Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism causes creationism
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
And even though the tricycle story is a superstition, it's still evidence for the Truth!
Oh, ye of little faith.
Your little joke is simply just evidence of the fact that you are more interested in mocking than coming to anything approaching learning about something.
MagicMarker's comment was a few expected levels beneath yours.
But each to their own
0 -
I am sorry Newsite but all of the above is just so wrong on so many levels.
No reputable historian accepts the bible as a reliable source, that includes historians who believe in the bible as a religious text. No historian would dare to use the bible as a primary or even secondary source in any published work or accept it as such from any student.
No historian disregards the bible and the profound effect it has had on history. This in no way endorses the bible but is simply a recognitition that people believed in the bible and it influenced their actions, for example The Crusades, the destructions of the Cathars ,the Inquisition, the list is endless.
Your point on their being no writings and an oral tradition etc is , if you don't mind my saying so, is just utter rubbish. I would remind you that we are talking about a period that was one of the high points of western civilisation, not as great as the Greeks or the Renaissance perhaps but for a couple of centuries was right up there, -Virgil,Ovid, Statius,Lucretius and the historians Suetonius, Livy, Tacitus , and these are just the big guns. The Romans documented everything Newsite , from how to bake a cake or when to plant specific seeds to how to build a viaduct. It is not true to say that it was purely an oral tradition, any item worthy of note was documented and I think we can agree that a risen Christ would have been worthy of note, but again not a mention.
I'm sorry too Marienbad, but if you're going to call someone's points 'utter rubbish', you should probably come up with something pretty iron-clad yourself, otherwise you're just going to look kinda silly
First off, when I talk about 'oral tradition', I'm referring to the way in which the Christian message spread in the earliest years, not to the entire history of the Roman empire.
Second, you have to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we don't have secular writings about the resurrection does not mean it never occurred.
Third, and related to the above, is that much of the work of Roman writers from that period has not survived! Did you know about the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, the epicentre of Christianity, in which, I am sure, many writings were lost forever? How about the great fire of Rome which destroyed major parts of the city in 64AD?
Fourth, why do you think that highly-esteemed and respected, learned Roman literary figures would have written about Jesus. These were men who wrote poetry, comedy and tragedy, about ancient events, and who were heavily influenced by Greek authors. They had lofty topics as their themes. Why would they want to be be seen to be writing about a lowly carpenter from some remote Judaean outpost who was killed by the Romans? Probably would have lost them a few readers and raised more than a few eyebrows.
You mention a host of literary figures above. Now, let's take a closer look to see how likely it is that they would have included Jesus in their works:
Virgil: wasn't even born until nearly 40 years after Christ died, and was most famous for his epic poem the Aeneid!
Ovid: died about 15 years before the resurrection, and most famous for his collections of erotic poetry! Hmm
Statius: Born approx 15 years after Christ died, and very much a poet.
Lucretius: Sooooo. You do realise he died about half a century before Jesus was even born?!
Suetonius: he mentioned the Christians, but was born approx 40 years after the resurrection. Also, he wrote primarily about the rulers of Rome, Caesar and the likes, and a lot of his stuff was lost.
Livy: died over 15 years before the resurrection. Most impressive had he managed to write about it!!
Tacitus: we've already discussed him - he mentioned both the death of Christ and the persecution of the Christians!Christianity just got lucky in the person of Constantine , that is the only reason it survived.
I don't think so.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm sorry too Marienbad, but if you're going to call someone's points 'utter rubbish', you should probably come up with something pretty iron-clad yourself, otherwise you're just going to look kinda silly
First off, when I talk about 'oral tradition', I'm referring to the way in which the Christian message spread in the earliest years, not to the entire history of the Roman empire.
Second, you have to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we don't have secular writings about the resurrection does not mean it never occurred.
Third, and related to the above, is that much of the work of Roman writers from that period has not survived! Did you know about the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, the epicentre of Christianity, in which, I am sure, many writings were lost forever? How about the great fire of Rome which destroyed major parts of the city in 64AD?
Fourth, why do you think that highly-esteemed and respected, learned Roman literary figures would have written about Jesus. These were men who wrote poetry, comedy and tragedy, about ancient events, and who were heavily influenced by Greek authors. They had lofty topics as their themes. Why would they want to be be seen to be writing about a lowly carpenter from some remote Judaean outpost who was killed by the Romans? Probably would have lost them a few readers and raised more than a few eyebrows.
You mention a host of literary figures above. Now, let's take a closer look to see how likely it is that they would have included Jesus in their works:
Virgil: wasn't even born until nearly 40 years after Christ died, and was most famous for his epic poem the Aeneid!
Ovid: died about 15 years before the resurrection, and most famous for his collections of erotic poetry! Hmm
Statius: Born approx 15 years after Christ died, and very much a poet.
Lucretius: Sooooo. You do realise he died about half a century before Jesus was even born?!
Suetonius: he mentioned the Christians, but was born approx 40 years after the resurrection. Also, he wrote primarily about the rulers of Rome, Caesar and the likes, and a lot of his stuff was lost.
Livy: died over 15 years before the resurrection. Most impressive had he managed to write about it!!
Tacitus: we've already discussed him - he mentioned both the death of Christ and the persecution of the Christians!
I don't think so.
You are missing my point Newsite, I listed those authors to refute your point that society in those days was mainly an oral one. It was a highly literate one , and I have only listed the Roman authors, I could have listed the Greek, Arab, or Jewish ones.
On your point that the absence of evidence etc... from a historical viewpoint that is just meaningless Newsite. Otherwise every myth, fable, old wives tale would be admitted to the historical record as there is no one refuting them. Is that what you are advocating ?
Writings are always lost Newsite but more than enough from the Roman period has survived to give detailed historical records, we are not talking about the Minoan Civilisation here . Rome was a true civilisation, fires, plagues, conquest, volcanos would not eliminate the historical record as by the time of Jesus it had spread to many countries and cities and all had records,writers, artists, historians.
Your 4th point why would great Roman writers take note of Jesus the lowly carpenter. The answer is they would'nt and that is exactly what we find. Not a mention . Why ? because if he lived he lived a died as a carpenter, nothing more. Were he more, a resurrected man for instance, then they would have taken note. But alas absence in this case signifies ... nothing.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement