings that record what people say happened, and archaeology that supports these writings. Because different writers have different purposes, and because recording the objective truth may not have been among their purposes, historians have to compare the various accounts with each other and with archaeology to determine what is consistent. They try to recognise, and discount, biases in the writings, and use methods to reduce the influence of their own opinions.

Thus history can only describe what probably happened. Those of us who are not historians must rely on the findings of the consensus of historians.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4725	Re: Atheists open churches around the world Reply #154 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:30pm Bazza wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:26pm: Historians can discern a number of sources behind these documents, in Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) and dated within a few years of his life. This is unprecedented in ancient history. Now that is interesting. What exactly is being referred to here?
Back to top	Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm: Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act IP Logged

Bazza

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 331

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #155 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:38pm

Pontius Pilate

Author's Background

Pontius Pilate (1 BC - circa AD 37) was the fifth Roman procurator of Judea (AD 26 - 36 ) under Emperor Tiberius, who sentenced Jesus to death by crucifixion. The quotes below refer to the Acts of Pontius Pilate. The existence of the Acts of Pontius Pilate is strongly supported by Epiphanius (Heresies 50.1), Justin Martyr (First Apology, A.D. 150) and Tertullian (Apology, A.D. 200). The Acts of Pontius Pilate were kept in the Roman archives (Commentarii principis) as stated in the following quote.

The ancient Romans were scrupulously careful to preserve the memory of all remarkable events which happened in the city; and this was done either in their "Acts of the Senate" (Acts Senatus), or in the "Daily Acts of the People" (Acta Diurna Populi), which were diligently made and kept at Rome . . . In like manner it was customary for the governors of provinces to send to the emperor an account of remarkable transactions that occurred in the places where they resided, which were preserved in the "Acts of" their respective governments . . . we find, long before the time of Eusebius [3rd century], that the primitive Christians, in their disputes with the Gentiles, appealed to these "Acts of Pilate" . . . Thus, Justin Martyr, in his first "Apology" for the Christians, which was presented to the Emperor Antoninus Pius [A.D. 138-161] and the senate of Rome, about the year [A.D.] 140, having mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and some of its attendant circumstances, adds, "And these things were done, you may know from the 'Acts' made in the time of Pontius Pilate." [1]

It should be noted that some believe a fraudulent version of the Acts of Pilate was circulated later in the fourth and fifth centuries. This should not be confused with the original document that was generated in the first century, archived in Rome and was available to Caesar Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate. Otherwise, Justin Martyr's appeal to the Acts of Pilate in his First Apology would have lacked credibility. Both Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) and Tertullian (A.D. 200) refer to the document much earlier that the fradulent version.[2]

Back to top

IP Logged

Bazza

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 331

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #156 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:38pm

Reference To Jesus Christ

And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, “They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots.” And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. - Justin Martyr, First Apology 35

And that it was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead, hear what was said. There are these words: “At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear speaking: the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed; and the dead shall rise, and walk about.” And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. - Justin Martyr, First Apology 48

Conclusion

This reference reveals several key things:
1) Christ performed amazing miracles.
2) Christ died on a cross with hands and feet pierced with nails.
3) It affirms the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16625
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #157 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 8:21pm

Bazza wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

The verdict of expert historians
Almost all historians believe Jesus did indeed live. The following quotes from historians who have specialised in that period of history are typical:

I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus .... We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period.
Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ..... In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."
The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E."
Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn't exist] as effectively refuted."
Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did"
NT Wright

Further quotes, with sources, can be found at Quotes on Jesus as a historical person

Note: We need to be clear what the historians are saying, and not misunderstand. They are not necessarily endorsing christian belief about Jesus - some of the above historians are christians, some are not. They are simply saying that a person recognisable as the Jesus of the gospels truly lived, taught, gained a reputation as a miracle-worker and was executed - for more on what they conclude we can know about Jesus, see Jesus in history.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wasjesusreal.shtml

The same Prof Bart Ehrman that gave up on Christianity?

Quote:

In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.[21] His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and the broader phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world.[22]

[2] Ehrman, Bart D.. Misquoting Jesus, HarperSanFrancisco. 2005. ISBN 0-06-073817-0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

edit: By the way, I believe a historical Jesus existed. It's just the rest.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 12^th, 2015 at 8:30pm by Setanta »

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #158 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 8:37pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 3:56pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 1:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 6:35am:

Really? Do the math. From single celled organism to fully sentient human life is about a million evolutionary steps. Each of these steps has a probability of occurring of about one in a hundred trillion. So the possibility of use having evolved is about a hundred million trillion to one.

And I am being generous.

Wow. So Longy is a Evolution denier as well. With Ajax being a Moon landing hoaxer I guess it explains a lot about the AGW deniers. They all have no idea about science.

Longy, your logic is completely flawed.
The process of natural selection dictates that evolutionary changes that are advantageous will continue to the next generation. Those that are not will die out. Natural selection over millions of years makes it inevitable that more complex and successful life forms will develop.

Can you find a single example in the natural world (and universe) that shows change from the simple to complex without intervention? What part of 'natural selection' dictated that we have two eyes for stereoscopic vision and depth perception? What was wrong with just one? Which part of natural selection developed a multi-use throat for breathing and eating without problem?

And where did cognition come from?

If you went to Mars and found a computer there (not from earth) you would consider it 100% proof positive of the existence of a martian race or another sentient race that had lived there. Why would it not have simply evolved out of the minerals on the planet? It is infinitely less complex than a human.

And there is the problem. Evolution is a probabilistic nightmare even without considering the question of how exquisite design appeared out of nowhere.

You answered it in your own question. Stereoscopic vision is easier with two eyes. As for the throat, I would say it the respiratory/digestive system started as one big system whereby the organism absorbed everything they needed in one system. But it was inefficient so split into two. You can also argue that the separation of oesophagus/trachea is actually evidence against a creator since an intelligent design should have the oesophagus at the front being filled from the mouth and the nose emptying into the trachea at the back so food can't get stuck.

But on the other foot how do you then explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve mariacostel using non evolutionary processes

How was it 'decided' that stereoscopic vision was better? Remember, evolution involves not design and merely minute and effectively random changes. SO what are the chances of two eyes developing by chance? One in a billion, trillion? And then you need to ask how did the brain 'evolve' to process two signals that are different and get stereoscopic vision instead of dual images? We struggle to even understand how to process that in computers now! How was such a concept as 'vision' even come into being? And why just a portion of the spectrum?

everything to do with vision screams out DESIGNER. The chance of it developing by accident and so absolutely fantastically is.... NIL.

PS stereoscopic vision isnt' easier' with two eyes. It is IMPOSSIBLE without. How would anyone determine stereoscopic vision was even better without knowing what it is - and it had to be done without any thought.

Well my assumption would be that at some point an organism with one eye/light spot had a generation which due to a mutation or several mutations gained two eyes. This then conferred better ability to determine food sources, which then confers better survival.

But I repeat can you explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve maria. Let me explain. The recurrent laryngeal nerve branches from the vagus nerve to control intrinsic muscles of the larynx. However it takes a convoluted pathway under the aortic arch up to the larynx. In giraffes it can be several metres long.

How does an intelligent creator account for this?

Evolution accounts for it beautifully in that in fish and our fishy ancestors the gills were behind the heart in comparison to the body so the laryngeal nerve could take a straight pathway, but as the gills/lungs moved to the front and in a different position, it was "easier" for the laryngeal nerve to lengthen and follow the lungs rather than forge a new pathway

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Setanta

Gold Member

Offline

\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16625
Northern NSW
Gender: male

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #159 - Nov 12^th, 2015 at 9:58pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

Well my assumption would be that at some point an organism with one eye/light spot had a generation which due to a mutation or several mutations gained two eyes. This then conferred better ability to determine food sources, which then confers better survival.

It didn't even need to be as simple as one eye/light sensitive cell. Animals, by the time eyes came about were already symmetrical, what happens on one side happens on the other. All our skin cells are photo sensitive to a degree(pun intended), you can "see" in infra red. You can feel the direction, if you spread your arms out, you could home in on the source.

The human eye is also not so special when compared to other animals and has some fundamental flaws.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-not-so-intelligent-design-of-th...

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #160 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:05am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 3:56pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 1:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 12:02pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 12^th, 2015 at 6:35am:

Really? Do the math. From single celled organism to fully sentient human life is about a million evolutionary steps. Each of these steps has a probability of occurring of about one in a hundred trillion. So the possibility of use having evolved is about a hundred million trillion to one.

And I am being generous.

Wow. So Longy is a Evolution denier as well. With Ajax being a Moon landing hoaxer I guess it explains a lot about the AGW deniers. They all have no idea about science.

Longy, your logic is completely flawed.
The process of natural selection dictates that evolutionary changes that are advantageous will continue to the next generation. Those that are not will die out. Natural selection over millions of years makes it inevitable that more complex and successful life forms will develop.

Can you find a single example in the natural world (and universe) that shows change from the simple to complex without intervention? What part of 'natural selection' dictated that we have two eyes for stereoscopic vision and depth perception? What was wrong with just one? Which part of natural selection developed a multi-use throat for breathing and eating without problem?

And where did cognition come from?

If you went to Mars and found a computer there (not from earth) you would consider it 100% proof positive of the existence of a martian race or another sentient race that had lived there. Why would it not have simply evolved out of the minerals on the planet? It is infinitely less complex than a human.

And there is the problem. Evolution is a probabilistic nightmare even without considering the question of how exquisite design appeared out of nowhere.

You answered it in your own question. Stereoscopic vision is easier with two eyes. As for the throat, I would say it the respiratory/digestive system started as one big system whereby the organism absorbed everything they needed in one system. But it was inefficient so split into two. You can also argue that the separation of oesophagus/trachea is actually evidence against a creator since an intelligent design should have the oesophagus at the front being filled from the mouth and the nose emptying into the trachea at the back so food can't get stuck.

But on the other foot how do you then explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve mariacostel using non evolutionary processes

How was it 'decided' that stereoscopic vision was better? Remember, evolution involves not design and merely minute and effectively random changes. SO what are the chances of two eyes developing by chance? One in a billion, trillion? And then you need to ask how did the brain 'evolve' to process two signals that are different and get stereoscopic vision instead of dual images? We struggle to even understand how to process that in computers now! How was such a concept as 'vision' even come into being? And why just a portion of the spectrum?

everything to do with vision screams out DESIGNER. The chance of it developing by accident and so absolutely fantastically is.... NIL.

PS stereoscopic vision isnt' easier' with two eyes. It is IMPOSSIBLE without. How would anyone determine stereoscopic vision was even better without knowing what it is - and it had to be done without any thought.

Well my assumption would be that at some point an organism with one eye/light spot had a generation which due to a mutation or several mutations gained two eyes. This then conferred better ability to determine food sources, which then confers better survival.

But I repeat can you explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve maria. Let me explain. The recurrent laryngeal nerve branches from the vagus nerve to control intrinsic muscles of the larynx. However it takes a convoluted pathway under the aortic arch up to the larynx. In giraffes it can be several metres long.

How does an intelligent creator account for this?

Evolution accounts for it beautifully in that in fish and our fishy ancestors the gills were behind the heart in comparison to the body so the laryngeal nerve could take a straight pathway, but as the gills/lungs moved to the front and in a different position, it was "easier" for the laryngeal nerve to lengthen and follow the lungs rather than forge a new pathway

You use the word 'mutation' so easily. So imagine one person grew a second eye as the result of a mutation like the Elephant Man type. Now this one person breeds and gives birth to... a normal person with one eye. Mutations in a single organism are not passed on except in exceptional circumstances. It also does not account for why we still don't have singe-eyes species of humans.

You are ignoring all the facts of genetics and presuming way too much.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #161 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:40am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

Mutations in a single organism are not passed on except in exceptional circumstances.

Precisely, when they are beneficial.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

It also does not account for why we still don't have singe-eyes species of humans.

This is insane. If humans evolved from two eyed primates, why would natural selection ever favour a mutation that meant we could see half as well Shocked

Also still awaiting your response about eyewitnesses, and why you are so convinced that John wrote the fourth gospel. Whenever you get a chance will be fine.

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: Atheists open churches around the world Reply #162 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:42am So an atheist church would get a bit zen really, consider this. They clearly would not have a Cross on display, but I am sure many would be cross... Be the cross - how zen.
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #163 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am

Stratos wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

Mutations in a single organism are not passed on except in exceptional circumstances.

Precisely, when they are beneficial.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

It also does not account for why we still don't have singe-eyes species of humans.

This is insane. If humans evolved from two eyed primates, why would natural selection ever favour a mutation that meant we could see half as well Shocked

Also still awaiting your response about eyewitnesses. Whenever you get a chance will be fine.

FAVOUR??? How does something as unintelligent as natural selection 'favour' anything? You are ascribing intelligence to natural selection which is a no-no in your atheist philosophy.

BTW I noted you didn't comment on Bazza's excellent posts which confirm the fact that no-one supports your ridiculous contention about Jesus.

And I am still waiting for you to confirm the actual existence of anyone prior to 1700 using your high standards of proof.

Back to top

IP Logged

Stratos

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4725

Re: Atheists open churches around the world
Reply #164 - Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:51am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

How does something as unintelligent as natural selection 'favour' anything?

Lol, that's exactly what it does. Positive traits are passed on, negative ones aren't. It's super simple

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

BTW I noted you didn't comment on Bazza's excellent posts which confirm the fact that no-one supports your ridiculous contention about Jesus.

I made one comment regarding the actual claim being discussed, about the supposed Aramaic literature that link, to which I've currently seen no reply. The rest has nothing to say on whether there were eyewitnesses to Jesus.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2015 at 7:45am:

And I am still waiting for you to confirm the actual existence of anyone prior to 1700 using your high standards of proof.

I did actually, I produced my criteria (one piece of archaeological or written account that is from the supposed time he was supposed to have lived) for several BIBLICAL characters, notably Herod and Pilate. We have contemporary evidence for both of them, but none for Jesus. Read back through the posts you actually made a complete straw man of my argument by saying my standard of proof is much higher than it actually is, quite dishonestly if I may be honest.

Edit: By the way, if such Aramaic literature exists as described in Bazza's post, that's all the convincing I will need.

Back to top

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 15^th, 2014 at 11:24pm:

Thus killing those Canaanite babies while they were still innocent, was a particularly merciful act

IP Logged