Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 55110

Well proofs of the birth of Christ is not just from the Bible. History proves it if you study it carefully. Many first and second century Historians who were anti Christian have written about Christ. Some of them are Phlegon, Josephus and Tacitus. The entire dating method of BC(Before Christ) and AD(Anno Domini meaning the year of our Lord) wouldn’t have been there if Christ did not live during that time. We possibly cannot be wrong with our measuring of time. And BC and AD are not propagated or even given a mention in the Bible, but is only present in history.

Wer, Why Dont You Blog? 32 Comments [12/30/2008 4:22:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: WhyDontYou
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Doctor Whom

Many first and second century Historians who were anti Christian have written about Christ. Some of them are Phlegon, Josephus and Tacitus.

Later interlineations don't count.

We possibly cannot be wrong with our measuring of time.

Even most Christians admit that we are wrong about BC and AD. Learn your own faith.

12/30/2008 4:27:01 PM

stoat100

Why don't you blog? Here's why:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

12/30/2008 4:36:42 PM

aaa

Argumentum ad calendar?

12/30/2008 4:54:21 PM

Lucilius

Why, oh why can't these fuckers learn anything about the history of their own religion?

12/30/2008 4:59:27 PM

Mister Spak

The fact that the year is 1429 proves allah is real.

12/30/2008 5:19:09 PM

Seigi no Mikata

Exiguus got it wrong.

That's all I'll say.

12/30/2008 5:21:36 PM

Atheist In A Foxhole

Stupid twat. Reasonable blog site though.

12/30/2008 5:35:36 PM

Beeblebrox

Flowers for Algernon.

12/30/2008 5:37:56 PM

Papabear

The only mentions of Christ in the writings of Josephus are both later interpolations.

12/30/2008 5:44:05 PM

Grigadil

One of those old popes was instrumental in linking the dynastic year-numbering system permanently to the estimated birth year of their favorite little Jebus. Ultimately, it's the Papist calendar.

12/30/2008 5:56:18 PM

Psittacosis

And those anti-Christian historians back up the gospel stories, do they?

... Nope, they don't. And Dennis the Short doesn't count as proof of anything, idiot.

12/30/2008 6:21:10 PM

Darwin's Lil Girl

AD and BC came about later. As for the rest...

Citations really bloody needed.

12/30/2008 6:36:54 PM

OMGWTFBBQ

Why are there no contemporary sources citing the existence of Christ, it seems like a no brainer.

12/30/2008 6:43:42 PM

dpareja

I don't know about Phlegon or Tacitus, but we know the ownership records of Josephus' manuscripts: after he died, they were owned by Christians, and almost all the mentions of Jesus were not written by Josephus.

12/30/2008 6:57:21 PM

Efrain

Maybe of Jesus Christ the man, but not the biblical one.

12/30/2008 7:01:48 PM

Pule Thamex

Is it worth trying to make a point here? I think not.

12/30/2008 7:27:16 PM



They spoke about a person who could have been the Jesus of the Gospels. That he's the son of God, it's a matter of faith. And concerning the dating system...................better not to tell you how the Greeks and the Romans counted.

12/30/2008 7:29:11 PM

Drizzt DroUrden

A wrong as a wrong thing, with a postgraduate degree in being wrong from the university of wrong.

12/30/2008 8:38:13 PM

Old Viking

How do you explain Sumerian coins marked 3600 BC?

12/30/2008 9:07:27 PM

John

The AD/BC split isn't mentioned in the Bible, but its date was calculated using information taken from it; so it comes from the Bible, too.

12/30/2008 9:17:16 PM

a mind far far away

Citations seriously fucking needed. Also, you fail at history, both secular and religous.

12/30/2008 10:11:27 PM

xplicit_UK

One thing I'll never understand in many of the thousands of quotes on FSTDT and for which this is a prime example: Do these people not understand that it's 2008 and that you can actually fact-check their claims without even leaving your chair? It's not the 1960s anymore when you actually had to go to a library, or the middle ages when you had to be priviledged to access information.

Listen, "Wer", it's 2008 - if you claim something so abysmally stupid or wrong like you did in that post, people can and will find out in less than a minute, so read up about Josephus or Dionysius Exiguus first before you make any grand statements. Because you will only look like a pathetic retard to anyone with half a brain cell who knows how to use Google.

12/30/2008 10:18:53 PM

Antichrist


12/30/2008 11:19:21 PM

Giveitaday

The entire dating method of BC(Before Christ) and AD(Anno Domini meaning the year of our Lord) wouldn’t have been there if Christ did not live during that time

Then why did that dating system have to be created years, if not centuries after the supposed death of your supposed "christ"

We possibly cannot be wrong with our measuring of time

We can if we're going to set completely arbitrary dates for
A) The supposed "creation" of the world.
B)The supposed birth of a "divine" being.
C)The supposed death of the aforementioned "divine" being.

Since all of these events have never been chronicled by any eyewitness (or even credible) sources and the placement of these events in the timeline have varied with religious ideology and interpretation it can be inferred that yes, our mesuring of time based off of supposed and quite likely non-existant events can be wrong.

12/30/2008 11:45:31 PM

fromdownunder

Hey moron, the BC/AD thing was invented by a vertically challenged monk over 700 years after Jesus so-called birth - and he got the dates wrong anyway.

Norm

12/31/2008 1:43:05 AM
1 2