|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 11/13/2001 : 04:25:47 [Permalink]
|
  To Geez&Atomic:If you both had read the posting by John W. Montgomery you would have seen the there's no need for your skeptical view on the historical existence of Jesus.Also there wasn't enough time for myths to surround J.C.(even if we threw away the N.T. the writings of the early church fathers give us98% of the N.T.circa 105ADto165AD).
|
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 09:13:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
the early church fathers give us98% of the N.T.circa 105ADto165AD).
Look at your dates. Nothing prior to that? That means there exists the possibility that JC is a wholly fabricated figment of someone's imagination. That's 70+ years after his supposed death. Where's mention of JC prior to that?
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain
Edited by - Trish on 11/13/2001 09:14:22 |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 09:41:40 [Permalink]
|
In far less than 70 years, L. Ron Hubbard has gone from a pedestrian, crackpot science fiction scribbler to the founder of the One True Faith [/sarcasm]. So whether Jesus existed or not, everything we know about him is about as accurate as are the leaders of Scientology's opinions of Hubbard.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 10:09:38 [Permalink]
|
After reading Dr. John Warwick Montgomery's "The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity" the only conclusion I can reach is that John is willfully trying to deceive his readers.
The historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of testability. … Christianity, on the other hand, declares that the truth of its absolute claims rests squarely on certain historical facts, open to ordinary investigation.
Okay, that's what this thread is all about. A religion whose claims rest on historical facts that we just don't have.
The speculation that the Gospel records were "faked" some three hundred years after the events described in them (a viewpoint gratuitously proffered by Professor Trevor-Roper) is dismissed by Lord Chancellor Hailsham, England's highest ranking legal luminary, with an apt lawyer's illustration.
"Gratuitously proffered"? Sounds like they don't want to hear what Roper has to say. So they turn to a lawyer to find the truth? It is not a lawyer's job to find the truth. Their only purpose is to win their side by any means that they can.
[What] renders the argument invalid is a fact about fakes of all kinds which I learned myself in the course of a case I did in which there was in question the authenticity of a painting purporting to be by, and to be signed by, Modigliani. This painting, as the result of my Advice on Evidence, was shown to be a fake by X-ray evidence.
One would wonder what an X-ray of a turn of the 20th Century Impressionist has to do with the bible.
But in the course of my researches I was supplied by my instructing solicitor with a considerable bibliography concerning the nature of fakes of all kinds and how to detect them. There was one point made by the author of one of these books which is of direct relevance to the point I am discussing.
He reads a bunch of books and finds something in one which he neglects to credit. So there is no way we can check out the source of his claim.
Although fakes can often be made which confuse or actually deceive contemporaries of the faker, the experts, or even the not so expert, of a later age can invariably detect them, whether fraudulent or not because the faker cannot fail to include stylistic or other material not obvious to contemporaries because they are contemporaries, but which stand out a mile to later observers because they reflect the standards, or the materials, or the styles of a succeeding age to that of the author whose work is being faked.
This is, of course, patent nonsense. A good art forger is a scholar in his own right who studies the material, style, and even the brush strokes of those artists he forges.
And again one must wonder what a 20th Century French painting has to do with a 4th Century Byzantine story. Can you X-ray a story, is there even a claim that we have 1st Century manuscripts?
As for the skepticism of the so-called higher critics (or redaction critics) in the liberal theological tradition, it stems from an outmoded methodology (almost universally discarded today by classical and literary scholars and by specialists in comparative Near Eastern studies),
He neglects to say what this old fashioned methodology is, who is using it, why it is no longer considered valid, or even who these Near Eastern literary scholars are and what method they use. In other words--he has said nothing.
and from unjustified philosophical presuppositions (such as anti-supernaturalistic bias and bias in favor of religious evolution).
Now he does a little name calling. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is BIAS. Anti-supernaturalistic bias would mean that a person was predisposed not to believe in magic. Since in the thousands of years that people have claimed to be doing magic it has always been shown to be tricks. And since we have never had it demonstrated that there is such a thing as the super (or for that matter the Sub) natural, why would any sane human being not have a bias against it?
The "bias in favor of religious evolution" is nothing more than an observance of history. Or are we to believe that there are no Protestants but there are Gnostics?
A.N. Sherwin-White, a specialist in Roman law, countered … It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from the no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism that the more advanced exponents of it apparently maintain-so far as an amateur can understand the
matter-that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of His mission cannot be written.
A bit misleading in the use of language. The only reason a Historical Jesus (Christ was someone else--a pagan god) is "unknowable" is the same now as it was 40 years ago. We have never found any record of him. The word "unknowable" implies some mystic sense. This is purely mundane. Nobody, during his life, noticed that he was there. When he was crucified, no one noticed that the sun went out for three hours or that the dead rose from their graves and wandered about downtown.
This seems very curious when one compares the case for the best-known contemporary of Christ, who like Christ is a well-documented figure-Tiberius Caesar. The story of his reign is known from four sources, the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, written some eighty or ninety years later, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third century history of Cassius Dio. These disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events. Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius. But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius.
Ooooh, liar, liar pants on fire! He would have you believe that these four biographies are all the evidence there is of Tiberius. He conveniently leaves out countless coins with his name and image, dedications on monuments and buildings, busts, mentions in proclamations & all legal documents. And all the other writings that, while not giving his history, mention him in passing-- including the New Testament.
The conclusion is inescapable: if one compares the New Testament documents with universally accepted secular writings of antiquity, the New Testament is more than vindicated.
Not only is that conclusion not inescapable but it bears no relation to the argument being made. Completely out of left field.
Some years ago, when I debated philosophy professor Avrum Stroll of the University of British Columbia on this point, he responded: "All right. I'll throw out my knowledge of the classical world." At which the chairman of the classics department cried: "Good Lord, Avrum, not that!"
What a dope. Stroll and the Chairman were obviously being sarcastic. Canadian academics are not known for suffering fools gladly. They were mocking his vapidity right to his face and he was so humorless that he boasted about it in his own book.
D'Alogos, why did you print this silly thing? Surely you must have seen that it was empty of content.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 10:18:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(even if we threw away the N.T. the writings of the early church fathers give us98% of the N.T.circa 105ADto165AD).
That would be Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Same problem with them as with the gospels- there are no copies of their work that date before Eusebius, and no real reason to think that Eusebius didn't make them up.
The ridiculous name "Justin Martyr" should, in itself, be a dead give away. It's like something out of an Ian Fleming book (ie: Pussy Galore, Oreic Goldfinger, etc.)
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 21:22:46 [Permalink]
|
 In C S Lewis', The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe,the Professor laments about the comments of the children, "Don't they teach logic anymore?".I feel the same.To Trish,Donnie B:If you have church fathers(Ignatius,Polycarp,ect...)quoting as authoritative the NT Documents to churches throughout the Roman Empire,obviously the documents themselves had to be around much earlier for them to be accepted in those churches.Secondly,the two men I cited above were on the way to be martyred and they claimed to personally have know the Apostle John which adds to their credibilty because if this whole Jesus thing was just a recent development why would they give up their lives for something they knew was a lie?
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 21:35:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
<< Previous | Index | Next >>
"CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS"
The Historical Jesus
INTRODUCTION
1. In the previous lesson, we laid the foundation for a study in
Christian apologetics: That the Christian faith is...
a. AN OBJECTIVE FAITH
1) With Jesus of Nazareth as the object of that faith
2) That He is the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from
the dead
b. A HISTORICAL FAITH
1) Based upon real people, places, and events
2) That actually took place in history
c. AN INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL FAITH
1) Which invites people to use their minds
2) To examine the historical evidence which logically supports
placing one's faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God
2. With these things in mind, we begin by considering the evidence...
a. Which establishes Jesus of Nazareth as a HISTORICAL FIGURE
b. One who actually lived in Palestine during the First Century A.D.
[Some might wonder...]
I. WAS THERE EVER ANY QUESTION?
A. THERE HAVE BEEN SKEPTICS WHO BELIEVED JESUS WAS JUST A "MYTH"...
1. This concept was popular with some scholars of the 1800s'
2. It is rarely found today, except among those...
a. Who are ignorant of the facts
b. Who purposely suppress the evidence (e.g., as was done in
formerly communist-dominated countries)
B. TODAY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN (EVEN THOSE WHO ARE ATHEISTS) DISPUTES
THE FACT THAT JESUS EXISTED...
1. H. G. WELLS
a. An atheist, he spoke of Jesus in his book, Outline Of
History
b. "...one is obliged to say, 'Here was a man. This part of
the tale could not have been invented.'"
2. WILL DURANT
a. Ex-professor of Philisophy of History at Columbia University
b. He spent two chapters in The Story Of Our Civilization
depicting Jesus as a historical figure right along with the
Caesars
3. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
a. Used over 20,000 words to describe Jesus
b. More than Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar,
Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon
[So there appears to be sufficient evidence to have convinced these and
others like them that Jesus actually lived.
What is this evidence...?]
II. THE EVIDENCE FOR A HISTORICAL JESUS
A. AMONG "PAGAN" SOURCES...
1. THALLUS (a Samaritan historian, ca. 52 A.D.)
a. Wrote attempting to give a natural explanation for the
darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus
b. Note carefully:
1) He did not deny the existence of Jesus
2) But only tried to explain away the strange circumstances
surrounding His death
2. LETTER OF MARA-SERAPION (written to his son, ca. 73 A.D.)
a. He tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus
b. "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise
king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in
the teaching which he had given."
3. CORNELIUS TACITUS (Roman historian, ca. 112 A.D.)
a. Writes of Jesus in his ANNALS
b. "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of
Tiberias."
4. PLINY THE YOUNGER
a. Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, ca. 112 A.D.
b. Wrote to the emperor Trajan about Christians and their
devotion to Christ
5. SEUTONIUS (Court official and annalist under Hadrian, 120 A.D.)
a. "As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the
instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
b. Luke makes reference to this same expulsion in Ac 18:1-2
B. AMONG "JEWISH" SOURCES...
1. THE TALMUD
a. Consists of two separate books dealing with Jewish law,
written during the period from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D.
b. Speaks frequently of Jesus of Nazareth...
1) In unfriendly terms, of course
2) But never disputing his status as a historical figure
2. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
a. A Jewish general turned Roman historian, born 37 A.D.
b. Makes several references to Jesus in his History Of The Jews
c. E.g., "...and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the
so-called Christ, whose name was James."
[Such is the evidence which must be taken into account by any
intelligent and rational person.
But what are the implications of such evidence?]
III. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS EVIDENCE
A. WHAT IT "DOES" DO...
1. It provides a solid basis upon which one can intelligently
believe in Jesus as a person who actually existed in history
2. It exposes the shallow thinking of any who would try to mark
off Jesus as a myth
3. It requires everyone to give some sort of answer to the
question posed by Jesus Himself: "But who do you say that I
am?" - Mt 16:15
B. WHAT IT "DOES NOT" DO...
1. The evidence we have seen thus far DOES NOT prove Jesus to be
the Son of God
2. In fact, it does not tell us anything about Jesus except:
a. That He lived and died during the First Century A.D.
b. That He must have done something significant to gain some
notoriety by the historians
C. TO LEARN MORE ABOUT JESUS, WE MUST LOOK ELSEWHERE...
1. There have been many fanciful stories written about Jesus
2. But the Christian considers the twenty-seven books known as the
New Testament to be the only reliable source of information
about Jesus
3. But are they?
a. Is the New Testament reliable as a historical document?
b. Can we even be sure that what we have is actually what was
penned by the original authors of the New Testament?
CONCLUSION
1. The next study shall begin an attempt to answer these questions
2. For now, we have simply laid one block as we build a foundation upon
which we can rest our faith...
a. We have seen that it is more logical to believe that Jesus did in
fact exist
b. To assert that He is a myth is groundless
3. And since He actually existed, that requires our giving some answer
to the question Jesus asked: "WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?"
4. Will our answer be "LORD!", or "A CAREFULLY CONTRIVED LIE!"
a. As we shall see, these are the only two choices we have
b. The evidence we shall continue to examine should help give us the
right answer!
<< Previous | Index | Next >>
Home Page
Bible Study Guides | Textual Sermon Series | Topical Sermon Series
Single Textual Sermons | Single Topical Sermons
Search The Outlines
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
at Calvin College. Last updated on August 24, 2001.
Contacting the CCEL.
|
|
|
|
gezzam
SFN Regular
Australia
751 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 21:58:33 [Permalink]
|
I never said that Jesus never existed, just that some of the "miracles" that he was supposed to have performed never happened, or are an embellishment of what did happen. As far as I am concerned the Bible is nothing but a great fable that is based on some resemblance of fact. Really, when was the last time you saw someone turn into a pillar of salt or divide the Red Sea. It is about as believable as the legend of King Arthur and Excalibur or Captain Ahab and Moby Dick.
"Damn you people. Go back to your shanties." --- Shooter McGavin |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2001 : 23:30:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In C S Lewis', The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe,the Professor laments about the comments of the children, "Don't they teach logic anymore?".I feel the same.To Trish,Donnie B:If you have church fathers(Ignatius,Polycarp,ect...)quoting as authoritative the NT Documents to churches throughout the Roman Empire,obviously the documents themselves had to be around much earlier for them to be accepted in those churches.
What's obvious? I don't see that anyone quoting anything as authoritative as *proof* of the existence of anything.
quote:
Secondly,the two men I cited above were on the way to be martyred and they claimed to personally have know the Apostle John which adds to their credibilty because if this whole Jesus thing was just a recent development why would they give up their lives for something they knew was a lie?
They make a claim about knowing the apostle John. Well maybe they did meet a man named John and maybe he said he was an apostle of this christ character. And maybe they believed him. Um, well, there were a bunch of people who died at Waco following a man by the name of David Koresh - the second coming? Guess we should believe that too.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 03:31:39 [Permalink]
|
 quote:
<< Previous | Index | Next >>
, and events
2) That actually took place in history
c. AN INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL FAITH
1) Which invites people to use their minds
2) To examine the historical evidence which logically supports
placing one's faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God
2. With these things in mind, we begin by considering the evidence...
a. Which establishes Jesus of Nazareth as a HISTORICAL FIGURE
b. One who actually lived in Palestine during the First Century A.D.
[Some might wonder...]
I. WAS THERE EVER ANY QUESTION?
A. THERE HAVE BEEN SKEPTICS WHO BELIEVED JESUS WAS JUST A "MYTH"...
1. This concept was popular with some scholars of the 1800s'
2. It is rarely found today, except among those...
a. Who are ignorant of the facts
b. Who purposely suppress the evidence (e.g., as was done in
formerly communist-dominated countries)
B. TODAY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN (EVEN THOSE WHO ARE ATHEISTS) DISPUTES
THE FACT THAT JESUS EXISTED...
1. H. G. WELLS
a. An atheist, he spoke of Jesus in his book, Outline Of
History
b. "...one is obliged to say, 'Here was a man. This part of
the tale could not have been invented.'"
2. WILL DURANT
a. Ex-professor of Philisophy of History at Columbia University
b. He spent two chapters in The Story Of Our Civilization
depicting Jesus as a historical figure right along with the
Caesars
3. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA
a. Used over 20,000 words to describe Jesus
b. More than Aristotle, Cicero, Alexander, Julius Caesar,
Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, or Napoleon
[So there appears to be sufficient evidence to have convinced these and
others like them that Jesus actually lived.
What is this evidence...?]
II. THE EVIDENCE FOR A HISTORICAL JESUS
A. AMONG "PAGAN" SOURCES...
1. THALLUS (a Samaritan historian, ca. 52 A.D.)
a. Wrote attempting to give a natural explanation for the
darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus
b. Note carefully:
1) He did not deny the existence of Jesus
2) But only tried to explain away the strange circumstances
surrounding His death
2. LETTER OF MARA-SERAPION (written to his son, ca. 73 A.D.)
a. He tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus
b. "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise
king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in
the teaching which he had given."
3. CORNELIUS TACITUS (Roman historian, ca. 112 A.D.)
a. Writes of Jesus in his ANNALS
b. "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of
Tiberias."
4. PLINY THE YOUNGER
a. Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, ca. 112 A.D.
b. Wrote to the emperor Trajan about Christians and their
devotion to Christ
5. SEUTONIUS (Court official and annalist under Hadrian, 120 A.D.)
a. "As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the
instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."
b. Luke makes reference to this same expulsion in Ac 18:1-2
quote:
What's obvious? I don't see that anyone quoting anything as authoritative as *proof* of the existence of anything.
Trish open yor eyes.No serious scholar of any repute doubts that Jesus ever existed,thats why I was shocked when I came across this website and saw you folks really had doubts. [quote]They make a claim about knowing the apostle John. Well maybe they did meet a man named John and maybe he said he was an apostle of this christ character. And maybe they believed him. Um, well, there were a bunch of people who died at Waco following a man by the name of David Koresh - the second coming? Guess we should believe that too.
Thats the diffrence Koresh Claimed he was the Messiah and that he would rise from the dead.But he didn't,and you don't have his followers going out 'turning the upside down'sayin he did.Contrast this with the NT view of Jesus disciples hiding and scared in the Gospels and then their BOLD WITNESS OF CHRIST RESURRECTION IN FRONT OF HOSTILE WITNESSES
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 04:44:59 [Permalink]
|
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/fiction.html
http://www.jesusquest.com/library.htm
There are too many similarities between the christ figure and the common hero of the time. Additionally, much of the christ myth existed in one form or another prior to the supposed existence of christ. Found much the same info on my own.
OK - found a better analogy - King Arthur. Was there really a King Arthur or not? What is that acceptable evidence for the existence of Arthur and is it the same for christ? If not, why not?
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 07:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
II. THE EVIDENCE FOR A HISTORICAL JESUS
A. AMONG "PAGAN" SOURCES...
1. THALLUS (a Samaritan historian, ca. 52 A.D.)
a. Wrote attempting to give a natural explanation for the
darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus
b. Note carefully:
1) He did not deny the existence of Jesus
2) But only tried to explain away the strange circumstances
surrounding His death
However: quote:
What exactly is Thallus supposed to have said about Jesus? We don't really know. We can only guess, based on an obscure passage passed down to us second-hand which already shows signs of at least one interpolation. George Syncellus, a 9th-century monk, composed a world chronicle, quoting verbatim from numerous previous chroniclers, one of whom being the 3rd-century Christian chronicler Julius Africanus. In one such case, Africanus is quoted regarding "what followed the savior's passion and life-giving resurrection" as follows:
This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?
This is all we get. It isn't clear what Thallus actually said, or whether he even mentioned Jesus at all.
(from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html )
quote:
B. AMONG "JEWISH" SOURCES...
1. THE TALMUD
a. Consists of two separate books dealing with Jewish law,
written during the period from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D.
b. Speaks frequently of Jesus of Nazareth...
1) In unfriendly terms, of course
2) But never disputing his status as a historical figure
Generally accepted as being added by Christians post-hoc.
quote:
2. FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
a. A Jewish general turned Roman historian, born 37 A.D.
b. Makes several references to Jesus in his History Of The Jews
c. E.g., "...and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the
so-called Christ, whose name was James."
The mentioning of Jesus in Josephus' work are generally accepted to be complete (and poorly done) forgeries, added to his work by Christians post-hoc (most likely Eusebius).
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 11/14/2001 07:47:05 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 09:19:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In C S Lewis', The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe,the Professor laments about the comments of the children, "Don't they teach logic anymore?".I feel the same.To Trish,Donnie B:If you have church fathers(Ignatius,Polycarp,ect...)quoting as authoritative the NT Documents to churches throughout the Roman Empire,obviously the documents themselves had to be around much earlier for them to be accepted in those churches.Secondly,the two men I cited above were on the way to be martyred and they claimed to personally have know the Apostle John which adds to their credibilty because if this whole Jesus thing was just a recent development why would they give up their lives for something they knew was a lie?
Interesting that you mention logic.
By the logic in this argument, the willingness of a follower to die for his beliefs is evidence for the historical veracity of those beliefs.
So, if a devout Roman captive was put to the sword by marauding Goths because she wouldn't renounce her faith, how is that evidence that Jupiter (the god, not the planet) was physically real? How does that follow logically? Or do you claim that no Roman, or Greek, or Norseman, or member of a thousand other cultures was willing to die for his mythical gods?
I don't know what sources you have for Ignatius or Polycarp's quoting from existing documents, but let's stipulate that they did so. You seem to be claiming that quoting from a document is evidence for the historical existence of the document's subject. So if I read you "The Night Before Christmas", is that evidence for the physical existence of Santa Claus? And of flying reindeer? How does that follow logically?
And like Trish, I have not claimed that Jesus did not exist; I never mentioned Jesus at all. In fact, my only claim prior to this post was that it's possible for a non-divine but historical figure to be treated as divine by his followers, even after a relatively short interval. Hubbard isn't the only example, and maybe not even the best, since even the Scientologists don't claim he was a god -- at least, not yet. Check back in a couple millennia.
So, Darwin (what a sad usage of a great name... maybe you'd like it if I went by the nick "Jesus Irrational"?), let's have a little less condescension and a little more of the logic you claim I lack.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2001 : 09:19:46 [Permalink]
|
Josephus is the go to guy for apologist too. The problem is josephus was recording(if it wasn't edited) what he believed to be true. This make him no different than current theist that 'belive'.
The try to use that he isn't christian. Well, if defendant in court is introduced as the brother of superman, who will believe that superman existed 2000 years from now based on the court recorder's credibility and the transcript?
Answer: The people that want to believe it.
There is zero compelling evidence that suggest the jesus as described in the bible existed.
Josephus might be accurate, but it's accuracy should be measured jsut like the court recorders concerning a person so far removed from first hand knowledge.
Edited by - Grand Nubian on 11/14/2001 09:25:02 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
