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.
"Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works" - This quote in particular is known to be a forgery.
This very quote, is in the earliest mss, it is not known to be fake anymore than any other primary doc. But, regardless I just gave you THREE total PRIMARY source quotes. If that doesn't do it for you; I challenge you to give me three primary contemporary sources to prove Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Mark Anthony aren't myths. Go ahead, let's see them. If you can't provide them then by your same metric, they are myths as well. Also, give me your challenge for the other two quotes I provided.
This very quote, is in the earliest mss, it is not known to be fake anymore than any other primary doc. But, regardless I just gave you THREE total PRIMARY source quotes. If that doesn't do it for you; I challenge you to give me three primary contemporary sources to prove Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Mark Anthony aren't myths. Go ahead, let's see them. If you can't provide them then by your same metric, they are myths as well. Also, give me your challenge for the other two quotes I provided.
There is physical evidence of those people (coins with their faces, etc). I don't need to quote anecdotes.
There is physical evidence of those people (coins with their faces, etc). I don't need to quote anecdotes.
These coins aren't any better than medieval statues of the virgin Mary, because many of these coins had these faces placed on them centuries after they supposedly lived, you know like Lincoln and Washington. So again, I ask you to use your same metric and provide proof of any of these men from sources contemporary of the time.
Last edited by TenorSax83; 02-25-2015 at 07:50 AM..
Occam's Razor doesn't apply because of the extraordinary things Jesus supposedly did.
It would not apply if we were considering the claimed divinity of Jesus, but it does when the question is..was there a historical Jesus? It does not require a belief in the supposed miracles of Jesus, merely that there was actually a person about whom these claims were advanced.
Do you have any source for that? The current consensus view is that Mark is the first gospel.
Of course.This has been the position of all apostolic churches for the last <2000 years.
It hasn't been until fairly recently, in the latter 1800s when some modernist textual
critics started to expound theories on Mark being the first. The Ebionites and
the Nazarenes had a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew before Paul's epistles were written,
and before Paul even went on his journeys.
Last edited by Snowball7; 02-25-2015 at 07:47 AM..
It would not apply if we were considering the claimed divinity of Jesus, but it does when the question is..was there a historical Jesus? It does not require a belief in the supposed miracles of Jesus, merely that there was actually a person about whom these claims were advanced.
^^This.
Miracles are a whole other debate (theological or metaphysic). Nobody here can verify the supernatural, but from a purely historical perspective, I personally provided several sources contemporary of the actual time and challenged him to provide the thread with sources to prove other ancient historical figures lived(not coins or statues b/c many of them were made as monuments centuries after they lived, just like we do today). So far he has not been able to provide these sources, so by his application of Occam's Razor ALL history is myth.
This is a ridiculous statement which could only be made by someone with absolutely
no comprehension of Christianity.
You don't read the bible much, do you? Of course I am aware that Christianity has very little to do with either history or biblical scholarship. However, this thread is not about Christianity. Of course the Jews didn't deify Jesus. That is an entirely Greek process, to put a human face on a new god. The New Testament was written in Greek to spread a new mystery religion in the Greek speaking world. There was no more Israel, which was destroyed in the apocalypse.
You keep referring to the gospels as if they were a single piece of evidence, but they were written separately - at different times, with different writing styles. Only later were they linked together in the Bible collection. (Plus there were some non-canonical gospels, some of which may have been written early). Much of what they said was different in details, but they agreed on most basic issues such as him being a wandering preacher and miracle man, baptized by John (who apparently was more famous than Jesus, according to the number of references in Josephus iirc) executed by the Romans in a crucifixion, who later rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples. What are the chances of at least four manuscripts written years later with that many agreements, if the basic story were fictional?
There's no scientific evidence, but the standards of evidence for historians are greatly different from those of scientists.
There are many ancient Christian documents that paint a very different picture of Christianity than is practiced nowadays. Many of them are collected in The Other Bible Ed. Barnstable, though new sources are still being discovered. I bet they don't teach in Sunday School that the first crusade (military use of force by the Catholic church) was against other Christians, the followers of Arius, who didn't believe Jesus was a god.
Christianity is the remnant of the Roman thought police. The empire had a lot of problems with local rebellions, many of which were instigated by the followers of this or that regional/cultural god, so the emperors took a shot at stabilizing things by establishing a theocracy with the emperor at the top. Originally the emperor appointed all the bishops. When the empire fell the bureaucracy endured.
You don't read the bible much, do you? Of course I am aware that Christianity has very little to do with either history or biblical scholarship. However, this thread is not about Christianity. Of course the Jews didn't deify Jesus. That is an entirely Greek process, to put a human face on a new god. The New Testament was written in Greek to spread a new mystery religion in the Greek speaking world. There was no more Israel, which was destroyed in the apocalypse.
1) "Christianity has very little to do with either history or biblical scholarship."
Wrong. Christianity is the most enigmatic force in history.
2) "Jews didn't deify Jesus".
Wrong. Thousands of "Jews" comprised the early church.
3) "Greek process, human face on new god, new mystery religion."
Nonsense. Greek interpolations of Christian events to their philosophies was to be expected.
4) "written in Greek to spread a new mystery religion"
Wrong. Three of the gospels were written in Greek because Greek was the international
language of its day. Rome had the military, but Greek was the learned language. Many of
the earliest believers were Greek. Christianity is not a "mystery religion", rather the mystery
religions of the gnostics and eastern religions were combatted by the apostolic church as
heresies, because heretics were in cults that sought to alter the facts to their own schools of
mystery thought. Recommened: "Patrology" by Johannes Quasten.
5) "There was no more Israel, which was destroyed in the Apocalypse".
Wrong. Israel was the 10 Tribes not in Judea. Israel was all the tribes North of Judea
in Galilee, Samaria, Scythia, and into Europe and the Caucasus, even to Africa. None were
destroyed by the ultimate Roman destruction of Jerusalem which was a destruction of the
Jewish city, not the Israelite city. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah/Benjamin were split
hundreds of years before as described in the Book of Kings. Moreover, neither the decimation
of the Judaic Temple in Jerusalem, nor the fire of Rome have any relation whatsoever to
the Apocalypse which is a prophecy for the End Times.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,069,460 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell
. Of course the Jews didn't deify Jesus. That is an entirely Greek process, to put a human face on a new god. The New Testament was written in Greek to spread a new mystery religion in the Greek speaking world.
Jesus isn't a "new god". Christianity is merely a different interpretation of God. The Greek gods collectively were God. The Muslims worship God.
The Christians don't worship Jesus, they worship God. Jesus is considered to be God Incarnate....but they are worshipping God.
Buddhism is also just a different interpretation of God; it is a non-theistic religion in which God is a state of mind or infrastructure.
The ironic thing is that Larry Caldwell would probably claim he is a "weak atheist" who merely "lacks belief in God", as opposed to "believing that God doesn't exist" but if that were true he wouldn't make these claims. Agnostics don't misinterpret religions in an effort to belittle them, as the position of an agnostic is that no one, including the agnostic, can know if there is a God.
Of course that's true of all of us, agnostic or not. There is no scientific test for the presence of God, therefore anyone who says God not exist or God does exist is speculating without evidence.
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.
