FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-11-2008, 08:21 PM   #781
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
The passage in Church History begins as follows: Church History 2.4.2

Philo made no mention whatsoever of any Christian Church, anyone within the Church or any-one called Jesus and his disciples in his extant writings. And the name Philo is not even found within the NT.
First Eusebius is retrojecting his notion of the Church with the condition of the church during Philo's time. The two are not in any way alike. The house churches of Philo's time would be unlikely to have attracted the attention of a Jewish scholar in Alexandria.

Second, this passage only says that Philo was celebrated among Christians and nonChristians alike. That doesn't imply that Philo was aware of his celebrity among Christians.
What Christian Church was there in Philo's time? From what source did you learn about Christian Churches in Philo's time? In all of Philo's extant works, he did not write about any Christian Church at any time, nor did Josephus write about any Christian Church.

You appear to make stuff up or speculate on the "tendentious narratives", as you call them.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 02:58 PM   #782
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Mi
Posts: 25
Default

I find it hard to believe that someone can deny the existence of that many people in a document like the New Testament, when there were many church writers from that era attesting to its accuracy, and there are manuscripts of the NT dating from even the first century, and the manuscripts just become greater and in number and how complete they are the later they're dated. I think that a lot of atheists have a problem with reconciling the fact that Jesus might've existed and not performed miracles or came back from the dead in three days. Like it's impossible. Cult members make up stories about their leaders after they die all the time. And cult leaders like to make up stories about themselves while they're alive, as well. Just look at LRon Hubbard and his scientology, how he said he was "clear" and that he had made "clear" people, but that couldn't stand up to public scrutiny when trying to prove it in front of a crowd. It happens all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some sect leader performing "miracles" in that polygamist ranch in west Texas. Cult leaders' disciples make up things about their dead leaders to make themselves feel better. It worked with the apostles because they may have been drawn upon actual acts of forgiveness Jesus made to lepers or blind people, when he wasn't actually performing miracles, just forgiving them of sins that they supposedly commited that gave them the physical ailments they had. And it was consistent with his message of forgiveness and salvation overall.

That Jesus and the other people in the NT, and that they are for a large part historically accurate, is proven by the documents themselves. If you want to deny it....... hey whatever makes you feel better.
MechAnimal is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 03:39 PM   #783
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MechAnimal View Post
I find it hard to believe that someone can deny the existence of that many people in a document like the New Testament, when there were many church writers from that era attesting to its accuracy, and there are manuscripts of the NT dating from even the first century, and the manuscripts just become greater and in number and how complete they are the later they're dated.
Well, tell me what is true or accurate about Jesus, his disciples and Paul.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 09:43 PM   #784
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MechAnimal View Post
... and there are manuscripts of the NT dating from even the first century...
No there aren't.
spamandham is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 12:23 AM   #785
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MechAnimal View Post
I find it hard to believe that someone can deny the existence of that many people in a document like the New Testament, when there were many church writers from that era attesting to its accuracy,
What church writers from the first century attest to its accuracy? I can't think of any.

Quote:
and there are manuscripts of the NT dating from even the first century,
Sorry, but there are no manuscripts from the first century

Quote:
. . I think that a lot of atheists have a problem with reconciling the fact that Jesus might've existed and not performed miracles or came back from the dead in three days.
Most atheists actually accept that there was a historcal person named Jesus who was the basis of the gospel stories.

Quote:
. . .
That Jesus and the other people in the NT, and that they are for a large part historically accurate, is proven by the documents themselves. If you want to deny it....... hey whatever makes you feel better.
What about the "documents" of the NT shows that it is historically accurate? What are you talking about?
Toto is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 07:00 AM   #786
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Most atheists actually accept that there was a historcal person named Jesus who was the basis of the gospel stories.
I think you mean "some" atheist believe the gospels and believe that there was a historical Jesus, and their position is solely based on belief, since there is nothing from the 1st century to support such a belief.

I think most atheists reject the gospels stories, at least based on our informal poll, the rejection rate is about 2:1.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 09:10 AM   #787
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MechAnimal View Post
there are manuscripts of the NT dating from even the first century
Name one, and tell us where it is.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 11:21 AM   #788
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Most atheists actually accept that there was a historcal person named Jesus who was the basis of the gospel stories.
I think you mean "some" atheist believe the gospels and believe that there was a historical Jesus, and their position is solely based on belief, since there is nothing from the 1st century to support such a belief.

I think most atheists reject the gospels stories, at least based on our informal poll, the rejection rate is about 2:1.
This forum is not a statistically valid sample of atheists.

My experience is that most atheists accept the standard secular reconstruction of the history of Christianity as proposed by popularizers like Will Durant. They like the idea of Jesus as a humanistic wisdom teacher who would be appalled at the current state of the Christian church, and like to bash Christians for not following Jesus' teachings. It's one of those things that you have to give up when you give up on the historical Jesus.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 12:48 PM   #789
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

I think you mean "some" atheist believe the gospels and believe that there was a historical Jesus, and their position is solely based on belief, since there is nothing from the 1st century to support such a belief.

I think most atheists reject the gospels stories, at least based on our informal poll, the rejection rate is about 2:1.
This forum is not a statistically valid sample of atheists.

My experience is that most atheists accept the standard secular reconstruction of the history of Christianity as proposed by popularizers like Will Durant. They like the idea of Jesus as a humanistic wisdom teacher who would be appalled at the current state of the Christian church, and like to bash Christians for not following Jesus' teachings. It's one of those things that you have to give up when you give up on the historical Jesus.
But, from what reliable source are you making this claim about atheists?

I referred you to an informal poll, but, you now imply that "your experience" is somehow better. How is that?

How many atheists are there in the first place?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 12:59 PM   #790
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
...
But, from what reliable source are you making this claim about atheists?
I identified it as my experience.

Quote:
I referred you to an informal poll, but, you now imply that "your experience" is somehow better. How is that?
I have been a member of an atheist organization for some years now, which has a larger membership than the people who respond to polls on this board, not all of whom are atheists. I am also basing this on my readings of atheist opinion in the II Library.

Quote:
How many atheists are there in the first place?
Billions and billions. . .
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.