Survival

[outhouse]

. If because someone makes something up means everything is made up then there are enough made up "missing links" for mankind that are now in the junk pile to suggest that those in your camp are just as good in making mythology.

There is nothing about human evolution or missing links that are now in the junk pile.

You read to many biased creationist websites that are not scientific in any sense, and are known to be intellectually dishonest.


It is not up for debate at all. There is no biased faith creating science here the way some creationist pervert the truth to meet their personal needs.

It was you that say that Jesus is a myth and I asked for your evidence.

Your showing a lack of ability to even debate normally, or comprehend what is at hand.

I have never stated Jesus was a myth, I factually fight some of the best mythicist that exist. The major two I haven't debated is Price and Carrier.

No matter what evidence is available to the eye, you are just going to deny its true.

What evidence may that be pray tell?, you dance around knowing once you make a stand your pinned down to error.

 

[Juanita]

I guess we both believe we had the better question. You say it is a myth but have no support. I say we have proof and have a variety of letters of that time, supportive documentation early after and additional documentation from unbiased sources within the first 300 years.

You have the support from a skeptical man who lived 2000 years later.

I think the burden of proof is on your side.

What letters exist from that time that are not hearsay? How were they validated?

 

[outhouse]

What letters exist from that time that are not hearsay? How were they validated?

I'm sure he is going with the 7 letters we can attribute to Paul, maybe he is going for them all, who knows.

 

[Ingledsva]

It can be found pretty readily on the internet.

Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Babylonian Talmud are just a few. The first three are within the time-frame of the Apostles.

Tacitus was 2nd century AD. He talks about Christians and says Christus was their leader. He is writing from hearsay.

Suetonius contemporary to Tacitus does NOT mention Jesus.

Mara Bar-Serapion - written somewhere between 73CE - 3rd century CE.
and this sentence is what they are claiming as about Jesus.

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?"

1. Way after the fact.
2. The Jews executed several of their kings.

As for the Babylonian Talmud - we have torn that apart several times already.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

On the contrary… it is up for debate. If because someone makes something up means everything is made up then there are enough made up "missing links" for mankind that are now in the junk pile to suggest that those in your camp are just as good in making mythology.



I disagree. It was you that say that Jesus is a myth and I asked for your evidence.

I mentioned the some secular historians who verified that a Jesus existed… you, on the other hand, are now showing yourself to be a flat-earther. No matter what evidence is available to the eye, you are just going to deny its true.

None of the sources you listed show Jesus to have existed. They are all later.

*

 

[Kenny]

Since everyone is basically echoing the same thoughts, I will answer this one and apply to all the questions.

Tacitus was 2nd century AD. He talks about Christians and says Christus was their leader. He is writing from hearsay.

Your statement is hearsay. Tacitus lived from AD 56 – 117 and therefore would be more privy to what was happening. Because of having lived well within the years of the Apostles and assuming you are versed enough in this to know this fact, one can only come to the conclusion that you don't agree because you don't believe and not because it isn't written.

Suetonius contemporary to Tacitus does NOT mention Jesus.

Yes, this would be less valuable and there would be much debated depending on ones viewpoint.

His statement was "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." To those who think Jesus Christ is a myth would have their POV. For those who believe that Jesus Christ existed--Chrestus is the Latin version of Christ. Here again, one's position is based on what you believe

Mara Bar-Serapion - written somewhere between 73CE - 3rd century CE.
and this sentence is what they are claiming as about Jesus.

"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?"

1. Way after the fact.
2. The Jews executed several of their kings.

As for the Babylonian Talmud - we have torn that apart several times already.

Out of contempt, Jesus is also called Naggar bar naggar - "the carpenter son of a carpenter", also Ben charsch etaim - "the son of a wood worker."

I think you would be hard pressed to say this didn't refer to Jesus.

Tract Sanhedrin (103a) Psalm XCI, 10: "No plague shall come near thy dwelling," is interpreted also by the following "That thou mayest never have a son or a disciple who will salt his food so much that he destroys his taste in public, like Jesus the Nazarene."

There are multiple such references.

But, let's be honest here. You already know of the multiplicity of non-Christian support for Jesus. The question is, "Do I not accept it because of my foundational belief system?"

One would have to say "yes" to that question.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Tacitus was 2nd century AD. He talks about Christians and says Christus was their leader. He is writing from hearsay.

Ok and historians that write about Lincoln being assasinated in Ford's theatre are also writing from hearsay. Point?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Since everyone is basically echoing the same thoughts, I will answer this one and apply to all the questions.


Your statement is hearsay. Tacitus lived from AD 56 – 117 and therefore would be more privy to what was happening. Because of having lived well within the years of the Apostles and assuming you are versed enough in this to know this fact, one can only come to the conclusion that you don't agree because you don't believe and not because it isn't written.


Yes, this would be less valuable and there would be much debated depending on ones viewpoint.

His statement was "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." To those who think Jesus Christ is a myth would have their POV. For those who believe that Jesus Christ existed--Chrestus is the Latin version of Christ. Here again, one's position is based on what you believe


Out of contempt, Jesus is also called Naggar bar naggar - "the carpenter son of a carpenter", also Ben charsch etaim - "the son of a wood worker."

I think you would be hard pressed to say this didn't refer to Jesus.

Tract Sanhedrin (103a) Psalm XCI, 10: "No plague shall come near thy dwelling," is interpreted also by the following "That thou mayest never have a son or a disciple who will salt his food so much that he destroys his taste in public, like Jesus the Nazarene."

There are multiple such references.

But, let's be honest here. You already know of the multiplicity of non-Christian support for Jesus. The question is, "Do I not accept it because of my foundational belief system?"

One would have to say "yes" to that question.

Wasn't Jesus translated as Yeshua and it's a name that has been used before in history. I think the argument is that there isn't a reference to the Jesus that was crucified.

 

[Kenny]

Ok and historians that write about Lincoln being assasinated in Ford's theatre are also writing from hearsay. Point?

Game, set, match. :thud:

 

[Kenny]

Wasn't Jesus translated as Yeshua and it's a name that has been used before in history. I think the argument is that there isn't a reference to the Jesus that was crucified.

Yes… Yeshua has been used before but not in context of what was quoted.

For and example the Carpenters son is too specific and further review of stated quotes points to Jesus of Nazareth, the Carpenter.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Which is a fallacy. Pascal's Wager incorrectly presumes that, if there is a god, then all of the presumptions Christianity makes about god is true (such as creating hell and casting souls into it). What about the possibility that another religion is correct, or perhaps none of of them have it right? Pascal's Wager doesn't factor in any of that, so we must dismiss it as the illogical garbage that it is.

Not so fast. First off, I am basing Pascal's Wager on the soundness of the argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As long as the event is historical (which it is), then I have reasons for concluding that Jesus Christ is who he said he is, and therefore Christianity is true alone with the doctrine that goes along with it.

If there is a "god", "he" wouldn't have gifted us with the ability for reason and the capacity for compassion if "he" didn't intend for them to guide our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions.

Well, that is your opinion. The bible says that nature alone is sufficient enough to draw the conclusion that God exists (Romans 1:20).

Hell is mankind's own sadomasochistic revenge fantasy, borne of our own negative emotions and imaginations.

And you draw this conclusion based off what?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well no ****.

:sarcastic

Oh, really? Feel free to present and substantiate these "logical reasons". :sarcastic

1. The kalam argument
2. The ontological argument
3. The argument from consciousness
4. The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus

Plantiga listed about 24 arguments for the existence of God, here is four

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Game, set, match. :thud:

Well there is an argument of sources.

Usually Primary sources (those at the event) versus secondary sources are given more weight.

The Gospels are secondary to even tertiary sources. The group that we would have to support a historical Jesus were the Jews, but from what I can tell the references in the Talmud don't seem to point to the same historical Jesus.

That being said, historical studies are strange things and new evidence generally change how we percieve our history. For instance for years due to Pliny the elder people thought that Camels store water in their humps, heck I think that is still perpetrated today. There is I suppose more of a level of scrutiny now a days that did not exist in texts back then. But even the mentions of Jesus outside of sources seem to be vague.

It also doesn't help that we don't have any of Jesus's own writings and contemporary writings. However it is in my opinion obvious that there was a historical Jesus.

How much we actually know about him, unfortunately is lost to history.

It's a fine line to balance what we knew versus what we currently know. I think it comes to a point to when do we start considering things in the past as no longer applicable.

The rise of monothesim in Judaism for instance is one that I have taken an interest in. I came in with the idea that the ancient israelites were always monotheistic...archealogical finds seem to be pointing to the idea that they were not.

This doesn't mean that I'm going to just change my views on God, but I certainly will have to review what I knew about history in context of the bible and what has been brought forward today.

OF course you can always take the "Devil's Dun it" route and claim that it's all fake.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not so fast. First off, I am basing Pascal's Wager on the soundness of the argument based on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As long as the event is historical (which it is), then I have reasons for concluding that Jesus Christ is who he said he is, and therefore Christianity is true alone with the doctrine that goes along with it.

Oh, is there a consensus among scholars and historians?

Well, that is your opinion. The bible says that nature alone is sufficient enough to draw the conclusion that God exists (Romans 1:20).

The question isn't whether or not god exists. The question is whether or not the way we perceive and portray god is correct.

For example; Person A claims that George Washington ate kittens and fired lasers from his eyes. Person B claims that George Washington never existed.

Who's correct?

And you draw this conclusion based off what?

Logic, evidence, history, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

1. The kalam argument
2. The ontological argument
3. The argument from consciousness
4. The argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus

Plantiga listed about 24 arguments for the existence of God, here is four

Could you elaborate and present more to us than just the titles?

 

[Shermana]

and therefore Christianity is true alone with the doctrine that goes along with it.

Which one?

(Note: Subtle attempt to somewhat get back to the OP).

 

[no-body]

I'll worry about this when it happens.

 

[Juanita]

I'm sure he is going with the 7 letters we can attribute to Paul, maybe he is going for them all, who knows.

Maybe, but Paul's letters are all based on hearsay as well..He never knew the man that they called Jesus..

 

[Alceste]

Of what? The question, or of Christian Apologetics?

An example of good, clean, clear logic that leads to the conclusion the Bible is entirely or even partially factually true without relying on the text contained in the Bible.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe, but Paul's letters are all based on hearsay as well..He never knew the man that they called Jesus..

He didn't know Jesus

But his 7 attributed letters are important to understand how the theology was developing early on.

BTW hearsay is very important evidence, and almost always allowed in a courtroom due to its importance. Provided it is set up with the proper exceptions.