 |
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
*sigh* It is amazing how so many people think they understand the idea behind occam's razor but clearly do not... :/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yog-Sothoth
|
|
Trondheim, Norway
Sep 2000
time: 06:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Your book, Lincoln? Is this it? Did you write a review for your own book and give yourself 5 stars? |
That's just so pathetic. According to the more sensible reviewers the book is utter crap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Black Knight84
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Some of us also believe in God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit also, which would make the simple answer "Jesus" inadequate. Frankly I looked around for an "Other" category and was dissapointed by its absence.
In my time I've found many who profess this "salvation by faith alone" use this belief as a cover for a variety of rather un-christian attitudes. As a kid (circa 1960) I got beat up by some of these "faithies" for calling them to task about racial bigotry. Evidently the avocation of love for God's children regardless of race was then considered a "works" thing and therefore unworthy of "faithies". I've been told by "faithies" that love, charity, humility, and pacifism were the sort of worldly things that Christ just hated and simply weren't good enough to take into account on the day of final judgement. I've been punched in the face for having the temerity to recite Mark 5 to a group of "faithies". Some have even suggested that it doesn't matter what a person does in life, so long as one avows faith in Christ. Yes, I've even encountered one who had the courage to suggest that a Nazis concentration camp guard, provided that he accepted Christ as his savior, would be taken to heaven in favor of someone who was guilty of the error of believing that both "works" and "faith" were desired.
IIRC there are passages in the New Testament in which Christ clearly states that in a true believers life the adoption of true faith should automatically lead to proper Christian conduct. If you take into account all that Christ said about love, charity, humility, sincerity, fidelity, temperance, and pacifism it's pretty clear that good works are also required of a believer. Those who do not accept this, who profess faith, and have an adequate knowledge of the scriptures are hypocrits. We all know what Christ thought about hypocrits. |
Man that sux. I feel for you man. When talking about the Bible and issues such as this to other people a Christian should aim to be considerate and understanding of the other persons' belief yet at the same time leave room for debate. I'm sorry about the Poll lacking in some parts. I guess I assumed to much when I put in the Jesus option: I assumed that people who chose Jesus probably would already believe in the Trinity but then there are the Christadelphians who don't believe in the Trinity but believe in Jesus.
Read my initial post again concerning the works and faith. The Bible whilst is crystal clear that we are only saved by God's sacrifice for us on the cross. That is what saves us. You can usually tell the difference between someone who truly believes this and someone who doesn't by how they live their life. If you truly accept Christ's sacrifice and you want to respond to his amazing gift then why would you want to go around beating up other people? In fact why would you still want to live your life the way you did before? As a christian grows and matures they increasingly realise this and thus the 'works' side of it comes naturally but I think we shall always be humbled by the fact that the 'nicest Christians' out there are only that nice because God made em that nice.
Without God we would all be living in Sin and relishing it! So for the Christians who can't associate their lives with the drugged up bums on the street, for the Christians who have never robbed or murdered or cheated on their wife, thank God you haven't! Jesus didn't hate love, charity and all those things nice. He created them, what he did hate was the twisted way in which humans use these gifts.
I think God is happy when we do good deeds and put Jesus in the centre of our life but always remember that the Good deeds aren't what saves us. If you had two good people, one was a Christian the other was not, then the Christian would be saved as he recognised the value of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for us, whilst the other did not and in the end that is what it ultimately comes down to. One cannot enter the kingdom of heaven by good deeds alone as good deeds by human standards are like filthy rags to God.
I'm upset that you experienced that kind of hatred by other Christians, I guess that it all ties up with the type of world we live in, and it makes the need for us to continually to turn to Christ more of a necessity because it shows that Sin still affects us all, just as Christians we realise the negative effect and we turn to Jesus for help. Concerning those Christians who did that to you, if they have matured in their faith since then, I would be 100% positive that they probably regret their actions.
You are right in that you can tell a Christian from their actions as they are trying to be representatives of Christ in this un-christian world. And yes I step back from my previous statement about there being 1 billlion christians in the world. After thinking about it, there are probably alot less, but if anything it just further strengthens the stance the Bible takes on this. See the Parable of the weeds. Tragic yet so true.
Godbless you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Black Knight84
|
|
Bytheway let me know on which chapter of "The Case for Christ" most interests you guys and I shall attempt to transcribe it. I am only going to do one chapter as any more would be unfair on the author.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jac de Molay
|
 |
Detroit
Sep 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Black Knight84
Where did you get this information from or are these your own assumptions? |
There is a LOT of stuff in this thread, and I only popped in to respond to this.
There is virtually ZERO hardcore evidence to support the claims of the New Testament about Jesus' very existence, miracles, deeds, and gruesome death.
The Josephus claim is bunk. Were talking about a 20-volume historical work in which Jesus is mentioned, what, in a dozen lines?  There were 40 chapters devoted to Herod alone and yet no mention is made of the slaughter of innocent rugrats that Herod supposedly orders when Jesus is born. If such a supernatural, all-powerful son of a deity perform all of these crazy miracles, then why aren't these massive Judaic and secular works devoting HUGE amounts of writing to this event?!.
As usual for Christians, they pick, chose, and interpolated the life of Jesus in the very rare historical works that mentioned Christ (e.g Tacitus and Josephus). The New Testament has been picked over, reworked, censored, edited, and reedited so many it has about as much historical merit as a Dr. Seuss book.
Like I said, I've form my own beliefs based on intuition, personal faith, etc., about belief in God. But, the Bible is the biggest piece of turgid donkey poop I've ever read, and has been singularly responsible for the bulk of mankind's suffering.
****-a-doodle-doo.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:35
|
|
Wow, this is a mess. Just tried reading the whole thread, and I can't say I'm surprised, but it is rather nasty in parts. Just in response to "Atheists are atheists because they hate god," I think that's a bit oversimplified. There are in fact people in the world who violently oppose the idea of god even while screaming that there is none; look at the people who take it to the courts. If I were to read "In Tooth Fairy We Trust" on all our coins, it wouldn't terribly disturb me, I'd just find it funny. Getting angry over another's "delusion" shows that it's more than just a delusion to you. If it's just smoke and mirrors, you have no logical reason to attack it.
But a lot of people call themselves "atheists" who are in my opinion more agnostic, who say "there is no proof that god exists," which is correct, as opposed to "there is proof that god does not exist," which is a malevolent fantasy. Trying to explain God rationally is a vain effort, and not worth the bother, but some of us try, and that puts even the agnostics on the defensive, since we seem to be invading their turf, so to speak. They act vicious just like "atheists," and I can't honestly blame them. People act nasty when you try to use their own worldview as a weapon against them, no matter who they are.
The question all comes down to whether you believe that there can be a natural world, to your faith in the power of science and the human mind. With all due respect, I think science and the human mind aren't all they're cracked up to be, so I follow God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you admit, Ockham does not support your position. Arguing that with more science would change his position is a two edged sword. Who is to say that your position would not be different, should the situations be reversed? |
I think the problem is you're misinterpreting modern usage of Occam's Razor, which is not solely confined to the spiritual debate. In this context it was used in its current, "secular" context, not the one Occam used. So whatever the intent of Ockham was is irrelevant to the modern usage. Again, he may have devised it, but he no longer owns it. The same principle is being applied to different situations beyond the scope of anything Ockham ever devised or envisioned, which is the nature of such things. What Ockham himself believed at that time is meaningless in this context.
quote:
Either, we can take the arguments at face value, and argue that they still apply today, or we are merely the products of our time |
Of course they are products of our time, all arguments are. That's the nature of arguing with the available information at hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jac de Molay
My pet rock can come up with a better rebuttal than that 
Again, address the point. Where is the voluminous documentation, OUTSIDE OF THE GOSPELS, that chronicles the life of this water-walking, dead-raising, commune-living, sandal-wearing, second-rate Bee-Gee member?
All you have to do is show me the stuff  |
That wasn't a rebuttal, I try to avoid these arguments. I just thought it was a funny malapropism. It's "hard evidence," not hardcore. Hardcore makes it sound like a wrestling thing, or else that you expect to find god in some really nasty porn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Of eyewitness testimony?
The part in 1 Cor 15 where Paul testifies that Christ appeared to the brothers, many whom are still alive to evaluate the truthfulness of his testimony.
|
That's not eyewitness testimony, that's one man, Paul, who himself was not an eyewitness claiming that a bunch of people saw something a while ago. If 50 AD is correct, we're talking almost 20 years later, if the events actually happened in c. 30 AD (see below). Does he name all the witnesses? Again, if the witnesses weren't even there in the first place, how would we have anyone to evaluate anything?
quote:
The Gospels are not one source, but many, written at different times, by different authors. Therefore, they can serve as corroboration to each other. |
No, because the theological examination of the gospels does not bear out that they are contemporary accounts or that they were written by anyone who actually witnessed the events. It also demonstrable that there was a lot of borrowing from the earliest gospels to the later ones.
quote:
Just because we do not have another historical source that corroborates what one says, does not prove that this particular source is false. |
Neither does it prove they are true, which is what we're looking for here.
quote:
Rather, we have the opposite argument that unless there exists evidence that does not corroborate these witnesses, we are to take their accounts as the truth. This principle applies to all forms of historical sources, and ought also apply to the Gospels. |
Do you apply this standard to other religious texts or stories of the supernatural? They are deemed true until proven false? Or do you just have a doublestandard with regards to the Bible? After all, nothing contradicts the actions taken by the Greek gods in the Iliad. Do you assume those are true until proven otherwise? How about the mtyhs of Osiris, who also supposedly rose from the dead? Or Adonis? Or Dionysus? Or Mithra?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
quote:
So why don't you believe them? They only claim that Elvis has not died, not that he died and rose to life.
|
Because Elvis is dead and buried, and people claim false things all the time, for a variety of reasons. Any report that a person widely known to be dead was seen up and walking around has to be substantiated by more than just a few people (not to mention a few people who just happened to be fanatically devoted to him) having hopeful delusions, or lying to get attention, etc. Would you believe that someone had really seen Elvis until proven otherwise, or would you demand a higher standard of evidence than their claims?
quote:
Define 'circulating widely.' |
As in, the vast majority of people living in the region at that time didn't have access to the Gospel accounts. So claiming that people could have come forward to challenge them is problematic, as we have no reason to believe there was enough knowledge about them yet to make such a stir.
quote:
Do you have any proof that corrections were actively suppressed? |
Arian Heresy, anybody? I'm not saying they were "corrections," but perhaps they were. The point was that
quote:
Christianity is open to their critics, the very fact revealed in that you can read the gospel of Thomas. If they were actively being suppressed, why would you still have the gospel of Thomas available, after all this time? |
Yes, Christianity never targeted opposing viewpoints for persecution. Like the Arians or Donatists. They were so tolerant of those different views. 
You even contradict this later on, pointing out Thomas isn't that bad. So why is it an example of something they should seek to suppress?
Regardless, it's not still around because it was carefully considered as an alternative to the standard Gospels. It's still around because it happened to survive, in spite of it being considered "heretical" by many.
quote:
No. Most scholars date 1 Cor 15 to around 50 AD. Are you saying they are all circular just so you don't have to deal with their arguments? |
That presupposes that Jesus was in fact crucifed c. 30 AD. That's why it is circular. How do you know the events it is based on didn't transpire far earlier, as some scholars have suggested (the references to Yeshua, being stoned many decades prior).
quote:
It takes time for legends to form, longer than 20 years. That's not circular. |
Prove that statement. Legends can form very fast. People still think the Amityville Horror is a true story, and that was in the 1970s. You're making a baseless assumption.
quote:
Are you saying that the evidence dating 1 Cor 15 to around 50 AD is circular? |
No, I'm saying the claim that there are eyewitnesses in the firstplace is circular:
You: These accounts are true because we have eyewitnesses.
Me: What proof do we have of there being eyewitnesses?
You: It says so in the accounts.
That is patently circular!
quote:
Finally, how does the gospel of Thomas in any way refute the notion that Christ rose from the dead? It is true that I do not accept the gospel of Thomas, but then again I do not accept the Apocrypha as Scripture either. Both are irrelevant to the issue of the resurrection. |
Strawman. When did I bring up the Gospel of Thomas? That was you. I never mentioned it at all. Surely you know that the Gnostics had more than just Thomas. At any rate, that wasn't the point of mentioning the Gnostics. It was just showing through example how "alternative" views on the supposed events were rejected and suppressed by the "mainstream" Christian church in its early stages. This was just to show how possible (and likely) it would be that any attempts to "correct" any false accounts of the resurrection would naturally be met with extreme resistance.
All of this loses sight, however, of the original point, which is a response to Lincoln's par-for-the-course derision of nonbelievers as being "illogical." This is as much a crock of BS as his failed book. The only way being a believer is more rational is if one takes a hefty amount of presuppositions to the table, and those presuppositions don't hold up empirically. That's not to say they're necessarily wrong, just that there's no evidence for them. The very nature of the word "faith" is that it is an unkown, something for which there is no evidence, but one believe's it anyway. That's not rational. It's not irrational, either--I'd label it "unrational" instead, which unfortunately still sounds bad. Bottom line is that while I wouldn't characterize all religious belief as irrational, I can say without a doubt that it is, based on what we know, less rational than atheism. Even the positive kind.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 25-04-2004 at 00:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Black Knight84
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jac de Molay There is virtually ZERO hardcore evidence to support the claims of the New Testament about Jesus' very existence, miracles, deeds, and gruesome death.
The Josephus claim is bunk. Were talking about a 20-volume historical work in which Jesus is mentioned, what, in a dozen lines? There were 40 chapters devoted to Herod alone and yet no mention is made of the slaughter of innocent rugrats that Herod supposedly orders when Jesus is born. If such a supernatural, all-powerful son of a deity perform all of these crazy miracles, then why aren't these massive Judaic and secular works devoting HUGE amounts of writing to this event?!.
As usual for Christians, they pick, chose, and interpolated the life of Jesus in the very rare historical works that mentioned Christ (e.g Tacitus and Josephus). The New Testament has been picked over, reworked, censored, edited, and reedited so many it has about as much historical merit as a Dr. Seuss book.
Like I said, I've form my own beliefs based on intuition, personal faith, etc., about belief in God. But, the Bible is the biggest piece of turgid donkey poop I've ever read, and has been singularly responsible for the bulk of mankind's suffering.
|
Interesting argument, however the amount of corroborative evidence that is outside the gospels may well surprise you.
According to Dr. Yamauchi, " [the gospels] are the most trustworthy, complete, and reliable sources for Jesus. The incidental sources don't really add much detailed information; however, they are valuable as corroborative evidece".
With this in mind let us explore this notion further:
We actually do have very, very important references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus.
The gospels themselves say that many who heard Jesus - even members of his own family - did not believe Jesus during his lifetime, yet he made such an impression that today Jesus is remembered everywhere, whereas Herod the Great, Pontious Pilate, and other ancient rulers are not as widely known (and most probably alot of their fame has come from the gospel accounts). He certainly made an impression amongst those who believed him. He did not, of course make the same impression among those who did not believe in him.
Before we delve into Josephus lets get a little bit of context on the man.
According to Yamauchi, "Josephus was a very important Jewish historian of the first century. He was born in A.D. 37, and he wrote most of his four works toward the end of the first century. In his autobiography he defended his behaviour in the Jewish-Roman war (A.D. 66-74) where he surrendered to the Romans instead of committing suicide like his colleagues, he then became a defender of the Romans. He was a priest, a Pharisee, and he was somewhat egotistical. His most ambitious work was called "The Antiquities", which was a history of the Jewish people from Creation until his time. He probably completed it in about A.D. 93. Due to his turn to the Romans he was disliked by his Jewish contemporaries. But he became very popular among Christian, because in his writings he refers to James, the brother of Jesus, and to Jesus himself.
In "The Antiquities" he describes how a high priest named Ananias took advantage of the death of the Roman governor Festus-who is also mentioned in the New Testament - in order to have James killed."
Here is an excerpt from "The Antiquities":
"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned" (Josephus, "The Antiquities 20.200. See also Edwin Yamauchi, "Josephus and the Scriptures," Fides et Historia 13 (1980), 42-63.)
So far the corroborative evidence is checking up with the claims of The Bible...
Basically here we have a reference to the brother of Jesus - who had apparently been converted by the appearance of the risen Christ, if you compare John 7:5 and 1 Corinthians 15:7 - and corroboration of the fact that some people considered that Jesus to be the Christ, which means 'the Anointed One' or 'Messiah'.
Josephus has also written an even lengthier section about Jesus, which is called the "Testimonium Flavianum". Now the following passage is among one of the hotly disputed passages in ancient literature because on its surface it appears to provide sweeping corroboration of Jesus' life, miracles, death and resurrection. The question is, is this authentic?
Here is the passage:
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesised these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day, not disappeared" (Josephus, "The Antiquities" 18. 63-64)
The passage first came into question by scholars of the Enlightenment period, after lengthy periods of debates, today "there is a remarkable consensus among both Jewish and Christian scholars that the passage as a whole is authentic, although there may be some interpolations" (Yamauchi in "The Case for Christ p.104).
It is believed that Christian copyists inserted some phrases that a Jewish writer like Josephus would not have written. The first phrase seems to have been written by Jesus and not Christians, "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man'. However the next phase goes, "if indeed one ought to call him a man". This implies that Jesus was more than human, which appears to be an interpolation. Further on it states, "He was the Christ" - a rather unambiguous statement and I don't think that Josephus would have written that. Josephus certainly said in his reference to James that Jesus was 'called the Christ' however there is dispute as to whether Josephus wrote 'he was the Christ'.
The third part which seems to be an interpolation is, "on the third day he appeared to them restored to life" this is a statement indicatin Josephus believes in the resurrection which he simply did not thus it is likely he did not write this.
What the bottom line is concerning this passage is there are three quotes we can probably take out. We can definately affirm that it was written about Jesus and with the exception of those three points, it was written by Josephus. But even without those three ambiguous points, Josephus corroborates important information about Jesus: that he was the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders".
Now despite the fact that this shows some important verification about Jesus, you are right to wonder why Josephus did not write more about him, if Jesus was such an important figure. Some skeptics like yourself, such as Boston University Philosopher Michael Martin has made this same critique:
"If Jesus did exist, one would have expected Josephus...to have said more about him...It is unexpected that Josephus mentioned him...in passing while mentioning other Messianic figures and John the Baptist in greater detail" (Michael Martin, "The Case Against Christianity". Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1991, 49.)
I think it is important to realise when rebutting this quote the context Josephus is writing. As Yamauchi argues, "Josephus was interested in political matters and the struggle against Rome, so for him John the Baptist was more important because he seemed to pose a greater political threat than did Jesus".
Now there have been some scholars who have portrayed Jesus as a Zealot or in the very least, sympathetic to zealots, so one would think that Jesus would certainly be more of a focus however this idea is a position that the gospels themselves do not support. As Yamauchi continues, "...remember, Jesus didn't even object to paying taxes to the Romans. Therefore Jesus and his followers didn't pose an immediate political threat, it's certainly understandable that Josephus isn't more interested in this sect - even though in hindsight it turned out to be very important indeed".
So we must ask ourselves after all this writing, how important are these two references by Josephus to Jesus?
Yamauchi asserts that they are highly significant for the following reasons: Josephus' accounts of the Jewish War have proved to be very accurate as they have been corroborated through archeological excavations at Masada as well as by historians like Tacitus. He's considered to be a pretty realiable historian, and his mentioning of Jesus is considered extremely important".
OK, so now what does Tacitus have to say about Jesus??
Tacitus recorded what is probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament! In A.D. 115 tacitus explicitly states that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself for the great fire that had devastated Rome in A.D. 64.
Quote: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus (Christ), from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty: then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" (Tacitus, "Annals" 15.44)
A leading scholar named J.N.D. Anderson speculates that this 'mischievous superstition' being checked and then breaking out again refers to the belief by Christians of the resurrection? Now whether or not you want to interpret it this way is irrelevant. As Yamauchi states, "Regardless of whether the passage had this specifically in mind, it does provide us with a very remarkable fact, which is this: crucifixion was the most abhorrent fate that anyone could undergo, and the fact that there was a movement based on a crucified man has to be explained".
Questions I would ask you, the sceptic would be:
How can you explain the spread of a religion based on the worship of a man who had suffered the most ignonminious death possible?
The fact is, is that Tacitus is an unsympathetic witness to the spreading and success of Christianity. We can see that this faith was based on a historical figure - Jesus - who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and it is significant that Tacitus reported that an immense multitude held so strongly to their beliefs that they were willing to die rather than recant".
As we can see the Christians based their faith on something more than an illusion as it has been alledged by various posters earlier in this thread.
So I have explored Tacitus and Josephus, however there are other historical sources which are non-christian which I shall now go into:
Pliny the Younger has also referred to Christianity in his writings. He was the nephew of Pliny the Elder, the famous encyclopedist who died in the eruption of Vesuvious in A.D. 79. Pliny the Younger became governor of Bithynia in northwestern Turkey. Much of his correspondence with his friend, Emperor Trajan, has been preserved to the present time.
In Book 10 of these letters Pliny the Younger specifically refers to Christians he has arrested:
"I have asked them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for , whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubborness and unshakable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...
They also declared that the sum total of their guilt or error amounted to no more than this: they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternatively amongst themselves in honor of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purpose, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery...
This made me decide it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from two slave- women, whom they called deaconesses. I found nothing but a degenerate sort of cult carried to extravagant lengths" (Pliny the Younger, "Letters" 10.96)\
So what is the importance of this reference?
Well it was probably written about A.D. 111, and it attests to the rapid spread of Christianity, both in the City and in the rural area, among every class of persons, slave woman as well as Roman citizens, since he also says that he sends Christians who are Roman citizens to Rome for trial. Furthermore, it talks about the worship of Jesus as God, that Christians maintained high ethical standards, and that they were not easily swayed from their beliefs".
Hehe, well I'm not finished yet buddy. There is also evidence outside the Bible of the darkness that came when Jesus was crucified! People feel that this was probably a literary device designed to emphasise the importance of Jesus' death however this is not the case.
Dr. Gary Habermas has written about a historian named Thallus who in A.D. 52 wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world since the Trojan War. Although Thallus' work ahs been lost, it was quoted by Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221 - and it made reference to the darkness that the gospels had written about! (Gary Habermas, "The Historical Jesus". Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1996, 196-97).
Yamauchi explains: " In this passage Julius Africanus says, Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably as it seems to me. Thallus apparently was saying yes, there had been darkness at the time of the Crucifixion, and he speculated it had been caused by an eclipse, given when the Crucifixion occurred."
This is what Scholar Paul Maier said about the darkness in a footnote in his 1968 book "Pontius Pilate":
"This phenomenon, evidently, was visible in Rome, Athens, and other Mediterranean cities. According to Tertullian ... it was a "Cosmic" or "world event". Phlegon, a Greek author from Caria writing a chronology soon after 137 A.D., reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (33A.D.) there was "the greatest eclipse of the sun" and that "it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e. noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea" [Paul L. Maier, "Pontius Pilate" Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1968, 366 citing a fragment from Phlegon, "Olympiades he Chronika 13, ed. Otto Keller, "Rerum Naturalium Scriptores Graeci Minores, 1 (Leipzig: Teurber, 1877), 101. Translation by Maier.]
So as Maier has pointed out there is nonbiblical attestation of the darkness that occurred at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Apparently, some found the need to try to give it a natural explanation by saying it was an eclipse.
Ok I think it is now time to move from the Roman sources and have a closer look at some other Jewish sources which will help corroborate the claims of Christ.
There are references to Jesus in the Talmud, an important Jewish work finished about A.D. 500 that incorporates the Mishnah, compiled about A.D. 200.
Yamauchi points out that Jews as a whole did not go into great detail about heretics hence there are only a few passages in the Talmud that mention Jesus, calling him a false messiah who practiced magic and who was justly condemned to death. They also repeat the rumour that Jesus was born of a Roman soldier and Mary, suggesting there was something unusual about his birth.
So in a negative way these Jewish references actually corroborate some things about Jesus.
Professor M. Wilcox put it this way in an article that appeared in a scholarly reference work:
"The Jewish traditional literature, although it mentions Jesus only quite sparingly (and must in any case be used with caution), supports the gospel claim that he was a healer and miracle-worker, even though it ascribes these activities to sorcery. In addition, it preserves the recollection that he was a teacher, and that he had disciples (five of them), and that at least in the ealrier Rabbinic period not all of the sages had finally made up their minds that he was a 'heretic' or a 'deceiver'," (M. Wilcox, "Jesus in the Light of his Jewish Environment," Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt 2, no.25.1 1982, 133 ---there is an umlaut in the O for romischen)
But wait there's more:
"When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them, " Yamauchi said. "But the fact is that we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion". For example, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000B.C., are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures were not put into writing until after the third century A.D. The most popular Parsi biography of Zoroaster was written in A.D. 1278.
The scriptures of Buddha, who lived in the sixth century B.C., were not put into writing until after the Christian era, and the first biography of Buddha was written in the first century A.D.
Although we have the sayings of Muhammad, who lived from A.D. 570-632, in the Koran, his biography was not written until 767 - more than a full century after his death.
So the situation of Jesus is unique-and quite impressive in terms ofhow much we can learn about him aside from the New Testament".
So you are probably wondering why I went into all this detail...well here comes the punchline. Let's pretend for a moment that we didn't have any of the New Testament or any other Christian writings. Without these sources, what would we be able to conclude about Jesus from ancient non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others?
(here's my favourite part)
"Yamauchi smiled. 'We would still have a considerable amount of important historical evidence; in fact, it would provide a kind of outline for the life of Jesus,' he said.
Then he went on, raising a finger to emphasise each point. 'We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth; he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reigh of Tiberius; sixth, despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside - men and women, slave and free - worshipped him as God".
Now this is quite impressive, howver there's even more that can be gleaned about him from material so old that it actually predates the gospels themselves which I shall go into more depth tomorrow because right now I'm buggered and I need to go to sleep!
Last edited by Black Knight84 on 24-04-2004 at 21:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
what is difference between:
- I believe in Catholicism
- I believe in Jesus
?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
My question is about the actual difference, I'm catholic and I believe in Jesus. So it's like I have two possible choices. You might actually ask a bit different:
- Catholic
- Baptist
- Lutheran
etc...
but they all believe in Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But what kind of evidential standard do you apply to religion? |
Since it makes claims that are basically scientific - such as that there is a god - it has to meet those standards. Otherwise, my religion could be that Newtonian physics was right, and then use it to annoy rational people ad nauseum by telling people to "deny Einstein, just have faith".
quote:
Such as? An example of where the two contradict would help. Remember, that there are certain assumptions held by science that cannot be applied to religion, the first one being an empirical standard for evidence. Science has no claim to the spiritual realm. |
Turning water into wine, perhaps?
And since the "spiritual realm" is part of the observable universe, it is subject to empirical standards. If it isn't part of the observable universe, then it does not exist, by Occam's Razor.
quote:
Excellent point. Why do I believe in Christianity instead of Buddhism? Because Christ died and rose from the dead. |
Why believe the claims of Christians over those of Buddhists?
quote:
I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation of the empty tomb admitted by the Jews after the death of Christ. |
You never thought perhaps he was removed?
quote:
Of course, I make several other presuppositions that need to be also examined in order to verify the claim.
1. God exists.
2. Scriptures are an accurate historical account of the time. |
Both of which result in circular logic, because those are exactly the presumptions I'm contesting!
quote:
This is the heart of the matter, eh? Why do we need God, when we can do so much ourselves? God is quite kind in that he allows us to make our own decisions, yet he also provides us with some kind of moral compass. |
No he doesn't. Only if you accept that one ought to do what God says, do his statements have any moral worth (even assuming he exists).
quote:
How do you explain the existence of your conscience without God? |
Nature, duh.
How do explain the existance of God's sense of right and wrong, without an even BIGGER "God" that created him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, does explaining away Christianity as a myth, really symplify things?
How do you explain the fact that the scriptures were written by eyewitnesses, in the presence of other eyewitnesses, and claims not to be a fable, but the truth?
Surely, if there were discreprencies between the account and the eyewitnesses, the eyewitnesses would correct the mistakes.
Finally, the simplest affirmation of the Christian faith comes from 1st Corinthians, which is written not more than 20 years after the death of Christ. Surely this is not enough time for a whole mythology to arise over the person of Jesus of Nazareth, since there are still living eyewitnesses. |
Do you also accept the truth of the Quran?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Black Knight84
1. People thought it was scientifically impossible to be in two places in the same time up until recently. However that was proven wrong. The following is an excerpt from my minister preaching about Science and God, the sermon was titled: "Why God when Science has all the answers". Just before you roll your eyes, this was not a sermon bagging out science. It was not a sermon intended to have Christianity fight Science. Read on and find out...
"I think we should be very clear about what Science has *not* done, because there is now a world of mythology that has now developed around science. Mythologies like this: the idea that science is a collection of immutable laws dictating how everything has been and will be for all time. Now there is an enormous amount of reliability in scientific knowledge, that is clear. The pioneer space craft was launched back in the 80's and on the basis of some pretty full on calculations that space craft has completed an incredible mission through the outer solar system. Those calculations were based on laws of nature that scientists could rely on and calculate on, but please understand that scientific laws have not been discovered written in some manual somewhere. All they are is observations about the world that we have grown to trust, they haven't failed us yet.
We are used to the law of gravity, we trust it everyday, but can I say that's all these laws are and that's all they ever can be. The idea that 'swans are white' is a truth that you can rely on until you discover a continent on the bottom of the world where 'swans are black', you see, it's that kind of law.
The history of science is full of classic examples where what seemed to be well established as law has suddenly had to be thrown out the window. Back in the early 20th century it seemed that Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations were going to explain the whole physical universe and all that was left for science to do was to fill in the gaps. Sciene was feeling pretty cocky around the turn of the century.
That was until two scientists, Rayleigh and Jeans performed their famous Black Body Radiation experiment where they found that Newtons' laws stop working when you get down to the sub-atomic level. In fact they never worked at that level as they were an approximation for macroscopic objects. Turns out there is a whole universe of sub-atomic particles and forces that had never been conceived of before, this is where the quarks and nuons and gluons come in.
Scientific laws are only ever tentative. This is real science, and the truth is, is that science can't absolutely prove anything. What science can do is show that one idea is false and that another idea is a better explanation.
We used to say that an object can't be in two places at the same time. We used to say that until Young's double split experiment demonstrated that electrons are in two places at the same time, it has to do with wave particle duality and the uncertainty principle."
~Tim Blencowe, Minister, Petersham Baptist.
([EDIT] Tim was a physics teacher for several years before he became a minister) |
One of the things science shows us is impossible, though, is walking on water with bare feet
quote:
2. I'm a little confused.. you say you studied large portions of The Bible yet the only answer you can come up with is.... "Nope, they accepted that God existed". Perhaps you should read one of the gospels again and see just how much it had to take for many of them to believe in him. I mean Jesus was physically in their presence and yet they doubted him, they doubted him when he calmed the storm, they doubted him when he fed 5000 people, they even doubted him at his crucifixion! Peter denied he knew Christ three times! Judas betrayed him! When the tomb was found empty by the women the disciples still didn't believe and they went and had to check it out for themselves! It was only when Jesus actually revealed himself to them in flesh and blood with the wounds visibly showing, yet he was in perfect health did they believe! It took *alot* before they truly believed in Christ. Yes of course they accepted that God existed, but look how much it took before they accepted that Jesus was the Son of God. |
They had problems understanding and accepting that Jesus was the son of God. They never had problems accepting the existance of an omnipotent creator.
quote:
4. Hmm well evidence for his miracles... Look up the non-christian sources, they support that he was a great healer.
The New Testament.. I know you will roll your eyes but many people who had dealings with Jesus (the good and the bad) were around when the New Testament was written and it wasn't contested that he healed many. Are you prepared to dismiss the Bible just as Religious Babble? This Babble that thousands of Christians died for during the Roman Empire? This 'babble' that the writers themselves spent enormous amounts of time writing and verifying and preaching at risk of their own lives...oh that's right you believe they were deluded! lol, I forgot. |
There are plenty of claims that other religious leaders healed many... but you don't accept them as true. The Romans and Greeks thought prayer to their gods healed many... but you don't accept that.
quote:
5. Yes Saul was 'religous' he was a JEW! NOT a Christian! BIG DIFFERENCE! |
Yup, but in relation to an atheist, there isn't. An atheist doesn't have any more trouble accepting one of the religions over the other.
quote:
It's like you renouncing your belief in Athiesm for Christianity! |
Intellectually, it isn't. In renouncing atheism, I would be accepting the existance of supernatural (I hate that word, btw) beings, whereas a change from Judaism to Christianity just lets me accept new things about the God I already believe in.
quote:
I find it frustrating that I am dedicating a substantial amount of time to giving your replies a decent response and you reply with one sentence answers, my apologies for being curt in some of my responses but your one word answers which do not do you credit, are the source of my frustrations. Anyhow I really hope people read this seriously and not think oh here's another do-gooding christian trying to convert us all. This is a very very serious issue which can't be swatted aside with .. oh is this a krishnabot? Or...hmm is this a standard dl post? I mean what the heck is a krishnabot? and DL? And NO I'm not a wandering missionary! I used to be in this forum under another sign in name. I spent alot of time here in the lead up to MOO3 which turned out to be a disaster until the patch came out but it is not as if I came here as a random. I knew this to be a good forum with intelligent people on it, that is why I originally posted here, because I love having good discussions! |
I just happen to be concise. You tend to write longer, more drawn out explanations. I just cut to the heart of the matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
ANY claim about the universe is scientific (well, it's in the realm of science, at least ). Some are, by their nature, untestable, but that's why we use Occam's Razor.
quote:
Just as a disclaimer, I'm not arguing to try and convert you, I'm arguing against bothering with the argument in the first place. |
Basically, you're saying religionists are trolls by their very nature, so don't bite  
I like biting, though
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Black Knight84
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1]
1. One of the things science shows us is impossible, though, is walking on water with bare feet
2. They had problems understanding and accepting that Jesus was the son of God. They never had problems accepting the existance of an omnipotent creator.
3. There are plenty of claims that other religious leaders healed many... but you don't accept them as true. The Romans and Greeks thought prayer to their gods healed many... but you don't accept that.
4. quote:
5. Yes Saul was 'religous' he was a JEW! NOT a Christian! BIG DIFFERENCE! |
Yup, but in relation to an atheist, there isn't. An atheist doesn't have any more trouble accepting one of the religions over the other.
5. quote:
It's like you renouncing your belief in Athiesm for Christianity! |
Intellectually, it isn't. In renouncing atheism, I would be accepting the existance of supernatural (I hate that word, btw) beings, whereas a change from Judaism to Christianity just lets me accept new things about the God I already believe in.
|
1. Scientifically it is impossible for a man to walk on the water. Fortunately Jesus wasn't merely a man (Peter was, but Jesus was helping him in that part of walking on water). As much as I would love to test this, by having humans as my test subjects I would be testing the wrong kind of people and unfortunately there are no more 'sons of God' hanging around waiting to be tested. 
2. And you think that, that is a minor issue? Jesus was killed for claiming to be the Son of God and his followers persecuted for it. Many other religions believe in an omnipotent creator as well. So you don't believe it would be a major life change for a Muslim to convert to Christianity?
3. Did their Gods do what Jesus did? It's all very nice to say that Romans prayed to their Gods, those claims are unverifiable however the claims of what Jesus did and who he was, as I've shown you are a little bit more than the claims about the Roman God's.
4 + 5. Well if converting to Christianity is not that much of a deal then why didn't all the Jews convert that easily? Perhaps it has something to do with their culture and their traditions. Look how Jesus was painted in the Talmud? With a very negative brush, oh but hang on, they already believe in an omnipotent creator so it's all good!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Black Knight84
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1]
quote:
I contend that the resurrection is the best explanation of the empty tomb admitted by the Jews after the death of Christ. |
You never thought perhaps he was removed?
|
Would you care to elaborate on this point? Who do you think moved him? His followers? They were too scared to go anywhere near the tomb and if they did the Roman guards that were posted there would have arrested them. So could it be the Pharisees? Ha Ha! Lol NO, they wouldn't have anything to gain and everything to lose if they did that! Perhaps it was the Romans Soldiers
The Pharisees in Matthew 28:11-15 came up with this argument:
"While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep'. If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been circulated among the Jews to this very day".
Well as we can see the Roman soldiers had nothing to gain by stealing the dead body. They were so scared of being punished they went to the Jewish leaders and followed the alibi.
So did Jesus' followers come during the night?
Well there are few main issues if that is true:
1. The guard on watch at the tomb happened to miss a few characters rolling away an extremely heavy seal that would take several men to move, it would also be pretty noisy in the movement process.
2. There was no watch yet somehow the movement of this heavy stone didn't wake up the guards
3. The disciples died for a lie they had created?
**Oh and concerning the disciples, I was a little mistaken, some of them still doubted even after Jesus was physcially resurrected:
Matthew 28:16-20
"Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the end of the age".
So it is logically impossible that the disciples themselves came and took the body, it is also impossible that the Jews or Roman soldiers did either? Can you think of a more logical explanation other than the one the Gospels claim?
Last edited by Black Knight84 on 25-04-2004 at 05:34
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-04-2004 17:20
I'm off to bed I'm tired!
To summarize: the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.
|