“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44475663)

On the other hand if you thought he was performing miracles and was the son of God, you would cease to be secular.

I'd finally say that if raising people from the dead and healing the sick were not enough to get your point across when writing the gospels, what more would do the trick?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44476743)

Why is it that every time you respond to me, you make up some bullshit about my supposed LSAT score? Last time it was "162" and another time it was "sub-170." Feel free to provide a link to my having gotten a "164," moron.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44476768)

Also Josephus explicitly mentioned Jesus even if you think the Testimonium Flavianum was doctored. Odd flame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44476849)

Aren't you that retard who can't tell me apart from Poastradamus? Which of us do you currently imagine I am?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44476865)

You can't have it both ways. You can't have a secular source that then reports on events which, if you even think are possible, would lead you to be a Christian.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44476876)

I mean Paul was a dyed-in-the-wool Jew who persecuted Christians, had an encounter, and converted and wrote about it. Thats about as perfect an example for what you are asking for.

You kinda goofed with this one, i'm interested how you weasel around it now. Add another layer of requirements for this source of yours?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44476926)

You asked for someone who was:

1) Reputable - Paul certainly was in the Jewish community prior to his conversion.

2) non-anonymous - Paul certainly was a known entity who we can trace back to

3) historian - No PhDs were being handed out then, but he was a prolific writer whose work, when it could be corroborated with other writers and archaeological and geographic tests, has passed with flying colours.

4) Investigated Christ and his miracles - Obviously he did as the miracles continued after the death of Christ.

5) Became Christian - Yup.

"I'm not asking to have it both ways. I'm asking for examples of reputable, non-anonymous historians like Josephus who investigated them and became Christian."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477000)

"I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." - Galatians 1:11-12

That is a religious experience, not a historian naming and dispassionately analyzing sources. I really don't know what you're going for here.

"Paul very clearly taught about Christ's ministry and miracles"

Which writings of Paul are you referring to here? Where does Paul mention Jesus going to Jerusalem or meeting his various apostles or Pontius Pilate or specific miracles?

"4) Investigated Christ and his miracles - Obviously he did as the miracles continued after the death of Christ."

Lol... what? Which miracles did he investigate? How, when, where? What the fuck are you talking about?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477098)

https://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104189&mc=17&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477143)

You asked me for a guy who experienced Christ and his miracles and was converted. Now your saying that they have to dispassionately analyze and narrate them? If you or I experienced Christ in the way that Paul did, we wouldn't sit down and write a historical treatise on it. We would go around the known world trying to save as many souls as possible, spreading the good news.

I gave you exactly what you wanted, a writer who experienced Christ and his miracles, converted (where he was previously an enemy), and wrote about them at length. Your weaseling ways are just embarassing.

"Which writings of Paul are you referring to here? Where does Paul mention Jesus going to Jerusalem or meeting his various apostles or Pontius Pilate or specific miracles?"

Paul talks about the greatest miracle; the resurrection, at great length.

"Lol... what? Which miracles did he investigate? How, when, where? What the fuck are you talking about?"

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477203)

"I gave you exactly what you wanted, a writer who experienced Christ and his miracles"

Will you ever stop making shit up? I never said "experienced Christ."

Let's look at what I actually asked for:

"secular historians [who] noticed and wrote about any of these things Jesus did"

"the miracles and the resurrection and Matthew 27's zombie uprising"

"a history of the life and miracles of Jesus"

I don't give a shit that he thought he "experienced Christ" and converted. Plenty of people in modern times have thought the same thing and converted, and plenty of people throughout human history have "experienced" all sorts of other gods and spirits, including long before Christianity was invented.

"Paul talks about the greatest miracle; the resurrection, at great length."

As I pointed out to you, he only ever says he came to know of this miracle via revelation, as in Galatians 1, not via talking to eyewitnesses such as the disciples whom Jesus talked to and ate with in Luke 24 after his resurrection, or anything else we would trust as having real evidential value in establishing an actual event.

Speaking of weaselling:

You: "Paul very clearly taught about Christ's ministry and miracles."

Me: "Okay, where does Paul mention the baptism, entering Jerusalem, meeting his various apostles, Pontius Pilate, the Sermon on the Mount, turning water into wine, walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc., etc.? Literally any fucking thing from the life and times of Jesus, other than the death and resurrection?"

You: ...

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance..."

None of this is investigating miracles. He says he "received" all of that information about people having visions (nothing miraculous about that anyway). He says nothing about whom he received this information from, or who the "five hundred" were, etc. This is all a far cry from what I was originally talking about, which was independent corroboration of events like these:

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477387)

Why don't you just have the intellectual honesty to admit no amount of evidence of Christ's existence, death, and resurrection would ever be enough for you. You pride yourself on being an r/atheism "intellectual" who will always demand a greater burden of proof whenever provided evidence because you simply hate the idea of religion. No amount of the gospels, Paul's epistles, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Talmud, or even more speculative sources like Suetonius will ever convince you. Like all proud internet atheists, in this moment you're euphoric by your own "intelligence."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477437)

Oh, wow, such amazing EVIDENCE! The gospels that virtually all scholars agree were written by anonymous non-eyewitnesses 40+ years after the events they purport to describe! Paul, who never met Jesus and "received" all his information through "revelations"! Josephus, whose writings (decades after Jesus's death) were doctored! Tacitus, who wrote 80 fucking years later! Lucian, born nearly a CENTURY after your godman's death! Wow, yeah, how could any reasonable person fail to conclude that there really was a Son of God who was sent to this one primitive ancient backwater to perform magic tricks. Who (being the omnipotent creator of the universe) could simply appear and talk directly to every human being who has ever lived, but instead chooses to "communicate" with me through a book written millennia ago in a language I don't speak. Yep: all atheists everywhere are just really dumb and retarded and gay to not understand that this actually makes perfect sense. You have got to be the single dumbest person ever to poast here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477518)

Lol never change, reddit atheist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477527)

Confusing you with another poaster was a one time mistake, brother. Whereas low IQ reddit atheism is an eternal blunder.

Also lol at this favorite tactic of Internet atheists: "Josephus didn't write about Christ."

"He did though."

"That's not good enough!"

To say nothing of the fact you think Josephus was a "secular historian" lmao. Just embarrassing man think it's time to go back to r/atheism where your "intellectual" zombie jokes will be appreciated

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477354)

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."

Me: Why didn't anybody write about these books' worth of miraculous deeds performed by the son of God?

You: But-but-there's this one doctored passage in Josephus that may have once said something about Jesus, though we have no idea what!

Where did I ever argue "Josephus didn't write about Christ."?

Let's try this again, you sub-130-LSAT, pants-shitting moron: did Josephus write about the "many other things which Jesus did"? If so, which acts of Jesus did he write about, and where in the writings of Josephus can I read them?

"To say nothing of the fact you think Josephus was a "secular historian" lmao"

What? He was a major, prolific historian who was not a Christian. What the fuck are you trying to say?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477445)

"That's not good enough! He didn't mention the miracles in the exact way I want so it doesn't count!"

Yes, yes, this is a tired reddit atheist trope. It's never good enough for le euphoric smartypants.

Lol I can feel the frantic Wikipediaing off your poast still. Guess you didn't realize Josephus did actually mention Christ twice in two different sources, and only one of those times has been challenged as being doctored. Query: when Josephus speaks of Jesus as the Christ, do you not think the miracles that convinced the first Christians - who were alive during Jesus's life - are somewhat implied?

Don't get me wrong, I wish a "secular historian" (lmao this will never not be very embarrassing) like Josephus had written explicitly about Jesus's miracles, like the gospels and Paul did, in excruciatingly minute detail. But who are we kidding, you wouldn't believe then either. You'd need another secular historian; this one's not good enough!

You seem like you're fuming here, brother. All I'm saying is you claim to have scored 165+ on the LSAT but have provided no proof. Please provide proof. We're all waiting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477503)

Definition of secular (Entry 1 of 2)

1a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal

secular concerns

b: not overtly or specifically religious

secular music

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

Josephus's historical writings were not Jewish theological tracts. They relate history in a secular manner (as opposed to the clearly religious nature of the allegedly historical Gospels, whose anonymous authors are not known to have ever written any works of critical secular history). Perhaps I should've written "writers of secular history" so as to satisfy pedantic midwits like you? You remind me of those shitlibs who, when people who have illegally immigrated are referred to as illegal immigrants, object that "no human being is illegal!"

"Yes, yes, this is a tired reddit atheist trope. It's never good enough for le euphoric smartypants."

He didn't mention ANY of the long list of gospel miracles, faggot. Or any of the books' worth of amazing deeds that this subthread was originally about.

Yes, I was aware of the other passage, which says even less about your god's books' worth of amazing deeds. So what? Oh, okay, so Josephus repeats that Jesus was "called Christ" by his followers, which means Josephus must have been convinced that Jesus performed miracles. He just forgot to convert to Christianity. And these literal miracles, acts of awe-inspiring supernatural power, were just not interesting enough to Josephus to bother writing about them in any detail. Odd case. You have got to be flame, right?

"Please provide proof. We're all waiting."

You first, champ.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477568)

Link to Paul writing about the miracles? Turning water into wine, walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, etc.?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to show you proof of my 165+ LSAT score. But who are we kidding, you wouldn't believe me. You'd need another piece of proof; this one's not good enough!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5104277&forum_id=2#44477585)