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.
This one is simply a terrible try to undermine a historical Christ, I read the stupid thing and it can easily be refuted.
Quote:
These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify.
Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
What is there to easily refute in the above? What is stupid about it?
These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify.
Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein.
What is there to easily refute in the above? What is stupid about it?
Every writing at the time was purposeful. Writing was NOT a common everyday thing. There were no Rod Serlings writing fiction. Just because the purpose was religious provides no basis to dismiss their recording of what they believed to be important events. The lack of credentials, authorships, or citations is not remotely unusual during such a primitive era. Your expectations otherwise are absurd. The designation "mythical" is entirely opinion as is "non-historical." The existence of editing could just as easily been to increase the accuracy as to do the opposite. Your bias is entirely opinion as are the so-called refutations of even the mundane claims.
Writing was NOT a common everyday thing. There were no Rod Serlings writing fiction.
That's not the point at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Just because the purpose was religious provides no basis to dismiss their recording of what they believed to be important events.
I could care less what the purpose was. I care about the truth of the events regardless of what the intended purpose. That's the difference between people who are interested in objectionable truths vs. blind faith/hearsay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The lack of credentials, authorships, or citations is not remotely unusual during such a primitive era. Your expectations otherwise are absurd.
If those were my expectations for that era of time you would have a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The designation "mythical" is entirely opinion as is "non-historical."
No it's not entirely opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The existence of editing could just as easily been to increase the accuracy as to do the opposite. Your bias is entirely opinion as are the so-called refutations of even the mundane claims.
I have no bias. I am genuinely interested in the factual events/ the truth.
I have provided 3 very good links that go in dept about validity of the history of Jesus.
Those links don't use the arguments you are trying to accuse me of using.
You did a quick scan and this is the best you can come back with?
I don't even have a clue what "few things" you are referring to.
Why should that be for another thread?
Mat you are late to this thread which is dedicated to proof of a historical Jesus by secular scholars only, and have missed some of Raf's accusations towards me,one of which was I was going to use the secular evidence as a tie in to the Gospel evidence. I have time and again told Raf I was not going to do this unless all parties (myself, Trans and Raf) could agree that the NT was historical evidence. Raf has not agreed to this so that is why it needs a new thread. Raf even indicated that he would throw his accusation back at me if I did bring the gospels into this thread, hence again why we need a new thread. I am not going to be accused of being a liar.
Start a new thread with the links Mat and I will meet you there, just post the link here so I can find it. I think it would be a good discussion Mat, just not for this thread.
Mat you are late to this thread which is dedicated to proof of a historical Jesus by secular scholars only, and have missed some of Raf's accusations towards me,one of which was I was going to use the secular evidence as a tie in to the Gospel evidence. I have time and again told Raf I was not going to do this unless all parties (myself, Trans and Raf) could agree that the NT was historical evidence.
I am having trouble understanding what you mean when you say secular scholars vs. gospels.
According to Wiki: The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents.
Secular Scholars have nothing to do with religion nor belongs to a religious order or congregation.
Sorry I'm late to the thread. I will start a new thread with those links.
I am having trouble understanding what you mean when you say secular scholars vs. gospels.
According to Wiki: The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents.
Secular Scholars have nothing to do with religion nor belongs to a religious order or congregation.
Sorry I'm late to the thread. I will start a new thread with those links.
According to Raf ( if I am reading him right) the gospels or anything in the NT cannot be trusted as historical, they are all made up stories. Thus not historical in any fashion.
Raf seems to believe that only secular scholars can be trusted to give us historical events, however from this thread I don't think he even believes that. To Raf every mention of Jesus Christ is a christian interpolation or just hearsay, be it in the gospels or secular history. To my way of thinking that is taking the easy way out. just yell christian interpolation and then ask the christian to prove them wrong.
Thanks for understanding. remember to post the link to the new thread here so I can find it easily.
Thus the evidence (literature) is in my favor by a long shot as it is solid evidence, you are basing your evidence on your opinion.
Just a comment on this before I leave.
Your post #730. " I have not said it was fact,...."
Your post #743
"Thus the evidence (literature) is in my favor by a long shot as it is solid evidence,..."
Can you please make up your mind before I return just what you are going for? Either you are saying that the existence of an official Roman documents containing the Jesus passage is not fact as you say in post #730
or
You have solid evidence, as you say in post #743.
If post #730 is true then you have nothing.
If post 743 is correct then please produce the solid evidence (the documents containing the Jesus passage).
Your post #730. " I have not said it was fact,...."
Your post #743
"Thus the evidence (literature) is in my favor by a long shot as it is solid evidence,..."
Can you please make up your mind before I return just what you are going for? Either you are saying that the existence of an official Roman documents containing the Jesus passage is not fact as you say in post #730
or
You have solid evidence, as you say in post #743.
If post #730 is true then you have nothing.
If post 743 is correct then please produce the solid evidence (the documents containing the Jesus passage).
Now I'm gone.
Sometime I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
The literature is solid evidence that Tacitus used, the conclusion that the Christ passage was in the literature come via O.R.
I'm curious how Christ-deniers explain the conversion to the Julian calendar based upon a lie.
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.
