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 06-27-2016, 01:57 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393

Advertisements

.....and another article that soundly debunks Habermas.

Escaping Christian Fundamentalism: A Critique of Gary Habermas' Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-27-2016, 02:37 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Paul specifically states in 1 Corinthians 15:8 - ''and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.''
So your evidence is....the Bible!

Quote:
You are missing the point. Regardless of whether you believe that John wrote the Gospel of John, or that someone else wrote the Gospel, the point is that the author of that Gospel makes a direct claim to have been a witness to Jesus.
So now all you have to do is show that the author was telling the truth.

All your arguments seem to hinge on the Bible being true.

Quote:
But my main point is that the author of that Gospel, whoever you may think him to be, claimed to be an eyewitness to Jesus.
Your points fall due to the fact that you have no way of proving that the author was trustworthy and not just making it up. In fact, your points don't fall, they don't even get off the ground. Your 'evidence' is the same as that of your hero Habermas... it depends on the Bible being true.

Last edited by Rafius; 06-27-2016 at 02:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 02:47 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Student66 View Post
What discrepancies?
These...

New Testament Contradictions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 09:27 AM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,638,239 times
Reputation: 7408
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.

I've already debunked you on Joseph, quoting the foremost authority IN THE WORLD on Josephus.

It fails miserably.

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.


Oh dear!!

Such as who?
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. 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.]—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.


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.



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.





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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
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.

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?


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.

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.'

Bardesanes denied that your Christ was physical. He believed in a 'spiritual' Jesus the Christ.

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.'

Dionysius of Corinth
claims Christians were changing and faking his own letters.


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.


Porphyry claimed the Gospels were invented :
'... the evangelists were inventors – not historians.'



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?


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.

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.
You need to work on your comprehension skills. You can't even understand, despite the fact that I emphasized it, that I have been saying that the existence of the historical Jesus has not been denied until recent times. I'm not referring to Jesus as God, (which He is), but to the man Jesus. The historical existence of Jesus has not been denied until recent times. When I say that no one doubted the existence of the historical Jesus until recent times, I am not saying that no one doubted that Jesus was the Christ until recent times. I am saying that no one doubted that there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God. Now if that's not clear enough for you, then I don't know what is.

And I have provided quotes which prove that Tatian and Dionysius of Corinth were Christians. It's there for all to see. Again, Tatian, a Christian, produced the first Gospel harmony known as the Diatessaron. Dionysius of Corinth was bishop of the church at Corinth. And you're trying to claim that neither of them believed in Christ?


As it happens however, the historical Jesus is who He claimed to be. He is the God-man who came into the world to die for the sins of all mankind so that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.


And no, not all critical Bible scholars mentioned by Habermas are believers. For example, Gerd Lüdemann, who is one of the scholars mentioned in the article by Gary Habermas, became an atheist. He acknowledges that the apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus but he attributes it to hallucinations.

And Bart Ehrman, also mentioned by Habermas in the article is certainly not a believer anymore. Ehrman who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings states the following as quoted by Habermas;
Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?
That is Bart Ehrman, an agnostic with atheist leanings, stating that it is an historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.'

Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231.

The fact that you make the claim, ''all your 'critical scholars' turn out to be Bible scholars i.e. believers.,'' shows that you didn't actually read the article.



In your attempt to discredit Josephus' reference to Jesus, you quote one scholar, Louis H. Feldman. However, as Bart Ehrman states, the majority of scholars believe that the 'Testimonium Flavianum' Antiquities 18:3 has an authentic core which was touched up a bit by later Christian scribes. In other words, Josephus did write about Jesus in that passage, but later Christians added to it.
''The big question is whether a Christian scribe (or scribes) simply added a few choice Christian additions to the passage or whether the entire thing was produced by a Christian and inserted in an appropriate pace in Josephus's Antiquities.

The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it was the former---that one or more Christian scribes ''touched up'' the passage a bit. If one takes out the obviously Christian comments, the passage may have been rather innocuous, reading 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 day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.''

[Did Jesus Exist? Bart Ehrman, pp. 60-61]
Now, to head you off, I am not saying that Josephus believed that Jesus was the Son of God, or that He was the Messiah. I am saying, and the majority of scholars agree, that Josephus wrote about the man Jesus who gained a following and who was crucified by order of Pilate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 10:19 AM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,638,239 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
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
You asked for a list of names of critical scholars who acknowledge that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus. I provided it.

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

Not only did you not actually read it as evidenced by the fact that you falsely claimed that all of the critical scholars listed were believers, which they are not, but you resort to an ad hominem attack in order to attempt to discredit Habermas who is a recognized authority on the resurrection of Jesus.

While you deny the historical value of the Gospels, many scholars, including Bart Ehrman, do not. While Ehrman is now an agnostic, he nevertheless recognizes that the Gospels do have historical value.

'However else the Gospels are used---for example, in communities of faith---they can and must be considered historical sources of information.' [p. 71]

'To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly. [p. 73]

'So too the Gospels. Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen and used as significant historical sources.' [p.74]

[Did Jesus Exist?]
Now obviously, Ehrman doesn't believe that everything stated in the Gospels can be believed, but he also is quite emphatic that the Gospels have historical value, whether you do or not.

And as I already posted in post #93,

Ehrman states the following.
Despite this enormous range of opinion, there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius , when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea. Even though this is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet, it is not the view of a group of writers who are usually labeled, and often label themselves, mythicists.

['Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth' Ehrman, p. 12]
The reason why most scholars agree regarding the above stated things , states the agnostic Ehrman, is that they trust the historical record of the New Testament, again, whether you do or not.

I have no doubt that you will go on denying the historical value of the Gospels and of Paul's witness, and that you will refrain from doing adequate research which will result in you continuing to make foolish and false claims. But the fact is that the apostles, whom you deny even existed, were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus, and as a result, they were willing to suffer and even die for what they proclaimed.

You harp on the idea that believers can't be trusted because of bias on their part while you fail to recognize your own bias. You fail to understand that while everyone has bias to some extent, bias can to a great degree be set aside so that one can be objective. You however are unwilling, or unable to set aside your own bias. This makes you a stupid man Rafius, and one who cannot be reasoned with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You need to work on your comprehension skills. You can't even understand, despite the fact that I emphasized it, that I have been saying that the existence of the historical Jesus has not been denied until recent times. I'm not referring to Jesus as God, (which He is), but to the man Jesus.
Aaaaahahaha! It is clearly you that has the comprehension problem. You want to claim a historical Jesus but you want him to be Bible Jesus! 'Historical Jesus' is a character that historians accept as possibly existing. They do not accept that he was a divine son of a god as portrayed in the Bible. Look....

'There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The fact that there is NO physical or archaeological evidence for this Jesus would lead anyone l to question the existence of such a person let alone accept that he was the son of a god. But that said, I repeat, I have no problem accepting the possibility that an itinerant, rebel rabbi named Yeshua could possibly have existed but like all scholars of history, I reject the 'son of god' claims. You on the other hand want there to have been an itinerant, rebel rabbi named Yeshua but you want him to be the Jesus of Bible fame too...a divine son of a god! Your beloved scholars of history do not support you in that.

Quote:
When I say that no one doubted the existence of the historical Jesus until recent times, I am not saying that no one doubted that Jesus was the Christ until recent times. I am saying that no one doubted that there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God.
Many, like me, have accepted the possible existence of a person called Jesus who wandered around as an outspoken critic of the establishment but no serious scholar of history accept the god claims.

Quote:
Now if that's not clear enough for you, then I don't know what is.
What is clear to me is that you what to nibble both sides of the cake. You want an historical Jesus AND a divine one. The only people you'll get to support you on that one are fundamentalist Christians like you.

Quote:
As it happens however, the historical Jesus is who He claimed to be. He is the God-man who came into the world to die for the sins of all mankind so that whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.
No he isn't. If he was he would be Jesus The Christ.


Quote:
And no, not all critical Bible scholars mentioned by Habermas are believers. For example, Gerd Lüdemann, who is one of the scholars mentioned in the article by Gary Habermas, became an atheist. He acknowledges that the apostles believed they saw the risen Jesus but he attributes it to hallucinations.
No. Lüdemann is not an atheist. He simply doesn't believe that all of the Jesus tales depicted in the Bible are true. He questions modern Christianity but he is still a Jesus believer... just not so much a 'Christian'. He claims that the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity That doesn't make him an atheist. How the hell can an atheist be Professor of New Testament at the University of Göttingen?? In fact, I'm surprised you mentioned him, he rather debunks your claim that your Jesus was a god.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_L%C3%BCdemann
Quote:
And Bart Ehrman, also mentioned by Habermas in the article is certainly not a believer anymore. Ehrman who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings states the following as quoted by Habermas;
Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.
The only historians that have a belief in Jesus' resurrection are Bible scholars, theologians, believers like you.

Quote:
That is Bart Ehrman, an agnostic with atheist leanings, stating that it is an historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.'
Ummm yes. Well they would believe that wouldn't they. Unfortunately for you, beliefs don't necessarily make facts.

Quote:
The fact that you make the claim, ''all your 'critical scholars' turn out to be Bible scholars i.e. believers.,'' shows that you didn't actually read the article.
Give me 5 historians that believe Jesus the Christ of Bible fame was real and who are not Christians/Theologians

Quote:
In your attempt to discredit Josephus' reference to Jesus, you quote one scholar, Louis H. Feldman.
One scholar!!! He is the foremost authority IN THE WORLD on Josephus and his works...and even if that were true, how does that differ from you...who only seem to have Bart Ehrman?? I'll take Feldman over Ehrman ANY DAY.

Quote:
However, as Bart Ehrman states, the majority of scholars believe that the 'Testimonium Flavianum' Antiquities 18:3 has an authentic core which was touched up a bit by later Christian scribes.
Then 'touched up' means that it has been tampered with and therefore should be dismissed as suspect.

Quote:
In other words, Josephus did write about Jesus in that passage, but later Christians added to it.
Let's assume that is true. Josephus wasn't even born at the alleged time of Jesus so how do you know that Josephus wasn't simply recording stories that were circulating amongst Christians?
Quote:
''The big question is whether a Christian scribe (or scribes) simply added a few choice Christian additions to the passage or whether the entire thing was produced by a Christian and inserted in an appropriate pace in Josephus's Antiquities.

The majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus, think that it was the former---
Then it is a fake. It's untrustworthy. How is it that you don't see it?

Quote:
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 day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.''
Show that Josephus was doing anything other than relaying stories told by Christians at the time. Also explain how...if Josephus wrote it, nobody noticed it until some 300 years after Josephus was dead...

'...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
Quote:
Now, to head you off, I am not saying that Josephus believed that Jesus was the Son of God, or that He was the Messiah. I am saying, and the majority of scholars agree, that Josephus wrote about the man Jesus who gained a following and who was crucified by order of Pilate.
He wrote about Hercules too. Do we accept on those grounds that Hercules was a real person.

To summarize. So what if every historian on the planet accepts that there was a man called Jesus who the Bible stories were based on. They do not accept that he was the son of a god; they do not accept that he walked on water, healed the sick. brought the dead back to life and came back to life after being killed so...how does quoting historians that accept the Itinerant, rebel rabbi, support your claim that such a person was your Jesus the Christ of Bible fame.

Last edited by Rafius; 06-27-2016 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 11:00 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,427,722 times
Reputation: 989
The New Testament writings in the four "gospels" and acts is a collection of documents by Christian historians. We don't need non-Christian historians to tell us if the Biblical historical accounts are factual or not. We know they are factual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The New Testament writings in the four "gospels" and acts is a collection of documents by Christian historians. We don't need non-Christian historians to tell us if the Biblical historical accounts are factual or not. We know they are factual.
Thank you Edgar. You can go now. I can handle it thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 11:23 AM
 
2,728 posts, read 848,226 times
Reputation: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
The New Testament writings in the four "gospels" and acts is a collection of documents by Christian historians. We don't need non-Christian historians to tell us if the Biblical historical accounts are factual or not. We know they are factual.
Non xian historians would show your beliefs are bat crap crazy. I can understand you not trusting them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-27-2016, 01:16 PM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,638,239 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Aaaaahahaha! It is clearly you that has the comprehension problem. You want to claim a historical Jesus but you want him to be Bible Jesus! 'Historical Jesus' is a character that historians accept as possibly existing. They do not accept that he was a divine son of a god as portrayed in the Bible. Look....
I didn't say that all historians accept that Jesus was 'a divine son of a god as portrayed in the Bible.' I said that most historians acknowledge that an historical Jesus existed.

However, the historical Jesus is who He claimed to be.


Quote:
'There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. All sources are documentary, mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

The fact that there is NO physical or archaeological evidence for this Jesus would lead anyone l to question the existence of such a person let alone accept that he was the son of a god. But that said, I repeat, I have no problem accepting the possibility that an itinerant, rebel rabbi named Yeshua could possibly have existed but like all scholars of history, I reject the 'son of god' claims. You on the other hand want there to have been an itinerant, rebel rabbi named Yeshua but you want him to be the Jesus of Bible fame too...a divine son of a god! Your beloved scholars of history do not support you in that.

Many, like me, have accepted the possible existence of a person called Jesus who wandered around as an outspoken critic of the establishment but no serious scholar of history accept the god claims.
Again, I didn't say that all scholars of history believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be. I said, as did Ehrman, that most scholars agree that there was an historical Jesus who was crucified.

There are many 'serious scholars of history' who believe that Jesus is who He claimed to be. Those who do are believers. Being believers does not mean that they aren't serious scholars of history. Men such as Michael Licona, Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, Everett Ferguson who wrote the book 'Church History' are examples of believers who are serious scholars of history. To claim that because they are believers they are less than serious is unwarranted.
Quote:
What is clear to me is that you what to nibble both sides of the cake. You want an historical Jesus AND a divine one. The only people you'll get to support you on that one are fundamentalist Christians like you.

No he isn't. If he was he would be Jesus The Christ.
I accept the historical evidence provided by eyewitness's to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

And yes, anyone who believes that the historical Jesus is also who He claimed to be is a believer.


Quote:
No. Lüdemann is not an atheist. He simply doesn't believe that all of the Jesus tales depicted in the Bible are true. He questions modern Christianity but he is still a Jesus believer... just not so much a 'Christian'. He claims that the historical evidence does not support the claims of traditional Christianity That doesn't make him an atheist. How the hell can an atheist be Professor of New Testament at the University of Göttingen?? In fact, I'm surprised you mentioned him, he rather debunks your claim that your Jesus was a god.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_L%C3%BCdemann
I should have said that Lüdemann is no longer a believer. And this by his own public admission.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/Ludemann.pdf page 2.

And you continue to miss the point of mentioning Lüdemann. The point being that Lüdemann who no longer considers himself to be a Christian, acknowledges that the disciples believed that they saw the risen Jesus, even though he himself (Lüdemann) doesn't believe that Jesus was actually resurrected.

The issue then is why did the disciples believe that they saw the risen Jesus. And as I have stated in other threads, none of the naturalistic theories are adequate to explain why they believed they saw the resurrected Jesus. The best explanation is that they actually did see the risen Jesus.


Quote:
The only historians that have a belief in Jesus' resurrection are Bible scholars, theologians, believers like you.
By definition, anyone, historian or not, who believes in Jesus' resurrection are believers. If a person believes in the resurrection of Jesus he wouldn't be an unbeliever now would he?


Quote:
Ummm yes. Well they would believe that wouldn't they. Unfortunately for you, beliefs don't necessarily make facts.
Unfortunately for you, you are rejection believes that are based on real historical events.

Quote:
Give me 5 historians that believe Jesus the Christ of Bible fame was real and who are not Christians/Theologians
That's an illogical request since if they believed that 'the Jesus the Christ of Bible fame was real,' if they believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be, then they wouldn't be unbelievers.

Quote:
One scholar!!! He is the foremost authority IN THE WORLD on Josephus and his works...and even if that were true, how does that differ from you...who only seem to have Bart Ehrman?? I'll take Feldman over Ehrman ANY DAY.
One scholar as opposed to the majority of scholars of early Judaism who believe that the Josephus passage has an authentic core to which was later added an interpolation by later Christians.

Quote:
Then 'touched up' means that it has been tampered with and therefore should be dismissed as suspect.
No, only the 'touched up' part is invalid. That doesn't negate the fact of an authentic core which most scholars believe to have been written by Josephus .

Quote:
Let's assume that is true. Josephus wasn't even born at the alleged time of Jesus so how do you know that Josephus wasn't simply recording stories that were circulating amongst Christians?
Then it is a fake. It's untrustworthy. How is it that you don't see it?

Show that Josephus was doing anything other than relaying stories told by Christians at the time. Also explain how...if Josephus wrote it, nobody noticed it until some 300 years after Josephus was dead...

'...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

Obviously Josephus was not an eyewitness of Jesus' life and so his information is from other sources. And obviously Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. The point is simply that he did refer to the fact that Jesus existed and that he had many followers, and that he was crucified.


Feldman has his opinion. The fact remains that most scholars believe that Josephus wrote about Jesus, but that later Christians added to it.

Quote:
Quote:
He wrote about Hercules too. Do we accept on those grounds that Hercules was a real person.
That's a ridiculous comparison. Josephus made no claim that Hercules was a real person. He did write that a man named Jesus, who had many followers, and was crucified, did exist.


Quote:
To summarize. So what if every historian on the planet accepts that there was a man called Jesus who the Bible stories were based on. They do not accept that he was the son of a god; they do not accept that he walked on water, healed the sick. brought the dead back to life and came back to life after being killed so...how does quoting historians that accept the Itinerant, rebel rabbi, support your claim that such a person was your Jesus the Christ of Bible fame.
The whole point of my even mentioning the fact that historians acknowledge Jesus existed was to refute the claim made by another poster in post #85 that there was no historical Jesus.


Not only was there an historical Jesus, but this historical Jesus was, and is, who He claimed to be. The Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, who took on flesh and came into the world to die for the sins of the world.

You will not be persuaded of this however, and I have already given you far too much time and attention on this and other threads. This going back and forth accomplishes nothing. Remain in your unbelief then.
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