Amaleq13

Roger,

Apparently, I'm missing something because I don't understand your position. With the exception of changing "Christ" to "Jesus", I don't see any real difference between the two statements. I also read the entire passage you provided but I don't see how that changes what is being said.

It seems to me that Photius is criticizing Justus for failing to mention Christ and attributing that to the fact he was Jewish.

Is that incorrect?

Chris Weimer

Julian,

Perhaps you remember this debate?

best regards,

Chris Weimer

Zeichman

I don't recall saying ANYTHING about God's existence. If you're implying that one has to be a Christian to accept an HJ, that's a classic "false dichotomy." My point with that post was the also classic "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," because then darwinism would be thrown out, if such were the case, since "missing links" by definition are absent. It's simply poor reasoning.
A historical Jesus goes against accepted biological theories? I think you need to clarify. Also, God's existence is well outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Certain conceptions of God and Jesus may go against such theories, but I advocate neither.

Berthold

The debate somehow reminds me of the joke:"Shakespeare did not exist. The plays that are ascribed to him were written by someone else who was just known by that name."

It is one thing to deny the historical accuracy of the Gospels (which I do).

It is another to deny any kind of factual roots of the story (which I don't).

Mountain Man

Jesus.... god... if we're talking bible gods, it's the same.That's not my suggestion, but your strawman.Yes, your reply was poor reasoning. There is evidence for evolution. There are no "missing links." There is no evidence for gods, or this jesus. Both those terms, "Darwinsim" and "missing links" are strawman arguments used by those that know nothing about evolution or science.Miracles, virgin birth, and so on...Why do gods get special privileges? Are they outside the realm of scientific inquiry because science shows they don't exist?Right.

Mountain Man

The roots of this story is that the writers of the bible BELIEVED this jesus character existed. There is no proof that he did. It could have been one jesus, or the character could be a combination of several people, or one just built out of pure myth and legend. It's pretty much a useless argument anyway; it doesn't matter if a real jesus existed or not. The gods of the bible are myths just like those of any other religion.

TomboyMom

ISVfan--I would have thought you would have learned something from your experience on the E/C forum. Just as there, many of the people who post on this forum are very knowledgeable, and have spent years studying these issues (not me, I'm relatively ignorant.) It is unlikely that you, a young newbie, are going to drop some previously unheard of nugget on them. Some people here have read Josephus and translated from the original whatever-language-he-wrote-in, and read all of the critiques and analyses of that passage. There's probably people in this forum who have published books on the subject. So, again, to avoid making yourself look like an idiot, instead of bursting in with something you think is going to be news, pose your issue as a question. I give this to you as advice, my son.

TomboyMom

And the best evidence against Jesus Christs is that they do not fit within accepted biological theories, namely, mortality. The utter lack of evidence for them just corroborates my original suspicion.

Roger Pearse

No sensible person does, whatever their religion. Isn't every ideological movement started by some chap with a beard on a soapbox? (The soapbox may be optional, but the beard is apparently compulsory). I always think of Marxism. If Christianity had ceased to exist ca. 600, and all our information about it came from one letter of St. Jerome with only alusions to Jesus, we would nevertheless be fairly certain that such a man lived and founded the movement. It's the nature of things.

Of course there were some Victorians who hypothesised that the Christian religion was invented by a committee some time in the Second Century, if I have the story right. If so, this is a theory that has grown less attractive as our experience of committees has expanded. Of course in their day a committee tended to achieve things.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

TomboyMom

You posted this believing that it should affect our thinking, right? Like, since Josephus wrote that Jesus existed, we should change our minds and believe that he did. Shouldn't this apply to you too? If this is shown to be false, that Josephus did not write this, as he almost certainly did not, shouldn't you change your mind and stop believing that he did? Isn't that fair? Otherwise it's just "Heads I win/Tails you lose" argumentation, unfair, and a waste of our time.