quote:

---

darwin alogos wrote:
Now as far as I know before someone's death can be declared a fact they FIRST HAVE TO HAVE EXISTED.

---

quote:

---

Tokyodreamer wrote:
Once again, I don't believe Slater, nor anyone else here has ever claimed that an historical Jesus is a logical impossibility.

---

quote:

---

You did, however, argue improbability on page 1 of this thread,

---

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it YOU who are claiming to know things that you have no knowledge of?
You claim Jesus was historical, fine. Produce some historic record of him or of a person he was based on.
If you cannot do that you cannot make any claims of historicity without lying.

---

Slater are you really that stuborn that you can't SEE the evidence set before your face

quote:

---

he Jesus Seminars scholars Crossan
and Borg admit"That he[Jesus]was crucified is as SURE AS ANYTHING HISTORICAL CAN EVER BE,"

---

Now note the person saying this would claim he is not an "orthodox"bible believing christian,and yet he can boldly claim that Jesus' death is virtually undeniable.Thus his existence is assured the same affirmation.Again the quote from atheist historian M. Grant merely shows,contrary to you and RD,that the prevailing scholarly oppinon is addamantly against your revisionist interpretation concerning Jesus.In fact you betray all the signs of a person deluded by a cult figure.

quote:

---

darwin alogos writes:
Again the quote from atheist historian M. Grant merely shows, contrary to you and RD, that the prevailing scholarly oppinon is addamantly against your revisionist interpretation concerning Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Slater are you really that stuborn that you can't SEE the evidence set before your face

quote:

---

he Jesus Seminars scholars Crossan
and Borg admit"That he[Jesus]was crucified is as SURE AS ANYTHING HISTORICAL CAN EVER BE,"

---

---

quote:

---

Tokyodreamer wrote:
Actually, I was more interested in asking tergiversant's opinion on the matter, rather than making an argument

---

quote:

---

I'm simply suggesting that your contention (via rhetorical question) is less than compelling.

---

quote:

---

darwin alogos, I understand that you are intensely committed to this subject, but the one thing upon which Slater and I are completely united is contempt for you as a Christian apologist. You're simply not very good, and that reflects negatively on both your position and your cause.

I've mentioned in the past that I am an agnostic on the issue of historicity, with, perhaps, a mild bias towards the position of folks like Vermes. I am more than interested in arguments in support of an historical Jesus. But what you offer is childish appeals to authority. How dare you suggest that I would (or should) be influenced by Grant's presumed atheism? Perhaps you use a person's theology as a litmus test for the competency of their position, but many of us are not so shallow or petty.

If you have arguments, raise them. If you find Grant's

---

Get off your high horse and answer the question you self proclaimed ignoramus.The logical fallacy of appeal to authority is committed when you qoute an "Expert" in one field as an authority in another field.I didn't do that,the authorities I quoted are experts in the fields in question(NT Crtictism,Classical History)and would be considered,in a legal setting"hostile witnesses",so maybe you should stop appealing to smoke screens and stick with the facts airhead .The real"contempt" you and Slater demonstrate is against logic and the historical facts.

quote:

---

The real"contempt" you and Slater demonstrate is against logic and the historical facts.

---

quote:

---

Don't try to pull a snow job on us with claims of "prevailing scholarly oppinon" that you can't back up.
Tell us what facts, what evidence, this so called prevailing scholarly oppinon is based upon.

---

You mean you haven't been reading world history for your short 50+ years of existence,how sad.Well Slater just for you I'll try update you :Even if we did not have the New Testament or Christian writings[of thefirst 300 years,35 AD-335AD] ,we would be able to conclude from such non-Christian writings as Joesphus,theTalmud, Tacitus,and Pliny the Younger that:(1) Jesus was a Jewish teacher;(2)many people believed that he performed healings and exorcism;(3) he was rejected by the Jewish leaders;(4)he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius;(5)despite this shameful death,his followers,who believed that he was still alive,spread beyond Palesine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D.64;(6)all kinds of people from the cities and countryside-men and women'slave and free-worshiped him as God.... (Edwin M. Yamauchi,Professor of History,Miami Uniersity in Oxford, Ohio, JESUS UNDER FIREModern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus,Zondervan Pub. House,1995,p.221). Also when you examen the pre-Pauline aramaic creeds in the NT(33-37AD) we have even more convincing historical evidence that that the earliest Jewish believers were convinced that Jesus because of his literal resurrection was Deity.What's this mean in regards to your taunt Slater,well it certainly means that those of us who hold to the "prevailing scholary oppinon" are within our epistemic rights in accepting the substantial historicty of the NT,and that your fringe cultic view is to be pitied.



Edited by - darwin alogos on 09/24/2002 11:13:32

quote:

---

"I have laid down this rule in dealing with those who were brought before me for being Christians. I asked whether they were Christians; if they confessed, I asked them a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; if they persevered, I ordered them to be executed.... They assured me that their only crime or error was this, that they were wont to come together on a certain day before it was light, and to sing in turn, among themselves, a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath -- not to do anything that was wicked, that they would commit no theft, robbery, or adultery, nor break their word, nor deny that anything had been entrusted to them when called upon to restore it.... I therefore deemed it the more necessary to enquire of two servant maids, who were said to be attendants, what was the real truth, and to apply the torture. But I found it was nothing but a bad and excessive superstition."

---

quote:

---

darwin alogos wrote:
Get off your high horse and answer the question you self proclaimed ignoramus.

---

quote:

---

Since Josephus was a Jew and not a Christian, many scholars deny that this passage was originally written by him. These scholars believe this text was corrupted by Christians. Gary Habermas, chairman of the the philosophy department at Liberty University, dealt with this problem in the following manner:


There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine. There is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it difficult to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus have testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish historian. Thus we conclude that there are good reasons for accepting this version of Josephus' statement about Jesus, with modifications of questionable words. In fact, it is possible that these modifications can even be accurately ascertained. In 1972, Professor Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem released the results of a study on an Arabic manuscript containing Josephus' statement about Jesus. It includes a different and briefer rendering of the entire passage, including changes in the key words listed above. . .54
Habermas goes on to relate the Arabic version of this debated passage. In this version, Jesus is described as being a wise and virtuous man who had many followers from different nations. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, but his disciples reported that, three days later, He appeared to them alive. Josephus added that Jesus may have been the Messiah whom the prophets had predicted would come.55

It is highly unlikely that both readings of this controversial passage are corrupt. One of these two readings probably represents the original text. The other reading would then be a copy that was tampered with by either a Christian or a non-Christian. Whatever the case may be, even the skeptic should have no problem accepting the Arabic reading. Still, even if only this reading is accepted, it is enough. For it is a first century testimony from a non-Christian historian that declares that those who knew Jesus personally claimed that He had appeared to them alive three days after His death by crucifixion under Pilate.

Several things can be learned from this brief survey of ancient non-Christian writings concerning the life of Christ. First, His earliest followers worshipped Him as God. The doctrine of Christ's deity is therefore not a legend or myth developed many years after Christ's death (as was the case with Buddha). Second, they claimed to have seen Him alive three days after His death. Third, Christ's earliest followers faced persecution and martyrdom for their refusal to deny His deity and resurrection. Therefore, the deity and resurrection of Christ were not legends added to the text centuries after its original composition. Instead, these teachings were the focus of the teaching of Christ's earliest followers. They claimed to be eyewitnesses of Christ's miraculous life and were willing to die horrible deaths for their testimonies. Therefore, they were reliable witnesses of who the true Jesus of history was and what He taught.

---

Really Slater you ought to try and keep better informed on your own myths

quote:

---

ANCIENT CREEDS FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The writings of both the apostolic fathers and ancient non-Christian authors declare that the earliest Christians did in fact teach that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stronger than that of any other ancient writing. Another piece of evidence for the authenticity and reliability of the New Testament manuscripts is the ancient creeds found in the New Testament itself.

Most scholars, whether liberal or conservative, date Paul's epistles before the Gospels were put into written form.56 Just as the teachings of the Jewish Rabbis had originally been passed on orally, it appears that the Gospel was first spread in the form of oral creeds and hymns.57 J. P. Moreland states that Paul's epistles contain many of these pre-Pauline creeds and hymns, that they were originally spoken in the Aramaic tongue (the Hebrew language of Christ's day), and that most scholars date these creeds and hymns between 33AD and 48AD.58 Since Paul's writings are dated in the 50's AD or 60's AD by most scholars, the creeds he recorded in his letters point to an oral tradition which predates his writings. Most scholars will at least admit that these ancient creeds originated before 50AD.59

Excerpts from some of these ancient creeds found in the letters of Paul are as follows:


. . . that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:9).
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bondservant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
And He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:15-17).
These ancient creeds clearly prove that the first generation Christians believed that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead, that He is God, and that salvation comes through Him.60 The followers of Buddha attributed deity to the founder of their religion centuries after his death.61 However, the earliest followers of Christ, those who knew Him personally, considered Him to be God.62 It is almost universally recognized that these creeds were formulated before 50AD. Therefore, they represent the Gospel in its original form.

The belief in Christ's deity and resurrection is not based on later corruptions of the New Testament text as liberal scholars believe. The doctrines of Christ's deity and resurrection are not legends that took centuries to develop. These doctrines were held by the first generation church, those who knew Jesus personally. The gospel message found in the New Testament is the same message proclaimed by the apostles themselves.

Less than twenty years after Christ's death, hymns were already being sung in Christian churches attributing deity to Christ. The apostles were still alive and had the authority to supress the idea of Christ's deity if it was a heresy, but, they did not. All the available evidence indicates that they not only condoned it, but that it was their own teaching. Therefore, liberal scholars such as John Hick have no justification for their claims that the deity of Christ was a legend that developed near the end of the first century AD.63 The historical evidence indicates that the Christian church always believed in Christ's deity.

---