Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:01 PM

Maybe it's a reading comprehension problem.

Quote:

although each has a different view of what role the Messiah played. secular historians and followers of most other world religions (including Judaism) tend to regard him as an ordinary human, and some dispute whether he ever existed.

Read over the green sentence very slowly.

Quote:

This doesn't cease to amaze me. The only dispute was over Jesus's DIVINITY.

O.K., do you see now that the wiki articles disagrees with you?

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

I can't for the life of me believe this. You people are ILLOGICALLY looking at the evidence just b/c it could show something that you don't like. Sauron even admitted he knew of the council of nicea, constantine both who happened to be NOT biblical. You people say you want extra biblical evidence yet you ignore everything that is posted. Niceen Creed, Constantine, Council of Nicea, B.C. A.D., Christians, the man who jews rejected, you have to look at these things with something we call LOGIC. The council of nicea wouldn't have happened if Jesus wasn't a person. B.C A.D? what about that. When you look at history, like Constantine and the Niceen Creed then you have to actually LOOK at it, b/c stuff like that happened. For the rest of you who keep denying this and making comments like "put up or shut up" (which by the way...is really mature guys.), have you even looked at what could have happened with all of these events. And yeah the Council of Nicea was 300 A.D...that means nothing. Are you saying we don't have records of people dating 300 yrs ago? And if we do we should discard them rb/c they are to far apart, right? If you look at all of this evidence WITHOUT presupposing things first, just for the sake of your ego, then you might LOGICALLY come up with the conclusion that I have been saying from the beginning. The title of the thread is what was so intriguing, b/c I had never heard of someone not admitting that he DID exist, it is quite uncommon. And I'm talking about the historical figure Jesus, not the one from the bible, b/c that is the real debate.

Look, if you guys look this stuff up, or look at the previous site's I posted (I think on page 5 or 6) and still don't budge on your position, then I'm done. It is a lost cause.

Maybe we need to be a little more specific. By extra-biblical, we do not include Christian sources themselves derived from the bible. We're looking for something objective, something corroborative. For example, if the Romans had a record of that census, that would be corroborative. So, no, the Nicean Council does not help your case.

Sauron · 06-05-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

Maybe it's a reading comprehension problem. Read over the green sentence very slowly.

I tried that same trick last night, using the same text. Only I used red font on the text. He didn't get it then, either.

Maybe he suffers from red-green color blindness.:Cheeky:

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

The second objection that has come up a lot is about the credibility of the Bible. Now, I don't know if I'm even going to reference the Bible in this post but if I do I would like you to take it as a credible source, and here is why.

Quote:

P1. Gospels were written by eye witnesses within 40 years of the events described, there is a fair degree of accuracy here.

No, they weren't. No recognized scholar believes this. The gospels were third and fourth hand compilations of oral traditions written at least 70 A.D., and most later. You can't just throw out assertions, one, you have to back them up with (reputable, non-biased, not fundamentalist crack-pot) references.

Quote:

P2. The Bible is not just one account of these events, but atleast four accounts of relative accuracy.

Well, it's 4 accounts. How can we tell whethe they're accurate without referencing some other source?

Quote:

P3. The account given in the gospels agrees with evidence from secular and Jewish historians of the first and second century. (I will show the evidence of these historians later on).

No, they don't.

Quote:

P4. The Bible has been proven to be remarkably accurate in what it says about the ancient world. For example, in citing 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 islands, and many historical rulers.

It gets some geography right, other not, but I don't see how this makes it any more reliable. I mean, it was made up by people who lived there; I expect them to know where they lived.

Quote:

So if I do reference something from the Bible, understand that it CANNOT be completely thrown out.

Well, unless you provide some other evidence in support of it, yes.

Quote:

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth

. It would facilitate research of your claims if you would be more specific.

Quote:

The next Jewish reference is Josephus. He metions Jesus in "Jewish Antiquities". And two books earlier, in the longest first-century non-biblical reference to Christ, he tells of Jesus midway through his discussion of events in Pontius Pilate's administration:

one: This is what I mean about embarrassing yourself. You need to bear in mind how educated the members of this forum are. We all know that the only historical dispute about Josephus is whether it's a partial or complete forgery. No reputable historian accepts it as genuine. You need to stop using it.

Secular

Quote:

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable sources of first century Rome, wrote in his book "Annals".

Tactitus was not remotely contemporary, and he was only reporting that Christians existed. We know that.

Quote:

There were many other Roman historians that mention Christians and Jesus, but I feel like I'm exceeding the word limit. But you get the point. If you want me to list all of the Roman historians I will do so later

. Yes, list each and every independent, non-Christian, primary source from before 100 C.E. that refers to Jesus as someone who actually existed.

Quote:

Some of you think that this is illogical and you can mock me up and down for it, but it wont get us anywhere. There is no need to bring any kind of malice to the the argument.

Calm down, one, and look back at your own behavior. You've been a bit hot-tempered yourself. For example, we are not ignorant, and do not appreciate being called such.

06-05-2006, 10:20 PM

Hiya :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

We know the early church had a meeting and a vote and decided what parts to leave in the bible and what parts to throw out...

A minor nit-pick :

The Council of Nicea did not decide anything about the books of the Bible.

The canon grew over time, the final formal church approval came much later (Trent, 1500s IIRC.)

Iasion

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggazoo

Many instances in the Bible, including the controversy over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, has been substantiated by both historical and archeological evidence.

So show us the evidence.

Quote:

When Paul, James, Peter, and many others were preaching about the resurrection, there is no record, even in the Palestinian Talmud, of anyone ever disputing what these men and women had witnessed.

O.K., ggazoo, stop and think for a bit. Does it make any sense to you that the fact that one group didn't dispute that something happened is evidence that it happened? Maybe they didn't dispute it cuz they never heard of it cuz...(wait for it)...it didn't happen! Like,is there a record of people today disputing that they events described in Huckleberry Finn happened? Is this any evidence that they happened?

Quote:

So we know historically Jesus, His ministry, death, resurrection, and assension was real, and in His ministry He validated the OT, which also has alot of strong support historically and archeaologically.

Actually most of the OT is worse off for historical and archeological support than the NT, but let's not get side-tracked.

Quote:

Josephus was a noted historian and here is a passage he wrote in 93 A.D.:

See above post. It's a fake, ggazoo, stop using it.

Quote:

Another well noted historian was actually the writer of two of the books of the Bible- Luke.

We're looking for something OUTSIDE the bible.

You'll get a lot further citing actual historians and archeologists, not Christian apologists.

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:27 PM

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.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR!

Quote:

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.

See what I mean about not insulting people, if you don't want to be insulted? If you think many roman, etc., just cite the damn texts, don't accuse us of not knowing history. We're looking for something within say a generation or so, from a source other than Christian. Got any?

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one allegiance

Why are you waiting on me. The texts are there for you to read, I'm not going to do the internet work for you. Go to my original argument and research the texts that I metioned notable Roman and Jewish historians wrote. It is there, I didn't pull this out of nowhere.

No, one, it's your assertion, so it's your work. If we do the work, we will cite the sources that show there is no such writing. It's your job to come up with the evidence to support your argument. And no, saying that it's possible the evidence may be discovered in the future will not cut it.

Amaleq13 · 06-05-2006, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Does it?

List the contradictions here. Be specific.

No, list them in E/C where they belong with all discussions of evolution.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

TomboyMom · 06-05-2006, 10:45 PM

O.K., just to summarize and clarify: one allegiance is not arguing that everyone agrees that Jesus was divine or resurrected, just that there was such a person. And the rest of us are not arguing that many historians agree that there was such a person, just that there are a substantial number who do not.

one allegiance is also maintaining that many independent historical primary sources corroborate that Jesus existed (not that he was divine, etc.) but so far has not come up with any.

O.K., back to your regularly scheduled argument.

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

06-05-2006, 10:45 PM	#250
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	O.K., just to summarize and clarify: one allegiance is not arguing that everyone agrees that Jesus was divine or resurrected, just that there was such a person. And the rest of us are not arguing that many historians agree that there was such a person, just that there are a substantial number who do not. one allegiance is also maintaining that many independent historical primary sources corroborate that Jesus existed (not that he was divine, etc.) but so far has not come up with any. O.K., back to your regularly scheduled argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.