|
Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?
|
 RE: Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?
December 29, 2011 at 11:44 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2011 at 11:45 pm by Minimalist.)
Read Origen, "Contra Celsus," and get back to me.
You can find it at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com I'm tired of dealing with the same shit over and over again.  RE: Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?
December 29, 2011 at 11:47 pm
(This post was last modified: December 29, 2011 at 11:47 pm by Cyberman.)
It's known as a P.R.A.T.T. argument - Points (or Previously) Refuted A Thousand Times. I call it the Magic Roundabout.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
are you people serious? no one has questioned the existance of Jesus until recently (the past 100 years). he's the most written about man in history and there are many historical accounts written about his existance. many people at the time deny his resurection, but never his existance. here's a good video with evidence. it's a 4 part video but it contains vast amount of evidence of Jesus' existance outside the bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CycbvARsxWU
Doesn't matter how many books are written about the character, how many videos are made about the character, how many people believe in the character. If the foundational premise (ie that the character existed in reality) is false, everything else is just masturbation: a relationship for one. Plus the fact that people are now questioning this character's existence merely indicates a society that is finally growing up from the childhood of its past.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
he was recorded to exist by jews, romans, and historians throughout the ages. why don't you watch the video, it's nonbiased
I did watch the video. In fact I watched it, or one very like it, ages ago. I don't agree with it. Not simply out of hand, or because as a godless heathen I will automatically counter everything you say to me with "no it isn't", but because I know that there are no contemporary documents that mention the character at all. Sorry, but that's the reality of the matter. No amount of protesting and handwaving is going to change that.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
evidence to support this? this video has various sources and references to actual historical documents. if all of them are faulse, how do you come to this conclusion? and also, if jesus indeed was fictional do you have any historical references to support this?
I'm not riding the Magic Roundabout with you. You have been presented with reference sources already in this thread. Do your homework.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
really? the only external source on this thread is this one by minimalist http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
you have not exactly refuted any of the historical documents listed in the video as not credable in any way. how can you disreguard these historical accounts?  (December 29, 2011 at 11:44 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Read Origen, "Contra Celsus," and get back to me. Hi, Minimalist, I read Origen’s Contra Celsus a number of years ago. It is a lot of material. Fortunately, I think I am aware of the passage you have in mind. This same testimony is what leads most scholars to conclude that the phrase, “he was the Christ” is one of the interpolations in Antiquities 18—not that the entire section (Antiq. 18.63-64) is a sheer fabrication by later Christians. Ironically, Origen’s commentary on Josephus’s writings suggests that a copy of Antiquities Origen is familiar with mentions Jesus in some way. Specifically, Origen explains that although Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ, he nevertheless claims that Josephus says, “the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)” was the cause of the disasters that happened to the Jews. Origen writes: “For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice” (, Book 1, Chapter 47). More importantly, however, recall that I raise the following points in my original post: “Also, contrary to the view commonly pontificated online, most scholars conclude that the first century C.E. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus also refers to Jesus twice: once in a passage in Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, probably containing interpolations, and a second time in a rarely-disputed portion in Antiquities of the Jews 20.200.” In other words, I reference Josephus’s possible references to Jesus only in my discussion of how the majority of scholars perceive the issue. I do not cite Antiquities 18 or Antiquities 20 as evidence in favor of Jesus’s existence. Note that I write: “None of this demonstrates that Josephus did, in fact, mention Jesus. Again, I only bring the research pertinent to these two Josephus passages to readers’ attention to correct the misconception that Christian apologists are the only individuals who deem these selections to be genuine.” Lastly, in the final paragraph I specify what I mean when I say the scholars conclude the selections are "genuine": “Moreover, it is factually inaccurate to opine the view that only Christian apologists conclude Josephus mentioned Jesus in some way.” Please observe that I do not insinuate that the majority of non-Christian scholars conclude Josephus mentioned Jesus in exactly the form his testimony in Antiquities 18 currently appears. Most non-Christian scholars deduce that although Antiquities 18 contains Christian interpolations, it still preserves some core commentary on Jesus’s life. Also, as the quote from Louis H. Feldman indicates, virtually no scholars have questioned the authenticity of the reference to Jesus in Antiq. 20. I merely present the scholarly research to expose the erroneous assertion that only Christian apologists think Josephus mentioned Jesus. This is why I initially asked you, “How, exactly, do I utilize information from Josephus in my post and how is my usage of Josephus in those cases problematic?” I hope this clarifies the confusion. Kind regards, Fpvpilot |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
