leonarde

Posted by Ion: This is a strange statement. I've never seen a poll done of professors of ancient history but I'm
pretty sure if one were done and the question asked were:
'Was there a real human being called Jesus of Nazareth (aka Jesus the Christ)?'

the vast majority (over 60%) would answer yes. This majority would include religious believers
and non-religious believers.
Your version of historical inquiry seems an overly
simplified one.

Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by Ion: What do you mean "pompously"???? (Yes, I know what the word "pompous" means; I just don't see how it fits in
in giving an age of someone in the Bible).

Cheers!

Vanderzyden

So, it is upon these shambles that you rest your rejection of the Bible?

You find two fragments don't interlock, and yet refuse to consider their context. This is likely to be the source for much error in interpreting the Bible, both by its students and its critics.

I do notice that you don't explain why attention to content is unnecesary or frivilous.

Vanderzyden

Ion

I did, remember?

Psalm 145:9 is an absolute statement, so Jeremiah 13:14 should conform with it.

There are contradictions galore.
I am teaching you this one for now.

leonarde

Posted by Baidarka: No, but then Forest Gump doesn't pretend to be anything but a funny fictional story. Purposely written as fiction.

In the NT, on the other hand, Luke and John specifically say why they wrote their NT works and purposeful fiction doesn't fit into their own explanations.

Here's what I think you and Ion do (though rather
automatically):

1)you picture the characters in the Bible in your
mind's eye.

2)you sort out and remove from consideration those
who are famous for secular reasons (ie
Caesar Augustus, Tiberius; Pontius Pilate and other Roman administrators; Herod the Great; Herod Antipas and other kings of Babylon and other realms).

3)then after all the secularly famous people have been removed, you look at the people who are left and say 'gee, how come there's no (secular) historical record of these people?!?!?'

There's little or no such record because they were
'famous' solely in the context of particular religious beliefs and there would be no reason to mention them in non-religious records unless those beliefs impacted the Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians in such a way that mentioning them was unavoidable.

Cheers!

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Ion

The existence of Jesus is not historically established.

See:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html</a>
'Pompous' claims for the ages of people described in Genesis, means that medicine, history and science don't have any acknowledgement about the ages of Noah-like Biblical people, don't have even a single record of these people's existence in history.

leonarde

Posted by Ion: Yeah, those silly
professors of ancient history, what do they know!!



Cheers!

Ion

I disagree Leonarde.

If the Biblical claims were true, for example Noah living more than five hundred years, Jesus dying and resurecting, then these claims would be the most recognized in human history and knowledge, because they would be the most formidable facts in humanity.

They would surpass as human knowledge, anything else.

This not being the case, they are only obscure incoherent religious claims, with no history and science recognition.

Ion

What's my alternative?

Religion, with no back up by archaeology and physics?
No, thanks.

leonarde

Posted by Ion: I'm not at all comfortable with speaking about Noah and Jesus in the same post(s).
The Flood story I do understand to be allegorical and legendary. Not so with Jesus.

You post Well currently there are
about 1 billion people (out of 6 billion or so total) who adhere to the belief that Jesus was a
real personage. Most of those 1 billion people understand that Jesus was simultaneously divine.
In addition a few hundred million Muslims believe
that Jesus existed too (though they think he was
merely a prophet not divine).
How is this fact not "the most recognized in human history and knowledge"???

You keep saying that there is no historical evidence for Jesus but are unable to explain why
the people who have devoted their entire lives to
the study of ancient history (university professors thereof)mostly believe that Jesus was
indeed historical.

What archaeological evidence are you looking for?
Cheers!