|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2003 : 09:19:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
You got to be kidding To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world.
Why do you keep saying this? Jesus was one guy who claimed to be something we don't know a whole hell of a lot about. I don't see how it follows that, if we deny the existence of a historical Jesus, the entire historical record of humanity must fall by implication. This isn't like denying the moon landings - it would take a global conspiracy to keep that quiet. Slater's ideas may lack direct evidence, but they don't cause the entire record of history to crumble. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 13:26:51 [Permalink]
|
Phd: quote:
Why do you keep saying this? Jesus was one guy who claimed to be something we don't know a whole hell of a lot about. I don't see how it follows that, if we deny the existence of a historical Jesus, the entire historical record of humanity must fall by implication.
First, I already have answered this on the DJRE so my response will be brief.I have demonstrated that textually the NT is vastly superior to any other piece of classical literture (the amount of copies and thier closness in time to when the events happened);it also has has abundant external verifications to point to us that at least the writers lived in the same time period as the events(unlike Slaters'Philostratus writing about Apolloniuns) ;finally,The NT has 10 volumes almost 300 years of witnesses The Anti-Nicean Fathers from all over the Roman Empire writing about the books and defending them from corruption from heretics. So that being the case Phd if wish to throw them out, as Slater does, then all the rest of Classical literture combined doesn't have The NT's pedigree so they would logically have to go as well. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 15:10:21 [Permalink]
|
I don't have to throw them out, if they ever existed at all then they were thrown out for me on or before 325CE
You have proved absolutely nothing. You have claimed all of this garbage before. You have proven zip. You can't tell fantasy from reality. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 15:14:42 [Permalink]
|
I'm cringing. That isn't logic, DA. The question of Jesus' existence is not logically bound to other non-related historical issues. You may argue that no reasonable person can reject Jesus' existence based on the evidential similarities to other accepted historical figures, but that is all. The argument for William Shakespeare's existence does not depend on Jesus' existence.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2003 : 19:10:46 [Permalink]
|
Phd: quote:
I'm cringing. That isn't logic, DA. The question of Jesus' existence is not logically bound to other non-related historical
issues. You may argue that no reasonable person can reject Jesus' existence based on the evidential similarities to other
accepted historical figures, but that is all. The argument for William Shakespeare's existence does not depend on Jesus'
existence.
The testimony of the existence and doings of one Jesus called the Christ is tied to the historic reliability of the NT documents.Therefore,the same historic criteria that is used for any historic document,when applied to the NT,demonstrates the historical reliability of the NT documents.My reference to the Church Fathers quoting from them demonstates that they existed prior to their writings,roughly AD 90-300  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2003 : 05:00:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
The testimony of the existence and doings of one Jesus called the Christ is tied to the historic reliability of the NT documents.
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Therefore, ...
*Therefore?  See below.
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
... , the same historic criteria that is used for any historic document, when applied to the NT, demonstrates the historical reliability of the NT documents.
No. You treat "historic criteria" as if it were scientific law. It is, instead, more like Occam's Razor, and wholly useless if missapplied: the contents of an old letter from President Washington may well take precedence over a modern history text, but an old tale about pixie dust is no better than Disney's Peter Pan.
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
My reference to the Church Fathers quoting from them demonstates that they existed prior to their writings, roughly AD 90-300
Perhaps, but there's a problem here. When someone says, for example, that "Tertullian quotes Matthew", what they really mean is something like: "there is a 9th century manuscript referencing a 4th century Church historian referencing a 3 century Church apologist quoting a varient of what's purported to be late 1st century Matthew.
* Unfortunately, DA, there is little if any 'there' in your 'therefore'. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2003 : 19:03:27 [Permalink]
|
ConfusedAtheist: quote:
No. You treat "historic criteria" as if it were scientific law. It is, instead, more like Occam's Razor, and wholly useless if
missapplied: the contents of an old letter from President Washington may well take precedence over a modern history
text, but an old tale about pixie dust is no better than Disney's Peter Pan.
The criteria has been established and is used for any historical documents,I'm not special pleading its use for the NT. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2003 : 19:10:25 [Permalink]
|
ConfusedAgain: quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
My reference to the Church Fathers quoting from them demonstates that they existed prior to their writings, roughly AD 90-300
Perhaps, but there's a problem here. When someone says, for example, that "Tertullian quotes Matthew", what they
really mean is something like: "there is a 9th century manuscript referencing a 4th century Church historian referencing
a 3 century Church apologist quoting a varient of what's purported to be late 1st century Matthew.
* Unfortunately, DA, there is little if any 'there' in your 'therefore'.
Would you apply the same logic to a 15th century philosopher who quotes Plato and say "the earliest manuscript we have for Plato's work is dated in the 9th cen.AD,therefore we really can't be sure what Plato's views are."As I said before "Your bark is worse than your[evidential]bite. (edited for spelling ). |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 01/17/2003 01:28:24 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 04:03:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
ConfusedAtheist: quote:
No. You treat "historic criteria" as if it were scientific law. It is, instead, more like Occam's Razor, and wholly useless if missapplied: the contents of an old letter from President Washington may well take precedence over a modern history text, but an old tale about pixie dust is no better than Disney's Peter Pan.
The criteria has been established and is used for any historical documents,I'm not special pleading its use for the NT.
This general applicability is equally true for Occam's Razor. The point stands. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 04:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
ConfusedAgain:
Childish ad hominem only serves to make you look little.
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Would you apply the same logic to a 15th century philosopher who quotes Plato and say "the earliest manuscript we have for Plato's work is dated in the 9th cen. AD, therefore we really can't be sure what Plato's views are."
DA, we are not speaking about logic but about method. I would default to accepting the works of this 15th century philosopher unless and until questions arise as to authenticity, internal coherency, motivation, and/or chain of evidence. It is precisely this process of reevaluating the evidence and challenging long-held historical assumptions that infuses History with its dynamism.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 19:08:47 [Permalink]
|
CA: quote:
The criteria has been established and is used for any historical documents,I'm not special pleading its use for the NT.
This general applicability is equally true for Occam's Razor. The point stands.
But the question is..."What's the point?".Or in other words how does the fact that someone in general may abuse either criteria relate to my particular use of it in regards to the historic accuracy of the NT as compared to other classical documents? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 04:45:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
But the question is..."What's the point?".Or in other words how does the fact that someone in general may abuse either criteria relate to my particular use of it in regards to the historic accuracy of the NT as compared to other classical documents?
Because the NT represents propaganda, consciously filtered and harmonized for political and theological purposes, over a period of many centuries, by highly partisan people dedicated to 'pious fraud'.
Certainly your 'criteria' was nowhere to be seen in selecting/defining Canon. Nor do you use it in choosing between bible versions or between some variant of Christianity and Gnosticism. In fact, you seem to only drag it out when you get frustrated. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
| Edited by - ConsequentAtheist on 01/18/2003 04:49:29 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 14:14:32 [Permalink]
|
CA:Because the NT represents propaganda, consciously filtered and harmonized for political and theological purposes, over
a period of many centuries, by highly partisan people dedicated to 'pious fraud'. This appears to be a conclusion with no premise? However,I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the sake of the argument.It's a known fact that two other works of the classical period were definitly written with a conscious political propaganda purpose(Josephus,Apollionus)and yet scholars still recognize their historical value. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 16:59:59 [Permalink]
|
| Wow, is this an amazing conglomeration of dialogue. Do any of you really think Christ and His gospel would be a topic today if He were not real? Those who deny His existance, must stretch their minds out of whack to come up with these feeble "proofs" denying the New Testament veracity. The proof to the contrary is overwhelming. The lives given, the blood spilled by those who trusted Christ number in the hundreds of thousands, yet you think it makes sense to deny this Jesus existed whom these many souls refused to deny under torture and at the cost of their lives. It is astounding illogic to the point of mental illness (unable to grasp reality). I have to concur with darwin alogos's conclusions about the New Testament. Also with his retort to Slater about the fool. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2003 : 18:23:57 [Permalink]
|
Doomar I can see that your brain has not only been washed it must have shrunk in the laundry.
What do any of the things you babbled have to do with an historic Jesus? Nobody believes in other gods today, and have for longer than Christianity? No one else died for their religions?
|
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
