Conquer Club

If Criss Angel had lived 2000 or so years ago in Judea I'm willing to bet his act would have gotten a far better audience than that of Jesus. I realize they are/were both just tricksters, slight of hand experts, con-men, or hucksters. However I'm betting Criss Angel's show would have bought in a larger audience, more followers, then Jesus' tired little fake faith healing bit, these charlatans, christian faith healers, are still playing that con these days, hiding some of their friends in the audience and then "miraculously" healing them. Modern audiences are slightly less naive, Jesus getting his buddy Lazarus to pretend to be dead and then "resurrecting" him might have been a cool little hoax, but I doubt it would work in this day and age. I'm sure Criss Angel could have done done the walk on water and water to wine bit as good if not better than Jesus. Also don't get me started on the whole virgin birth con, I'm willing to bet he learned the art of grifting from his mother.


So if these 2 bunko-artists had lived at the same time who would have won out.

Discuss.

can somebody say troll........

OK I bite


your have an interesting premise unfortunately your notions are based on preconceived ideas
rather than based in any fact


1) That Jesus and Chris Angels are both tricksters or hucksters

You pretty much made an assumptions without putting down any fact,They both could
be legit , they both could be fakes or one or the other could be real and the other fake
You give no evidence either way .Also you assume that their can be no such things as
the supernatural thus everything must fake.Once again you base these things on your
own preconcieved ideas rather than any real hard eviedence

2) Jesus healing was fake and he put people to fake them

once again you base everything on an already preconceived notion wothout any evidence
You also precieved that theses people are too stupid to reliezed they were duped.They could
of been duped sometimes but the chances that it 100 percent fake is very unlikely.It is
more likely to have happen since most village knew each other and knew whether the
neighbor was sick as well as if the neighbor was a follower of Jesus.Also the fact that
if it was fake it would of gotten around very quickly.This does not seem to be the case

3) the water to whine , walking on water

I agree that these could be easily faked....the question is were they..There no hard
evidence either way

Oh did we forget raising from the dead himself

if this is fake than Jesus would have to be the best huckster of all time.Since he would
have to arrange his own arrest ,fake his executions ,escape from a tomb with huge bolder
in front of it that has two guards, appear and disappear suddenly , and float away into the
sky....

I dont know what amuses me more the fact that you are trolling or the fact that you got me
to respond to your post....

Don't forget that they had the same motivation too. They both wanted to get on TV and make lots of money.

No, wait, that's not right. They both had a message of peace, forgiveness, and salvation for the world?

Wait, they're not similar at all...

Fuzzylogic99 wrote:There no hard evidence either way

A lack of hard evidence does not make the highly unlikely into a reasonable possibility.

I thought this was going to be a steel cage match.

Seeing that there's a higher chance that Jesus may be the son of God than Criss Angel, I'd have to place bets on Jesus.

Are there any weapons within the steel cage? Is this kind of like Thunderdome?

There is more credible evidence for Jesus than for any other "Historical Figure" Period.

Even his accusers wrote of him... and people who were not Christians but remained somewhat Non-Partisan as well...

Outside of Biblical Sources (which are in themselves reputable if considered in Unbiased fashion)

We can look to other writers like the Roman Historian Tacitus and the Jewish Historian Flavious Josephus.

Then you also have a bunch of people quoting older writings... like Julius Africanus who quoted the Historian Thallus about the darkness that followed the Crucifixion.

I could go on.. But the people who are Biased will not listen anyway and those who are unbiased will completely understand why I am stopping at this point... They are already weary of the Trolling just like the rest of us.

Have a Great day folks...
Crazy Frog

I vote we go for beers and poll the general population 600 years from now.

Where does Theudas rate in this?

Crazy Frog wrote:There is more credible evidence for Jesus than for any other "Historical Figure" Period.

Even his accusers wrote of him... and people who were not Christians but remained somewhat Non-Partisan as well...

Outside of Biblical Sources (which are in themselves reputable if considered in Unbiased fashion)

We can look to other writers like the Roman Historian Tacitus and the Jewish Historian Flavious Josephus.

Then you also have a bunch of people quoting older writings... like Julius Africanus who quoted the Historian Thallus about the darkness that followed the Crucifixion.

I could go on.. But the people who are Biased will not listen anyway and those who are unbiased will completely understand why I am stopping at this point... They are already weary of the Trolling just like the rest of us.

Have a Great day folks...
Crazy Frog

Ok... what the f*ck does any of that have to do with anything?

I'm feeling argumentative.

Fuzzylogic99 wrote:can somebody say troll........

OK I bite


your have an interesting premise unfortunately your notions are based on preconceived ideas
rather than based in any fact


1) That Jesus and Chris Angels are both tricksters or hucksters

You pretty much made an assumptions without putting down any fact,They both could
be legit , they both could be fakes or one or the other could be real and the other fake
You give no evidence either way .Also you assume that their can be no such things as
the supernatural thus everything must fake.Once again you base these things on your
own preconcieved ideas rather than any real hard eviedence

I would disagree that the OP's perspective is based entirely on assumptions. It's pretty well recognized that Angel is an illusionist (well, not entirely, but close enough). Regardless of his act, it's pretty reasonable to believe that Angel doesn't think he's doing anything supernatural. It's true that he has assumed there is no supernatural, but you haven't exactly been very convincing of its existence.

Fuzzylogic99 wrote:2) Jesus healing was fake and he put people to fake them

once again you base everything on an already preconceived notion wothout any evidence
You also precieved that theses people are too stupid to reliezed they were duped.They could
of been duped sometimes but the chances that it 100 percent fake is very unlikely.It is
more likely to have happen since most village knew each other and knew whether the
neighbor was sick as well as if the neighbor was a follower of Jesus.Also the fact that
if it was fake it would of gotten around very quickly.This does not seem to be the case

And really, you're defending everything based on preconceived notions without any evidence stronger than hearsay. OP's perspective is far more parsimonious, and more likely, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Fuzzylogic99 wrote:3) the water to whine , walking on water

I agree that these could be easily faked....the question is were they..There no hard
evidence either way

Oh did we forget raising from the dead himself

if this is fake than Jesus would have to be the best huckster of all time.Since he would
have to arrange his own arrest ,fake his executions ,escape from a tomb with huge bolder
in front of it that has two guards, appear and disappear suddenly , and float away into the
sky....

I dont know what amuses me more the fact that you are trolling or the fact that you got me
to respond to your post....

Perhaps he was the best huckster ever, but, again, it seems more likely that certain details may have been embellished. Yet you're willing to swallow it whole for some reason.

Jesus pulled it off without special effects and editing......

Crazy Frog wrote:There is more credible evidence for Jesus than for any other "Historical Figure" Period.

Even his accusers wrote of him... and people who were not Christians but remained somewhat Non-Partisan as well...

Outside of Biblical Sources (which are in themselves reputable if considered in Unbiased fashion)

We can look to other writers like the Roman Historian Tacitus and the Jewish Historian Flavious Josephus.

Then you also have a bunch of people quoting older writings... like Julius Africanus who quoted the Historian Thallus about the darkness that followed the Crucifixion.

I could go on.. But the people who are Biased will not listen anyway and those who are unbiased will completely understand why I am stopping at this point... They are already weary of the Trolling just like the rest of us.

Have a Great day folks...
Crazy Frog

An issue that arises is how difficult it would be to identify any person over such a long time, from a context which individuals would be trying to find this person from. Admittedly, the majority of people are going to believe Jesus existed as a historical figure and the bible or other religious documents will probably serve as proof positive enough.

Its worth noting that although the two Roman historians you mention do reference Jesus it is not quite certain whether or not they are as valid as you claim. When someone goes out of the way to point out how unbiased or valid something is, it typically should set off warning signals that there is uncertainty. It is possible depending on what interpretation you read to see claims of validity or forgery from Josephus's account. Even as people try to piece together the validity of Josephus's account it requires jumping forward in time to other accounts which muddle the issue more. People seem to have little doubt in the belief of people around this person, but as to the person themselves the accounts are no so clear. You get a fairly wide range of opinions, from unlikely to exist, to an amalgation of persons, to an historical figure, to the religious figure as proclaimed in other sources. Considering by the time information starts to become more clear, it becomes apparent people are writing who quite probably did not live to see an actual ministry if it existed in the form people thought of, and considering that it is quite probable documents we do have are somewhat second hand from combined sources (such as the Q document) it is less certain that you may be claiming.

There are plenty of relevant questions to ask here. First, how much historical notoriety should their be for Jesus? Considering what is usually pieced together, not all that much really. A lack of information would not be all that surprising and shouldnt discount him as a historical person altogether. Second, if Jesus is in someway a combination of concepts of persons to what level should we see inconsistencies in writings about him and how would they be resolved? Thirdly, considering there were numerous historians in the time period, what number of them writing about Jesus qualifies as quantifiable proof? Fourth, considering the potential for forgeries and well intentioned extremists, what amount of the accounts if any should be disregarded? Fifth, how likely is it for the cult/eventually the religion to spread without an actual person exisiting at some point which centered the idea around a person? Sixth, as time passed did the understanding of the Jesus character change from generation to generation before we had a large amount of source material to learn about his life and events?

There are plenty of questions to leave room for casting doubt. Where an individual chooses to decide to accept proof is an individual choice, but it certainly is not bias alone to assume there is more than one possible answer here.

Neither Tacitus nor Joesephus were contemporaries of Jesus.
I don't claim that Jesus did not exist (he probably did) but there are no contemporary references. None.

Do I exist?

somebody typed that.

jonesthecurl wrote:...there are no contemporary references. None.

Some would argue that the Gospels themselves constitute contemporary references, although most scholars agree that they were likely written later and not by the titular apostles themselves. As for these not being original witnesses, this is not uncommon for the time period. Alexander the Great presents a similar challenge to historians as do many others (a well worn argumentative point); ancient original manuscripts rarely survive. We rely for the most part on copies and works done by others which are ostensibly based on the originals which would have existed at the time the copies and other works were made. This is part and parcel to uncovering ancient history. There are some who posit that the reliability of ancient documents can sometimes gauged by cross-checking. An interesting article can be found here:
http://www.carm.org/questions/about-bible/manuscript-evidence-superior-new-testament-reliability

So, if the early manuscripts of the gospels themselves pass the test for being reliable ancient documents and are based on other original witness oral and written accounts which would have existed at the time that the gospels were written, then they would be contemporary references. An IF to be sure, but one that lives in good company, as other ancient historical figures rely on this very same IF.

edit: oops, forgot to stay on topic. Sorry about that. I think Criss Angel would have done well, but would not have as much success without the technology. David Blaine on the other hand...

I was responding to comments such as this

There is more credible evidence for Jesus than for any other "Historical Figure" Period.

and this

if this is fake than Jesus would have to be the best huckster of all time.Since he would
have to arrange his own arrest ,fake his executions ,escape from a tomb with huge bolder
in front of it that has two guards, appear and disappear suddenly , and float away into the
sky....

,

which assumes the story in the bible is true, not just that he existed.

I have little doubt that there was an historical Jesus, but I don't think we can claim much beyond that.

Alexander, for instance, was reported to be the son of Poseidon (I may have the wrong god there), rather than Philip, by some sources - just as Jesus is reported by some sources to the son of Jehovah rather than Joseph.

jonesthecurl wrote:Neither Tacitus nor Joesephus were contemporaries of Jesus.
I don't claim that Jesus did not exist (he probably did) but there are no contemporary references. None.

"Gospel" accounts apparently don't count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespear ... p_question

"very little biographical information exists about Shakespeare of Stratford"

How many "contemporary" references to Shakespeare are there? (Perhaps the most famous english writer of all time) Were there any large scale attempts to destroy his works, kill those who read them or completely destroy the cities most likely to hold records of him?

How about Julius Caesar? Are you aware that most of what we know about him are copies of copies from hundreds or thousand+ years later? Even more true of most other historical figures.

Most of recorded history is based on potentially biased documents. Kings only tended to record their victories and successes. Most lengthy historical records are copies of copies from many hundreds of years later.



Perhaps Julius Caesar is the myth of a Caesar Cult, and thus similar to gospels, any reference to him that exists is to be dismissed as product of religious devotion.

"most scholars agree that they were likely written later and not by the titular apostles themselves"

Do these "most" historical scholars have a bias for believing so?

Wikipedia on Luke for example seems to cover many possible dates that would be contemporary, and logic for some after 70CE seems based on "Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus miraculously predicting the future but must have been written with knowledge of these events after the fact. " (after 70 CE would still be possible for someone who lived during same timeframe, similar to Neil Armstrong writing today about landing on moon based on first hand experience)

The Dead Sea scrolls are contemporary, they have not been edited to fit any agenda, they were written by a messianic sect who would have been highly excited by a figure such as Jesus, the lack of any references to him speaks volumes in my opinion.

multilis wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Neither Tacitus nor Joesephus were contemporaries of Jesus.
I don't claim that Jesus did not exist (he probably did) but there are no contemporary references. None.

"Gospel" accounts apparently don't count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespear ... p_question

"very little biographical information exists about Shakespeare of Stratford"

How many "contemporary" references to Shakespeare are there? (Perhaps the most famous english writer of all time) Were there any large scale attempts to destroy his works, kill those who read them or completely destroy the cities most likely to hold records of him?

How about Julius Caesar? Are you aware that most of what we know about him are copies of copies from hundreds or thousand+ years later? Even more true of most other historical figures.

Most of recorded history is based on potentially biased documents. Kings only tended to record their victories and successes. Most lengthy historical records are copies of copies from many hundreds of years later.



Perhaps Julius Caesar is the myth of a Caesar Cult, and thus similar to gospels, any reference to him that exists is to be dismissed as product of religious devotion.

You should ask yourself this: When was Alexander the Great born? When was Julius Caesar born? How many years separate those two births? Within those years, how much has recording history improved?

comic boy wrote:The Dead Sea scrolls are contemporary, they have not been edited to fit any agenda, they were written by a messianic sect who would have been highly excited by a figure such as Jesus, the lack of any references to him speaks volumes in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7Q5

A portion of the gospel of Mark was found in the dead sea scrolls. The portion of the dead sea scroll item 7Q5 appears to be from Mark 6:52-53 below. Also, this would be the earliest gospel manuscript in existence dated probably to 68 AD.

Mark 6:52-53
Jesus Walks on the Water
45Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.
47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid." 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

53When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there. 54As soon as they got out of the boat, people recognized Jesus. 55They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. 56And wherever he went—into villages, towns or countryside—they placed the sick in the marketplaces. They begged him to let them touch even the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

Pshaw! An obvious trick easily accomplished via high bouyancy sandles. I've seen it a dozen times.

Jones, what year is it at your house?

2dimes wrote:Pshaw! An obvious trick easily accomplished via high bouyancy sandles. I've seen it a dozen times.

Jones, what year is it at your house?

2753 since the founding of Rome. Why?