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: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-18-2008, 02:26 PM   #41
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mens_sana View Post

This statement, disguised as a question, depends on what "majority" and "reliable" mean. I don't like your implied "majority." My "majority" thinks the texts are fairly reliable as far as transmission is concerned and that "Jesus the true son of God" is a theological construct which, along with "miracle," "prophecy," "resurrection" and the like, have to be shelved while historians go about their work.
Yep, it was a loaded question for sure. That's why I simply said "No." Whatever his beliefs are in regards to scholars are not shared by me.
When did I present my beliefs regarding the majority of scholars? I was paraphrasing what I have heard others say before about the historicity and divinity of Jesus and asking you if you share it.

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?
perfectidius is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 02:35 PM   #42
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post

Yep, it was a loaded question for sure. That's why I simply said "No." Whatever his beliefs are in regards to scholars are not shared by me.
When did I present my beliefs regarding the majority of scholars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius
Sorry if I lost how this talk started, but are you claiming that since a majority of New Testament scholars regard the gospels to be reliable and Jesus the true son of God, than they are an authority?
Things have changed and your opinion is now antiquated. The most respected NT scholars are in fact historians that do not share your view.
FathomFFI is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 02:42 PM   #43
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius View Post

When did I present my beliefs regarding the majority of scholars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius
Sorry if I lost how this talk started, but are you claiming that since a majority of New Testament scholars regard the gospels to be reliable and Jesus the true son of God, than they are an authority?
Things have changed and your opinion is now antiquated. The most respected NT scholars are in fact historians that do not share your view.
Read more carefully, please. I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius
Sorry if I lost how this talk started, but are you claiming that since a majority of New Testament scholars regard the gospels to be reliable and Jesus the true son of God, than they are an authority?
grammatically, we should expect that everything past the words "claiming" were part of the claim.

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
perfectidius is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 02:44 PM   #44
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post



Things have changed and your opinion is now antiquated. The most respected NT scholars are in fact historians that do not share your view.
Read more carefully, please. I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectidius
Sorry if I lost how this talk started, but are you claiming that since a majority of New Testament scholars regard the gospels to be reliable and Jesus the true son of God, than they are an authority?
grammatically, we should expect that everything past the words "claiming" were part of the claim.

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
That's fine, I make the same kinds of mistakes and also fail to get my point across sometimes. I think everyone does.
FathomFFI is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 02:45 PM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

Again, you have made another FALSE claim.

Tacitus NEVER wrote that CHTISTUS was crucified.

When will you stop making these mis-leading and erroneous statements?

Annals 15.44

IIDB was not intended to promote propaganda.
Here's a little history for you.

Actually, the words "extreme penalty" literally refer to "crucifixion."

The Roman statesman Cicero called it "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (Verrem 2:5.165) and "the most extreme penalty" (Verrem 2:5.168). The Jewish historian Josephus, who certainly witnessed enough crucifixions himself, called it "the most wretched of deaths." The Roman jurist Julius Paulus listed crucifixion in first place as the worst of all capital punishments, listing it ahead of death by burning, death by beheading, or death by the wild beasts.

In fact, the crucifixion was put at the top of what is known as the summa supplica, giving it distinction as the extreme penalty, with the # 2 spot being filled in by burning creamtio, and the third being interchanged between decapitation decollatio, and of being fed to wild beasts damnatio ad bestias.

Also, it should be noted that none of the other means of capital punishment have ever been referred to as "the extreme penalty."

Therefore, if IIDB was not intended to promote propaganda, then what are you doing making false claims that contradict history?
So, I must assume that Christus is Jesus of the NT and also must assume that "extreme penalty" means "crucifixion"?

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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 03:26 PM   #46
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI

Here's a little history for you.

Actually, the words "extreme penalty" literally refer to "crucifixion."

The Roman statesman Cicero called it "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (Verrem 2:5.165) and "the most extreme penalty" (Verrem 2:5.168). The Jewish historian Josephus, who certainly witnessed enough crucifixions himself, called it "the most wretched of deaths." The Roman jurist Julius Paulus listed crucifixion in first place as the worst of all capital punishments, listing it ahead of death by burning, death by beheading, or death by the wild beasts.

In fact, the crucifixion was put at the top of what is known as the summa supplica, giving it distinction as the extreme penalty, with the # 2 spot being filled in by burning creamtio, and the third being interchanged between decapitation decollatio, and of being fed to wild beasts damnatio ad bestias.

Also, it should be noted that none of the other means of capital punishment have ever been referred to as "the extreme penalty."

Therefore, if IIDB was not intended to promote propaganda, then what are you doing making false claims that contradict history?
So, I must assume that Christus is Jesus of the NT and also must assume that "extreme penalty" means "crucifixion"?
Assume? Absolutely not. You simply rationally conclude it. Watch as I demonstrate this rationality on your points below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Must I assume only one person had the name Christus during the time of Pilate?
The text demonstrates that the Christus spoken of in the Tacitus entry is the one whom the Christians were named from, and all historical documents name this Christus as being Jesus. Please understand that the name "Christus" is just a Latinized version of Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Now, how old should I assume Christus was when he received the extreme penalty?
You don't assume anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Where must I assume Chritus lived?
Judea, as the text suggests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Who must I assume was the mother of Christus?

Who must I assume was the father of Christus?
Assume nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
You know how Jesus was described in the NT and witnessed by his mother Mary, he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.
From a historical view point, you are reading about a 1st century belief system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
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?
Assume nothing. View it as a belief system. It's far more intellectually honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
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?
In the NT, you have many embellishments of a man named Jesus. Some things are true, and other things are what the writers believed to be true. Things that defy reason are viewed as mere beliefs, while other things reflect actual occurrences, places, things, and people.

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:
Originally Posted by aa5874
And further, Jesus of the NT was not called Christus while he was alive.
And what is the relevance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
Jesus of the NT was called Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets, but NEVER Christus by the people.
And this proves .. what? :huh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
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.
True .. and? :huh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
And in addition, Jesus of the NT was crucified for blasphemy, not for starting a religion called Christianity as reported by Tacitus.
Tacitus doesn't say that he was crucified for starting a religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
The argument that Christus is Jesus of the NT is an argument from SILENCE.
Please find a single accredited historian to agree with you. :huh:
FathomFFI is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 03:50 PM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
In the NT, you have many embellishments of a man named Jesus. Some things are true, and other things are what the writers believed to be true. Things that defy reason are viewed as mere beliefs, while other things reflect actual occurrences, places, things, and people.
Well, tell me the True story of Jesus. Tell me what is fiction, what is embellished, and what actually happened.

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.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 04:01 PM   #48
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
In the NT, you have many embellishments of a man named Jesus. Some things are true, and other things are what the writers believed to be true. Things that defy reason are viewed as mere beliefs, while other things reflect actual occurrences, places, things, and people.
Well, tell me the True story of Jesus. Tell me what is fiction, what is embellished, and what actually happened.

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.
I have already told you what the historians accept as the truth.

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.
FathomFFI is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 04:35 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
Please understand that the name "Christus" is just a Latinized version of Christ.
You need to realize with whom you are conversing. There is nothing quite like it.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 06-18-2008, 04:41 PM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
I have already told you what the historians accept as the truth.

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.[/b]
I did not ask you what people believe about Jesus, or what people accept by faith about the NT.

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:
Originally Posted by FathomFFI View Post
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.
You still have not mentioned the evidence for Jesus of the NT.

"Too much evidence" is a meaningless term.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 AM.

Top

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