Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 436 of 517 (518328)
08-05-2009 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Peg
08-05-2009 8:02 AM


Re: It's not contemporary
But I do consider the bible writers as contemporary with Jesus, and the testimony they give is a compelling one.
Except that is by tradition not 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
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 8:02 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 437 of 517 (518333)
08-05-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by jaywill
08-05-2009 10:02 AM


Re: WOAH!
Who has made any claim of conspiracy? The lines you claim from Josephus do not fit into the context of the lines before and after. Why would an observant Jew refer to anyone as the Christ. Why does he not mention Jesus and his followers anywhere else even though he chronicles all of the history of the Jews and many of the jewish sects that existed prior to the destruction of the temple?
If you want me to believe that the writings of Josephus was edited with an insertion to make it look like he refered to a non-existent person, then I think you should start a conspiracy theory that the dozen other people mentioned in the New Testament by Josephus writings were also forgeries.
Why does the fact that Josephus mentions people that are mentioned in the bible mean that everyone mentioned in the bible is real. The other people you listed have other contemporary sources for their existence. That by questioning one does not mean that all need to be questioned. There are other sources to look at for them. Your whole argument there is ludicrous and asinine.
Again I ask do you have any non-biblical contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? Yes or no?
I had to help a highschool kid do a report on the Holacaust. We got from the library of fil footage of the most horrible scenes of the Holacaust. It was no doubt propoganda. But I believe that it was propoganda based on truth.
There are thousands of eyewitness testimonials to the holocaust. We have firsthand documentation form the people that perpetrated it, those that suffered and those that liberated the camps. It is ludicrous to think that the two situations are at any way analogous. We have NOTHING in the way of first hand documentation for Jesus Christ. Here is a very important point. The Gospels were not written by the people they are attributed to. The first attributions were in the middle of the first century. Primarily by Iranaeus. Therefore there is no evidence at all that they were first hand accounts. There is much evidence showing they are not firsthand accounts.
Holocaust film=Propaganda?
If it were not so off-topic I would love to hear your explanation for that.
I see a dozen references to Jesus from non=biblical writers.
Anything contemporary? How about within first 25 years of his supposed death.
I that is skeptic land you've been busy raising the "questionable" objection with all of them.
You might want to read you posts before you post them. You have a lot of sentences that make no sense. Relax a little and read before you hit submit.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by jaywill, posted 08-05-2009 10:02 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by jaywill, posted 08-05-2009 6:04 PM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 438 of 517 (518399)
08-05-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Theodoric
08-05-2009 11:43 AM


Re: WOAH!
Again I ask do you have any non-biblical contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? Yes or no?
I don't think I know of any.
There are the writings of the Gospel writers. There are the refences of the so-called "church fathers" like Polycarp and Justin Martyr. There are the referenes to Jesus from the other ancient writers.
There is a reference to the daek day on which Jesus died. There is an explanation that it could not have been a solar eclipse.
But contemporary to the life of Jesus before His resurrection and ascencion, I do not know of any.
I don't require them. I have evidence enough that I am on the right track to believe that Jesus lived and was who He claimed to be. And I am not impressed with the various and sundy "questionable" objections raised by the skeptical mill concerning those ancient references to Jesus which were soon after Christ's death and resurrection.
Do you have irrefutable proof that your father and mother are actually your biological parants?
Maybe they lied. Maybe your birth certificate was forged. Maybe the hospital records are questionable. Maybe a DNA sample would be flawed. Maybe your parents are mistaken. Maybe they gave your mother the wrong baby who was a relative of your mother. Maybe you mother lied to your father. Maybe your father lied to you. Maybe the nurses conspired and deceived the medical doctors. Maybe they have never told you the truth. Maybe they don't really know.
Do you have irrefutable evidence that your mother and father are your real biological parents? You don't really know who your real biological parants are.
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 437 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2009 11:43 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2009 7:24 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 439 of 517 (518405)
08-05-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by jaywill
08-05-2009 6:04 PM


Re: WOAH!
There is a reference to the daek day on which Jesus died. There is an explanation that it could not have been a solar eclipse.
And Matthew added an earthquake. Funny how there is no Roman documentation of this. The skies darkening and an earthquake certainly would have merited a mention somewhere. The only reference at all is the gospels. Again this is something else that as no nonbiblical, contemporary evidence
Do you have irrefutable proof that your father and mother are actually your biological parants?
Maybe they lied. Maybe your birth certificate was forged. Maybe the hospital records are questionable. Maybe a DNA sample would be flawed. Maybe your parents are mistaken. Maybe they gave your mother the wrong baby who was a relative of your mother. Maybe you mother lied to your father. Maybe your father lied to you. Maybe the nurses conspired and deceived the medical doctors. Maybe they have never told you the truth. Maybe they don't really know.
Do you have irrefutable evidence that your mother and father are your real biological parents? You don't really know who your real biological parants are.
WOW!!! Your arguments have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Evidently you cannot defend your postion so you make some lame ludicrous argument that has nothing to do with anything.
Evidently you are trying to make some lameass point that at times a person needs to have faith. Nope, don't think so. If you want me to believe this guy existed I am going to need some real world evidence. Not a book of fables.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by jaywill, posted 08-05-2009 6:04 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by jaywill, posted 08-06-2009 10:59 AM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 440 of 517 (518415)
08-05-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 419 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 7:59 AM


Re: WOAH!
I found this post of yours very interesting, in the fact that you draw a parallel with science. I will restate what I said earlier: The Jesus Myth is to Historians what creationism is to scientists. There are hundreds of non-christian historians which have access to al the real documents related to this subject, with a career of knowledge on the subject and who are as objective to all this as can be. Yet none of them doubt the existence of Jesus.
All you have to defend this view is a professor of German and a student with a Bachelor's degree in history, who are the two major proponents (not the only one, but the major ones with any university studies on the subject)
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.
EDIT: Of course, I will still make a post about the arguments when I have the time.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 7:59 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2009 6:08 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 443 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:16 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 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 2295 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

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


Message 443 of 517 (518458)
08-06-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by slevesque
08-05-2009 11:50 PM


Re: WOAH!
The Jesus Myth is to Historians what creationism is to scientists.
Ridiculous. Creationism has no evidence. It is based on faith and faith alone. Jesus Mythicists use reaearch and actual documentatio to come to the conclusion. Are you saying that the mythicist have a preconceived idea and no evidence to back it up? If you read any of their work you will see that is based on copius amount of research and evidence. Creationism has no research and no evidence, other than the bible.
Again I want you to show me non biblical contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Can you do that?
All you have to defend this view is a professor of German and a student with a Bachelor's degree in history, who are the two major proponents (not the only one, but the major ones with any university studies on the subject)
Historians have tended to stay away from biblical studies. Jesus is so ingrained in society many have not thought to even consider such a view. I keep hearing from you christians that the vast majority of scholars believe Jesus existed. What is the education background of these scholars? Divinity scholars and/or degrees in some sort of biblical or religious studies. They are all religious and heavily indoctrinated. Of course they are going to believe their religion. This does not make them correct. Read their arguments. Historically, they are based on the flimsiest of evidence.

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

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 449 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 8:06 AM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 444 of 517 (518504)
08-06-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Theodoric
08-05-2009 7:24 PM


Re: WOAH!
And Matthew added an earthquake. Funny how there is no Roman documentation of this. The skies darkening and an earthquake certainly would have merited a mention somewhere. The only reference at all is the gospels. Again this is something else that as no nonbiblical, contemporary evidence
An ancient quote provided by New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce from one Julius Africanus.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the 263 third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior fails on the day before the passover [see Phlegon]; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?" - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Theodoric, posted 08-05-2009 7:24 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 11:39 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 445 of 517 (518516)
08-06-2009 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by jaywill
08-06-2009 10:59 AM


Re: WOAH!
Sextus Julius Africanus wrote in the 3rd century. He is the only reference to this writing form Thallus. We do not have the original so have no idea what was truly written. Doesn't it seem strange that the only references are from christian writers? There is no original source to consult.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by jaywill, posted 08-06-2009 10:59 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 7:18 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 446 of 517 (518665)
08-07-2009 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 11:39 AM


Re: WOAH!
Sextus Julius Africanus wrote in the 3rd century. He is the only reference to this writing form Thallus. We do not have the original so have no idea what was truly written. Doesn't it seem strange that the only references are from christian writers? There is no original source to consult.
No it doesn't seem strange. Nor is it the case. At least it is not nearly as strange as the multitude of rationals skeptics like yourself raise to exploit any possible avenue of doubt concerning all things Christian.
I know that we do not have the original writing of Thallus on this, as far as I know. I also know that historians do this kind of indirect research often. It is not perculiar to Christian scholarship that indirect writings might indicate something important in history to which we have a second hand testimony to.
I don't know why you would be so eager to point this out except to be fond of trying to raise questionable objections to all things Christian.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 11:39 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 447 of 517 (518668)
08-07-2009 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by Huntard
08-06-2009 6:08 AM


Re: WOAH!
I say that Jesus as protrayed in the bible never existed.
How do you know that? And how can you say it with such certainty?
This seems to me a statement of faith itself. To me it requires more of a leap of faith to say the biblical Christ never existed than to realize that He did.
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?
The preasure in this thread is conciderable to morph the discussion into something more appropriate to the forum "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerancy". This is kind of a highjacking taking place IMO.
Where in the Bible can we Study the ground for or against the Divinity of Jesus?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Huntard, posted 08-06-2009 6:08 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Huntard, posted 08-07-2009 7:39 AM jaywill has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 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

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


Message 449 of 517 (518673)
08-07-2009 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 8:16 AM


Re: WOAH!
Historians have tended to stay away from biblical studies.
That is not the Bible's fault. Maybe the issues have implications which are more far reaching then historians would like to deal with.
Jesus is so ingrained in society many have not thought to even consider such a view.
Jesus may have good reason to be ingrained in society.
Perhaps He earned it.
I keep hearing from you christians that the vast majority of scholars believe Jesus existed. What is the education background of these scholars?
The edication backround of the 12 disciples was not that high. Yet they seemed to have turned the world upside down with there message that a crucified Christ had risen.
The point is how far are you going to take credentialism ? It has a place. It doesn't have the only place. One scholar, Paul, wrote to the Corinthian church:
" For the word of the cross is to those who areperishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of those who understand I will set aside."
" ... since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe."
" .. the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is tronger than men."
I think God is sovereign over how much evidence accompanies His acts. I think what we have and what we do not have is under His divine providence. Perhaps He examines our hearts to see how we handle what He has provided.
The night Christ became real to me I was in the privacy of my own room. No historian was there to tell me about Thallus. No expert on Roman politics was there to explain Roman history. I didn't know very much. I had received a revelation that Jesus was someone I could talk to. And when I started to all heaven broke loose over my head and within my being (so to speak).
Latter, upon noticing arguments such as you pose here I read here and there some historical evidence for my faith. I am not expert on history. But I see some confirmation that I am on the right track to my realization.
And judging from the opposition Jesus Christ received in the Gospels, often times objections raised by unbelievers in Christ impress me that I probably am on the right track to believe that I do know the living Jesus. They are still amassing debates of all kinds against Him.
Anyway, non-biblical writings (perhaps not contemporary with His three and one half years earthly ministry) do confirm the historicity of Jesus. And the talent of some to raise the "questionable" flag at everyone of them doesn't impress me that much.
And "non-biblical" would include Christian writers too. And excluding them arbitrarily I think is not real research. Suppose we excluded all Roman historians, discounting their writings about Rome under the suspicion that they are just scheming propogandists?
So I don't accept the knee jerk suspicion that all ancient Christians' writing about Christ are the clever schemes of lying propogandists. Though it is true that in many cases propoganda is what we are reading.
There can be in this world propoganda which is based on true people and events which actually happened.
Divinity scholars and/or degrees in some sort of biblical or religious studies. They are all religious and heavily indoctrinated. Of course they are going to believe their religion. This does not make them correct. Read their arguments. Historically, they are based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I have read some F.F. Bruce. I would not call it flimsy. Norm Giesler does not come accross to me as flimsy. Others recommended to me like Benjamin Warfield are highly regarded. It should not be a surprise that the people who would REALLY CARE about a scholarly research into these things would be Christians.
Just like people who really care about evidences for the Big Bang theory would be astronomers and cosmologists. Why would we not expect that those most interested would be on the leading edge of stydying the matter.
Anyway, it has occured once to my knowledge that an expert on Logal Evidence came as an unbliever in the Gospel to explore the testimony of the resurrection of Christ as to how it would stand up in a law court. He ended up believing in Christ and that the evidence presented in the Gospels would be admissable in a modern court.
In the last analysis my faith rests not on the wisdom of man but on the power of God.
And if one does not touch the Spirit of Christ ("the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)) all the historical confirming evidence will not do him any good. That Divinity of Jesus issue is inseparable with receiving Jesus as divine life within.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 8:16 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Theodoric, posted 08-07-2009 8:50 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 450 of 517 (518681)
08-07-2009 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by jaywill
08-07-2009 8:06 AM


Re: WOAH!
In the last analysis my faith rests not on the wisdom of man but on the power of God.
You reinforce what I have been saying all along. Evidence means nothing when compared to faith. Since you have faith you do not need evidence.
Anyway, it has occured once to my knowledge that an expert on Logal Evidence came as an unbliever in the Gospel to explore the testimony of the resurrection of Christ as to how it would stand up in a law court. He ended up believing in Christ and that the evidence presented in the Gospels would be admissable in a modern court.
Is this an anecdote? Do you have a reference?
I have read some F.F. Bruce. I would not call it flimsy. Norm Giesler does not come accross to me as flimsy. Others recommended to me like Benjamin Warfield are highly regarded.
I am talking evidence you are talking argument. Two different things. I know the evidence they know. There are only so many pieces in this puzzle. You believe in their argument because of your faith. I look for evidence.
Norm Geisler is not a good source for subjective historical research.
quote:
Dr. Geisler has been a leader in the defense of the Inerrancy of the Bible and was a founder of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy which produced the famous “Chicago Statement” (1978) that has been a standard in the field ever since. He also was a witness in defense of teaching creation along side of evolution in the public schools at the famous “Scopes Two” trial in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1981.
Source
As for Warfield, a lot has changed in historical scholarship and archaeology since the first of the 20th century. We have a lot more to consider than he did. These men you mention are all very conservative christians. Of course their writings will be supportive of a physical biblical jesus. The purpose of their studies and lives is to spread this belief.
This does not change or alter the evidence or lack of evidence.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by jaywill, posted 08-07-2009 8:06 AM jaywill 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