Sorry, I will try to do that. I got into the habit of it when during the changeover we lost the edit function.
Christianity is the worst disaster in human history!
by happysunshine 59 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Satanus
Hoob
You can edit if you click on the title in the box just above the text of your post, in the new window look below, and click on edit
SS
-
gumby
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#83
Hooberus, Check out the site above.
I also read "Evidence that demands a verdict" and Josh Mcdowell's idea's. His idea's are weak. He isn't what I'd call a scholar either. He was a man who was bent on disproving a real Jesus but claims the more he looked.....the more evidence there was for a real Jesus.
There were many other church fathers who wrote contrary to the two you mentioned. The others saw Christians as looney birds. Many believe Tacitus, like others, wrote what was told to him and NOT what he persaonally saw for himself. The Story about Jesus had grown out of proportian by the time Tacitus or Ignatus wrote about him.
Heres and exerpt:
Turning to (b), McDowell and Wilson state that Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Origen died for their faith, and that Irenaeus suffered for his faith.[12] For their sacrifices to have any value at all as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, at least two conditions would have to be met. First, they would have needed sources other than what is now included in the New Testament. Second, they would have to have been in a position to know if Jesus existed.
Does the testimony of any of the church fathers meet both conditions? At the outset, we may note that Origen (CE 185-ca. 254) was simply too late to have been in a position to know if Jesus existed. Irenaeus may also be dismissed as a possible independent source to the historicity of Jesus since, according to McDowell and Wilson, Irenaeus obtained his information from Polycarp. Polycarp, in turn, is said to have converted around 109. While he may have had access to one or more sources independent of the New Testament, our knowledge of his sources is uncertain. As for Ignatius, there is no evidence that he had any sources other than the New Testament and so he cannot be used as an independent source. Finally, we have already noted that Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy and that his reference to an 'Acts of Pilate' is dubious. While he certainly may have had sources other than the New Testament, this is unknown. In sum, the evidence presented by McDowell and Wilson is simply too inconclusive to justify the conclusion that the church fathers had independent sources of information. Therefore, the church fathers cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.
I have more on this if your intrested
Gumby
-
hooberus
Many believe Tacitus, like others, wrote what was told to him and NOT what he persaonally saw for himself.
While one can debate about where Tacitus got his information on Christ and Pilate, the fact remains that he is a noted Roman historian, who lived close to the time of these events (AD 55-120). If he were talking about any other historical person, his references alone would be considered strong evidence of their being an actual historical person.
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus4.htm
How many references have to be provided to show that a first century person actually existed? The combined testimony of the independent witnesses of the apostles (the books were combined later into the new testament), and the church historian Luke, together with the Jewish reference of Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus should be more than enough evidence to convince all but the most biased observers that Jesus was an actual historical person. Its possible to list at least 8 early independant witness to Christ being an actual historical person. If this were anyone else there would be no question of their historicy. How many of the "other Jesus's" listed in the jesususnverexisted.com site have this many witnesses?
Polycarp, in turn, is said to have converted around 109. While he may have had access to one or more sources independent of the New Testament, our knowledge of his sources is uncertain.
Polycarp was a pupil of the Apostle John,
"I remember well the place in which the holy Polycarp sat and spoke. I remember the discourses he delivered to the people, and how he described his relations with John, the apostle, and others who had been with the Lord; how he recited the sayings of Christ and the miracles he wrought; how he received his teachings from eyewitnesses who had seen the Word of Life, agreeing in every way with the Scriptures." Iranaeus Pupil of Polycarp quoted in Halley's Bible Handbook p. 764
-
Satanus
"Its possible to list at least 8 early independant witness to Christ being an actual historical person."
Can you name these independant witnesses? You see, outside of the bible, i don't know of any. Or, do you consider bible gospel writers as independant witnesses? Further, anyone who got it second hand isn't independant is he? He is dependant on whomever he got it from.
SS
-
gumby
If he were talking about any other historical person, his references alone would be considered strong evidence of their being an actual historical person.
Other historical people do not make the claims that were said of Jesus either. Other historical people do not have the vast amount of negative evidence that surrounds Jesus. Did you even read the exerpt?
Like I ALREADY SAID.....other writers who lived when the ones you mentioned lived and their ideas of him are contrary.
An easier observation is to look at the same attributes given to deities BEFORE Jesus and then compare those attributes to Jesus. Christianity is a plain outright mockery of deities before Jesus.
Jesus dude.....what are the chances of a man coming along who ...walks on water, raises the dead, turns water into wine, dies and 3 days later and rises again, has sacraments representing his body, has 12 followers, is born of a virgin, is savior of the world, is born in a barn has 3 wise men who give him gifts, has a father named joseph...........and he isn't a copy of gods...before him..... who did these very things?
Would you be willing to read some info on this?
Gumby
-
hooberus
Can you name these independant witnesses? You see, outside of the bible, i don't know of any. Or, do you consider bible gospel writers as independant witnesses? Further, anyone who got it second hand isn't independant is he? He is dependant on whomever he got it from.
Since the writers of the books of the bible were different people writing different books they should be treated as independant witnesses. The fact that their writings were later assembled into the volume of the new teatament does not negate this fact. Also both Josephus and Tacitus are extra-biblical historical witnesses.
-
hooberus
An easier observation is to look at the same attributes given to deities BEFORE Jesus and then compare those attributes to Jesus. Christianity is a plain outright mockery of deities before Jesus.
Jesus dude.....what are the chances of a man coming along who ...walks on water, raises the dead, turns water into wine, dies and 3 days later and rises again, has sacraments representing his body, has 12 followers, is born of a virgin, is savior of the world, is born in a barn has 3 wise men who give him gifts, has a father named joseph...........and he isn't a copy of gods...before him..... who did these very things?
Would you be willing to read some info on this?
Gumby
I have already looked at some of these theories. This was also discussed on another thread. These arguments: 1. Deny that a real historical Jesus existed (a claim proven false by the references that I have given) 2. Claim that Christianity was the invention of the Apostle Paul (a claim proven false by the church historian Luke who gives the church chronology in the book of Acts which shows that Christianity existed before Pauls conversion) 3. Propose varuious Legends that Paul borrowed from to create Christianity such as the legend of Dionysus. It seems problematic to compare for example the death of Dionysus by being "torn apart by the Titans, boiled and eaten, with only his heart remaining", to the death and resurrection of Christ. Also while Hellenism clearly influenced the culture of the Jews, the Jewish religion remained much more resistant. This can be especially seen in the attempted forced worship of dionysus (see 2 Maccabees 6:7) thrust upon the Jews during Hellenistic times which led to the Maccabean revolt ! Pious Jews with separatist beliefs similar to the Pharasees were the ones who supported this revolt against the attempted worship of this false god. Therefore it is ludicrous to claim that Paul (a Pharasee) would incorporate elements of the myth of "dionysus" into the Jewish messianic hope.
-
Satanus
Hoob
It basically boils down to the bible, doesn't it?
If i remember right, the first book of the nt to be penned was by paul. After his litterary and organisational efforts, the supposed apostles followed along and also wrote. This was some 30 yrs after the claimed facts. I could say that the nt writers were a culticly flavored group following jesus, but it would be more accurate to say that paul was the ignition point of the christian writing phase. It was also he who started the majority of the churches, while those w actual claims of associating w jesus had been content to pass their time for 30 yrs or so lounging around jerusalem, or fishing or whatever, and reminiscing. Due to paul's virtual eclipsing action of the original apostles, and his influences on them, i would hardly call them independant. Even without paul's influences, they were not independant, by any means. As i mentioned, their little group had cultic overtones.
SS
-
hooberus
Hoob
It basically boils down to the bible, doesn't it?
I have already pointed out refernces outside of the biblical books.