Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-18-2008, 02:26 PM | #41 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 81
|
Quote:
Why should I have any beliefs or opinions about a group of people I have never met nor read statistics about? My point is that you cannot cite as an authority a majority of people who may have a majority for reasons other then intellectual and scholarly conscience. That should have been clear? |
||
06-18-2008, 02:35 PM | #42 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-18-2008, 02:42 PM | #43 | ||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 81
|
Quote:
Quote:
I did not, for instance, say, "are you claiming that, since I claim the majority of scholars regard the gospels as reliable, you therefore claim that they are right." How you read it makes sense in this second way of writing it. Daniel |
||||
06-18-2008, 02:44 PM | #44 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
|
|||
06-18-2008, 02:45 PM | #45 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Must I assume only one person had the name Christus during the time of Pilate? Now, how old should I assume Christus was when he received the extreme penalty? Where must I assume Chritus lived? Who must I assume was the mother of Christus? Who must I assume was the father of Christus? You know how Jesus was described in the NT and witnessed by his mother Mary, he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. Must I assume Christus was also the offspring of the Holy Ghost who was resurrected and seen by 500 persons as stated by Paul, and floated through the clouds, witnessed by the disciples? How can both the Jesus of the NT and Tacitus's Christus be truly the same person when we have real witnesses to Jesus of the NT? And further, Jesus of the NT was not called Christus while he was alive. Jesus of the NT was called Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets, but NEVER Christus by the people. There were no followers of Jesus called Christians while Jesus of the NT was alive. Followers of Jesus of the NT were called Christians long after Jesus died, according to the NT. And in addition, Jesus of the NT was crucified for blasphemy, not for starting a religion called Christianity as reported by Tacitus. The argument that Christus is Jesus of the NT is an argument from SILENCE. |
||
06-18-2008, 03:26 PM | #46 | ||||||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If all of it was not true, then Pilate would not have existed, neither would John the Baptist, Jerusalem, the Temple, Rome, and every place in the gospels would be mere inventions. But we know that is not the case. Therefore, some things are true, and others reflect the beliefs of the writers. It's not always a matter of what is true and what is false. Things are not always seen so black and white. Instead, I see things not from a true or false perspective, but from the historical perspective that I am reading about the beliefs of some of the earliest followers of Jesus. You perhaps need to understand that historians are virtually unanimous that Jesus who was called the Christ of the gospels lived, was baptized by John the Baptist, was thought of as a healer and philosopher, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Nobody rational is expecting you to believe he walked across the water. But we do expect you to view things such as this more rationally, and not from the perspective of "true or false." Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
06-18-2008, 03:50 PM | #47 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
You do not even know if Jesus was the real name of the character called the son of the God of the Jews, or if Jesus of the NT was actually born deaf, dumb and blind, at the end of the 1st century. You are just wasting time. You seem to think whatever you believe about Jesus of the NT must be true. If the authors of the NT embellished the conception, birth, temptation, miracles, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, then, it is reasonable to think that the authors could have embelished the chronology of all these events or that the events never happened at all. But you know what is TRUE about Jesus of the NT. So, tell me. |
|
06-18-2008, 04:01 PM | #48 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
|
Quote:
1. Jesus who was called Christ lived in Judea early 1st century AD. 2. He was known as a healer (not a miracle healer) and teacher of a religious philosophy. 3. He was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan river. 4. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate.] 5. Christians get their name from Jesus who was called Christ. Of all the things about Jesus, the list above are really the only things that the historians are virtually unanimous on. Other things are very likely, but don't find the unanimous support. It is irrational to think that all things from the Gospels are false. We know Pontius Pilate lived, and was in Judea at the time. We know John the Baptist was also there. I don't find any scholars who believe Peter and James did not exist. The list is endless. Too much evidence to discount all of it. |
||
06-18-2008, 04:35 PM | #49 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Ben. |
|
06-18-2008, 04:41 PM | #50 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Billions of people BELIEVE Jesus existed or have faith in him. I asked you for the TRUE story of Jesus that you can confirm to be true. Your reasonning is circular. 1. "How do you know Jesus lived in Judaea"?" Historians agree that he did. 2. "How do you know Jesus was a healer"? Historians agree that he did. 3. "How do you know Jesus was baptised by John"? Historians agree that he did. 4. "How do you know Jesus was crucified"? Historins agree that he did. 5. "How do you know Christians first got their name from Jesus Christ"? Historians agree that they did. Now, produce the evidence for those events. Produce the evidence that cause historians to come to their agreement. It is known already that some historians agree while other dis-agree. Just produce the evidence. Quote:
"Too much evidence" is a meaningless term. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|