|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Reliable history in the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Biblical-Conquest critics?
Yes. You babble incessantly and verbosely and seem inordinantly fond of your arguments - yet you've proved absolutely nothing. It's becoming tiresome.
Are you there? Listening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5190 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: Even though we have verified existing authors such as Paul, Luke, and John that attested to his existence? Let's not even mention Josephus for the sake of it. Or does the mere mention of their names in the biblical account render them as useless individuals in the eyes of those who would like to shred every inch of biblical evidence they can? Compare the above the to evidence of King Nebuchadnezzar's existence, and you will see dear sir that you are on dangerous grounds with no basis whatsoever. I see clear, circular reasoning, which can prove very dangerous to our society. Your brazenly sharpened statements marr the good name of sincere debate. Edited by Lysimachus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
someone was not following too closely, as this argument started as a "devil's advocate" position for me to test the merit of an argument i liked, and thought sounded reasonable.
Even though we have verified existing authors such as Paul, Luke, and John that attested to his existence? all of which wrote well after his supposed lifetime, in a manner severely resembling propaganda. they're not good evidence for his existance for the same reason the statements of the pope today are not. the identity of john is highly questionable (there seem to be THREE johns), and neither luke nor paul knew jesus during his life.
Let's not even mention Josephus for the sake of it. there are two entries commonly referred to in flavius josephus's works. one is forged. the other is highly suspect.
Or does the mere mention of their names in the biblical account render them as useless individuals in the eyes of those who would like to shred every inch of biblical evidence they can? no. evidence supporting the bible is the question. "the bible" does not count as evidence supporting the bible. we need real and external evidence. for instance...
Compare the above the to evidence of King Nebuchadnezzar's existence, and you will see dear sir that you are on dangerous grounds with no basis whatsoever. ...nebuchadnezzar left monuments to his name all over sumeria. we have a lot more than just the bible to tell us he existed.
I see clear, circular reasoning, which can prove very dangerous to our society. on the contrary, your reasoning is circular: supporting the bible with the bible.
Your brazenly sharpened statements marr the good name of sincere debate. whatever that's supposed to mean. Edited by arachnophilia, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5190 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
quote: It doesn't matter which John wrote it. It's written by different person other than Jesus nonetheless.
quote: Please show me the evidence that these statements were forged. I have Josephus' original works, and it's all there written in chronological order.
quote: You can say this for any document. The Bible as in itself can be counted an external document when supporting other documents not related to the Bible. Also, these documents are "separated" from one another. The Bible is composed of many books, and these books were simply "brought together". If the claims of Jesus are mentioned in one book, mentioning works from other books is considered as external evidence.
quote: You don't need monuments to prove the existence of a person. A few simple internal and external writings is all that is necessary. All the teachings of Jesus could not have appeared out of thin air. There has to be a man that originally introduced the teachings. Unfortunately, what is evidence to me may not be interpreted as evidence to you. It's amazing how many different ways "evidence" can be interpreted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Please show me the evidence that these statements were forged. I have Josephus' original works, and it's all there written in chronological order.
Wow, Josephus` originals. In his own hand. Must be worth millions. The Testimonium Flavianum has long been accepted as having Christian interpolations. Much discussion (for and against) has flowed under the bridge by far greater intellects than us. If you have NEW evidence, open a thread.
You can say this for any document. The Bible as in itself can be counted an external document when supporting other documents not related to the Bible. Also, these documents are "separated" from one another. The Bible is composed of many books, and these books were simply "brought together". If the claims of Jesus are mentioned in one book, mentioning works from other books is considered as external evidence. The 'Bible' has been 'culled'. Both the OT and the NT. Naturally, if you are assembling an opus about Jesus, you include books about Jesus or His followers.
All the teachings of Jesus could not have appeared out of thin air. There has to be a man that originally introduced the teachings.
Much scholarly discussion has taken place on whether 'Jesus' (if He existed) was constructed around OT verses, or Greek writings, since both cover His sayings.
Unfortunately, what is evidence to me may not be interpreted as evidence to you. It's amazing how many different ways "evidence" can be interpreted.
Indeed. That might explain why there are so many different Christian groups.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lysimachus Member (Idle past 5190 days) Posts: 380 Joined: |
There are also many different atheistic/agnostic groups too. Please don't forget this. In fact, there are different kinds of groups in just about every single religion/belief imaginable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
There are also many different atheistic/agnostic groups too. Please don't forget this. In fact, there are different kinds of groups in just about every single religion/belief imaginable.
But only one Bible. Or so they tell me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But only one Bible. Or so they tell me. Who ever told you that there was only one Bible, lied to you. The smallest Bible has only 5 books, and at the other end there are Bibles with 81 books. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It doesn't matter which John wrote it. It's written by different person other than Jesus nonetheless. yes, and evidently, one who never knew him. that's why it matter which john. one reportedly knew jesus personally (though this is highly suspect), and the other two did not. if i wrote a book about jesus, would it be evidence that he existed? why or why not?
Please show me the evidence that these statements were forged. I have Josephus' original works, and it's all there written in chronological order. please search the forums a little. it's been discussed a number of times.
You can say this for any document. The Bible as in itself can be counted an external document when supporting other documents not related to the Bible. within reason. the books that seem to be history (ie: kings) can be used as support, sure. but the books that seem to be fable (ie: genesis) cannot. fundamentalists may not recognize the difference, but scholars certainly do.
Also, these documents are "separated" from one another. The Bible is composed of many books, and these books were simply "brought together". actually, some of the books cite or refer to other books in the bible. for instance, kings cannot be used to support chronicles, or vice versa, because one is largely derived from the other. and again, only within reason -- based largely on style and content and context.
If the claims of Jesus are mentioned in one book, mentioning works from other books is considered as external evidence. claims of jesus are all highly propagandistic, which is why they're doubted in the first place. if every time you hear a certain story, somebody's trying to sell you something, and you never hear the story in any other context, you might be skeptical too.
You don't need monuments to prove the existence of a person. no, but it certainly helps! you indicated that all we know of nebuchadnezzar was from a written document, and implied that it was the bible. this is certainly not true -- nebuchadnezzar left many documents, written personally by him, and attached to giant ziggurats all over babylonia. "oops, i was wrong" would suffice here.
A few simple internal and external writings is all that is necessary. not exactly. for instance, we have a ton of independent writings about superman, the last son of krypton. in fact, i'll wager that we have more documents about kal el in the last 50 years than we have about jesus christ in the 50 years after his death. how do we know clark kent isn't a real person, but jesus christ is?
All the teachings of Jesus could not have appeared out of thin air. argument from incredulity. and misplaced incredulity at that. a number of jesus's teachings come from something called the old testament.
There has to be a man that originally introduced the teachings. why one man?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Clark Kent isn`t a real person? Geez, between you and Jar, I`ll have no illusions left.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4445 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
I opened a new topic about why distant and ancient religions could be so similar and admin put it in comparative religions. I really wanted you to weigh in on it.
http://EvC Forum: Government in the US is Promoting Anti-Creationist Dogma Evolution -->EvC Forum: Government in the US is Promoting Anti-Creationist Dogma Evolution
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4445 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
Lysim,
I appreciate your input here. You truly are a brave soul to jump in with these guys. I generally feel the way they do. One question and forgive me if somebody already mentioned this, but you are suggesting the works of Josephus is supporting your position that proves the Biblical version of Jesus is accurate. Even if the works of Josephus were absolutely untouched or unchanged from his original writings, he was not even born until after Jesus died. So everything Josephus would have written would still have been hearsay. How do you suppose Josephus' writings would help prove the accuracy of the Synoptic Gospels which were also written well after the probable deaths of the apostles in whose names they were written? Did Josephus mention any of the apostles whom he could have known? Seems to me that if Josephus were really wanting to write about Jesus, he would have sought these guys out and asked them...unless, of course, there were no such men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ConsequentAtheist Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 392 Joined: |
Did Josephus mention any of the apostles whom he could have known? Seems to me that if Josephus were really wanting to write about Jesus, he would have sought these guys out and asked them...unless, of course, there were no such men. That was a remarkably inane sentence ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8upwidit2 Member (Idle past 4445 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
Actually it was two sentences. And I'm sure they were no where near as meaningful and correct as those you would write. You remind me of my nerd English teacher in the 4th grade. Like you, he was also a remarkably intelligent prick and a legend in his own mind..and no one else's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Please show me the evidence that these statements were forged. I have Josephus' original works ... That I doubt. The problem with the passage in the Testimonium is that Josephus was Jewish. So could he really have written: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Nope. The passages in CAPITALS are the beliefs of a Christian rather than a Jew. Ergo they, at least, are an interpolation, a gloss, or what have you. On the other hand, I do not agree with arachnophilia that the passage in the Antiquities is "highly suspect". To see why some people claim that it is, we need to read the whole passage: And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, some of his companions; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which King Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. Now the objection raised to this is that the two Jesuses (Jesi?) referred to in this passage were one and the same, and that that "who was called Christ" must be a gloss or interpolation. But there is no reason to think this. The passage makes perfect sense if we read it as exactly as it stands above; the only reason a textual critic would wish to amend it is if he already knew that there never was a Jesus who was called Christ. At this point the reasoning becomes circular: "There never was a Jesus who was claimed to be Christ, therefore any reference to him is a forgery, therefore there are no extra-Biblical references to a Jesus who was claimed to be Christ, therefore there never was a Jesus who was claimed to be Christ." --- More information here on early non-Biblical references to Jesus. Discussion of Jesus son of Damneus is presently missing, but I have editing privileges there and will stick it in by and by. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024