Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I have provided alot more that that on Alexander ISAW and if you can't see it that that is your problem.

Matter of fact you didnt even supply the single primary source you claimed!
all you did was supply the name of it.
You supplied hearsay about it.
I supplied you with the contents of the Babylonian chronicle..

You havent provided anything else except claims about other evidence you havent supplied.
i went into each of your claimed sources and asked where they mention alexander.
You have yet to provide it.
and a claim that an "Alexander" existed could well be a hoax Alexander made up to look like someone that did exist at that time who allegedly performed miracles. You know? Like you claim about Jesus.

It is fully acceptable to Historians so , so you will have to come up with something else there, As I say you are not the judge and jury on it.

aha! but if you claim Alexander or Socrates is "fully acceptable to historians" then you have to say jesus is also!

And you cant claim i am not the judge and also contradict yourself by claiming you have your own opinions making you the judge!

First you wanted sources

wrong! i wanted the same sort of sources you claimed didn't exist for Jesus.
Extant contemporaneous sources.
In antiquities you should now be aware such sources are scant.

and now that they have beeen provided them you want to start interpreting them.

No they have NOT been provided. ONE was and i provided it!
You provided the name of it but you didnt provide it.
You havent provided another primary source or an extant contemporaneous source for Socrates oir Alexander.
the best you have offered is books from 300 years later referring to now lost earlier books.

when ity comes to Jesus we have doccuments originating ten to twenty years after his death, and by a single lifetime a tome. Within 150 years we have tens of thousands of fragments of the New testament which even without a copy of the Bible you would be able to construct at least 95% of it!

Unless you have some qualification in those matters that we don't know about I will stick with the experts I already know .

I dont "argue from authority" It is fallacious. But I have published on history.

ON Socrates, who cares , a minimumum of 4 people mention him so it is possible he did not exist but is philosophy does and thats the important thing.

four gospel writers and hundreds of others from his own time mention Jesus.
the people who mention Socrates do so as a fictional character.

I am holding jesus to the exact same standards and there nothing special about it at all.

so you admit there is loads more evidence for Jesus?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

To recap - the only contemporaneous record of Jesus is those mentions by Josephus and one of those is dubious ? Are we agreed on that ?

Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".

Thallus, of whom very little is known, wrote a history from the Trojan War to, according to Eusebius, 109 BCE. No work of Thallus survives. There is one reference to Thallus having written about events beyond 109 BCE. Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, while writing about the crucifixion of Jesus, mentioned Thallus. Thus:

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 his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun

Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…

Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being a magician and a sorcerer

Mara bar Sarapion. Mara was a Syrian Stoic.
While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?

The Babylonian Talmud in a few rare instances likely or possibly refers to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Satda," and "ben Pandera". These references probably date back to the Tannaitic period (70–200 CE).
It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and God said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."


According to clergyman and New Testament scholar Henry Chadwick, similar uses of languages and viewpoints recorded in the New testament and the Dead Sea scrolls are valuable in showing that the New Testament portrays the first century period that it reports and is not a product of a later period.

ill leave out a huge deal of christian sources Biblical and gnostic.

then there is the Anti Nicean Fathers Clement of Rome (c. 96),Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107–110), and Justin Martyr.

there is quite a large historiography for Jesus larger than i reckon anyone in ancient times.
Including Virgil and Octavian but Im happy to use Socrates and Alexander.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I have done so - several times now. Indeed it's getting very tiresome to keep repeating the same question and for it consistently to be ignored.

I repeat: Where is any surviving contemporary evidence of other historical figures in First Century Palestine?



All you appear to be producing for Herod is coins (as we would expect for a king). Now, are you suggesting that we should be finding coins bearing the image of a carpenter from Nazareth?

As for Salome, the only source you can produce is Josephus (the same Josephus whom you refuse to accept as a source of evidence for Jesus). Do you nunderstand why that seems hypocritical.

In fact, as we both know, the primary source of information that historians draw on for biographical details of Salome is (wait for it ... drum roll,..) the New Testament!


No - we have the Four Gospels and the epistles of Paul. All of which were written by contemporaries of Jesus (since, by citing Josephus in connection with both Salome and Jesus, you appear to be using contemporaneous to refer to people who were alive at the same time as the people of whom they wrote).

Now this is really getting ridiculous- is that the only question I have left unanswerd ? The question I am in the process of answering ?

I have provided two examples and said more to come and we can discuss the quality ( if you don't mind) when I am finished.

By the way saying this man was a king and his coins dos'nt cut it , as I already pointed out you can't have it both ways . Either Jesus was a god or he was not.
We are not arguing about the existance of jesus the man.

And as for not excepting Josephus as a source- do you even read my posts ? I have given a summation ( at least twice) of The Josephus data and asked you if we can agree on that and still no reply from you.

Who were those contemporaries pf Paul ?

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

T
Anyway thats a debate about a person called Jesus and how it impacts on His position as God, I don't know.

well let me try explain . the anti Christian atheists want to establish a belief that a historical Jesus is a silly idea and that there is no evidence for Jesus. If there is a belief that Jesus the man never existed then one can easily dismiss the god or religion.

Adamas

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well we might read them as being historical the people writing might have seen it as placing the events in a context, one not necessarily historical.
Like any biography written by the promoters they would have been empathizing the importance of their hero rather than his nonprescription.
The Gospels are promotional literature firstly they are as historical accurate as they needed to be to get the message out, not to record events for the Jerusalem Post evening edition.

How can that be if they are the 'gospel truth' i.e' taken to be fully reliable and truthful? Are you suggesting that they are not in fact accurate/correct/factual i.e. truthful, and a reliable account of what actually happened? If so, are you saying that this biographical type of hero account applies to the figure of Jesus, or equally to all the charachters in the rest of it, like Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Mary etc? I would have thought that kind of account is called myth, no?

tommy2bad

By the way saying this man was a king and his coins dos'nt cut it , as I already pointed out you can't have it both ways . Either Jesus was a god or he was not.
We are not arguing about the existance of jesus the man.

So marien can I take it that you accept that a person of the name Jesus lived in Palestine 200 years ago? If so why do you refuse to believe the gospel accounts of this mans life?
Why is it so important to have proof that it real when what matters is that you believe it and more important, that you live it.
Are you hoping to be persuaded or hoping we will say "you know what marien is right! it's all guff, lets have an orgy don't bother with the rubbers, sure we can have abortions if someone gets knocked up"
I mean what are you hoping to get from this argument.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

N
We are not arguing about the existance of jesus the man.

Are we not?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77867239&postcount=3720
"Would you care to compare the evidence for the existance of Jesus with that of Tiberius?"

tommy2bad

Adamas wrote: »

How can that be if they are the 'gospel truth' i.e' taken to be fully reliable and truthful? Are you suggesting that they are not in fact accurate/correct/factual i.e. truthful, and a reliable account of what actually happened? If so, are you saying that this biographical type of hero account applies to the figure of Jesus, or equally to all the charachters in the rest of it, like Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Mary etc? I would have thought that kind of account is called myth, no?

Yes.
Though myth is too strong. Emphatic exhortation is closer.
The gospels are a true and accurate account of the life of Jesus as witnessed, not as investigative journalism but as reports of people who were impressed enough to tell their story.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

well let me try explain . the anti Christian atheists want to establish a belief that a historical Jesus is a silly idea and that there is no evidence for Jesus. If there is a belief that Jesus the man never existed then one can easily dismiss the god or religion.

It is just as easy to dismiss Jesus the God even if we had a signed photograph of him hanging out with his 12 mates. We do it with Joseph Smith quite easily.

tommy2bad

muppeteer wrote: »

It is just as easy to dismiss Jesus the God even if we had a signed photograph of him hanging out with his 12 mates. We do it with Joseph Smith quite easily.

Though in fairness Smith didn't claim to be God. And if it so easy... go on, you know you want to:p

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of this group following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 69–140) wrote the following in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars about riots which broke out in the Jewish community in Rome under the emperor Claudius:

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [ Claudius ] expelled them [the Jews] from Rome".

Thallus, of whom very little is known, wrote a history from the Trojan War to, according to Eusebius, 109 BCE. No work of Thallus survives. There is one reference to Thallus having written about events beyond 109 BCE. Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, while writing about the crucifixion of Jesus, mentioned Thallus. Thus:

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 his third book of History, calls (as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun

Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…

Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being a magician and a sorcerer

Mara bar Sarapion. Mara was a Syrian Stoic.
While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter to his son that includes the following text:

For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?

The Babylonian Talmud in a few rare instances likely or possibly refers to Jesus using the terms "Yeshu," "Yeshu ha-Notzri," "ben Satda," and "ben Pandera". These references probably date back to the Tannaitic period (70–200 CE).
It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and God said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him."


According to clergyman and New Testament scholar Henry Chadwick, similar uses of languages and viewpoints recorded in the New testament and the Dead Sea scrolls are valuable in showing that the New Testament portrays the first century period that it reports and is not a product of a later period.

ill leave out a huge deal of christian sources Biblical and gnostic.

then there is the Anti Nicean Fathers Clement of Rome (c. 96),Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107–110), and Justin Martyr.

there is quite a large historiography for Jesus larger than i reckon anyone in ancient times.
Including Virgil and Octavian but Im happy to use Socrates and Alexander.

How much of this is contemporaneous again ISAW ??

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Matter of fact you didnt even supply the single primary source you claimed!
all you did was supply the name of it.
You supplied hearsay about it.
I supplied you with the contents of the Babylonian chronicle..

You havent provided anything else except claims about other evidence you havent supplied.
i went into each of your claimed sources and asked where they mention alexander.
You have yet to provide it.
and a claim that an "Alexander" existed could well be a hoax Alexander made up to look like someone that did exist at that time who allegedly performed miracles. You know? Like you claim about Jesus.


aha! but if you claim Alexander or Socrates is "fully acceptable to historians" then you have to say jesus is also!

And you cant claim i am not the judge and also contradict yourself by claiming you have your own opinions making you the judge!


wrong! i wanted the same sort of sources you claimed didn't exist for Jesus.
Extant contemporaneous sources.
In antiquities you should now be aware such sources are scant.



No they have NOT been provided. ONE was and i provided it!
You provided the name of it but you didnt provide it.
You havent provided another primary source or an extant contemporaneous source for Socrates oir Alexander.
the best you have offered is books from 300 years later referring to now lost earlier books.

when ity comes to Jesus we have doccuments originating ten to twenty years after his death, and by a single lifetime a tome. Within 150 years we have tens of thousands of fragments of the New testament which even without a copy of the Bible you would be able to construct at least 95% of it!



I dont "argue from authority" It is fallacious. But I have published on history.


four gospel writers and hundreds of others from his own time mention Jesus.
the people who mention Socrates do so as a fictional character.


so you admit there is loads more evidence for Jesus?

This is just tiresome waffle, I supplied you with the link for alexander, all the rest is there. If you think taking massive cogs from wikipedia enhances your answers or anyone elses I would say you would be wrong.

As I say you were given the sources and a brief summation of the more important one and the means to verify them. That is all one needs.

muppeteer

tommy2bad wrote: »

Though in fairness Smith didn't claim to be God. And if it so easy... go on, you know you want to:p

True, though he did claim supernatural goings on.
Eh, it's been done before a thousand times:) I'm sure you've heard it all before anyway so I'll just say I dismiss it due to lack of evidence for supernatural claims and save us some time:P

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

It is just as easy to dismiss Jesus the God even if we had a signed photograph of him hanging out with his 12 mates. We do it with Joseph Smith quite easily.

joseph smith didn't claim to be god! And modern history and classical history use entirely different artifacts.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

True, though he did claim supernatural goings on.
Eh, it's been done before a thousand times:) I'm sure you've heard it all before anyway so I'll just say I dismiss it due to lack of evidence for supernatural claims and save us some time:P

so you accept the historical Jesus existed? You just dont believe he was God.

ISAW

Adamas wrote: »

How can that be if they are the 'gospel truth' i.e' taken to be fully reliable and truthful? Are you suggesting that they are not in fact accurate/correct/factual i.e. truthful, and a reliable account of what actually happened? If so, are you saying that this biographical type of hero account applies to the figure of Jesus, or equally to all the charachters in the rest of it, like Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Mary etc? I would have thought that kind of account is called myth, no?

Yes like the "myth" of creation or of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It is called allegory usually.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

so you accept the historical Jesus existed? You just dont believe he was God.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that a preacher named Jesus existed.
Do you accept that historical Jesus existed?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

How much of this is contemporaneous again ISAW ??

Much mpore than that odf Alexander or Socrates.
they couldnt write what happened when it was happening . they would have to write the history after it happened.
Assume Jesus was crusified about 40AD . A small child in that time say about five years of age would remember this event. it is possible that people lived to 100 years of agge and in fact such people are mentioned in hiostory; thus at the outside thought rare historians or anyone writing or taking dictation cuold be taking it from an eye witnessed up to 135AD. Even someone in their seventies not unusual -would be around in 100AD.

I think almost ALL of the sources I mentioned are covered by this.

Certainly Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112),

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), or Suetonius would have been around when the gospel writers were.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

It doesn't seem unreasonable that a preacher named Jesus existed.
Do you accept that historical Jesus existed?

I think from a historians perspective there is probably more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone in ancient times. what I believe personally i dont like to apply to objective academic points.

marienbad

tommy2bad wrote: »

So marien can I take it that you accept that a person of the name Jesus lived in Palestine 200 years ago? If so why do you refuse to believe the gospel accounts of this mans life?
Why is it so important to have proof that it real when what matters is that you believe it and more important, that you live it.
Are you hoping to be persuaded or hoping we will say "you know what marien is right! it's all guff, lets have an orgy don't bother with the rubbers, sure we can have abortions if someone gets knocked up"
I mean what are you hoping to get from this argument.

I have no problem accepting that a person names jesus existed in palestine 2000 years ago. But the issue ( as I see it) has three distinct questions.

1-did a man named Jesus exist in Palestine 2000 years ago ?.

2- is that man the Jesus of the New testament ?

3-Was that man a God ?

Are those questions unreasonable ? And in the context of this thread - Atheism/existance of God Debates how unreasonable can they be ?

As to why is it so important to have proof, As a general principle to be sceptical as a frame of mind on all things is in my view the correct position . Be in politics religion business , in fact any person or institution that would seek to wield power or influence over me and mine or the society in which I live.

But I have stated innumerable times that I have never understood the Christian obsession with proving the historicity of these events. It is called Faith after all is it not ? May be that is the Catholic upbringing of over half a century ago where such discussions were not encouraged, all part of that astonishing certainty of Catholicism in its own rightness and the pointlessness of such an exercise.


As to the issue or orgies and abortion - I have already stated on the abortion thread , that though it is not an issue for me personally, I personally would not agree with abortion ,I would do everything I could to persuade someone from having an abortion (as I have done) . But I fundamentally believe it is a matter of individual concience and would campaign ( and have done) for the right to choice.

On orgies , love them and have one arranged for the week-end , sadly as we no longer seem to be as in demand as we once were in those halcyon days of our youth , it will be just me and my partner.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Much mpore than that odf Alexander or Socrates.
they couldnt write what happened when it was happening . they would have to write the history after it happened.
Assume Jesus was crusified about 40AD . A small child in that time say about five years of age would remember this event. it is possible that people lived to 100 years of agge and in fact such people are mentioned in hiostory; thus at the outside thought rare historians or anyone writing or taking dictation cuold be taking it from an eye witnessed up to 135AD. Even someone in their seventies not unusual -would be around in 100AD.

I think almost ALL of the sources I mentioned are covered by this.

Certainly Pliny the Younger (c. 61 - c. 112),

Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117), or Suetonius would have been around when the gospel writers were.

So why did Tacitus or Pliny not describe the miracles lazerus the ressurection etc etc ? The most astonshing events to have happened before or since ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I have no problem accepting that a person names jesus existed in palestine 2000 years ago. But the issue ( as I see it) has three distinct questions.

1-did a man named Jesus exist in Palestine 2000 years ago ?.

To which your answer is "yes". Let us call this person JesusHP -historical Palestine

2- is that man the Jesus of the New testament ?

As opposed to what?
a different person of the same name?

i mean assume for some bizzare reason ther is a Bible Jesus JesusB

what is the significance of the "JesusB is not JesusHP" theory?

3-Was that man a God ?

This is a different sort of question which depends on your personal belief system.
I mean was Alexander the Great a god? You may say no. Buyt why was he not? "Well" you say "gods dont exist"
So your disbelief in Alexander or Jesus is based on your disbelief in any god or gods.

Are those questions unreasonable ? And in the context of this thread - Atheism/existance of God Debates how unreasonable can they be ?

1 and 2 are not unreasonable.
3 ,can be if you have a personal system which does not believe in god because you already believe the answer "yes" cant be true.

As to why is it so important to have proof, As a general principle to be sceptical as a frame of mind on all things is in my view the correct position . Be in politics religion business , in fact any person or institution that would seek to wield power or influence over me and mine or the society in which I live.

Indeed . One great example of this is thomas the apostle. But he believed in the end.

But I have stated innumerable times that I have never understood the Christian obsession with proving the historicity of these events. It is called Faith after all is it not ?

No 3 is about faith. 1 and 2 are bases on what we call historical scholarship.

May be that is the Catholic upbringing of over half a century ago where such discussions were not encouraged, all part of that astonishing certainty of Catholicism in its own rightness and the pointlessness of such an exercise.

This would be your own misinformed belief. If you did some research i am sure you will find all sorts of agnistics gnostics and church people all did academic research in this field.

As to the issue or orgies and abortion - I have already stated on the abortion thread , that though it is not an issue for me personally, I personally would not agree with abortion ,I would do everything I could to persuade someone from having an abortion (as I have done) . But I fundamentally believe it is a matter of individual concience and would campaign ( and have done) for the right to choice.

Yeah and the death penalty drug taking or suicide are they a choice too?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

So why did Tacitus or Pliny not describe the miracles lazerus the ressurection etc etc ? The most astonshing events to have happened before or since ?

Maybe they were not told them. Maybe they did describe them and like all the stuff on Alexander it became "lost".

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe they were not told them. Maybe they did describe them and like all the stuff on Alexander it became "lost".

Surely you can do better than that ?? after all these events would have been the wonders of the age ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Surely you can do better than that ?? after all these events would have been the wonders of the age ?

Some of them apparently were the wonders of the age.
In fact the huge amount of sources i left out would say just that.
Pliny maybe believed in the Roman gods as true and that the Christian god was not:

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ
Pliny to Trajan, Letters 10.96–97

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

To which your answer is "yes". Let us call this person JesusHP -historical Palestine



As opposed to what?
a different person of the same name?

i mean assume for some bizzare reason ther is a Bible Jesus JesusB

what is the significance of the "JesusB is not JesusHP" theory?



This is a different sort of question which depends on your personal belief system.
I mean was Alexander the Great a god? You may say no. Buyt why was he not? "Well" you say "gods dont exist"
So your disbelief in Alexander or Jesus is based on your disbelief in any god or gods.



1 and 2 are not unreasonable.
3 ,can be if you have a personal system which does not believe in god because you already believe the answer "yes" cant be true.



Indeed . One great example of this is thomas the apostle. But he believed in the end.


No 3 is about faith. 1 and 2 are bases on what we call historical scholarship.


This would be your own misinformed belief. If you did some research i am sure you will find all sorts of agnistics gnostics and church people all did academic research in this field.



Yeah and the death penalty drug taking or suicide are they a choice too?

Firstly ISAW you are not qualified ( and never will be) to tell me what is my misinformed belief.

Secondly - the death is rarely if ever a choice ( there have been exceptions) , I would favour suicide and legalising drugs - thoug what any of this has to do with the discussion is beyond me.

Thirdly - Alexander saying he was a God and forcing some of his followers to treat him as one, did'nt make him one and none of his men ( certainly not the Greeks) for one minute believed he was one . As a matter of fact some say the everything changed when he starting behaving like an eastern satrap.

The anser to my Q3 depending on your belief system surely cuts both ways , does it not ?
I am not quite sure I understand your answer to Q 1 &2 , expand if you will.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Firstly ISAW you are not qualified ( and never will be) to tell me what is my misinformed belief.

Indeed I am qualified; I have several postgraduate qualifications. One with a large proportion about history and philosophy.
But as i say my qualifications are not at issue nor do i argue from authority.
I argue based on the evidence.
you are misinformed because your claim "the Catholic upbringing of over half a century ago where such discussions [the historicity of Jesus] were not encouraged"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Samuel_Reimarus
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (December 22, 1694, Hamburg – March 1, 1768, Hamburg), was a German philosopher and writer of the Enlightenment who is remembered for his Deism, the doctrine that human reason can arrive at a knowledge of God and ethics from a study of nature and our own internal reality, thus eliminating the need for religions based on revelation. He denied the reality of miracles and is credited by some with initiating historians' investigation of the historical Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_E._Brown
Brown was one of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible. As Biblical criticism developed in the 19th century, the Roman Catholic Church opposed this scholarship and essentially forbade it in 1893. In 1943, however, the Church issued guidelines by which Catholic scholars could investigate the Bible historically. Brown called this encyclical the "Magna Carta of biblical progress." Vatican II further supported higher criticism, which, Brown felt, vindicated his approach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism#Controversy_of_critical_methods
in 1943 Pope Pius XII gave license to the new scholarship in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu: "[T]extual criticism ... [is] quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books ... Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed

Secondly - the death is rarely if ever a choice ( there have been exceptions) , I would favour suicide and legalising drugs - thoug what any of this has to do with the discussion is beyond me.

Well you mentioned abortion as a "choice". I was wondering how far you extend personal choice. To freedom to kill or destroy ones body?

Thirdly - Alexander saying he was a God and forcing some of his followers to treat him as one, did'nt make him one and none of his men ( certainly not the Greeks) for one minute believed he was one .

Id beg to differ. His men loyally followed him across deserts into wildreness and climed mountains impossible to climb.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t54.html
About thirty lost their lives during the ascent -falling in various places in the snow, their bodies were never recovered for burial- but the rest reached the top as dawn was breaking, and the summit of the Rock was theirs.

As a matter of fact some say the everything changed when he starting behaving like an eastern satrap.

Well maybe. the central point is about people believed to be god and about whether such people are there in the history. they are. It isnt silly to regard Jesus as historically as valid as anyone else.

The answer to my Q3 depending on your belief system surely cuts both ways , does it not ?

Yes. but it isnt for me to make your case for you. Just because you could say the same if i said "Jesus was god" doesnt change anything since i am not making that claim. It is you making the claim about pêople ,not being gods. Im just pointing out that you think such claims are silly because you dont believe them to be true no matter what the historical evidence.

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

I have no problem accepting that a person names jesus existed in palestine 2000 years ago. But the issue ( as I see it) has three distinct questions.

1-did a man named Jesus exist in Palestine 2000 years ago ?.
Yes.
2- is that man the Jesus of the New testament ?
Most likely
3-Was that man a God ?
I believe so
Are those questions unreasonable ? And in the context of this thread - Atheism/existance of God Debates how unreasonable can they be ?

As to why is it so important to have proof, As a general principle to be sceptical as a frame of mind on all things is in my view the correct position . Be in politics religion business , in fact any person or institution that would seek to wield power or influence over me and mine or the society in which I live.
Evidence based reasoning, I'm with you on that.
But I have stated innumerable times that I have never understood the Christian obsession with proving the historicity of these events. It is called Faith after all is it not ? May be that is the Catholic upbringing of over half a century ago where such discussions were not encouraged, all part of that astonishing certainty of Catholicism in its own rightness and the pointlessness of such an exercise.
Wrecks my head too.

As to the issue or orgies and abortion - I have already stated on the abortion thread , that though it is not an issue for me personally, I personally would not agree with abortion ,I would do everything I could to persuade someone from having an abortion (as I have done) . But I fundamentally believe it is a matter of individual concience and would campaign ( and have done) for the right to choice.
Not for this thread but someother time...
On orgies , love them and have one arranged for the week-end , sadly as we no longer seem to be as in demand as we once were in those halcyon days of our youth , it will be just me and my partner.
I be doing the same,

See I don't get the idea that the evidence is scant, it no more scant than for any other figure of the time. The fact that the claims are so fantastic is what makes it hard for you to swallow. For me it not so hard to believe that its true, the claim that this being true gives someone a right to run my life is the one I cant swallow. I think we are closer that you would think.

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

Yes like the "myth" of creation or of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It is called allegory usually.

Eh...No, not like the creation myth, nor is it allegory. How do you say that while defending the historical accuracy of the gospels with other posters?

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

I think from a historians perspective there is probably more evidence for Jesus than for almost anyone in ancient times. what I believe personally i dont like to apply to objective academic points.

And from a historians perspective do you think this historical Jesus was a God?