And just when you begin to think that the rerun could not possibly be sillier than its vapid predecessor
What are you babbling about?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
- Thread starter Bunyip
- Start date
- Status
What are you babbling about?
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
First off I disagree with the notion that the existence of God is "unproven"...even though "proof" is a bad term to use here...I will put it like this, I believe that the existence of God is more PROBABLE/PLAUSIBLE than its negations, as I have at least 5 reasons why I believe that God exists, and one reason why I believe that this God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
So once you can successfully refute all 6 of these independent arguments, then you have no case whatsoever.
I dismiss it not necessarily just because I don't find it possible, but because I don't see any evidence FOR IT...that, followed by the fact that I have arguments AGAINST it, makes its possibility even more remote.
God doesn't "violate" physics. All science is conditional...certain conditions have to be met for things to happen...God simply is beyond these conditions.
The method used is "being God". Before you can even begin to answer these questions, as you just stated that "God answers require far more explanations", how about you answer questions that are supposed to be naturalistic and thereby simplier...such as how do you explain the origin of consciousness, the universe, and life...before you put the cart before the horse and start jumping the gun, how about explaining those things? Those are the simpler areas of inquiry, right?
Reading comprehension. No where in my posts was it said or implied that "because Christianity has the most followers, it is therefore the one true religion".
The disciples were players on a 12 (11) team roster...and Jesus was the owner, gm, and coach of the team. Jesus was the leader, and his disciples were the followers.
Reading comprehension. Again, my point was never "because Christianity has the most followers, it is therefore true".
You are assuming that the "earliest copy" implies "earlies originals".
No one doubts that Paul wrote 1Corinthians. That is all I need.
Last edited:
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
And just when you begin to think that the rerun could not possibly be sillier than its vapid predecessor
I go where the work takes me :cigar:
Call_of_the_Wild
Well-Known Member
Then wait for the next flight.
Tacitus was a Christian? Oh, I didn't know that..
Word.
There's a number of reasons why the authenticity of that passage may be doubted: Is Tacitus Reference an Interpolation?
Stovepipe_Hat
One who will die.
The Greek passage is in Wikipedia, along with a list of extant manuscripts. Showing a passage to be later interpolation would turn on style, with the later interpolator perhaps not having full command of 1st-century Greek and thus using the language a little differently, or at least not imitating the original author's style exactly. This would mean comparison with other parts of the text and with other 1st-century Greek samples from the eastern Mediterranean - complicated by the probability that Josephus acquired Greek as a 2nd language.
I'm not a Greek scholar, but no such scholars are arguing on this website. It seems that scholarship hasn't resolved the issue definitively; the interpolation is inferred mainly from presence of obvious motives for scribes to do it. Josephus' rare uses of the Greek word soter (savior), which isn't in the crucifixion passage, are involved. The passage itself describes Jesus (Greek ihsons) as sophos, "wise" or "skilled in a craft."
Van Voorst, R. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testment. Eerdmans Pub.
Pharr, C. (1927). "The testimony of Josephus to Christianity." Amer. Jour. of Philology 48(2), 137-147
Last edited:
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
English
We know that the Jews don't they believe in Christ
They say that Isaiah's prophecy never does not apply
Because the Jews believe that the Messiah coming to earth would rebuild the Kingdom Daoud
It is known that Christ said to shy away from this concept
When he said that my Kingdom is not of this world
And this we know well
And also we know Jesus is Jewish
Christ did this also violates because the great commandments were in
We say two words are
esho +mesheha
esho e mesheha=Christ
In Aramaic and Chaldean, Assyrian and Syriac
The same usage
It is written in the Chaldean Bible in these languages
The word mesheha Is the Act means the anointed of sin
y esho Is a Hebrew name
mahasn ebn sawresho
Well-Known Member
The name yeshua is the name of the Commander, who took over leadership of the Bani Israel in their journey to the promised land after the death of Moses
And either the word Immanuel
Are the characteristics of Jesus Christ
Means that God is with us
And the use of Christianity to such
I think you should ask the Jews also
Is God with us Christians and Jews OHU against us
God is with us in the past with Jews was with them
And Christ is with everyone believes in him
God with man always
And either the word Immanuel
Are the characteristics of Jesus Christ
Means that God is with us
And the use of Christianity to such
I think you should ask the Jews also
Is God with us Christians and Jews OHU against us
God is with us in the past with Jews was with them
And Christ is with everyone believes in him
God with man always
outhouse
Atheistically
That is beside the point. It Is not what we know, nor projected as credible history by those with an education..
Is a online friend of mine and her work on this piece of Nero is not accepted by most scholars. great gal but her conclusion is not the "end all" say so here.
It is "her" personal hypothesis. She brings up great questions and places this event under the microscope which is great.
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[61] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[62] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body
Tacitus was about 7 years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome, and as other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians.[12] When he wrote his account, Tacitus was the governor of the province of Asia, and as a member of the inner circle in Rome he would have known of the official position with respect to the fire and the Christians.[12]
Which is very debatable. And there are no certainties here. Other cedible historians follow Judaism was factually wide and diverse, and the mythology spread like wild fire through Hellenism in the Diaspora.
In the time of Paul the movement was widespread and all through the Empire. Pauls houses everywhere in the Empire, and he is telling us of other teachers and scripture that existed.
Paul converted after hunting members down for years, and the movement already was widespread.
I do agree with Candida that mythology was applied with these martyrs, but the possible and probable historical core of Nero blaming Christians is not set in stone
outhouse
Atheistically
a blogger like that is not credible for anything, and it goes against, those with credibility, education and knowledge on the topic.
Yada yada yada. You're so predictable, like a robot. If I start using my ignore list again, you'll be one of the first back on it. For now, I'll just continue rolling my eyes and laughing at you.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
You have never taken a single class on this topic have you?
:sleep::sleep::sleep::sleep:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
What two words?! PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
NOTE: Apparently, anytime anyone else wants, too.I guess I should feel jealous to watch Bunyip's hunger for abuse get satisfied while dad here is away.
This is a grown up thread little fella.
outhouse
Atheistically
Something you sound like your ignorant of.
many topic scholars debate each other and have different views. Some views there is a consensus on, some 50/50 and some 90/10 and some 99/1
The difference is the level of respect of the education and knowledge held while having opposing views.
many topic scholars debate each other and have different views. Some views there is a consensus on, some 50/50 and some 90/10 and some 99/1
The difference is the level of respect of the education and knowledge held while having opposing views.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Correct. And why would I need to make a choice, when you are presenting a false dichotomy anyway?
Outhouse, you're not a scholar. You don't have any degrees and you just go along with whatever the consensus is. Stop name dropping and sucking up to academia, like a little sycophant. You're not impressing anyone. Some people like to think for themselves. You should try it sometime. I don't depend on academics to tell me what I should believe. I examine all points of view, including ones presented by people who you so rudely view as being beneath you because they don't tow the official line.
Schools should be teaching people how to think critically and not just spit out robots who can only regurgitate "facts" learned by rote.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
Your not educated at all.
And make mistakes one after the other form ignorance.
But I have debated many scholars authors and a few professors on a regular basis. Because I have a passion for this you don't.
outhouse
Atheistically
Refute this.
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[61] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[62] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body
Tacitus was about 7 years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome, and as other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians.[12] When he wrote his account, Tacitus was the governor of the province of Asia, and as a member of the inner circle in Rome he would have known of the official position with respect to the fire and the Christians.[12]
Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[61] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[62] However, Paul R. Eddy has stated that as Rome's preeminent historian, Tacitus was generally known for checking his sources and was not in the habit of reporting gossip.[23] Tacitus was a member of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a council of priests whose duty it was to supervise foreign religious cults in Rome, which as Van Voorst points out, makes it reasonable to suppose that he would have acquired knowledge of Christian origins through his work with that body
Tacitus was about 7 years old at the time of the Great Fire of Rome, and as other Romans as he grew up he would have most likely heard about the fire that destroyed most of the city, and Nero's accusations against Christians.[12] When he wrote his account, Tacitus was the governor of the province of Asia, and as a member of the inner circle in Rome he would have known of the official position with respect to the fire and the Christians.[12]
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
What's the false dichotomy? Jesus was either historical or not.
- Status