Surely no one is suggesting a reputable source does not depend on information, except those in denial along with Jem of course. Why would you suggest otherwise? There is no reputable source and there are no reputable sources, means - there is NOTHING, no source, no content, no information, NOTHING stands up that can be validated, can be confirmed, as reliable - as historical evidence. So then the content and information in and of any source is not reaching the ordinary criterion required for establishing existence historically. That is the case with Jesus and many other biblical characters. You appear to be confused. The point being made was not about the bible as source for making Jesus non-fictional. The point was about ancient text supposed to be valid as historical evidence because it was falsely claimed to be from a reliable source. I have not accused you of "babbling". You are confusing me with someone else. Please try to follow properly who is saying what here. Don't you want your comments to be factually sourced, based on valid and reliable information!? When the claim is made that Jesus is non-fictional because of a supposed reliable source of information - which so happened not to be a bible source (apparently something you missed), and not reliable, too obscure and miniscule in comparison to what it should be, and most likely forged anyway as other such references have been proved to be - the point is EXACTLY whether the claim being made comes from a reliable valid source. Moral stories are a completely separate point. How you get a moral point across , whether through myth, story telling, or by humanitarian values alone - is an entirely different topic. But I will just say if the Bible is a good source for representing moral value, then so is Mein Kampf.
you are such a fraud. I present quotes and summries you present garbage you made up without support. "Central to Crossan's methodology is the dating of texts. This is laid out more or less fully in The Historical Jesus in one of the appendices. He dates part of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas to the 50s CE, as well as the first layer of the hypothetical Q Document (in this he is heavily dependent on the work of John Kloppenborg). He also assigns a portion of the Gospel of Peter, which he calls the "Cross Gospel," to a date preceding the synoptic gospels, the reasoning of which is laid out more fully in The Cross that Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narratives. He believes the "Cross Gospel" was the forerunner to the passion narratives in the canonical gospels. He does not date the synoptics until the mid to late 70s CE, starting with the Gospel of Mark and ending with Luke in the 90s""
Like a retard I see you are back to mindlessly reposting stuff already refuted. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article has multiple issues. no kidding Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Everything you say is untrustworthy. Just like the claims made for a historical Jesus; always less than honest. Apparently to a theist like you, that is something considered to be good. Constantly in denial of reality, permenantly deluded. Wilfully ignorant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am asking why (you) think in your opinion a god can have let this happen to the baby. I am not asking why this happen biological, because we can read many reasons from the science. Example, twins not separate in the womb, environmental cause turn off or turn on genes coding. But why (you) think a god can let this happen? When I do the google search for not biologic reason, but for the god reason, I see the reason is punishment for somene not obey the laws of the god. Please tell me why y how this girls who have faith and religion disobey the god laws. How? To me this is really bullshit, and sad to blame this girls.
More juvenile misdirection from Stu. Only a blatant liar and troll like Stu would act like Crossan denies the historicity of Jesus without citing to a single quote or article. Deal with the facts. You fraudulently took him out of context. Your own experts concepts show you to be a kook.
You must do more for putting people off of religion than a screaming lunatic on a street corner. All you basically have is pathetic insult. You should ask yourself why - considering that you rely so heavily on wiki as a source for most of your ignorance - you only seem to be able to find pages that have a warning banner on them, because the content is disputed or requires validation, but don't take any notice of the pages which aren't flagged up like the one containing the following, simply because they hold information you don't like. So here's your "citing to a quote" from your very fav place wikipedia Mythic-Jesus theory: the gospels describe a virtually, and perhaps entirely, fictitious person or the Gospel accounts are so filled with legend, myth, and contradictions there is no reliable way to show that any of it including the very existence of the man described is rooted in history. This view is represented to varying degrees by Bruno Bauer, Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, and Robert Price. John Dominic Crossan, a religious scholar and former Catholic priest, prefers to call the Jesus myth theory the "Jesus-parable", because the argument is that we have a purely parabolic Jesus, not an historical one. Historical research can reveal a core of historical facts about Jesus, but he is very different from the Jesus of the New Testament. His sayings and miracles are myths. Robert Funk and Crossan represent this view, one that Eddy and Boyd write is increasingly common among New Testament scholars. You have numerous scholars but the best on offer is there was a Jesus, but not a New Testament Jesus whose stuff is miracles and myth. The onus is on those who say there is historical evidence available to establish it. NO ONE has been able to do that. NO ONE EVER has been able to establish the historicity for bible Jesus. Not even all the many 'scholarly' religious cheats who have tried throughout the ages have been able to pull it off. All of your brainless willful ignorance , crude and cowardly denial certainly won't do it.
You really are scum troll. This was a debate about the historicity of Jesus, not his divinity. I cited numerous historical accounts which support the historicity of Jesus. I never argued there was extra biblical evidence of his divinity. You are a dirtbag to even imply that I did. You took Crossan out of context and lied about the meaning of what he had written. So now we agree, Crossan, your expert, actually believes in the historicity of jesus. P.S. I noticed you did not even have the integrity to cite us to the page where you found your quote. Why not?
You are the only one mentioning divinity. No you have not. You imagine you have, but in fact you haven't. That's what delusion does for you. You never had any reasonable argument for any of this at all. If you now want to spin off by making accusations about arguing divinity, then you won't be doing anything other than you normally do. Which is to sound and act like an idiot. No I didn't. Don't forget. You can't support anything of what you say, you only make groundless assertion, accusation and insult. You can't help yourself. No we don't agree. You imagine we agree. wiki.. "John Dominic Crossan, a religious scholar and former Catholic priest, prefers to call the Jesus myth theory the "Jesus-parable", because the argument is that we have a purely parabolic Jesus, not an historical one". You take what he actually says out of context, then you accuse me of taking what he actually says out of context. That's why you have no argument, are deluded and sound so dumb. Are you really trying to suggest if Crossan thinks there was a jesus, there could have been a Jesus? That is worse than utterly pathetic so probably is what you would do. I notice you ignored my attribution to Wiki so what's the problem. Are you going to add lazy bastard to your litany of impoverishments because you can't be bothered to search it? This is the problem you have which sits at the heart of your brainless, unedifying, eristic grunts to the contrary.... NO ONE EVER has been able to establish the historicity for bible Jesus.
you are an insane fraud. Here is a link which goes over many of the sources. Remember that the passage from the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities is virtually undisputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[75] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[76] since some portions are written in his style.[77] In the second, brief mention, Josephus calls James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."[78] The great majority of scholars consider this shorter reference to Jesus to be substantially authentic,[79] Hegesippus, in a work produced around 165-175, also has an account of James that has irreconcilable conflicts with Josephus regarding the death of James the Just (c70 CE vs Josephus' c64).[80][81][82] In antiquity, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ,[83] as it seems to suggest in the quote above. L. Michael White argued against authenticity, citing that parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War do not mention Jesus, and that some Christian writers as late as the 3rd century, who quoted from Josephus's Antiquities, do not mention this passage.[84] However, Alice Whealey has shown that it is far from clear that any 3rd century Christians other than Origen quoted from or even directly knew Antiquities.[85] The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James. Arguably the main reason to accept that Josephus also wrote a version of the Testimonium Flavianum is the fact that Jerome (died in 420 AD) and Michael the Syrian (died in 1199 AD) quote literal translations of the text in a form reading, more skeptically than the textus receptus, that "he was thought to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." The identical wording of Jerome and Michael the Syrian indicates the existence of an originally Greek Testimonium in the 5th century, since Latin Christian scholars and Syriac scholars did not read each others' works, but both commonly translated Greek Christian works.[citation needed] Tacitus Main article: Tacitus on Christ Tacitus (c. 56âc. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote: Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[52] There have been suggestions that this was a Christian interpolation but most scholars conclude that the passage was written by Tacitus.[53] For example, R. E. Van Voorst noted the improbability that later Christians would have interpolated "such disparaging remarks about Christianity".[54] John P. Meier asserts that there is no historical or archaeological evidence to support the argument that a scribe may have introduced the passage into the text.[55] There is disagreement about what this passage proves, since Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.[56] The pejorative description of the suppression of Christianity (calling it a superstition, for instance) is not likely based on any statements Christians themselves may have made to Tacitus. Tacitus is known to have drawn on many earlier historical works now lost to us in the Annals, and he may have used official sources from a Roman archive in this case; however, if Tacitus had been copying from an official source, some scholars would expect him to have labeled Pilate correctly as a prefect rather than a procurator.[57] Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."[58] Indeed, Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[59] R. T. France concludes that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he has heard through Christians.[60][61] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that Tacitus gives us a description of widespread prejudices about Christianity and a few precise details about "Christus" and Christianity (the source of which remains unclear): Christus was a Jew and a criminal whom Pontius Pilate had executed. He authored a new religious movement that began in Judea and was called Christianity which was widespread around the city of Rome during Nero's reign.[62] and another Suetonius Main article: Suetonius on Christ Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69â140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".[63] The event was noted in Acts 18:2. The term Chrestus also appears in some later texts applied to Jesus, and Robert Graves,[64] among others,[65] consider it a variant spelling of Christ, or at least a reasonable spelling error. On the other hand, Chrestus was itself a common name, particularly for slaves, meaning good or useful.[66] With regard to Jewish persecution around the time to which this passage refers, the Jewish Encyclopedia states: "... in 49â50, in consequence of dissensions among them regarding the arrival of the Messiah, they were forbidden to hold religious services. The leaders in the controversy, and many others of the Jewish citizens, left the city".[67] Another suggestion as to why Chrestus may not be Christ is based on the fact Suetonius refers to Jews not Christians in this passage, even though in his Life of Nero he shows some knowledge of the sect's existence. One solution to this problem, however, lies in the fact that the early Christians had not yet separated from their Jewish origin at this time.[68][69][70] Even discounting all these points, this passage offers little information about Jesus himself.[58]