• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

leroy

Well-Known Member
Incorrect, that is an unjustified claim, and is refuted by several factors that we have gone over. Have you forgotten them already? I need a yes or a no.
Jaja are you still beating your wife? I need a yes or a no

Again, you haven’t produced any **other sources** (roman or not) that date the census at 6AD
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
And that source was shown not to be reliable. The quote had all of the signs of being a quote mine. Since it cannot be verified, and the source it came from had a clear agenda it is of no use in a debate. I was not the only one to point this out to you. That was a failure on your part.
Well at least a quote with ellipses, is much better than what you have provided.

please quote your "other sources" that confirm that the census was in 6AD


And Look how easy it is to admit a failure

“Yes I (Leroy) admit that I don’t have access to the complete quote from “Gred Ludeman s book” which means that I failed to completely meet your request “

No it is your turn.

I @Subduction Zone admit that I don’t know of any source (other than Josephus) that dates the census at 6AD


I was not the only one to point this out to you. That was a failure on your part.
@SkepticThinker seems to be the type of person that will support his atheist friends even when they are wrong (Or exaggerating as in this particular case)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jaja are you still beating your wife? I need a yes or a no

Again, you haven’t produced any **other sources** (roman or not) that date the census at 6AD
Nope, that was not that sort of question. Your errors were explained to you. Can you act like an adult for once?

And yes, I did. You simply ignored them or did not understand them. The questions that I ask you have the purpose of helping you to understand. if you can be honest with yourself.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well at least a quote with ellipses, is much better than what you have provided.

please quote your "other sources" that confirm that the census was in 6AD


And Look how easy it is to admit a failure

“Yes I (Leroy) admit that I don’t have access to the complete quote from “Gred Ludeman s book” which means that I failed to completely meet your request “

No it is your turn.

I @Subduction Zone admit that I don’t know of any source (other than Josephus) that dates the census at 6AD



@SkepticThinker seems to be the type of person that will support his atheist friends even when they are wrong (Or exaggerating as in this particular case)
Nope, try again. You need to be an honest interlocutor if you want to have a discussion. Otherwise you have lost and simply do not know why. Can you have a discussion without running away?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
My claim is that they were well informed, so ether they were witnesses or they had access to good sources………… we know this because most of the historical verifiable information is true.
I have to respond to this one snippet. That is your claim, but as @SkepticThinker has pointed out you have not supported it at all. Worse yet when evidence arises that shows that they made clear errors and were not "well informed" all you can do is go into deep denial. In other words your argument is no more than a house of cards. It has been refuted and all that you have left is denial.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Nope, that was not that sort of question. Your errors were explained to you. Can you act like an adult for once?

And yes, I did. You simply ignored them or did not understand them. The questions that I ask you have the purpose of helping you to understand. if you can be honest with yourself.
1 you claimed that there are ***other sources*** confirming the 6AD dat

2 I asked for those sources

What part of my request inmmature or dishonest?

All I am asking is for the names (and quotes) of the other roman historians that confirm the 6ad date.

¿why can’t you provide this information?

Even if you did provide such sources and I skipped the post for some reason, there is no reason for not providing the quotes again.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Nope, try again. You need to be an honest interlocutor if you want to have a discussion. Otherwise you have lost and simply do not know why. Can you have a discussion without running away?
I am not running away, all you have to do is provide these other sources. And I will admit my mistake and proclaim that Luke was probably wrong with his 4BC date
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I have to respond to this one snippet. That is your claim, but as @SkepticThinker has pointed out you have not supported it at all. Worse yet when evidence arises that shows that they made clear errors and were not "well informed" all you can do is go into deep denial. In other words your argument is no more than a house of cards. It has been refuted and all that you have left is denial.
Sometimes I feel as though there are multiple persons using your account , I have made that claim before and you have granted it multiple times in the past.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1 you claimed that there are ***other sources*** confirming the 6AD dat

2 I asked for those sources

What part of my request inmmature or dishonest?

All I am asking is for the names (and quotes) of the other roman historians that confirm the 6ad date.

¿why can’t you provide this information?

Even if you did provide such sources and I skipped the post for some reason, there is no reason for not providing the quotes again.
I gave them to you in the past. I gave you an article that you either did not read or did not understand that used those sources.

And yes, when you refuse to answer reasonable questions designed to help you to learn but change the subject you are being far less than honest.

So let's start again, do you realize that Josephus was a historian of Roman interactions with Jews?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sometimes I feel as though there are multiple persons using your account , I have made that claim before and you have granted it multiple times in the past.
That is because you keep making the same obvious errors and so everyone has the same corrections for you. If you still do not understand how you screwed up after several people tell you the same thing and you even admit it, then the problem is with you, it is not with others.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Okay man wrote the scriptures.
Now would you be so kind and explain who those men are and from where did they come from.
You like everyone else..thinks those men are just average men like all other men..
Which they are not..those men were specially chosen for a task.
So where do you suppose those men came from and who those men are..
I know that's totally going to.blow your mind away.
I'll be waiting for your answer.
Genesis was most likely written in 6BC, after the exile where the Israelite Kings were exposed to different Mesopotamian customs and stories.
It uses very similar plot lines as several older creation and flood narratives and in modern academia through intertextuality it can be demonstrated Genesis relied on several older myths and is a reaction to those stories.

So these authors were writing completely average stories, unoriginal and their God Yahweh was a very typical Near Eastern deity, very similar to the Gods going back thousands of years in that region.
I can source some OT Hebrew experts explaining the older Mesopotamian cultures had Gods very similar to Yahweh, so nothing original or exceptional there.
The 10 commandments were just pulled from the much longer Babylonain The Code of Hammurabi which was also given to people from a deity written on stone.

The entire thing is very mundane. You cannot demonstrate that any deity commanded them to write this or they had any contact with any God. But it can be demonstrated these people were using religious syncretism which is used in 100% of all religions. This is just more of the same






Journal Paper, Cultural Borrowings and Ethnic Appropriations in Antiquity.

Genesis 1-11 and Its Mesopotamian Problem


"At the same time, the knowledge that many biblical texts have a family relationship to Mesopotamian and other Near Eastern texts has reconfigured the categories of thought in modern scholarship, such that it is increasingly untenable to have a patronizing or Orientalist view of the various religions and cultures of the ancient Near East. The result is a quandary, in which this cluster of issues continues to be an uneasy presence.
In ancient Israel, the issue of Mesopotamian cultural priority was viewed dif- ferently. Ancient Israel knew that it was a relative latecomer in the ancient Near East, and that Mesopotamian civilization was far older and more glorious."

Here they explain the Hebrew authors appropriated, mimic and invert Mesopotamian myths. They also attempt to diminish them by writing superior myths.
"The Hebrew Bible acknowledges that Israel was a relative latecomer in the ancient Near East. The first era of human civilization was in the ancient east, in and around Mesopotamia. According to Israel's collective memory, the human ascent from nature to culture had to go through Mesopotamia. This temporal priority ought to have given Mesopotamia the glory of cultural origins. For latecomer Israel to be exalted, the temporal priority of Mesopotamia had to be depreciated. In Genesis 1-1 1 this Mesopotamian problem is addressed by various strategies, including appropriation, mimicry, and inversion, whereby Mesopota- mia's priority is acknowledged but diminished, clearing the path for the ascent of Abraham and his descendants. "


"

The situation of ancient Israel in relation to Mesopotamian culture was both similar to and distinct from such modern colonial situations. For much of its history, including the time when the major biblical texts were composed, Israel lived under the indirect or direct authority of powerful Mesopotamian empires - first the Assyrian Empire (esp. 8th-7th centuries B.C.E.), then the Neo-Babylo- nian (7th-6th centuries B.C.E.) - and suffered massive destructions when the kings of Israel or Judah chose to rebel. For the most part, as far as we can tell, imperial authority over vassal states was relatively benign as long as the vassal state paid taxes and tribute and maintained poltical loyalty to the Mesopotamian king.8



The biblical flood story (of which two versions, from the J and P sources, are edited together in Genesis 6-9)e appears to be an appropriation ofthe first type, in which the originally foreign character of the story has been effaced.

It is likely that the P writer (or the tradition on which he drew) appropriated the Mesopotamian concept of the king as the "image" of god and revised it for a new purpose.


The J stories seem also to revise the Mesopotamian tradition of the mythic ascent from nature to culture in primeval times. In Mesopotamian literature, the first human is a lullfi-amElu, "primitive human," living a natural life, who only becomes fully human when he learns the arts of human culture and comes to dwell in the city.18 The fullest example, though displaced from primeval to historical times, is the transformation of Enkidu in the first tablet of the Gil- gamesh epic. Enkidu is created as a lullft-amElu, "primitive human," then is initiated into human sexuality and the cultural arts of clothing and cuisine by a prostitute, and completes his ascent to full humanity when he enters the city of Uruk, where he meets his royal counterpart, Gilgamesh. Later, on his deathbed, Enkidu comes to see that the prostitute gave him the greatest boon - civilized life. As the god Shamash counsels, Enkidu owes her a blessing:



In the J primeval narrative, the movement of humans from the Garden of Eden to the Tower of Babel is strikingly similar to the movement of "primitive humans" in Mesopotamian tradition from their initial innocent existence among the animals to civilized life in the city. Both transformations are accompanied by new knowledge, including sex, clothing, human food, and (ultimately) con- sciousness of mortality. In both traditions, the transformation brings humans to a higher state of knowledge, and they become, to some extent, "like gods."
The Tower of Babel story appropriates and inverts the Mesopotamian ideology of the ziggurat (temple-tower). The ziggurat was the most visible part of the Meso- potamian temple complex and served as a cosmic axis, linking heaven and earth.

In Babylonian tradition the temple-tower of Babel was a cosmic and holy place, built by the gods, where Marduk's presence was manifested on earth.


The biblical story clearly appropriates the Mesopotamian tradition and ideol- ogy of the temple-tower of Babylon, but reverses its meaning by placing the plan to "build a city and a tower with its top in heaven" (Gen 11:4) in the mouths of humans, and coloring this desire as an act of hubris and rebellion.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
To the contrary, I read your entire response. I've been studying the UB and its skeptics for 38 years. Skeptics believe skeptics, hook, line and sinker!​
Here's something, maybe? You decide. In my way of thinking someone who wanted to write a fraud book would avoid saying debunkable things.​
In discussing earth’s atmosphere, The Urantia Book states the following, “The lower five or six miles of the earth’s atmosphere is the troposphere; this is the region of winds and air currents which provide weather phenomena. Above this region is the inner ionosphere and next above is the stratosphere.” Urantia Book enthusiasts and critics alike have long considered this statement to be a mistake because the longstanding understanding of the earth’s atmosphere has been that the ionosphere exists above the stratosphere. However, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, over thirty years after The Urantia Book’s publication, observation of “blue jets” were conclusively documented and accepted as an atmospheric condition. Notwithstanding that this phenomenon is still not well understood, what has been learned about blue jets indicates that there must be an ionospheric layer below the stratosphere. Blue jets form above thunderclouds and often reach a height of about 25 miles above sea level. The long-recognized ionosphere, which exists above the stratosphere, begins at around 30 miles above sea level. Calculations based on videos taken of blue jets, as well as other associated research, indicate that the ionic condition necessary to create their luminescent quality could not have its source in the thunderclouds over which they occur.​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
Scientists have been uncertain about whether Tibet has been rising over the last tens of millions of years or so.

Urantia Book [Emphasis added.]

(61:1.11) 40,000,000 years ago the land areas of the Northern Hemisphere began to elevate, and this was followed by new extensive land deposits and other terrestrial activities, including lava flows, warping, lake formation, and erosion. …

(61:1.13) Considerable foraminiferal limestone was deposited in European waters. Today this same stone is elevated to a height of 10,000 feet in the Alps, 16,000 feet in the Himalayas, and 20,000 feet in Tibet. The chalk deposits of this period are found along the coasts of Africa and Australia, on the west coast of South America, and about the West Indies.

(64:1.1) Primitive man made his evolutionary appearance on earth a little less than one million years ago, and he had a vigorous experience. He instinctively sought to escape the danger of mingling with the inferior simian tribes. But he could not migrate eastward because of the arid Tibetan land elevations, 30,000 feet above sea level; neither could he go south nor west because of the expanded Mediterranean Sea, which then extended eastward to the Indian Ocean; and as he went north, he encountered the advancing ice. But even when further migration was blocked by the ice, and though the dispersing tribes became increasingly hostile, the more intelligent groups never entertained the idea of going southward to live among their hairy tree-dwelling cousins of inferior intellect.

A May 2021 report out of the University of Copenhagen states:

There has long been controversy about whether the world’s highest region, Tibet, has grown taller during the recent geological past. New results from the University of Copenhagen indicate that the ‘Roof of the World’ appears to have risen by up to 600 meters and the answer was found in underwater lava. The knowledge sheds new light on Earth’s evolution.
Tibet is referred to as the Roof of the World for good reason. With an average altitude of 4,500 meters above sea level and the world’s two highest peaks, Mount Everest and K2, the vast Himalayan mountain range towers higher than anywhere else on Earth.
But the Tibetan plateau’s height has been the subject of academic controversy for many years. Some researchers believe that the area has been as high as it is today for most of its existence, while others believe that the area has increased in height over the past 20 — 30 million years. It is a riddle that until recently has stood and flickered unanswered in the wind. …
It's your choice if you don't want to investigate and take serious skeptic material.
Of course when you make a bunch of predictions something eventually is going to match to some degree.
The uplift of the Tibetan plateau is also doubted -


I don't see any clear indications of predictive power? It's a human studying 1950 'science and seeing where it's trending. HAve you looked to see if geologists in the 1950's were already also predicting an uplift in the Himalayan mountains?

If a supernatural agent wanted to present evidence it would. Since the author is trying to give scientific information I don't buy that they cannot give actual real definitive new science. Again, a digit in pi beyond what is capable in 1950. Not hard.
This is just like the Bahai stuff. Riffing on what was modern science at the time, but nothing new.
As usual, you cannot contact any of these supernatural agents right?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
It's your choice if you don't want to investigate and take serious skeptic material.
Of course when you make a bunch of predictions something eventually is going to match to some degree.
The uplift of the Tibetan plateau is also doubted -


I don't see any clear indications of predictive power? It's a human studying 1950 'science and seeing where it's trending. HAve you looked to see if geologists in the 1950's were already also predicting an uplift in the Himalayan mountains?

If a supernatural agent wanted to present evidence it would. Since the author is trying to give scientific information I don't buy that they cannot give actual real definitive new science. Again, a digit in pi beyond what is capable in 1950. Not hard.
This is just like the Bahai stuff. Riffing on what was modern science at the time, but nothing new.
As usual, you cannot contact any of these supernatural agents right?
Thats right, we are supposed to be having a faith experience, not homework that provides all the answers. In their presentation they collated what they had to work with.

4. The Gift of Revelation​

92:4.1 (1007.1) Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world’s history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man’s capacity of receptivity.

92:4.2 (1007.2) But regardless of apparent connection or derivation, the religions of revelation are always characterized by a belief in some Deity of final value and in some concept of the survival of personality identity after death.

92:4.3 (1007.3) Evolutionary religion is sentimental, not logical. It is man’s reaction to belief in a hypothetical ghost-spirit world—the human belief-reflex, excited by the realization and fear of the unknown. Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities. Evolutionary religion pictures the circuitous gropings of humanity in quest of truth; revelatory religion is that very truth." UB 1955
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You genuinely think there is evidence Romulus was deified close to his purported lifetime?


I'm not sure why that matters? Romulus dies and a cult following began. He was associated with a common Roman God. But his story is one of a human, leading wars, organizing cities and so on.
What does a life time have to do with this?
Do you know the time frame of the mystery religions and all other savior demigods?
The main religions, influenced by Hellenism, syncretically mixed with their own local customs -

Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic


Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic


Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic


Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic



He supposedly lived around 750BC and his myth isn’t documented until the 4th C BC.

I'm going by Plutarch. There were local stories about Romulus immediately after his death.

You can’t make up a mythical founder of a city in real time as the city has real origins that are known by those who lived at that time.

That didn't happen with Jesus? Why would it need to happen with Romulus? Jesus would have died 30 AD. Paul was writing in 50 AD.
The Gospels were finished in 110 AD. The first canon is unknown. 2nd century is a mess. 3rd century adopts a canon.

Here is the 2nd century:

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings. Part of the unifying trend in proto-orthodoxy was an increasingly harsh anti-Judaism and rejection of Judaizers. Some of the major movements were:

In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome, for example, were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus.



“Remember when Romulus founded our city 20 years ago?”

“Yes of course, but I always find it strange as I lived here 30 years ago and my dad before that and his dad before him but he is a god so maybe I just misremembered living here before that.”
In 1AD a lifetime was 38 years. So in 110 some people can say "do you remember Jesus 80 years ago?

Anyone living in Jesus's time was dead. Now we have 1/2 Gnostics who believe he was only a spirit, or some such bizarre Eastern version.
Who knows what the 40 gospels claimed?
In 318 AD we have a unified canon. How many people remember the Jesus days at this point?






No wonder you are so easily impressed by Carrier making up some subjective odds
You haven't demonstrated any made up anything. 3 to 1 is based on available evidence. Your point here has fallen flat dead.





You just spouted some obvious nonsense about Romulus whose myth emerged centuries after his purported life.

Looks like the stories continued directly after his supposed death and ascension. What source are you using?





Why would evidence that even a single mythical gI’d has emerged in near real time be relevant to differentiating whether he is likely a deified man or a mythical god given we know many deified men appeared in real time?

Come on, you can work that one out for yourself surely…
Why do you keep saying "real time"? Jesus supposedly died in 30 AD. 20 years later Paul knows of no crucifixion, no family, no ministry, no disciples, no followers, fishermen, no sermons, nothing. HE knows a vision of an already risen Jesus in a different ghost body.
Knows of NO Gospel story.

Then 40 years later we finally get a highly mythical tale at least set on Earth. Real time? But we also get 50% Gnostic, bizarre, highly Eastern versions with a Demiurge, Jesus and the OT God being Different and all sorts of strange tales.
The modern canon is not accepted until the 3rd century. Hundreds of years later.


Oxford Annotated Bible - by Pheme Perkins Michael D. Coogan

states (p. 1744)

"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.

Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.


As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).
The traditional authors of the canonical Gospels—Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee—are doubted among the majority of mainstream New Testament scholars. The public is often not familiar, however, with the complex reasons and methodology that scholars use to reach well-supported conclusions about critical issues, such as assessing the authorial traditions for ancient texts."


real time? No.

“Even if there is no evidence for my claim then it’s because the evil church destroyed it all so that just proves my point all the better”. :D

You have some fantasy idea about how powerful the early church was and the extent to which it had the ability to eradicate ideas over vast geographical areas including those outside of the Roman Empire.
There would be no writings of the early Jesus outside of the Roman Empire. The "fantasy idea" is not about the early church. It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon.
We found a Dead Sea Scroll 1/2 finished, a book of sayings from a philosopher was being copied into a gospel as if Jesus said them. It was hidden quickly, half finished, as if in a serious hurry. Because if found it would mean death.
If you don't understand the power of the church you need some history lessons.
There was no early church. It was Gnostic groups and Bishops arguing against each other during the entire 2nd century. It wasn't until Constantine needed something to unify Rome and decided to use Christianity which had some churches set up and his mother was a Christian.
It's thought each of the popular churches used one of the 4 Gospels and they combined them best they could at the 1st council of Nicea in 318 AD.

 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
The vast majority of temples weren’t destroyed by evil Christians, they just fell into dispepair as no one was paying for their upkeep. A bit like how today many churches are being turned into cafes or apartments.

It would be inane for someone in the future to talk about irreligious folk in the 21st C destroying and desecrating them to hide the story of Christianity.



Certainly not in that post


Uh huh. More sources from your imagination I guess.



Rome

In Rome itself, numerous buildings including pagan temples and other sites were converted into churches, and several major archeological sites owe their preservation to this. On the Roman Forum alone, the Curia Iulia or Roman Senate building (Sant'Adriano in Foro), the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (San Lorenzo in Miranda), and the Temple of Romulus (Santi Cosma e Damiano) were transformed into churches, and the churches of San Giuseppe dei Falegnami and San Pietro in Carcere were built above the Mamertine Prison nearby, where Sts. Peter and Paul were reputed to have been held.


"Santa Maria Rotonda" (Pantheon)

The Pantheon in Rome was once a temple dedicated to the Roman gods and it was converted to a Roman Catholic church dedicated to St. Mary and the Martyrs. Eventually the prime sites of the pagan temples were very often occupied for churches, the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva (literally Saint Mary above Minerva) in Rome, Christianized about 750, being simply the most obvious example. The Basilica of Junius Bassus was made a church in the late fifth century. However this process did not really begin in Rome itself until the 6th and 7th centuries, and was still under way during the Renaissance, when the Pantheon (which had been made a church in the 7th century) and Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri and San Bernardo alle Terme made from parts of the enormous Baths of Diocletian.[4]


One of the most richly adorned churches, the Basilica di San Clemente, was, according to Christian tradition, built on top of Titus Flavius Clemens's private home, as he had allowed early Christians to worship in his home, due to having pro-Jewish sympathies. The conversion of pre-Christian places of worship, rather than their destruction, was particularly true of temples of Mithras, a religion that had been the main rival to Christianity during the 2nd and 3rd centuries, especially among the Roman legions. An early 2nd century Mithraeum stands across the Roman street from the house and can be visited by visitors. Other Mithraea have been excavated under churches, such as Santa Prisca, and Santo Stefano Rotondo.


Several churches, especially in Rome, are said to have been built on the sites of the earlier burial places of martyrs in the catacombs of Rome or elsewhere. The sanctification of burial places, and placing tombs inside churches, was a novelty of Christianity, and a break with pagan tradition, where burials were regarded as unclean, and usually only allowed beyond a set distance from a city's walls.

Vatican

St. Peter's Basilica, the church of the Vatican, is traditionally located at the burial place of Simon Peter, and most scholars parties agree that the basilica was built on top of a large necropolis on the Vatican Hill. In 1939, an excavation underneath the grottoes which lie directly under the current Basilica, uncovered several surviving Roman mausoleums from the necropolis, and in the area directly under the high altar, below the grottoes, the excavators found a structure resembling a temple that they named the aedicula (meaning little temple).

Greece

In Greece, the occupation of pagan sites by Christian monasteries and churches was ubiquitous.[5] Hellenic Aphrodisias in Caria was renamed Stauropolis, the "City of the Cross".[6]


Allison Franz argues that it was only after temples ceased to be regarded as serious cult sites that they were later converted to churches. "So it was by virtue of necessity rather than in token of a victorious faith that the temples of the old dispensation became the province of the new."[7]


Exceptions to this are the conversion of the Askepieion in Athens around 529, and both the Hephaisteion and Athena's temple at the Parthenon, during the seventh century, reflecting possible conflict between Christians and non-Christians.[7] In Byzantine times, the Parthenon became the Church of the Parthenos Maria (Virgin Mary), or the Church of the Theotokos (Mother of God). It was the fourth most important pilgrimage in the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantinople, Ephessos and Thessalonica.[8]
Thats right, we are supposed to be having a faith experience, not homework that provides all the answers. In their presentation they collated what they had to work with.
Anyone who tells you to "supposed to have a faith experience" is telling you to drink the cool aid.

All religions use faith. Race ideologies can claim faith, the KKK can say they know by faith. Faith is not a reliable path to truth.









4. The Gift of Revelation​

92:4.1 (1007.1) Revelation is evolutionary but always progressive. Down through the ages of a world’s history, the revelations of religion are ever-expanding and successively more enlightening. It is the mission of revelation to sort and censor the successive religions of evolution. But if revelation is to exalt and upstep the religions of evolution, then must such divine visitations portray teachings which are not too far removed from the thought and reactions of the age in which they are presented. Thus must and does revelation always keep in touch with evolution. Always must the religion of revelation be limited by man’s capacity of receptivity.
It's never progressive and NEVER gives information that a human could not come up with on their own.
Muhammad didn't recieve anything progressive? Allah was a bit angry.
Bahai is definitely not progressive. Joe Smith got a story about gold plates and a racist rant on Indians and the JW got an updated end of the world scare.






92:4.2 (1007.2) But regardless of apparent connection or derivation, the religions of revelation are always characterized by a belief in some Deity of final value and in some concept of the survival of personality identity after death.

92:4.3 (1007.3) Evolutionary religion is sentimental, not logical. It is man’s reaction to belief in a hypothetical ghost-spirit world—the human belief-reflex, excited by the realization and fear of the unknown. Revelatory religion is propounded by the real spiritual world; it is the response of the superintellectual cosmos to the mortal hunger to believe in, and depend upon, the universal Deities. Evolutionary religion pictures the circuitous gropings of humanity in quest of truth; revelatory religion is that very truth." UB 1955
No, it's stuff people make up because they know more people might buy into their thing.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I gave them to you in the past. I gave you an article that you either did not read or did not understand that used those sources.

I have memmory of 3 articles that you shared, non of them even claims that there are ***** other sources****

If there is a fourth article, then I simply miss it………. Why can´t you quote it (and paste the relevant text?)

And yes, when you refuse to answer reasonable questions designed to help you to learn but change the subject you are being far less than honest.

So let's start again, do you realize that Josephus was a historian of Roman interactions with Jews?
yes i realize that josephus was a historian of Roman Interactions with Jews.

is there any other question, or comment that you think I have ignored?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That is because you keep making the same obvious errors and so everyone has the same corrections for you. If you still do not understand how you screwed up after several people tell you the same thing and you even admit it, then the problem is with you, it is not with others.
However it is still fact that you already granted in the past that the authors of the Gospels where in general well informed about things happening in 1st century Judea.

So what changed? Why did you changed your mind?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I have memmory of 3 articles that you shared, non of them even claims that there are ***** other sources****

If there is a fourth article, then I simply miss it………. Why can´t you quote it (and paste the relevant text?)


yes i realize that josephus was a historian of Roman Interactions with Jews.

is there any other question, or comment that you think I have ignored?
Why do you think that they need to be claimed? If you tried to reason rationally for once you would see that they had to use other sources. Your unreasonable demands tell us how you are not thinking this through.

That is why I started to ask you simple questions and since you do not appear to want to know what is probably why you ran away.
 
Top