U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-15-2011, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,733,533 times
Reputation: 12223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
We have about fifty different authors, both Christians and non-Christians, who wrote about Jesus within a century and a half of his time. That's more than we have for all but maybe a handful of ancient historical characters. Do we "know" that Jesus existed? In the same sense that we "know" that, say, Hannibal existed, yes. Hypothetically, either one of them could have been a fictional character, but we have absolutely no evidence that they were fictional, and mounds of evidence that they existed.



I don't see how "going where the evidence points" is a position of dishonesty.
What evidence? There is none...I do not consider anything written in the bible as evidence...It is all hearsay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2011, 09:54 PM
 
2,726 posts, read 4,375,505 times
Reputation: 1944
Quote:
Originally Posted by sahhen1 View Post
As atheists, they would not have to worry much. They can do what they please. Wouldn't that mean, they are less stressed than christians? Christians are worried about doing what's right and maintaining a good lifestyle, it can be stressful (emotionally).
"Maintaining" a good lifestyle can be stressful. Living a good lifestyle is what life is about.

You know what they say about worriers...they do nothing about it. So, yes, if Christian's are worried about doing what's right, it must be stressful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 12:52 AM
 
307 posts, read 225,055 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptsum View Post
Other than what is written in your sacred book or any sacred book, what evidence do you have and are willing to produce that your Jesus even existed?
How about the fact that several non-Christian writers, including a few historians, wrote about Him as a historical person? For example, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ being executed by Pilate. How is a historian stating that Christ existed and was executed not evidence that he existed and was executed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:06 AM
 
307 posts, read 225,055 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
What evidence? There is none...I do not consider anything written in the bible as evidence...It is all hearsay.
Even without the Bible, we can easily establish that Christ existed. Even the earliest opponents of Christ and Christianity acknowledged that he existed at the very least.

And I'm sorry, but for you to say that there is no evidence just because you don't consider the evidence to be evidence is ridiculous. Evidence is still evidence whether you personally acknowledge it or not. Most of what we know about ancient history is "hearsay", since the historians (which are our main source for ancient historical events) personally witnessed very little of what they wrote about. Even the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination were written by people who didn't witness the event and are thus "hearsay". So do you also not consider the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination to be evidence? Or do you just do this when it comes to Jesus?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:06 AM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,301,038 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
How about the fact that several non-Christian writers, including a few historians, wrote about Him as a historical person? For example, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ being executed by Pilate. How is a historian stating that Christ existed and was executed not evidence that he existed and was executed?


It's not evidence because Tacitus didn't write about it -- Tacitus repeated accounts he got from others. This should be rather obvious, since Tacitus was born in 56 AD, and wrote about Christ in 116 AD -- some 20+ and 80+ years after the fact, respectively.

It would be like me (born in 1969) writing about the alien corpses the United States military recovered in 1947 in Roswell. It's all fine and dandy to say, "See? Voyageur is an American and he says there were bodies of men from Mars collected in New Mexico, that proves it!". Except, it doesn't. I cannot be a primary source as I cannot have been a witness to whatever happened in Roswell.

Similarly, Tacitus cannot have been a witness to anything that happened decades before his birth.

That is what is so pointless about incessantly citing sources (such as Josephus, another one) who were not contemporary sources. Future (from the act) historians may indeed write about real events in their past, and may indeed be correct, but they are not, and cannot be, primary sources. They are merely repeating what previous generations have told them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:10 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,042 posts, read 30,733,533 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
How about the fact that several non-Christian writers, including a few historians, wrote about Him as a historical person? For example, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ being executed by Pilate. How is a historian stating that Christ existed and was executed not evidence that he existed and was executed?
Here is what Tactius wrote.. Apparently the Romans did not like cults.

Quote:
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Juda, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them. Jesus myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:33 AM
 
307 posts, read 225,055 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post


It's not evidence because Tacitus didn't write about it
Sure he did. He wrote about it in his text "Annals".

Quote:
-- Tacitus repeated accounts he got from others. This should be rather obvious, since Tacitus was born in 56 AD, and wrote about Christ in 116 AD
I thought you said he didn't write about it. Now you're saying he did?

Quote:
-- some 20+ and 80+ years after the fact, respectively.
Uh-huh. And? Most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from historians writing four centuries after Alexander's time. Does that mean we should dismiss most of what we know about Alexander the Great? Or should we only dismiss "after the fact" writings by historians if they're about Christ?

Quote:
It would be like me (born in 1969) writing about the alien corpses the United States military recovered in 1947 in Roswell. It's all fine and dandy to say, "See? Voyageur is an American and he says there were bodies of men from Mars collected in New Mexico, that proves it!". Except, it doesn't. I cannot be a primary source as I cannot have been a witness to whatever happened in Roswell.
You also aren't a respected historian. Does the fact that the historian Seutonius wrote about Caesar crossing the Rubicon, even though Suetonius was born over a century after that event, then not count as evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon?

Quote:
Similarly, Tacitus cannot have been a witness to anything that happened decades before his birth.
Yet he wrote about many things that happened decades before his birth. Should we dismiss all of it, in your opinion? Or just what he wrote about Jesus, and keep the rest? Tacitus was known to be diligant, accurate and trustworthy. He also tended to fact-check claims to him against the government documents, and when repeating claims that he didn't personally believe, he specifically said that they were mere claims. However, he wrote of Jesus' execution as a historical fact, not as a mere claim he heard somewhere.

Quote:
That is what is so pointless about incessantly citing sources (such as Josephus, another one) who were not contemporary sources. Future (from the act) historians may indeed write about real events in their past, and may indeed be correct, but they are not, and cannot be, primary sources. They are merely repeating what previous generations have told them.
So, in your opinion, if a historian is writing about something he didn't personally witness, then it shouldn't be considered evidence? Because if we did this, we'd be tossing out almost everything we know about ancient history.

Personally, I'd say that we should accept the writings of historians as evidence for the events they describe, unless we have evidence to the contrary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:48 AM
 
307 posts, read 225,055 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Here is what Tactius wrote.. Apparently the Romans did not like cults.
Yes, he clearly hated Christians. As such, he would not have reported some claim they made but which he disagreed with as if it were a historical fact. But he isn't saying that Christians claimed that Christ was executed by Pilate. He's saying Christ was executed by Pilate. So how is this not evidence that Christ was executed by Pilate?

Quote:
The Jesus myth theory (also known as the Christ myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is a term that has been applied to several theories that at their heart have one common concept: the New Testament account of the life of Jesus is so filled with myth and legend as well as internal contradictions and historical irregularities that at best no meaningful verification regarding Jesus of Nazareth (including his very existence) can be extracted from them.
And I consider those who promote the Jesus myth theory to be just as irrational as those who promote the idea that the holocaust never happened. They basically ignore or dismiss any evidence to the contrary, then declare that there is no evidence. Even without the New Testament, we have more than enough evidence to show that Christ existed at the very least. To rational people, a historian writing about someone as having recently existed is evidence that the person existed, at least unless there is evidence to the contrary. I cannot think of a single instance where a respected historian wrote about a person now known to be fictional, as if the historian believed the person existed within their recent history. Yet Christ-mythers would have us believe that ALL of the historians who wrote about Jesus were actually writing about a fictional character. How nonsensical is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:53 AM
 
Location: NC, USA
7,088 posts, read 12,723,163 times
Reputation: 3975
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojo-50 View Post
a christian would only have stress when it comes to following Jesus and doing the will of his Father,(Matt.12:50-For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother). IF they're STILL wanting to be part of satan's world, (1John 2:15,16- Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world).

the truth is, many christians, or those who think they have a first class ticked to Heaven, are guilty of this. many sits up in their place of worship yelling..."hallelujah" , preaching to the non-believers that they're going to burn in hell. not even realizing,or... refuse to realize. IF there was a "hellfire", they would be the first in line. i'm sure there are many atheist in high places ,who puts on that ..."i'm a believer of God" face. but for the most part,there are many christians who either hides in the closet with their little secrets,( as though God couldn't see them). or just don't care what others see. because the believe once saved,always saved,no matter what they do....wrong!

i don't feel stressed because i'm trying to serve Jehovah God,and follow Jesus teachings. again i said "TRY" , because many act as though they didn't get the main point i'm making. i have my battles, but my battles isn't because i can't let go of what the world has to offer. be-it old friends who still wants to club, sleep around, etc. and i don't care what society, friends ,and family thinks of me. it's not hard for me ,because those were never my things.

i know when man ,(meaning humans), turn on me, Jehovah won't. i also know if i'm trying to live in a way pleasing to him, even if i slip. he will forgive me when i go to him in Jesus name. also why would i want to follow,worship, or celebrate the ways of the world with a bunch of imperfect humans that refuse to save their own lives ,not to mention saving mine. one imperfect being is enough for me to handle,which is myself. this is why i never told an atheist,he's going to burn, or make. i can't even guarantee myself that i'll make it.

what many christians refuse to believe because of what they have been taught, (i was at one time a believer of such). those same non-believers tell say are going to hell. if or when they die, won't! , because Jesus died so that we may live. so they WON'T be in any helfire, Jehovah God's word says once we die, we are free from our sins. (Rom.-6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord). And (Rom.6:7 -For he that is dead is freed from sin).

some will say,yeah!.. because once you're dead, you CAN'T sin anymore, that's what this mean! i can understand why some would feel this way.
but what many refuse to see is the key points of God's word..." dead is freed from sin" what kind of God, IF he's a loving and Just Father. turns around and say,...yeah i know i said once you're dead, you're free from your sins. but while you were alive...you sinned!, it makes no since to teach he sends the dead to a hellfire.

either way. the stress many christians have is because they refuse to give up the world. yet they want blessing from...Jesus. Jesus if he was giving that power to do so, even while he's in Heaven, wouldn't!, any who THINK they can get away with trying to straddle the fence. that goes for me ,and anyone else who say they serve Jehovah and follow Jesus better hope we won't live to see the end. peace
It might just be the way my brain is wired, but.... that seems like a whole lot of supposition to me!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2011, 02:07 AM
 
2,031 posts, read 2,301,038 times
Reputation: 1375
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
Sure he did. He wrote about it in his text "Annals".
No, he didn't. He wrote what others were telling him. It is a critical difference, and clearly one you don't understand.

Quote:
I thought you said he didn't write about it. Now you're saying he did?
You think a lot of incorrect things. You should work on that.

Quote:
Uh-huh. And? Most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from historians writing four centuries after Alexander's time. Does that mean we should dismiss most of what we know about Alexander the Great? Or should we only dismiss "after the fact" writings by historians if they're about Christ?
I clearly stated that what future historians write may well be correct. But don't let that get in the way of erecting a strawman to knock down! The problem comes when the contemporary record is entirely silent on fantastic events, particularly in a notably literate society with a penchant for recording every last detail on all sorts of things spectacular and mundane (the Roman Empire).

Quote:
You also aren't a respected historian. Does the fact that the historian Seutonius wrote about Caesar crossing the Rubicon, even though Suetonius was born over a century after that event, then not count as evidence that Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
More strawmen...

Seutonius on Caesar and the Rubicon is irrelevant because we have primary, contemporary sources -- both Caesar himself and Cicero.

Quote:
Yet he wrote about many things that happened decades before his birth. Should we dismiss all of it, in your opinion? Or just what he wrote about Jesus, and keep the rest? Tacitus was known to be diligant, accurate and trustworthy. He also tended to fact-check claims to him against the government documents, and when repeating claims that he didn't personally believe, he specifically said that they were mere claims. However, he wrote of Jesus' execution as a historical fact, not as a mere claim he heard somewhere.
Hilarious! Now you have Tacitus down in the Imperial Archives, studiously pouring over the official execution records of Jesus! No doubt he had the clerks running to and fro as he proofed the galleys his agent forwarded him from the publishing house in Rome!

Quote:
So, in your opinion, if a historian is writing about something he didn't personally witness, then it shouldn't be considered evidence?
Correct. It becomes mere hearsay.

Quote:
Because if we did this, we'd be tossing out almost everything we know about ancient history.
Utter nonsense. From archaeology to all manner of primary sources, we know a great deal.

But what is problematic about Jesus are the spectacular events attributed to him, and the completely and utter silence of every single contemporay historian in the Roman Empire on him. Every last one. This is why Tacitus' regurgitation of claims made by the cult of Jesus are so meaningless -- they are contradicted. It would be as if not a word of the Black Death was made in the historical record until the year 1400 AD, when a handful of historians would allege it occurred. Without some archaelogical evidence, or primary accounts, it would be a baseless claim and entirely suspect. Then you would reject it -- unless your cherished beliefs rested on it, then you'd elevate each of those handful of chroniclers to exemplary purveyors of the solemn truth!

Quote:
Personally, I'd say that we should accept the writings of historians as evidence for the events they describe, unless we have evidence to the contrary.
You toss of 'historian' as if Tacitus got his PhD in History from the University of Rome. Rather, he was a chronicler, like Bede and Adam of Bremen, et cetera. And I have little doubt that you happily toss off accounts of Thor, or Apollo, when 'historians' have written of them. And why not? You obviously don't have the vested interest in those 'myths', as you'll undoubtedly call them. Unlike the accounts in which you so desperately want to believe you'll fall all over yourself presenting Tacitus as a professional equal of Hume...
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
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