She is quite aware of Paul.

As others have noted, the anti-woman things in the Bible are not from Jesus but from Paul. Also what the literalists don't get is how very much of the Bible is a reflection of the times in which it was written.
Recently my pastor (ELCA Lutheran) based his sermon in the famous verse that condemns divorce. He said that in Biblical times a man could divorce his wife by merely verbally proclaiming that he divorced her, and she had no repercussions and was instantly impoverished and lost her children. Hence Jesus' strong condemnation of divorce was a way of speaking out against this injustice.

It's not all on Paul. We've not much idea of its authorship, but it's probably not due to Paul.

I am tempted to ask The Bible Geek about this. But you're pretty smart, so I'll start here.

Am I wrong in interpreting that early Christianity had many women who brought forth the "word"? This is something I heard years ago, in my youth. It was part of my religious education when I attended church for the first 13 years of my life. It was a Congregational church, today's United Church of Christ, probably the most liberal of the Christian sects short of the Unitarians, where just about anything goes, as I understand.

But, My question is. Was the early Christian church women centric? It explains a lot if it was. The passage in Paul's letter to the Corinthians may be a response to such a thing. Cannot remember chapter verse, or even if I have the right book.

But I would love to think that the parts of Christianity I like were preached first by women.

Radical, I know. But I remember such a thing, albeit obliquely, being taught in Sunday school at the church I attended in my youth.

Thanks.

on edit: all the gospel accounts at the tomb have women present, and even prominent, especially Mark's account (the earliest -- Mark in priority, another topic).

My impression is that the early Christians considered their behavior at least as important as the "Word". The emphasis on living according to the Bible (consolidated centuries later) is a phenomenon that came much later. If that's true, I cannot imagine that the role of women was not significant. Again, it's only my impression, but I think the early years were spent in spreading the news, welcoming people, caring for each other and the needy and trying to live in accord with the Good News that came within living memory. Calling that book "Acts" and not "Word" decribes that period well.

As to specific roles, preaching, teaching and the like, I don't know.

Here's some sources that may answer you better than I can.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/roles.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html

When you have time, Part I is the timeframe we're talking about.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/watch/

This last is an old article that puts it in sociological perspective.

http://roosevelt.ucsd.edu/_files/mmw/mmw12FA11/SmarrMMW12RoleofWomeninChristianity2012.pdf

As I said, I wish I knew more about the subject. I suppose I've just taken it for granted that people who followed Christ within a generation of his life would have been swept up by that above all else. Still, exactly who did what and how it changed are provocative questions.

But, nevertheless, I see elements of such a women centric gospel in both my religious education and in the gospels, especially Mark, the earliest of the four.

Meh! It has long since faded.

Thanks for your response.

But I still want to believe that women started the whole thing up. And I also want to believe that it was too damned bad that the so-called church subjugated them.

As it is with nearly all organized religions.

Thank you for your response. I will follow your links and gobble up the info.

I will ask the Bible Geek and see what he says. (BTW, highly recommended, even for an atheist heathen like me.)




BTW, this is an awesome thread for us raw meat atheists. Thank you.

when it adopted Greek and Roman cultural norms after the destruction of the mother church in Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Did an interesting series 'Divine Women'

http://watchseries.eu/

The Open University also has a free booklet for download, not sure how it works for overseas but here's the link.

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/religious-studies/order-your-free-divine-women-booklet

I found the frescoes in Rome denoting women officiating at early Christian ceremonies interesting as well as a short segment on Theodora whose fresco was defaced to try hide the fact she was a woman. She also has square Nimbus which indicates she was highly considered whilst alive. The series covers women in many religions from classical times onward and i would recommend.

Must be why he chose 12 men to be his apostles ... and had Mary Magdalene wash his feet.

Or a bunch of men to make him up.

Whatever that means...

Besides, neither can you.

Was Jesus god or man? Oh I forget.... the religious do get to have it both ways.

But who cares? The Jesus of the Bible is obviously made up. There may have been some guy named Jesus that gave the Romans some grief, but as is per usual with writing in that time period (and 70 years, where none of it was ever mentioned, after the supposed events) the story has been bucked up and embellished for all kinds of political and philosophical reasons. Since Jesus is not mentioned anywhere except in the Bible.... he might as well be made up.

And how do you suppose a man could be born otherwise? Maybe he rose from sea foam.... (of course that wouldn't fulfill prophecy so we better not go with that one)

Anyway, your mythology has no authority with me.


Now get that last word in! Make it oh so "clever"!

Do your homework.

Yawn

so he's mentioned in books thrown out of the Bible.....

He's still obviously a mythical figure...like Achilles.

Hittite writings have identified an "Alexandus" of Wilusa--Alexandros of Ilios in Greek. They also record complaints to the Ahiyawan (Achaen) wanax about his pirates' raids in Asia. (Just in case you haven't done your homework there, either, the Greeks referred to Turkey as "Asia.&quot There's also the destruction layer at Troy VII, which records the sack and burning of the city at about the appropriate time. The context and some of the other Homerc ellements have been confirmed by archaeology and linguistics. All of which makes Aikhilios' existence more plausible.

If you'd done your homework, of course, you'd know that.

Uh.... because he's in a myth?

If you understood what I posted, you'd know what it meant.

Are you guys brain dead? The whole point of the post is Achilles was most likely a REAL PERSON, but he wasn't born to a sea nymph or dipped in the river Styx and he could be killed if shot anywhere, not just in his heel.

There even less evidence Jesus was real, and the real one was not born of a virgin or rose from the dead and didn't do half of what was written.... just like Achilles.

The point was.... oh never mind....

I'm going to go play with the adults. You guys are ridiculous. You apparently can't even read.

They act responsibly, unlike children.

Jesus is fiction just because you say he is. That is all your argument is so far. You say it, therefore it is true. And you expect others to accept that, just because you say it.

I don't think this debate technique will get you very far.

Nope.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Wasnt-There/dp/B000CAPZBC/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1354652832&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+who+wasn%27t+there




Just for starters.

(Do you think atheists live in a vacuum?)

rather than a link to a movie.

About as credible as posting a link to the Left Behind series.

I done that research, and come up empty. Will you share your evidence so I can evaluate it for myself?

The written record of anything in that era in that region is very slight, on any subject. There is no direct firsthand description of Jesus by an eyewitness, at least none that still exists. This is not proof that he didn't exist, of course.

I also included a link with a rather exhaustive analysis of the known information just up this thread. You can decide for yourself the veracity of the arguments.

Extra-biblical, contemporaneous evidence.

Is there any? I've yet to see any, and that is what it would take to add anything resembling validity to that claim.

So what evidence is there to support your assertion?

Try as you might, and you try very hard.

There is no extra-biblical contemporaneous evidence. It would be nice, but it doesn't exist.

This does not prove he didn't exist. This doesn't prove anything at all, actually.

Simple as that. There is no absolute proof of his existence one way or the other.

I believe he existed based on the available record, and from the words of those who knew the apostles. I regard it as highly unlikely that a mythical figure's life and words could be created and disseminated across a large area within a couple of centuries. This immediately brings up all kinds of questions of the individuals who created such a myth, of which there is no evidence of any kind.

I've already cited a massive article of the available evidence for the existance of Jesus which you have not read, and which I am not going to repeat. If that is not enough for you, and I doubt that anything is enough for you, than you can continue to believe he never existed. I'm sure you will.

Try as you might, and you try very hard.


But the fact remains that it is your claim that an actual person did exist, so the burden falls on you to support that claim with evidence.

As you already acknowledge that there is no evidence to support your claim, what is it that we are talking about?

Right.


Have a nice day.

Try again.

I am countering the assertion made by another in this thread that Jesus didn't exist.

It is actually HIS assertion to prove.

and I never said there was no evidence to support my claim, only that there was no evidence that you would accept, which doesn't bother me in the slightest. You disregard my evidence because, of course, you haven't read it.

And you never will.

which is what you are doing, and which seems to be a pattern with you: ignore anything you don't know how to respond to.

Pretty underwhelming.

and the mythical Jesus is the only rational view in my opinion.

"In spite of what Christians want to believe there is actually no evidence of the historicity of Jesus outside the New Testament; none! Any Christian that claims otherwise is lying. There is not one single contemporary reference to an historical Jesus. The few writers Christian's cite (Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonlus, Pliny) all wrote many decades after Jesus and their references were to the existence of Christians, not Jesus. Furthermore, there is overwhelming evidence that the references in Tacitus, and especially Josephus are merely later Christian additions."

http://www.thestoryofchristianity.com/the_evidence_for_christianity.php

via http://www.rationalresponders.com/

Here's a couple of sites with compatible views on the subject.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

There's also the problem of Nazareth not existing. There is evidence of a Bronze Age settlement but it was abandoned during the Persian invasion of 614 BCE and not settled again till around 150 CE.

Indeed there are many problems with the myth of Nazareth as a Jewish settlement of the time. One of the most glaring is the fact the positioning of Nazareth amongst the tombs the area contained when Jewish practice would forbid this, burials were always outside city limits. It would have been what I believe is referred to as Tum'ah or ritually unclean. Nor does the topography lend itself to the cliff he was thrown off to fly around like a pantomime Peter Pan after preaching in a Synagogue that there is no evidence for, which is only to be expected within a burial ground. Simply could not have been built.

Clearly they are busy grinding axes.

I'm surprised you believe them.

Pointing out such is not an answer. They are not the only ones to posit such criticisms and having an axe to grind does not automatically disqualify one's opinion, you should know that the later interpolations in Josephus, just for one example, are recognised by others and your peremptory dismissal does nothing to diminish the work of many fine scholars. The growing recognition of his absence in contemporary history outside of religious works, even his position there is not all that secure Paul presents a somewhat vague figure and makes no mention of several things important to later Christianity, is troubling to say the least. This puts the figure firmly in the realms of fiction and mythology in my opinion.

Perhaps you would care to address some of the points raised as an ad hominen attack does nothing for the credibility of an argument and I feel you would be one of the first to point such a fallacy out.

The only way that resurrection becomes a viable option is through the invocation of magic. After three days of necrosis and rigor mortis the notion becomes untenable through any other explanation. How such a mindset differs from the poultices, herb burning and incantations of earlier and even contemporary belief systems is indiscernible to a modern mind, perhaps the addition of a human personality and existence rather than just traits may be one point. A homage to narcissism therefore being the only difference, perhaps one of the base sets for racism and/or expressions of racial superiority.

Also some of earlier belief systems natural remedies have proven to have some efficacy and modern medicine has made some gains from them. Do let me know how the praying and shaking your fists at the sky is going, and good luck with that!

You read them and you end up talking like that.

it comes off like a cat who's doscovered a dead bird.

That's the upbringing I've had. As to pseudointellectualism I don't see it like that I was just trying to put a point of view and create a discussion. I will reiterate what others have said, all you do is try kill the messenger and pay no heed to the message, if you had any arguments I could perhaps claim you merely undermine them by such a haughty, arrogant and ultimately empty stance.

I said that I think Jesus is a myth and you seem to be claiming that I have some cognitive problems, perhaps you would care to share the evidences that would point to my conclusions being wrong. One can present arguments for or against either side of any argument and one I put forward was the interpolations in Josephus, what McCabe, whom you profess to admire, would have included in his list of 'Pious Frauds' perhaps?

The Resurrection is explicitly, overty supernatural and a miracle.

The counterpoint to that is not a discussion of necrosis.

The discussion leads to whether or not there is a God.

If your critique, as most of the others are at root, is that it is not demonstrable by what is considered scientific evidence, then you are simply discussing scientific standards. That is, in addition to being pedantic, inapposite.

As in general usage and miracles are simply unfounded assertions. To dismiss the questioning of such unfounded superstitions as pedantry whilst using the archaic inapposite borders on ironic.

Why are scientific standards inappropriate in this argument. To claim such then you must forward your supernatural and miraculous explanations.

God is outside of time? Moves in mysterious ways? Is beyond the remit of science and evidence? The reason for latter question could perhaps be seen as a large part of cognitive dissonance as apologists would usually counter in the affirmative.

Why is the question of necrosis not relevant? Is it that the magic man just magics these away so they form no basis for a rationale?

It is not just the scientific test neither, I question it on the obvious and not so obvious frauds within the evidence, one could start with the differing accounts of the resurrection before one brings up the point for any real evidence of his existence. To backtrack on this point you still have not answered the doubts about the reliability of Josephus. Nor do I have to go to any Web sites on your index of banned sites to make comparisons of the syncretism with various early forms of what is essentially the same myth as there are many sources I would hope would pass your approval.

Nor have I at this stage questioned the existence of God and the discussion does not automatically lead there. The Jewish belief system believes in the same Old Testament God but does not believe in Jesus. That is you refusing to discuss any point unless you can personally set the discussions points of reference. Typical of the religious.

You berated me for pedantry, loosen you girdle a little. You know very well what I meant, poetic licence old bean. I would contend you have proven nothing. Other than telling me what I can or cannot say you've brought nothing to the table. If I am wrong please tell me why, I have proposed necrotic flesh cannot walk again and you countered with some fairy tales about the supernatural with no explanations how these thing come about. It may be that it's in the realms of scientifically provable but you have not explained why I should set such considerations aside. That is all I keep trying to ask.

One might even call it piffle, old bean.

Does the term pre-emptive mean anything to you. Of course not there has to be a tooth fairy before any action can occur. I did state myself that it was clumsy which rather deflates your point. Gets me no further points for style but proves you a rhetorician of style rather than substance.

location of same event (and what do we mean by event, to begin with?!) is "fuzzy" in the sense of classical physics, as uncertainty principle applies together with reversible time of Quantum world. And the problem of apples and oranges of Relativistic events happening in non-euclidean 4D Minkowski space-time (a Riemannian geometry) and Quantum events happening in euclidean finite-D Hilbert space. The correct way to combine these apples and oranges has proven to be difficult task; the maths required and tried go over my head but Standard model remains incomplete and unsatisfactory ad hoc approach; SUSY has been rejected by Mother Nature via LHC data, etc.

It is good to see paradigm of physics shifting towards Buddhist etc. notion of codependent causality (cf. symmetry): "if this arises, that arises; if this ceases, that ceases", which is philosophically more sound dialectical basis than the Aristotelian notion of immovable mover and purely linear causality.

Videos I had to laugh when a few of the physicists were straying into the realms of string theory and chuckled and said 'no one understands string theory', I'm happier in the abstracts but have for a while now been working on tying some of those abstracts to human interaction.

I know of someones efforts to create 3D modelling working from Cresson's fractal space time rather than superstring theory. He believes by stating two points on a Peano or Hilbert curve he can arrive at a solution.

However Cresson heads towards your last point, which automatically screamed Schrodinger at me, in using dominant terms to follow the classic Euler-Langrian derivation with Hamilton's principle to solve Schrodinger's equation and begin to address some of the issues brought forth with the rejection of SUSY.

This is the point my brain begins to turn to mush but the idea of a more fractal basis appeals considering, as you pointed out, through Schnoll we have radioactive anomolies happening a multiple points due to extra Solar system events, and intra Solar system events as anomolies have been claimed due to the action of the Suns core. I think this breaks the absolute linearity of Aristotle you are none too keen on.

have produced lots of beautiful math, but the physical component has been missing, as they obviously took a wrong turn from the beginning.

I'm not aware of Cresson, but the TOE in progress I'm following (TGD) is based on 8D imbedding space, p-adic fractality and scalable planck constant in powers of 2 to make the fractality holographic. Or something in that direction, as I'm severly handicapped in math to really comprehend any of it. It has lot of novel and very deep ideas and it's predictions e.g. in the field of particle physics are well in tune with what is coming from LHC.

As the name suggests, Topological GeometroDynamics has been originally inspired by and in many ways a continuation of Wheeler's program of geometrodynamics. As the underlying philosophical Wheelerian approach is that of "participatory universe", this has lead also the development of TGD inspired theory of consciousness.

See e.g. http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/featuniverse#.UL7rkax0k9I for participatory universe and delayed choice experiment. TGD cosmology is based on Zero Energy Ontology (cf. buddhist notion of codependent causality and what you said about quantum measurments measuring each other IIRC) and both past and future created by "now" of fractal hierarchy of quantum jumps (of various sizes defined by scalable planck constant) inside each other up to universal scale.

Idea may sound radical at first, but is pretty simple as most generally described above and so far the only picture that I know of that makes delayed choice experiment sound natural and even remotely comprehensible. The math to justify that picture and turn it into well developed theory is however anything but simple and beyond my capacity.

What time? Sorry for hijack, but isn't the mind of a philosopher contemplating time, mind of a theoretical physicist searching and creating mathematical theoretical formulations of time in a way and on some level "outside time"?

In your statement trying to create a mathematical model rather than a bland assertion. However I am struggling to grasp the mathematical or physics model that posit such. Multiverse or multi dimensional physics still tend to have a reference point in our universe so that would be time. If you are straying into quantum entanglement once it is observed it exists and it needs our reference point to do so, that would tie it in with time. Unless I have not caught the thrust of your point I don't think so but at such high level physics and math I would not be put out at being corrected.

As philosophers try to connect the abstruse with the corporeal world I can't think of any, once again I may be missing your point. Indeed A.L. prior quotes N.L. Wilson in his idea that philosophers should seek substance-language in his terms, instead of the theoretical math and physics notion of space time. Here's a video about time on a personal level from the University of Manchester. I would also recommend the Sixty Symbols channel on YouTube if you haven't come across it.

Heidegger says more or less that time = being and it may be philosophically very deep, but not sure if that is any help to physics.

Anthropology and comparative linguistics show lot of cultural variation on how time is regarded and experienced; an Amazonian tribe has no time concept beyond morning and evening, it seems.

Contemporary physics, AFAIK, is interested in the mathematical form of time that would be empirically sound - and ultimately able to link 'geometric time' of physics also with various psychological experiences and ideas about time.

So, what a mathematical physicist is doing - no doubt in some state of "psychological time/being" without trying to define that any further at the moment - is to contemplate about forms, mathematical objects inside mental space of mathematical imagination. Mathematical forms such as thermodynamically irreversible Minkowski space-time of Special Relativity, mathematical forms that would allow the emergence of Einstein's notion of time-space from deeper "pre-time" forms; forms that could combine that with quantum theoretical notions of reversable and otherwise weird time which sees "past" and "future" as chiral symmetries and can't locate events exactly in either.

So this is what I meant, a mathematical physicist is contemplating his mathematical objects of various geometric times in some sense "outside them", or they exist as they are imagined "inside" the mental space-time(?) or time-being while being imagined. This relation is somehow connected to the theoretical problem of quantum measurement, but I can't point how exactly.

Einstein said that the mystery of "now" remained mystery to him; a moment or duration that can contain the thought and vision and comprehension of various geometric times and their relations in very deep and meaningful way. A "point" between past and future on the geometric time of real line is in no way satisfactory definition of "now" in that regard.

This is what I'm able to think and say on the subject so far, I'll check your link and recommendations with "better time" as the saying goes.

after digging up the Shnoll effect for another context. Shnoll is biologist who spotted the effect in some biological data before starting to study it with supposed randomness of radioactive decay:

Off of a very interesting piece.

"The latter would suggest, that at least one astronomical factor influencing histogram shape may originate outside the solar system, being associated with the orientation of the measuring station relative to the galaxy, and not only relative to the Sun."

If we add the position of our galaxies relative to other galaxies we head towards something of an 'Electric Universe' theory, which on it's own contains many errors and I feel is largely used to answer misgivings about dark matter or an explanation of dark matter, however some of the work debunking was done before the new evidence that neutrinos travel faster than light which does begin to once again question the physics that the debunking is based on. There are other problems though. However the debate between the proponents of the Electric theory and it's detractors is a little warm for me personally so I keep out.

However there is research from 2010 that shows an alteration in decay rates due to the rotation of the Sun's core. http://phys.org/news202456660.html but from what I can gather this is a fairly centric to the laboratory where the tests were conducted rather than the wider range of sampling in Schnoll's work and the latest research would seem to be about isolated examples with no correlation between samples. We're almost back to Neutrinos being both waves and particles at this point as the work could turn out to show an internal Solar system effect and external influences. To be displaying elements of string theory almost. Or to use a time analogy a tick and a tock.

To take your last point it should surely interest evolutionists, it's piqued my interest, as background radiation takes part in the process, a lowering is propounded as stimulus, and the idea that something outside the Solar system or even the Milky Way itself having an effect means any recognition of such a parameter gives new ways to look at evolutionary mechanisms . Interesting times.

Here's link to so far best attempt for physics explanation I'm aware of:
http://matpitka.blogspot.fi/2010/12/possible-explanation-of-shnoll-effect.html

The astrophysical correlations of shnoll effect of course imply that the effect has gravitational character; but a fuller understanding requires a well developed quantum gravity theory (ie. TOE).

on a purely logistical basis, it would be impossible for so many to believe in him so quickly over such a widespread area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

However without names or articles then the numerous scholars card is worthless. If you claim on your own behalf that you think he existed then that is your right and I would never seek to deny you that right. I will always argue against it though.

Numerous scholars card is not worthless, it is all there in the notes at the end. The idea that Jesus never existed is a very small minority viewpoint out there.

All your information is from highly-biased atheist sites.You might consider the source,and then look for other viewpoints that just them, to get a fuller picture of the debate.

Here is another very long and interesting article on the subject.

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch18/default.htm

It goes into great detail about the nature of available evidence, and lack of evidence. Compare and contrast with the material from your sites.

With that is the fact of the Bible itself. We have in the first instance the multitudes supposedly drawn to his teachings in a area just starting to recover from the suppression of the Hasmonean dynasty achieved with Rome's help this would have been very noticeable indeed. Herod's victory only achieved a generation before and an expanded Judea only created in 6CE. Any such gatherings of multitudes would have been noticed, I feel I can make such an assertion as apologists assert that Jesus was only a minor preacher at the time and was not noticed contradicts the Bible's own attempt at internal logic. I feel even Paterculus your sources bumbling amateur historian may of at least heard of this. You may reply that a rabble getting upset in a corner of the Roman Empire may not have come to the attention of a bumbling amateur but I feel it would have come to the attention of the authorities. The basic mistake of apologists as they have cocooned and isolated the myth is the fact they have separated it from other events of the time as if it happened in some peculiar warp time and had no relevance to the military and religious politics of the time. Except it upset one of the Sanhedrin enough at the time to cause them to call him to account and Josephus' silence on this matter should be troubling considering the minutiae he did record.

These things could not have happened in isolation and the fact is that drawing multitudes wherever you went would have amounted to something very troubling to the authorities in Rome far and above internal religious disputes amongst the Jewish. In fact that would serve their purpose admirably.

However this is not all. We add to that the miracles that went unreported until the 4C. The darkening of the skies and the trembling of the ground at his death but perhaps the most pertinent point here would be the opening of the graves and the saints emptying out and walking the streets. It is easy to deride and speak of a zombie apocalypse but this would be to miss the point that at the time Christianity did not exist and the idea of a Saint to the Jewish faith is an absolute no no, that would be idolatry. Saints were created as a retrospective idea yet the Bible's internal logic bestows them a contemporary piety that could not have existed.

The one thing I've seen many others comment upon that is most distressing about this figure is that none of his pious words or ideas were new but the myth saddled us with the new notion of eternal hell and torture for not obeying the priests and that in my eyes is a damnable legacy that continues to cause mental and emotional agony for untold millions.

is probably susceptible to Nigerian gentlemen wanting to send them a couple million dollars if the marks will only send the scammer a mere few thousand.

The thing I continue to find remarkable is that persons claiming to rely on facts never seem to fact-check ridiculous sources like this one.

Credible archaeological fieldwork that dismisses claims of a Nazareth existing in the time of this supposed man. Srely you will know yourself as a gentleman and a scholar that one always looks for more than one source. Plus the fact I've read a few posts where you pour scorn and ridicule but don't seem to add much else. Bible your only evidence??

to find that Yardenna Alexandre discovered a house from the Early Roman period in 2009, and that the Israeli Antiquities Authority have uncovered further remains of the time. What, by the way, is "credible archaeological fieldwork" that "dismisses claims of Nazareth existing in the time of this supposed man?" If you're familiar with archaeology in general, you will also know that "credible archaeological evidence" also dismissed the possibilty of further royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings well before Carter's spectacular find in 1922.

I've found the jesusnverexisted website replete with errors. My favorite is the author's placing of the last "burning by the Inquisition in Mexico" in the nineteenth century. (The more you know about Mexico, the funnier that is.)

By the way, I'm a gentlewoman and a scholar. And before you peg me as Christian dependent only upon the Bible for source material, I'm a practicing and very happy pagan.

is that even references at the lowest level have correct information on this. It's sort of like "Even a first grader would know," y'know.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm just treading carefully around your a priori position. As many have pointed out as these arguments continue the onus really is on you to prove these claims and I feel no one has so far, the Gospels and a fraudulent entry in Josephus do not really do it for me. When you look at the staggering claims of Christianity of thousands of people flocking wherever he went, the staggering miracles and the darkening of the skies, the ground shaking and tombs emptying at his death as reasons to believe and match them against the apologists claims that perhaps being just a minor prophet at the time nobody would have taken much notice! I am sure you can see the overall story's lack of an internal logic.

I also know that it doesn't need logic for a lot of people as it's magic. There's the rub.

Edited to add: Forgot to mention the obvious conformation bias, the first information you see that agrees with you fulfills your search for knowledge, how quaint.

has anything to do with whether or not Nazareth existed in the Early Roman Period in Judea.

But you do realize, I hope, that your reasoning is circular, turning on your assumption that nothing in the Gospels is historically valid.

which were left out of canonical bible and then systemically destroyed and most of which we now know survived hidden buried under ground (and which Vatican has a big problem with), give very different view of Mary Magdalene - spouse/spiritual peer/most important disciple are among various interpretations of those texts.