For non-Christians, how did Jesus do it? [Archive]

View Full Version : For non-Christians, how did Jesus do it?

Navaros

06-09-2007, 20:34

Zaknafien

06-09-2007, 20:41

well seeing as the Gospels werent written until 200-400 years after his death, the historical Jesus is largely overwritten by his later attributors and various authors of the good books. An amalgamation of various Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish legends and patriarchal stories given to a historical figure who was likely a political firebrand and end-times preacher like the other various Messiahs in his day.
\
Besides, the Jesus character didnt really do anything. It was all Paul, who converted to Christianity (although it wasn't called that yet) just a few years after the crucifixion. Paul was instrumental in taking an obscure Jewish sect, stripping away its parochial baggage, and positioning it to become a major world religion. In addition to being a tireless proselytizer, organizer, and propagandist, Paul was a creative theologian who played up the parts of Christianity with universal appeal, notably the belief in eternal life, popularly understood to mean an individual afterlife. At the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD he also helped kibosh the idea that Christians needed to observe Jewish ritual, including (urk) circumcision, a major disincentive till then.

LeftEyeNine

06-09-2007, 20:47

Very simple.

Rome was the first empire to accept a religion as the state religion.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-09-2007, 20:52

And what of this?

Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Navaros

06-09-2007, 20:55

Paul was a creative theologian who played up the parts of Christianity with universal appeal, notably the belief in eternal life, popularly understood to mean an individual afterlife.

Yet the world hates 99% of everything that Paul said. If you try quoting Paul's teachings to the world today, you are liable to be locked up for a "hate crime". And Paul himself was stoned many times and suffered many other horrible atrocities for his preaching, which shows the people of his day didn't think his message had "universal appeal" either. Paul said most people are going to Hell, so the "eternal life" message of his isn't universal appeal either.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-09-2007, 21:04

Plus he is ignoring history.

Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117)
Annals, book XV:

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 Judaea, 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.

Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140)

Lives of the Caesars - Claudius, sec. 25:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

Lives of the Caesars - Nero, sec. 16

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)

Chronography, XVIII refers to writings by Thallus and Phlegon concerning the darkness during the Crucifixion:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak.

Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)

In Against Celsus, Origen quotes Celsus, a second-century skeptic, on Jesus. Celsus' view of Christians and Christianity, an article from Bluffton College, contains relevant excerpts.

Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c. 113)

Letters, 10.96-97 records Pliny's dealings with Christians

And why isnt there more about him from the 1st century?

1. As far as the historians of the day were concerned, he was just a "blip" on the screen. Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a "celebrity" that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter "so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought." [Sand.HistF, 3] Harris adds that "Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented" Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?
2. Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 - Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed "Messiahs" of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
3. Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established "news organs" of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
4. Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
5. Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
6. Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!

ajaxfetish

06-09-2007, 21:07

I think the 'universal appeal' of Paul's message was that it was egalitarian. You didn't have to be of a social elite. You didn't have to be one of the initiated. You didn't have to be from a certain bloodline. Any Joe on the street could attain this eternal life. If he claimed that most people would still go to hell, it wasn't because they didn't have the option of salvation, but that they chose not to take it.

Most other contemporary religions catered to exclusive groups, kind of like country clubs today. Christianity would accept anyone and give them a reason to feel proud and beloved that no one else would extend them.

Ajax

SwordsMaster

06-09-2007, 21:23

My working theory is that he first started singing in his local choir, but attracted some attention from local talent seekers who put him through the provincial contests with more and more suggestive songs which he, with his ragged yet dangerous looks and vocal prowess could get across to all those long legged, dark-skinned jewish young ladies.

A life of drugs began, and Pilatos, one of his dealers, started ripping him off more and more, becoming his producer, until Jesus was so far in debt that he could not pay off. He, then, united all of the band members that have ever played with him, and had dinner. There was abundance of everything, wine, women, good food, and other substances.

After the dinner, Jesus stumbled down to the garden, and, in seeing Pilatos' men, shot himself to avoid paying. His albums, including the famous 'Neverdie', are owned by the members of the band and are protected by intellectual rights. They can be found at Amazon.

Navaros

06-09-2007, 21:25

So are you guys saying that Paul was crazy, and all of Jesus' disciples were crazy? Otherwise, why would they bother making Jesus famous? It's not like they got any personal gain out of it.

One would have to be pretty crazy to endure stonings and other tortures, imprisonments, and utlimately crucifixions, all for the sake of promoting the name of a dead man who was simply a man.

If it is the case that Paul and all of Jesus' disciples were crazy, isn't that an impossibly large coincidence?

econ21

06-09-2007, 21:39

As a non-Christian, I think that is a good question, Navaros. :bow:

Rome was the first empire to accept a religion as the state religion.

I think that's a starting point. If Jesus had been crucified by an obscure tribe in Papua New Guinea, I doubt we would be hearing about him today. However, it does not explain (a) why Rome accepted Christianity; (b) why Christianity was adopted by subsequent European powers and never really abandoned (except perhaps during Communism).

Question (a) may best be answered by the historians. For (b), I think there is something about the generality - one might say vagueness - of some Christian ideas that makes them appealing and durable. If an idea is too specific - don't eat pork; don't charge interest; don't kill - etc then it may struggle to endure. But the Gospels are capable of being read in a wide number of ways, from liberation theologists to, well, Navaros. These means a wide variety of polities, societies, economies etc are compatible with Christian beliefs.

It would be interesting to identify which aspect of the beliefs are the most appealing. Paradoxically, I think it is the Christians among us who can best answer that. Which are the key aspects that draw them to their faith?

Of the top of my head, the following occur to me:

- universalism/egalitarianism (we are all God's children)
- altruism (love your neighbour as they self)
- non-violence almost to the point of pacificism (Jesus rejected rebelling against Rome)
- non-materialism (the camel and the eye of a needle)
- some other specific moral codes: one could almost call them "traditional family values" (regarding parents, marriage etc)
- spirituality and love of a god
- belief in an afterlife
- (if we are to believe Navaros) belief that most folk ain't going to enjoy that afterlife

I've listed them in the order they appeal to me (and indeed they start to repel me somewhere around the family values). The first three seem almost essential to a decent morality. Christianity articulates them in a very clear way and I think that is why it is so renown.

Zaknafien

06-09-2007, 21:40

History? No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus.

God-Man myths were very popular and pre-dated the God-Man of Jesus by thousands of years. They all shared a common format which is that the Son of God has 12 disciples, and is betrayed and killed by a traitor. Popular myths such as the virgin birth, miracles, curing the blind and ill are also familiar and common aspects of these myths. As such, such events were assumed to be true of the historical Jesus. These myths became interwoven amongst the stories of someone who might have been real. Many Jewish sayings became attributed to this character, and sayings of John the Baptist too. Stories about the disciples were assumed to be true and not simply symbolic stories as the original gnostic Christians believed. Once people wrote pseudipigraphically under the names of the disciples people accepted them as true too. The rest is history, but initially is based on mistaken pseudo-historical accounts.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-09-2007, 23:39

History? No historians of the time mention Jesus.

Why would they? I gave you the reasons they would not. He was a nobody outside of Israel and even there it wasnt like they had tv and radio.

osephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud)

Is that so?

Yet this account has been embroiled in controversy since the 17th century. It could not have been written by a Jewish man, say the critics, because it sounds too Christian: it even claims that Jesus was the Messiah (ho christos, the Christ)!

The critics say: this paragraph is not authentic. It was inserted into Josephus' book by a later Christian copyist, probably in the Third or Fourth Century.

The opinion was controversial. A vast literature was produced over the centuries debating the authenticity of the "Testimonium Flavianum", the Testimony of Flavius Josephus.

A view that has been prominent among American scholars was summarized in John Meier's 1991 book, A Marginal Jew.

This opinion held that the paragraph was formed by a mixture of writers. It parsed the text into two categories: anything that seemed too Christian was added by a later Christian writer, while anything else was originally written by Josephus.

By this view, the paragraph was taken as essentially authentic, and so supported the objective historicity of Jesus.

Unfortunately, the evidence for this was meager and self-contradictory. But it was an attractive hypothesis.

New Information

In 1995 a discovery was published that brought important new evidence to the debate over the Testimonium Flavianum.

For the first time it was pointed out that Josephus' description of Jesus showed an unusual similarity with another early description of Jesus.

It was established statistically that the similarity was too close to have appeared by chance.

Further study showed that Josephus' description was not derived from this other text, but rather that both were based on a Jewish-Christian "gospel" that has since been lost.

For the first time, it has become possible to prove that the Jesus account cannot have been a complete forgery and even to identify which parts were written by Josephus and which were added by a later interpolator.

Read about this discovery here!

LINK (http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/testimonium.htm)

The Testimonium Flavianum

It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators - mostly Jesus Mythologists - who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage "has been almost universally acknowledged" by scholars. (Feldman, "Josephus," Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91). Instead, this article focuses on arguments regarding the partial authenticity of the TF.

Although Josephus' reference to the martyrdom of James is universally accepted by critical scholars, there has been more controversy over the fuller reference to Jesus. The TF contains some obvious Christian glosses that no Jew would have written; such as "he was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive again the third day."

A strong majority of scholars, however, have concluded that much of the TF is authentic to Josephus. In his book Josephus and Modern Scholarship, Professor Feldman reports that between 1937 to 1980, of 52 scholars reviewing the subject, 39 found portions of the TF to be authentic. Peter Kirby's own review of the literature, in an article discussing the TF in depth, shows that the trend in modern scholarship has moved even more dramatically towards partial authenticity: "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." (Kirby, Testamonium Flavianum, 2001). Though my own studies have revealed a similar trend (about 15 to 1 for partial authenticity, with the exception being a Jesus Mythologist), I do not believe that it is a coincidence that it is Jesus Mythologists who are carrying the water against the partial authenticity theory. Even the partial validity of this one passage is enough to sink their entire argument.

Notably, the consensus for partial authenticity is held by scholars from diverse perspectives. Liberal commentators such as Robert Funk, J. Dominic Crossan, and A.N. Wilson, accept a substantial part of the TF as originally Josephan. So do Jewish scholars, such as Geza Vermes, Louis H. Feldman, and Paul Winter and secular scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredrikson. Even Jeff Lowder, co-founder of the Secular Web, recognizes the merits of the partial authenticity theory. (Lowder, Josh McDowell's Evidence for Jesus: Is it Reliable? 2000). Paula Fredrikson sums up the state of the question among scholars: "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249).

What Josephus Tells Us

What is the significance of Josephus' references to Jesus? Josephus provides valuable, independent confirmation of the existence, life, and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. Leading scholar Luke T. Johnson offers the following opinion:

Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions, the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian . . . . Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder-worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was executed under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist at the time of Josephus' writing.

(Luke T. Johnson, The Real Jesus, pages 113-14).

F.F. Bruce breaks it down thus:

We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as a wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion under Pilate at the information of Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim, (f) His being the founder of the tribe of Christians, and probably, (g) the belief in His rising from the dead.

(F.F. Bruce, op. cit., page 112).

In summary, Josephus confirms the accuracy of the Canonical Gospels (and Acts) in the following recollections:

• The time frame that the Gospels place Jesus in,

• Jesus had a reputation for teaching wisdom,

• Jesus was believed to have performed miracles,

• Jesus had a brother named James,

• Some Jewish leaders were involved with Jesus' execution,

• Pilate was Prefect and had Jesus executed,

• Jesus was executed by crucifixion,

• Jesus was known as a messianic figure,

• Jesus was the founder of Christianity,

• Acts' portrayal of James as the leader of the Jerusalem Church is confirmed,

• The existence of early Jewish persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and,

• That the early Christians reported that Jesus was raised from the dead as foretold by the Jewish prophets (based on Eisler's reconstruction and Mason's comments on linguistic similarities).

LINK (http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm)

You know who you remind me of Zak? Me :laugh4:

When I first got here and for a couple of years as well :laugh4: Id think f a position I held and then go to the internet to find something that would back me up. Then when someone would challenge me , bang I would whip out my cut and paste gun and bingo. But you know what? Almost anything you can think of can be challenged by simply typing refute so and so. Ive been burned more times than I care to count thinking my opinion is the only correct one. Thast why I come here to get dissenting opinions. Open up your mind to the light :laugh4:

YeaH I rarely admit it but nothing in my life has had more of an affect on my view on politics than being on these boards. Its rare when people from so many nations and with such different back rounds get to speak their minds to each other on such matters.

I think those of you who know me a while here no what I mean though I still have my transgressions im trying to cut down on them.

Yeah Its just another ploy to get on the most honest list.

Oh and if there never was a Jesus why did the apostles continue to preach "his" word knowing it would most likely be their death?

Zaknafien

06-09-2007, 23:44

That's the reason I come here, to get other opinions, even if they're wrong :)

Authenticity

[edit] Arguments against authenticity

[edit] Origen

The Christian author Origen wrote around the year 240. His writings predate both the earliest known manuscripts of the Testimonium and the earliest quotations of the Testimonium by other writers. In his surviving works Origen fails to mention the Testimonium Flavianum, even though he was clearly familiar with the Antiquities of the Jews, since he mentions the less significant reference by Josephus to Jesus as brother of James, which occurs later in Antiquities of the Jews (xx.9), and also other passages from Antiquities such as the passage about John the Baptist. Furthermore, Origen states that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" [1] "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" [2], but the Testimonium declares Jesus to be Christ. Because of these arguments, some scholars believe that the version of Antiquities available to Origen did not mention Jesus at this point at all.[citation needed]

On the other hand, while this argument asserts that Josephus could not have written the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, [attribution needed] that Josephus must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ." (While the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" can be based on the fact that he was by all accounts a traditional Jew, this fact would make his nonacceptance of Jesus go without saying; the fact that Origen said it at all suggests a context of Jesus existed in Josephus' work.) Presumably whatever he did write was sufficiently negative that Origen chose not to quote it.[citation needed]

However, there are other arguments as to why Origen would have said Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ and is it worth noting that no "sufficiently negative" Josephus quote has ever surfaced. It may have been Josephus’ silence on the matter as well as his Judaism that led to Origen’s comment.[citation needed] Or it could be Josephus's statement in Jewish War 6.5.4, where he declares that the Jewish messianic prophecies were really about the victorious emperor Vespasian that led him to believe Josephus did not accept anyone as a messiah. Since Origen makes no mention of negative comments by Josephus it can be argued that if Origen had read these comments he would have attempted to rebuke them and not chosen to ignore them in his writings.[citation needed] The fact that he did not do so gives credibility to the argument that no such writings existed at the time, but were a later interpolation.[citation needed]

[edit] Justin, and other early Christian writers

The Dialog With Trypho the Jew [3], written about a hundred years after the death of Jesus, is Justin the Philosopher's account of a dialog between himself and a Jewish rabbi named Trypho. In it two men debated about whether Jesus was the promised Messiah. Justin makes no mention of the Testimonium in his efforts to persuade the rabbi, even though: (1) Justin was a noteworthy scholar and was known to have pored over the works of Josephus,[citation needed] whose Antiquities had been written fewer than fifty years earlier; (2) the passage was directly relevant to their discussion; (3) the rabbi would certainly have been impressed by a relevant evidentiary citation from the greatest known Jewish historian.[citation needed]

Justin also fails to mention the passage in his Apologies. In fact, the absence of references to the Testimonium is consistent throughout the work of the Christian writers and apologists of the years 100-300 A.D. It is never mentioned by any author of those two centuries, Christian or otherwise. This passage is first quoted by Eusebius (ca. 315) in two places (Hist. Eccl., lib. i, c. xi; Demonst. Evang., lib. iii); but contextual analysis indicates that it seems to have been unknown to Justin the Philosopher (ca. 140), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 192), Tertullian (ca. 193), and Origen (ca. 230), although each of them was acquainted with the work of Josephus. [4]

[edit] Textual continuity

The interruption of the narrative by the Testimonium Flavium also suggests that it is an interpolation. In its context, passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and thus the thread of continuity, of "sad calamities," is interrupted by this passage. The context, without the testimonium passage, reads:

3.2 So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. 3.4 About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome.

However, the ragged structure of Antiquities involves frequent disruptions to the narrative, not least because it was mainly composed by a number of scribal assistants, and therefore this argument is not conclusive.[5]

[edit] Vocabulary

The passage 3.3 also fails a standard test for authenticity, in that it contains vocabulary not otherwise used by Josephus[6]

On the other hand, linguistic analysis has not proven conclusive when compared with other passages in Josephus which likewise exhibit unusual features.[citations needed]

[edit] Josephus's faith

It is argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith. If so, this could not be right, as Josephus was not a Christian; he characterized his patron Emperor Vespasian as the foretold Messiah.

However, the supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has argued that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 4th century—"He was believed to be the Christ."[7] The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive.[citation needed] In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and Roman sources always write of "Christus", never of "Jesus", which could make this merely an identification.[citation needed]

[edit] Anachronisms

Some of the deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant:[8] "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "if it be lawful to call him a man … He was [the] Christ … for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." To some these seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently, some scholars regard at least these parts of the Testimonium as later interpolations.

[edit] Interpolations

The entire passage is also found in one manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War, in an Old Russian translation written c.1250.[9] Interestingly, the passage dealing with Jesus is not the only significant difference from the usual collations; Robert Eisler has suggested[10] that it was produced from one of Josephus's drafts (noting that the "Slavonic Version" has Josephus escaping his fellow Jews at Jotapata when "he counted the numbers [of the lot cast in the suicide pact] cunningly and so managed to deceive all the others", which is in striking contrast to the conventional version's account:

"Without hesitation each man in turn offered his throat for the next man to cut, in the belief that a moment later his commander would die too. Life was sweet, but not so sweet as death if Josephus died with them! But Josephus - shall we put it down to divine providence or just luck - was left with one other man....he used persuasion, they made a pact, and both remained alive."[11]

The passages in question give accounts of John the Baptist, Jesus's ministry (along with his death and resurrection), and the activities of the early church in which it resembles nothing so much as a faith healing movement; they are, however, bizarre in their inaccuracy and distortions of the matters. Lower criticism has concluded that this is an interpolation as other extant manuscripts do not contain it.

[edit] Alleged fabrication by Eusebius

Ken Olson has argued that the Testimonium was fabricated by Eusebius of Caesarea, who was the first author to quote it in his Demonstratio Evangelica.[12] Olson argues that the specific wording of the Testimonium is suspiciously closely related to the argument Eusebius makes in his Demonstratio, in particular that Jesus is a "wise man" and not a "wizard", as shown by the fact that his followers did not desert him even after he was crucified.

Olson's argument is supported by some scholars, such as Marshall Gauvin[13] and Earl Doherty[14]. According to Gauvin, "Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist." Furthermore, according to Gauvin, Eusebius had written in his Demonstratio Evangelica, (Book III, pg. 124), "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

One of the earliest ecclesiastical authorities to condemn the Testimonium Flavianum as a forgery was Bishop Warburton of Gloucester (circa 1770). He described it as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too".[15]

[edit] Arguments in favor of partial authenticity

For centuries Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the Testimonium more or less in its current form; until the 16th century, in fact.

Today almost no scholar holds that position: however, many writers claim that Josephus did write something about Jesus which has been corrupted in the surviving Greek text.

[edit] Arabic version

In 1971, professor Shlomo Pines published a translation of a different version of the Testimonium, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius, a 10th-century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. Agapius appears to be quoting from memory, for even Josephus' title is an approximation:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. This would add weight to the argument that Josephus did write something about Jesus.

However, Pines' theory has not been widely accepted. The fact that even the title of Josephus's work is inaccurate suggests that Agapius is quoting from memory, which may explain the discrepancies with the Greek version. In addition, the claim that Pilate condemned Jesus to be crucified and to die has been interpreted as a reaction to the Muslim belief that Jesus did not really die on the cross. [1].

[edit] Syriac version

Pines also refers to the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian in his World Chronicle. It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text in fact was identical with that of Jerome at the most contentious point ("He was the Christ" becoming "He was believed to be the Christ"), establishing the existence of a variant, since Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity.

[edit] Literary dependence on the Gospel of Luke

In 1995, G. J. Goldberg, using a digital database of ancient literature, identified a possible literary dependence between Josephus and the Gospel of Luke. He found number of coincidences in word choice and word order, though not in exact wording, between the entire Josephus passage on Jesus and a summary of the life of Jesus in Luke 24:19-21, 26-27, called the "Emmaus narrative":

And he said to them, "What things?" And they said to him, "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. ... Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. [16]

From these coincidences in wording, Goldberg suggests that Josephus and Luke used a common source.

Goldberg points out that Josephus' phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was [the] Christ," "he appeared to them," and "And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day," have no parallel in Luke's passage, and takes this to support the position that the first two short phrases are Christian interpolations. Luke contains the phrases "but besides all this," four sentences on the women who witnessed the tomb, and "the Christ should suffer," which there is no counterpart in Josephus' text. [17]

Gawain of Orkeny

06-09-2007, 23:48

That's the reason I come here, to get other opinions, even if they're wrong :)

Now there you go again. What did I just tell you? Did I say you were wrong? No, I said you could be refuted. None of us know for sure. Not even these scholars can agree . You just did exactly what I said I used to do :laugh4:

Your the gift that never stops giving:laugh4:

Reverend Joe

06-10-2007, 00:26

You Christians are freakin' cultists, man.

One man is GOD? No thank you to that. I'll stick to my own brand of Gnosticism, thank you.

:wink:

Okay, seriously, I think SA (okay, econ21, whatever...) hit it on the head. Jesus is a basically likeable character. Aside from the anti-semitism that was written into his teachings in later years so that the Romans wouldn't get so pissed off at the Christians, Christianity's appeal lies in its broad messages of peace and love. Kinda like the hippies. :hippie:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 00:45

One man is GOD?

Thats not what Christians believe.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 01:19

its not? I think you have the wrong religion then.. lol

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 01:29

ts not? I think you have the wrong religion then.. lol

You better check the precepts of Christianity again. Isnt there one little thing your forgetting?

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 01:34

Uh, the essential belief of Christianity is that Jesus is God. Its the sole belief upon which all their construed theology works.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 01:43

Uh, the essential belief of Christianity is that Jesus is God. Its the sole belief upon which all their construed theology works.

Keep trying It will come to you.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 02:06

I dont know what you're talking about because clearly you have no understanding of the way Xtianity works.

Reverend Joe

06-10-2007, 02:08

I thought God was the Father (i.e. old God) the Son (i.e. Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (I don't know what the hell that's supposed to be.)

In essence, however, that means that Jesus is the earthly incarnation of God, and that is what I object to. One man cannot be an incarnation of God.

Whacker

06-10-2007, 02:17

I think it's pretty simple TBQH. It was a 'commonized' version of Judaism that promised eternal happiness after death, esp. for the impoverished. Couple this with the humanity's then ignorant nature (meaning a very superstitious and generally non-scientific view of things), the general masses of poor looking for some kind of hope, some charismatic and forceful leaders, and viola. You get a viral spreading due to it's mass appeal.

Personally, I think religion in general is crap, but the study OF it is utterly fascinating.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 02:19

exactly, and the later Roman rulers adopted it just because of its soothing effect that it held on the masses "render unto caesar" and all. Kept people in place for ages ;)

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 03:23

I thought God was the Father (i.e. old God) the Son (i.e. Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (I don't know what the hell that's supposed to be.)

We have a winner.

In essence, however, that means that Jesus is the earthly incarnation of God, and that is what I object to. One man cannot be an incarnation of God.

Many things can be an incarnation of God. I dont think you understand the principle of the trinity.

But then who does? :laugh4:

Here give it a try

The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance... It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).

Phew.

At least thats what they taught me in catechism .

LINK (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1822648/posts)

exactly, and the later Roman rulers adopted it just because of its soothing effect that it held on the masses "render unto caesar" and all. Kept people in place for ages ;)

Exactly what? He didnt say that proved Jesus never existed. Hes on topic saying why it spread. Thats the real question here.

[QUOTE]I dont know what you're talking about because clearly you have no understanding of the way Xtianity works.[QUOTE]

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement or is it just me?

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 03:32

That whole 3-is-1 thing is just. Stupid.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 03:50

That whole 3-is-1 thing is just. Stupid.

My my you never learn. Dont call other peoples heart felt beliefs stupid. Its not nice. Should they answer back you beliefs are stupid? You will have to come up with a better argument than that. Besides I thought you maintained I clearly had no understanding of the way Christianity worked. Where as you are the expert at everything. All others are stupid.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 03:58

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 04:08

well, I believe in what are called "facts".

Why is it only you present facts? I havent seen any on this topic. Just some cut and pastes that agree with your position. Let me know when anyone can prove that Jesus did or did not exist. While your at it let me know about any other god or gods as well.

You should look into them sometime.

I do constantly. Thats another reason I come here. To see if they are indeed facts or open to interpretation. As I said you have presented no facts here to back up your claim that Christ never existed anymore than I have that he did. If I believed he did I would be a Christian still. Besides thats not the point of this thread.

Facts are by definition not "stupid".

They are when conjecture is presented as fact.

Belief in a mystical pantheon of Christian gods is silly.

I thought you understood Christianity. There is only one God.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 04:18

christians like to have it both ways, they say there are three, but they are one. thats silly.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 04:32

christians like to have it both ways

Or is it three ways? Just because you cant comprehend it doesnt make it not so. I bet theres a lot of physics most of us cant comprehend. Things like global warming that you swear is a fact. My main argument against it is that its beyond mans comprehension at this point in time at least. Its the same here. But your beliefs are more worthy as they are based in your religion science. Yes I am back to that again. We need to stop hi jacking every thread we enter. Round and round we go. Where we stop nobody knows. At least I admit i dont know professor.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 04:36

you cant possibly be comparing global warming with the trinity. global warming is PROVEN. It is fact. The only debate (among a very small group mind you) is wether humans contribute to it as much as some think. That it exists is not doubted at all.

Navaros

06-10-2007, 05:08

well, I believe in what are called "facts". You should look into them sometime. Facts are by definition not "stupid".

I'm not so sure about the quoted text here. Claiming that Pliny the Younger's and Josephus' confirmations of Jesus are bogus seems to run contrary to the commonly-accepted facts of the matter - which are agreed upon as facts by secular historians - that they do indeed confirm Jesus Christ.

Saying they are bogus simply because they were written by a Jewish man definitely isn't a fact-based opinion, it's an emotion-based opinion.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 05:13

Don't go blowing those out of proportion. Neither one of them says anything about a Jesus. they use the term Christus, which is from the Hebrew for Messiah (of which there are several dozen) and they are both refering to whom the christians worship which are causing all the problems in the empire. Not to mention they are writing decades after the establishment of christianity and can be expected to know of what the worshippers they are writing about believe. Using Tacitus and Pliny to confirm the historical-ness of Jesus is also, silly.

Ser Clegane

06-10-2007, 07:42

Just a friendly reminder:
Simple religion bashing is not acceptable here. Any historical, philosophical etc. arguments are highly welcome.

Thanks

Ser Clegane

:bow:

Duke of Gloucester

06-10-2007, 08:31

well, I believe in what are called "facts". You should look into them sometime. Facts are by definition not "stupid". Belief in a mystical pantheon of Christian gods is silly.

here's a cool movie i just found :

http://www.thegodmovie.com/atheism/?gclid=CIKe26XH0IwCFQVpFQodFn9ntg

Actually "facts" can be "stupid". All the matter in the universe exploded from a point the size of the eye of a needle is a "stupid" "fact". Electrons and photons are both waves and particles - I mean come on physicists - you can't have it both ways that's just "stupid".

I think you need to re-examine what you mean by "fact". For you Global Warming is a "fact" rather than an (albeit well established) theory and it is also a "fact" that the New Testament was written between 200 and 400 years after Jesus's death when biblical scholars tend to put the writing between 45 to 150 years after his birth. Also bear in mind some things that don't seem to make sense are actually true.

Rodion Romanovich

06-10-2007, 09:28

Electrons and photons are both waves and particles - I mean come on physicists - you can't have it both ways that's just "stupid".

I object to this popular science way of describing photons and electrons. Electrons and photons ARE not both waves and particles; they HAVE BEEN OBSERVED TO HAVE PROPERTIES OF both waves and particles.

A similar way of description could of course be applied to the trinity, but some mysticists groups in religions make a point out of making things as incomprehensible and incoherent as possible, so that they can't be refuted. It's impossible to refute linguistic fog.

--

As for global warming, unless our thermometers lie, it's been proven that we've had a significant increase in temperature in the latest 60 years.

Duke of Gloucester

06-10-2007, 11:18

I would be interested to hear you explain why that description is different from yours.

btw I was not seeking to draw any parallels between wave particle duality and the Trinity, just to drive a wedge between the concepts of "silly" and "wrong".

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature, given that temperatures fluctuate randomly? I am not seeking to challenge theories about global warming, merely to undermine their status as "fact". We might be able to say something about averages temperatures over the last 60 years which are fact although your statement is open to challenges ("What is "significant" and "what about the mid 80's when temperatures were lower than average?"). However the idea that this is part of a trend that will continue is a theory (one which I accept), not a fact.

doc_bean

06-10-2007, 11:48

I would be interested to hear you explain why that description is different from yours.

If it's about the physics thing, I agree with Legio, you stated that photons and electrons are both waves and particles, this is simply wrong, they are something else which can be described either acting as a wave or as a particle or as a combination of both.

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature,

I guess that would depend on the variance you use and what you base it on, if you base it on the variance of the temperature over the last millenia you could probably conclude that it's possibly a natural phenomena (this would only be useful if you want to determine if the impact of man is statistically significant, which it is probably not, which doesn't mean man doesn't have an impact, just that we can't say that with 95% or more certainty). If you use an average variance based on a yearly basis (calculating the variance over a year and assuming that is pretty much constant, taking the 'average estimated variance' as an estimation for the real variance). You'd probably conclude the rise is significant.

I'd like to see some statistical studies though, I'm sure some must exist.

Papewaio

06-10-2007, 11:53

This is going to be a large service annoucement, but it is for the greater good.

Spoilers [ SPOIL ][ / SPOIL ] are a great thing to use to wrap large quotes.

Changing this:

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

to this:Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Much easier to read, and very useful the second or third time you are reading a thread and want to get to the bottom. :2thumbsup:

PS Put a summary above the spoiler... particularly with multiple quotes and more so if it really is a spoiler. :wall:

Adrian II

06-10-2007, 13:06

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 13:09

I fail to see what the thread title asked for. :404:

Edit: Adrian II is flash-quick. ~:)

Reverend Joe

06-10-2007, 13:19

Zaknafien, with all due respect, I was having a philosophical discussion with Gawain on the subject of the Trinity, in order to gain a better understanding of the concept. Calling a religion stupid is not only uncalled for, it is also unbelievably ignorant.

My own problem with the Trinity is the very idea that God, an all-pervasive being, can directly create a mortal man without that man exploding or something. Not to mention that my own view of God is very different from the Christian view, to the point that it is technically impossible, in my view, for God to have a son, just as it is impossible for a man to create an atom and name it his son; but that's off the subject.

Anyway, what bothers me is the fact that, ignoring all else, an immortal deity could use his own essence to create a mortal being, not to mention the fact that this should create either a soulless, mindless abomination or another God. Then again, I suppose God can just do what God wants to... when you created reality, it's your choice what to do with it... but in that case, why not just erase Satan and Evil? :dizzy2:

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 14:07

not to mention the fact that this should create either a soulless, mindless abomination or another God

Hence we are formed in the image of god.

you cant possibly be comparing global warming with the trinity. global warming is PROVEN. It is fact. The only debate (among a very small group mind you) is wether humans contribute to it as much as some think. That it exists is not doubted at all.

I think you answered your own question here. No one says global warming isnt happening. The earth is in a constant state of flux and always has been. Its the theory you and others believe that we are the reason thats very much in doubt. As you said. Its pretty much the same as believing in god. You can see the results but you cant prove who or what did it.

I fail to see what the thread title asked for.

Yeah I keep saying that. Look if there wasnt a Jesus were there apostles? If not we have a real mystery on our hands. If there were why were they willing to die for preaching about a man who never existed?

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 14:42

Rodion Romanovich

06-10-2007, 15:13

I would be interested to hear you explain why that description is different from yours.

doc_bean already answered this, I think

However the idea that this is part of a trend that will continue is a theory (one which I accept), not a fact.

This is the traditional "do we know anything for sure at all" question in philosophy. It depends on how you define "know". The definition of "know" IMO should somehow contain the idea that for something to be known, it must:
1. be true in reality
2. be possible to prove strongly, so that the probability that it is false is low
3. the proof should be reconstructible by others

Depending on how strong our requirement in no. 2 is, we either know some things, or we know nothing at all.

At least we can probably agree that if we don't know anything for sure in science (where statements are usually well supported and immediately rejected when counter-examples are found) then we don't know anything for sure in religion (where statements are unsupported and not rejected when counter-examples are found), according to this definition.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 15:19

Look, I do not mean to belittle anyone for their beliefs;

Well you do a pretty good job of it.

I am just pointing out that believing 3 is actually 1 but still somehow 3 is well, silly.

There you go again, not two sentences later. You just cant help yourself it seems. Look to me those who take as gospel that man is ruining the atmosphere and we are going to cause some kind of catastrophe as silly. But I have a feeling that argument may not fly to well back here. Again you will have to better. Just because something is beyond your comprehension doesnt make it silly or wrong. Ever think the fault my lie within you?

Plus if you study Jewish mysticism and the origins of Hebrew religion you will find that it was originally a polytheistic cult, where Adam and Eve and all the angels all corresponded to their own deities. Yaweh originally meant "God(s)". And the modern trinity is a playback to the egyptian sun-life-death-ressurection myth that has been given to the new christian god, Jesus.

All very possible but it still doesnt rule out that he lived,which is not the topic of this thread, but why did it spread.

I ask you again were there apostles and when did they live. Ill just leave you with one question to try an keep it simple for you. And so you dont go off on another tangent.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 15:25

I don't know if they lived or not. I'm sure they're probably based on people who lived, at least. Let's look at Matthew and his Gospel though.

The final draft of Matthew's Gospel (still unnamed) emerged sometime after the war of 135 AD.

In the aftermath of that devastating conflict, a Greek-speaking Jew, writing in the pagan city of Antioch, had been at pains to reassure the Roman authorities that his particular faith posed no threat to the imperium. The writer had fled 'fundamentalist' Jerusalem for the relatively enlightened pagan city of Antioch. He had with him an early version of 'Mark' and used this as the basis for his own story. His creation would eventually become known as 'Matthew.'

Plagiarist 'Matthew' plundered Old Testament scripture for almost every chapter of his novel.

1.23 (Isaiah 7.14)
2.6 (Micah 5.2)
2.16,18 (Jeremiah 31.15)
2.14,15 (Hosea 11.1)
2.23 (Judges 13.5)
3.3 (Isaiah 40.3)
4.4 (Deuteronomy 8.3)
4.7 (Deuteronomy 6.16)
4.10 (Deuteronomy 6.13)
4.6 (Psalm 91.11,12)
4.16 (Isaiah 9.1,2)
5.21 (Exodus 20.13)
5.27 (Exodus 20.14)
5.31 (Deuteronomy 24.1)
5.38 (Exodus 21.24)
5.43 (Leviticus 19.18)
6.11 (Proverbs 30.8)
6.12 (Ecclesiasticus 28.2)
8.17 (Isaiah 53.4)
9.13 (Hosea 6.6)
10.35,6 (Micah 7.6)
11.10 (Malachi 3.1)
12.7 (Hosea 6.6)
12.18,21 (Isaiah 42.1,4)
13.14,15 (Isaiah 6.9,10)
13.35 (Psalm 78.2)
15.4 (Exodus 20.12, 21.17)
15.8,9 (Isaiah 29.13)
18.16 (Deuteronomy 19.15)
19.4 (Genesis 1.27)
19.5 (Genesis 2.24)
19.18,19 (Exodus 20.12,16)
21.5 (Zechariah 9.9)
21.9 (Psalm 118.26)
21.13 (Jeremiah 7.11)
21.16 (Psalm 8.2)
21.42 (Psalm 118.22,23)
22.32 (Exodus 3.6)
22.39 (Leviticus 19.18)
22.37 (Deuteronomy 6.5)
22.44 (Psalm 110.1)
23.39 (Psalm 118.26)
24.15 (Daniel 9.27)
24.29 (Isaiah 13.10; 34.4)
26.31 (Zechariah 13.7)
27.10 (Zechariah 11.12,13)
27.35 (Psalm 22.18)
27.46 (Psalm 22.1)

If you believe in a historical Jesus, you might as well believe in Hercules.

Hercules. Now let's see ...

• born from a god (Zeus) and a mortal virgin mother (Alcmene).
• while still an infant, a jealous goddess, Hera, tried to kill him.
• performed miraculous deeds.
• descended into Hades.
• died in agony.
• rose again as a god.

Should we believe in an historical Hercules? He's mentioned by Tacitus, Josephus and others.

In short, we have as much (that is, as little) evidence for an historical Hercules as an historical Jesus.

Banquo's Ghost

06-10-2007, 15:29

Look, I do not mean to belittle anyone for their beliefs; people are certainly entitled to believe whatever they like if it makes them happy. I am just pointing out that believing 3 is actually 1 but still somehow 3 is well, silly. Plus if you study Jewish mysticism and the origins of Hebrew religion you will find that it was originally a polytheistic cult, where Adam and Eve and all the angels all corresponded to their own deities. Yaweh originally meant "God(s)". And the modern trinity is a playback to the egyptian sun-life-death-ressurection myth that has been given to the new christian god, Jesus.

But by labelling people's beliefs as "silly" you do belittle them. Such a notion may not fit with your world view, but many people embrace the idea.

Even in the realm of things we can measure, there is nothing odd in multiple properties belonging to single entities as His Grace of Gloucester eloquently illustrated. (At least we avoided string theory :beam: ).

Polytheism can be seen as a precursor to the closer understanding of the natures of God. It is easier for the mind to divide the Godhead into archetypes and describe those elemental principles as divided gods. As we understand more about God, we can see that He is in fact One (in the same sense perhaps that physics yearns for and approaches the Theory of Everything to unify natural laws). This oneness however, has fundamental characteristics - the Father-Creator, whose scope and bound we can never understand - the Spirit, which moves and drives and extols us beyond our base instincts - and our Humanity, in the person of Jesus Christ, who by taking wholly human form exemplified everything to which we might aspire, and did so without the escape clause of being an untouchable god.

I cannot explain the Trinity beyond these kind of archetypes, because the mystery of it surpasses any analysis but faith. But it feels entirely right, and I see those aspects of God reflected in humanity. I see no conflict in God having three persons - and indeed the rule of three is prevalent in many aspects of nature and human art, which one might posit either as cause or effect.

So, as an invitation to reflection, I can do no better than offer the honourable member a shamrock. It works, you know. :wink:

Rodion Romanovich

06-10-2007, 15:36

As for global warming, what is the statistical significance of this rise in temperature, given that temperatures fluctuate randomly? I am not seeking to challenge theories about global warming, merely to undermine their status as "fact".
Correct, attempts at describing the causes of the current global warming may be called theories, rather than facts. This depends on what definition of "know" is used. But there are a few principles which make global warming far more convincing than religion:
1. there are no contradictions to the global warming model. The global warming says atmosphere composition alterations of certain types will push the temperature equilibrium to another level. The "solar cycles" theories aren't opposing this theory, they are opposing the statement that all global warming would be caused by atmosphere composition changes. In fact, nobody has been able to disprove that altered atmosphere compositions will lead to increased average temperatures.

2. the models used in religion aren't models, they are claims that something is the absolute truth.

3. the models in religion are vague and can be interpreted in several different ways. The models in science are exact. Because the religious models are so ambiguous, people can use them to support any statement they want. Scientific models can't be used in this manner, since they're completely specified. Since they're completely specified, they can be refuted easily if they're wrong. Nobody will say "but this is not how I meant" if someone disproves their scientific theory. Religion can however circumvent critcism by not specifying the models fully or unambigiously, so that nobody really knows what the theories are, and thus can't refute them.

4. Occam's razor, and statistical theory, shows that as the number of variables increase, statistical significance of any "proof" for the model decreases. The models in religion, because of their vagueness, would correspond to unambigious models containing millions of variables - often even more variables than observations. Scientific models consist of few variables compared to collected data.

5. one of the major theories against the statement "atmosphere composition changes are the major source of global warming at the moment" is that of solar cycles causing this. However, as this graph demonstrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
...we're actually right now in a period of low solar activity, which would instead imply global cooling rather than global warming. It turns out this attempt has backfired and this is rather an argument for global warming.

6. the global warming theory is built on theoretical models with even fewer variables, which have enormous statistical support over a long period of time.

7. science has a policy of everyone being allow to express their ideas and disprove existing theories. Nobody is silenced. Despite that there are millions working to disprove existing theories, nobody has disproven global warming, see no. 1. Religion has had a lot of counter-arguments, but heretics, protestants, and others have been subject to extreme persecution and murder when they tried to disprove statements the church presented as facts. Only a handful of powerful men are allowed to question the church, and even then, over history we've seen many religious "facts" refuted.

8. the global warming model way back resulted in predictions that have now been demonstrated to be accurate. Also, when including all factors such as solar radiation cycles, ice age cycles, and pollution, the theoretical model yields the exact same values as those measured today.

Rodion Romanovich

06-10-2007, 15:57

I was wondering for non-Christians, how do you think Jesus did it?

By did it, I mean, how he became the most famous man in all of history. And he will remain the most famous man in all of history for all-time. Surely this is mind-bogglingly great accomplishment.

I wouldn't say this is necessarily a mind-bogginly great accomplishment. Hitler and Stalin are among the most well-known figures of the previous century.

As for how Jesus became well-known, there are many reasons:
1. he symbolized the fight against oppression and the roman empire in his death on the cross
2. the roman empire made Christianity state religion, and made it out of a mix of existing religions, so it would be acceptable to many
3. many had a lot to gain from getting the favor of the Pope. The only way to do this, was to recognize the pope as a source of the truth, and reaffirm Christianity
4. Christianity forced-converted many poor people that were conquered by Christian rulers, and mass-murdered those who didn't want to change religion.
5. every citizen in many European countries were at times by law forced to attend church once a week, where they saw propaganda images of Jesus over and over again
6. the priests who believed in Jesus often used their position to be able to have sex with many of the women, which increased the percentage of believers in these countries by genocide of others.
7. in societies ruled by oppressive Christian rulers, the poor repressed people could still resort to Jesus for comfort, even though it was the followes of his religion that were responsible for the oppression. This is because Jesus is known as a poor man who, while innocent, had to endure horrible suffering from repressive authorities.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 15:58

there are no contradictions to the global warming model.

There arent?

On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#On_contradictions_in_the_theory_of_anthropogenic_global_warming)

Besides your making the rules. And these models dont have near the information needed to make such incredible assumptions.

In fact, nobody has been able to disprove that altered atmosphere compositions will lead to increased average temperatures.

Or prove it either. They dont even know if global warming will result in a warming or cooling of the earth. Its all faith based that in scienists have it right. And even they dont all agree on the matter.

The big thing with science is they can claim when their proven wrong, which is most of the time , that it is a continuing process. You cant prove their facts wrong because their only theories lol. They have little facts. They have plenty of faith.

Banquo's Ghost

06-10-2007, 16:09

Whilst the idea of global warming and its causes is a useful metaphor for uncertainty in science versus faith, I think we would all appreciate it if we kept to the topic at hand.

Navaros has instigated a serious and fascinating thread. I think we should respect that by keeping on topic as best we can.

There is nothing to stop anyone starting a new global warming thread - except compassion and common humanity, of course. :wink:

Rodion Romanovich

06-10-2007, 16:09

There arent?

On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#On_contradictions_in_the_theory_of_anthropogenic_global_warming)

Besides your making the rules. And these models dont have near the information needed to make such incredible assumptions.

Or prove it either. They dont even know if global warming will result in a warming or cooling of the earth. Its all faith based that in scienists have it right. And even they dont all agree on the matter.

The big thing with science is they can claim when their proven wrong, which is most of the time , that it is a continuing process. You cant prove their facts wrong because their only theories lol. They have little facts. They have plenty of faith.
This movie doesn't quote its sources of temperature and CO2 data correctly, and contains a lot of incorrect information:
- his record of atmopsheric CO2 levels was first claimed to come from NASA, then he edited his references two or three times, until finally settling for a completely different reference, which he fetched from a 1998 Medical Sentinel journal. This graph however seems to be one of very few contradictions to the vast majority of graphs made. The film maker also cut out the part of the curve that supported his claim the most. He cut off the period from 1988 to 2007, and drew a horizontal line from 1988 to 2007, claiming that the temperature today would be the same as 1988, which is an outright lie.
- he addresses not the main global warming theory, but some of the hypotheses that have not yet been accepted by the scientific community. He tries to present it as if he disproved global warming by coming with a vague argumentation against one of the so far unconfirmed hypotheses.
- he claims that because the model doesn't take into account and completely 100% accurately describe loosely related things such as the exact physics of cloud formation, it must be incorrect. This is a fallacy. It's similar to claiming that Newton's laws are incorrect because they don't describe how you barbeque a sausage.
- he uses incorrect data for the C02 concentration in the atmosphere. he claims that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, but after the movie was made, Durkin admitted that this claim was an outright lie.
- he claims that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, but in fact all graphs suggest solar activity is currently lower than usual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar-cycle-data.png
- he doesn't even try to respond to the fact that the temperature increases in the last 60 years are over 20 times more rapid than any previous temperature increase earlier in the history of the earth.

Edit: BG's post came while I was writing this. Let's create a new thread if anyone wishes to continue this discussion.

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 16:13

Navaros has instigated a serious and fascinating thread. I think we should respect that by keeping on topic as best we can.

Oui, oui ! :artist:

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 16:18

Chew on this: The earliest proven authentic epistle is that of Clement, which uses the scientific example of a Pheonix as proof of the resurrection. :)

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 16:20

Whilst the idea of global warming and its causes is a useful metaphor for uncertainty in science versus faith, I think we would all appreciate it if we kept to the topic at hand.

That is the only reason I mentioned it. That and that somebody else brought it up,

It seems to me that that two main possibilities exist. Either the apostles were crazy or they were conspirators according to the doubters. If they were not crazy again why did they go and preach about a man who never existed while many of them were killed for doing it? Im still waiting for an answer to this question.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 16:26

that's a good question, and here is your answer. The earliest Christian communities, remote from power and lacking in wealth, were led by charismatic agitators, peripatetic "prophets" and "teachers" who claimed their doom-laden message was received directly from the Holy Spirit of God. Their doctrine was spontaneous, variable and idiosyncratic.

Tellingly, the handful of late 1st century and early 2nd century writers (Paul, Clement, Barnabas, Papias) did not quote the mythical Jesus at all. They say nothing, or next to nothing, of humanoid "Jesus actions" or miracles. The virgin-born, miracle-working, godman of later legend was unknown to them. When their fantasy required the endorsement of higher authority they turned instead to Jewish scripture, to the patriarchs, the prophets and the supposed utterances of the Jewish God himself.

There are some scriptures that claim Jesus lived and was persecuted a century before the time period, and others that claim other dates. It is clear that there were many local myths and god-man legends (Persian, jewish, Egyptian, and Greek) that were combined in the person of Jesus later by the authors of the Gospels.

They weren't crazy (at least some of them werent. The dude who wrote the "revelation" was certainly insane. They were preaching against Rome and persecution of their people and homeland by metaphor and analogy.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 16:30

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 16:32

LOL, no I told you I studied New Testament when I first went to college. I graduated with a degree in Classics and antiquity, and am a historian, hence my position with EB.I used to be quite the insane Christian myself. Those are my words, dude.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 16:35

LOL, no I told you I studied New Testament when I first went to college.

Well judging by your responses in this thread and other you should ask for your tuition back. PS did you pass?

Those are my words, dude.
No wonder they dont make sense :laugh4: I thought it was some other kook :laugh4:

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 16:37

Navaros

06-10-2007, 16:45

In fact in Hebrews he says Jesus was never on earth at all. According to him, Jesus, like many other savior-gods of the time period, was a purely mystical, spirtual creature.

This sounds extremely odd to me. Could you please provide the exact Chapter and Verse that you saw this in.

There will be many more in the distant future. For most people in today's world Jesus is not the most famous or important character anyway.

Under what circumstances do you figure another man will become more famous than Jesus?

True that in today's time it is "chic" to promote animosity towards God and/or hatred towards God and what follows is the same to Jesus Christ also. But in 200 years from now no one is going to remember all the popular "hate God because it's chic to" authors & speakers of today. But Jesus will still be as famous as ever.

Whacker

06-10-2007, 16:49

One other thing I will say about the OP's choice of words. This is a decidedly western-thinking thread. While 'christianity' does have the largest subscriber (yes I chose that word purposefully) base, there are just as many muslims and hindus (right word?) combined out there. Saying that "Jesus is the most popular person in the world" is quite a bit of a stretch there.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 16:52

. The earliest Christian communities, remote from power and lacking in wealth, were led by charismatic agitators, peripatetic "prophets" and "teachers" who claimed their doom-laden message was received directly from the Holy Spirit of God. Their doctrine was spontaneous, variable and idiosyncratic.

I though they were started by the apostles who claimed that Christ had sent them the message of hope and redemption. So there were no 12 apostles according to you.

Tellingly, the handful of late 1st century and early 2nd century writers (Paul, Clement, Barnabas, Papias) did not quote the mythical Jesus at all. They say nothing, or next to nothing, of humanoid "Jesus actions" or miracles. The virgin-born, miracle-working, godman of later legend was unknown to them

Then they were stupid or uniformed.
How about the gospels of Mathew and Luke from around 60 - 80 AD?

Thats right there were no apostles. This nativity thing started long before your writers came about. Im not claiming it really happened but many Christians believe it from the get go. As you said it was common in many religions.

There are some scriptures that claim Jesus lived and was persecuted a century before the time period, and others that claim other dates. It is clear that there were many local myths and god-man legends (Persian, jewish, Egyptian, and Greek) that were combined in the person of Jesus later by the authors of the Gospels.

Nothing you have posted adresses my question. Were there 12 apostles and if there were why were they willing to die for preaching the word of a man who never existed.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 16:55

Duke of Gloucester

06-10-2007, 16:58

This sounds extremely odd to me. Could you please provide the exact Chapter and Verse that you saw this in.

Don't worry. Almost all biblical scholars agree that Paul did not write the Letter to the Hebrews.

Navaros

06-10-2007, 17:05

sure.

"If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." --Hebrews 8:4

as I said before, Paul has no knowledge of a historical figure of Jesus. He is writing in the first decades after the foundation of christianity and his Jesus is a purely metaphysical spirit. It was not until a hundred years later that the first Gospels would be written, trying to create a god-man who walked the earth.

The quote is somewhat correct (although there is no "if Jesus had been" or "he would not even have been" words in the actual Bible) but statements here regarding what the quote is actually saying are completely incorrect.

He never said Jesus did not live on the Earth. Another translation clarifies this more so that perhaps people don't get confused by the old language as it seems has happened here. What the statement means is "If then He were still living on earth".

All he was saying there is that if Jesus were still alive on the Earth, it is not fitting for him to be a priest, because the priests are corrupt, and Jesus is pure and godly.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 17:06

It was not until a hundred years later that the first Gospels would be written, trying to create a god-man who walked the earth.

Im sure you can prove that. Tell me why is their no mention in the Gospels of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.?

Most likely they were written between 50 and 60 ad IMO .

Here try this on for size

f we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

* "At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
* "It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.
Q (http://www.carm.org/evidence/Q.htm)
Acts (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Acts/acts_1.htm#1%A0)

Luke 24 (http://www.carm.org/kjv/Luke/luke_24.htm#26%A0)

Duke of Gloucester

06-10-2007, 17:08

Whoever "he" was because it almost certainly was not Paul.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 17:11

Whoever "he" was because it almost certainly was not Paul.

More likely Mathew , Luke , Mark and John.

Navaros

06-10-2007, 17:14

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 17:15

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 17:18

If Jesus is not the most famous man in the world and all of history, then let's specifically name another man who is more famous.

Um, easy. Alexander of Macedonia.

Duke of Gloucester

06-10-2007, 17:23

OH please, dont start with fallacy. Matthew is dated to 70 AD at the earliest, and `110 AD at the latest. Most scholars place it at the turn of the century. Dont claim it was written in 50. Mark is the absolute earliest at around 70. THe Gospel of Judas is contemporary with Luke, by the way.

And why would they put the destruction of the temple? they were trying to re-write history as it was to make their allegory fit the historical record.

Most of the elements of their story are blatant copies from the Talmud, but even the parts they weave in to try and make sense are ludicrous. The Sanhedrin meeting on the Sabbath just to judge Jesus?? A Roman Governor (or procurator as Tacitus tells us), releasing a hardended criminal over a wilderness prophet, a murderer who had slain Roman soldiers? Asking the crowd as if he needed permission? Come on.

Did you not say earlier in the thread that the New Testament was written 200-400 years after Jesus's death? (Post 2 if you can't remember). Now you, more correctly date Matthew's gospel at 70 to 110 AD. When did the Sanhedrin meet on the Sabbath? Jesus was executed on a Friday and the Sabath is a Saturday. The Last Supper was on Thursday evening. Are you sure you have studied the New Testament? Perhaps you should look again.

Navaros

06-10-2007, 17:26

Um, easy. Alexander of Macedonia.

He is not more famous than Jesus among the general population of human beings, although there may be more fans of him on a historical war gaming forum than of Jesus.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 17:27

Kralizec

06-10-2007, 18:07

He is not more famous than Jesus among the general population of human beings, although there may be more fans of him on a historical war gaming forum than of Jesus.

Ask any Hindu who he is - you'll be surprised.

Redleg

06-10-2007, 18:14

This has been a rather amusing thread. It seems someone has a problem dealing with christianity and its influence on the world. Right, wrong, or indifferent on whether Jesus existed as a human being - to deny the impact and influence on the world of the character is to steer one's self away from the concept of history.

As for how Jesus became as well known as he did - we can all thank a certain Roman Emporer, and his using it as a state religion to appease the masses.

There is a whole list of individuals who have influenced the world to some degree. Karl Marx being one such individual. Alexander the Great predates Jesus.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 18:14

GIve me a break, I'm not an expert by any means except for Islam and Roman history. I was wrong on the dates, I stand corrected. I was going off my initial recollection of bits and pieces from school, but then looked it up. Same thing for the Sanhedrin--I remember the historical criticism, but got the specifics wrong. here is the correct version:

The following are some of the Mosaic Laws that according to Christians claims were violated by the Sanhedrin in the trial of Christ: bribery (De 16:19; 27:25); conspiracy and the perversion of judgment and justice (Ex 23:1, 2, 6, 7; Le 19:15, 35); bearing false witness, in which matter the judges connived (Ex 20:16); letting a murderer (Barabbas) go, thereby bringing bloodguilt upon themselves and upon the land (Nu 35:31-34; De 19:11-13); mob action, or 'following a crowd to do evil' (Ex 23:2, 3); in crying out for Jesus to be impaled, they were violating the law that prohibited following the statutes of other nations and that also prescribed no torture but that provided that a criminal be stoned or put to death before being hung on a stake (Le 18:3-5; De 21:22); they accepted as king one not of their own nation, but a pagan (Caesar), and rejected the King whom God had chosen (De 17:14, 15); and finally, they were guilty of murder (Ex 20:13).

The Sanhedrin, or any other Jewish court was forbidden to sit at night (Ex 18:24) nor could it meet during a festival, as it was the first night of Passover (Num 28:18). Scholars in the area of biblical criticism take these inconsistencies with Jewish practice to indicate that such a trial most likely did not take place.

Devastatin Dave

06-10-2007, 18:15

Just a friendly reminder:
Simple religion bashing is not acceptable here. Any historical, philosophical etc. arguments are highly welcome.

Thanks

Ser Clegane

:bow:
Jesus brings out the best and worst of people... that's why I believe!!!:laugh4:

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 18:22

As for how Jesus became as well known as he did - we can all thank a certain Roman Emporer, and his using it as a state religion to appease the masses.

I had scored a screamer yards away :clown:

I still don't understand why it comes to a point where people are trying to put themselves above each other playing with an average of 2 laugh4 smileys/post and where expressing an idea has been more of a matter of self-integrity rather than an element of a debate.

Ronin

06-10-2007, 18:26

I was wondering for non-Christians, how do you think Jesus did it?

By did it, I mean, how he became the most famous man in all of history. And he will remain the most famous man in all of history for all-time. Surely this is mind-bogglingly great accomplishment.

How did he manage to do that?

Please give as elaborate of an explanation as you can so that we may all come to understand how this could have been possible.

By the way simply saying he was very charmismatic is not a suitable explanation, as there are many very charismatic people but none of them have or ever will have achieved the colossal renown of Jesus.

well the explanation is simple...

that book had one hell of a re-write team....they probably thought to themselfs...´what can we write that will make people really be a part of this movement? what will make them WANT to believe?.....I got it! what if our leader can come back to life?´

the whole (supposed) resurrection angle is one hell of a selling point...don´t you think? how are you gonna get a character that is more amazing than that? even if you kill him he gets back up! not even Arnold in his best movies pulled that one off...I guess back then they had better publicists :laugh4:

so you have a charismatic figure.....with a story people want to believe in......and it´s a nice story if you don´t look too hard for the inconsistencies in it...so bam! you have an instantly revered figure..the impact it had on the roman empire probably assured that we´re still talking about it today

JimBob

06-10-2007, 18:27

I'm going to use the banned answer. He was charismatic, and lucky. He was saying what people wanted to hear at a certain time. And at some levels he was right, so people listened. Throw in the fact that humans like ideals and you get a few people willing to die for a belief. It was not the first or last time that a group of people were willing to preach words that could get them killed.

To say that he will always be the most popular person is likely incorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if in two thousand years some people argue about the Gospels of John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 18:30

Without a TV some charismatic person will only remain popular among friends.

[offensive intention=0]
Jesus owes it to Rome.
[/offensive intention]

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 18:31

well the explanation is simple...

the whole supposed resurrection angle is one hell of a selling point...don´t you think? how are you gonna get a character that is more amazing than that? even if you kill him he gets back up! not even Arnold in his best movies pulled that one off...I guess back then they had better publicists :laugh4:

so you have a charismatic figure.....with a story people want to believe in......and it´s a nice story if you don´t look too hard for the inconsistencies in it...you have an instantly revered figure..the impact it had on the roman empire probably assured that we´re still talking about it today

You'd think that was it, but the entire ressurection thing was wholly plagarized from various other mythic heroes of the region. It even came to a point when early Christians were asking how jesus was any different than Adonis, Hercules, Osiris, etc. The early christian leadership response was something along "well yeah, but this time its true". :idea2:

Navaros

06-10-2007, 19:00

The early christian leadership response was something along "well yeah, but this time its true". :idea2:

What's wrong with that answer? The others were fabrications, Jesus was not.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 19:13

What's wrong with that answer? The others were fabrications, Jesus was not.
Also he is leaving out all those who prophesised! his coming. Again that there were others who claimed so before doesnt prove a thing.

I'm not an expert by any means except for Islam and Roman history.

I have my serious doubts about those as well. I imagine then you have the same distain for Islam and the Koran as for Christianity and the bible.

To say that he will always be the most popular person is likely incorrect. I wouldn't be surprised if in two thousand years some people argue about the Gospels of John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

I do that now lol :laugh4:

But I dont see Christianity dying any time soon. Its still the worlds largest religion and still growing. Its already been here 2000 years. The only major religion I can think of thats older is Judaism thats still practiced.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 19:16

Fine, you blindly accept it as fact. That's fine. What do you say about all of the laws the Sanhedrin supposedly were happy to break in order to try Jesus?

Islam is actually the fastest growing religion and will soon overtake Christianity. But yes, Islam is pure nonsense too but it was largley appropriated from the CHristian and Jewish bible. That a Christian could claim theirs is any more valid than the Koran is silliness as well. I am just an expert on Islam as its been my job for some 4 years now and Ive taken numerous Islamic studies courses. But yes, I do have a 'disdain' for it :) :daisy:

Christianity has about 2100 million adherents worldwide, while Islam has 1300 million. Islam is currently growing at about 2% per year.

Ronin

06-10-2007, 19:22

What's wrong with that answer? The others were fabrications, Jesus was not.

I take that you have proof of this...:juggle2:

Ronin

06-10-2007, 19:25

Also he is leaving out all those who prophesised! his coming. Again that there were others who claimed so before doesnt prove a thing.

prophesies that you only know about AFTER the fact don´t prove anything either.....

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 19:29

Fine, you blindly accept it as fact. That's fine.

No its not. Whats wrong with you. Havent I told you Im not a christian? I dont believe it. I play devils advocate all the time here but I usually keep it a secret. I dont want people to know how really conflicted I am :laugh4: Im a Gemini I cant help it. And no I dont believe in astrology either.

You however blindly follow that he didnt not exist and that anyone who believes that he did or follows his religion is silly. I keep telling you keep an open mind around here or your going to get into trouble. If theres one thing ive learned here it dont be so dang sure of yourself. Stop posting in absolutes. As if yours is the only opinion based in reality.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 19:42

I was referring to Navaros actually. But you never answered my questions :P. I blindly accept that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus aside from construed 'evidence' manufactured decades after his supposed lifetime by what can only be termed Christian apologetics.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 19:49

I blindly accept that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus aside from construed 'evidence' manufactured decades after his supposed lifetime by what can only be termed Christian apologetics.

Again your statement is conflicted. How can you blindly accept there is no evidence? People have posted evidence you just dont accept it or you try to refute it. You blindly accept the premise that there was no Jesus. It fits in nicely with your current train of thought. If you dont believe in god one could hardly expect you to believe in Jesus. But again what is your view on Islam? Are they as silly?

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 19:57

Fine, you blindly accept it as fact. That's fine. What do you say about all of the laws the Sanhedrin supposedly were happy to break in order to try Jesus?

Islam is actually the fastest growing religion and will soon overtake Christianity. But yes, Islam is pure nonsense too but it was largley appropriated from the CHristian and Jewish bible. That a Christian could claim theirs is any more valid than the Koran is silliness as well. I am just an expert on Islam as its been my job for some 4 years now and Ive taken numerous Islamic studies courses. But yes, I do have a 'disdain' for it :)

Christianity has about 2100 million adherents worldwide, while Islam has 1300 million. Islam is currently growing at about 2% per year.

Maybe you missed my response on Islam from the last page. Besides, I have yet to see any factual, hard evidence that you claim people have given here. Care to re-hash it for me?

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 20:14

Islam is actually the fastest growing religion and will soon overtake Christianity.

You really think so huh? Im sure you have proof of this even though like most other things you claim to prove its impossible to do so.

Again though I will counter your argument so you wont have to bother. I admit you may be correct.

Total adherents New from conversion # of adherents to make one new convert:

Muslims

1,188,242,789 - 865,558 - 1,372

Christians

1,999,563,838 - 2,501,396 - 799

The Islamic religion has a long history of myth making. The claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth.

From Table 1-2, you can see that presently every 24 hours, the world population of Christians increases by 69,000, whereas there are only 68,000 Muslims. The only reason Muslims are anywhere near Christians is because of higher birth rates in the parts of the world where Muslims are largest. The vast majority of the 69,000 Christians will be educated, whereas the majority of the 68,000 Muslims will be illiterate peasants without clean drinking water.

Funny how a smaller part of a bigger pie is still bigger isnt it? PS I dont back the peasant bit.

Conclusion:

1. There are more new Christians added to the world population than any other religion on earth every day. This data makes the entire discussion about "rates of growth" irrelevant. The fact is today, that Christianity is the fastest growing religion on this most critical basis. This may change, but today, in 2004 AD, Christians take the prize for being the fastest growing religion.
2. On none of the 6 continents are Muslims the fastest growing religion.
3. That Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world is pure myth at best and at worst a deliberate deception of solid statistical facts.

From Table 1-1 you can see that while Muslims claim they are the fastest growing religion in the world (2.13), the statistics say that Baha'is are growing at a faster rate (2.28) and faster still are Zoroastrians (2.65).
And unlike you heres the link (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm)

Now again Im not claiming to be the expert on this nor am I claiming to be correct. Im just trying to teach you not to be so damned sure of yourself all the time.

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 20:15

:daisy:

WTF are you doing ??

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 20:20

Uh, Gawain.. I hope you noticed your data comes from a website with the word bible in the name.. LOL :) Can't be expected to be unbaised there can we.

LeftEyeNine-- Of course you can believe whatever you like, but no one doubts the Prophet (peace be upon him and all) liked little girls. and I mean little girls.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 20:21

Hes an equal opportunity basher :laugh4: At least he answered my question.

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 20:21

Someone here to do what this thread needs please ?

Navaros

06-10-2007, 20:21

I take that you have proof of this...:juggle2:

It's been posted a lot already in this thread by Gawain.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 20:25

Navaros, what do you consider proof? Some fabricated writings from long after the supposed events? Come on now.. you need empirical data from various sources to confirm anything in history, which is, for example, why we know that Augustus existed. Not Jesus.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 20:26

Someone here to do what this thread needs please ?

How is it that Christ is fair game but as soon as he brings up Mohamed the thread needs to be closed?

Uh, Gawain.. I hope you noticed your data comes from a website with the word bible in the name.. LOL :) Can't be expected to be unbaised there can we.

Not this again. Dispute the facts not the source. Besides I didnt claim they were right now did I. You just dont get it.

LeftEyeNine-- Of course you can believe whatever you like, but no one doubts the Prophet (peace be upon him and all) liked little girls. and I mean little girls.

Only if you believe the Koran and that it tells the truth. It can also be interpreted to say differently. Im assuming you are discussing his marriage to a 6 year old. Even the age is in dispute plus the fact that rulers back then often took child brides. There is no indication he consumated the marriage until she was 9:laugh4: But again we cant be sure of that.

Navaros

06-10-2007, 20:27

Pliny the Younger and Josephus' writings which confirm Jesus Christ were not fabricated and there is zero evidence to reasonably suggest that they were. The "best evidence" given so far that they were fabrications is that "A Jewish man couldn't write kindly about Jesus Christ". :idea2:

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 20:33

Uh, on the contrary, they are.

No doubt, Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

This is what he says in the "magic statement".

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

– Josephus (aka Joseph ben Matthias) The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3: the so called Testimonium Flavianum

BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

Around 112 AD, in correspondence between Emperor Trajan and the provincial governor of Pontus/Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, reference is made to Christians for the first time. Pliny famously reports to his emperor:

'Christians ... asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. '
(Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96-97)

Note that Pliny is relaying what those arrested said they believed (and there is no reference here to a 'Jesus.')

Pliny had convened trials of Christians, not because of their beliefs but because he had ' forbidden political associations' which he obviously suspected them of forming. He continues:

'Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.'

Some of those arrested recanted, worshipped the imperial image and state gods, and cursed Christ. But Pliny is uncertain how to proceed with numerous others in what he describes as a widespread 'contagion' and asks Trajan for guidance. Trajan's celebrated reply is:

' They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it -- that is, by worshiping our gods -- even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance.'

The real value of this correspondence (the only example of its kind to survive the Christian dark age) is not that it is some 'proof' of Jesus's existence (which it manifestly is not) but evidence of the toleration of Roman jurisprudence in the 'golden age' of the Empire.

As far as Mohammed goes, The hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims. Both quote Aisha herself claiming she was six or seven at the time of her marriage and nine when the marriage was consummated.

Whacker

06-10-2007, 20:37

He is not more famous than Jesus among the general population of human beings, although there may be more fans of him on a historical war gaming forum than of Jesus.

I'm going to presume based on your tone and statements that you are portraying this as a 'fact', that Hay Zeus is the most 'well known' person to ever have lived. As such, you need to 1. re-read the definition of what a 'fact' is, and 2. provide some evidence beyond your grandstanding and empty 'evidence.' Just because YOU firmly believe that he is the most well known doesn't actually make it so. In fact if you tried to produce anything for point 2. I doubt I'd believe it because measuring something of this magnitude is all but impossible.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 20:39

oh and besides, if you want to know what the real Christians believed, look to the so called Gnostic writings. They are the first actual Christian writings, carbon dated to around 50 BCE. They paint a remarkably differnet picture of your standard god-man than you might be used to and have all kinds of interesting aliens and different planets in them too.

LeftEyeNine

06-10-2007, 20:43

How is it that Christ is fair game but as soon as he brings up Mohamed the thread needs to be closed?

I never called Jesus a masochistic nail-o-phile fool,although I could make up my own truth to prove it. Never do I intend to say such nor am I having such ideas. Since this is the second time religion bashing occurs here following a moderator warning, I request what needs to be done to be done.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 20:45

Whacker

06-10-2007, 20:50

what's the point if we all can't talk about these things like adults? We're all entitled to our opinions on things, if someone's opinion disturbs you, I suggest you examine your own faith. Otherwise ignore it. These conversations about religion are fascinating, I think, and useful. For those with faith, it can only increase their faith if it doesnt destroy it.

My two cents, which most likely means nothing around here.

Zak, if you can provide some reasonable evidence to back up your earlier statements re: Mohammed, then my take is Sorry, LEN. He's calling it like it is, whether you like it or not.

If not, then that smacks of baseless bashing which the mods kindly reminded us not to do.

Edit - \/\/\/\/\/ Welp, except for the seizures, looks reasonable enough to me. /shrug

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 20:53

Okie-Dokie: From Wiki

Evidence that Aisha was nine

The hadith collections of Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875) are in general regarded as the most authentic by Sunni Muslims. Both quote Aisha herself claiming she was six or seven at the time of her marriage and nine when the marriage was consummated.

[edit] Sahih Bukhari

According to Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a young girl . [8]

According to Urwah ibn al-Zubayr:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[9]

According to Aisha:

the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).[10]

According to Ursa ibn al-Zubayr:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[11]

[edit] Sahih Muslim

According to Aisha:

Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him. [12]

According to Aisha:

Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old [13]

According to Aisha:

Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. [14]

[edit] Sunan Abu Dawud

According to Aisha:

"The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter." [15]

According to Aisha:

When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair was up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine. [16]

[edit] Tarikh al-Tabari

According to Aisha:

My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me." ... "(The Prophet) married her three years before the Emigration, when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old, after he had emigrated to Medina in Shawwal. She was eighteen years old when he died". [17]

According to Abd al-Hamid b. Bayan al-Sukkari:

Abd Allah b. Safwan together with another person came to Aishah and Aishah said (to the latter), "O so and so, have you heard what Hafsah has been saying?" He said, "Yes, o Mother of the Faithful." Abd Allah b. Safwan asked her, "What is that?" She replied, "There are nine special features in me that have not been in any woman, except for what God bestowed on Maryam bt. Imran. By God, I do not say this to exalt myself over any of my companions." "What are these?" he asked. She replied, "The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin...." [

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2007, 21:09

This is what he says in the "magic statement".

Quote:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

– Josephus (aka Joseph ben Matthias) The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3: the so called Testimonium Flavianum

First off thats not an accurate quote even. Then you use it to attack its authenticty.

I didnt give you the link last time as I didnt think it needed since Im not trying to prove it either way.But you force my hand. This counters every argument youve made.

When were the gospels written and by whom? (http://www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm)

I never called Jesus a masochistic nail-o-phile fool,although I could make up my own truth to prove it.

No you have not but there was many a time Ive seen christians refered to as the followers of goat herders and carpenters. Its not Zaks fault whats written about Mohamed. Although belief in this seems even more foolish than in christianity to me Im not about to call those who believe it fools themselves. Im sure they have good reasons for beleiveing as they do. But the case can be made that Mohamed was a murdering war mongering pedophile. I must admit that I have made this argument countless times myslef and it would be hypocrytical of me to attack Zak for it. But I wasnt there so I cant say at what age the youngest girl he ever had sex with was.

Zaknafien

06-10-2007, 21:16

uh, show me where that quote is not accurate...

and from your Christian Apologetic website:

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry

LOL.. its obvious.

Ser Clegane

06-10-2007, 21:33

Thanks for all moderator comments and for driving a thread that could have led to an interesting discussion down the gutter :no:

My apologies to the thread starter and all patrons who tried to have a good discussion and to abstain from the usual religion bashing - unfortunately this did not work out :shame:

Closed.