|
Author
|
Topic: Did any author in the New Testament actually know Jesus?
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 167 of 306 (495914)
01-25-2009 4:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 165 by Peg
01-25-2009 4:07 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: the fact is, the people who followed Jesus and formed the early christian church, must have been convinced of the things they had witnessed because they were willing to die for the accounts they gave.
Actually, Galatians 6:12 makes clear that early Christians were persecuted because they had relaxed the rules on circumcision and the law--not because of the Resurrection--and that some early Christians actually compromised their beliefs in the face of persecution.(from here)
No one who is unsure of something is willing to be tortured and killed for it.
Being sure it happened and it actually having happened are two different things entirely.
If the persona of Jesus was just something a group of 12 men fabricated, why on earth would they be willing to die for a fictional story?
How are the others to know if these twelve made the story up?
no sane person would create a fictional story and then stick by it when threatened with torture or death would they?
Look, all I'm asking for is real observable evidence that jesus did as he is said to have done in the bible. Saying so many people believed it doesn't cut it. Then we would also have to believe in every other religion, because their founders were equally sure of what they witnessed.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 165 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 4:07 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 170 of 306 (495923)
01-25-2009 6:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by Peg
01-25-2009 5:39 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: Tacitus is considered one of the ancient worlds greatest historians. He wrote about the christians in his Annals, he also mentions how Pilate had jesus executed.
Not true. He mentions "Christus", which is a title, not a name.
this in itself proves that it was common knowledge and the people of the time accepted that Jesus was a real person.
Since Jesus isn't mentioned, it's kinda hard to see how this follows.
Do you really think that he would have wrote about jesus if no one else believed he even existed??
But he never mentions Jesus.
I dont think so.
Well he doesn't, so this would be correct.
The same goes for all the other historians who make mention of Jesus or the christians.
Christians existed, no question there, Jesus might even have existed as a historical person, but this doesn't mean he is anything the bible makes him out to be. Oh, and the ONLY mention of Jesus that is even close to his time, is Josephus, and the votes are still out on that matter.
I never claimed that Josephus said Jesus was the messiah. We were talking about secular writers who wrote about Jesus and the christians and Josephus certainly did that. It shows that Jesus was a historical person, there is no doubt about that.
First of all, Josephus was not secular, he was an aphasic Jew. Second, even if Jesus was a historical figure, that doesn't mean the bible is telling the truth about him, that would require supporting evidence, and none exists.
Its no good saying 'tacitus 'may' have been forged' You will need to provide evidence if you are going to make such a claim?
It doesn't matter if it's forged or not, he doesn't mention Jesus.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 5:39 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 172 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 6:34 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 174 of 306 (495929)
01-25-2009 6:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by Peg
01-25-2009 6:34 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Tacitus mentioned the Christians in his Annals in the account about the great fire of Rome in 64 C.E. and how Nero had blamed the fire on the Christians..... he wrote: “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, 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 Pilatus." its pretty obvious he's talking about the founder of the christians as a real person who really was put to death. Why would he talk about such a person if that person did not exist and why would he mention Pontius putting the man to death if it was not a historical fact?
But he doesn't say it's Jesus, it could've been anyone else. Further, there has been some debate over whether or not he wrote Christans, and not Chrestians, which would be something different, wouldn't it?
Josephus certainly is secular. He wasnt a christian, that makes him secular.
Do you even know what secular means? It doesn't mean non-Christian, it means that someone isn't particularly religious.
There does not require evidence for truth to be truth. Truth is truth with or without it.
Wrong. The only way to determine if something is true is through evidence. While something might be true even thought there is no evidence for it, there's no way we can tell. If there's no way we can tell, we can just as easily treat it as false. I'll state this again: "Even if Jesus was a historical figure, there is absolutely no evidence he said or did anything the bible said he did. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the bible as accurate on this point."
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 6:34 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 177 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 7:05 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 180 of 306 (495935)
01-25-2009 7:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by Peg
01-25-2009 7:05 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
he would have written in that in latin which is why its a bit different.
In Latin Christian is still written with an I not an E.
If thats what you mean by secular, you are asking for the impossible. Everyone was religious in those days. You wont find a non religious writer.
He wasnt a christian, he was a historian for Rome. That makes him secular thru disassociation
Ok, not Christian. Still leaves the problem of the authenticity. And it's still not evidence Jesus acted as reported.
the eyewitness testimony of the bible writers is evidence.
The writers of the gospels weren't eyewitnesses.
The fact that the followers of Jesus were willing to die for their belief is evidence of a strong conviction that they obviously believed it to be true.
So when Islamic terrorists believe they get 72 virgins when they fly a plane into a building, that's true?
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 7:05 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 182 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 8:19 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 183 of 306 (495941)
01-25-2009 8:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Peg
01-25-2009 8:19 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
So? That still means the authors of the gospels weren't eyewitnesses. What's your evidence Peter is telling the truth? If I tell you God appeared to me and told me Jesus was not his son, would you believe me if I offered you no evidence whatsoever for that statement? You wouldn't, and rightfully so. So, why should we believe Peter when he says that?
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Peg, posted 01-25-2009 8:19 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 193 of 306 (496410)
01-28-2009 5:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 192 by Peg
01-28-2009 5:15 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: how can you say Peter was not an eye witness? he was one of Jesus 12 apostles.
But he didn't write the gospel.
Luke wrote his gospel directly from the word of Peter who was most certainly an eye witness.
This doesn't mean he was telling the truth when he related the story to Luke.
By what you are saying, all media that reports on any event is heresay and not to be trusted. Thank goodness we have television hey.
Yes. Without supporting evidence, any statement should be doubted. Fortunately, the media DO have supporting evidence for the claims they make, or, if they don't, it will be pointed out pretty quickly they were wrong.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by Peg, posted 01-28-2009 5:15 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 201 by Peg, posted 01-29-2009 6:22 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 212 of 306 (496595)
01-29-2009 8:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 201 by Peg
01-29-2009 6:22 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: 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.
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. Edited by Huntard, : Quote mistake
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 201 by Peg, posted 01-29-2009 6:22 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 219 by Peg, posted 01-30-2009 6:57 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 220 of 306 (496728)
01-30-2009 7:18 AM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by Peg
01-30-2009 6:57 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: 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?
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.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by Peg, posted 01-30-2009 6:57 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 223 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 6:19 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 225 of 306 (496859)
01-31-2009 6:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by Peg
01-31-2009 6:19 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
based on the opinions of scholars of what time period?
I don't see how that is relevant.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 6:19 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 227 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 6:46 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 228 of 306 (496862)
01-31-2009 6:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 227 by Peg
01-31-2009 6:46 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: ts very relevant If we are to scrutinize history by the word of scholars, then why must we only accept the word of scholars of our own day and age and not the word of scholars who were actually living during the times we are analyzing?
We should accept the word of the scholars that have evidence to support their claims. Everything else is irrelevant.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 227 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 6:46 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 229 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 6:57 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 230 of 306 (496864)
01-31-2009 7:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 229 by Peg
01-31-2009 6:57 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
i agree, supporting evidence is a good thing do you think that ancient historians had no supporting evidence?
I haven't seen any of their evidence. Further, they were Christians, bit hard to say the gospel isn't true when you believe it is.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 229 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 6:57 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 7:06 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 232 of 306 (496868)
01-31-2009 7:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 231 by Peg
01-31-2009 7:06 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: what do you think the gospels accounts and the books of the christain scriptures are?
The mythification of Jesus. According to the long line of similar mythical figures that came before him.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 231 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 7:06 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 7:28 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 235 of 306 (496875)
01-31-2009 8:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 233 by Peg
01-31-2009 7:28 AM
|
|
Re: The Ever-Shifting Goalposts of Biblical Validity
Peg writes: one problem with that is that myths go away after time another problem is that people dont lay their life down for something they know to be a myth
But they didn't know it to be a myth, they thought it actually happened. But believing something happened and it actually having happened are different things altogether. {ABE} As I asked you before: "So when Islamic terrorists believe they get 72 virgins when they fly a plane into a building, that's true?"
nor do historians testify that a mythical person was a real person
Yes they do.
nor do we set our calanders by the supposed date of the birth of a myth
Yes you do. Although the date is off by a few years. Edited by Huntard, : added {ABE} bit
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by Peg, posted 01-31-2009 7:28 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 258 of 306 (497204)
02-02-2009 1:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 257 by jaywill
02-02-2009 1:29 PM
|
|
Re: Extant writings
jaywill writes: Do you hold that no traditions are likely to be true?
I don't. But what's your evidence that this one IS true?
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 257 by jaywill, posted 02-02-2009 1:29 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 261 by jaywill, posted 02-03-2009 6:32 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 272 of 306 (497306)
02-03-2009 12:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 261 by jaywill
02-03-2009 6:32 AM
|
|
Re: Extant writings
jaywill writes: I already discussed one piece of evidence which leads me to believe that Matthew was the author. That was the difference in the listing of the twelve apostles in Matthew as opposed to the other gospels. In Matthew his name is mentioned after Thomas as opposed to before. I already explained that this difference probably indicated the humility of the writer.
Or, perhaps the author thought that it would lend credibility to it actually being written by Matthew. Clearly, it worked.
Chances are that if the early Christian congregations had doubts that the book of Matthew was authored by Matthew the apostle they would not have recognizied it for inclusion in the New Testament canon.
Believing something to be true and it actually being true are different things altogether.
I don't believe that canonization was bestowed upon any books. They rather recognized the authority of books rather than assigned authority to them. That is in terms of inclusion in the canon.
And the evidence for this is?
The canon was not an authoritative list of books but rather a list of authoritative books. Apostolic authorship was one of the criteria for canonization. If they had known that Matthew was not the author of the book after his name they would not have included it in the New Testament canon.
Them not knowing he wasn't the author doesn't mean he IS the author.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by jaywill, posted 02-03-2009 6:32 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 288 by jaywill, posted 02-04-2009 7:41 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2