[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Nope. You're wrong. The idea that Christians were persecuted is highly exagerated. What actually happened is that the Romans beat up on the Jews for reasons that had zero to do with Jesus or silencing anyone. I tell you what: since you're the one claiming that the Christians were persecuted by the Romans, why don't you post which emperors persecuted the poor Christians. Do so or we'll consider the matter settled.

Nero. The same dude who committed arson in a bad way and blamed it on the Christians.

This is outlined by Tacticus. Not some pope.

Now your turn. Prove that the persecution of Christians is exaggerated. I need the evidence.

Quote by: Zhavric The fact that Mark, the first gospel, wasn't invented until the desperate times of the fall of the second temple.

Good, this is all you had to do.

The first gospel was invented around 40 years after Jesus' death. (70c)

Not a surprise, considering Jesus wasn't a big hit until his disciples carried the word. Without internet or telephones, things took a while to get around.

The existence of Jesus cults as early as the first century bce.

The proof is this guy named yeshu (ben-pendora). Very little is known about him. Gerald's hypothesis seems to be one of many about the mysterious yeshu. Considering the genuine lack of following in the academic community, this hypothesis is likely to be lacking in factual support. I can see why from reading his speech, considering how he presents his evidence.

One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod."

The key word here is "one account"

As you can see. Most of his support springs from the assumption that Jehoshua Ben-Perachia was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus. And that all farther testimonies about Jesus are about Jehoshua.

For instance.

The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C.

One account fails in the face of many other accounts.

However, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on this period of time. Nor that I fully understood all the support presented in Gerald's speech. I do think that it is telling that the experts in the academic world, many of them atheists, dismiss this theory as...garbage to put it lightly.

The fact that orthodoxy was just one of many tales of the godman that happened to win out.

I've look at some of the gnostic gospels. I don't see a huge difference in account, only narration.

The fact that the cult spread not because of any truth or popularity, but because of the political machinations of Constantine.

If it wasn't popular before, why did Constantine make it the state religion?

And how it got spread has nothing to do with Jesus' actual existence.

That it's spread through guilt avoidance and violence.

Again, nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

That people still believe it today because they're indoctrinated to do so from childhood.

Once again, nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

Debate. Or leave. But these asinine evasions end here.

accepted.

Nothing to tone down, Matt. Fonceai, Fangrim, Kame, Phoenix Fire have all done this before: ignored facts when it's convenient for them to do so in a debate. If I had some moderator help make sure people address issues & facts that have been raised there wouldn't be a need for you to read this, yes? How about it?

Tell me Zhavric. Why don't the other atheists come rushing to your aid?
This is a perfect way to destroy our argument, but the atheists don't seem to picking up on it.

I think it's the same reason why all the people you named above "ignored facts when it's convenient for them to do so in a debate" That your method of argument is the same as those of religious fanatics. You believe your own theory based on little evidence, but believe it with a lot of your heart. This idea is farther facilitated by the fact that you take to yelling as soon as I point out a couple of factual errors in your argument.

Matt's right. Take a chill pill, if only because it makes you seem that much more believable.