Post by b***@m.nuOn Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:02:09 -0700 (PDT), LaBrume Matinale
Post by LaBrume MatinalePost by nature bats lastPost by LaBrume MatinalePost by Free LunchOn Sun, 10 Aug 2014 10:30:54 -0700 (PDT), Sinoxis The Africanus
I have no contention. There's not evidence to support any speculation.
So why don't you just listen to the contentions presented by
people who lived in Jesus'time and the evidence presented to
them.
None has ever been presented - at most it's hearsay many times removed
from the alleged events.
But in any case, things like virgin births, coming back to life a few
days after being painfully and slowly executed, don't happen - no
matter how many people write about it.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume MatinalePost by nature bats lastThat would be a bit hard, as there are no writings from
anyone who supposedly heard Jesus during his lifetime.
Granted... But the question remains as why the first century
enemies of CHRIST never questioned his existence?
Which assumes the very thing the moron is supposed to be proving -
before he's proved it.
And what "enemies" was he also presuming?
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume MatinaleThe pagan philosophers did NOT EVER
Celsus did not
Lucian did not
Epictetus did not
Galen did not
Porphyry did not
And the Rabbis of Judaism did not
The moron imagines pretending these people were the enemies of some
mythical character so they didn't write about him, somehow shows he
was real?
Post by b***@m.nulet me ask you this. Did any of those people write anything at alll
about a jesus living or otherwise?
It was a transparently stupid, dishonest, desperate rationalisation.
But more importantly, there were a couple of contemporary historians
living in the region at the time, neither of whom mentioned any of the
events from the virgin birth to the crucifixion.
The one whose works are available, Philo Judea, was born 20 BC and
died about 55 AD. He was Jewish aristocracy and related to the Herods
by marriage and business - but even though he was at the heart of
events he makes no mention of anything from the Gospels.
He's pretty important, because his nephew's wife Berenice is mentioned
in Acts.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume MatinaleHow would a roman record keeper knows that the guys who
walked the street had been killed and were dead before?
Like I said, rationalisation that presumes the very nonsense he is
supposed to be proving.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume MatinaleAnd among the thousand criminals, common men and rebel
Jews that the Romans crucified, which one of those they kept
record of with name and family tree?
The Romans didn't crucify common criminals.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume MatinaleThe answer is NONE. Therefore, cela va sans dire que for the
Romans Jesus was just another common man who did not
deserve a special attention.
Again, this presumes the very thing he is supposed to be proving, and
is no more than a rationalisation.
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume MatinaleAnd this is in line with many of Jesus' own parables where a small
seed of mustard as insignificant as it might be died first before
growing into a big tree with fruits plenty enough to feed the birds.
As does this.
WHAT FUCKING KINGDOM OF WHAT FUCKING GOD was the idiot rudely and
stupidly presuming where it's just so much nonsense?
Post by b***@m.nuPost by LaBrume Matinalethat no one had seen coming or growing into a big mighty nation.
What frisking nation?
Post by b***@m.nuoh ok I guess not then... LOL kinda funny hehe
It was just being in-your-face, rudely stupid.
It knows atheists aren't Christians yet it bullshat _at_ us as if we
were.