There Is No God

[Pah]

[/color]

I don't think I would concur with this. Take I Clement, which has a disputed date of either 90 or 70. It makes arguments from Christ's life and His teachings. Other Early Christian documents from the first and second centuries make such appeals.

At 70 CE, that would remove it from the "witness" category. The earliest documented scrpture was Paul and he was witness to only a risen Christ. What Paul wrote, therefore, was subject to personal revelation and does nothing to prove Jesus or even Christ . Paul is an "absent" witness to Jesus.

That leaves us with two possible conclusions:

1). Somebody made up the man, and all the teachings are false.
2). There really was a Christ and these men hearkened to Him, at least in part.

You are too miserly. There are other possibilities.
3).There really was a Jesus and Christ was made up
4). Other Christian documents, rather than any of the various canons, were the true words of Christianity
5). The acceptance and growth of Christianity from a cult was fortutious mainly due to personal adoption of some ruling the state - a state dictum.

The early documents do refer to a single man who started Christianity. Most scholars do believe in a historical Christ. So, we have evidence, and we have scholarly testimony to his existence. Now, if you deny that these are evidence, then it is incumbant upon you to construct a scenario to explain these testimonies more concisely and simply than asserting the historical existence of Christ. After that, the scholarly testimony falls.

I don't deny this evidence - I deny the importance of the evidence. There is no primary evidence of witness nor written evidence by the speaker of the words. All of this secondary and tertuary evidence is hearsay.

I largely agree. Even when we can cast some evidence on biblical claims, it doesn't constitute proof of its divine claims. They are indeed two separate issues.

Isn't the divinity of Christ the issue? And isn't the best evidence of that personal revelation. Isn't the working of the Holy Ghost the best evidence of the Trinity? And doesn't that happen internally (although it may be initiated by leaders and "fathers" of religion)? Don't you have faith based on what is reveled to you?

Martyrdom of some of the popes and apostles is scholastically contentious. The church enjoyed a persecution free period much earlier than you stated with annointing of the Church by Constitine(sp?). Since then secular leaders curried favor with Rome (The Holy Roman Empire) and realms were sold to bishops and cardinals of the church - well before the 1400's

I think you've made a few errors in history. First, the Holy Roman Empire was never Roman. It was a Frankish empire in the Middle Ages.

Yes I know it was Frankish. I did not mean to imply that it was not. I do beleive that It was the first (at least the most prominent) coronation of secular power by the Vatican - that the paupacy relied on the security. In 800, at Mass on Christmas day in Rome, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Imperator Romanorum (wikipedia)

There were no cardinals till the eigth or ninth century. They only exist in the west. They could not have curried favor with Rome since then. They didn't exist.

Which is well before the date 1400 CE that I was contesting

Even with Constantine, there was no unified rule. After his time, there were mutliple concurrant emperors, all ruling different regions for one empire. For instance, one of Constantine's sons was Trinitarian, while another (Constantius) was Arian. Total unification under one ruler never really happened until after the West fell, which left one Emperor for the Roman Empire (which existed simultaneously with the "Holy Roman Empire").

Some Christian areas were never under the power of Rome, and they never enjoyed control of the society. For instance, the Christians in Iran never had supremacy, but passed from Zoroastrian rule to Muslim rule. Christians existed as far east as India well before the Edict of Milan. How, then, could they rewrite these details by currying favor with Rome? Christianity was bigger than Rome. These churches still exist, by the way.

I think it immaterial to the fact that Christianity was first sponsored by a government headed by Constatine

The emperor Constantine has rightly been called the most important emperor of Late Antiquity. His powerful personality laid the foundations of post-classical European civilization; his reign was eventful and highly dramatic. His victory at the Milvian Bridge counts among the most decisive moments in world history, while his legalization and support of Christianity and his foundation of a 'New Rome' at Byzantium rank among the most momentous decisions ever made by a European ruler. The fact that ten Byzantine emperors after him bore his name may be seen as a measure of his importance and of the esteem in which he was held. http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm

The above historical errors are pretty severe. They are also common ones, so I understand entirely (For example, I can see how the Roman Empire could be confused with the Holy Roman Empire).

It is to prove the Bible, but biblical testimony to the historocity of Christ is not fallacious. It serves that purpose well, and I believe that is what Nate was trying to do. He could have worded it better, though, I'll admit.

Pah, I don't know how to put this other than bluntly, but with the historical errors you made, I don't think that the insult can carry any weight.

Unless you find errors as severe as the citing of the 1400's as a window, and admittedly they may be there in what I have just written, you would do well to chastise, the "history" put forward by angellous_evangellous as I have already done.

 

[linwood]

First, Jospehus was a responsible and reliable historian. Furthermore, he was a Jew and not a Christian, and has nothing to gain by giving us faulty information concerning Jesus, particularly because it is favorable to the Christian witness.

I never said Josephus was unreliable.
I said the Flavianum Testamonium you speak of is questioned and doubted by Christian scholars.
Josephus is not doubted but the origin of that passage is indeed doubted.

To purposely ignore that fact is less than honest.

The fact that Josephus was a "good" Jew is one reason that particular passage is in question.
Whether he did or did not write it is not conclusive but to act as if it is is not responsible.

Second, the desire to throw out Eusebius based on the fact that he is a Christian is very irresponsible.

Another claim I never made.
I never said I disregard Eusebius because he was Christian, I said..

"Personally I wouldn`t take the word of a man who claimed to record only those events that would make the church look good and in a manner that would make them look better."

In other words I take what he has writen with a huge lump of salt.
Any historian, Christian or otherwise, who states..

'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

Basically what he is saying here is even if the OT is false it is still worthy because it can produce a moral follower
Any historian who can find benefit in promoting falsehood for the good of his chosen moral guidlines is not reliable as far as I`m concerned.

Just because scholars have challenged it does not mean we should throw it out. We should instead responsibly consider its testimony.

I have done so.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If there is evidence of a historical Jesus I`m interested.

I am not sure that I can provide evidence for Jesus according to the perameters that some wish to set. I don't know of any external evidence (by this I mean outside of the church) aside from the quote I gave from Josephus, and if that is rejected along with the venerable testimony of the fathers and the New Testament itself, then I am afraid there may be no other reliable proof. The Gospels and the testimony of the fathers are the most important witness to the fact that Jesus lived. I am afraid also that some reject Eusebius, in which case I strongly suggest that they read a copy of his work with critical notes, in which case attention will be called to other sources which confirm his history. For the benefit of others, I must define how I am using "witness." The tweleve apostles along with many other early apostles actually saw Jesus and oversaw the writing of the New Testament, which records the teaching of Jesus and his disciples. The "witness" of the church fathers are the collective testimony of the apostles as they were passed down orally and in written form to the church. Thus, the collective testimony gives evidence to that which was actually seen and authority to its record. After we see that the writings are affrimed, we can look at the writings themselves and see the beauty of the textual evidence. By textual evidence, I mean the collection of the Greek manucripts that comprise our New Testament- how it was handed down through the generations in the churches. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to talk about textual variants and such.:bonk:

 

[Pah]

If there is evidence of a historical Jesus I`m interested.

. I don't know of any external evidence (by this I mean outside of the church) aside from the quote I gave from Josephus,

I'm surprised! Even this atheist knows of other claims (but he also knows why they are not evidence of an historical Jesus but only of the cult that sprung up around him).

 

[No*s]

At 70 CE, that would remove it from the "witness" category. The earliest documented scrpture was Paul and he was witness to only a risen Christ. What Paul wrote, therefore, was subject to personal revelation and does nothing to prove Jesus or even Christ . Paul is an "absent" witness to Jesus.

Actually, it removes it from the category of first-hand witness, but it remains a secondary witness. The debate centers not just around Jesus' being the Christ, but also the existence of Jesus.

i mean look at it this way. have you seen him? have you seen jesus? NO

In response to AE, you wrote:

There is evidence in scholarship of Christianity and absolutely none of Christ. I have McDowell's second revision and he confuses the two as well.

The evidence is entirely personal. If you believe the Bible - if you believe revelation of the Holy Ghost, (and I think that is all that can be presented as evidence) it is still only something within yourself. Archeology does not prove that what happened , according to the Bible, happened in the places it found. There is no evidence except personal faith. History does not confirm the figurehead but only the movement that worshipped the figurehead.

I am responding to this, and a source citing the words of Jesus, or the actions of Jesus may or may not have reliable information. However, it is "evidence" of Christ's existence, and it is evidence of His teaching. The term used is not my term, but your term.

You are too miserly. There are other possibilities.
3).There really was a Jesus and Christ was made up

And, you think that they would center a religion around a man and not use his teachings or deeds, simply make everything up? It would be simpler simply to make the man up also. It would, in fact, seem to be a wooden platform, and one that was self-defeating. Any con-artist worth his salt would avoid it.

4). Other Christian documents, rather than any of the various canons, were the true words of Christianity

This does not contradict the second possibility I made, that the Christians followed a man and recorded his deeds to a degree. I did not limit this to the New Testament canon.

5). The acceptance and growth of Christianity from a cult was fortutious mainly due to personal adoption of some ruling the state - a state dictum.

This ignores the growth of Christianity prior to state-sponsorship, and it actually ignores the status of Christianity/paganism between the emperors Constantine and Theodosius. The Emperor Constantine made Christianity an official religio with equal status to paganism. Its growth had been exponential before that, and it continued. Many of his successors were Arians.

The Emperor Justinian took over in this period, and he attempted to actively undo the status of Christians, but it was too late. Christianity had already gained too much clout. He couldn't even get a decent sacrifice in Greece for a festival to Zeus.

Now, after him, we come to the Emperor Theodosius, who used the power of the state to close all pagan temples in the cities, and made Christianity the sole official religio. As the above facts demonstrate, Christianity had already gained a significant following prior to Constantine. It continued its growth while on equal footing with paganism and largely replaced it there. Only at that point, was the old paganism removed from power.

So, no, Christianity did not gain ascendancy simply by means of state power. There are, of course, the places where Christianity experienced phenomoenal growth and never received state sponsorship (again, Persia, for instance).

I don't deny this evidence - I deny the importance of the evidence. There is no primary evidence of witness nor written evidence by the speaker of the words. All of this secondary and tertuary evidence is hearsay.

Actually, the quotes I cited, and the first post in the thread, certainly appear to say there is no historical evidence for Christ. I am responding to that. This appears to be changing the rules a little. Up until now there has been "no evidence" for Christ, and that history testifies to the movement, but not "its figurehead."

As a second note, it is hasty to deny the importance of secondary and tertiary evidence. Its reliability is lower, but most of our history of the ancient world comes from it. How do we know the details of Hannibal's crossing the Alps? We know it almost exclusively from Pliny and Polybius. Neither of them were there, but they claim to have consulted historical documents and eyewitnesses. They are secondary and tertiary witnesses. They are never primary witnesses, but they are valid sources of history.

The art of ancient history is dependent on secondary and tertiary sources, and the further back we go, the fewer primary sources we have. If you categorically deny secondary and tertiary sources, then you also cripple the study of ancient history. I do not think this is a reasonable standard. It is not reasonable in other disciplines in the study of the Ancient World.

Isn't the divinity of Christ the issue? And isn't the best evidence of that personal revelation. Isn't the working of the Holy Ghost the best evidence of the Trinity? And doesn't that happen internally (although it may be initiated by leaders and "fathers" of religion)? Don't you have faith based on what is reveled to you?

Yes, it is. I can, and I will, make arguments from the Fathers on the interpretation of Christ. However, the Deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Spirit, and the like are not subjects of history. They are beyond it. Hence, I will not make any historical arguments on it beyond "This is what was taught." The existence of Christ, His deeds, and the contents of His message are.

I think you've made a few errors in history. First, the Holy Roman Empire was never Roman. It was a Frankish empire in the Middle Ages.

Yes I know it was Frankish. I did not mean to imply that it was not. I do beleive that It was the first (at least the most prominent) coronation of secular power by the Vatican - that the paupacy relied on the security. In 800, at Mass on Christmas day in Rome, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Imperator Romanorum (wikipedia)

Then I apologize for the mixups in my interpretation. I think you can understand the response I gave with the statements above, especially with its apparent denial of the historocity of Christ.

Again, I apologize.

For the sake of clarity, I will explain why I interpreted it the way I did. When you wrote, "The church enjoyed a persecution free period much earlier than you stated with annointing of the Church by Constitine(sp?). Since then secular leaders curried favor with Rome (The Holy Roman Empire)." I saw "Holy Roman Empire" as being synonomous with Rome in the sentance. Even now, I see no other way to read it, but I will take your word for it.

Which is well before the date 1400 CE that I was contesting

I interpreted the two occurences "and" in the quote as connecting the time of action with the preceding verb as is standard.

I think it immaterial to the fact that Christianity was first sponsored by a government headed by Constatine

Actually, Constantine wasn't the first. Edessa was, and it happened quite early (how we don't know), but I see your point here.

Unless you find errors as severe as the citing of the 1400's as a window, and admittedly they may be there in what I have just written, you would do well to chastise, the "history" put forward by angellous_evangellous as I have already done.

Given that I misinterpreted you so gravely, don't you think it is possible that you misread Nate's intentions? Even here, you have pointed out that I have badly misinterpreted you when two of the points are the way to properly interpret your statement in normative English, but you won't extend the same possiblity for Nate (angellous_evangellous)?

I know exactly what he thought, because I know him. He almost certainly believed Sputnik was referring to the Spanish Inquisition, which has the same date, not the unification of Church and State. As a result, there is no need for me to correct him. I do wish he would clarify himself.

However, if you must, I have actually made stronger criticisms of his arguments in AIM and PM. Besides, you had already done that, and it was that post that rubbed me the wrong way. It stated there was "no evidence" in history for Christ, made just as vague assertions of "scholars say" but no concrete statements to criticize, and the sole concrete statements, the historical ones, were riddled with errors as I read them.

 

[HelpMe]

i've made stronger arguments for this topic in discussions about algebra when i was in middle school.


btw, bad job on restricting god/religion to the definition of fundemental christians.

 

[SoulTYPE]

It's remarkable that one person can enter a board, make one staement, never post agin on the matter, but bring out the best in all the other posters.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Which is well before the date 1400 CE that I was contesting

I gave the date of 1400 simply as a random example. Since the original thread gave absolutely no examples or supporting data, I simply assumed that the writer had the dark ages or middle ages in mind, so I chose a date that I thought everyone would be familiar with. Yes, No*s is exactly right, I was thinking specifically of the Spanish Inquisition or any other sin that any of you would care to point out before or since that time.

I must thank pah for his continuing courtesy as is evident in the threads above with No*s and myself. My point is pretty simple. I have been trying to specifically address the "shreds of evidence" discussed in the opening of this thread. Obviously the writer disregards the testimony of the Gospels, which is why No*s asked for the documentation by which the writer determined his view of the origin of Christianity. The roots of Christianity are recorded in the church fathers, which attest to the nature and content of Scripture, giving authority to the original testimony of Jesus in the Gospels.

And yes, I have pointed out at least twice in the above discussion that simply because the teaching is authoritative, it does not mean that it is true. Yes, you are correct, belief in the teachings takes faith and is subjective. The authority of the witness is not.

 

[No*s]

Which is well before the date 1400 CE that I was contesting

I gave the date of 1400 simply as a random example. Since the original thread gave absolutely no examples or supporting data, I simply assumed that the writer had the dark ages or middle ages in mind, so I chose a date that I thought everyone would be familiar with. Yes, No*s is exactly right, I was thinking specifically of the Spanish Inquisition or any other sin that any of you would care to point out before or since that time.

I must thank pah for his continuing courtesy as is evident in the threads above with No*s and myself. My point is pretty simple. I have been trying to specifically address the "shreds of evidence" discussed in the opening of this thread. Obviously the writer disregards the testimony of the Gospels, which is why No*s asked for the documentation by which the writer determined his view of the origin of Christianity. The roots of Christianity are recorded in the church fathers, which attest to the nature and content of Scripture, giving authority to the original testimony of Jesus in the Gospels.

And yes, I have pointed out at least twice in the above discussion that simply because the teaching is authoritative, it does not mean that it is true. Yes, you are correct, belief in the teachings takes faith and is subjective. The authority of the witness is not.

Ah, so I did surmise correctly on what you referred to .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?


Would you please provide the address for this quote? :162:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's remarkable that one person can enter a board, make one staement, never post agin on the matter, but bring out the best in all the other posters.

I am not sure who this is directed to but it is very nice. Happy reading!:jam:

 

[No*s]

'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?


Would you please provide the address for this quote? :162:

Eusebius did say it. I don't have the quote, but I've read it myself. Maybe Linwood has the documentation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm surprised! Even this atheist knows of other claims (but he also knows why they are not evidence of an historical Jesus but only of the cult that sprung up around him).

There is a limit to my knowledge. :banghead3

After rejecting the Gospels and early witnesses, the Christian history, and Josephus, the authoritative list is exhausted. There are various heretical groups disregarded by the fathers, and as you read it is fairly obvious that their claims are invalid. See Justin Martyr's Apologies and Irenaus Against Heresies for listings and refutation. If the atheist knows of more authoritative testimonies concerning Jesus,I will also be interested.

 

[linwood]

'But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?


Would you please provide the address for this quote? :162:

I do not have the documentation in my possession nor can I seem to find it published on the web in its entirety.

I recieved the quote and portions of Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica & Praeparatio Evangelica awhile back in a text file from a friend when researching Josephus` Testimonium Flavianum .

The reference in the text file is ...

Gifford, E.H., Eusebii Pamphili : Evangelicae Praeparationis, Vol III, Oxford, 1903, p. 657, sections p.607d-608a. The text is Book XII, chapter XXXI:

If you should find any of these volumes online a link posted in this forum would earn you a friend for life.

 

[SoulTYPE]

I think the sputnik dude was asking for more evidence of there being a God than the Bible, guys.

 

[No*s]

You know...I was going to simply cede that we have no primary sources, because it usually turns into a tedious debate. However, given the nature of the thread, I think I'll refuse to cede the argument.

I'm an adherant of a form of Matthian priority, as opposed to Marcan priority. In the dominant view of scholarship, Mark was the first Gospel written, and then after it, the other two Synoptics were composed, using Mark as a source, an unidentified common set of source(s) called Q, sources specific to Matthew (M), and sources specific to Luke (L).

This is to account for the fact that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke frequently disagree with one another, but they never disagree with the Gospel of Mark. In fact, portions of Mark have been blatantly copied verabtim into Matthew and Luke (word for word correspondance in Greek is pretty rare, on account of the flexibility of the language).

If all the evidence we had were the Gospels, then I would have to concur. This view, though, ignores the testimony of the Early Church on the origin of their composition. When that is taken into account, I think we have an equally viable theory for the composition of the Gospels, which explains the phenomena.

First, the early accounts on who composed what disagree with modern scholarship. They assert that Matthew was composed by the Apostle Matthew in Aramaic/Hebrew. All our earliest testimonies say this. In the fifth century the Aramaic original still existed. St. Jerome said he had seen it.

The earliest testimony attributes Mark to St. Mark who worked with St. Peter, and in time, recorded what he had learned after that. In the fifth century, St. Augustine posited that Mark was an abridgement of Matthew.

Likewise, Luke was composed by St. Luke (the same author as Acts), by "interviewing" eyewitnesses. There is no tradition I know of that puts him as recording the memoires of the Apostles. Rather, he traveled about and used previously written accounts. His is, thus, more removed than the preceding.

The last group in this are the citations of the Church Fathers in the first century. They cite a Synoptic tradition, but often, it takes a form similar but different from the one that we have. In other cases, it is almost identical. In I Clement, since I have already mentioned it in the thread, we have 13.2 for the former, and 15.2 for the latter.

While I have been woefully brief (I had to be), it introduces the type of data we had available. If we take the Early Church's testimony seriously, then Matthew was composed first in Aramaic, and Mark was composed separately using Peter's teaching in Rome.

Matthew was, then, translated into Greek. Rather than translate the whole thing, the translator used Mark in order to translate it. Where Matthew disagreed with what Mark wrote, the translator maintained that. Where Mark used harsh or difficult language, Matthew toned it down some. Using the springboard makes it easier to translate the Gospel, and it does have a way of removing hard edges from the translation. Thus, the priority of Matthew is preserved just as the earliest testimonies tell us it that it came first.

It is viable to assume that there would be similarly worded material to the Synoptics on account of such material being contained in the Church Fathers. This, in its turn, protects the independance of Mark. It also allows for an independant use of sources by Luke, his using Mark (and maybe the Aramaic Matthew).

The most viable challenge to the above model is Matthew's use of the Virgin Birth, which would appear dependant on the LXX. For that, I can just as easily say that the rendering in the LXX represents not some slip of the tongue, but one strand of Jewish interpretation (clearly not applied to the Christ at the time of the LXX's translation). Also, the Virgin Birth may be a clear presupposition of the community when reading the prophecy...even in Aramaic. The view that Is. 7.14 is simply a mistranslation and not a tradition of interpretation is an assumption, and as such, I can question it. It is impossible to verify either way. We can only say whether we think it is a sound translation.

Further, Matthew is the source in the New Testament who is least dependent on the LXX. He frequently cites a text-type that agrees with neither the Masoretic Text nor the Septuagint. That fact weakens the idea that Matthew was entirely dependant on the LXX in composition.

With the above facts, I have proposed a model that can explain what we see in the Synoptics, is bolstered by the early testimony, and most improtantly for this conversation places the Gospel of Matthew as a viable primary source. It justifies and validates any reference I make to it as such. It also moves Jesus from a mere figure about which we know nothing, to the possibility of being someone about whom we can speak.

 

[No*s]

I think the sputnik dude was asking for more evidence of there being a God than the Bible, guys.

You may be right, but he also asked why we can believe the accounts were true without any evidence. That validates the discussion of the Bible. The thread has concentrated entirely on Christ, though .

 

[SoulTYPE]

Seeing as everyone else has gone Off topic, I won't. I'll be a good boy.

The question and statements beginning this thread ask why we believe in God when the mere reason we do is based on a book. Quoting the Bible is only making him disbelieve more, is it not guys?

Oh and No*S I am not mad at you for that post lol.

 

[No*s]

Seeing as everyone else has gone Off topic, I won't. I'll be a good boy.

The question and statements beginning this thread ask why we believe in God when the mere reason we do is based on a book. Quoting the Bible is only making him disbelieve more, is it not guys?

Oh and No*S I am not mad at you for that post lol.

However, he's wondering why we believe the book without external evidence. If Matthew is a primary witness, then that moves it up significantly on the evidence bracket .

 

[SoulTYPE]

But the BIBLE states Matthew as a primary witness..