Histocracy of Christ

[Trinity]

To me, it is that the standard for the history of wars is much weaker than for a theological system of truth.

Bob

What?

 

[Trinity]

Why would anybody think there would be evidence of someone not existing unless it lies in the manufactured evidence of his life. Why would we have forgeries if it was certain that someone lived.? It is precisely the false evidence that greatly and strongly calls into question the historical Christ.

Bob

Simply put, there are people who don't want to believe, because then they would have to change their way life. It is easier to not change.

Merry Christmas

 

[HelpMe]

I would prefer that you substantiate your preposterous claims.

i reread each of your posts in this thread yesterday, would you like an isolated example?or may we just reach different conclusions?your ability to re-ask questions coupled with an apparently large vocabulary and inability to answer a question directly call into question the sincerity of your inquiries to say the least.

How is this supposed to prove, or even possibly improve, the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts?

the topic is his existence.if you want contemporary evidence for the entire gospels, you're going to need to explain how that is even possible.do you want uncanonized books or an 8mm film?

Why would anybody think there would be evidence of someone not existing unless it lies in the manufactured evidence of his life. Why would we have forgeries if it was certain that someone lived.? It is precisely the false evidence that greatly and strongly calls into question the historical Christ.

i'm sure you've seen post #2, or #49(moved) for on my opinions on the holy theory you present.may i conclude that your use of the words 'greatly and strongly' are erronous as historians are not the ones using them?though said statements may lead one to question the accuracy of his recorded life, it is hardly grounds, considering everything, for questioning his existence imo(if i may).do you think tyrants record themselves accurately in their own lands?do you think that based on textual evidence only this alone would later be reason enough to question their existence?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i reread each of your posts in this thread yesterday, would you like an isolated example?or may we just reach different conclusions?

Where is your "overwhelming evidence" and why do you claim Trypho is probative?

 

[HelpMe]

deut-you're so good at answering questions deut, thanks.to me the evidence is overwhelming, would you agree that this is an opinionated matter or must we be heated?btw, i'll likely explain your cynical questioning in a lump post sometime hopefully sooner than later so don't get too bent outta shape k?i've gathered all your replies into a notepad so if you'd like for me to answer anything else while i'm at it, feel free.btw, i was referring to any talmud of ancient existence since it appears that was not obvious.

thanks for repeating yourself...again.

..Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."...

you will likely write with the implication that this quote refers to Jesus, and that it was Jesus who was "made" and who was "entirely unknown." But these quotes make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to the man Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin. Consider these passages as samples:

xxxii -- "...But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."
xxvi -"Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."
xxxviii - "For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."
xxxxix -- And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ]."

This is strange verbiage if Trypho believes that the Christians perpetrated a fraud to the point of inventing a man of history.What Trypho means in his earlier statement is that the Messiah - which is to say, the office of the Messiah - has been created by the Christians: He is saying that the "Christ" has not come in Jesus, but that Christians have made Jesus a Christ for themselves; and if the true Messiah was born and lived somewhere, he is entirely unknown.This argument by Drews, depending as it does on taking Trypho's quotes badly out of their literary and social context, should be an extreme embarrassment to other mythicist advocates; but even Wells and Doherty are making use of it.

as exhibited by

 

[Pah]

Quote: (Originally Posted by pah)

To me, it is that the standard for the history of wars is much weaker than for a theological system of truth.

Bob

What?

Who cares whether the telling about a war is accurate. It is fallacous to compare war to religion.

Better?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

you will likely write with the implication that this quote refers to Jesus, and that it was Jesus who was "made" and who was "entirely unknown." But these quotes make it quite clear that Trypho is not referring to the man Jesus. Trypho takes Jesus' historicity for granted throughout the debate with Justin.

Thank you for your belated response.

[Justin Martyr's] conversion must have taken place at the latest towards A.D. 130, since St. Justin places during the war of Bar-Cocheba (132-135) the interview with the Jew Tryphon, related in his "Dialogue". This interview is evidently not described exactly as it took place, and yet the account cannot be wholly fictitious.Tryphon, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xviii, 6), was "the best known Jew of that time", which description the historian may have borrowed from the introduction to the "Dialogue", now lost. It is possible to identify in a general way this Tryphon with the Rabbi Tarphon often mentioned in the Talmud ...

The "Apology" and the "Dialogue" are difficult to analyse, for Justin's method of composition is free and capricious, and defies our habitual rules of logic.

- see New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Justin Martyr

The entry goes on to suggest that the "Dialogue" was written after the first "Apology" (153-155 CE) but before 161. This would obviously suggest that he is reprising a discussion held 20 years earlier. If this is anywhere near correct, any specific phrase drawn fom this apologetic and attributed to Tryphon is, I would think, entirely suspect and of no evidentiary value one way or the other.

Again, these are not the words of some Jew but, rather, a piece of apologetics written over a century after the fact and including a self-serving dialogue designed to clarify dogma. The evidence is worthless. Next?

 

[HelpMe]

The entry goes on to suggest that the "Dialogue" was written after the first "Apology" (153-155 CE) but before 161. This would obviously suggest that he is reprising a discussion held 20 years earlier. If this is anywhere near correct, any specific phrase drawn fom this apologetic and attributed to Tryphon is, I would think, entirely suspect and of no evidentiary value one way or the other.

Again, these are not the words of some Jew but, rather, a piece of apologetics written over a century after the fact and including a self-serving dialogue designed to clarify dogma.

i'm sorry but a suggestion that said article reportedly makes or 'obvious suggestion' in your eyes doesn't go very far for invalidating the evidence put forth imo.if you're going to cite the rcc for your evidence, then i suggest you do some research(see i can be vague like you).

The evidence is worthless. Next?

we are of course at our distinct conclusions, have you responded to the rabbinical(sp?) and talmudic references to yeshua?however unflattering they may be, i am not concerned with their accuracy but rather their acknowledgement of this character's existence.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

the topic is his existence.

I agree. I can't say for sure whether he existed or not, but my question still stands: How is this [the two sources you cited] supposed to prove, or even possibly improve, the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts? If the sites you have provided do not establish historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, but rather detract from it, we are no closer to having evidence of Jesus as anything other than a character in an ancient fiction.

 

[painted wolf]

hmm... you know there are lots of accounts of Old Man Coyote, and Quetzalcoatl is written about by at least four civilizations over the cource of several thousands of years in meso-america. The evidence for his existance is at least as good as that of Jesus. :jiggy:

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

i could be wrong but i don't think the coyote legend was to be taken as non-fictional, was it?how many first hand witnesses are recorded?how many first hand witnesses are recorded as seeing the feathered snake?though i believe a ruler carried the same name.your argument that the proof is equal only stands to satisfy the extreme cynic or the nihilist i think(if i may).that being said, being of native american ancestry, i respect them as much as modern civilizations.

 

[HelpMe]

How is this [the two sources you cited] supposed to prove, or even possibly improve, the historical reliability of the Gospel accounts? If the sites you have provided do not establish historical reliability of the Gospel accounts, but rather detract from it, we are no closer to having evidence of Jesus as anything other than a character in an ancient fiction.

i presume you are referring to this and this?i only ask so that you may correct me for in that case i am about to go astray.first, i will not cite non-christian writings very often for an accurate portrayal of yeshua, this was obviously(?) the case with these.

1-i only cited this as evidence that the talmud references yeshua, and it gives very ample reason why it would use other names for him.
2-i only cited this as an example of a sematic stance that doesn't even consider that yeshua did not exist, so as to display the folley in a sematic's stance in opposition of this.the general jewish consensus is not that the man's existence is fake, but that the record of his life is.

i did not cite these as accurate representations of the man or his life, but as contemporary acknolwedgements of his existence because i thought that was what i've been repeatedly asked for.there's a whole nother thread regarding the validity of the n.t., and if you want you could make one for the historacracy of the n.t..

 

[painted wolf]

There are those who take our tales as non-fiction. Just as there are those who take Noah and the ark as non-fiction. Quetzalcoatl means feathered serpent and he is often depicted as such, but he is also shown as a man (most often with black skin) and as a man like creature with a pointed snout. There are many tales of him comeing to the people to teach them things like medicine, planting and so on in his human form.
Same goes for Coyote, who is talked of interacting with white settlers without thier knowing it was him. Many people clamed to have met Coyote and he was known to wander from camp to camp, tribe to tribe doing his work as trickster/teacher. That was one reason you were nice, if not thrilled when someone new showed up, it just might be Coyote.
I have had an encounter with Coyote so I can tell you he is real enough.

So in the end the proof of my religion is just as equil as the proof of any other. Which is the point I was trying to make. Historical second hand information is not proof of existance.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

That was one reason you were nice, if not thrilled when someone new showed up, it just might be Coyote.

what does that mean?who was nice?

So in the end the proof of my religion is just as equil as the proof of any other. Which is the point I was trying to make. Historical second hand information is not proof of existance.

it's historical first hand information that is in discussion, not second.i'm sure you've seen things laughed off as mere hearsay and not proof(i.e.;second hand, not first).this falls under the cynic umbrella i already pointed out.and actually, no second hand information(hisorical or not) is proof of anything other than faith or lack of faith in the messenger.

 

[painted wolf]

Historical first hand would be something written by Jesus himself... you do not have such a document. If you did it would be an interesting read. You have writings of people perporting to have talked with Jesus... thus second hand. All historical accounts of Jesus are as you said proof only of the faith of the messengers.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

i was referring to first hand experience of the person(the topic), not his life.

 

[Pah]

...
it's historical first hand information that is in discussion, not second.i'm sure you've seen things laughed off as mere hearsay and not proof(i.e.;second hand, not first).this falls under the cynic umbrella i already pointed out.and actually, no second hand information(hisorical or not) is proof of anything other than faith or lack of faith in the messenger.

Then when is that going to be presented regarding Christ?

Bob

 

[painted wolf]

well then the first hand accounts of meetings with Coyote and Quetxalcoatl are just as valid as referances to Jesus. Either way saying I talked with Coyote or Jesus and not having any outside proof of his existance is still Hearsay.

wa:do

 

[HelpMe]

besides the talmud references(of course)?besides the gospels(duh!)?besides the *possibly* apologetic dialogue?besides everything?what is it you want?do you want everyone on the planet to of been obsessed with a poor jewish man that traveled such small distances and that had little impact during his lifetime?do you think that this poor jewish man should of had scribes following him taking down each word and action of his?to me the evidence is overwhelming considering who he was or where he came from, the evidence is more than many more famous figures in history.because it was my last response to a post of yours, have you seen and disregarded my post #103 yet?

did buddha exist?

 

[painted wolf]

no, but it would seem that some Christians want everyone to be obsessed "with the life of a man that had little impact during his lifetime." :jiggy:
What I want is for people to admit that other religions are just as historically valid as theirs is.

wa:do