Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DavidfromTexas · 04-24-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Is this a joke? Let's see, there's the Pilate inscription from Caesarea Maritima, ...I mean, what exactly are you looking for here?

Vorkosigan

Very good.

Yes, it is an inscription... IN STONE. And contains only parts of 4 words. http://www.bible-history.com/empires/pilate.html

Are you going to say that Jesus did not exist because His name is not found among stone inscriptions in Palestine dating to the time that Jesus lived?

Do you really expect inscriptions IN STONE would have been made at that time for a person who was despised, rejected, and executed like a common a criminal?

Writings on papyrus may have been made referring to Jesus... Perhaps there were court records made... Or perhaps some of the religious authorites who despised Jesus may have written a few lines regarding their disputations with Him, but can you cite ANY of such writings that would have been expected to contain the name of Jesus?

Name JUST one.

tdcanam · 04-24-2006, 08:21 AM

His interrogation of the NT is wrong to begin with.

Starting the debate off with a straw man? Tisk, tisk.

DavidfromTexas · 04-24-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Wrong. The author includes himself ("we") as one of those who know that "his" testimony is true. This author was not an eyewitness, and was a different person than the one who "has written these things." That is, the author of John 21 is different than the author of the rest of John. The author of John 21 is not claiming to be an eyewitness, he is claiming that the author of the rest of John was one.

But how do we know he was right about that?

Good point.

However, you would need to explain why the author switches back to the FIRST person in the next verse which concludes the gospel. I offer the following link which provides a summary of the argument which includes first century evidence that John is the author in spite of the objection that you have raised...

http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/p...cles/oimai.pdf

tdcanam · 04-24-2006, 08:57 AM

It would be quite odd for John to write, "they suppose", when he was amongst the "they".

Does anyone suppose he is the only author to do this?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdcanam

Where are you getting your info from?

Where are you getting your info from?

Quote:

A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. Although many atheists state that Jesus never lived, He is mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Let us look at the evidence.

By "many," I think you mean zero.

Quote:

Flavius Josephus, a first century Jewish historian wrote of Jesus and the Christians: "so he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."

This is not really contemporary and probably interpolated but even if we accept it as genuine, it constitutes the entirety of semi-contemporary, extra-Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That's not exactly overwhelming.

Quote:

Other Jewish rabbinical writings, including Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, talk about Jesus and his miracles. Surprisingly too many atheists, they never denied that miracles took place, but attempted to explain them as a result of evil . More information about Jesus in the Talmud can be found at Jesus Christ In The Talmud.

It is highly debatable whether the Talmud refers to Jesus and the writings which are asserted by some to refer to Jesus were written centuries after the fact anyway. I thought you said there were contemporary references.

Quote:

Cornelius Tacitus wrote about Jesus and the first century Christians in his Annals (a history of the Roman empire): "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

This is proof only that Christians existed. There is no reason to believe that Tacitus got his infomation from anywhere but Christians themselves. He also gave the wrong title to Pilate. Pilate was a Prefect, not a Procurator.

Quote:

Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote ca. 52 A.D. attempting to give a natural explanation for the earthquake and darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus.

This is a common apologist canard. See Carrier on Thallus. There is no evidence that Thallus ever said a word about Jesus.

Quote:

Mara Bar-Seraphon wrote a letter to his son in 73 A.D. which tells of the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and of Jesus, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?...Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."

What does this quotation have to do with Jesus? Jesus wasn'ta king and the Jews didn't kill him.

Quote:

Jesus is also mentioned by Phlegon, a first-century historian

Phlegon is mid-second century.

Quote:

Lucian of Samosata (in The Passing Peregrinus), and Plinius Secundus, (Pliny the Younger).

These are also well into the 2nd century. We know there were Christians in the 2nd Century. So what? You said there were contemporary mentions of Jesus. What are they?

Quote:

Scholars have made statements such as, "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus ." The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries."

It's true that there is still an overwhelming consenus for HJ.

Quote:

Luke's gospel has been dated around A.D. 58 and 60.

Dated by who? Consensus for Luke-Acts is in the 90's. Even more conservative dates put it in the 80's.

Quote:

Matthew and Mark's have been dated 67-68.

.
Wrong. Mark is c. 70, Matthew c. 80.

Quote:

Peter was dated around A.D. 60.

1 Peter is late 1st century. 2 Peter is 2nd century.

Quote:

These men lived with Jesus.

If by "these men" you mean the authors of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and the Epistles of Peter, you're wrong. The authors never met Jesus.

Quote:

Peter was an eye witness and wrote 2 books in the NT.

Peter wrote nothing in the NT. The Epistles of Peter were not written by the apostle.

Quote:

Matthew and John where eye witnesses of Jesus.

Too bad they didn't write anything about it.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdcanam

John did not write in the first person perspective. He referred to himself as "the deciple whom Jesus loved".

What is your evidence that the "beloved disciple" was intended to refer to the author of GJohn? What is your evidence that the "beloved disciple" was named John?

Quote:

The "we" is just out of first person context. John is John and John wrote the book.

Evidence?

Quote:

(Did you really think that John let some guy put one verse in the middle of his book?)

It's not in the middle, it's an emendation at the end. Since John wasn't the author, it's kind of irrelevant how he would feel about it. The appendix was added later and was not part of the original text.

Dean Anderson · 04-24-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdcanam

John did not write in the first person perspective. He referred to himself as "the deciple whom Jesus loved". He probably did this (speculation with christianity in mind, not wanting to boast), out of humility.

Huh? He describes himself as being Jesus's favourite (not just a disciple, but the disciple that Jesus loved) - out of humility?

That's some strange definition of humility you have there - exactly the opposite of the everyday definition of humility.

Quote:

The "we" is just out of first person context. John is John and John wrote the book. (Did you really think that John let some guy put one verse in the middle of his book?)

So you are saying that we know that John wrote the book despite that verse - but the whole point of David quoting that verse was that we were supposed to be able to tell that John wrote the book because of the verse, not despite it.

Kosh · 04-24-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdcanam

A case in point is the historicity of Jesus. Although many atheists state that Jesus never lived, He is mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Let us look at the evidence.

..it really would be nice if the newbies would bother to read the sticky posts first....

rlogan · 04-24-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roach Clips

Nor do they have any physical evidence of a human Jesus, no clothing or any other artifact from his life.

One of the smug bits of fantasy "proof" in the Christian arsenal is the "missing body".

I have to hand it to them on this incredible turning of the tables. There's no body because he rose from the dead. See - the very absence of evidence is the proof he existed in the first place.

But that just does not wash. Why did Jesus need his body in heaven? Apparently, he has the only body in heaven. Everyone else's is buried. After all that contempt for things of the flesh, it sure was important to keep his own.

No, this smacks of total hypocrisy with all our bodies being unnecessary and Jesus having to keep his. Hmph. Some God. He has to go check his body out of the morgue in order to appear to us.

So why no veneration of the site of his tomb or the crucifixion? Because when you invent a story about the past, it is pretty hard to "poof" such places into existence. You can't refer to some pre-existing site since there was no site to begin with when you wrote the story.

Phlox Pyros · 04-24-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

But that just does not wash. Why did Jesus need his body in heaven? Apparently, he has the only body in heaven. Everyone else's is buried. After all that contempt for things of the flesh, it sure was important to keep his own.

I certainly disagree with much you say, but I just wanted to comment that I found this interesting. Thanks for the unique perspective (for me at least).

04-24-2006, 08:57 AM	#14
tdcanam Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 160	reply It would be quite odd for John to write, "they suppose", when he was amongst the "they". Does anyone suppose he is the only author to do this?

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

04-24-2006, 08:21 AM	#12
tdcanam Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 160	His interrogation of the NT is wrong to begin with. Starting the debate off with a straw man? Tisk, tisk.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.