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.
It's always a brick wall with people like you. First, if Philo did write massive tomes about Jesus, you know what you would be claiming here? You would say it was a forgery.
Not true. If any historian of Jesus' time ESPECIALLY one as influential as Philo wrote about Jesus and it was proven by historians to be authentic it would change the landscape of Christian apologetics so momentously as to give apologetics such ammunition for their case that I and millions others would be forced to acknowledge the reality of Jesus' resurrection. You know that as well as I do. But since there isn't anything, all you can do is make "What if..." claims as some means of bolstering your position since you have nothing else. Show me a historian contemporary to Jesus who wrote about him that has been authenticated and I will gladly in front of everybody here make a public apology that I was wrong and immediately reconvert back to Christianity. The ball is in your court. Go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Just like you do with Josephus who DID write about Jesus and was an important historian. Philo was not just a historian. He was a philosopher so why would he bother to give attention and creed to Christ when it didn't fit in his ideology? Futhermore, if Christians forged Josephus, why not do the same with Philo?
Josephus was a Jewish stooge for the Roman government. Anyone who has studied the matter knows this. Vespian saved him from death and Joseph became his official writer. Josephus was not an eyewitness to Jesus so anything he wrote would not be first-hand, just based on hearsay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Completely untrue. A careful study of the gospels will find that they are remarkably in harmony and merely present the story of Christ from different perspectives. Also Tacitus account aligns with Luke. Why would that happen if the gospel writers was just making stuff up on a whim?
Of course, that doesn't satisfy skeptics because NOTHING will satisfy skeptics of the Bible.
Here. Not for you because I know you won't touch it with a ten-foot pole--but for anybody following this discussion who's interested: a full chapter filled with contradictions between the gospel accounts. Don't click unless you have several hours to devote to the study.
Not true. If any historian of Jesus' time ESPECIALLY one as influential as Philo wrote about Jesus and it was proven by historians to be authentic it would change the landscape of Christian apologetics so momentously as to give apologetics such ammunition for their case that I and millions others would be forced to acknowledge the reality of Jesus' resurrection. You know that as well as I do. But since there isn't anything, all you can do is make "What if..." claims as some means of bolstering your position since you have nothing else. Show me a historian contemporary to Jesus who wrote about him that has been authenticated and I will gladly in front of everybody here make a public apology that I was wrong and immediately reconvert back to Christianity. The ball is in your court. Go for it.
Nope, you would ABSOLUTELY claim it was a forgery. I'm fed up with skeptics like you. You always find some way to deny evidence yet will accept WITHOUT question any study or evidence that goes against Christianity.
Nope, you would ABSOLUTELY claim it was a forgery. I'm fed up with skeptics like you. You always find some way to deny evidence yet will accept WITHOUT question any study or evidence that goes against Christianity.
Show us a writing by Philo that mentions Jesus. Otherwise go away.
Nope, you would ABSOLUTELY claim it was a forgery. I'm fed up with skeptics like you. You always find some way to deny evidence yet will accept WITHOUT question any study or evidence that goes against Christianity.
It's a sad reality that historic facts never get in the way of a Christian's reasoning capabilities. I've seen this time and time and time again in debates on YouTube. Pro debater apologists like Lane Craig have invented their own techniques for getting around bald-faced truth and sound convincing in the process. But anyone with an open mind who can honestly weigh the facts against the unproven legends would come away convinced as I had to that the Bible is just not to be trusted for any historic reliability. Historians have said this time and time again. For a Christian fact can be anything the Christian chooses it to be.
Here's where your argument fall apart, jeffbase: if Jesus was an indisputable fact then there wouldn't be a need for a field of apologetics. Apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. It wasn't until writers began to write books claiming Jesus was not a historic person and producing historic evidence to show this that Christian apologetics came into being to defend Jesus. Why does anybody need to defend the truth? They only need to defend a set of beliefs if enough evidence has surfaced to serious question the veracity of those beliefs. And more than enough evidence has surfaced.
It's a sad reality that historic facts never get in the way of a Christian's reasoning capabilities. I've seen this time and time and time again in debates on YouTube. Pro debater apologists like Lane Craig have invented their own techniques for getting around bald-faced truth and sound convincing in the process. But anyone with an open mind who can honestly weigh the facts against the unproven legends would come away convinced as I had to that the Bible is just not to be trusted for any historic reliability. Historians have said this time and time again. For a Christian fact can be anything the Christian chooses it to be.
Here's where your argument fall apart, jeffbase: if Jesus was an indisputable fact then there wouldn't be a need for a field of apologetics. Apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. It wasn't until writers began to write books claiming Jesus was not a historic person and producing historic evidence to show this that Christian apologetics came into being to defend Jesus. Why does anybody need to defend the truth? They only need to defend a set of beliefs if enough evidence has surfaced to serious question the veracity of those beliefs. And more than enough evidence has surfaced.
You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false. You claim that apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. But apologetics existed in the second century. In fact Justin Martyr wrote two apologetic works.
You have no credibility whatsoever Thrillobyte. And it is not scholars such as William Lane Craig and others who have invented techniques for getting around the truth. It's people such as yourself who have done that. Frankly, your rants are a bore.
Nope, you would ABSOLUTELY claim it was a forgery. I'm fed up with skeptics like you. You always find some way to deny evidence yet will accept WITHOUT question any study or evidence that goes against Christianity.
For a long time the Flavian testament was considered as at least partly true. But more and more there came to be questions about it that really undermined its as anything but a forgery.
It is the believers, Jeff who have refused to accept the evidence and insist that it is reliable even when it is pretty clear now it is a fake.
But the reference to James in Josephus Antiquities I took as evidence that Jesus was true. In fact until recently when it was suggested that this James is a different James altogether. Thus the reference to Jesus could be a Christian gloss. I don't say it is pretty much proven as yet and it makes no difference anyway because I believe James was a real person anyway, and Jesus, too. How dismissive is that Jeff?
You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false. You claim that apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. But apologetics existed in the second century. In fact Justin Martyr wrote two apologetic works.
You have no credibility whatsoever Thrillobyte. And it is not scholars such as William Lane Craig and others who have invented techniques for getting around the truth. It's people such as yourself who have done that. Frankly, your rants are a bore.
No. I think it is you who is wrong here. The fact that Justin's works are called 'apology' doesn't make them the apologetics that Thrills is talking about - trying to prove the credibility of the Gospels story etc against the doubys of skeptics and critic. Justin's apologies are arguing about why Christians are being persecuted as atheists.
In any case, even if it was true (in fact it may be) that Christian apologists were arguing with unbelievers in the 2nd c, that is a mere detail and Thrillobyte's points and arguments remain valid and unanswered.
Following on from my post above, the Jesus described in the gospels ought to be known to history. Both Josephus and Philo mention Pilate and there are inscriptions and a mention in Tacitus. In fact the accounts in Philo and Josephus are hard to interconnect, but nobody doubts he existed. Nor John the Baptist even though the reference in Josephus is sometimes questioned.
I actually believe that there was a Jesus, based on Tacitus, Paul (and i don't doubt the he existed, too) and ..wait for it...the Gospel accounts. But the lack of history does suggest that he was a minor figure.
This is all arguable, but to brush it aside on the grounds that Thrillobyte made a claim about the first appearance of apologetics especially when you know what he means and that Justin Martyr's works are similar only in the name, really is not a good argument.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-19-2015 at 09:30 AM..
You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false. You claim that apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. But apologetics existed in the second century. In fact Justin Martyr wrote two apologetic works.
You have no credibility whatsoever Thrillobyte. And it is not scholars such as William Lane Craig and others who have invented techniques for getting around the truth. It's people such as yourself who have done that. Frankly, your rants are a bore.
It wasn't called apologetics back then, Mike. My meaning is clear. When the church was young and had no power, of course people attacked it. Once the RCC became the center of power nobody dared disputed Christianity or they were burned or tortured. Naturally apologetics disappeared. But one the RCC lost its power a millennium later when the Age of Reason emerged people weren't afraid to question Christianity's foundational belief that Jesus was crucified died and resurrected. That's when modern apologetics emerged.
Quote:
The origins of the modern Jesus Myth may be traced back to 19th century historian Bruno Bauer.
Since then hundreds of reputable historians with PhD's, like Richard Carrier (PhD in ancient history from Columbia University) and Robert Price (PhD in Systematic Theology (1981) PhD in New Testament (1993) have produced more than enough verifiable evidence that Jesus at least was an ordinary man, not a god and at worst for Christians did not exist at all.
These historians would have no platform to stand on if the evidence for Jesus was so indisputable it could not even be questioned. That's the ONE fact you cannot argue against.
You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false. You claim that apologetics didn't exist 300 years ago. But apologetics existed in the second century. In fact Justin Martyr wrote two apologetic works.
You have no credibility whatsoever Thrillobyte. And it is not scholars such as William Lane Craig and others who have invented techniques for getting around the truth. It's people such as yourself who have done that. Frankly, your rants are a bore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
No. I think it is you who is wrong here. The fact that Justin's works are called 'apology' doesn't make them the apologetics that Thrills is talking about - trying to prove the credibility of the Gospels story etc against the doubys of skeptics and critic. Justin's apologies are arguing about why Christians are being persecuted as atheists.
In any case, even if it was true (in fact it may be) that Christian apologists were arguing with unbelievers in the 2nd c, that is a mere detail and Thrillobyte's points and arguments remain valid and unanswered.
Following on from my post above, the Jesus described in the gospels ought to be known to history. Both Josephus and Philo mention Pilate and there are inscriptions and a mention in Tacitus. In fact the accounts in Philo and Josephus are hard to interconnect, but nobody doubts he existed. Nor John the Baptist even though the reference in Josephus is sometimes questioned.
I actually believe that there was a Jesus, based on Tacitus, Paul (and i don't doubt the he existed, too) and ..wait for it...the Gospel accounts. But the lack of history does suggest that he was a minor figure.
This is all arguable, but to brush it aside on the grounds that Thrillobyte made a claim about the first appearance of apologetics especially when you know what he means and that Justin Martyr's works are similar only in the name, really is not a good argument.
You obviously have never read Justin Martyrs apologies. He defends a number of different issues including the reality of Jesus' crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. In other words, Justin defends the gospel in his apologetics.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. [Bolding mine]
Oh, and Justin also defends a physical resurrection.
JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
CHAPTER XVIII -- PROOF OF IMMORTALITY AND THE RESURRECTION.
Such favour as you grant to these, grant also to us, who not less but more firmly than they believe in God; since we expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into the earth, for we maintain that with God nothing is impossible.
CHAPTER XIX -- THE RESURRECTION POSSIBLE.
But as at first you would not have believed it possible that such persons could be produced from the small drop, and yet now you see them thus produced, so also judge ye that it is not impossible that the bodies of men, after they have been dissolved, and like seeds resolved into earth, should in God's appointed time rise again and put on incorruption.
This is an interesting discussion, but my goodness the number of logical fallacies in these supposedly logical arguments! I generally hate people bringing up logical fallacies, but you see why it becomes important when you read discussions like this.
I say this because this is a great discussion to read and it is watered down when it devolves into a load of fallacies. Just to give a few examples:
"Since then hundreds of reputable historians with PhD's" appeal to authority
"It wasn't called apologetics back then, Mike." ambiguity
"You keep posting misinformation which is demonstrably false." red herring. the core of his argument is not when apologetics first appeared...
"Show us a writing by Philo that mentions Jesus. Otherwise go away." false dilemma
Please keep these in mind for this important topic! I mean this in the most friendly way and do not wish to offend anyone with the request, only to see strong arguments on all sides to help everyone learn. Thank you.
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.
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.
