Topic: The Existence of Jesus Part 2c. (Read 1624 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** December 13, 2005, 11:48:55 AM »

I almost forgot. Every skeptic and atheist will have to admit that this particular document proves not only that Jesus existed, but that Jesus argued with Pharisees.

I submit to you the ancient manuscript, "Lex Lucifem Rex Maximus" which as you can see, includes the words:

"Despite it all, we know that there were often disputes. Jesus from Nazareth defied the teachers and pharisees and to what end? I saw Jesus with my own eyes yet saw nothing in his words worthy to overthrow the teachers of the law. See to it then that you do not partake in such behavior."

The LLRM is from 35 AD, just a few years after Jesus was crucified and allegedly resurrected. The author was Janus Antony, who was not a Christian. He had visited Jerusalem and seen and heard Jesus personally, but as a Jewish convert, remained unconvinced.

There, contemporary evidence of Jesus existence.

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 13, 2005, 12:11:44 PM »

Sntjohnny, I had not heard of this one, and I can't find any references to it through Google. Can you cite a reference?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** December 13, 2005, 12:20:48 PM »

Sure. It's found in the Anthology collection of Catechisma of Martinisva c. 290 AD

They found an older copy from the second century. I'm sure it's in a museum somewhere.

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 13, 2005, 02:49:58 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

Sure. It's found in the Anthology collection of Catechisma of Martinisva c. 290 AD

They found an older copy from the second century. I'm sure it's in a museum somewhere.

Sorry, but I can find no reference to it anywhere. Can you be more helpful? For example, just the name "Martinisva" turns up bupkis on a google search. And that includes print.google.com. None of the books in their database even mentions it, apparently. Google asks me if I meant "Martini's". Not a very hopeful sign for such solid evidence, eh?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** December 13, 2005, 03:11:54 PM »

That would be because it is such a valuable manuscript. The anthology itself is of great value. They are surely kept in very secure environs and I don't think they'd be risking its destruction by having hordes of people looking at it all the time. Good stuff, though, eh? This passage really gives you exactly what you've wanted all along.

Copernicus · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2005, 03:56:29 PM »

Right. Another Christian fabrication. What else is new?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2005, 09:26:45 AM »

Ah, ok, right. So, by referring you to material that I knew you (or any other reader) would not be able to access, I was not helping either to persuade you to my position or refute any position of yours. In fact, all it did was feed into your own biases and expectations.

So, it's pretty stupid and moronic for an apologist- who specifically hopes to either persuade or refute- to provide such information.

Yet, that is precisely what you are saying it is 'possible' that Origen did with Celsus, in citing Josephus. Not every 'possibility' is reasonable. This particular one is dumber then a door nail and dead on arrival. If in fact the tactic had any merit, you wouldn't have so quickly rejected my information and dismissed it as an a 'fakery.'

In both my spoof threads, you demonstrate precisely why your own speculation against Josephus, corroborated with Origen, is pathetically weak. You must suppose that Origen was dastardly wicked and that Celsus was dumber than a door nail- and Origen KNEW it, and exploited it, or Origen was dumber than a door nail and Celsus eventually came back and also dismissed Origen's argument as fakery...

OH yea. That's right. I forgot my tinfoil hat and my "Guide to Christian Source Conspiracy." This is where I delete your responses throughout the message board and continue to cite my arguments as unchallenged and unchallengeable by skeptics. For of course, if we do not suppose Origen to be dastardly wicked and Celsus profoundly idiotic, we must by your reasoning suspect that the next wave of apologists were. Hence, your argument requires a postulation of perpetual mischeiviousness and stupidity from both Christian and skeptic alike. No doubt you think the chain of rank stupidity ends with you, but I have no doubt you think I believe the argument for the existence of Jesus and the resurrection so weak that I WOULD invent 'evidence.'

Be that as it may, nonetheless, it would not persuade anyone either that my position is more sound or yours any less sound, if you did not have access to that data yourself. So why would I submit it?

I now refer you back to the official part 2 thread where we can discover if you have anything more then tendentious speculation to defeat a prima facie acceptance at least of Jesus, the brother of James reference in Josephus- especially when that prima facie acceptance is helped along by two later citations, one from an apologist to a skeptic.

Copernicus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2005, 04:36:33 PM »

Generating sham threads does not help your case, sntjohnny. You are trying to establish evidence for the historicity of Christ. My argument is quite clear: the non-Christian evidence is at best a slim reed to hang such an argument on.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2005, 04:40:31 PM »

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2005, 06:50:18 PM »

Thanks for playing along. I'm sure you knew all along that they were sham threads, too, didn't you? I have exposed in this particular thread the weakness of your sham argument.

You want to say that the evidence for Jesus' existence is 'slim' but when you have a passage from Josephus given that explicitly supports the existence of Jesus. The existence of the passage- and in the case of the reference to James in it- the content of the passage- is denied by practically no one. In large part, this is because Origen, writing not too long afterwards, cites the passage to an opponent of Christianity.

Your argument against this painfully cogent piece of evidence, among other very weak arguments, is that it is reasonable to suppose that Celsus did not have access to the information.

As you graciously played into my hand so well, you were not impressed at all when I cited information that you didn't have access to.

Again, your 'reasonable speculation' requires something else very unreasonable to be true, first. Namely, that Origen was a friggin moron, or a wicked evidence faker, etc. Also, if your view is to be taken as correct, we can infer about how Origen felt about Celsus: an idiot.

Interestingly, in my two sham threads, the basic reduction is the same. In order for your 'reasonable speculations' to be in the least true, we have to assume the worst about both Origen and Celsus.

This of course is your right, but the fact that you are probably only 1 out of 20 people in the entire world that think Josephus did not really reference Jesus, it doesn't really seem as though anyone else thinks your argument any good.

Ironically, this is the sort of argument you had against Tacitus, too. Despite it being acknowledged by all that he was an excellent historian who was pretty good with his sourcing, your reasonable speculation requires us to assume that Tacitus suddenly got lazy, or bored, or worse.

Author Topic: The Existence of Jesus Part 2c. (Read 1624 times)

Anthony Horvath

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Copernicus

Re: The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Anthony Horvath

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Copernicus

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Anthony Horvath

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Copernicus

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Anthony Horvath

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Copernicus

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

TheAtheistHeratic

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.

Anthony Horvath

The Existence of Jesus Part 2c.