U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-26-2016, 01:13 PM
 
1,168 posts, read 651,794 times
Reputation: 1550

Advertisements

I'm not convinced that there were ever oral traditions about Jesus' life that had circulated during the decades after his alleged life and before the writing of the first Gospel narrative (Mark? Q?). If there were, then I would expect arcehologists to have found extra-Biblical references to at least one of the famous Jesus episodes such as the feeding of the 5,000. Wouldn't a story like that have made headline news? No one thought to write it down until decades later?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2016, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
I'm not convinced that there were ever oral traditions about Jesus' life that had circulated during the decades after his alleged life and before the writing of the first Gospel narrative (Mark? Q?). If there were, then I would expect arcehologists to have found extra-Biblical references to at least one of the famous Jesus episodes such as the feeding of the 5,000. Wouldn't a story like that have made headline news? No one thought to write it down until decades later?
Precisely! Here is this guy, at a time of high superstitious beliefs, walking on water, feeding multitudes with a can of sardines, raising the dead, curing the sick, curing blindness, drawing crowds so vast that people were trampled in their haste to hear him speak and finally being killed and coming back to life and yet...nobody, not one single contemporaneous source bothered to write it down or draw a picture, not one messenger, or trader or diplomat from a foreign land took the story back home with him. Not one Roman soldier bored out of his wits on duty in a foreign land told his mates in Rome about it, not one military leader, general or government official....nothing, nada, zilch, not a sausage. Just doesn't stack up does it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The historical existence of Jesus was never doubted until recent times.
Yes it was...by Celsus in late 2nd century, Bardesanes in mid 2nd century, Minucius Felix in mid 2nd century, Tatian in the late 2nd century, Dionysius of Corinth in late 2nd century, Caius in the late 2nd century, Porphyry in late 3rd century and the Emperor Julian in the fourth ...to name but a few.

Quote:
For example, we have the testimony of Josephus who has two entries in his Antiquities of the Jews in which Jesus is mentioned. The authenticity of one of those passages is not doubted, and the other, while believed to have been interpolated at a later time by a Christian writer, nevertheless has a core which scholars believe to be authentic.
I've already debunked you on Joseph, quoting the foremost authority IN THE WORLD on Josephus.

Quote:
That is but one of the early historical evidences that Jesus existed.
It fails miserably.

Quote:
There are of course others. It is sheer foolishness to deny that Jesus existed historically.
Your problem is and always has been that you want any possible historical Jesus to be the same Jesus depicted in the Bible. They are not the same.


Quote:
Christianity has its origins in real historical events, foremost being the resurrection of Jesus which was witnessed by many who suffered, and some at least, were even martyred for proclaiming the risen Jesus.
Oh dear!!

Quote:
And a great deal of resurrection studies by scholars from across the spectrum of views has been conducted in recent years.
Such as who?

Last edited by Rafius; 06-26-2016 at 03:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post

Common sense should tell you that a "trained" bible scholar of the past was a willing gullible participant. They did not train to be a scholar so they can refute the credibility of the bible gospels.
This is something Mike just DOES NOT UNDERSTAND. ALL his so called 'evidence' comes from biased sources like Church fathers or Bible scholars else discredited sources such as Josephus et al. He just cannot grasp that such people as Bible scholars are Bible scholars because they are believers. I've had this battle with him over and over again. I even gave him material from the world's leading authority on the works of Josephus which says that the passages Mike keeps referring to are not reliable...but all he does is toss his hair and flounce off...just like he did with you!

Last edited by Rafius; 06-26-2016 at 03:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
So say those who speak from the pre-supposition that predictive prophecy is impossible.
It is impossible!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 02:37 PM
 
37,494 posts, read 25,224,572 times
Reputation: 5854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
So say those who speak from the pre-supposition that predictive prophecy is impossible.
It is Divination when practiced prospectively (as prediction). It is Prophecy when practiced retrospectively (validated after the fact).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 03:53 PM
 
1,168 posts, read 651,794 times
Reputation: 1550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Precisely! Here is this guy, at a time of high superstitious beliefs, walking on water, feeding multitudes with a can of sardines, raising the dead, curing the sick, curing blindness, drawing crowds so vast that people were trampled in their haste to hear him speak and finally being killed and coming back to life and yet...nobody, not one single contemporaneous source bothered to write it down or draw a picture, not one messenger, or trader or diplomat from a foreign land took the story back home with him. Not one Roman soldier bored out of his wits on duty in a foreign land told his mates in Rome about it, not one military leader, general or government official....nothing, nada, zilch, not a sausage. Just doesn't stack up does it.
No, it doesn't stack up.

Are there any examples in history of a major event, with thousands of witnesses, that for decades no one wrote about, then later someone in a distant land wrote about it in great detail?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2016, 05:45 PM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,638,239 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike555 View Post
i said what i said and i stand by it. And i quoted a scholar who is an agnostic. He does not consider himself to be a christian. It is simply ignorant to claim that scholars and historians don't question and evaluate the historical evidence.

The historical existence of jesus was never doubted until recent times. Scholars who aren't even christian recognize that jesus existed based on the historical evidence and attestation from early sources.

For example, we have the testimony of josephus who has two entries in his antiquities of the jews in which jesus is mentioned. The authenticity of one of those passages is not doubted, and the other, while believed to have been interpolated at a later time by a christian writer, nevertheless has a core which scholars believe to be authentic.

In antiquities of the jews 20.9.1, josephus (a.d.37 - c. A.d.100), mentions james, the brother of christ. Most, if not all, scholars recognize this passage to be authentic. Now, if james the brother of jesus existed, then jesus existed.
antiquities 20.9.1 ''festus was now dead, and albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of the judges, and brought before them the brother of jesus, who was called christ, whose name was james . . .''

now, the other passage, antiquities 18.3.3, with what are believed to be later interpolations, reads as follows;
''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 wonderful works,---a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the jews, and many of the gentiles. He was [the] christ. And when pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men amongst 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 ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.''

[from the complete works of josephus]

once the interpolations are removed, the passage is considered by scholars to have originally read something like this;
''at this time there appeared jesus, a wise man. He was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many jews and among many of greek origin. When pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of christians named after him, has not died out.''

[did jesus exist, ehrman, p.61]
now, scholars, upon examining and questioning the text, believe that once what are thought to be later interpolations are removed, antiquities 18.3.3 has an authentic core in which jesus is mentioned by josephus.

That is but one of the early historical evidences that jesus existed. There are of course others. It is sheer foolishness to deny that jesus existed historically. And it is foolish to simply dismiss the work and views of trained historians who recognize that jesus existed.


And no. Christianity is not a failed religion. Christianity has its origins in real historical events, foremost being the resurrection of jesus which was witnessed by many who suffered, and some at least, were even martyred for proclaiming the risen jesus. And a great deal of resurrection studies by scholars from across the spectrum of views has been conducted in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafius View Post
yes it was...by celsus in late 2nd century, bardesanes in mid 2nd century, minucius felix in mid 2nd century, tatian in the late 2nd century, dionysius of corinth in late 2nd century, caius in the late 2nd century, porphyry in late 3rd century and the emperor julian in the fourth ...to name but a few.
Not one of those that you posted denied the historical existence of Jesus. And by the historical existence of Jesus, I mean that the man Jesus existed irrespective of whether he was who he claimed to be. But some of the men you mentioned were in fact Christians.

Celsus:
In addition, Celsus addressed the miracles of Jesus, holding that "Jesus performed His miracles by sorcery (γοητεία)":[17][18][19]


O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
Celsus didn't deny the historical existence of Jesus, but attributed his miracles to sorcery.


Bardesanes:
Bardesanes, also called Bardaisan, orBar Daiṣān (born July 11, 154, Edessa, Syria, [now Urfa, Tur.]ódied c. 222, Edessa) a leading representative of Syrian Gnosticism. Bardesanes was a pioneer of the Christian faith in Syria who embarked on missionary work after his conversion in 179.

Bardesanes | Syrian scholar | Britannica.com
Bardesanes who was a Gnostic believed that Jesus existed.


Tatian:

Tatian was a Christian who wrote the first known Gospel harmony which was called the Diatessaron.
Diatessaron. The Diatessaron (information Roberts-Donaldson).

Dionysius of Corinth:
[a.d. 170.] Eusebius is almost diffuse in what he tells us of this Dionysius, "who was appointed over the church at Corinth, and imparted freely, not only to his own people, but to others, and those abroad also, the blessings of his divine labours."

Dionysius of Corinth (translation Roberts-Donaldson).
Dionysius of Corinth, a Christian, did not deny that Jesus existed.


Cauis or Gaius Suetonius:

Gaius Suetonius, a Roman historian, did not deny that Jesus existed. He wrote what may or may not be a reference to Jesus. He wrote about 'Chrestus' which may be a misspelling of Christus.
Suetonius
At any rate, whether or not Gaius Suetonius was referring to Jesus or not, nowhere does he say that he denied the historical existence of Jesus.


Porphyry:
Porphyry acknowledged Jesus Christ only as an outstanding philosopher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher)
Since Porphyry regarded Jesus as a philosopher, he obviously did not deny the existence of the man Jesus.


Emperor Julian:
An early mention of the miracles of Christ comes from Julian the Apostate (Roman Emperor from 361-363 A.D.) who was an enemy of Christianity, he wrote:


"Jesus . . . has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany."


This statement shows that it was commonly accepted that Jesus performed miracles in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany as recorded in the Bible.

Historians say Jesus performed miracles
Julian believed that Jesus existed but that he was not worthy of fame.

Quote:
i've already debunked you on joseph, quoting the foremost authority in the world on josephus.
I'm not sure if you're referring to Joseph, the husband of Mary, or to Josephus. But you haven't debunked anyone regarding either of them. Regarding Josephus, I've already quoted what scholars have to say about his statements. Readers can simply refer to it in post #112 which is just above.




Quote:
Such as who?
We've been over this before.

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?


Now that's all the time and attention you're getting from me on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth View Post
No, it doesn't stack up.

Are there any examples in history of a major event, with thousands of witnesses, that for decades no one wrote about, then later someone in a distant land wrote about it in great detail?
None to my knowledge...much less wrote about them verbatim, detailing who said what to whom, when and even at what time of the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Not one of those that you posted denied the historical existence of Jesus. And by the historical existence of Jesus, I mean that the man Jesus existed irrespective of whether he was who he claimed to be.
I have told you before. I have no problem with the possible existence of Jesus the itinerant rebel rabbi possibly executed for sedition by the Romans but THAT Jesus is not the one you are referring to is it? The one you are referring to is BIBLEJESUS. How the hell does any man called Jesus help your claim for the existence of Bible Jesus?


Quote:
But some of the men you mentioned were in fact Christians.
If they were Christians then one would safely assume that they believed in Jesus the Christ. But they don't. They are saying that the Jesus of the Bible did not exist.

Quote:
Celsus:
In addition, Celsus addressed the miracles of Jesus, holding that "Jesus performed His miracles by sorcery (γοητεία)":[17][18][19]


O light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others, employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers; and Satan. So that Jesus himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine, but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the other sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus
Celsus didn't deny the historical existence of Jesus, but attributed his miracles to sorcery.
Then Celsus didn't believe in a divine Jesus did he, which is what I said.You keep arguing for two different people!

Celsus attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction.'

Quote:
Bardesanes:
Bardesanes, also called Bardaisan, orBar Daiṣān (born July 11, 154, Edessa, Syria, [now Urfa, Tur.]—died c. 222, Edessa) a leading representative of Syrian Gnosticism. Bardesanes was a pioneer of the Christian faith in Syria who embarked on missionary work after his conversion in 179.

Bardesanes | Syrian scholar | Britannica.com
Bardesanes who was a Gnostic believed that Jesus existed.
Bardesanes denied that your Christ was physical. He believed in a 'spiritual' Jesus the Christ.

Quote:
Tatian:
Tatian was a Christian who wrote the first known Gospel harmony which was called the Diatessaron.
Tatian compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:
'Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories.'

Quote:
Dionysius of Corinth:
[a.d. 170.] Eusebius is almost diffuse in what he tells us of this Dionysius, "who was appointed over the church at Corinth, and imparted freely, not only to his own people, but to others, and those abroad also, the blessings of his divine labours."

Dionysius of Corinth (translation Roberts-Donaldson).
Dionysius of Corinth, a Christian, did not deny that Jesus existed.
Dionysius of Corinth
claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters.


Quote:
Cauis or Gaius Suetonius:

Gaius Suetonius, a Roman historian, did not deny that Jesus existed. He wrote what may or may not be a reference to Jesus. He wrote about 'Chrestus' which may be a misspelling of Christus.
Suetonius
At any rate, whether or not Gaius Suetonius was referring to Jesus or not, nowhere does he say that he denied the historical existence of Jesus.
Speculation based on straw-grabbing in the hope that Suetonius miss-spelled the word Christus. Chrestus was a common Greek name. It is likely that the reference is to a Jewish agitator in Rome by that name. Your Jesus the Christ was never in Rome.


Quote:
Porphyry:
Porphyry acknowledged Jesus Christ only as an outstanding philosopher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher)
Since Porphyry regarded Jesus as a philosopher, he obviously did not deny the existence of the man Jesus.
Porphyry claimed the Gospels were invented :
'... the evangelists were inventors – not historians.'



Quote:
Emperor Julian:
An early mention of the miracles of Christ comes from Julian the Apostate (Roman Emperor from 361-363 A.D.) who was an enemy of Christianity, he wrote:


"Jesus . . . has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany."


This statement shows that it was commonly accepted that Jesus performed miracles in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany as recorded in the Bible.

Historians say Jesus performed miracles
Julian believed that Jesus existed but that he was not worthy of fame.
Julian claimed Jesus was spurious and counterfeit :
'Why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son? You have invented your new kind of sacrifice'.

The first thing you need to get straight is WHICH Jesus you are waving the flag for:
Jesus The Christ: Divine miracle worker and son son of Yahweh the Hebrew god of war as mentioned in the Bible...

or

Yeshua: Itinerant rebel rabbi...a nobody.

Which one are you arguing for?


Quote:
I'm not sure if you're referring to Joseph, the husband of Mary, or to Josephus. But you haven't debunked anyone regarding either of them. Regarding Josephus, I've already quoted what scholars have to say about his statements. Readers can simply refer to it in post #112 which is just above.
You know very well which one. But anyway....

Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University who has written fifteen books on Josephus and 138 articles on Josephus and Judaism writes -

"We may remark here on the passage in Josephus which has occasioned by far more comment than any other, the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. XVIII. 63 - 4) concerning Jesus. The passage appears in all our manuscripts; but a considerable number of Christian writers - Pseudo-Justin and Theophilus in the second century, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen in the third century, and Methodius and Pseudo-Eustathius in the early fourth century - who knew Josephus and cited from his works do not refer to this passage, though one would imagine that it would be the first passage that a Christian apologist would cite. In particular, Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites five passages from it, explicitly states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. The first to cite the Testimonium is Eusebius (c. 324); and even after him, we may note, there are eleven Christian writers who cite Josephus but not the Testimonium. In fact, it is not until Jerome in the early fifth century that we have another reference to it

Feldman's academic credentials are -

B.A. (Phi Beta Kappa, Valedictorian), Trinity College, Hartford, 1946; M.A. (in classics), Trinity College, 1947; Ph.D. (in classical philology), Harvard University, 1951 (diss.: "Cicero's Conception of Historiography"); L.H.D. (honorary), Trinity College, 1998. Ford Foundation Teaching Fellow in Classics, Trinity College, 1951-52; Instructor in New Testament Greek, Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1951-52; Instructor in Classics, Trinity College, 1952-53; Instructor in Classics, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, 1953-55; Instructor in Humanities and History, Yeshiva and Stern Colleges, 1955-56; Assistant Professor of Classical Civilization, Yeshiva College, 1955-61; Associate Professor of Classical Civilization, Yeshiva College, 1961-66; Professor of Classics, Yeshiva University, 1966-present; Abraham Wouk Family Professor of Classics and Literature, Yeshiva University, 1993-present.

Fellowships and Awards: Guggenheim Foundation, Fellow; American Council of Learned Societies, Senior Fellow; Selected to conducted seminar for college teachers, National Endowment for the Humanities, "The Greek Encounter with Judaism in the Hellenistic Period," at Yeshiva University, Summers of 1980, 1983, 1985, 1989, 1992; "Classical and Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism," Summer of 1987; Award for excellence in teaching the classics, American Philological Association, 1981; Judaica Reference Book Award, Association of Jewish Libraries, 1985; Fellow, Annenberg Research Institute for Judaic and Near Eastern Studies, Philadelphia, PA, 1988-89; Elected Fellow, American Academy for Jewish Research, 1993; Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 1994.

Quote:
We've been over this before.

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?


Now that's all the time and attention you're getting from me on this.
Yes we have ...and all your 'critical scholars' turn out to be Bible scholars i.e. believers.



He just doesn't get it readers. He argues for a historical 'Jesus' to support his claim for a divine 'Bible Jesus'. Would someone explain the difference to him please.

Last edited by Rafius; 06-27-2016 at 12:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 01:47 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Well as I have nothing better to do at the moment so let's debunk your source...Habermas, with this very excellent refutation of the charlatan... Gary Habermas.

Habermas' argument is as it always was - intellectually invalid from the start.

Like Craig and so many others, Habermas builds his entire case on the following grounds:

- the gospels are historical facts
- the report of an empty tomb and the alleged witnesses of a resurrected Christ prove the resurrection occurred
- the conversion of Paul is a meaningful truth in any account
- the rapid success of Christianity and its success today proves its validity and the divinity of Jesus

He has built a 40 year career on these completely spurious claims and that preposterous logic. The facts, when viewed objectively, reveal how thin and fragile this entire argument is at each juncture:

1. To begin with, there is no contemporary historical record of the life, ministry, arrest, trial, and execution of Jesus. Habermas offers no such evidence because there is no such evidence. No other archeological hypothesis would be granted the certification of "truth" without such evidence, based solely on writings. No historian hangs his hat on stories of Atlantis, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Gilgamesh, or any other such tale based on writings without historical evidence. They're all called myths. So should the story of Jesus be, based on the same criteria.

2. The bible is massively inconsistent and unhistorical. The gospels were written 30+ years after Jesus' death by non-eyewitnesses. There are effectively two unique canonical gospels - Mark + the other synoptics and John; these offer significantly different accounts of Jesus' origins, ministry, and connection to his alleged legacy. There are dozens of other written accounts, no more or less historical than the gospels, that were rejected by church leaders when one church began to dominate (ultimately by force) Christianity. The gospels are not a historical accounting of anything.

On witnesses to a resurrected Christ: the gospels talk about meetings with a resurrected Jesus, and Paul claims more than 500 people witnessed a post-tomb Jesus. Well, read those post-mortem accountings in the gospels. Every first meeting with these closest people to Jesus - allegedly perfectly accounted - is very different. How is that possible if they're inerrant? And Paul's claim of 500 post-tomb witnesses of Jesus: where are their accountings? If 5% of the people present at these miraculous events wrote their accounts, we'd have two dozen verifications of this. But there are none!

This really means there are effectively four apocryphal post-tomb accounts with apostles, all of which are vastly different though allegedly the same first meetings, and only one claimant on Paul's 500+ accounting - Paul himself, who offers no names, no locations, and presents no signed copies of any of those people's accounts. This claim isn't just hollow: it's impossible to support as anything but hearsay, and frankly it's pretty thin hearsay.

3. The empty tomb? I leave you with Matthew 28:11-15. Maybe it happened like the non-historical gospel begs us to believe. Maybe not. It's all about faith, right?

4. On Paul's conversion: so what. People who were unbelievers change religions every day. People who were unbelievers change religions and offer crackpot testimonies about their experience every day. People change religions and offer crackpot testimonies and go out and start new whole successful cults - well, not every day, but often - many times per century. Why is Paul's conversion and success so compelling to so many people? Interesting - in Paul's writing about Jesus, he seems to know very little about this historical being, at least as he's recorded in the gospels: he writes nothing about a virgin birth, nothing about a crucifixion. How did this person, whose testimony about Christ is so shallow, become the main theologian of the faith? In my opinion - it's ridiculous to believe it.

5. On Christianity's rise: were it not for Paul selling the story of Jesus to Roman pagans, Christianity would've fizzled out to nothing in the middle east. Why? Because scholarly Jews knew the notion that Jesus was their messiah wasn't just wrong; it was utterly dismissible, even heretical. In truth, the only prophesy Jesus actually met was the fact that he was male and Jewish. Jews didn't buy in then or now because it's complete fraudulent. based on their scripture. Paul sold the story of a benevolent afterlife to Gentiles; the empire - seeing, as they always did, the advantage of having a seemingly religious government to enhance their control over the masses - adopted a highly selected, cherry-picked version of the faith from many dozens of options, then wiped out all competing beliefs (even other Christianities), using violence and even borderline genocide where necessary. The rise of the Christianity broadly practiced today doesn't prove its divinity; to the contrary, it proves its powerfully and cruelly political - and hypocritical - origins.

Typical of such discourses, these claims are easily assailed at each point, simply by using the standards of debate used in all such reviews. Not a single argument survives basic, thoroughly reasonable intellectual scrutiny. Habermas' proof of Jesus' history and divinity proves only how intellectually bankrupt and fraudulent apologetics are, and how desperately people cling to belief to convince themselves there's a simple key to an eternal life. His approach is unacademic, unhistorical, unscientific, and should serve only as a footnote in the history of debate and intellectual review as to how far people will go to protect desperately held beliefs.
https://www.quora.com/What-reinforce...lowing-lecture
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top