Scrutinizing Street Epistemology and Street Evangelism

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Piper for the doctor was not channeling anyone at all, I get that. But, per the professor and his obersvations she was. We have one circumstance that she channels a doctor (French) however, we have another conflicting circumstance by a professor who sat in an interview with her.
And that's why those conflicting are irrelevant.

The second she fails to accurately channel information that cannot merely be repeated, but requires a deep understanding, the ability falls apart.

In 1846, Charles Schonbein, a Swiss chemist, accidentally discovered another polymer when he spilled a nitric acid-sulfuric acid mixture on some cotton. A chemical reaction occurred in which the hydroxyl groups of the cellulose fibers in the cotton were converted to nitrate groups catalyzed by the sulfur. The resultant polymer, nitrocellulose, could burst into a smokeless flame and was used by the military in place of gunpowder. In 1870, chemist John Hyatt reacted nitrocellulose with camphor to make celluloid, a plastic polymer that was used in photographic film, billiard balls, dental plates and Ping-Pong balls. In 1909, a chemist named Leo Baekeland synthesized Bakelite, the first truly synthetic polymer, from a mixture of phenol and formaldehyde. The condensation reaction between these monomers allows the formaldehyde to bind the phenol rings into rigid three-dimensional polymers. So, Bakelite can be molded when hot and solidified into a hard plastic that can be used for handles, phones, auto parts, furniture and even jewelry. Bakelite is hard, resistant to heat and electricity, and can't be easily melted or scorched once cooled. The invention of Bakelite led to a whole class of plastics with similar properties, known as phenolic resins.
I'm not sure the point you are making. Accidents can lead to things, I agree.

These are not in anyway related to the supernatural.

There are hundreds, thousands of paranormal events that have been documented. Sometimes by individuals, sometimes by groups of people. But, you being an atheist, cannot fathom the idea, because of hypercritical thinking. So for the atheist it is non existence, it is a misnomer to state that paranormal research should be explored to establish the supernatural in any capactiy, for the atheistic scientist or atheist in general as philosophical advice limits this thinking.
I can fathom that there are countless documents, they just fail testing.

To date, all the numerous Elvis sightings have not made that a reality.

Being an athesit affects my credulity, not limits it.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
And that's why those conflicting are irrelevant.

The second she fails to accurately channel information that cannot merely be repeated, but requires a deep understanding, the ability falls apart.

I'm not sure the point you are making. Accidents can lead to things, I agree.

These are not in anyway related to the supernatural.

I can fathom that there are countless documents, they just fail testing.

To date, all the numerous Elvis sightings have not made that a reality.

Being an athesit affects my credulity, not limits it.

However, there remains conflicting reports between Dr Hyslop and the Professor, so while she may have channeled incorrectly for one, it was not the same for the other.

What I am stating is that the supernatural world can be "found" accidentally.

Having countless documents would need to be studied, whether they fail or not is unknown, I can't assume they have failed and I can't assume they have succeeded. We aren't talking "Elvis" sightings.

It has to limit what you "believe", because otherwise you wouldn't reject notions so quickly.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
IIRC, by "paranormal" you mean "not (yet) explained" (if I am mistaken, please correct me and give me your - workable - definition of "paranormal").
Under this definition I agree with your first sentence, but not at all with the second one. As an atheist, I can not only fathom the idea that we do not (yet) have explanations for everything, but I am totally convinced of it.

This isn´t accurate. Rather, I would firstly demand workable definitions of "paranormal" and "supernatural" in order to know what exactly is to be established. Next, I am curious what methodology you suggest for going about it.

Before we can even delve into what "paranormal" or even "supernatural", and possibly reject the ideas, we need to understand why the ideas are being rejected. Also, please define what you mean by "workable", are you then equating "paranormal" and "supernatural" to a lab generated experiment?

Actually it is very accurate, being an atheist, you'd have to reject the notions of anything that is beyond the realm of what is observable in the strictest sense. Hence, why atheism is self limiting.

For example you cannot see the atomic maps of virus shells with the naked eye, however with certain equipment this is observable.

Similarly, the idea that there are ghosts or apparitions is preposterous for an atheist, because atheists cannot observe the "paranormal" world in this sense.

Unless of course we'd define what nomenclature of atheist you are, similar to monotheism not all atheists have the same premise for "belief" if you will.

I tend to look at atheism as a "school of thought" and I see certain philosophies accepted and rejected by certain atheists.

Of course when it comes to science, I am not convinced that all science is atheistic geared.

Obviously there are issues with the monotheistic Bible. I myself being a polytheist tend to think that every school of thought has imperfections to it, hence, making it hard for agreeable outcomes between the each.
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Yes, we are in agreement.

My experience is irrelevant in trying to convince someone else in my faith, but their experience is absolutely relevant. All we have is our senses, intellect and feelings. If the other person shares a spiritual experience, that they are convinced is real, that might be a point of dialogue.

And that dialogue may or may not include my experience as confirmation and it may open a door to what the Bible might say on the topic if it matches their experience, too.

I would not say belief is simply belief, since all belief is based upon something, whether it is an external observation or experience, something read, or just a gut feeling in a person. What you say about Larnievc not knowing why he or she is an atheist, many beliefs come either in childhood and are forgotten or happen at a subconscious level without knowing why. What I mean is that we can make judgments at an early age and build other judgments upon those judgments and forget the original judgements that become the foundation of the belief system.

This, of course, applies to everything. Pontius Pilate faced Jesus and asked, What is truth? Preachers make fun of him since Jesus was Truth Incarnate, but I sympathize with Pilate. We are told so many lies that we believe as truth because propaganda has been so long and extensive. For example, Hitler is now an icon of demonic evil, but was he? I am not saying one way or another, only that, in truth, I don't know. I was not alive then and I have not researched original documentation to find out. And that would mean documentation in German, Russian, and all languages of people involved in WWII. So we accept what we are told whether it is true or not.

Larnievc in theory what you are saying would work, but environment has heavy influence on belief, hence why belief is belief (no matter what you believe) and even if the belief changes or if the belief is based upon "something", it is still and remains a belief.

Larnievc like others can make judgments sure, however, this does not exclude persuasive influence by the persons upbringing.

I will for now ignore the "Jesus" comments, me being a polytheist and you being a monotheist will disagree. But in short I equate Jesus to Dumuzid, Ba'al, Inanna, and other Ancient Near East saviors.

Hitler, as I understand fled to Argentina, and may not have "believed" in his cause. Based on this notion it would appear that Hitler was seeking fame, but I'm sure that can be hotly debated.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
However, there remains conflicting reports between Dr Hyslop and the Professor, so while she may have channeled incorrectly for one, it was not the same for the other.
You are still arguing for Person A and Person B's conflicting reports and ignoring how Person C's information invalidates the whole.

Give a plausible reason for her *not* being able to talk about complex things the person knew or learned, but was able to repeat information about them, that doesn't have fraudulent as the most reasonable explanation. Just respond to this.

What I am stating is that the supernatural world can be "found" accidentally.
I am only aware of the natural found accidentally.

It has to limit what you "believe", because otherwise you wouldn't reject notions so quickly.
No, it limits the believability.

Everything is on a spectrum and that moves, according to type and amount of proof for it.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The only reason you know about Jesus, is because the bible talks about him.

Nowhere on this planet do people "know" Jesus without having access to bibles or bible-reading christians telling them about him.
More zeitgeist propaganda.

Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians 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 Judea, 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.”

In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus: He was a wise and influential man who died for His beliefs. The Jewish leadership was somehow responsible for Jesus’ death. Jesus’ followers adopted His beliefs and lived their lives accordingly.

Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“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.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

From these accounts, we can add something to our understanding: Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated His wounds after he was resurrected.

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

This early description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.

Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this account, we know Jesus had an immediate impact on His followers: They were committed to their belief Jesus was God and withstood the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on His followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.

Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

From this account we can add to our description of Jesus: He taught about repentance and about the family of God. These teachings were quickly adopted by Jesus’ followers and exhibited to the world around them.

Celsus (175AD)
This is the last hostile, non-Christian account we will examine (although there are many other later accounts in history). Celsus was quite antagonistic to the claims of the Gospels, but in his criticism he unknowingly affirmed and reinforced the Biblical authors and their content. His writing is extensive and he alludes to 80 different Biblical quotes, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admits the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early 2nd century:

“Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”

Celsus admits Jesus was reportedly born of a virgin, but then argues this could supernatural account could not be possible and offers the idea Jesus was the illegitimate son of a man named Panthera (an idea borrowed from Jews who opposed Jesus at the time). But in writing this account, Celsus does confirm several important claims: Jesus had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed unusual magical powers and claimed to be God.

Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Accounts
In addition to classical pagan sources chronicling the life of Jesus and His followers, there are also a number of ancient hostile Jewish sources describing Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians and leaders who were definitely not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Their writings are often very harsh, critical and even demeaning to Jesus. But there is still much these writings confirm:

Josephus (37-101AD)
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his “the Antiquities of the Jews” in 93AD. Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at an early age, became a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and he was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Under the rule of Roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James (and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ), and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah. There is much legitimate controversy about the writing of Josephus, because the first discoveries of his writings are late enough to have been re-written by Christians who were accused of making additions to the text. So to be fair, we’ll examine a scholarly reconstruction stripped of Christian embellishment:

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed by John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person).

Now there are many other ancient versions of Josephus’ writing which are even more explicit about the nature of Jesus’ miracles, life and his status as the Christ, but let’s take this conservative version and see what we can learn. From this text, we can conclude: Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused by the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians.

Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
While the earliest Talmudic writings of Jewish Rabbis appear in the 5th century, the tradition of these Rabbinic authors indicates they are faithfully transmitting teachings from the early “Tannaitic” period of the 1st Century BC to the 2nd Century AD. Scholars believe there are a number of Talmudic writings referring to Jesus, and many of these writings are said to use code words to describe Jesus (such as “Balaam” or “Ben Stada” or “a certain one”). But for our purposes we’ll be very conservative and limit our examination to the passages referring to Jesus in a more direct way:

“Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b)

“Rabbi Hisda (d. 309) said that Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba said, ‘What is that which is written, ‘No evil will befall you, nor shall any plague come near your house’? (Psalm 91:10)… ‘No evil will befall you’ (means) that evil dreams and evil thoughts will not tempt you; ‘nor shall any plague come near your house’ (means) that you will not have a son or a disciple who burns his food like Jesus of Nazareth.” (b. Sanhedrin 103a; cf. b. Berakhot 17b)

“Our rabbis have taught that Jesus had five disciples: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. They brought Matthai to (to trial). He said, ‘Must Matthai be killed? For it is written, ‘When (mathai) shall I come and appear before God?’” (Psalm 92:2) They said to him, “Yes Matthai must be killed, for it is written, ‘When (mathai) he dies his name will perish’” (Psalm 41:5). They brought Nakai. He said to them, “Must Nakai be killed? For it is written, “The innocent (naqi) and the righteous will not slay’” (Exodus 23:7). They said to him, “Yes, Nakai must be kille, for it is written, ‘In secret places he slays the innocent (naqi)’” (Psalm 10:8). (b. Sanhedrin 43a; the passage continues in a similar way for Nezer, Buni and Todah)

And this, perhaps the most famous of Talmudic passages about Jesus:

“It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)

From just these passages mentioning Jesus by name, we can conclude the following: Jesus had magical powers, led the Jews away from their beliefs, had disciples who were martyred for their faith (one of whom was named Matthai), and was executed on the day before the Passover.

The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is called ‘Yehoshua’):

“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten. Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters. He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: “This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.” Yeshu replied, “The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.’” Queen Helene asked the Sages: “What he says, is it in your Torah?” They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment. Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: “It is spoken of me, ‘I will ascend into heaven.’” He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone…Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Peter Boghossian out of Portland produce this approach and lays it out in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

I've been wanting to expose the fallacious nature of his approach in another of my "Tricks Atheists/Theist Play" series, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

The key trick is to highlight the average person's lack of justification for their beleifs. It misses e pointmthat Boghossians approach equally destructive to atheism as it is theism. Secondly ignorance of how to justify a claim is a separate category than the truth-value of the claim. The former is epistemic, the latter, ontic.

The truth value of 2+2=4 remains whether or not any human ever exists let alone know that statement is true and can prove that it is true.

Boghossian knows this fact since early in his Philosophy undergrad program. It is a category fallacy!

It is equally destructive to atheism if his approach wasn't fallacious.

He is hoping no one has had an epistemology class or basic logical fallacy intro. Seems based on the responses both on YouTube and here that most have not had the benefit of the two aforementioned interventions.

I will post a more thurough discussion of the incoherence of this approach in the next couple weeks.

I encourage you not to waste time arguing with non-theists about this fallacious method.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Peter Boghossian out of Portland produce this approach and lays it out in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094

I've been wanting to expose the fallacious nature of his approach in another of my "Tricks Atheists/Theist Play" series, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

The key trick is to highlight the average person's lack of justification for their beleifs. It misses e pointmthat Boghossians approach equally destructive to atheism as it is theism. Secondly ignorance of how to justify a claim is a separate category than the truth-value of the claim. The former is epistemic, the latter, ontic.

The truth value of 2+2=4 remains whether or not any human ever exists let alone know that statement is true and can prove that it is true.

Boghossian knows this fact since early in his Philosophy undergrad program. It is a category fallacy!

It is equally destructive to atheism if his approach wasn't fallacious.

He is hoping no one has had an epistemology class or basic logical fallacy intro. Seems based on the responses both on YouTube and here that most have not had the benefit of the two aforementioned interventions.

I will post a more thurough discussion of the incoherence of this approach in the next couple weeks.

I encourage you not to waste time arguing with non-theists about this fallacious method.
We're good.

No need, or if you do, please create a topic about it.

Thx.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Larnievc in theory what you are saying would work, but environment has heavy influence on belief, hence why belief is belief (no matter what you believe) and even if the belief changes or if the belief is based upon "something", it is still and remains a belief.

Larnievc like others can make judgments sure, however, this does not exclude persuasive influence by the persons upbringing.

I will for now ignore the "Jesus" comments, me being a polytheist and you being a monotheist will disagree. But in short I equate Jesus to Dumuzid, Ba'al, Inanna, and other Ancient Near East saviors.

Hitler, as I understand fled to Argentina, and may not have "believed" in his cause. Based on this notion it would appear that Hitler was seeking fame, but I'm sure that can be hotly debated.
Since you state "other religion" I understood your faith is not the same as mine, but it seems we are discussing epistemology and I expect your comments to include elements from your faith as well. All faith is based upon "judgements" and I do not mean "judgmental" but rather conclusions. In discussing anything with anyone, one needs to understand the conclusions people operate by and how they got their conclusions. An honest inquiry has no agenda, although we all have our bias. This is the only way to come to understanding.

As for Hitler, I simply used his name because it is iconic, and I am currently watching the Europa TV series called the "Last Battle" which gives the other side's view. As for Pilate, as a Roman procurator, he may have studied history, too. The Egyptian dynasties were notorious in destroying all memory of the prior dynasties so people would not know about them. Perhaps Pilate knew this which is why he also doubted and asked Christ, "What is truth"? This was the reason for mentioning him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
You are still arguing for Person A and Person B's conflicting reports and ignoring how Person C's information invalidates the whole.

Give a plausible reason for her *not* being able to talk about complex things the person knew or learned, but was able to repeat information about them, that doesn't have fraudulent as the most reasonable explanation. Just respond to this.

I am only aware of the natural found accidentally.

No, it limits the believability.

Everything is on a spectrum and that moves, according to type and amount of proof for it.

She (Piper) errs when channeling a French Doctor, however, in another channeling session with a Professor, the Professor indicates she is "on point", the Professor pens a letter to Dr. Hyslop and the doctor is a skeptic.

This doesn't preclude that the supernatural cannot be found accidentally, you'd have to then rule both out.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟45,780.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
She (Piper) errs when channeling a French Doctor, however, in another channeling session with a Professor, the Professor indicates she is "on point", the Professor pens a letter to Dr. Hyslop and the doctor is a skeptic.

This doesn't preclude that the supernatural cannot be found accidentally, you'd have to then rule both out.
Again, that's irrelevant.

Give a plausible reason for her *not* being able to talk about complex things the person knew or learned, but was able to repeat information about them, that doesn't have fraudulent as the most reasonable explanation.

What's the best explanation?
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Since you state "other religion" I understood your faith is not the same as mine, but it seems we are discussing epistemology and I expect your comments to include elements from your faith as well. All faith is based upon "judgements" and I do not mean "judgmental" but rather conclusions. In discussing anything with anyone, one needs to understand the conclusions people operate by and how they got their conclusions. An honest inquiry has no agenda, although we all have our bias. This is the only way to come to understanding.

As for Hitler, I simply used his name because it is iconic, and I am currently watching the Europa TV series called the "Last Battle" which gives the other side's view. As for Pilate, as a Roman procurator, he may have studied history, too. The Egyptian dynasties were notorious in destroying all memory of the prior dynasties so people would not know about them. Perhaps Pilate knew this which is why he also doubted and asked Christ, "What is truth"? This was the reason for mentioning him.

No our belief systems are not the same.

Faiths are based upon a system of beliefs, which include writings, epics, legends, so on. It is hard to make certain conclusions without making an effort for discoveries.

I don't disagree about being biased, that is inherent when someone believes what they believe.

Jesus (Hebrew) Christ (Greek) name and title are similarly used in the Biblical myths, but whether Pilate asks Christ or Jesus or Jesus Christ if you will anything is not really relevant at least in terms of "faith".
 
Upvote 0

ShamashUruk

Hello
Jul 19, 2017
563
71
43
California
✟24,990.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Again, that's irrelevant.

Give a plausible reason for her *not* being able to talk about complex things the person knew or learned, but was able to repeat information about them, that doesn't have fraudulent as the most reasonable explanation.

What's the best explanation?

Two differing opinions exploring the same subject is totally relevant.

As I stated in the first session she obviously erred, in the session with the professor it was a different outcome.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If she had a degree in philosophy, she wouldn't be the person interviewed.

So, it seems like the only alternatives you like are her not talking with him or being more educated. Unfortunately (fortunately?), people are as-is.

There are really only 2 outcomes.
1) She is happy, having little understanding of what she believes and why she does, and moves on.
2) She reflects on the issues, of her lack of ability to justify what she believes and why she does, and does research into it.

Even from a Christian POV, I'd say this was good as she can (if she so chooses to) research why she believes what she believes.

Which I think is the point.

Sure, Tia could come away from her encounter with Reid and simply decide to research Christianity more intensively, but regardless, this doesn't excuse Reid since his objective (albeit unspoken) was to move her onto the path of skepticism and the eventual 'removal' her Christian faith.

The upshot of this is that if all that happens is that Tia does go on to become better informed about her faith, then Reid failed....according to the epistemic goals of atheistic Street Epistemology.

o_O
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am wondering: Why do you say "That is to be expected" here, but make it a problem in regards to the interview?
Have you revealed your moral framework before you started asking moral questions here? Do you think that was a "moral mistake" of yours?
Not really, because my epistemic goal here is neither to alleviate Reid of his atheism (since I'm not his interlocuter), nor to exonerate Tia, even those she is cute and I'm tempted to just give her a "pass." :D

Personally, I really really liked it a lot that she didn´t resort to the well known philosophical post hoc rationalizations. A great plus for her, in my book.
Ok. I think I can sympathize to some extent with your evaluation here. She did have the honesty at the end to just admit that she didn't know, and didn't have at hand, enough info to present a 'good' reply to Reid's Socratic grilling.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Not really, because my epistemic goal here is neither to alleviate Reid of his atheism (since I'm not his interlocuter), nor to exonerate Tia, even those she is cute and I'm tempted to just give her a "pass." :D
Your goal seemed to be to mark Reid´s behaviour immoral - without first revealing your moral framework.
(Just to be clear: I don´t think that´s an issue - neither with Reid nor with you).

Ok. I think I can sympathize to some extent with your evaluation here. She did have the honesty at the end to just admit that she didn't know, and didn't have at hand, enough info to present a 'good' reply to Reid's Socratic grilling.
My point is a different one, though. I don´t believe for one second that any of the defenders and apologists of their faiths have adopted their faiths due to the arguments they now come up with to defend it. They are POST HOC rationalizations that they have read somewhere. They are not the real reasons why they have faith. At some point she was tempted to go down that route (when she said she would have to look up her books and/or notes), but fortunately she didn´t and remained authentic. In my book, that makes her more credible than any of the pro apologist debaters out there and the hobby apologists that hang out here on CF.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Sure, Tia could come away from her encounter with Reid and simply decide to research Christianity more intensively,
Rather, I think, she would decide to reasearch epistemological systems.
but regardless, this doesn't excuse Reid since his objective (albeit unspoken) was to move her onto the path of skepticism and the eventual 'removal' her Christian faith.
Yes - and that´s what you don´t like. ;)

The upshot of this is that if all that happens is that Tia does go on to become better informed about her faith,
Assuming that she learns all those theological and philosophical post hoc rationalizations, this will not inform her about her faith - rather, it will, actually and sadly, distance her from it.
then Reid failed....according to the epistemic goals of atheistic Street Epistemology.
As far as Tia is concerned, his motives (assumed or explicitly mentioned) are pretty much irrelevant. She gets an offer to rethink a couple of things, and she can make use of it any way she wants, or leave it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
More zeitgeist propaganda.

Tacitus (56-120AD)
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians 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 Judea, 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.”

In this account, Tacitus confirms several historical elements of the Biblical narrative: Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.

Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:

“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”

From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus: He was a wise and influential man who died for His beliefs. The Jewish leadership was somehow responsible for Jesus’ death. Jesus’ followers adopted His beliefs and lived their lives accordingly.

Phlegon (80-140AD)
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:

“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):

“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)

“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)

“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.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)

From these accounts, we can add something to our understanding: Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated His wounds after he was resurrected.

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians were also described in early, non-Christian history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

This early description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers met regularly to worship Jesus.

Suetonius (69-140AD)
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:

“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)

There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this account, we know Jesus had an immediate impact on His followers: They were committed to their belief Jesus was God and withstood the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on His followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.

Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

From this account we can add to our description of Jesus: He taught about repentance and about the family of God. These teachings were quickly adopted by Jesus’ followers and exhibited to the world around them.

Celsus (175AD)
This is the last hostile, non-Christian account we will examine (although there are many other later accounts in history). Celsus was quite antagonistic to the claims of the Gospels, but in his criticism he unknowingly affirmed and reinforced the Biblical authors and their content. His writing is extensive and he alludes to 80 different Biblical quotes, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admits the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early 2nd century:

“Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”

Celsus admits Jesus was reportedly born of a virgin, but then argues this could supernatural account could not be possible and offers the idea Jesus was the illegitimate son of a man named Panthera (an idea borrowed from Jews who opposed Jesus at the time). But in writing this account, Celsus does confirm several important claims: Jesus had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed unusual magical powers and claimed to be God.

Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Accounts
In addition to classical pagan sources chronicling the life of Jesus and His followers, there are also a number of ancient hostile Jewish sources describing Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians and leaders who were definitely not sympathetic to the Christian cause. Their writings are often very harsh, critical and even demeaning to Jesus. But there is still much these writings confirm:

Josephus (37-101AD)
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his “the Antiquities of the Jews” in 93AD. Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at an early age, became a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and he was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Under the rule of Roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James (and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ), and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah. There is much legitimate controversy about the writing of Josephus, because the first discoveries of his writings are late enough to have been re-written by Christians who were accused of making additions to the text. So to be fair, we’ll examine a scholarly reconstruction stripped of Christian embellishment:

“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed by John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person).

Now there are many other ancient versions of Josephus’ writing which are even more explicit about the nature of Jesus’ miracles, life and his status as the Christ, but let’s take this conservative version and see what we can learn. From this text, we can conclude: Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused by the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians.

Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
While the earliest Talmudic writings of Jewish Rabbis appear in the 5th century, the tradition of these Rabbinic authors indicates they are faithfully transmitting teachings from the early “Tannaitic” period of the 1st Century BC to the 2nd Century AD. Scholars believe there are a number of Talmudic writings referring to Jesus, and many of these writings are said to use code words to describe Jesus (such as “Balaam” or “Ben Stada” or “a certain one”). But for our purposes we’ll be very conservative and limit our examination to the passages referring to Jesus in a more direct way:

“Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b)

“Rabbi Hisda (d. 309) said that Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba said, ‘What is that which is written, ‘No evil will befall you, nor shall any plague come near your house’? (Psalm 91:10)… ‘No evil will befall you’ (means) that evil dreams and evil thoughts will not tempt you; ‘nor shall any plague come near your house’ (means) that you will not have a son or a disciple who burns his food like Jesus of Nazareth.” (b. Sanhedrin 103a; cf. b. Berakhot 17b)

“Our rabbis have taught that Jesus had five disciples: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. They brought Matthai to (to trial). He said, ‘Must Matthai be killed? For it is written, ‘When (mathai) shall I come and appear before God?’” (Psalm 92:2) They said to him, “Yes Matthai must be killed, for it is written, ‘When (mathai) he dies his name will perish’” (Psalm 41:5). They brought Nakai. He said to them, “Must Nakai be killed? For it is written, “The innocent (naqi) and the righteous will not slay’” (Exodus 23:7). They said to him, “Yes, Nakai must be kille, for it is written, ‘In secret places he slays the innocent (naqi)’” (Psalm 10:8). (b. Sanhedrin 43a; the passage continues in a similar way for Nezer, Buni and Todah)

And this, perhaps the most famous of Talmudic passages about Jesus:

“It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)

From just these passages mentioning Jesus by name, we can conclude the following: Jesus had magical powers, led the Jews away from their beliefs, had disciples who were martyred for their faith (one of whom was named Matthai), and was executed on the day before the Passover.

The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is called ‘Yehoshua’):

“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”). On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition. One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it. After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee. After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraven the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten. Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters. He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’” The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest. When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah. The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: “This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.” Yeshu replied, “The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.’” Queen Helene asked the Sages: “What he says, is it in your Torah?” They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.” Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel. Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him. The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment. Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done. When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: “It is spoken of me, ‘I will ascend into heaven.’” He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone…Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name. Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover. Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages. Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk, for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city. On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden. Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.

This was way to long for me to read.

I just scanned your references. I can only tell you that all of those people were aware of christians and what they believed.

It seems you completely missed my point and are unaware of what I was responding to.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The key trick is to highlight the average person's lack of justification for their beleifs.

How is that a "trick"?
Whenever beliefs are being discussed, it seems to me to be quite relevant to the topic, if those beliefs are actually justified or not.

In fact.............. if we are going to discuss beliefs.... what else could we discuss about it, if not the justification thereof?


Secondly ignorance of how to justify a claim is a separate category than the truth-value of the claim.

How do you evaluate the truth-value of a claim, if not by justifying it (= supporting it with actual verifiable evidence)?

The truth value of 2+2=4 remains whether or not any human ever exists let alone know that statement is true and can prove that it is true.

The truth value of 2+2=4 can be demonstrated and justified.

Boghossian knows this fact since early in his Philosophy undergrad program. It is a category fallacy!

It is equally destructive to atheism if his approach wasn't fallacious.

He is hoping no one has had an epistemology class or basic logical fallacy intro. Seems based on the responses both on YouTube and here that most have not had the benefit of the two aforementioned interventions.

Not really sure what you are on about...

I will post a more thurough discussion of the incoherence of this approach in the next couple weeks.

I look forward to you explaining how finding justification for claims important, to be logically fallacious. I think that's what you're saying, but it's not that clear to me.

I encourage you not to waste time arguing with non-theists about this fallacious method.

That method being, actually justifying your claims/beliefs?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plugh
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Before we can even delve into what "paranormal" or even "supernatural", and possibly reject the ideas, we need to understand why the ideas are being rejected.
No - before I can even consider (and possibly reject them later) them, I need to understand what they are supposed to mean.
Also, please define what you mean by "workable", are you then equating "paranormal" and "supernatural" to a lab generated experiment?
No - by "workable" I mean definitions that allows us to distinguish them from what they are meant to: i.e. the "normal" and the "natural". This would be your homework that you have to do before you want me to consider the concepts "paranormal" or "supernatural".

As I said, next you would have to come up with a methodology for establishing what you want to establish. Obviously, it´s not the scientific method - so I am expecting you to come up with a different method.

Actually it is very accurate, being an atheist, you'd have to reject the notions of anything that is beyond the realm of what is observable in the strictest sense. Hence, why atheism is self limiting.
You are mistaken there. As an atheist, I don´t believe that there are Gods. That´s all. As an atheist, I can believe in all sorts of other things.
 
Upvote 0