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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Pope proclaims all redeemed, even atheists.
Comments
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »I don't think that would be a good idea in this thread as it would go way OT and the mods would start getting onto us. My original comment was my 'opinion' on the topic of this thread, it didn't need any further qualification on my part as far as I can see. You however made a comment about my comment suggesting that only a certain section of it was actually true further suggesting that the rest of it was false, and I just asked you to qualify that. You did, and then I thanked you. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned unless you want to qualify it further. Do you?
Yes, that entire post was a load of arse actually, unless you can prove the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc.? I hope this makes my position quite clear
Of course I am willing to reconsider my world view on any question when provided with contrary evidence. Theists never can provide any, oddly enough.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, why not? The answer to this question might seem trivial to you but it's actually rather illuminating on the theist position.Scrap the cap!
0 -
Yes, that entire post was a load of arse actually, unless you can prove the existence of god, heaven, hell, etc.? I hope this makes my position quite clear
Of course I am willing to reconsider my world view on any question when provided with contrary evidence. Theists never can provide any, oddly enough.
Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, why not? The answer to this question might seem trivial to you but it's actually rather illuminating on the theist position.
My faith rests on whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. If He didn't, then you are correct, everything I said in my original post in this thread is a load of arse. But if He did, then God is real, Hell is real etc etc. Why? Because He spoke about them as though they were real, or at least that is what is recorded as being what He said by people who were supposedly faithful followers of His teachings. So being one whom I believe is God and who is able to raise from the dead I assume He knows better than me or anyone else on the subject.
Now can I prove that He rose from the dead? Well no, not scientifically anyway, but then I can't even prove that other minds exist other than my own (nay not even my own) so that is besides the point. But can I provide positive evidence as to whether He rose from the dead or not? Well for this thread I can give you an abridged version of sorts if you'll permit me.
The most popular theories concerning all this is that the disciples of Jesus (after His supposed resurrection) genuinely believed that He rose from the dead because they claimed to have seen Him appearing to them but were mistaken because they were all just hallucinating due to the fact they were grieving a dear friend and leader who was now dead. That would explain the experiences of seeing Him alive post mortem, but it doesn't explain why His tomb was empty.
If the tomb wasn't empty then why wasn't it pointed to as the place where His corpse lay and thus shut up the preaching of His resurrection? I mean if someone is going around preaching that John Paul II has risen from the dead then all one needs to do is to point to his tomb and exhume the body in order to dispel the story right? This might not convince hard nose inventors of the myth but it would go some way to stop its spreading to others. This wasn't done in the case of Jesus, but why not? Because His tomb was actually found empty, that's why. So why was it empty? is the next question to ask.
You might say that the disciples stole the body. But if they stole the body then they were known (to themselves anyway) fraudsters and not genuine believers in Jesus' resurrection which would dispel the hallucination theory in relation to His post mortem appearances because for them to be hallucinating would require a genuine belief in Jesus, all be it a mistaken belief. So which explanation is the right one? If the hallucination theory is true then just show them the body in the tomb. If they stole the body from the tomb then they knew that they were lying and could not have been genuine believers and thus susceptible to hallucinations in the first place.
I believe the reason they seen Him alive after His death and the reason His tomb was empty was because He actually rose from the dead and that the other two contradictory theories are both false unless you can show how one of them is true over the other, either-way you are going to be left with a faith assumption regarding the available facts just like me. I choose to believe that He rose and that what He said about God and Hell are true, hence my presuppositions in my original posts in this thread.
You see I don't really care if you believe them or not, but I'm not going to hide the fact that I believe them and to also incorporate them into my opinion on certain topics. I don't have to prove them to anyone else in order to express my opinion. Now if you want a really really deep treatment of all this then I suggest you start a new thread about it, all I've done here is scratch the surface, there are multitudes of reasons to think that the Gospel records are genuine authentic records of what actually happened all them centuries ago.
So be my guest, otherwise just keep your opinions about my beliefs to yourself and stop trying to make yourself look good by making others appear stupid for holding a particular world view. My position on these things is well thought out, more thought out than you are possibly capable of appreciating but I will reserve my judgment on you for now just in case you might turn out to have the humility to take serious what someone of an opposing world view might have to say before you barge in a make your judgments on their posts.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »You see I don't really care if you believe them or not,
I think you kinda do. Otherwise why come onto this forum in the first place? To 'win souls'?but I'm not going to hide the fact that I believe them and to also incorporate them into my opinion on certain topics.
Nobody would expect you do, but belief without evidence gets short shrift in this forum.I don't have to prove them to anyone else in order to express my opinion.
You do if you want to be taken seriously. You claim to know that certain religious beliefs are fact and that the pope is wrong (I agree he is wrong on many things but probably not for the same reasons as you.)Now if you want a really really deep treatment of all this then I suggest you start a new thread about it, all I've done here is scratch the surface, there are multitudes of reasons to think that the Gospel records are genuine authentic records of what actually happened all them centuries ago.
Christians can't even agree on what biblical texts are correct, what translations are correct, what interpretations are correct, and the degree of literal truth it is intended to convey.
I'd be a lot more interested in any evidence at all for a deity based on what is observable in the world today. An omniscient being who supposedly made himself apparent on a regular basis in the middle east a few thousand years ago, but is nowhere to be seen today, lacks credibility to be honest. Where did god go?So be my guest, otherwise just keep your opinions about my beliefs to yourself and stop trying to make yourself look good by making others appear stupid for holding a particular world view.
You chose to post about your beliefs in the atheist and agnostic forum, which is perfectly fine, but you can't expect the 'don't question or ridicule my beliefs' line to hold any weight here either.My position on these things is well thought out, more thought out than you are possibly capable of appreciating but I will reserve my judgment on you for now just in case you might turn out to have the humility to take serious what someone of an opposing world view might have to say before you barge in a make your judgments on their posts.
You don't display too much humility yourself there Scrap the cap!
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Apologies, kinda of got distracted by the good weather in the last few days
Bannasidhe wrote: »Yes, there is.
We have absolute proof of the existence of the Roman Empire from a vast array of contemporary sources.
We have absolute proof of the existence of Roman Emperors from a vast array of contemporary sources .
There is no proof of the existence of Jesus - there is hearsay and commentaries written after the events they describe.
OK, if what we have for Caesar is 'proof' then what we also have proof for Jesus. Historians who do not think there is 'sufficient' historical evidence to show that Jesus at least 'existed' are in the minority. OK they are not primary source for Jesus, but they refer to Jesus as someone who actually existed and not as a figment of someone else's imagination.
The sources we do have for Jesus explicitly state that they were eyewitnesses to Jesus. See below:
" Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. "
Luke 4:1-4
" That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."
I John 1:1-3
" But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."
John 19:33-35
" We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. "
II Peter 1:15-18
Like I said I'm not trying to show that because these sources can be shown to be historically reliable sources for Jesus that that means that the stories of miracles and such in them are therefore true. I am not saying that at all. They don't even have to be regarded as inerrant, just independent sources for Jesus, sources which themselves claim to be primary sources, the earliest known fragments of which can be dated to within 150 years of the events they describe. That means that they must have been widely circulated prior to that time which would have to push the date of their writing to within the lifetimes of the actual eyewitnesses. And these are conservative dates, there is debate among scholars that the Magdalen fragment found in Oxford University dates back to within 50 years after the crucifixion.Bannasidhe wrote: »It seems to me that you are attempting to call all evidence into question in order to distract from the lack of evidence to support your argument. A case of 'there is no proof of this but there is proof of that' being countered with 'yeah, well what is proof when you think about it. There is no such thing as absolute proof just a matter of how much evidence there is.'
I wasn't calling any evidence into question. I agree that we have good evidence for Caesar et al, my point is that it is the same for Jesus. The primary sources for Caesar are well established but what we do have for Jesus are four accounts practically unchanged from the earliest fragmentary evidence. That's actually better than what we have for Caesar. The chart below is a good illustration of what I mean:
Bannasidhe wrote: »Wow - the 'historian' version of a creationism. :eek:
It doesn't matter what he is as long as he is not breaking any of the rules when it comes to his research.Bannasidhe wrote: »Lets begin by looking at Gary Habermas and the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, Lynchburg, Virginia where he works in the Dept. of Philosophy and Theology - so he is a theologian not a historian.
I'll try and quote just historians in future.Bannasidhe wrote: »The Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School was founded in 1973 by Jerry Falwall, a TV evangelist who stated among other things
"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" - so Jerry founded his own private college dedicated to 'quality Christian education' - not quality education - education with a specific agenda which conform to a specific religious ideology.
It doesn't matter what Jerry Falwell said either. He was entitled to his opinion. An opinion I don't share by the way and one I doubt Mr Habermas shares either.Bannasidhe wrote: »Gary Habermas, in his own words, " has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. Christian believers as well as unbelievers may find within the contents of this site a strong argument for the philosophical possibility of miracles and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, as well as the theological and practical implications of this event." http://www.garyhabermas.com/
Can't see anything wrong with that.
Bannasidhe wrote: »Well there is a huge problem from the word go. A historian must strive to be objective. To examine the evidence and go where it leads them. They must not be subjective and search for evidence - or twist evidence - to suit a pre-conceived agenda, ignoring anything that does not fit. Yet you have quoted me passages from a man whose life work is to 'prove' the resurrection of Jesus and the existence of miracles who works at a private college who whole reason for being is to produce Baptist missionaries...hardly objective. FAIL.
Please tell me where it states or even hints at Gary Habermas not being objective or not examining the evidence under the section "Gary Habermas, in his own words" above.
Plus you said that historians should not look for evidence? Why not? If one holds to a particular world view then one should make sure that that view can be supported by evidence, one simply doesn't just wait for evidence to fall into one's lap. One looks for it. Of course I agree that one should not ignore evidence that goes against one's world view, one should mold one's world view by exposure to the available evidence and let the chips fall were they may. I fail to see where Mr Habermas falls into this category.Bannasidhe wrote: »Now, lets look at what Gary has to say as most of it really is utter tosh- I'll focus on the highlighted passage to illustrate what is wrong with Gary's 'evidence'.
So lets look at this passage:
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus; ca. 56 – ca. 117 : secondary source who referred to Christianity in the context of the Burning of Rome and persecution of Christians.
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus; c. 69 – after 122 : another secondary source he also makes reference to Christians in the context of the Burning of Rome.
They are primary sources for events during Nero's reign but when it comes to events in Judea and Galilee in the years Jesus was meant to be active they are secondary sources - not proof of the existence of Jesus they are proof in the the existence of people who called themselves Christian being in Rome in 64 AD.
But Mr Habermas does not refer to them as being primary sources for Jesus though, he just said that several secular sources mention Jesus as someone who is assumed to have existed, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.Bannasidhe wrote: »Do you see the difference? it is very important.
Well I know what you're saying, I'm just not sure how it relates to what I or Mr Habermas have said.Bannasidhe wrote: »Flavius Josephus 37 – c. 100 - not a contemporary so yet another secondary source but does seem to have referred to the crucifixion. I say seem because it is agreed by scholars that Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is not entirely authentic - problem is which bits are real. Significantly in works Josephus' wroth 20 years previous to Antiquities of the Jews(93 -94 AD) such as Jewish War (c72 AD) tere is no mention of Jesus at all.... how bizarre. Had he not heard of him in 70 AD?
Tampering was found to have been done by Christians on this for sure but what scholars have agreed 'are' the words of Josephus here still has him refer to Jesus as someone who actually existed saying that He was the brother of James who was martyred by the Jews in Jerusalem, so its pretty clear Josephus was referring to Jesus the Christ as the Christians called Him because they were brothers, even Paul refers to this James as the brother of the Lord in one of his epistles.Bannasidhe wrote: »As for 'these secular sources are quite early by the standards of ancient historiography.' - no. Just no. Firstly, We have written primary sources dating back to 1772 BC. Secondly we have an unbelievable amount of primary sources pertaining to the Roman Republic - never mind the Empire. Do you know why - because written records are vital for administering an empire. Same deal with Alexander. Same with Genghis Khan.
I agree, that is their function so its only natural to expect that they would not record the deeds of a simple peaceful itinerant preacher which is how the gospel narratives present Jesus for the most part. Btw, who was the 1772 BC primary source you mentioned about? You didn't say so just curious.Bannasidhe wrote: »In case you missed the point - I was referring to a period when an entire culture was being systematically destroyed (including all written records) and to a region that would have been considered very far from 'civilisation' in a time when it was being decimated. Added to this most of those records which did survive were blown up. Yet, I can name 3 children under 5 who were hanged and can provide at least 5 eyewitness accounts from both sides of the conflict. They were not important people. They were small children held hostage who paid the price for rebellion. Yet, there is not one surviving record contemporary with Jesus which refers to him even though he lived in an Empire obsessed with keeping written records among a people famed for their literacy. The silence from his contemporaries is deafening. The clamour from those who came afterwards and wished to paint him as the Messiah and Son of God is equally deafening - but unsupported by any actual evidence.
I have shown you already that the sources we have for Jesus claim to be primary sources themselves. If they are not actually primary sources then they are frauds because they claim to be primary sources. If they were frauds then one has to imagine why they would set about to perpetuate such a story. Is there any evidence either internal or external that supports the hypotheses that they were doing anything other than giving an account of Jesus's ministry? None that I can find.
Actually they pass all the normal tests of authenticity as I said earlier with 'flying colours'. They contain embarrassing details about the disciples themselves for instance. If these writers were setting out to make the disciples look good then they did a very poor job, so that could not have been their motivation. So what was their motivation? To become rich? To be loved by everyone? Nope because just being a Christian in those days - never mind a preacher - involved among other things, poverty, ostracization, ridicule and even death so if they were written by people other than the the names attributed to them it would be even harder to find what their motivation was. How can we be confident that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
There's a fairly good piece on that subject here
So what was their motivation? All that remains is that they simply set out to give an as accurate account of what they witnessed as they could. Certainly there are contradictions in some of the 'secondary' details in some of the gospels but that is what an historian expects to find when scrutinizing such texts for authenticity, it rules out collaboration on the part of the writers, in other words they didn't all sit around a table to make sure they got their story right, which is one more of the tests for authenticity that they pass. One could go on but you catch my drift.Bannasidhe wrote: »Indeed - what an extensive cut and paste from a source I have already explained is biased.
Being biased doesn't come into it. Biased or not facts are facts. Attacking the man whilst ignoring the facts he presents just shows how biased you are for your world view, so it works both ways. Mr Habermas wrote an article about Jesus and from reading that I cannot find him guilty of any of your accusations above. The reason he tries to 'find' historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is because its a 'big deal' if it is true, and we should endeavor to make sure that what our faith is actually based on i.e. the resurrection of Jesus, is actually true, and from what we have found so far Christians can be confident at least that what they have placed their faith in is as solid a fact of history as any other when you subject the sources to the normal tests of historicity already explained. You don't have to agree with the conclusion but if you are going to object then you must present counter evidence in the form of facts.0 -
I think you kinda do. Otherwise why come onto this forum in the first place? To 'win souls'?
Maybe you're right and I do care. Maybe that's the God part in me. Who knows?Nobody would expect you do, but belief without evidence gets short shrift in this forum.
I know.You do if you want to be taken seriously. You claim to know that certain religious beliefs are fact and that the pope is wrong (I agree he is wrong on many things but probably not for the same reasons as you.)[/quote
The reason I can say that the Pope is wrong when it comes to the good deeds thing is based on the Teachings in the Bible not a private interpretation that I have about them. If the Bible is wrong about them things then its wrong about God, heaven and everything else as well maybe. If that's the case then the Pope is still wrong, because there is no heaven to get into by good deeds. My point is that the Pope's comments are not supported by scripture, in fact they are in direct contradiction to scripture. They might both be wrong, which would be what the atheists believes or one of them could be right but definitely both of them cannot be right.Christians can't even agree on what biblical texts are correct, what translations are correct, what interpretations are correct, and the degree of literal truth it is intended to convey.
That's because a lot of Christians nail the colours to the post (pardon the pun) before actually reading the scripture and finding out what it actually says in certain passages. But all Christians are in agreement that the resurrection of Jesus as a fact of history is essential for a basis for faith. Without that the whole stack of cards falls and it doesn't matter what doctrinal or theological differences certain groups or denominations might have. The apostle Paul said that without the resurrection our faith is vain.I'd be a lot more interested in any evidence at all for a deity based on what is observable in the world today. An omniscient being who supposedly made himself apparent on a regular basis in the middle east a few thousand years ago, but is nowhere to be seen today, lacks credibility to be honest. Where did god go?
Well Jesus said that an evil generation asks for sign but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and nights in the belly of a great fish so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. I know you don't believe the story of Jonah and you don't actually have to believe that in order to get what Jesus is saying, basically what He is saying is that the only sign God has given the world in general is the sign of the resurrection. If you study this event with an open mind and heart and follow the evidence to its logical conclusion then you will find that there is no other answer, He came out of that tomb, but, (and I'm sure you won't), don't take my word for it, do your own research yourself, don't just say it didn't happen so its a waste of time even looking, its not, its worth it, because if it did happen then that is a paradigm shift in anyone's life, but if you do your own research and find a knock down argument or find evidence that it didn't happen then let me know, because I've better things to be doing with my life than wasting it on a false belief. I've yet to hear anyone that can show that Jesus did not raise from the dead but I have found many positive grounds for believing that the story is true. Only a similar case for its negation will convince me otherwise and I've yet to hear one.You chose to post about your beliefs in the atheist and agnostic forum, which is perfectly fine, but you can't expect the 'don't question or ridicule my beliefs' line to hold any weight here either.
I'm not that naive. I know I will get ridicule in here but your last post referred to me "wanting" it. I never 'want' it, who ever 'wants' it?You don't display too much humility yourself there
You're probably right but it wasn't my intention to come across like that.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Apologies, kinda of got distracted by the good weather in the last few days
OK, if what we have for Caesar is 'proof' then what we also have proof for Jesus. Historians who do not think there is 'sufficient' historical evidence to show that Jesus at least 'existed' are in the minority. OK they are not primary source for Jesus, but they refer to Jesus as someone who actually existed and not as a figment of someone else's imagination.
The sources we do have for Jesus explicitly state that they were eyewitnesses to Jesus. See below:
" Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. "
Luke 4:1-4
" That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ."
I John 1:1-3
" But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."
John 19:33-35
" We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. "
II Peter 1:15-18
Like I said I'm not trying to show that because these sources can be shown to be historically reliable sources for Jesus that that means that the stories of miracles and such in them are therefore true. I am not saying that at all. They don't even have to be regarded as inerrant, just independent sources for Jesus, sources which themselves claim to be primary sources, the earliest known fragments of which can be dated to within 150 years of the events they describe. That means that they must have been widely circulated prior to that time which would have to push the date of their writing to within the lifetimes of the actual eyewitnesses. And these are conservative dates, there is debate among scholars that the Magdalen fragment found in Oxford University dates back to within 50 years after the crucifixion.
I wasn't calling any evidence into question. I agree that we have good evidence for Caesar et al, my point is that it is the same for Jesus. The primary sources for Caesar are well established but what we do have for Jesus are four accounts practically unchanged from the earliest fragmentary evidence. That's actually better than what we have for Caesar. The chart below is a good illustration of what I mean:
It doesn't matter what he is as long as he is not breaking any of the rules when it comes to his research.
I'll try and quote just historians in future.
It doesn't matter what Jerry Falwell said either. He was entitled to his opinion. An opinion I don't share by the way and one I doubt Mr Habermas shares either.
Can't see anything wrong with that.
Please tell me where it states or even hints at Gary Habermas not being objective or not examining the evidence under the section "Gary Habermas, in his own words" above.
Plus you said that historians should not look for evidence? Why not? If one holds to a particular world view then one should make sure that that view can be supported by evidence, one simply doesn't just wait for evidence to fall into one's lap. One looks for it. Of course I agree that one should not ignore evidence that goes against one's world view, one should mold one's world view by exposure to the available evidence and let the chips fall were they may. I fail to see where Mr Habermas falls into this category.
But Mr Habermas does not refer to them as being primary sources for Jesus though, he just said that several secular sources mention Jesus as someone who is assumed to have existed, so I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.
Well I know what you're saying, I'm just not sure how it relates to what I or Mr Habermas have said.
Tampering was found to have been done by Christians on this for sure but what scholars have agreed 'are' the words of Josephus here still has him refer to Jesus as someone who actually existed saying that He was the brother of James who was martyred by the Jews in Jerusalem, so its pretty clear Josephus was referring to Jesus the Christ as the Christians called Him because they were brothers, even Paul refers to this James as the brother of the Lord in one of his epistles.
I agree, that is their function so its only natural to expect that they would not record the deeds of a simple peaceful itinerant preacher which is how the gospel narratives present Jesus for the most part. Btw, who was the 1772 BC primary source you mentioned about? You didn't say so just curious.
I have shown you already that the sources we have for Jesus claim to be primary sources themselves. If they are not actually primary sources then they are frauds because they claim to be primary sources. If they were frauds then one has to imagine why they would set about to perpetuate such a story. Is there any evidence either internal or external that supports the hypotheses that they were doing anything other than giving an account of Jesus's ministry? None that I can find.
Actually they pass all the normal tests of authenticity as I said earlier with 'flying colours'. They contain embarrassing details about the disciples themselves for instance. If these writers were setting out to make the disciples look good then they did a very poor job, so that could not have been their motivation. So what was their motivation? To become rich? To be loved by everyone? Nope because just being a Christian in those days - never mind a preacher - involved among other things, poverty, ostracization, ridicule and even death so if they were written by people other than the the names attributed to them it would be even harder to find what their motivation was. How can we be confident that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
There's a fairly good piece on that subject here
So what was their motivation? All that remains is that they simply set out to give an as accurate account of what they witnessed as they could. Certainly there are contradictions in some of the 'secondary' details in some of the gospels but that is what an historian expects to find when scrutinizing such texts for authenticity, it rules out collaboration on the part of the writers, in other words they didn't all sit around a table to make sure they got their story right, which is one more of the tests for authenticity that they pass. One could go on but you catch my drift.
Being biased doesn't come into it. Biased or not facts are facts. Attacking the man whilst ignoring the facts he presents just shows how biased you are for your world view, so it works both ways. Mr Habermas wrote an article about Jesus and from reading that I cannot find him guilty of any of your accusations above. The reason he tries to 'find' historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is because its a 'big deal' if it is true, and we should endeavor to make sure that what our faith is actually based on i.e. the resurrection of Jesus, is actually true, and from what we have found so far Christians can be confident at least that what they have placed their faith in is as solid a fact of history as any other when you subject the sources to the normal tests of historicity already explained. You don't have to agree with the conclusion but if you are going to object then you must present counter evidence in the form of facts.
I have several meetings and my uncles's funeral to attend today so don't have a lot of time to go through this in detail so forgive me if I am blunt.
A primary source is one that is contemporary with the events it describes written by a person with first hand knowledge.
A secondary source is not contemporary - it may be based on eyewitness accounts but the author themselves will not be that eyewitness so will be relaying 2nd (or 3rd/4th) hand knowledge.
There is no primary source which refers to Jesus - never mind his alleged resurrection.
This is a person who was (allegedly) executed in a very specific manner. A manner that was used for one purpose and one purpose only - to publicly punish those deemed guilty of treason against the Roman Empire in a deliberately lengthy and excruciatingly painful way to deter others.
Jesus (if he ever existed) was killed not for being an itinerant preacher but because he was considered enough of a threat to Rome that he had to be executed by the State - yet, there is no record????
As I said before all there is is a deafening silence from Jesus' alleged contemporaries followed by a deafening clamour by those who came after and sought to portray him in a particular way.
Quoting the Bible to 'prove' the Bible is correct - that is classic circular logic.
I could use the Koran to 'prove' the Koran is correct in the way you have used the Bible - would you therefore accept that the Koran is the word of God who is named Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet?
As for Habermas' lack of objectivity - I think at this point you are not interested in an actual discussion of how the discipline of history works and why Habermas and his ilk have not met the burden of proof as required of a work of history and are seeking only to be confirmed in what you wish to believe to be true. You are in the wrong forum for that.
There is no way you will ever get any true historian - or indeed anyone who is looking for concrete evidence - to accept his particular brand of pseudo-history as correct - any more than you will get them to accept David Irving's. Plus yes, if you are going to argue that the 'history' you are espousing is correct it would help your cause if you used historians to support your claims rather than theologians. In the same way as if you were discussing planetary movements you wouldn't be doing your cause much good by extensively quoting a marine biologist.
If you think Falwell and Habermas' religious beliefs combined with the fact that the college in question is dedicated to promoting a specific religious ideology is irrelevant and the latter is genuinely objective then I have a lovely bridge in Cork you may be interested in purchasing. I should warn you, it is a shaky as Habermas' research.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »Jesus (if he ever existed) was killed not for being an itinerant preacher but because he was considered enough of a threat to Rome that he had to be executed by the State - yet, there is no record????
Isn't there almost universal agreement among modern scholars that Jesus existed? Just as there are historians with personal agendas who attempt to confirm the orthodox Christian view of Jesus, there are a small number of historians that have attempted to create a Jesus myth argument, some of them with an ax to grind against Christianity. I read a statistic that 40% of atheists in the UK do not believe that Jesus existed, a view in opposition to the consensus view of historical scholars. From what I have read there appears to be consensus among scholars that Jesus lived in Judea, was baptised by John the Baptist, and was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. What he did between baptism and crucifixion seems to be the bit in question
The Romans weren't shy about crucifying Jews or any non Romans for that matter. According to Josephus, during the siege of Jerusaleum in 70AD, there were 500 Jews crucified per day. Its not like they reserved crucifixition for special cases either. The gospel claim that Jesus was crucified for claiming he was God (or not denying he was God) is very plausible, as the Romans commonly executed "atheists" who believed in a God other than the Roman Gods. This is why so many early Christians were executed, ironically for being atheists.
I think on balance the most likely reality is that Jesus was largely unknown (even among the Jews) during his lifetime, save for his followers, and like a lot of historical figures became much more famous after his death. Personally I find the Nag Hammadi library the most compelling evidence for not just his existance, but what he actually preached, as it was compiled before Christianity became "standardized" to appeal to the Romans. The Gospel of Thomas for example consists only of sayings attributed to Jesus and is claimed to have been originally written by one of his apostles. While it has a fair bit in common with the official gospels in terms of parables, there is no mention of miracles, of Jesus claiming to be God, or a resurrection.
If you haven't come across her, Elaine Pagels is a good source on the Nag Hammadi materials and on early Christianity in general. According to her interpretation the core message from Jesus in the Nag Hammadi material is quite at odds with the orthodox Christian view, that rather than Jesus claiming to be God, what he actually said was that we all come from God and should seek God within ourselves. This is much more consistent with other mystical traditions.0 -
Isn't there almost universal agreement among modern scholars that Jesus existed? Just as there are historians with personal agendas who attempt to confirm the orthodox Christian view of Jesus, there are a small number of historians that have attempted to create a Jesus myth argument, some of them with an ax to grind against Christianity. I read a statistic that 40% of atheists in the UK do not believe that Jesus existed, a view in opposition to the consensus view of historical scholars. From what I have read there appears to be consensus among scholars that Jesus lived in Judea, was baptised by John the Baptist, and was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. What he did between baptism and crucifixion seems to be the bit in question
The Romans weren't shy about crucifying Jews or any non Romans for that matter. According to Josephus, during the siege of Jerusaleum in 70AD, there were 500 Jews crucified per day. Its not like they reserved crucifixition for special cases either. The gospel claim that Jesus was crucified for claiming he was God (or not denying he was God) is very plausible, as the Romans commonly executed "atheists" who believed in a God other than the Roman Gods. This is why so many early Christians were executed, ironically for being atheists.
I think on balance the most likely reality is that Jesus was largely unknown (even among the Jews) during his lifetime, save for his followers, and like a lot of historical figures became much more famous after his death. Personally I find the Nag Hammadi library the most compelling evidence for not just his existance, but what he actually preached, as it was compiled before Christianity became "standardized" to appeal to the Romans. The Gospel of Thomas for example consists only of sayings attributed to Jesus and is claimed to have been originally written by one of his apostles. While it has a fair bit in common with the official gospels in terms of parables, there is no mention of miracles, of Jesus claiming to be God, or a resurrection.
If you haven't come across her, Elaine Pagels is a good source on the Nag Hammadi materials and on early Christianity in general. According to her interpretation the core message from Jesus in the Nag Hammadi material is quite at odds with the orthodox Christian view, that rather than Jesus claiming to be God, what he actually said was that we all come from God and should seek God within ourselves. This is much more consistent with other mystical traditions.
The issue here is that as regards the Historicity that Soul Winner was referring to - it doesn't matter what I believe, he (she?) believes or what the entire School of History in Clare College believes. (Just like it doesn't matter what physicists believe- what matters is what they can demonstrate.) What matters when throwing around terms like historical accuracy is what we can 'prove' by referencing the evidence. Otherwise we are in the realms of conjecture - which is fine, just don't claim that this conjecture is fact.
Soul Winner argued that there are primary sources to prove the existence of Jesus - there arn't and to say there are is simply not true.
This is why the likes of Habermas are forced to throw Tacitus et al into the mix and construct a pseudo-history and muddy the debate by making statements that say Josephus said there were Christians therefore Jesus existed and the Bible is correct. That is stretching the evidence and extrapolating from it that which cannot be demonstrated.
No one is disputing that Christians existed - what is in dispute is the historical accuracy of the NT. If the evidence was really there they wouldn't need to construct such unsupported arguments.
Of course his name wasn't 'Jesus' so they could be looking for the wrong bloke.
Soul Winner stated (and I have read others like Philo and PDN make this statement) that the NT is the most accurate ancient document in existence. Is it 'uck! It's province is unknown, it's authors unknown, date of composition unknown, and any edits unknown. There are reams of documents that pre-date 1 AD where we know who wrote them, when they wrote them, have various copies of them for comparison etc etc.
Quite frankly no - 'Jesus' did not live in Judea and was baptised by 'John' the Baptist - a bloke (or several blokes - the Biblical bloke could be a composite) possibly named Joshua or some other Hebrew name now lost to us whose mother was named Myriam may have been 'baptised' by his cousin named Jonathan may or may not have lived and preached and been crucified in Judea c 33 AD... it is possible.
Has it been 'proven' with reference to verifiable contemporary evidence - Absolutely Not.
If concrete evidence was to emerge as to the existence of 'Jesus' would this 'prove' his divinity?
Would it 'prove' his resurrection?
Would it 'prove' he died for 'our' sins?
Personally I reckon he did exist but his identity and 'mission' has been completely subverted to suit the agenda of those who came after. But even if he did exist - doesn't mean he was the 'son of god'.
It's a bit like 'Grace O Malley' in Irish history - did she actually exist? Well, there most certainly was a Gráinne Ní Mháille (and she was damn cool) but she and the myth of 'the Pirate Queen of Connacht' have very little in common and those aspects they do share have been twisted to suit Nationalist agendas and Feminist agendas to such an extent that Gráinne has been lost in the legend of 'Grace'.
So did Grace O Malley The Pirate Queen of Connacht as celebrated in song, legend and a huge industry exist? No.
There was a woman named Gráinne Ní Mháille and she did have ships and she did indulge in a spot of extorting tolls with menaces and some light raiding...we have the evidence for her.0 -
Bart Erhman is fond of pointing out that the number of textual differences amongst the very early manuscripts exceeds the number of words they contain. Granted the majority of those differences are unimportant, but many do change the meaning of the text, subtly or less so.Bannasidhe wrote: »Soul Winner stated (and I have read others like Philo and PDN make this statement) that the NT is the most accurate ancient document in existence. Is it 'uck! It's province is unknown, it's authors unknown, date of composition unknown, and any edits unknown.
More entertainingly, the Codex Vaticanus, one of the four ancient almost-complete manuscripts of what's know known as the bible, has a rather splendid marginal note about copyists introducing errors. When asked about this note, a certain well-known poster from over the fence replied that this was good news, since it meant there was a quality-assurance system in place for copyists, thus the text was actually more reliable and not less. It's hard to argue with that kind of logic.
The note itself is on the following page, between the first and second columns:Some Ancient, Grouchy Editor wrote:Idiot and clown, leave the old reading and don't change it!
0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Of course his name wasn't 'Jesus' so they could be looking for the wrong bloke.
Quite frankly no - 'Jesus' did not live in Judea and was baptised by 'John' the Baptist - a bloke (or several blokes - the Biblical bloke could be a composite) possibly named Joshua or some other Hebrew name now lost to us whose mother was named Myriam may have been 'baptised' by his cousin named Jonathan may or may not have lived and preached and been crucified in Judea c 33 AD... it is possible.
Working backwards from English to Latin to Greek and finally to Hebrew, I believe the correct phonetic name for Jesus is Yeshua. Although the direct English translation of Yeshua is Joshua, the fact that the translation was first to Greek is I understand the reason the English name ended up as Jesus.
I agree with essentially eveything in your post, although I think most neutral modern scholars, when reviewing all the available evidence, largely accept the basics I outlined (although now that I see what I wrote originally, he was likely never in Judea until he took on the religious establishment in Jerusalem and lost). I think it is a reasonable position to give more credibility to those scholars who weild neither the Christian ax nor the strong atheist ax, such as Bart Erhman that robindch mentioned. In just the same way when reading any historian you have to consider whether they have a bias, even in recent historical accounts, let alone antiquity.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Working backwards from English to Latin to Greek and finally to Hebrew, I believe the correct phonetic name for Jesus is Yeshua. Although the direct English translation of Yeshua is Joshua, the fact that the translation was first to Greek is I understand the reason the English name ended up as Jesus.
I agree with essentially eveything in your post, although I think most neutral modern scholars, when reviewing all the available evidence, largely accept the basics I outlined (although now that I see what I wrote originally, he was likely never in Judea until he took on the religious establishment in Jerusalem and lost). I think it is a reasonable position to give more credibility to those scholars who weild neither the Christian ax nor the strong atheist ax, such as Bart Erhman that robindch mentioned. In just the same way when reading any historian you have to consider whether they have a bias, even in recent historical accounts, let alone antiquity.
I believe the reason he is named 'Jesus' was to sell him in Rome. This is pure conjecture on my part.
I have an atheist axe now?? Dammit. Can't seem to find it.
ALL historians should put aside their personal beliefs and view the evidence without bias. Yes, this is easier said than done. Hence the obsession with footnotes. The arguments are about interpretation. What no one who is claiming to be presenting historical fact should do is manipulate evidence to suit their bias and Habermas etc do this with vigor.
If they had proof of the existence of Jesus one can be sure we would have heard it by now. But that would prove only that this man lived and personally, axe or no axe, I have no issue would that. As I said , I reckon he probably did (more conjecture) but proving he was divine....
I have read primary sources that state Caligula was a god - don't believe he was for a second. I posit that it was easier (and safer) for everyone to go along with it and this is why the sources make this claim.0 -
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »I believe the reason he is named 'Jesus' was to sell him in Rome. This is pure conjecture on my part.
I have an atheist axe now?? Dammit. Can't seem to find it.
ALL historians should put aside their personal beliefs and view the evidence without bias. Yes, this is easier said than done. Hence the obsession with footnotes. The arguments are about interpretation. What no one who is claiming to be presenting historical fact should not do is manipulate evidence to suit their bias and Habermas etc do this with vigor.
I never said you had an ax(e);)
Apparently the Greek Old Testament which was translated from the Hebrew in 3 BCE used the name (phonetic) Isous for Yeshua. This became Iesus in Latin and hence Jesus in English. Seems the simplest explanation to me.
I'm not familiar with him but does Habermus manipulate evidence or just interpret it in an orthodox Christian fashion? I agree some of the evidence is quite weak, especially the New Testament, but when considered with all other evidence, such as the Nag Hammadi library, I think the case for an actual living Jesus is much stronger than that of a mythical Jesus.
If you look at the opposite side of the spectrum, you have strong atheist historians like Earl Doherty, whose "Jesus, neither God nor Man" Erhman had this to say about: "filled with so many undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of facts, that it would take a 2,400 page book to deal with all the problems". This is the same Erhman who believes most of the New Testament is a forgery.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth 0 -
I never said you had an ax(e);)
Apparently the Greek Old Testament which was translated from the Hebrew in 3 BCE used the name (phonetic) Isous for Yeshua. This became Iesus in Latin and hence Jesus in English. Seems the simplest explanation to me.
I'm not familiar with him but does Habermus manipulate evidence or just interpret it in an orthodox Christian fashion? I agree some of the evidence is quite weak, especially the New Testament, but when considered with all other evidence, such as the Nag Hammadi library, I think the case for an actual living Jesus is much stronger than that of a mythical Jesus.
If you look at the opposite side of the spectrum, you have strong atheist historians like Earl Doherty, whose "Jesus, neither God nor Man" Erhman had this to say about: "filled with so many undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of facts, that it would take a 2,400 page book to deal with all the problems". This is the same Erhman who believes most of the New Testament is a forgery.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth
Gary Habermas was quoted extensively a few posts back. Sadly, the quotee appears to have gone away now...0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I never said you had an ax(e);)
Apparently the Greek Old Testament which was translated from the Hebrew in 3 BCE used the name (phonetic) Isous for Yeshua. This became Iesus in Latin and hence Jesus in English. Seems the simplest explanation to me.
I'm not familiar with him but does Habermus manipulate evidence or just interpret it in an orthodox Christian fashion? I agree some of the evidence is quite weak, especially the New Testament, but when considered with all other evidence, such as the Nag Hammadi library, I think the case for an actual living Jesus is much stronger than that of a mythical Jesus.
If you look at the opposite side of the spectrum, you have strong atheist historians like Earl Doherty, whose "Jesus, neither God nor Man" Erhman had this to say about: "filled with so many undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of facts, that it would take a 2,400 page book to deal with all the problems". This is the same Erhman who believes most of the New Testament is a forgery.
Somewhere in the middle lies the truth
I actually do have several axes but I don't know if they have any religious beliefs or not as I have always considered them to be tools - except the tattoo of one I have on my shoulder.
Any historian who allows their personal bias to influence their work grinds my axe which is why I spend a lot of time arguing with people...If I have to write about how the disestablishment of the RCC in England caused untold damage to society in an unbiased way then damned if I am going to listen to others pushing agendas.0
Advertisement