Archaeologica.org

Here you go, arch....this should make your head explode.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm


"Paul" just as big a fiction as "Jesus?"

Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death

talk about jumping to conclusions and omitting facts to make a point. if you recall there was no persecution of the christians till after the ressurection and there are many reasons why saul/paul would have waitedtill then to go after the followers of Christ.

but typical non-religious thinking here as again just like so many other scenarios, the non-religious , when it comes to the Biblical accounts or history, leave out so many details in their hastily drawn conclusions.

The trail-blazing Christian missionary and apostle, St Paul, appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age

again, the expectation of the non-religious removes logic and reality from their thinking. there are many religious today who will be left out of the history books because they spurn the spotlight and they have friends in high places as well.

there are many reasons why such people are omited from these tomes and it is partly due to the fact that history is in the eyes of the historian. i am sure their are many ancient prominent, influentiual non-religious people left out of the history books as well. so inclusion is not the criteria for existence.

agian the non-religious show how little they think as they apply unreasonable standards for the Bible to meet while they give the non-religious work a pass.

Actually, the whole story works a lot better if the two of them are fictional characters dreamed up by the first century equivalent of an advertising firm.

Actually, the whole story works a lot better if the two of them are fictional characters dreamed up by the first century equivalent of an advertising firm.

again nothing of substance i see. proves my point that while you want to undermine the Bible, you have nothing to replace it with so why should anyone listen to you or your cohorts?

Au contraire, I think the study of the absurdities of the Paul story which this fellow has just done explains it quite nicely.

You know, as funny as it may seem, at least the Old Testament actually has some historical accuracy...even if it is only by accident...late in the tale. The New Testament has absolutely nothing going for it.

With all the histories being written by Roman and non-Roman authors, none of them seem to mention this Christ-fellow of yours.....

Why do you suppose that is?

Why do you suppose that is?

why would non-believers mention something that makes them examine their soul's status and realize they aren't in charge of their destiny? they have to realize that theyare going to be judged by God and so do you...you can't escape it.

i should have some interesting quotes and comments tomorrow about this topic. they will be from a non-religious source....

Why should anyone mention Jesus in history books, he was a little man, in a little country, causing a little ruckus. So the Romans crucified him to get in good with the local priests. He wasn't considered divine for many years after his so-called death, when his followers invented stories to prove such. Meanwhile, he and his family got the hell out of Dodge before the Romans realized he didn't die and went after him to finish the job. I often wonder what ever happened to the Roman guards that got paid to allow his followers to remove his body from the cross, since having the body to rot on the cross was part of the whole idea of that method of punishment.

There was a fellow by the name of Philo of Alexandria, Leona. He was a Jewish scholar of the first half of the first century AD and one of his extant writings is called the "Embassy to Caligula." What is particularly interesting is that in this letter he recounts all the crimes of one of Tiberius' governors....one Pontius Pilatus.

It's really odd that Pilate, of all the crimes and insults to the Jews that Pilatus committed, Philo does not mention any killing of a rabbi that "multitudes" (allegedly) hailed as the messiah.

Now, Caligula was emperor from 37 to 41 AD which, if there was any truth to the story at all, would have been just a few years after the events but somehow not even a guy like Philo, who paid deep attention to this sort of thing, seemed to know about it.

Odd, huh?

Odd, huh?

no, as i have quoted---'history is in the eyes of the historian'--- he had his reasons for the exclusion, maybe he didn't want to provide legitimacy to Christ's life, who knows.

i have read several books on the civil war and not one of them mentions the same things all the time, their viewpoint is slanted to what they want to highlight and what sympathy they want to garner.

inclusion doesn't mean existence and exclusion doesn't mean the opposite. you are not in the history books so by your thinking you did not or do not exist.

To you, history is something which has to be manipulated to keep your silly gods and legends alive.


When you come up with some proof, let me know. All you ever manage is pious bullshit and that doesn't cut it as evidence.

When you come up with some proof, let me know. All you ever manage is pious bullshit and that doesn't cut it as evidence

you're hilarious, you justdismiss everything because it proves you wrong and you hate that.

here are some quotes from the book, 'origins' by neil degrasse tyson & donald goldsmith:

"in practice, astrophysicists remained unable to fulfill this program, because they could not make sufficient reliable estimates of the distances to galaxy clusters many billions of light years from earth." pg. 83

"in 1979, alan guth... hypothesized thatduring its earliest moments, the cosmos expanded at an incredible rate..." pg. 84

(this is possible observation of the power of God and how quickly things came into being at His spoken word)

"the inflationary model makes a straightforward, testable prediction: space in the universe should be flat, neither positively nor negatively curved, but just as flat as our intuition imagines it." pg. 85

(how does this affect life on earth? how does this apply to life on earth? to imply curvature would be to imply borders but that would mean that the universe is limtied in size which cannot be proven. as i read about curvature, i see it as a work of uselessness. whatpurpose would curvature serve in an expanse thathas no borders?)

"if, for example..."pg. 94

(this type of wording is throughout the book which tells me the harder the scientists look and fail to acknowledge God, the more they do not know and understand.)

"so little space existed then..."pg. 96

(another observation that should be attributed to the Beginning when God created all that there is)

"Unless a host of observations eventually prove to be misinterpretated, inaccurate or just plain wrong, we must accept the result that the universe will never contract or recycle itself." pg. 97

(another observation of how God constructed the universe so people would not have to worry about everything collapsing on itself.)

"Thus if cosmologists could only explain where dark energy comes from and why it exists in the amount that they find today." pg. 99

(if they looked to God then they would understand how dark energy works and its purpose...but since they don't, they are left to muddle around in the dark.)

"Because we exists...the parameters that describe the cosmos and in particular the value of the cosmological constant, must have have values that allow us to exist." pg 102

( again attributing God's work to something other than God, leaving themselves in the dark without explanation. of course the have values that permit us to exist because God made it that way and we exist because we were made by Him.)

"four hundred years after kepler, astronomers still know far too little about the origin of the planets..." pg. 105

(seems science isn't the definitive answer machine).

well this is a start to whet your appetite. throughout the book it is the same thought, 'we know little', 'we don't know' and so on. science without God will get you no where because they always take a wrong turn somewhere and look for the answers outside of Him.

i will post more this week, it is an interesting book but its fatal flaw is that it ignores God.

Congradulations. Once again you have proved your complete lack of ability to use logical reasoning. Round and round in circles you go, so of course there can never be an end to trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Well well,aRch venturing adigression in the cosmos.Obviously you understand nothing at all from astrophysics or cosmology at all.You use the kind of arguments that have been disproven since the renaissance .You claim that that dark matter cannot be explained unless a God is entered into the equation .You are the only one still using this kind of logics as far as I know .It isa remnant of very primitive thinking .There were times when people could not explain lighning, thunder ,the wind, etc.And yes they were attributed to gods and spirits .As science progressed science explained all these phenomenas without using religion .THey formulatec hypotheses ,proved them right satisfacory and were able in the basis of equations to predict the behaviour of nature .Along comes Arch in the beginning of the 21th century and claims that there must be a god because we have not yet explained the nature of black matter .Back to primitive thinking Arch ?
You are laughing matter if not black matter yourself .

Rene, since Arch does not believe in science, how can he even begin to think about such things astrophysics or cosmology. They are completely outside the rim of his circle.

I know that at one time the church said the world was flat and everyone believed it was just because the church said so, no thinking allowed. But I never thought that the universe was flat also. I would think infinity would stretch in all directions, up, down as well as side to side.