U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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)
 
Old 08-23-2016, 12:42 PM
 
10,179 posts, read 10,544,003 times
Reputation: 3017

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
All history is hearsay! Stop pretending ancient writings being chosen for inclusion in a religious canon automatically makes them NOT historical and not reliable. That is preposterous. During that time, their content is certain to be a mix of myth, legend, hyperbole, elaboration and exaggeration - or did George Washington really chop down that cherry tree or toss a coin across the Potomac???
In the loosest sense of the term it may be hearsay, but you're forgetting (or ignoring) the fact that legitimate historians have said a standard criteria on what can be accepted as "historical":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Quote:
Stop pretending ancient writings being chosen for inclusion in a religious canon automatically makes them NOT historical and not reliable.
To that I say:

Quote:
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Although some claim that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability,[1] others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
Historians want a document to be as close to the events as possible, contemporaneous preferably. The gospels were written 40-70 years AFTER Jesus' death. They are NOT contemporaneous.

The gospels fail.

Historians want to know who wrote the documents. Nobody knows who wrote the gospels, that's the consensus of all secular historians

Quote:
Strictly speaking, each Gospel is anonymous.[57] Wikipedia
Once again, the gospels fail

Historians want accounts to agree with each other.

  1. The Gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
  2. The Gospels contain numerous and irreconcilable contradictions between themselves.
  3. The Gospels contain numerous factual errors (geographical, historical, legal) and demonstrable fictions.
Once again, the gospels fail

What more can I say, Mystic. I'm right. You're wrong.

Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-23-2016 at 01:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,854 posts, read 9,651,582 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post
Finally, that was what I was waiting for, you guys finally admitting the only reason you do not believe the historians I quoted is because if they are true then it lends weight to the gospel records and you guys just cannot have that, thus you fight against it.
This is so idiotic it's not worth the effort of responding

Quote:
So lets look at things from the standpoint of your own reasoning. Which is Josephus,...
[quote]A know forgery.

Quote:
Suetonius
Suetonius talks about Christians

Quote:
Tacitus
Serious historian accept that his information most likely der
ived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century.


Quote:
are historians of fables and myths.

Which mean then that Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian are really nothing more then myths.
Again, so idiotic that it's not worthy of a reply


Quote:
And

That the Jewish and roman war of AD70 never really happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,854 posts, read 9,651,582 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The fact that some ancient writings were collected and assembled into a religious canon does NOT change their historical or archeological importance. Only the atheists and secularists like to pretend there is a difference among the ancient writings.
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

Quote:
The idea that 2000+ years of impact on the world stage is the result of a non-existent person is just too ludicrous for words! Questioning any elaborations or hyperbole in the content is legitimate, but the absurd idea that a non-existent person was the basis for such enormous impact is preposterous.
So you would accept the existence of the Hindu god then would you ...as they have had an enormous impact on the world for far longer than Christianity. After all, he idea that 2000+ years of impact on the world stage is the result of a non-existent person is just too ludicrous for words...right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,993,137 times
Reputation: 386
[quote=Rafius;45236708]This is so idiotic it's not worth the effort of responding

Quote:
A know forgery.Suetonius talks about Christians

Serious historian accept that his information most likely der
Quote:
ived from Christian material circulating in the early 2nd century.


Again, so idiotic that it's not worthy of a reply


Yup, just like thrill, you want to pick and choose what is historical from the historians and what is not.

And the Josephus quote I used is NOT a forgery, it is his own works. So that shows how much you have really looked into it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 07:40 PM
 
10,179 posts, read 10,544,003 times
Reputation: 3017
[quote=pneuma;45240210]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
This is so idiotic it's not worth the effort of responding



Yup, just like thrill, you want to pick and choose what is historical from the historians and what is not.

And the Josephus quote I used is NOT a forgery, it is his own works. So that shows how much you have really looked into it.
Ohhhhhh......BROOOOOOTHER!

Some people just will not accept facts, not even if they come up and slap them in the face.

Every scholar agrees the Josephus is mostly an interpolation done by later church leaders.

Quote:
The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to interpolation.[6][7]
Generally, historians agree that Josephus only mentions that Jesus was crucified. The rest about him doing marvelous deeds and being God and the rest of the rubbish was added later.

This is what scholars are unanimous on...But don't tell that to pneuma. He's likely to put up a hissy fit.

By now, pneuma I'm convinced you really accept that the Josephus passage is phony as a $3 bill. You're only saying these outrageous things to get a rise out of us and laughing all the way to the bathroom before you make a mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,993,137 times
Reputation: 386
[quote=thrillobyte;45240558]
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma View Post

Ohhhhhh......BROOOOOOTHER!

Some people just will not accept facts, not even if they come up and slap them in the face.

Every scholar agrees the Josephus is mostly an interpolation done by later church leaders.

Generally, historians agree that Josephus only mentions that Jesus was crucified. The rest about him doing marvelous deeds and being God and the rest of the rubbish was added later.

This is what scholars are unanimous on...But don't tell that to pneuma. He's likely to put up a hissy fit.

By now, pneuma I'm convinced you really accept that the Josephus passage is phony as a $3 bill. You're only saying these outrageous things to get a rise out of us and laughing all the way to the bathroom before you make a mess.
And you do not know what you are talking about.

I quoted from book 20 chapter 9 which almost all scholar agree was written by Josephus.

You are referring to book 18 chapter 5, which is an interpolation made by the RCC.

Do a little research, get your facts straight and you might be a little more credible. Because as of right now you lost all credibility to be taken serious
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,993,137 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
All history is hearsay! Stop pretending ancient writings being chosen for inclusion in a religious canon automatically makes them NOT historical and not reliable. That is preposterous. During that time, their content is certain to be a mix of myth, legend, hyperbole, elaboration and exaggeration - or did George Washington really chop down that cherry tree or toss a coin across the Potomac???

By Their criteria, it has to be contemporary of Jesus time, to be considered as proof of Jesus existence is just plain lame.

According to their own criteria Plato, Julius Caesar and Homer never existed. Take a look.

Plato — Plato wrote his works from 427-347 BC. The earliest manuscript copy of Plato’s writing in existence today was written in 900 AD. That is 1,200 years after Plato’s death! And there are only 2 copies of these manuscripts in existence.





Julius Caesar — One of the most celebrated and trusted historical figures. Caesar lived from 100-44 BC and the earliest manuscript copy of his writings dates back to 900 AD, putting our best evidence of Caesar ever existing 1,000 years after his death. And there are 10 copies of ancient manuscripts of Caesar’s Gallic Wars.



So if you question whether Jesus existed, then you must also be really sure that Julius Caesar and Plato were completely fictional characters and never really existed.




Homer — Homer, who historians are not even sure ever really existed even today, is credited with writing the Iliad in ca 900 BC. The earliest manuscript copy of the Iliad dates to 400 BC. Meaning the only proof of Homer or the Iliad being accurate is from 500 years after the death of Homer.


Additionally there are 643 copies of ancient manuscripts of the Iliad written over the centuries that when compared against each other by experts have a 95.3 consistency and accuracy, making it one of the most reliable and proven documents of antiquity.






That is of course, until you compare it to the New Testament. The New Testament manuscripts date to less than 100 years after the death of Christ. Additionally there are over 5,600 ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament giving it more copies to a degree that dwarfs any other figure of ancient history.


Just goes to show that their criteria, is just that their criteria and as can be seen it is pretty lame and no scholar worth their salt would agree with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 08:50 PM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,642,764 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Ohhhhhh......BROOOOOOTHER!

Some people just will not accept facts, not even if they come up and slap them in the face.

Every scholar agrees the Josephus is mostly an interpolation done by later church leaders.

Generally, historians agree that Josephus only mentions that Jesus was crucified. The rest about him doing marvelous deeds and being God and the rest of the rubbish was added later.

This is what scholars are unanimous on...But don't tell that to pneuma. He's likely to put up a hissy fit.

By now, pneuma I'm convinced you really accept that the Josephus passage is phony as a $3 bill. You're only saying these outrageous things to get a rise out of us and laughing all the way to the bathroom before you make a mess.
Actually, here's what Bart Ehrman says the majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus believe about the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3).
''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 place 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 very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
If this is the original form of the passage, then Josephus had some solid historical information about Jesus's life: Jesus was known for his wisdom and teaching; he was thought to have done remarkable deeds; he had numerous followers; he was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate because of Jewish accusations brought against him; and he continued to have followers among the Christians after his death.''

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, pp. 60-61
That then, according to Bart Ehrman, who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings, is what the majority of scholars of early Judaism and experts on Josephus believe about the passage. That the core of the passage is authentic and that once what are thought to be spurious additions by later Christian scribes are removed, it reads something like what is shown above.


And so, no. The passage is not as phony as a three dollar bill, and every scholar does not agree that the Josephus passage is mostly an interpolation. Only that the passage has been touched up a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 09:15 PM
 
37,496 posts, read 25,232,088 times
Reputation: 5854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Actually, here's what Bart Ehrman says the majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus believe about the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3).
''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 place 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 very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
If this is the original form of the passage, then Josephus had some solid historical information about Jesus's life: Jesus was known for his wisdom and teaching; he was thought to have done remarkable deeds; he had numerous followers; he was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate because of Jewish accusations brought against him; and he continued to have followers among the Christians after his death.''

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, pp. 60-61
That then, according to Bart Ehrman, who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings, is what the majority of scholars of early Judaism and experts on Josephus believe about the passage. That the core of the passage is authentic and that once what are thought to be spurious additions by later Christian scribes are removed, it reads something like what is shown above.

And so, no. The passage is not as phony as a three dollar bill, and every scholar does not agree that the Josephus passage is mostly an interpolation. Only that the passage has been touched up a bit.
Amen!Those extremists on the atheist side who pretend that the ancient writings compiled into the Bible are somehow different from so-called secular historical writings are simply as biased as those fundies who believe the Bible is the 100% literal word of God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2016, 09:36 PM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,642,764 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Actually, here's what Bart Ehrman says the majority of scholars of early Judaism, and experts on Josephus believe about the Testimonium Flavianum (Antiquities 18.3.3).
''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 place 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 very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.
If this is the original form of the passage, then Josephus had some solid historical information about Jesus's life: Jesus was known for his wisdom and teaching; he was thought to have done remarkable deeds; he had numerous followers; he was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate because of Jewish accusations brought against him; and he continued to have followers among the Christians after his death.''

Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, pp. 60-61
That then, according to Bart Ehrman, who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings, is what the majority of scholars of early Judaism and experts on Josephus believe about the passage. That the core of the passage is authentic and that once what are thought to be spurious additions by later Christian scribes are removed, it reads something like what is shown above.


And so, no. The passage is not as phony as a three dollar bill, and every scholar does not agree that the Josephus passage is mostly an interpolation. Only that the passage has been touched up a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Amen!Those extremists on the atheist side who pretend that the ancient writings compiled into the Bible are somehow different from so-called secular historical writings are simply as biased as those fundies who believe the Bible is the 100% literal word of God.
I AM one of those fundies who believes that the Bible is 100 percent the word of God!!!
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