|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,468 Year: 3,725/9,624 Month: 596/974 Week: 209/276 Day: 49/34 Hour: 0/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Existence of Jesus Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||
valerieelliott Inactive Member |
I don't mean to offend. What I was thinking is that those of you that are not believers are so obviously intelligent, deep thinking individuals...as a Christian my heart's desire is that man comes to kow Jesus Christ in the pardon of their sinn, that Christ died for them, for us. Just keep thinking it out. I have never visited a site like this one, you kow, where opinions differ but are largely respected. As I have said, I love this site!
This message has been edited by valerieelliott, 06-15-2005 12:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Chrestus is close to Christ, and the early Christians were largely Jewish so his description is pretty much what you'd expect if he was describing casting out Christians from Rome. Most likely, many non-Christian Jews were also cast out as the whole thing would be seen as a Jewish thing.
My understanding though is this wasn't when Paul was crucified, but maybe I am wrong. But there is also the argument that this fits well with when Paul met Priscilla and Aquilla who had to leave Rome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3464 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: No.I have examined the evidence closely and given specific reasons why it is suspect. quote: Most modern scholars agree, your insults not-withstanding. Can you produce any evidence of a document written by sonmeone who met Jesus?
quote: False.The Gospels were originally anonymous, we have no idea who really wrote them. G.Mark was first - it was written probably in Rome by someone who had never even been to Palestine. G.Luke and G.Matthew copied G.Mark wholesale - hardly the act of an eye-witness. G.John tells a completely different story - the most full of spiritual waffle, the least historical and latest of all - not by an eye-witness. There are NO contemporary references. Only later legends.
quote: You repeat this mantra "agressive bisbelief" as if it proves something,yet all you offer is agressive faith in return. quote: So what? What ON EARTH do you think accuracy of copies has ANYTHING to do with truth of contents? We have the original manuscript of Lord of The Rings - does that make it true? We have manuscripts of the Book of Mormon from very early after its writing - does that make it true? What about the legends of Osiris inscribed in stone in the pyramids - the ORIGINAL VERSION from thousands of years ago - according to your theory, that makes it completely true. What nonsense! The accuracy or dating of copies of STORIES has NOTHING to do with the truth of the STORIES. Can YOU explain why you think it does?
quote: Dated by SOME.Originally it was dated late 2nd or so. More recent experts have agreed with this date. P52 is a darling of the faithful Christians - every time they tell the story it gets dated earlier. P52 may have been a free floating pericope later added to the Gospel.P52 may have been a very early copy of the Gospel.. P52 may have been from another book entirely. It proves very little.
quote: No-one believes this nonsense except the gullible and the faithful.Scholars have completely demolished the crackpot claims of Thiede. 7Q5 has NOT been given a P number - showing it is NOT considered a NT papyrus. quote: There is no evidence to support Suetonius' rumour.
quote: He refers to CHRESTUS - a real Greek name, causing disturbance in Rome in the 40s.How can anyone think this has anything to do with Jesus? quote: Yes,the legends and myths grew masively over the 2nd 3rd and 4th centuries - like I said. But, in the 1st century - NOTHING. quote: Hmm ..Are you referring to the KNOWN FORGERIES in the Archko Volume? quote: So what?We know Christianity existed in 1st century in various places. What do you think this has to do with evidnce for JESUS?
quote: Rubbish.We have vast mountains of evidence for Caesar, much of it contemporary. WE have no contemporary evidnce for Jesus - just some later legends.
quote: Good god, man!Why do you keep saying this? Why do you think it has ANYTHING to do with the truth of the contents? We have 400,000 copies of writings of the 1st millenium chinese monk Shenzou (I think that's his name).Thats VASTLY more than your 5,640. So, will you be converting to Shenzouism? Think about what you are saying codetrainer!This argument is worthless quote: Rubbish.James may have existed. Paul clearly existed. Peter may have existed. I never said otherwise. Do you actually READ what people write?
quote: WE still have the ORIGINALS from Charles Manson - does that him correct? We still have the originals from the Heaven's Gate cult - does that them correct? When are you going to wake up codetrainer? The NUMBER of copies,the accuracy of copies, the dating of documents, has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents. Only a complete newbie apologists repeats this long disproven canard. It's not the 1800s anymore, get with the program. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
quote: Don't worry, Valerie. I can understand your concern to us lost souls. It's just that some of us had come to the conviction that God is unimportant, or [like me] raised in another religion that said man was born innocent and therefore not needing Christ. As for the experience, I've come across many nice individuals at EvC, of every opinion (of course there are also those less friendly). Just stick around and participate. Just get ready to be challenged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The point is that this phrase is taking a Greek name 'chretus', and assuming it is 'christ'. It is taking a similar name, and assuming a typo. That is why the 'evidence' for a historical Jesus in Suetonius is not 'evidence' for a historical Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
valerieelliott Inactive Member |
Thanks, Andya! Some of the comment make me challange myself! lol!
I ain't going nowhere, Friend. This is so stimulating! Makes me wish we were all in the same room, talking it through! Val
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It's nice to see that attitude. I am interested in this for the intellectual challenge myself. It nice to see someone who is not intimidated or contemptual of us 'non-believers'.
I suspect you will come away from these talks with some insights.If nothing else, you will at least understand the "non-believers" a bit more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
valerieelliott Inactive Member |
Ramoss! Thanks for the input. As you say, the site is intellectually stimulate. And I'll let you in on a secret--you guys are far more kind than even we Christians of differing denomiations can and have been! (smile) What is it they say--we can disagree without becoming disagreeable!
Val
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think the reason for that is that for the most part, the non-christians are doing this as an intellectual exercise and doesn't have the emotional involvement with it. I think you will find that many of the non-traditional theists, the agnostics and the atheists are ex-christians, and know the religion from the inside out. I learned a lot about early Christianity when looking at my Jewish roots, and found out how misreprentitive of the Jewish scriptures many of the evangalistic groups were. Consequently, when I discuss the scriptures, particularly the tanakh, you will see me using the Jewish interpretation and attitudes towards the various passages. I find that many of the non-jewish ex-christians or non-traditional hristians do the same thing.
You will find certain basic cultural assumptions about God, about what prophecy is, and what Satan/angels are make a big difference in the interpretation of the stories. For example, in the Jewish tradition, angels do not have free will. They can ONLY do what God wills them to, and can not 'fall' or revolt against god. Think of how that effects the relationship between God/Satan and man. Think of how that effects the interpetation of the story about Adam and Eve.. . and the story of Job. Judaism also doesn't have a hell. 'Ghenna', which is the closest that comes to hell, is more like that concept of purgatory, where a soul will be 'purified' for up to 1 year, and then either goes to 'the world to come', or faces extinction. Also, the afterlife is not reallyconsidered much in the Jewish religion, but it is more concerned about living the good life here (which is it's own reward). Think of how those attitudes distinguish it from either Christainity or Islam. Those cultural differences are some of the reasons that make me skeptical about the Jesus that is described in the gospels. There are just too many non-Jewish concepts being introduced to make me take them as historical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CodeTrainer Inactive Member |
ramoss: You certainly are full of misinformatin. According to mainstream modern biblical scholarship, none of the gospels were written by eye witnesses.. and there is plenty of evidence for that point of view
==> Misinformation is the rule of the day for the benefit of disbelief. Note that word "..mainstream.." in the phrase "mainstream biblical scholarship". ==> And note also this "argument from authority". Rather than addressing the actual facts of the manuscript evidence in terms of numbers and age, as compared to other ancient documents with much less corroboration and much more "mainstream" acceptance; in spite of the evidence from other historical and cultural context of the times, one invokes authorities who justify bad theology with degrees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CodeTrainer Inactive Member |
ramoss writes: There is no evidence any of the books were written by eye witnesses. The consenus of the majority of mainstream christian biblical scholars is that we don't KNOW who wrote the synoptic gospels for example.. and it is clear from the internals of them they were NOT written by eye witnesses. I laid out a list of evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses, and the evidence is stronger than it is for hundreds and even thousands other ancient documents that you and these "mainstreamers" have no question about. And here again, an "argument from authority", which is the perennial false complaint always levied against believers.
ramoss writes: First when to comes to the numbers of copies of various books. That does not mean anything. ALl it means is that the believers had more motivation to make lots and lots of copies. Note the reference to "believers" and how ramoss completely misses the point of the numbers. Real true historians who analyze ancient text for a living make a big deal about it all the time. It provides corroboration for what the original text was, and in their historical context provides evidence for the time-frames pointing to the originals, and so on. The thing does not rest on one fragment by the way, it's just another piece in the long volumes of evidence.
ramoss writes: Let us look in Suetonisu 'Lives of the Ceasars', written in about 120 C.E.
quote: First of all, the name Chrestus is an actual Greek name, and not yeshua or jesus. It appears to be someone who was actually IN romeat the time, doing the instigation, so that rules out it being Jesus. Tell me something I don't know. Go read my reference to it again, where I made no such claim at all. The reference is just another in the long string of authenticating examples in context. There is a reference in Acts to this particular persecution, where it also refers to an expelling of "Jews", as opposed to Christians or believers.
ramoss writes: ___taking suetonius out of context.___ Actually as seen above, you added context to my quote that was not there. And, the reason I brought Seutonius back up was in the first part of the paragraph you did not address:
quote: => As in more corroboration, and doubtless there are various others, to the *fact* that Nero persecuted the Christians in 64 AD, a fact accepted by all historians until recently when revisionist historians with a "militant disbelief" began accusing the ancient documents of being revisionist histories, as in the claim that this was only a report of "rumors", a laughably weak attempt at revisionism. -- Alan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, if you want to look at the fact that made the vast majority of Biblical scholars deciede that, we most certainly can look at the FACTS.
For example, Luke specificlaly says that he is taking previous sources. If you want to take the books one a time, we can. As far as I can see, the ones that CLAIM the books are written by eyewittneses are using bad history, and theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CodeTrainer Inactive Member |
purpledawn writes: quote: In the book "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel, the interview with Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, who is, according to Strobel, widely considered to be one of the country's foremost authorities on the biographies of Jesus which are called the four gospels. Blomberg states: "It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous." The writings don't identify the authors. Authorship is by tradition.
This reaction is the best I've seen so far to my points, even though directed to only one point out of the many. I have read Lee Stroebel's book, and the quote from Blomberg, *in context* he is saying that an authorship reference is not "embedded" in the text as in some other books. However, their names date as far back as the texts. To call this "by tradition" is to try to get points with semantics rather than facts. -- Alan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CodeTrainer Inactive Member |
Hi,
Iason writes:
quote: No. I have examined the evidence closely and given specific reasons why it is suspect. Exactly.
iasion writes:
quote: Most modern scholars agree, your insults not-withstanding. So it is not an insult when you refer to belief as being the only sustaining evidence that Jesus existed, but not for the other way around.
Can you produce any evidence of a document written by someone who met Jesus? You have that already and dismiss it based on the experts you prefer to invoke. From there it's he said-she said, but an observer looking for evidence can determine what he wants to believe. ==== Gotta cut and run, have a life here... But as a former militant atheist and communist, I followed the evidence to my present beliefs. - Alan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CodeTrainer Inactive Member |
ramoss writes: Well, if you want to look at the fact that made the vast majority of Biblical scholars decide that, we most certainly can look at the FACTS. Argument from majority has merit in some venues, but in determining the truth of a matter, it is oftimes deceiving. Biblical scholars that bring their "militant skepticism" to the table will find interminable objections to anything. However, with equivalent evidence from other documents, there is a lack of such unbelief in the face of evidence, in a telling contrast with this subject.
ramoss writes: For example, Luke specifically says that he is taking previous sources. That's why I had already said that three of them were written by eyewitnesses, and another by one who took testimony from eyewitnesses. This latter assertion is indeed in the introduction to the book, where the authorship is indeed directly indicated.
ramoss writes: If you want to take the books one a time, we can. As far as I can see, the ones that CLAIM the books are written by eyewitneses are using bad history, and theology. The bad theology and the bad history is in the naysayers' camp. Luke I have said was not written by an eyewitness, but was written based on eyewitness testimony, as indicated in the text itself. The other three were titled with their authors' names when they were copied. (1) For going back to the originals, you won't find another document from ancient times where the earliest extant copy is as close to the original dating, (2) you won't find nearly as many corroborating manuscripts and codexes, going back as far and as early, (3) where there is as much corroboration from indirect evidence from those who knew the apostles personally, such as Polycarp, who himself showed his confidence in the truth by witnessing with his own life, (4) other confident early fathers' references to the Roman records themselves, (5) from antagonists themselves nearly contemporary, like this exchange between Trajan the Emperor and Pliny the Younger,
quote: where Pliny asks for guidance on how to handle this fast-growing sect of Christians, while governor of Pontus/Bithynia in the years 111-113. A sect grown around a man crucified and according to his contemporary followers resurrected, in happenings only some seventy years prior. Many of the older ones alive at that very time would have also been around during any times when the Christian message could have been falsified. Not as early as the (so far) at least two historical and contemporary references to Nero's persecution in 64 AD, but closer than many other references taken for granted by the same disbelieving skeptics who balk at these. (6) Then you have the set of manuscripts that are consistent in content that also goes back as far as you can get to the original, and is also corroborated by the agreement among them. Besides this, you have the writings of the earliest church fathers from the second century, in spite of being hindered by waves of Roman persecutions, quoting profusely from the NT and the gospels. (7) the early second century, barely a scant two generations removed from the dates in question, you have references to those four gospels as inspired. It is even said that almost all the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the early writings of these church fathers. There have been counted 36,289 distinct New Testament references from the writings of the earliest church fathers alone, from the first and second centuries, from disparate places and disparate times but overwhelmingly consistent with the separate line of actual copies of the New Testament books. - Alan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024