Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 02-12-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Why is it not surprising that he does not mention God the Son, who came to Earth, and worked miracles that had never been seen before, and attracted such attention that vast crowds came to see him, and kings wanted to see him?

A very important question to ask, even though Philo himself would not have called him "God the Son" or even "Son of God", but at most "the so-called Son of God".

I had a long argument about this subject in the later pages of "The Beast" thread What's next? A movie that the Holocaust never happened?. I hope I'd been reasonably successful in it. I mentioned JC's Temple temper tantrum and why Josephus had not recorded it, even though he had described a riot provoked by a Roman soldier exposing himself (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.5.3).

Also, accepting blame with "May his blood be upon us and upon our children" (Matt 27:25) is not what lynch mobs typically say. They'd say "Death to Jesus!"

Steven Carr · 02-12-2005, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leonarde

Partial post:

That Jesus was "God the Son" "who came to Earth" is a faith statement (ie an explicitly Christian statement of faith). So what you are truly asking is 'Why is it not surprising that Philo wasn't a Christian?' . But if he HAD BEEN a Christian, non-believers would write off his (posited)(written) testimony as just so much propaganda/myth/fiction.....just like the Gospels themselves...

You mean if loads of named people contemporary to Jesus wrote about him during his lifetime, confirming the reports of miracles, non-believers would equate that with anonymous accounts written after his life time???

How would they be able to do that?

PhilVaz · 02-12-2005, 04:50 PM

Forgot a few:

Writers who most very definitely should and did mention Jesus of Nazareth or "Christ" or "Son of God" or "Savior"

Matthew: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD
Weight: 5,000 pounds.

Mark: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD
Weight: 10,000 kilograms.

Luke: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD
Weight 4,500 pounds.

John: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD
Weight: 2,500 pounds

Peter: dozens of references, c. first century AD
Weight 3,500 pounds

All the "Gnostic" gospels: hundreds of references, c. 2nd century and later
Weight: 5,000 pounds

Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD), dozens of references
Weight: 100,000 grams

Justin the Martyr (c. 150 AD), dozens of references
Weight: 500,000 micrograms

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 180 - 200 AD), dozens of references
Weight: 2,500,000 milligrams

Evidence for the Resurrection by Peter Kreeft / Ron Tacelli

Paul didn't exist, Mary (mother of Jesus, of Magdalene, none of them) existed, Matthew didn't exist, the apostles didn't exist, Pilate didn't exist, Ignatius of Antioch didn't exist, Irenaeus didn't exist, do I get the idea now? Would I be on the right track of the excellent logic of the Internet Infidels when I conclude no one existed who is mentioned in the New Testament? :wave: :rolling:

Phil Porvaznik

B_Sharp · 02-12-2005, 05:05 PM

BOB ALAN
How many people know Bob Alan Strictlin??

He is not a well known Celebrity, not a Politician, not a Newsman.
He is just a guy. Nobody wrote about Bob Alan.
No historical society preserves his house.
No artifacts of Bob. No pottery, jewelry, no grave, no tomestone.
No clothes of Bob, no furniture, no cars.
Bob is a very common name.
The only written record of Bob Alan is from his acquaintances.
The name Bob or Alan can be confused with hundreds of others on record.

There are no DVDs, no Audio, no Video, little written records,
little longlasting media. Oral, verbal is the primary communication.

2000 years from now there will be no or little formal record of Bob Alan.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-12-2005, 05:06 PM

Pilate existed.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-12-2005, 05:20 PM

Man, that "Evidence for the Resurrection" site is pathetic. It sets up the usual series of strawmen ("were the apostles liars?"), asserts them falsely as the only available "explanations" (all of which are founded on the unsupported assumption the the apostles ever claimed to have seen the resurrection. The site also thinks the gospels were written by their traditional authors) and then triumphantly proclaims that it has proven the resurrection to be historical.

My favorite bit is the utterly ludicrous argument that Gospels can't be myths (or as they put it even more fallciously- "the apostles" couldn't have been mythmakers") because, for some reason they have tautologically decided that the Gospels are not like other myths. Here is the best line and it's all you really need to read to get an idea for the level of argument there (boling mine):

Quote:

The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events.

:rolling:

Amaleq13 · 02-12-2005, 06:17 PM

Phil,

You have entirely missed the point that the list consists of non-Christian sources from whom we might expect a mention of the alleged historical figure described in the first four texts you listed. On closer examination, your list is decidely lacking in any weight whatsoever.

A single, anonymous story and equally anonymous revisions of that story don't really have any weight at all on their own.

We have no writings that can be reliably attributed to Peter so that reference drops to zero.

The non-canonical gospels are equally anonymous, inspired by the same original stories, and generally too late to be of any use so they are weightless as well.

Likewise, the Church Fathers clearly base their assertions on the stories in question so this circular reasoning renders them weightless as well.

Total weight of your list is zero though it could be argued to be less than zero given the nature of hot air.

Vorkosigan · 02-12-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

Forgot a few:
Paul didn't exist, Mary (mother of Jesus, of Magdalene, none of them) existed, Matthew didn't exist, the apostles didn't exist, Pilate didn't exist, Ignatius of Antioch didn't exist, Irenaeus didn't exist, do I get the idea now? Would I be on the right track of the excellent logic of the Internet Infidels when I conclude no one existed who is mentioned in the New Testament? :wave: :rolling:
Phil Porvaznik

Interesting. I had no idea that Ignatius and Iranaeus were mentioned in the New Testament.

Vorkosigan

PhilVaz · 02-12-2005, 06:34 PM

<< Interesting. I had no idea that Ignatius and Iranaeus were mentioned in the New Testament. >>

Well, I kind of worded that wrong. Ignatius and Irenaeus would be 2nd century writers. All right, those guys not mentioned in the New Testament.

OKAY, give me your absolute best book I should read, absorb, and memorize, proving the non-existence of Jesus. I'll check out a few. And you can check out the "pathetic" Peter Kreeft book Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel got nothing on Kreeft. :angel:

Phil P

PhilVaz · 02-12-2005, 06:42 PM

OKAY, I get one vote for Pilate existing. Hooray.

I guess if Jesus didn't exist, his mother can be tossed out. No Mary mother of Jesus, correct? Am I on the right track here?

What about the apostles? Was there a Paul? A Peter? Give any credence to them? Was there a doubting Thomas? Were there any followers of this mythical Jesus say in the first 200 years of Christianity? How about the first 1000 years of Christianity?

Did Ignatius of Antioch exist? Irenaeus exist? St. Augustine exist? :rolling:

I find the "skepticism" here a little hard to believe. I am skeptical of this much skepticism.

I don't post much, just a few creation/evolution notes here and there.

Phil P

02-12-2005, 04:50 PM	#23
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus Forgot a few: Writers who most very definitely should and did mention Jesus of Nazareth or "Christ" or "Son of God" or "Savior" Matthew: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD Weight: 5,000 pounds. Mark: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD Weight: 10,000 kilograms. Luke: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD Weight 4,500 pounds. John: dozens or hundreds of references, c. first century AD Weight: 2,500 pounds Peter: dozens of references, c. first century AD Weight 3,500 pounds All the "Gnostic" gospels: hundreds of references, c. 2nd century and later Weight: 5,000 pounds Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107 AD), dozens of references Weight: 100,000 grams Justin the Martyr (c. 150 AD), dozens of references Weight: 500,000 micrograms Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon (c. 180 - 200 AD), dozens of references Weight: 2,500,000 milligrams Evidence for the Resurrection by Peter Kreeft / Ron Tacelli Paul didn't exist, Mary (mother of Jesus, of Magdalene, none of them) existed, Matthew didn't exist, the apostles didn't exist, Pilate didn't exist, Ignatius of Antioch didn't exist, Irenaeus didn't exist, do I get the idea now? Would I be on the right track of the excellent logic of the Internet Infidels when I conclude no one existed who is mentioned in the New Testament? :wave: :rolling: Phil Porvaznik

02-12-2005, 05:05 PM	#24
B_Sharp Banned Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: CO Posts: 811	Bob Alan BOB ALAN How many people know Bob Alan Strictlin?? He is not a well known Celebrity, not a Politician, not a Newsman. He is just a guy. Nobody wrote about Bob Alan. No historical society preserves his house. No artifacts of Bob. No pottery, jewelry, no grave, no tomestone. No clothes of Bob, no furniture, no cars. Bob is a very common name. The only written record of Bob Alan is from his acquaintances. The name Bob or Alan can be confused with hundreds of others on record. There are no DVDs, no Audio, no Video, little written records, little longlasting media. Oral, verbal is the primary communication. 2000 years from now there will be no or little formal record of Bob Alan.

02-12-2005, 06:34 PM	#29
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	Kreeft pathetic? << Interesting. I had no idea that Ignatius and Iranaeus were mentioned in the New Testament. >> Well, I kind of worded that wrong. Ignatius and Irenaeus would be 2nd century writers. All right, those guys not mentioned in the New Testament. OKAY, give me your absolute best book I should read, absorb, and memorize, proving the non-existence of Jesus. I'll check out a few. And you can check out the "pathetic" Peter Kreeft book Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel got nothing on Kreeft. :angel: Phil P

02-12-2005, 06:42 PM	#30
PhilVaz Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: St. Pete FL Posts: 216	okay Pilate existed OKAY, I get one vote for Pilate existing. Hooray. I guess if Jesus didn't exist, his mother can be tossed out. No Mary mother of Jesus, correct? Am I on the right track here? What about the apostles? Was there a Paul? A Peter? Give any credence to them? Was there a doubting Thomas? Were there any followers of this mythical Jesus say in the first 200 years of Christianity? How about the first 1000 years of Christianity? Did Ignatius of Antioch exist? Irenaeus exist? St. Augustine exist? :rolling: I find the "skepticism" here a little hard to believe. I am skeptical of this much skepticism. I don't post much, just a few creation/evolution notes here and there. Phil P

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

02-12-2005, 05:06 PM	#25
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Pilate existed.

02-12-2005, 06:17 PM	#27
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Phil, You have entirely missed the point that the list consists of non-Christian sources from whom we might expect a mention of the alleged historical figure described in the first four texts you listed. On closer examination, your list is decidely lacking in any weight whatsoever. A single, anonymous story and equally anonymous revisions of that story don't really have any weight at all on their own. We have no writings that can be reliably attributed to Peter so that reference drops to zero. The non-canonical gospels are equally anonymous, inspired by the same original stories, and generally too late to be of any use so they are weightless as well. Likewise, the Church Fathers clearly base their assertions on the stories in question so this circular reasoning renders them weightless as well. Total weight of your list is zero though it could be argued to be less than zero given the nature of hot air.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.