Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-02-2009, 08:40 PM | #41 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
07-02-2009, 09:15 PM | #42 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
-evan |
|
07-02-2009, 09:48 PM | #43 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
|
Quote:
Clement of Rome. Polycarp. The writer(s) of the Didache, hell, most of the writings pertaining to Jesus were written contemporary to Pliny. |
||
07-02-2009, 10:43 PM | #44 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Can you explain what you see happening in Acts and just what you mean by rapidly? The numbers in Acts seem quite small really.
When paul writes to various cities many years after christ the numbers still seem quite small, dont they? Quote:
Quote:
If we use the evidence in this way we are just the same as fundamentalists IMHO, insisting that we have proved this or that when the best we can say is we dont know. |
||
07-03-2009, 06:34 AM | #45 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 84
|
Quote:
Unlike the letter of Pliny the Younger, these other sources like the Canonical Gospels are not dated and could have been written through a wide range of dates. The traditional datings of the Gospels depend on the assumption that the authors were contemporaries of their subject and yet it appears that there is a remarkable lack of evidence for their existence until the mid to late second century CE. Matthew is assumed to have used Mark as a source & since Mark is dated by its references to the little apocalypse to 70-80 CE Matthew must have been written around 80 CE etc. Ignatius is quoted as being familiar with parts of Matthew (Circa 110 CE therefore Matthew is corroborated to exist then; BUT, Ignatius is a disputed & quite possibly fabricated / forged work in and of itself... Luke was familiar with Josephus' writings & is probably later - some time in the early second Century as is gJohn...so again we have no firm dates. (BTW..The undated Didache talks a lot about "The Lord" but not much about a Gospel Jesus. Even the Eucharist is referred to without reference to this Gospel Jesus; thus reinforcing aa's original point.) If you think I am just blowing smoke through an orifice, look at this summary of dates from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html Note how the estimated date ranges are pretty broad for almost all these sources and could be placed well after Pliny (- which in contrast is pretty tightly datable). Tacitus' reference to Nero has a much more disputable history & may be an embellishment or even a medieval interpolation. Anyways. Your statement that there are contemporaries to corroborate the existence of a clearly defined Gospel Jesus at the time of Pliny or earlier is no slam-dunk. The Gospel Jesus story does not appear to be widely known or promulgated in Christian circles & writings until sometime later. (See Doherty's summary of the second century apologists for a more complete thesis on this. http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/century2.htm ) I am no scholar & I am open to correction for my possible misunderstandings but I smell a rat & I think his name is Fabricatio Fictitious. -evan |
|
07-03-2009, 06:47 AM | #46 | ||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Quote:
The claims of the Church about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, must first be corroborated by external sources to have credibility. The claims about Jesus have not been confirmed by external sources. The secular writers of antiquity, like Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny that mention christians did not corroborate any claims about Jesus from the Church, or did not even mention that there were anecdotes, rumors or stories of Jesus. There are really only unconfirmed claims from the Church about Jesus. So far, only forgeries have been found. Therefore Jesus of the NT can be deemed non-existent until external confirmation of the claims about Jesus can be found. Quote:
Quote:
Jesus, in fact, was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, who truly transfigured, resurrected and actually ascended through the clouds according to the NT and Church writings. Quote:
Are you saying that Jesus of the NT MUST have existed or that I may be right that Jesus did not exist? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is simple logics. Now, the church writers claimed Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did exist, none of the writers, Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny, external of the church, that mentioned christians POSTED such a claim in their books. It is reasonble to conclude Jesus of the NT did not exist up to the time of Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny until new information can be found. |
||||||||
07-03-2009, 06:50 AM | #47 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
|
Quote:
|
||
07-03-2009, 08:10 AM | #48 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southwest USA
Posts: 4,093
|
Quote:
Do I think it's possible that Jesus was a complete fabrication? Sure it's possible. Do I think that his not being mentioned by name by Roman writers prove it? No. Proving the non-existence of anyone 2000 years ago is pure folly. It's simply impossible. Anyone with a thread of logic knows that the lack of proof for existence is not proof of non-existence. |
|
07-03-2009, 09:00 AM | #49 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
People maintain or hold a "position" based on the information that they have. No position can be 100% fool-proof when dealing with indirect evidence or information provided by secondary sources. Now, anyone with a thread of logic knows that ALL THINGS THAT ARE DEEMED NON-EXISTENT HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE. It therefore follows logically that Jesus of the NT can be deemed to have been non-existent since, like all NON-things, there is no corroborative evidence for Jesus. It is not folly, but logical and reasonable, to deem or maintain the position that Homer's Achilles, the offspring of a sea-goddess, is a myth, the same can be done to Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God. |
|||
07-03-2009, 09:37 AM | #50 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
|
Going back to the sacrificing.
I understand it as this xian cult had caused widespread damage because people were no longer going to the temples and were no longer buying animals and birds from the traders but were instead were gathering together and singing hymns which looked like illegal political association and refusing to sacrifice to the emperor god. However, a little bit of arm twisting quickly got people to return to the temples, except for some recalcitrant women deaconesses. AA, please explain why my interpretation is wrong. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|