Ben Stein: Donald Trump is 'dangerously misinformed'

[46AND2]

Thanks for giving me a reason to search deeper in this subject. Turns out that there are many writings by people who were totally against this new religion. Also turns out that in their statements against this "Christianity" they pen statements that back up many of the Biblical claims.

You may want to watch the video that I posted. Go to about 37 minutes, unless you don't want to learn the truth about facts that can be proven even today, or more precisely, the 42 minute mark. At this point the speaker states quotes from "Origen Against Celsus" where a guy by the name of Phlegon is quoted with the words I have posted below....

He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; [3351] but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails."

That would be from Origen Against Celsus Chapter 59

Er, that isn't a pagan source. It's a Christian source.

 

[JacksBratt]

Er, that isn't a pagan source. It's a Christian source.

What isn't a pagan source? The quote is from a pagan author quoting another pagan on their observations. The video is not a pagan source but the resource he is referring to is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What isn't a pagan source? The quote is from a pagan author quoting another pagan on their observations. The video is not a pagan source but the resource he is referring to is.

Origen was a Christian.

 

[46AND2]

What isn't a pagan source? The quote is from a pagan author quoting another pagan on their observations. The video is not a pagan source but the resource he is referring to is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

 

[JacksBratt]

Origen was a Christian.

I was wrong about Origen being pagan but Phlegon was not and he made the claim about Christ.
Phlegon of Tralles (Ancient Greek: Φλέγων) was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD.

the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails."

Seems to me that Origen was also using Phlegon's quote to get a point across.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes but Phlegon was not and he made the claim about Christ.
Phlegon of Tralles (Ancient Greek: Φλέγων) was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD.

the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails."

Seems to me that Origen was also using Phlegon's quote to get a point across.

So how trustworthy is Origen?

 

[JacksBratt]

So how trustworthy is Origen?

46and2 asked for a pagan source stating that Christ was observed after a resurrection showing scars and evidence of a crucifixion.

The video of J Warner Wallace, the author of
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
gave reference to pagan sources of the existence of Christ, including His being observed after His death.

46and2 wanted the name of such pagan source.

As for Origen's trustworthiness? How trustworthy is :

Herodotus, (484 – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, "Father of History", wrote the Histories that established Western historiography
Or, Thucydides, (460 – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War,

Timaeus of Tauromenium, (c. 345 – c. 250 BC), Greek history,

Or, any ancient historians of any background.....?

Please don't take the typical path, where anything posted as evidence for the Biblical account, where it is denied, or the source is attacked or if that doesn't fit, the poster is insulted.

If you really are serious about this subject and investigating it's truthfulness..... watch the video or read the book that I have gave reference to. This guy was an atheist. He is an expert in using testimony of people, living or dead, to solve crimes.... It is very interesting how they use logistics and patterns to produce presentable evidence in cold cases.

 

[46AND2]

46and2 asked for a pagan source stating that Christ was observed after a resurrection showing scars and evidence of a crucifixion.

That isn't exactly what I asked for. But you did't even fulfill that request...

The video of J Warner Wallace, the author of
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
gave reference to pagan sources of the existence of Christ, including His being observed after His death.

46and2 wanted the name of such pagan source.

As for Origen's trustworthiness? How trustworthy is :

Herodotus, (484 – c. 420 BC), Halicarnassus, "Father of History", wrote the Histories that established Western historiography
Or, Thucydides, (460 – c. 400 BC), Peloponnesian War,

Timaeus of Tauromenium, (c. 345 – c. 250 BC), Greek history,

Or, any ancient historians of any background.....?

TLK asked a legitimate question. One that even Biblical scholars ask about the sources they read...

[Please don't take the typical path, where anything posted as evidence for the Biblical account, where it is denied, or the source is attacked or if that doesn't fit, the poster is insulted.

If you really are serious about this subject and investigating it's truthfulness..... watch the video or read the book that I have gave reference to. This guy was an atheist. He is an expert in using testimony of people, living or dead, to solve crimes.... It is very interesting how they use logistics and patterns to produce presentable evidence in cold cases.

What you posted was a Christian source which potentially quotes a pagan historian. We don't get the full quote in context, because we don't have the pagan source itself. Additionally, the quote was 100 years removed from the pagan source, which was, in turn, 100 years removed from the crucifixion of Christ. This is hardly "enough evidence by going to pagan sources" that Jesus "appeared afterward with scars of a crucifixion."

In addition to to TLK's question about the reliability of Origen, the reliability of Phlegon should be questioned. We know very little about Phlegon, as not much of his work is extant. However, we do know that he also claimed to have witnessed a centaur. So there's that.

 

[JacksBratt]

That isn't exactly what I asked for. But you did't even fulfill that request...

Post # 253

Boloney. Name ONE pagan source which proves what I have bolded in your statement. ONE.

What you bolded.... below...
JacksBratt said:
There is enough evidence by going to pagan sources to prove that Jesus lived, was crucified and appeared afterward with the scars of a crucifixion.

TLK asked a legitimate question. One that even Biblical scholars ask about the sources they read...[/SIZE]
What you posted was a Christian source which potentially quotes a pagan historian. We don't get the full quote in context, because we don't have the pagan source itself. Additionally, the quote was 100 years removed from the pagan source, which was, in turn, 100 years removed from the crucifixion of Christ. This is hardly "enough evidence by going to pagan sources" that Jesus "appeared afterward with scars of a crucifixion."

In addition to to TLK's question about the reliability of Origen, the reliability of Phlegon should be questioned. We know very little about Phlegon, as not much of his work is extant. However, we do know that he also claimed to have witnessed a centaur. So there's that.

Yep, all ancient historians should be questioned. How do we know the reliability of any of them. Many accounts were recorded much more than 100 years ( most are 300 to 1400 years later ) after the event. Yet these are never questioned. If, however, they give any indication of truth to the biblical scriptures, THEN they are place in question.

It's a typical response.

 

[46AND2]

Post # 253



What you bolded.... below...
JacksBratt said:
There is enough evidence by going to pagan sources to prove that Jesus lived, was crucified and appeared afterward with the scars of a crucifixion.




Yep, all ancient historians should be questioned. How do we know the reliability of any of them. Many accounts were recorded much more than 100 years ( most are 300 to 1400 years later ) after the event. Yet these are never questioned. If, however, they give any indication of truth to the biblical scriptures, THEN they are place in question.

It's a typical response.

Yes, I know what I asked for. Read very carefully. I did not ask for a pagan source which states Jesus was seen after crucifixion with scars. I asked for the evidence, going to a pagan source, which is enough to "prove that Jesus....appeared afterward with the scars of a crucifixion."

What you provided was a Christian source. That Christian source gives a hearsay account of unknown accuracy in context, since we cannot see the account in context, because we DON'T HAVE THE PAGAN SOURCE--which is part of what I asked for in the first place.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, I know what I asked for. Read very carefully. I did not ask for a pagan source which states Jesus was seen after crucifixion with scars. I asked for the evidence, going to a pagan source, which is enough to "prove that Jesus....appeared afterward with the scars of a crucifixion."

I doubt if anyone could ever give you a source that you would take as "enough" evidence.

Did you watch the video?

 

[46AND2]

Post # 253



What you bolded.... below...
JacksBratt said:
There is enough evidence by going to pagan sources to prove that Jesus lived, was crucified and appeared afterward with the scars of a crucifixion.




Yep, all ancient historians should be questioned. How do we know the reliability of any of them. Many accounts were recorded much more than 100 years ( most are 300 to 1400 years later ) after the event. Yet these are never questioned. If, however, they give any indication of truth to the biblical scriptures, THEN they are place in question.

It's a typical response.

Let me give you an example of why you did not provide a pagan source:

If I wrote a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and included a quote in which he said " I do order and declare...all persons held as slaves within...designated States," is my biography the source of that quote, or is the Emancipation Proclamation? Did he actually write those words? Is it the right context? How do you know, unless you go to the ACTUAL source?

 

[46AND2]

I doubt if anyone could ever give you a source that you would take as "enough" evidence.

Did you watch the video?

What makes you think that I wouldn't WANT such evidence? Do you think I WANT to be an atheist?

I was merely asking you to back up your claim.

 

[46AND2]

Did you watch the video?

No. But I have studied the claimed pagan sources in support of Christianity. I started doing so while I was still a Christian. It's how I knew you couldn't provide a single source for the bolded part of your claim.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I doubt if anyone could ever give you a source that you would take as "enough" evidence.

Just because you didn't doesn't mean that nobody could.

Did you watch the video?

Is the video a Pagan source?

 

[JacksBratt]

No. But I have studied the claimed pagan sources in support of Christianity. I started doing so while I was still a Christian. It's how I knew you couldn't provide a single source for the bolded part of your claim.

If you don't want to be an atheist why avoid watching a presentation of a converted atheist as he analyses the gospel from the point of view of an expert investigator of cold case files.

Our belief is a choice. We look at information, we decide if it is legitimate enough for us to take as truth. We see events and we choose to belief or not to believe it is an illusion or an actual event. We read of practices, procedures and operations and decide to believe if they are fact or hoax.

I have no worries of ever losing my faith. The events I have witnessed and the things that have happened in my life are much to real and powerful to ever convince me that God is not real and the Bible is not fact.

As an atheist, who doesn't want to be so, why do you not delve into any information you can get your hands on in a method of gaining knowledge and regain your faith?

 

[JacksBratt]

Just because you didn't doesn't mean that nobody could.

I said "I doubt".

I said this because the pattern I see is to discredit any source, for any minuscule fragment of a reason, that would give credence to actual recorded observation of any biblical event.

Is the video a Pagan source?

I see no reason to respond to this question. I don't even understand how it could be relevant to the previous posts that I have made.

 

[46AND2]

If you don't want to be an atheist why avoid watching a presentation of a converted atheist as he analyses the gospel from the point of view of an expert investigator of cold case files.

Cause I don't see the point in spending an hour on a video that only discusses stuff I have already studied.

Our belief is a choice.

No it isn't. It's a conviction based on information and stimuli we are exposed to.

We look at information, we decide if it is legitimate enough for us to take as truth. We see events and we choose to belief or not to believe it is an illusion or an actual event. We read of practices, procedures and operations and decide to believe if they are fact or hoax.

You can't CHOOSE to believe something. Go ahead and try to choose to believe in Santa Clause for the next ten minutes. The evidence either is convincing to you, or it is not. You can't choose whether it is or not.

I have no worries of ever losing my faith. The events I have witnessed and the things that have happened in my life are much to real and powerful to ever convince me that God is not real and the Bible is not fact.

As an atheist, who doesn't want to be so, why do you not delve into any information you can get your hands on in a method of gaining knowledge and regain your faith?

What makes you think that I haven't? YOU didn't even know who Origen was.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you don't want to be an atheist why avoid watching a presentation of a converted atheist as he analyses the gospel from the point of view of an expert investigator of cold case files.

I can think of some reasons why a person wouldn't want to watch it.
1. The video is too long/they don't have the spare time to watch it.
2. They watched part of it, and the person performing the analysis showed bias and or ignorance to enough of an extent to make the viewer not see value in watching it further.
3. Most videos of this nature are for reaffirming belief, not converting nonbelievers, so they don't really work for the latter.

Our belief is a choice.

Mine is most assuredly not. I would rather believe than be tormented by my own impending death to the extent I am, even if I would have to sacrifice logic to do it. However, I can't control how I interpret information and the world like that.

We look at information, we decide if it is legitimate enough for us to take as truth.

You actually don't fully consciously decide that. The standard of evidence you would be willing to accept is shaped greatly by your life experiences, preconceptions, and natural inclinations; none of which you consciously shape to have the standard of evidence you want to have.

We see events and we choose to belief or not to believe it is an illusion or an actual event.

Nope. If this were true, you should be able to force yourself to believe that Criss Angel is an actual wizard without any additional evidence. You should also be able to voluntarily be an atheist for 5 minutes, and then reconvert yourself. If you can do either, I'll be convinced (unless you already thought Criss Angel was an actual wizard).

We read of practices, procedures and operations and decide to believe if they are fact or hoax.

Yes, but the reasoning behind it and the capacity to believe something vary from person to person.

I have no worries of ever losing my faith. The events I have witnessed and the things that have happened in my life are much to real and powerful to ever convince me that God is not real and the Bible is not fact.

Then you admit that not having faith is no longer a choice for you, even though you previously claimed that having it was a choice. How is one so different from the other?

As an atheist, who doesn't want to be so, why do you not delve into any information you can get your hands on in a method of gaining knowledge and regain your faith?

Well, for me, I never had any faith to begin with, but I have tried desperately to find evidence that would allow me to obtain it for nearly 8 years now. I've come up empty thus far.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I said "I doubt".

I said this because the pattern I see is to discredit any source, for any minuscule fragment of a reason, that would give credence to actual recorded observation of any biblical event.

Whatever you need to think to rationalize your failure to deliver...

I see no reason to respond to this question. I don't even understand how it could be relevant to the previous posts that I have made.

You were asked for one of the Pagan sources you claimed existed. You responded with "did you watch the video?" Either there's a connection or you're trying to change the subject.