FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-20-2006, 04:18 AM   #551
Alf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
What was in my first post. That was extra biblical.

Some of that stuff was just 100 years later. Talking about those irritating Christians. Who are still irritating the secular world with their beliefs 2000 years later.

For Christ only having a three year ministry, and this kind of following, is amazing. Nothing short of a miracle.
It is time for you to get educated.

"Christ" comes from greek and means "annointed one" and is as such the same title as Messiah in jewish. There were a multitude of greeks worshipping an "annointed one" around the roman empire at the time. Many of those would be rightfully called "christians" as they worshipped "christ". However, whether their "christ" is the same "christ" as the one you worship is not obvious. It might have been but it might also not have been.

So yeah, there were christians in existence even around 100 BC! So this "How could there be so many christians so shortly after Jesus existence" is largely just a dumb question that you have to be uneducated to ask. How could there be so many christians before christ? That is an even better question!

Now, if you limit your "christian" to mean those who follow the gospels etc it is a trickier question. Largely because the gospels didn't exist yet per se. Paul did write a lot of letters around to communities within the empire and in so far as their christ could be aligned with Paul's christ they would eventually listen to the gospel stories as they were told and thus would end up as "christians" by today's meaning of that word. However, if they were christians from the start with that same meaning is not possible to know.

Also, Paul's very active letter writing and travelling also helped spreading the religion pretty fast. However, the fact that there were people already at those places with similar ideas and mind-set didn't slow it down either.

Alf
Alf is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 04:44 AM   #552
Alf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
So? The invalid illustrative points mean nothing. Moby Dick is a fictional character made up in somebody's mind...there is no evidence that he is real. THERE IS HOWEVER EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS REAL outside of the Bible. And whoever says that there isn't doesn't know their history. It is that simple. Many Roman and Jewish historical texts mention Jesus and Christians.
Then show us any. No, tacitus doesn't count. He only testify that there were christians in rome. He did not and could not provide proof that Jesus actually existed.

No, Josephus doesn't count either. It would be wonderful if he could. Unfortunately some very eager fanatical christian interpolated his text and destroyed the original paragraph as written by Josephus. We might never know what Josephus actually wrote. We know for sure that he did not write that paragraph as christians show as "proof" - at least not in the form as it appears to us now. We do not even know that he did write about Jesus. It could for example have been a paragraph about Appolonious of Tyrana instead and then changed to be a paragraph about Jesus by some fanatic christian copyist.

Alf
Alf is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 05:51 AM   #553
Alf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch
Man is fallible, God isn't.
So you admit that the bible which was written by men is fallible?

Alf
Alf is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 06:11 AM   #554
Alf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallie
Don't bite the hand that feeds you :redface: ...this argument goes both ways. Can you imagine a pharoah or king writing about how he was overtaken by plagues and forced to let his slaves go? What humiliation.
The lack of evidence for exodus is far more than simply "no egyptian writing to testify the story".

It is also the nasty little fact that if any of the events in exodus happened, some testified and verified events really appear inexplicable and amazing.

Like, after all that humiliation and his country left in ruins with no soldiers and no first-borns and with rivers filled with blood, how could Egypt enter its era of grandeur and wealth?

How could the exodus story tell about how they tore apart the walls of jericho when the city had no walls at the time the exodus story allegedly took place?

Worse, from archeological digs it appears that the jews can show a continuous presence in palestine and judea region during their whole "egypt exile". How could they be in exile in egypt when they were in Judea at the same time?

Get over it. The exodus simply never happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gallie
The same can be said for Jesus...would you really expect the Jewish leaders to write about His resurrection? :Cheeky:
No, but you would expect that they perhaps wrote about his crucifixtion. A punishment that in their eyes appeared just and fair for his false teaching. On the other hand, they might consider it to be NOT just and fair as they would prescribe stoning for that particular type of crimes instead.

Perhaps a letter indicating that they would prefer him stoned rather than crucified or perhaps some reasoning as to why he should be crucified and not stoned as the traidition prescribes. Such a letter would be worth gold if it could be proven authentic and it could be shown to indicate the same person as the gospels write about.

Alf
Alf is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 06:22 AM   #555
Alf
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 3,189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera
There are no contemporary references to Jesus. There are later references by nonChristians. This shouldn't surprise you. It was the pattern of the time. There are no contemporary referenced to most historical figures during the classic period (Aristotle writes about some living athletes tangentially, they being long forgotten). They didn't have newpapers. Historical figures -- unless they were emperors or something analogous -- didn't get written about until later. Hence nobody wrote about Socrates while he was alive. All the references come later. Do you conclude from this that Socrates wasn't an historical figure and Plato made him up?
You don't know much about Socrates, do you?

People wrote about Socrates during his life time. We even have theatre plays that makes fun of Socrates that was written at a time so that Socrates most likely was among the audience of the same theatre plays and probably laughed with the rest of the audience when they made jokes about him. Assuming he had a sense of humor of course, which he probably had :-)

So yes, we can take it as fairly solid that Socrates was a real person and a celebrity within his community.

Unfortunately, we don't have any writings from pharisees or others concerning Jesus and his teaching. We have no letter from Jesus to his family. We have no letter from someone who told their friend about this Jesus guy healing them or that they even heard him speak any sermon on the mount or any other sermon or speach.

We have nada, zip, nothing, zero.

As usual the christians embarass themselves in public.

Alf
Alf is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 07:03 AM   #556
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Northeastern OH but you can't get here from there
Posts: 415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by one allegiance
Accurate translation

A very controversial issue is whether or not the Gospels have been accurately transmitted from the original writings down to the copies that we have today. The truth is that the New Testament documents are 99.5% textually pure. This means that only 1/2 of 1% of all the documents, of all the copies in existence has any question about the text. Nevertheless, the accuracy is really even greater than 99.5%. The reason is because many of the copies that have spelling errors, minor word omissions and additions are copied, and those copies contains those various minor errors. All that is needed is to look at an older copy that all of them and the error is cleared up. Therefore, we can easily know what the original said. Here is a table from the site of the works we have today, but do NOT have the original texts.
Wow, your statistics are blindingly convincing. The bible is greater than 99.5% accurate. But is it accurate enough?

How many letters are there in the King James Version of the Bible? Answer = 2,629,150. If you don't believe me, count them yourself, but make sure you double check yourself. Now if only 3 (Three) letters are changed in all those 2,629,150 letters, the whole underlying premise of the entire bible can be changed. That would mean that the bible could still stay 99.9999989% accurate and be so changed it would astound the entire world. So arguments from numbers won't work on your behalf because if only 0.0000011% changes, the meaning of the entire bible can change.

For my example just add the three letters TON (English letters of course since we are speaking of the KJV) to one sentence in the bible.
darstec is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 09:38 AM   #557
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alf
You don't know much about Socrates, do you?

People wrote about Socrates during his life time.
Um, who might these people be and in what pre 399 BCE works do their references to Socrates appear?

Quote:
We even have theatre plays that makes fun of Socrates that was written at a time so that Socrates most likely was among the audience of the same theatre plays and probably laughed with the rest of the audience when they made jokes about him. Assuming he had a sense of humor of course, which he probably had :-)
We have one allegedly pre 399 BCE play in which this occurs -- Clouds attributed to Aristophanes.

But the earliest MS we have of this play dates from 1000 CE (Codex Ravennas 429). So it is hardly contemporary evidence for Socrates, and given its late date, the MS cannot be trusted to accurately represent what its purported author really said, if indeed he actually ever said anything at all about Socrates. Given that we have testimony that the MS is a revison of an ealier version of the play, all references to Socrates should be supected as interpolations.

Prove me wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 11:20 AM   #558
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,532
Default

From Geetarmoore:
Quote:
Well, I guess I don't understand what rises to the level of 'antisemetic', is all. Sorry if I offended.
1) Apology heartily accepted.

2) Let me explain the issue. What Patriarch Verlch is implying is that what is generally considered by humanity to be a historical advance, the ceasing to sacrifice animals, on the part of Jews, is to be attributed to the alleged rending of the veil in the Temple when Jesus died.

The implication is, first of all, that this event actually occurred. There is no record outside of, I think, Matthew, that this ever happened. It is highly unlikely that if it did, it would go unmentioned elsewhere, as with the other bullshit about the darkness, dead people walking, etc.

Secondly, the implication is that xtianity is morally superior to Judaism: Jews only stopped sacrificing because of something that happened as a result of xtianity.

We Jews, religious or secular, have our own moral codes. We do quite well without George Bush's.

RED DAVE
RED DAVE is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 11:29 AM   #559
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RED DAVE
The implication is, first of all, that this event actually occurred. There is no record outside of, I think, Matthew, that this ever happened.
Actually, it is attested in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. However, since those are the synoptic gospels, two of them probably got it originally from the other, so we are left with only one independent attestation, which may be what you were trying to say.

Quote:
It is highly unlikely that if it did, it would go unmentioned elsewhere....
True, I think.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 06-20-2006, 01:03 PM   #560
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,532
Default

From RED DAVE:
Quote:
The implication is, first of all, that this event actually occurred. There is no record outside of, I think, Matthew, that this ever happened.
From Ben C. Smith:
Quote:
Actually, it is attested in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. However, since those are the synoptic gospels, two of them probably got it originally from the other, so we are left with only one independent attestation, which may be what you were trying to say.
Thanx. I stand corrected.

RED DAVE
RED DAVE is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.