Extrabiblical Evidence about Jesus in the First 2 Centuries

[Luce NDs]

Metaphorically; heis like-not-az ... and that instrument can cause chaos in the unknowing .... like a powerful book containing all acceptable knowledge in the hands of a pathologists rather than an inflexible character of pathologic nature that can't unravel alien things? Do you understand azimuth tech? It is meant to direct scattered Semite ... an mire icon ... once known as onan, or own 'n once you set foot on it! Now if you stepped in ID ... it is yours do to the false attribute of believing you knew nothing and everything consecutively ... an enigmatic position! Life is like that ... a pardox when two oles come together ... a deuce'M!

Thus the az or ass was donated as just too cheeky without some imagination about the Seders ... a fete under the tree syndrome? These were performed by itinerants ... those repeating ole chit or copied prophets ... by those who were paid little for effort and are thus now nothing ... an ethereal attribute argued to death by people that declare they know nothing and are thus naïve and innocent ... thus the come around to where they were ... some move on ... over the heap ... and the as s'ole became boss hog and produced much ...

Thank god most of the instituted do not even understand of what I speak due to anti-intelligence moves or anti-intellectual emotions assigned the label H-8 ... so the contained won't know in the grave state we're in but about to resolve by a magnificent bust ... from outside perspective if you can get away fast! Exclusion Prin. Can't you see disaster on the horizon? Oh my gadfly ... I forgot the good Nous only roué ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Mystic said "I am glad skeptics like chansen, mendalla, dreamerman, and pavlos take the time to post here. chanson has used less ad hominens against the more conservative site members lately and I get where he is coming from."

Dreamerman says well as long as you are happy I guess that is all that matters eh. Carry on then.

There is the ignore of naïveté function of the site ... thus one can be dense, or a dark sacred thing ... like basalt ...

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I've not said that children wont pick up what their parents believe in, but making them kneel and pray, or go to church, or saying grace at dinner, or telling them that a sky daddy is watching them is indoctrination and abuse.

That is your subjective opinion.

No! sorry not my opinion, but factual.

Would it extend to include the allegations that religion is responsible for all of the worlds wars?

Nobody is blaming religion, But I will posit it up as one of the main culprits.

Would it extend to describing all who are religious as being intellectually stunted?

That would be a truism too. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493 http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.abstract

When opinions such as those are what our children pick up how have they not been indoctrinated?

Because they either learn about it for themselves or were taught about, but it is more likely the former.

Doctrine is not necessarily religious right?

Agreed!

Any opinion, policy, principle or position taught or advocated becomes doctrine.

No not taught. But inculcated, indoctrinated, forced.

Children should be allowed to be children.

Who prevents children from being children? How does religion force children to not be children.

By telling them that they will go to hell, or that thay are being watched, by forcing them to be something other than children.

And if religion forces children to grow up too quickly why are religious individuals thought to be childish or ignorant?

Because they are not allowed to be real children, they remain attached to there security blanket, (borne out of fear).

Exactly, Because you yourself were indoctrinated into the cult you yourself do the same to your children such is the nature of indoctrination,

And when you share opinion, policy, principle or position with your children are you not also indoctrinating?

No. Because that would be teaching, which would allow the child decide for itself.

it would be pretty poor indoctrination if the victim knew they had been indoctrinated.

Indeed it would be. So, have you been indoctinated or are you free from having your thinking controlled in this regard?

Yes I'm a freethinker. I wasn't brought up in a religion, we as children became what we wanted to become.I one of 14, and no we weren't catholic, or religious in any sense, however one of my sister is a devout catholic, as is one of my brothers. I am the only humanist, and when I say that I do actually volunteer my services around the world as and when they are needed. I have a lot of love for my fellow man. even if some try to kill me. it's the indoctrinated virus they suffer with that causes that most of the time. It does seem to be the root cause.

Never said that the child should be brought up atheist, my point is there should be a neutral position, not simple either or. And what is this neutral position? Agnosticism or something else?

None of the above. just simply open. This is why I stated that a child should be allowed to get to an age where they can make a decision for themselves. And nothing should be forced on them, before then.

No there are only people claiming they were atheist,

No True Scotsman fallacy it is then.

No not at all, is to do with groups. etc. Atheists are all individuals, There is no group, tenets, or doctrine.

Without a blow to the head or a major trauma in a atheists life, there is no way they would become theist. that is the only way it happens else it just doesn't make sense.

That is quite the doctrine. Major Head Trauma is the only reasonable explanation of an untrue atheist becoming a theist.

No that is atheist, if they were an untrue atheist they could change whatever they want. because that would mean they never were atheist wouldn't.

So just to keep score. The only way to become religious is via indoctrination.

Correct.

Converts to theism without head trauma were not true atheists to begin with

No they just weren't atheist. They were merely neutral (Technically atheist as they are without god), but an atheist who has critically studied religion by his using his sense, reason, and intellect. An has seen it's myriad of errors. Would not become theist without some kind of trauma in his life.

Converts to theism with head trauma are dismissed as being intellectually disabled and not properly able to reason.

Correct as they clearly have lost the ability.

Especailly when the indoctrinated, are indoctrinating the children. but sadly they know no better.

I suspect that is true.

Undoubtedly.

With children being able to decide for themselves the choice is to remain exactly as you are or become theist there is no either or.

Since your initial claim was that atheism is the default and that children should have a choice you necessitate removing children from the default of atheism to place them in an agnostic ground from which they may choose.

Children are born technically atheist because they are without god. but they are merely neutral.

And yet, the indoctrinated parent (be they theist or atheist) will not be able to create that neutral space.

They will if they are atheist as they are less likely to indoctrinate their children, and less likely to have been indoctrinated as there are no tenets or doctrines for atheism. Atheism is an individual thing.

Neutral is the default position.

This seems like you shifting goal posts.

No! Children are born technically atheist because they are without god. but they are merely neutral. Atheist is a word invented by the theist. as babies don't know either, they are merely neutral. But without god.

This is exactly why indoctrination should not be allowed.

And yet by starting from either the theist or atheist rather than an agnostic position we will be imposing a doctrine of one form or the other.

How so! Atheism has no doctrine.

Because they would also know it was their choice and their choice alone.

Except that by your response they wouldn't be able to choose they'd only be able to experience major head trauma to gain a religious experience.

Only if they had studied religion and discerned that it was in error. if they hadn't they would still be neural, and have a fifty fifty choice.

It would not matter to me, it would be solely their choice. I would be happy that they were happy.

But it does matter to you and you would speak against anyone who dared to erect a prohibition against what you claim does not matter to you. Which gives away that it actually does matter to you.

However my children are their own people and I don't push my views on them.

And you will also share, along the way that you are not opposed to same-sex marriage or multi-hued marriage. Which is you stating a position and giving permission.

No I would not share that, they are their own people they decide for themselves. My views are my own and this forum and debates with friends is were and only were I will discuss them my children are simply children they do childish things of which sometimes I join in, as parents should do.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

part 2

Children should be allowed to be children.

Who prevents children from being children? How does religion force children to not be children.

By telling them that they will go to hell, or that thay are being watched, by forcing them to be something other than children.

And if religion forces children to grow up too quickly why are religious individuals thought to be childish or ignorant?

Because they are not allowed to be real children, they remain attached to there security blanket, (borne out of fear).

Exactly, Because you yourself were indoctrinated into the cult you yourself do the same to your children such is the nature of indoctrination,

And when you share opinion, policy, principle or position with your children are you not also indoctrinating?

No. Because that would be teaching, which would allow the child decide for itself.

it would be pretty poor indoctrination if the victim knew they had been indoctrinated.

Indeed it would be. So, have you been indoctinated or are you free from having your thinking controlled in this regard?

Yes I'm a freethinker. I wasn't brought up in a religion, we as children became what we wanted to become.I one of 14, and no we weren't catholic, or religious in any sense, however one of my sister is a devout catholic, as is one of my brothers. I am the only humanist, and when I say that I do actually volunteer my services around the world as and when they are needed. I have a lot of love for my fellow man. even if some try to kill me. it's the indoctrinated virus they suffer with that causes that most of the time. It does seem to be the root cause.

Never said that the child should be brought up atheist, my point is there should be a neutral position, not simple either or. And what is this neutral position? Agnosticism or something else?

None of the above. just simply open. This is why I stated that a child should be allowed to get to an age where they can make a decision for themselves. And nothing should be forced on them, before then.

No there are only people claiming they were atheist,

No True Scotsman fallacy it is then.

No not at all, is to do with groups. etc. Atheists are all individuals, There is no group, tenets, or doctrine.

Without a blow to the head or a major trauma in a atheists life, there is no way they would become theist. that is the only way it happens else it just doesn't make sense.

That is quite the doctrine. Major Head Trauma is the only reasonable explanation of an untrue atheist becoming a theist.

No that is atheist, if they were an untrue atheist they could change whatever they want. because that would mean they never were atheist wouldn't.

So just to keep score. The only way to become religious is via indoctrination.

Correct.

Converts to theism without head trauma were not true atheists to begin with

No they just weren't atheist. They were merely neutral (Technically atheist as they are without god), but an atheist who has critically studied religion by his using his sense, reason, and intellect. An has seen it's myriad of errors. Would not become theist without some kind of trauma in his life.

Converts to theism with head trauma are dismissed as being intellectually disabled and not properly able to reason.

Correct as they clearly have lost the ability.

Especailly when the indoctrinated, are indoctrinating the children. but sadly they know no better.

I suspect that is true.

Undoubtedly.

With children being able to decide for themselves the choice is to remain exactly as you are or become theist there is no either or.

Since your initial claim was that atheism is the default and that children should have a choice you necessitate removing children from the default of atheism to place them in an agnostic ground from which they may choose.

Children are born technically atheist because they are without god. but they are merely neutral.

And yet, the indoctrinated parent (be they theist or atheist) will not be able to create that neutral space.

They will if they are atheist as they are less likely to indoctrinate their children, and less likely to have been indoctrinated as there are no tenets or doctrines for atheism. Atheism is an individual thing.

Neutral is the default position.

This seems like you shifting goal posts.

No! Children are born technically atheist because they are without god. but they are merely neutral. Atheist is a word invented by the theist. as babies don't know either, they are merely neutral. But without god.

This is exactly why indoctrination should not be allowed.

And yet by starting from either the theist or atheist rather than an agnostic position we will be imposing a doctrine of one form or the other.

How so! Atheism has no doctrine.

Because they would also know it was their choice and their choice alone.

Except that by your response they wouldn't be able to choose they'd only be able to experience major head trauma to gain a religious experience.

Only if they had studied religion and discerned that it was in error. if they hadn't they would still be neural, and have a fifty fifty choice.

It would not matter to me, it would be solely their choice. I would be happy that they were happy.

But it does matter to you and you would speak against anyone who dared to erect a prohibition against what you claim does not matter to you. Which gives away that it actually does matter to you.

However my children are their own people and I don't push my views on them.

And you will also share, along the way that you are not opposed to same-sex marriage or multi-hued marriage. Which is you stating a position and giving permission.

No I would not share that, they are their own people they decide for themselves. My views are my own and this forum and debates with friends is were and only were I will discuss them my children are simply children they do childish things of which sometimes I join in, as parents should do.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Part 3

No there are only people claiming they were atheist,

No True Scotsman fallacy it is then.

No not at all, is to do with groups. etc. Atheists are all individuals, There is no group, tenets, or doctrine.

Without a blow to the head or a major trauma in a atheists life, there is no way they would become theist. that is the only way it happens else it just doesn't make sense.

That is quite the doctrine. Major Head Trauma is the only reasonable explanation of an untrue atheist becoming a theist.

No that is atheist, if they were an untrue atheist they could change whatever they want. because that would mean they never were atheist wouldn't.

So just to keep score. The only way to become religious is via indoctrination.

Correct.

Converts to theism without head trauma were not true atheists to begin with

No they just weren't atheist. They were merely neutral (Technically atheist as they are without god), but an atheist who has critically studied religion by his using his sense, reason, and intellect. An has seen it's myriad of errors. Would not become theist without some kind of trauma in his life.

Converts to theism with head trauma are dismissed as being intellectually disabled and not properly able to reason.

Correct as they clearly have lost the ability.

Especailly when the indoctrinated, are indoctrinating the children. but sadly they know no better.

I suspect that is true.

Undoubtedly.

With children being able to decide for themselves the choice is to remain exactly as you are or become theist there is no either or.

Since your initial claim was that atheism is the default and that children should have a choice you necessitate removing children from the default of atheism to place them in an agnostic ground from which they may choose.

Children are born technically atheist because they are without god. but they are merely neutral.

And yet, the indoctrinated parent (be they theist or atheist) will not be able to create that neutral space.

They will if they are atheist as they are less likely to indoctrinate their children, and less likely to have been indoctrinated as there are no tenets or doctrines for atheism. Atheism is an individual thing.

Neutral is the default position.

This seems like you shifting goal posts.

No! Children are born technically atheist because they are without god. but they are merely neutral. Atheist is a word invented by the theist. as babies don't know either, they are merely neutral. But without god.

This is exactly why indoctrination should not be allowed.

And yet by starting from either the theist or atheist rather than an agnostic position we will be imposing a doctrine of one form or the other.

How so! Atheism has no doctrine.

Because they would also know it was their choice and their choice alone.

Except that by your response they wouldn't be able to choose they'd only be able to experience major head trauma to gain a religious experience.

Only if they had studied religion and discerned that it was in error. if they hadn't they would still be neural, and have a fifty fifty choice.

It would not matter to me, it would be solely their choice. I would be happy that they were happy.

But it does matter to you and you would speak against anyone who dared to erect a prohibition against what you claim does not matter to you. Which gives away that it actually does matter to you.

However my children are their own people and I don't push my views on them.

And you will also share, along the way that you are not opposed to same-sex marriage or multi-hued marriage. Which is you stating a position and giving permission.

No I would not share that, they are their own people they decide for themselves. My views are my own and this forum and debates with friends is were and only were I will discuss them my children are simply children they do childish things of which sometimes I join in, as parents should do.

 

[Jaebius]

....Atheist is a word invented by the theist. as babies don't know either, they are merely neutral. But without god. How so!

Just to say - there are many babies who have saving faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Just to say - there are many babies who have saving faith in Jesus Christ.

What! Seriously! The babies know this how?

 

[Jaebius]

What! Seriously! The babies know this how?

Faith isn't just a checklist of doctrines we can check off as knowing. Rather, faith is a gift from God.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Faith isn't just a checklist of doctrines we can check off as knowing. Rather, faith is a gift from God.

I must bite, then. This is a random occurrence, this gift?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Faith isn't just a checklist of doctrines we can check off as knowing. Rather, faith is a gift from God.

Doesn't answer the question. You are delving into the realm of fantasy. Weird!

 

[Jaebius]

Doesn't answer the question. You are delving into the realm of fantasy. Weird!

I can't answer your question, as it seems to me to be founded on the notion that faith is a list of doctrines we can choose to know - correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Jaebius]

I must bite, then. This is a random occurrence, this gift?

No Bette, I don't believe so. Rather, I'd say that it is an occurrence planned and executed by God.

"for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" - Galatians 3:26-27 (ESV).

 

[BetteTheRed]

Then this is a universal occurrence?

 

[Jaebius]

Then this is a universal occurrence?

I believe it's universal in that it's available for everyone. I don't believe it's automatically universal in the way our friend @Mendalla might (notice there I said "might").

 

[airclean33]

Post by -- Chansen-
Pretty cool, eh? Right there in black and white.

Here's the problem I have with it. Josephus was a Jew. And we are to believe that he wrote what looks like over-hyped marketing copy about Jesus being "the Christ".

I will reiterate: Josephus was a Jew. Remained a Jew. Didn't become a Christian by any reputable sources. Writing about "the Christ" like he was a groupie.

Right. #6---


Airclean--post-- You may have missed this . It seems your wrong. A Jew may be a Jew and still accept Jesus as The Christ. I" was not born of any of the Tribes of Israel , yet as saved through Christ Jesus am of Israel ,and am I believe also under the promise of Abraham .
Flavius Josephus fully defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman citizenship. He became an advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus, serving as his translator when Titus led the Siege of Jerusalem, which resulted—when the Jewish revolt did not surrender—in the city's destruction and the looting and destruction of Herod's Temple (Second Temple).

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I can't answer your question, as it seems to me to be founded on the notion that faith is a list of doctrines we can choose to know - correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes you are wrong, I asked "The babies know this how?"Which means how do babies know they have saving grace. Hence why I said you've entered the realm of fantasy.
It sounds to me like you aspire to become mentally handicapped. It appears you would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.

 

[Jaebius]

Yes you are wrong, I asked "The babies know this how?"Which means how do babies know they have saving grace. Hence why I said you've entered the realm of fantasy.
It sounds to me like you aspire to become mentally handicapped. It appears you would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.

Are the babies to whom God has given salvific grace cognizant of it? I don't really know. I'm no longer a baby. I can share that I am unable to recall any memory of having been so aware of it at that stage in development.

 

[Mystic]

So Jae, let me get this straight: you seen no reason why a child should notify his parents before spending an all-nighter with a friend? The child is not responsible for the parents' worries that their child has been murdered or kidnapped, and hence, will never return home. Is that your interpretation of Mary's rebuke of the 12-year-old Jesus in Lk 2? For you it was not a mistake for the boy Jesus to leave Mary and Joseph's entourage in the long walk back from Jerusalem to Nazareth without telling his parents where he was going. Right?

 

[BetteTheRed]

What you're dying for us to ask you is "what is saving grace?" and "why is it not a universal gift?". I'm sure you have answers for those questions.

Is there any way to get this thread back to the relevance of the historical Jesus?

Interestingly enough, does it matter? Does your religion look much different with or without a historically verifiable "Jesus" on which to hang your hat?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Are the babies to whom God has given salvific grace cognizant of it? I don't really know. I'm no longer a baby. I can share that I am unable to recall any memory of having been so aware of it at that stage in development.

Then stating this "Just to say - there are many babies who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. " was absolutely pointless.