|
Author
|
Topic: Divinity of Jesus
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
Message 423 of 517 (518123)
08-04-2009 6:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 422 by Peg
08-04-2009 4:39 AM
|
|
Contemporary!
its been posted plenty of times in other threads Josephus. 1st century Jewish historian mentions Jesus brothers.
Is not contemporary. And probably isn't about your Jesus
In Annals, Tacitus wrote:
Is not contemporary. And only mentions Christians and how they got their name, doesn't mension the name of the Christ.
Here Tacitus not only names Jesus as the founder of the religion, but goes on to say that Pontius Pilate had executed him during the reign of Tiberius...Jesus was no mythical character...he was viewed as a real person by the people at the time.
Except of course that this was the myth that Christians were spreading, and which Tacitus simply reports. And again, doesn't mention the name of the Christ. Most importatnly though, none of these are contemporary Edited by Huntard, : Spellings
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 422 by Peg, posted 08-04-2009 4:39 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 429 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 5:30 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 431 of 517 (518303)
08-05-2009 5:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 429 by Peg
08-05-2009 5:30 AM
|
|
Name, not title!
Peg writes: Tacitus did use the name of Christ, he used the Latin pronounciation and called him 'Christus'
That's his title (anointed one), not his name. His name was Jesus.
but dont let that get in the way of a good conspiracy hey lol.
I can't help it you don't have any evidence, Peg.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 429 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 5:30 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 432 of 517 (518304)
08-05-2009 6:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 430 by Peg
08-05-2009 5:35 AM
|
|
It's not contemporary
Josephus was born 37 CE that means that when he was a young writer, the Apostles were still alive. Thats contemporary enough for me.
But it's not contemporary with the one we are discussing, Jesus. Which is what was asked of you. This is just an evasion. You have NO contemporary extrabiblical source for Jesus.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 430 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 5:35 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 433 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 8:02 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 441 of 517 (518447)
08-06-2009 5:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 433 by Peg
08-05-2009 8:02 AM
|
|
Re: It's not contemporary
Peg writes: ok you win, it would appear not
This isn't about "winning" Peg. But thanks for admitting it.
But I do consider the bible writers as contemporary with Jesus, and the testimony they give is a compelling one.
The bible writers were contemporaries of Jesus? Peg, you do realize that most of the bible writers lived long before Jesus, don't you. And still, we don't know who wrote the gospels, so you can't even claim their writers were contemporaries of Jesus. What you consider to be true is, of course, completely irrelevant. No matter how compelling you think a testimony is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 433 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 8:02 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 451 by Peg, posted 08-07-2009 8:52 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 442 of 517 (518448)
08-06-2009 6:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 440 by slevesque
08-05-2009 11:50 PM
|
|
Re: WOAH!
slevesque writes: Now of course, I do not intend this to be any kind of proof that Jesus ever lived. It is not a numbers game of course, as you have mentioned. But I say this so that you realize that you are the one proposing the extraordinary claim that Jesus never existed, against the vast consensus made by historians. Not us.
I don't say A Jesus never existed. I say that Jesus as protrayed in the bible never existed. I think you'll be hard pressed finding a historian who agrees that Jesus was accurately protrayed in the bible.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 440 by slevesque, posted 08-05-2009 11:50 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 447 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 7:23 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 448 of 517 (518670)
08-07-2009 7:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 447 by jaywill
08-07-2009 7:23 AM
|
|
Re: WOAH!
jaywill writes: How do you know that? And how can you say it with such certainty?
I say it with the same certainty that I say "Zeus as protrayed in the myths about him never existed." Or do you think he did?
This seems to me a statement of faith itself.
No. It ids a statement of diebelief. Perhaps I should have said: I don't believe Jesus aas portrayed in the bible ever existed." Is that better?
To me it requires more of a leap of faith to say the biblical Christ never existed than to realize that He did.
Of course, you already believe it. However, from a neutral point of view, there is absolutely NO evidence that Jesus as portryed in the bible ever existed.
Since this thread is on the Divinity of Christ and is a part of Bible Study, do you have Bible passages which lead you to believe that the belief in the Divinity of Christ is not even in the Bible?
What? I never said that.
The preasure in this thread is conciderable to morph the discussion into something more appropriate to the forum "The Bible: Accuracy adn Inerancy". This is kind of a highjacking taking place IMO
Perhaps. You know where to complain to moderators about that. They'll take action against it if they think it appopriate.
Where in the Bible can we Study the ground for or against the Divinity of Jesus?
The new testament, I would say. But that is in favour of Christ being divine. A real study doesn't look at just one source, though.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 447 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 7:23 AM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 454 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 3:30 PM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 456 of 517 (518745)
08-07-2009 4:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 451 by Peg
08-07-2009 8:52 AM
|
|
Re: It's not contemporary
Peg writes: i was referring to NT writers! but you knew that
Yes I did. However other people people reading might not. Being precise in what you write is important. At least, I think so.
I have no doubts about who wrote the gospels. Im quite confident in that and no amount of modern scholarly speculations will change my mind.
That's called faith. And that's fine. But you can't go claiming a truth based on just faith, Peg.
like Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child LOL
No scholar says that.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 451 by Peg, posted 08-07-2009 8:52 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 457 of 517 (518747)
08-07-2009 4:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 453 by Rahvin
08-07-2009 11:09 AM
|
|
Re: It's not contemporary
Never thought I'd be doing this, but here goes. A little correction, Rahvin:
Rahvin writes: Peg writes: like Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child LOL
That's from a work of fiction, Peg, not the result of textual criticism of historical analysis. Dan Brown's book has nothing to do with reality. You do know the difference between fiction and nonfiction, don't you?
Actually, Danny boy isn't the on who came up with that. Read Holy Blood Holy Grail. They're the ones who came up with that. It's still completely fictional, though.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 453 by Rahvin, posted 08-07-2009 11:09 AM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 458 of 517 (518751)
08-07-2009 5:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 454 by jaywill
08-07-2009 3:30 PM
|
|
Re: WOAH!
jaywill writes: Perhaps you could explain to me why there is so much labor and time devoted to debating the realness of Jesus more than debating the realness of Zues. If they are both roughly the same why is there so much more vehemence in denying Jesus ?
It's not about denying Jesus. It's about the fact that people already realize Zeus is myth, yet somehow don't see that Jesus as portrayed in the bible is too. And because so many still accept that Jesus is as portrayed in the bible, it's of course easy for others who know there's no evidence for that to shoot holes in it.
Somehow, they don't seem equivalent figures though skeptics are fond of trying to lump them together.
They're not. One isn't believed in anymore. One still is, despite the same amount of evidence for both.
I got subdued and persuaded one day in the privacy of my living room. It was the end of a long road of wrestling with the matter of what to do with God. I really had no thought of Jesus. But I spoke His name I suddenly felt like a flushed toilet. Years of crap in my heart and mind came flooding out and Jesus came rushing in.
Now, suppose you had mentioned Zeus there, and knew about him what you knew about god (He loves you and all that stuff, had a son who was a champion for man, and so on...). And suddenly, all the "crap" washed away. You would now be a Zeusian.
I haven't been the same since that day.
I'm sure. As for your little story. What if all that had taken part in ancient Greece? You'd be a Zeusian now.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 454 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 3:30 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 460 of 517 (518776)
08-08-2009 4:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 459 by slevesque
08-07-2009 11:26 PM
|
|
slevesque writes: Has this debate always been about Jesus 'as potrayed in the Bible' never existed.
No. That's my position. Others might not agree with me though and say A Jesus never existed. Which I find a bit silly to claim.
Because from the beginning I'm arguing that a person called Jesus existed.
There were more persons called Jesus who existed. It wasn't a weird name or anything back then. So when your argument simply is "Someone called Jesus existed once". I don't think anyone would disagree with you.
Has the opposing side changed during the process and added the last 'as potrayed in the Bible' part along the way, or has it been like this from the beginning and I simply misunderstood ... ???
No. That's my position. A Jesus existed, and was probably part of the inspiration for the bible character, but Jesus as portrayed in the bible, never existed.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 459 by slevesque, posted 08-07-2009 11:26 PM | | slevesque has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 461 by slevesque, posted 08-08-2009 5:14 AM | | Huntard has not replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 464 of 517 (518881)
08-09-2009 3:46 AM
|
Reply to: Message 463 by Peg
08-09-2009 2:31 AM
|
|
Re: It's not contemporary
Peg writes: what i do know for sure is that those who did witness these things wrote down their testimonies and provided us with all we need to believe their words.
Oh? I thought the gospels were anonymous? How can you be so sure that those are the words written down by the people who knew Jesus, when in fact the youngest of them dates to somewhere around 70 AD?
Besides that, there have been many NT prophecies that have been fulfilled in our own time which adds to my faith.
This might not be the topic to go into too much detail about that, but pray tell, which would those be?
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 463 by Peg, posted 08-09-2009 2:31 AM | | Peg has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 465 by Peg, posted 08-09-2009 7:18 AM | | Huntard has replied |
|
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2314 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: 09-02-2008
|
|
|
Message 466 of 517 (518888)
08-09-2009 8:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 465 by Peg
08-09-2009 7:18 AM
|
|
Re: It's not contemporary
Peg writes: the earliest ecclesiastical writers are the ones who made statements about who wrote the gospels. When the christians were making collections of the NT writings, some would write a dialogue of who wrote the various books with a bit of an explanation of the contents of the writing.
So? That's not evidence they wrote it.
for instance, Papias of the 1st-2nd centuries wrote that Matthew wrote his gospel first, and that he wrote it in the hebrew language.
So?
Then there is the Muratorian Fragment of the 2nd century. It the confirms that the book of Acts was written by Luke for a man named Theophilus.
150 years AFTER you say it was written? Really? That's rather poor evidence, won't you say?
This is why these early christians knew who wrote the gospels.
They didn't know, they believed.
I hunt for the truth
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 465 by Peg, posted 08-09-2009 7:18 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2