Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NWT · 05-14-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalTechnique

i think that even if a "historical jesus" existed, the question is now largely immaterial, because there is, it seems, ample evidence that any "historical jesus" has little to do (birth, life, OR death) with the new testament jesus...

An excellent commentary, it amazes me that this controversy has been effectively suppressed from public knowledge, in spite of its great significance, in view of the large number of Christians in North America. Whereas the evolution vs creationism debate is front and center amongst the media.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dryhad

It doesn't seem to be really aimed at disproving the existance of the biblical Jesus. Rather, it's telling those who don't believe the new testement (mainly Jews in this case) not to just accept Christianity as historical fact.

Actually the author, is providing Jews with tools to use as a defense against the propaganda onslaught of Christian Zealots trying to convert people to Christian Fundamentalism. A problem that exists where I am as well, and certainly throughout the western world. And where I am, they have been quite successful in recruiting people who once belonged to more moderate Christian Churches, like the Presbyterian, United Church, Anglican & Catholic churches.

andrewcriddle · 05-14-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortalTechnique

According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus!

There may have been a later Lysanius. See eg The NT documents are they reliable ?

Quote:

Another supposed mistake has been detected by some in Luke iii. 1, where Lysanias is said to have been tetrarch of Abilene (west of Damascus) in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (AD 27-28), whereas the only Lysanias of Abilene otherwise known from ancient history bore the title of king and was executed by order of Mark Antony in 34 BC. Evidence of a later Lysanias who had the status of tetrarch has, however, been forthcoming from an inscription recording the dedication of a temple 'for the salvation of the Lords Imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus us, a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch'. The reference to 'the Lords Imperial'-a joint title given only to the Emperor Tiberius and his mother Livia, the widow of Augustus-fixes the date of the inscription between AD 14 (the year of Tiberius' accession) and 29 (the year of Livia's death). On the strength of this and other evidence we may well be satisfied with the verdict of the historian Eduard Meyer, that Luke's reference to Lysanias is 'entirely correct'.'

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-14-2005, 11:54 AM

What if this freedman of Lysanius had been freed when the original Lysanius was alive, wouldn't he refer back to the previous guy? How is this evidence of a second Lysanius?

andrewcriddle · 05-14-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What if this freedman of Lysanius had been freed when the original Lysanius was alive, wouldn't he refer back to the previous guy? How is this evidence of a second Lysanius?

IIUC it was unusual and legally problematic to manumit slaves before they reached 30.

This means that if Nymphaeus was manumitted before 36 BCE he would have been rather old the time after AD 14 when the temple was dedicated.

(I suppose it is possible with manumission at minimum age just before the death of Lysanius and dedication of the temple just after the accession of Tiberius but it seems a bit implausible. )

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-15-2005, 03:07 AM

But the guy was consecrating a temple - sounds like an old and successful person, who would refer back to his status as freed and when it happened.

80+ was not uncommon amongst the wealthy and fit - death occurred as now amongst the very young, in time of war, from infections. He must have been special to gain freedom.

andrewcriddle · 05-15-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

He must have been special to gain freedom.

IIUC for 'White-Collar' type slaves doing a skilled and important administrative job, manumission in ones 30's was a standard expectation.

The imperial bureaucracy was run by able freedmen (and some freedwomen) trained as adolescent slaves and freed in their thirties.

Some imperial freedmen (Pallas Narcissus etc) became very powerful indeed.

Andrew Criddle

Sven · 05-17-2005, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meforevidence

One can not prove either Evolution or Creation with science. That is like trying to prove love and beauty with a math problem. They are apples and oranges. Like you said though, all we have to go by is evidence. I do believe that the evidence supports creation for the following reasons:
Here are the options:
1. Everything came from nothing and formed into a rock which formed into life, intelligence, and emotion as we have today.. or
2. Life, emotions, and intelligence came from a living intelligent emotional being as we have it today.
They both consider a large amount of faith.
As far as support for the evolutionsists, not one stands as sufficient evidence. So many of them were made up. Why is it that the time before the history we have in our Bible is called "Pre-history?" Almost every major civilization in history has had "Seven Days" for the week. Why is that? Most scientists (religious or agnostic) agree that the earliest civilizations come from the fertile crescent (which happens to be where man was created. When some scientists find bones that are the least bit differerent, they call it a "caveman." How many times have you been to a ball-game or public event and have seen the many different body types. I have worked in the medical and phsycological field for many years and have seen people with large bones, small bones, large heads, small heads, crooked backs, humped backs, tall, short, etc. We have dwarfs and pygmies even today. We have tall basketball players and people like the late Andre the Giant.
They have taken signs down at geologicla sites where stalagtites and stalagmites have formed which used to say it took millions of years to form. That was before they found out you can actually film them growing and that one of the largest formation caves in the world was no older than fifty years old. Anyway, my point is, there is not really a lot of "evidential support" for evolution either. For something to be considered "scientific" we have to be able to use the scientific method. We can't for either Creation or Evolution.

What a load of crap. I urge you to visit the Evolution/Creation forum to discuss this further, as Amaleq13 already suggested. But you might want to educate yourself first a bit before making more a fool out of yourself with comments like this - just go to www.talkorigins.org .

Just two points to consider for a start:
(1) There are not only two possibilities as you decribed them above, there's a continuum of possibilities in between these two.
(2) You're second possibility is simply circular and uses special pleading for the creator. Very bad logic.

sorompio · 05-17-2005, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Its more like fighting fire with a toothbrush. The basic problem is the Jesus Never Existed idea is not supported by mainstream scholarship. Go to Harvard, Yale, Brown, Oxford, etc.. and you will be taugh Jesus did exist, but the stories about him are myth. The Jesus Never Existed scholars do have some fairly good arguments, but they are not persuasive enough to convince the mainstream.

When we talk about mainstream scholarship, whom are we talking about exactly? Can you name me two or three of these "mainstream scholars"?

sorompio · 05-17-2005, 08:07 AM

Quote:

There is actually many evidences supporting the Historical Jesus as well as the Gospels. This includes not only history, but also archeology. Please see my website which will quote from many pre-athiests which set out to disprove the gospels and the history of Jesus. I have to admit though, finding the evidence is not as easy as people may think. I used to be a skeptic too. There are so many mis-translations in our modern English versions today as well as contradictions. I found that the further back you go though, that it makes more sense.
Here is my web page: http://www.geocities.com/bkitc/Bibl...104184376984%20

What a load of crap! Just the same apologetic bullshit, Testimonium Flavianum et al... I guess this is what you can expect from a supposed biblical study website that announces the "Collapse Of Darwinism". :down:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-14-2005, 11:54 AM	#53
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What if this freedman of Lysanius had been freed when the original Lysanius was alive, wouldn't he refer back to the previous guy? How is this evidence of a second Lysanius?

05-15-2005, 03:07 AM	#55
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But the guy was consecrating a temple - sounds like an old and successful person, who would refer back to his status as freed and when it happened. 80+ was not uncommon amongst the wealthy and fit - death occurred as now amongst the very young, in time of war, from infections. He must have been special to gain freedom.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.