|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4471 days) Posts: 88 From: Katrinaville USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
8upwidit2 writes: In your own dating system, Peg, you show the labored point that NONE of these historians lived before the 2nd or 3rd centuries current era. So if they were supporting any documents or occurrences prior to that, it would be hearsay based on something somebody else wrote or said. How would anything they would say have any value in this conversation? what they say holds a lot of value. historians didnt' just write the goings on of the things that were happening in their own day. they were researchers of things of the past too, just as they are today. For instance Josephus, in the first centuryC.E., records the Jewish tradition that Alexander The Great was met by the Jewish high priest and was shown the divinely inspired prophecies recorded by Daniel foretelling the lightning conquests by Greece. he wrote about things that happened centuries before his time. He also wrote about the destruction of the temple in 70CE, something he did witness and his account also states that the repository of the archives, housing the genealogical records of tribal and family descent and inheritance rights, was put to the fire. (The Jewish War, VI, 250, 251 [iv, 5]; II, 426-428 [xvii, 6]; VI, 354 [vi, 3]) this shows us that the jews did keep records of all births and jewish families and housed these records in temple. much the same way our government has a registry of births deaths and marriages...no much has changed since ancient times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
There's a very simple reason for this, Peg. The gospels were written AFTER the supposed eyewitnesses were all dead. So even if they saw something completely different, they wouldn't be able to refute any of it, they weren't alive anymore to do so. Huntard, you do realise that if anything that was writen in the gospels was infactual, the followers of christ...who were eyewitnesses to many of jesus miracles... would be able to refute it but non of the eye witnesses refuted any of the writings. If the christians wrote anything that was untrue, it would have been a well publicized forgery. Edited by Huntard, : Quote mistake I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4215 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
records the Jewish tradition that Alexander The Great was met by the Jewish high priest and was shown the divinely inspired prophecies recorded by Daniel foretelling the lightning conquests by Greece. Tradition is not evidence of anything just something that has become fashionable to believe no real evidence. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: the point was, did josephus confirm the existence of Jesus or not? No.The passage is corrupt, and not reliable. Peg writes: clearly he did. It doesnt matter whether he believed in him or not (obviously he didnt) he didnt believe him, just as the majority of the jews did not believe in him. but it wasnt really the point. The point is that the T.F. is suspect, and cannot be relied upon. Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: The way we know that he wrote the book is because the earliest church historians are all unanimous about his authorship. In fact, the earliest references to the Gospels (starting no earlier than early-mid 2nd century) are as UN-NAMED documents. There is no clear quotations of G.Matthew by name until late 2nd century - well over a century after the alleged events.
Peg writes: There is a line of eyewitness testimony There are no eye-witnesses.
Peg writes: to the fact that Mathew was the writer of the gospel The first reference of any kind to a writing by Matthew (in Hebrew) is Papias (not an eye-witness) in early-mid 2nd century, but it is NOT quite the same as the modern G.Matthew (which was written in Greek.)
Peg writes: and historians such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and Tertulian Historians?You mean faithful Christians preaching faithful Christian beliefs. Justin Martyr wrote in the 150s or so - he mentions the "memoirs of the apostles" and says they are "called Gospels", and gives quotes that are not quite the same as modern Gospels. But he does NOT name the authors at all - did you know that Peg? Did you know that Justin does NOT ONCE give any Evangelist's name? Irenaeus wrote in the 180s or so - he is the VERY FIRST Christian to EVER list the four name of the Evangelists. Did you know that Peg? Did you know the earliest Christian to list the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is from the 180s? A century and a half after the alleged events. Origen wrote in early 3rd century, nearly 2 CENTURIES after the alleged events.
Peg writes: all testify to this fact. Pardon me Peg, but you keep doing that - quoting Christian beliefs as if they were fact. But we're not believers here Peg, you goal is to SHOW your Christian beliefs as true, not just repeat them as if we are members of your choir. These are not facts at all, they are claims - they are beliefs - by people who had no connection at all with the 1st generation of Christians. What we DO have is a collection of books of UNKNOWN origin - yes that's right, modern NT scholars agree that we do not know who wrote any of the Gospels, which were originally anonymous, and written long after the alleged events. Much later, after the wars, some other people started to believe these Gospels were history. Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4984 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
It doesnt matter whether he believed in him or not (obviously he didnt) he didnt believe him, just as the majority of the jews did not believe in him. but it wasnt really the point. So why would Josephus say that Jesus was The Christ if he didn't believe it? Surely he would have said something like 'Jesus, the false Christ', or 'the imposter Jesus'? You really do need to develop some critical thinking skills Peg if you are genuinely interested in history. The thing about history is that it isn't what happened in the past, it is what the author tells you that happened in the past. History is entirely a construct of the human mind, and as such it is subject to the bias and worldview of the author. When you realise this you have to approach historical texts with an open mind and look at as many possible angles as you can. For example, who was the author and what reasons does that person have for writing down this history? If we look at the Gospel of Matthew it is obvious that he was not writing an unbiased critical record of Jesus' life. The author of Matthew's Gospel was writing for a specific purpose, to convince his readers that Jesus was the promised Messiah. It is exactly the same as you writing a persuasive essay at school or college, you include as much positive points as you can, you would tend to leave out info that weakens your argument, you may even throw in a little 'out of context' information as well for extra effect. The biblical texts must be treated the same as any other texts, they have to be scrutinised if we are to arrive at a conclusion that is going to be anywhere near accurate. The Bible authors were as likely to present a skewed version of events as any other ancient author. The Bible authors were no different to the countless other ancient writers who exaggerated events and recorded what they wanted to have happened and not what actually did happen. The history that is recorded in the Bible is the same as any other history, it only happened in the minds of the people that wrote it down. Thus we have to be critical of all texts and present plausible and reasonable conclusions about the authors' intentions. Now if you look at the Josephus quote and try to be objective there are huge problems. He allegedly said that Jesus was The Christ, now think carefully about this, what would be his motivation for doing this? Did Josephus call Jesus The Christ because he believed it?Did he call him The Christ because he didn't believe it? Why call him The Christ at all? If he believed that Jesus was The Christ then surely he would have converted to Christianity. That is the only sensible conclusion. If he didn't believe that Jesus was The Christ then why wouldn't he record that Jesus was an imposter? If he didn't believe that Jesus was The Christ then why bother mentioning Him at all? There's a lot more to textual criticism than this of course, but you need to ask yourself if you are genuinely interested in what happened in the past, or if your mind is closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: you think any ruler would have such an event recorded?i cant imagine any ruler in their right mind would make a written record of such an event [the slaughter of the innocent babies by Herod]. Peg -others write about rulers, others DID write about THIS ruler, including criticisms of all the nasty things he did. There is NO mention of this event in history, and there WOULD be. That is why historians agree it never happened. Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
you think any ruler would have such an event recorded? Josephus had plenty to say about Herod. Not all of it positive.
quote: and
quote: I see no reason that Josephus would skip past the massacre of the innocents in his discussion on Herod's life and times. Maybe you could think of some? 1. He hadn't heard of it. Sounds unlikely.2. He decided not to record it because it looked bad for Herod. Unlikely. 3. He decided that the story was unreliable hearsay so didn't record it. Possbile. 4. He had never heard it. Strong possibility. Any others? 4B Maybe Matthew created the story so as to draw a paralell between Jesus and Moses. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
huntard writes: There's a very simple reason for this, Peg. The gospels were written AFTER the supposed eyewitnesses were all dead. So even if they saw something completely different, they wouldn't be able to refute any of it, they weren't alive anymore to do so. if you dont mind me asking, what is the reasoning behind this? Is this based on the age of the manuscripts we have currently, or on some other method?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
It is based on the opinions of scholars who say that the earliest mark could've been written was post 70 AD. Mark is the first gospel, so all the others came after it. The chance the apostles were still alive at that time is very very small, if not impossible for that time period. if you dont mind me asking, what is the reasoning behind this? Is this based on the age of the manuscripts we have currently, or on some other method? I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Gday,
Peg writes: you do realise that if anything that was writen in the gospels was infactual, the followers of christ...who were eyewitnesses to many of jesus miracles... would be able to refute it Peg -modern NT scholars agree - there is NO evidence of any eye-witnesses to Jesus or the Gospels events. Not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who met Jesus - such is the consensus of scholars today. (As far as I can tell Peg, this is completely new information that you have never heard before.) All we have is late, anonymous, contradictory books of unknown origin which later people came to believe. But there is no actual historical evidence at all for any of the events or people in the Gospels. Ancient times are FULL of legends and myths that were never debunked because no-one did ANY debunking back then - they believed all sorts of nonsense (such as thinking Paul was a God because he survived snake bite.) Peg -Did the followers of Hercules debunk the legends about him? No. So according to your argument, Hercules' miracles REALLY happened. Did the followers of Mohamed debunk the legends about him?No. So according to your argument, the miracles REALLY happened - i.e. according to your argument, the moon DID split in two, Mohamed DID fly to Jerusalem on a magical man-animal. Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Peg,
Peg writes: Justin Martyr - a Gentile, born about 110 C.E. in Samaria in the city of Flavia Neapolis, the modern Nablus. He called himself a Samaritan and was a diligent student of philosophy. Unsatisfied in his search among the Stoics, Peripatetics, and Pythagoreans, he pursued the ideas of Plato. (Peg, you keep giving the BIRTH date, instead of when he WROTE - why? Justin wrote in the 150s - well over a century after the alleged events.) You cited Justin Martyr as testifying to the authorship of the Gospels - but you seem completely unaware that Justin did not give a SINGLE name of an evangelist ! So do you really still claim that Justin Martyr names the Gospels writers? If so, please quote were Justin does so. You cited Christian believers who preached their beliefs long after the alleged events - but you seem to think they are "historians" whose claims must all be true. Why? What about Muslim believers who later wrote their beliefs about Mohamed?Do you call them "historians"? Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Huntard writes: It is based on the opinions of scholars based on the opinions of scholars of what time period?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Kapyong writes: there is NO evidence of any eye-witnesses to Jesus or the Gospels events. Not one single book of the NT was written by anyone who met Jesus - such is the consensus of scholars today. some scholars of today also claim that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a sexual relationship and evidence of this is seen in some of the paintings of Leonardo Da Vinchi LOL The apostle Peter wrote 1st and 2nd Peter. 1Peter opens with a salutation 'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the temporary residents scattered about...' so here is just one book that identifies an apostle of Christ as the writer. Can you somehow disprove this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2320 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
based on the opinions of scholars of what time period?
I don't see how that is relevant. I hunt for the truth
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024