Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 01-23-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

Non-sequitur. Did you read what I wrote? Do you think that "The Old Master(s)" is likely to represent an individual?

This is just specious word manipulation. Why do you put the "s" in parenthesis? Could not "Old Master" be a title of respect, like "Buddha" and "Christ"?

No Robots · 01-23-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think Hillel and Shammai are often put forward as possible parallels to Jesus.

Yes, indeed. I didn't mention them because I am not sure that they aren't attested to elsewhere. I have noted before that Hillel's biography is larded with the same mythologizing as that of Christ.

xunzian · 01-23-2008, 10:29 AM

For whom, that is the question. This "man" has no family, no other name, no nothing. Most unusual indeed! As for the (s), in Chinese plurals aren't defined, so the word for "master" is the same as the word for "masters". Given the disjointed nature of the Laozi, it seems quite reasonable to think that it had a variety of sources for its inspiration. If nothing else, look at the sharp internal division between the "de" and "dao" parts of th text.

No Robots · 01-23-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

For whom, that is the question. This "man" has no family, no other name, no nothing. Most unusual indeed! As for the (s), in Chinese plurals aren't defined, so the word for "master" is the same as the word for "masters". Given the disjointed nature of the Laozi, it seems quite reasonable to think that it had a variety of sources for its inspiration. If nothing else, look at the sharp internal division between the "de" and "dao" parts of th text.

Quite a stretch to non-existence. But we're used to that around here, aren't we?

xunzian · 01-23-2008, 10:52 AM

You still aren't providing any evidence for his existence, when there is plenty of good evidence to suggest that he didn't. There is no stretching what-so-ever. A lot of scholars don't think he existed at all, and if he did the relationship between him and the book bearing his name is pretty tenuous. I'm thinkin' you just don't know much about the topic at hand and are side-stepping the issue here.

arnoldo · 01-23-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonasaberg

I'm currently involved in a debate about a historical Jesus. My position is simply that the available material is extremely poor and there is no way you can say with certainty that Jesus of the bible actually existed.

I see where the discussion inevitably is going; that such a position is equal to not being able to claim that other historical figures existed, such as Julius Ceasar or Alexander the Great. My question is; is there any widely accepted historical figure whose existence is based on similar (i.e poor) evidence as Jesus is?
How should one create a good rebuttal to claims like this?

We seem to have a lot of copies of the New Testament(NT) and any historical inaccuracies could have been readily disproven by the historians of that age.

Author_______WhenWritten______ Earliest Copy_______Time Span___ No.Copies
Homer (Iliad)__ 900 BC__________ 400 BC________ 500 years__________ 643

NT__________ 50 - 90 A.D__________130AD____________30years_________24,0 00

Toto · 01-23-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonasaberg

I'm currently involved in a debate about a historical Jesus. My position is simply that the available material is extremely poor and there is no way you can say with certainty that Jesus of the bible actually existed.

I see where the discussion inevitably is going; that such a position is equal to not being able to claim that other historical figures existed, such as Julius Ceasar or Alexander the Great. My question is; is there any widely accepted historical figure whose existence is based on similar (i.e poor) evidence as Jesus is?
How should one create a good rebuttal to claims like this?

We seem to have a lot of copies of the New Testament(NT) and any historical inaccuracies could have been readily disproven by the historians of that age.

Author_______WhenWritten______ Earliest Copy_______Time Span___ No.Copies
Homer (Iliad)__ 900 BC__________ 400 BC________ 500 years__________ 643

NT__________ 50 - 90 A.D__________130AD____________30years_________24,0 00

We don't have any early copies of the NT, and we don't know of any historians who even examined the NT as a historical document.

Your "earliest copy" of the NT is actually the earliest date for a fragment of the fourth gospel.

But if you want to compare the accuracy of the NT with the accuracy of Homer, be my guest.

arnoldo · 01-23-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

We seem to have a lot of copies of the New Testament(NT) and any historical inaccuracies could have been readily disproven by the historians of that age.

Author_______WhenWritten______ Earliest Copy_______Time Span___ No.Copies
Homer (Iliad)__ 900 BC__________ 400 BC________ 500 years__________ 643

NT__________ 50 - 90 A.D__________130AD____________30years_________24,0 00

We don't have any early copies of the NT, and we don't know of any historians who even examined the NT as a historical document.

Your "earliest copy" of the NT is actually the earliest date for a fragment of the fourth gospel.

But if you want to compare the accuracy of the NT with the accuracy of Homer, be my guest.

Do you have any sources that determine the earliest date of the complete NT and not just a fragment of the fourth gospel?

No Robots · 01-23-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

A lot of scholars don't think he existed at all, and if he did the relationship between him and the book bearing his name is pretty tenuous.

I'm sure China will soon rival the West in eliminating cultural geniuses from history.

01-23-2008, 12:42 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

We seem to have a lot of copies of the New Testament(NT)

We seem to have a lot of copies of Dianetics - millions - far far MORE than the NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

and any historical inaccuracies could have been readily disproven by the historians of that age.

Any historical inaccuracies in Dianetics could have been readily disproven by the historians of our age.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

NT__________ 50 - 90 A.D__________130AD____________30years_________24,0 00

The NT was NOT all written from 50-90.
We do NOT have a copy of the NT from 130AD.

Iasion

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

01-23-2008, 10:29 AM	#13
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	For whom, that is the question. This "man" has no family, no other name, no nothing. Most unusual indeed! As for the (s), in Chinese plurals aren't defined, so the word for "master" is the same as the word for "masters". Given the disjointed nature of the Laozi, it seems quite reasonable to think that it had a variety of sources for its inspiration. If nothing else, look at the sharp internal division between the "de" and "dao" parts of th text.

01-23-2008, 10:52 AM	#15
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	You still aren't providing any evidence for his existence, when there is plenty of good evidence to suggest that he didn't. There is no stretching what-so-ever. A lot of scholars don't think he existed at all, and if he did the relationship between him and the book bearing his name is pretty tenuous. I'm thinkin' you just don't know much about the topic at hand and are side-stepping the issue here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.