Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 391 of 517 (516203)
07-24-2009 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Theodoric
07-21-2009 9:18 AM


Re: Jehovah Witnesses are STILL a Christian cult
Ok there may have been a bit of a misunderstanding.
The gnostics or protognostics were there early in the church. To say they developed 300 years after is not true.
The gnostics (and protognostics) were there early, as John seems to be writing to the church to warn them against teachings that can be recognized in gnosticism in his 3 letters. This is about 2-3 generations after the Death of Jesus (around 30, +20years/generation gives around 70-90 years after christ.)
This is when the controversy pretty much starts, where some people come to think that Jesus may not be God after all (by that time John is probablyon of the few eye-witness still alive). It will only be officially resolved in the church in the 4th century (300-...) during the counsils.
This is sort of a resume of what I've been saying. (or trying)
You keep talking about eyewitnesses. What is this eyewitness testimony? The NT? You do realize that all of the gospels are dated quite well after the supposed crucifixion of this Jesus. If you are going to claim eyewitness, provide some evidence.
The Gospels are thought to have been written when ... like 30-60 years after the death of Jesus ? (which is logic since it is around that time that eye-witnesses would have started to 'die out' so to speak). With the oldest 'fragments' and manuscripts of these being 25 years after the originals.
Considering that the oldest manuscript of Julius Ceasar's Gallic Wars is dated at 1000 years after the original writing, yet no one is doubting its accuracy as an eye-witness account. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gospels as coming from eye-witness sources either.
This is not even considering that there are over 24 000 manuscripts of these Gospels dated from every century and epochs. (compared to only ten for Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars)
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2009 9:18 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Theodoric, posted 07-24-2009 4:59 AM slevesque has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 392 of 517 (516208)
07-24-2009 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 391 by slevesque
07-24-2009 3:34 AM


Caesar, Jesus compare
Considering that the oldest manuscript of Julius Ceasar's Gallic Wars is dated at 1000 years after the original writing, yet no one is doubting its accuracy as an eye-witness account. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gospels as coming from eye-witness sources either.
There are hundreds of documents that verify and validate the existence of Julius Caesar and his writings. This is a lame argument with NO basis in reality.
We even have coins with Caesar name and image. What do we have with Jesus name and image? Here is a quick list of contemporaries(means they lived at same time) that wrote about Caesar.
quote:
Sallust
Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".
Nepos
Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".
Catullus
Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".
Asinius Pollio
Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.
Virgil
Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".
Source
Caesar’s De bello Gallico also be shown to reflect historical events when compared to other sources. Also, you make it sound like there is no evidence for the manuscript for 1000 years after its writing. It is referred to extensively in that period. The first probably before 46 B.C.E. by Cicero in "Brutus, or the History of Eloquence". That there is not an original copy does nothing to diminish the validity of the text. This argument is disingenuous at best and an out right lie at its worst.
In comparison there is NO evidence of the historicity of christ or anything in the gospels other than the gospels themselves. This is not a true comparison. It is intellectual dishonesty to state it is.
30-60 years after the death of Jesus ? (which is logic since it is around that time that eye-witnesses would have started to 'die out' so to speak)
Again, I need to ask. Do you have any extrabiblical evidence? We know you have no contemporary evidence.
Edited by Theodoric, : spelling
Edited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by slevesque, posted 07-24-2009 3:34 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by slevesque, posted 07-24-2009 6:40 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 394 by slevesque, posted 07-24-2009 6:46 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 397 by jaywill, posted 07-24-2009 12:46 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 393 of 517 (516218)
07-24-2009 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Theodoric
07-24-2009 4:59 AM


WOAH!
I got to say that I am more then surprised by your aggressive answer .. :S
There are hundreds of documents that verify and validate the existence of Julius Caesar and his writings. This is a lame argument with NO basis in reality.
We even have coins with Caesar name and image. What do we have with Jesus name and image? Here is a quick list of contemporaries(means they lived at same time) that wrote about Caesar.
Where did I say that I was doubting Caesar existed ? I don't know if this was intentional or no, but it is a bit of a strawman of what I was saying. The manuscript I was referring to concerning Caesar was his account of the Gallic wars, and that even though the earliest manuscript we have is 1000 years after the original, no one questions its authenticity as being accurate of Caesar's original. This was simply to show that we tend to make the biblical manuscripts pass 'tests' that we don't on other manuscripts.
Caesar’s De bello Gallico also be shown to reflect historical events when compared to other sources. Also, you make it sound like there is no evidence for the manuscript for 1000 years after its writing. It is referred to extensively in that period. The first probably before 46 B.C.E. by Cicero in "Brutus, or the History of Eloquence". That there is not an original copy does nothing to diminish the validity of the text.
I would agree totally with you, and would even suggest that this last suggestion of yours equally applies on the gospel manuscripts
In comparison there is NO evidence of the historicity of christ or anything in the gospels other than the gospels themselves. This is not a true comparison. It is intellectual dishonesty to state it is.
Josephus makes reference to Jesus and even goes to say that he was performing amazing miracles. This is outside proof of the existence of Jesus.
Besides, It is not valid to disqualify the gospels as affirmative proof in favor of the existence of Jesus simply because they are the Gospels. They are historical manuscripts of the same sort as any other. The fact that they were elevated to the point of divine inspiration by a religion afterwards does not take away their status of historical document.
As another example, How many documents do we have of the existence of Socrate ? Not many, all of the ones we have come from Aristote (Socrate's ''disciple'' if I can use that term) referring to his teachings. And yet I'm sure you do not doubt that Socrate did exist, even though their are far less evidence of the existence of Socrate than Jesus.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Theodoric, posted 07-24-2009 4:59 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Brian, posted 07-24-2009 10:57 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 407 by Theodoric, posted 07-31-2009 10:21 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 394 of 517 (516219)
07-24-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Theodoric
07-24-2009 4:59 AM


Re: Caesar, Jesus compare
Again, I need to ask. Do you have any extrabiblical evidence? We know you have no contemporary evidence
I'm not a professional in historical documents, but there seems to be little to no debate amongst scholars and historians alike about the years of writing of the Gospels.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Theodoric, posted 07-24-2009 4:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 395 of 517 (516254)
07-24-2009 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by jaywill
07-23-2009 9:30 AM


Jehovah Witnesses are STILL a Christian cult
Jaywill,
I admire your patience in presenting the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to this forum. When Christian cults reject the truth of the Bible, then you get "red herring" questions such as "What is the definition of God?" One of Jesus' disciples asked Him that same question in John 14:8, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus replied, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
Until unbelievers such as Jehovah Witnesses and others at this forum come to a saving knowledge that Jesus is Lord God and they are willing to surrender their lives to His Lordship, it is a waste of our time to continue answering "red herring" questions.
Blessings in Christ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by jaywill, posted 07-23-2009 9:30 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:59 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 396 of 517 (516257)
07-24-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by slevesque
07-24-2009 6:40 AM


Re: WOAH!
Josephus makes reference to Jesus and even goes to say that he was performing amazing miracles. This is outside proof of the existence of Jesus.
One of the most famous forgeries in all of Christendom.
Even if it wasn't forged though, it still isn't proof that Jesus existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by slevesque, posted 07-24-2009 6:40 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by jaywill, posted 07-24-2009 12:52 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 399 by jaywill, posted 07-24-2009 1:00 PM Brian has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 397 of 517 (516279)
07-24-2009 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Theodoric
07-24-2009 4:59 AM


Re: Caesar, Jesus compare
That there is not an original copy does nothing to diminish the validity of the text. This argument is disingenuous at best and an out right lie at its worst.
Do you have a double standard ? Why don't you go tell some of your skeptical buddies that the same should apply to the New Testament ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Theodoric, posted 07-24-2009 4:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 398 of 517 (516282)
07-24-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Brian
07-24-2009 10:57 AM


Re: WOAH!
One of the most famous forgeries in all of Christendom.
When was it first proposed that Josephus's reference to Jesus was a forgery ? Give me the year of the first record of this complaint.
Could you indicate someone within, say, a six hundred year period from the time of those writings that sited them as forgeries ?
Bold claims like these seem more likely to be made the further away from the history we get. For example, perhaps 1,000 years from now someone might confidently protest that Theodoric actually did NOT participate in this Internet discussion.
Protesting that now would be considered a frivolous and bogus claim. Given enough passage of centries someone might boldly assert that your participation in this conversation was a forgery and part of a conspiracy of some devious people.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Brian, posted 07-24-2009 10:57 AM Brian has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 399 of 517 (516286)
07-24-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Brian
07-24-2009 10:57 AM


Re: WOAH!
Is this OFF TOPIC ?
You're pretty familiar with this Forum. Are we about to go OFF TOPIC here ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Brian, posted 07-24-2009 10:57 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Rahvin, posted 07-24-2009 1:57 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 400 of 517 (516296)
07-24-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by jaywill
07-24-2009 1:00 PM


Re: WOAH!
Is this OFF TOPIC ?
You're pretty familiar with this Forum. Are we about to go OFF TOPIC here ?
Not at all. Brian is completely correct: even if Josephus' writings were not fabricated, they still are not evidence of Jesus' existence or that he performed miracles.
Josephus is not a primary source. He does not claim to have directly observed Jesus or any miracles. He is simply reporting what other people are saying.
I saw a poster on a telephone pole the other night advertising an author speaking about Maitreya, the World Teacher. Supposedly he is roaming the world, preparing to lead us out of an imminent global catastrophe and into a new age of peace and understanding and spiritual truth. Maitreya is not actually going to be at the event, of course...just an author who will talk about him.
Is any of this, the poster, the author, actually evidence that this "Maitreya" actually exists? That he performs miracles? That a global calamity is actually imminent? Lots of people believe it. Does that make it accurate?
We still have no actual contemporary sources supporting Jesus' existence, that he performed miracles, that he was raised from the dead, etc. The Gospels are contemporary to Jesus as much as I, born in 1981, am contemporary to WWII (and in some cases, the Civil War). Josephus is the same, except he doesn't even pretend to be a primary source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by jaywill, posted 07-24-2009 1:00 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 1:13 AM Rahvin has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 401 of 517 (516442)
07-25-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Rahvin
07-24-2009 1:57 PM


Re: WOAH!
The case of Jesus's existence is at the very worse, the same as Socrate. Yet I have never encountered anyone in philosophy (nor anywhere else) who doubts Socrate existed.
Same situation with Mohammed. We have no proof he existed other than the Qur'an. Same with Bouddha. Yet no one doubts they existed. Same with Jacques Cartier, or many of the egyptians Kings who were recorded by Manetho (who was not contemporary to them) and of which we have no outside proof. Yet no egyptians archaeologist or historian doubt they pretty much all existed.
This is all very revealing to the fact that Jesus has to pass tests that are not applied to any other figures in history. + the fact that the eye-witness accounts of Jesus that we do have, also have to pass tests that no other manuscripts have to pass and you can easily figure that the problem is not with the information available, but with the reluctance some skeptics have towards Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Rahvin, posted 07-24-2009 1:57 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2009 3:15 AM slevesque has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 402 of 517 (516447)
07-25-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by John 10:10
07-24-2009 10:50 AM


Re: Redherring Questions
i know its hard to give the definition of 'God' when you believe that Jesus is God
the answer doesnt add up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by John 10:10, posted 07-24-2009 10:50 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by John 10:10, posted 07-25-2009 8:09 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 403 of 517 (516448)
07-25-2009 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by slevesque
07-25-2009 1:13 AM


Re: WOAH!
The case of Jesus's existence is at the very worse, the same as Socrate. Yet I have never encountered anyone in philosophy (nor anywhere else) who doubts Socrate existed.
You mean Socrates?
From Wiki:
quote:
Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle are the main sources for the historical Socrates; however, Xenophon and Plato were direct disciples of Socrates, and presumably, they idealize him; however, they wrote the only continuous descriptions of Socrates that have come down to us. Aristotle refers frequently, but in passing, to Socrates in his writings. Almost all of Plato's works center around Socrates. However, Plato's later works appear to be more his own philosophy put into the mouth of his mentor.
The sources for Socrates were his direct students. They knew him personally. They were contemporary sources.
Same situation with Mohammed. We have no proof he existed other than the Qur'an.
I haven't really investigated Muhammad. I simply don't speak to enough Muslims to have bothered. I have no opinion on the actual existence or nonexistence of Muhammad.
I Same with Bouddha. Yet no one doubts they existed.
I rather doubt "Buddha" existed. Partially because of the lack of actual contemporary sources.
In most cases I think that mythologized characters (like Jesus or Buddha) were based on one or more real people combined with exaggerations and added claims.
Same with Jacques Cartier, or many of the egyptians Kings who were recorded by Manetho (who was not contemporary to them) and of which we have no outside proof. Yet no egyptians archaeologist or historian doubt they pretty much all existed.
And I don't particularly doubt that Jesus existed...simply not the way he was recorded in the Bible. I think the Biblical Jesus is a fictional character based on one or more real men who formed a heretical splinter sect of Judaism, and that one or more of the source individuals was executed by Roman authorities.
My comment regarding the Josephus manuscript was merely to point out that he is not a contemporary source, and he makes no claim to be otherwise...and this is all assuming for the sake of argument that the document is not a forgery.
This is all very revealing to the fact that Jesus has to pass tests that are not applied to any other figures in history. + the fact that the eye-witness accounts of Jesus that we do have,
WHAT EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS?! You haven't provided any. Neither has anyone else...ever. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus' supposed death - none of the authors ever met him, despite the perspective of the text. It's believed that the Gospels may have been inspired by an original "source" Gospel that may have been a primary, contemporary account, but the Gospels we have available were written by people who had never met Jesus.
also have to pass tests that no other manuscripts have to pass and you can easily figure that the problem is not with the information available, but with the reluctance some skeptics have towards Christianity.
From the comments above, it seems rather like you have been telling me what I do and do not believe, and you've been grossly mistaken. Perhaps you could try again, without attacking straw men?
I apply the same skepticism to any heavily mythologized character. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that a man named Jesus formed a splinter sect of Judaism and claimed to be the Messiah is not extraordinary, and I have no problem accepting that something along those lines actually happened (though without a primary or even contemporary source I severely doubt any and all specific details). Claiming that this same man performed miracles, healed the sick, and rose from the dead is a rather extraordinary claim, and I would demand a lot of evidence before I believed such things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 1:13 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by slevesque, posted 07-25-2009 4:18 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 404 of 517 (516449)
07-25-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Rahvin
07-25-2009 3:15 AM


Re: WOAH!
I had the impression you were of the same opinion as Theodoric, who seems to deny the existence of Jesus. Thus why I responded as I would have responded to someone denying the existence of Jesus.
The sources for Socrates were his direct students. They knew him personally. They were contemporary sources.
And I agree. But having a contemporary source is not an obligation in determining the existence of someone. As I said,l Manetho was not contemporary to a lot of lesser egyptians Kings of whom we have no other evidence then the fact that Manetho put them in his Dynasty records, and yet no egyptian historian doubts their existence even though they have contemporary source. Such a source is very useful and important, but not necessary.
And I don't particularly doubt that Jesus existed...simply not the way he was recorded in the Bible. I think the Biblical Jesus is a fictional character based on one or more real men who formed a heretical splinter sect of Judaism, and that one or more of the source individuals was executed by Roman authorities.
You are suggesting an alternative explanation, but I would like to know on what evidence you base this ? I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the best support for your view is that there is not enough proof in support of the existence of the biblical Jesus. (other then the Gospels). Thus at best, we have hear to alternative explanations that have equally no basis. In such cases, applying Occam'S Razor is the way to go, and I would think that doing so would lean towards that Jesus was simply a single person, who acted pretty much as recorded in the gospels in terms of teachings (you may of course dobut the miracle 'parts')
WHAT EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNTS?! You haven't provided any. Neither has anyone else...ever. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus' supposed death
I would suggest that the fact that the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus (in fact, 3-4 decades) is not the best argument against them being eye-witness accounts, simply because humans can live for decades, and so given the perspective of the text, it is not far-fetched to assume that people contemporary to Jesus lived 3-4 decades after his death ...
- none of the authors ever met him, despite the perspective of the text. It's believed that the Gospels may have been inspired by an original "source" Gospel that may have been a primary, contemporary account, but the Gospels we have available were written by people who had never met Jesus.
I find it hard to comprehend that this discussion started off as 'the author of the Gospels are anonymous' and yet here you are talking as if it was known that they never met Jesus. Yet if they are anonymous, how can we know they never met Jesus ? At best ,you could have written 'we do not know if any of the authors ever met him', instead of that first sentence.
I find it also intriguing that you say 'despite the perspective of the text'. Which seems to be saying that the perspective of the text is effectively that of an eye-witness account. This perspective of the text, combined with the fact that the dates do not rebute an eye-witness authorship explanation, seems to favor the idea that the authors were eye-witnesses, or had access to eye-witness accounts.
If you want to argument otherwise, I think you will have to show either: that the perspective of the text cannot possibly be eye-witness, or that the dates assigned to the Gospels are wrong, and that the real dates make it impossible for an eye-witness author.
Furthermore, I know of only one qualified person who advanced the idea that Jesus is largely mythical rather than historical, and it is GA Wells. Yet even he recently (EDIT: in 2003) acknowledged that Jesus was a historical person (not a splinter sect in Jerusalem as you imply, which I have no doubt comes from earlier teachings by Wells which he no longer supports). I would suggest that you follow him in regarding Jesus as a real person also.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2009 3:15 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 405 of 517 (516458)
07-25-2009 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Peg
07-25-2009 2:59 AM


Jesus Christ is LORD
i know its hard to give the definition of 'God' when you believe that Jesus is God
the answer doesnt add up.
Your problem with the definition of God lies with Who Jesus proclaimed Himself to be, not with those who believe Jesus spoke truth when He said "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
It will add up when "every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Peg, posted 07-25-2009 2:59 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024