*opening a can of worms
So I've been watching your guys' debate with Waldorf for some time and surprisingly, he provided sources for what he believes. So I've taken it upon myself to look into those sources one at a time.
Can you gents please explain to me why you don't think Jesus is a historical figure or that he existed? Wikipedia seems pretty sure he did. And that scholars agree that he did.
Waldorf, can you review the two sources I've looked up so far and let me know why you believe that they should be trusted? One of them talks of the earth being flat, the other guy is an apologist. Why do you consider these sources to be sound historical sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to 30–33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. Christianity holds Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refers to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used in non-Christian contexts.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.
[19] Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). "Introduction". In Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C.; Crossan, John D. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton Univ Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.
Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[20] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.
Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, born around the beginning of the first century, who died between 30 and 36 AD in Judea.[37][38] The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who reigned from 26 to 36 AD.[19] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere.[39][40][41]
The Christ myth theory, which questions the existence of Jesus, appeared in the 18th century. Some of its supporters contend that Jesus is a myth invented by early Christians.[217][218][219] Supporters of the theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and to the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, which they use to challenge the veracity of the existing accounts of him.[220] Beginning in the 20th century, scholars such as G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie have presented various arguments to support the Christ myth theory.[221][222][223] However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[7][224][225] Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[16][17]
In response to the argument that the lack of the contemporary references implies that Jesus did not exist, Van Voorst has stated that, "as every good student of history knows", such arguments from silence are "specially perilous".[226] Arguments from silence generally fail unless a fact is known to the author and is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned in the context of a document.[227][228] Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.[229]
Ehrman says that arguments based on the lack of physical or archeological evidence of Jesus and of any writings from him are poor, as there is no such evidence of "nearly anyone who lived in the first century".[24] Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[230] A number of scholars caution against the use of such arguments from ignorance and consider them generally inconclusive or fallacious.[231][232][233] Douglas Walton states that arguments from ignorance can only lead to sound conclusions in cases where we can assume that our "knowledge-base is complete".[234]
Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[235][216][236] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[237][238] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[239]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
On Herod and the killing of the infants
Although consistent with other documented actions of King Herod the massacre cannot be positively verified outside of the biblical source. Based on the sole Biblical source, it could be estimated that the number of infants killed at the time in Bethlehem, a town with a total population of about 1000, would be about twenty.[8][9] The single account of the Massacre comes in the Gospel of Matthew: it is not mentioned elsewhere in the gospels or by the well-known Roman Jewish historian, Josephus (37 – c. 100). The difference of historical opinion tends to align with whether or not the scholar in question views the New Testament narratives as historically valuable or not, with those crediting the New Testament as at least quasi-historical willing to accept the possibility, while those skeptical of the New Testament's historicity tending to doubt the massacre's occurrence.
Amongst those historians who doubt the massacre's historicity, Geza Vermes and E. P. Sanders regard the story as part of a creative hagiography.[10] Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time and which was recorded by Josephus.[11] Other arguments against historicity include the silence of Josephus (who does record several other examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power, noting that he "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies")[12] and the views that the story is an apologetic device or a constructed fulfillment of prophecy.[13]
David Hill acknowledges that the episode "contains nothing that is historically impossible," but adds that Matthew's "real concern is ... with theological reflection on the theme of OT fulfillment".[14] Stephen Harris and Raymond Brown similarly contend that Matthew's purpose is to present Jesus as the Messiah, and the Massacre of the Innocents as the fulfillment of passages in Hosea (referring to the exodus), and in Jeremiah (referring to the Babylonian exile).[15][16] Brown also sees the story as patterned on the Exodus account of the birth of Moses and the killing of the Hebrew firstborn by Pharaoh.[16]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...7864,d.eWU
f Theophilus, the 7th Bishop of Antioch (c. 169–c. 183), is his Apology to Autolycus (Apologia ad Autolycum), a series of books defending Christianity written to a pagan friend.
He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth[17] and asserts that it is a flat surface covered by the heavens as by a domical vault.[18] He discovers the reason of blood coagulating on the surface of the ground in the divine word to Cain,[19] the earth struck with terror refusing to drink it in. In addition, Theophilus misquotes Plato several times,[20] ranking Zopyrus among the Greeks,[21] and speaking of Pausanias as having only run a risk of starvation instead of being actually starved to death in the temple of Minerva.
His references to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are also numerous, and he quotes from Ezekiel, Hosea and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount,[26] a possible quotation from Luke 18:27,[18] and quotations from Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist by name, as one of the inspired men by whom the Holy Scriptures were written
Although Theophilus cites the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1), he does not speak of the incarnation of the Word in the person Jesus of Nazareth. Theophilus makes no mention of the name of Jesus or use the word Christ or the phrase Son of God. There is no explicit reference to a historical person Jesus or to the concept of the atoning sacrificial death of the Son of God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html
Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. The period of the emperor Hadrian, during which Quadratus is said to have made his apology, was from 117 CE to 138 CE.
He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."
So I've been watching your guys' debate with Waldorf for some time and surprisingly, he provided sources for what he believes. So I've taken it upon myself to look into those sources one at a time.
Can you gents please explain to me why you don't think Jesus is a historical figure or that he existed? Wikipedia seems pretty sure he did. And that scholars agree that he did.
Waldorf, can you review the two sources I've looked up so far and let me know why you believe that they should be trusted? One of them talks of the earth being flat, the other guy is an apologist. Why do you consider these sources to be sound historical sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to 30–33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. Christianity holds Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refers to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used in non-Christian contexts.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.
[19] Levine, Amy-Jill (2006). "Introduction". In Levine, Amy-Jill; Allison, Dale C.; Crossan, John D. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton Univ Press. ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6.
Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[20] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.
Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, born around the beginning of the first century, who died between 30 and 36 AD in Judea.[37][38] The general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who reigned from 26 to 36 AD.[19] Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere.[39][40][41]
The Christ myth theory, which questions the existence of Jesus, appeared in the 18th century. Some of its supporters contend that Jesus is a myth invented by early Christians.[217][218][219] Supporters of the theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and to the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, which they use to challenge the veracity of the existing accounts of him.[220] Beginning in the 20th century, scholars such as G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price and Thomas Brodie have presented various arguments to support the Christ myth theory.[221][222][223] However, today virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[7][224][225] Robert E. Van Voorst and (separately) Michael Grant state that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard theories of the non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.[16][17]
In response to the argument that the lack of the contemporary references implies that Jesus did not exist, Van Voorst has stated that, "as every good student of history knows", such arguments from silence are "specially perilous".[226] Arguments from silence generally fail unless a fact is known to the author and is important enough and relevant enough to be mentioned in the context of a document.[227][228] Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.[229]
Ehrman says that arguments based on the lack of physical or archeological evidence of Jesus and of any writings from him are poor, as there is no such evidence of "nearly anyone who lived in the first century".[24] Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants.[230] A number of scholars caution against the use of such arguments from ignorance and consider them generally inconclusive or fallacious.[231][232][233] Douglas Walton states that arguments from ignorance can only lead to sound conclusions in cases where we can assume that our "knowledge-base is complete".[234]
Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[235][216][236] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[237][238] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[239]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents
On Herod and the killing of the infants
Although consistent with other documented actions of King Herod the massacre cannot be positively verified outside of the biblical source. Based on the sole Biblical source, it could be estimated that the number of infants killed at the time in Bethlehem, a town with a total population of about 1000, would be about twenty.[8][9] The single account of the Massacre comes in the Gospel of Matthew: it is not mentioned elsewhere in the gospels or by the well-known Roman Jewish historian, Josephus (37 – c. 100). The difference of historical opinion tends to align with whether or not the scholar in question views the New Testament narratives as historically valuable or not, with those crediting the New Testament as at least quasi-historical willing to accept the possibility, while those skeptical of the New Testament's historicity tending to doubt the massacre's occurrence.
Amongst those historians who doubt the massacre's historicity, Geza Vermes and E. P. Sanders regard the story as part of a creative hagiography.[10] Robert Eisenman argues that the story may have its origins in Herod's murder of his own sons, an act which made a deep impression at the time and which was recorded by Josephus.[11] Other arguments against historicity include the silence of Josephus (who does record several other examples of Herod’s willingness to commit such acts to protect his power, noting that he "never stopped avenging and punishing every day those who had chosen to be of the party of his enemies")[12] and the views that the story is an apologetic device or a constructed fulfillment of prophecy.[13]
David Hill acknowledges that the episode "contains nothing that is historically impossible," but adds that Matthew's "real concern is ... with theological reflection on the theme of OT fulfillment".[14] Stephen Harris and Raymond Brown similarly contend that Matthew's purpose is to present Jesus as the Messiah, and the Massacre of the Innocents as the fulfillment of passages in Hosea (referring to the exodus), and in Jeremiah (referring to the Babylonian exile).[15][16] Brown also sees the story as patterned on the Exodus account of the birth of Moses and the killing of the Hebrew firstborn by Pharaoh.[16]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...7864,d.eWU
f Theophilus, the 7th Bishop of Antioch (c. 169–c. 183), is his Apology to Autolycus (Apologia ad Autolycum), a series of books defending Christianity written to a pagan friend.
He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth[17] and asserts that it is a flat surface covered by the heavens as by a domical vault.[18] He discovers the reason of blood coagulating on the surface of the ground in the divine word to Cain,[19] the earth struck with terror refusing to drink it in. In addition, Theophilus misquotes Plato several times,[20] ranking Zopyrus among the Greeks,[21] and speaking of Pausanias as having only run a risk of starvation instead of being actually starved to death in the temple of Minerva.
His references to Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are also numerous, and he quotes from Ezekiel, Hosea and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of the New Testament does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount,[26] a possible quotation from Luke 18:27,[18] and quotations from Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1-3), mentioning the evangelist by name, as one of the inspired men by whom the Holy Scriptures were written
Although Theophilus cites the opening of the Gospel of St. John (1:1), he does not speak of the incarnation of the Word in the person Jesus of Nazareth. Theophilus makes no mention of the name of Jesus or use the word Christ or the phrase Son of God. There is no explicit reference to a historical person Jesus or to the concept of the atoning sacrificial death of the Son of God.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/quadratus.html
Quadratus was one of the first of the Christian apologists. He is said to have presented his apology to Hadrian while the emperor was in Athens attending the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries. The period of the emperor Hadrian, during which Quadratus is said to have made his apology, was from 117 CE to 138 CE.
He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day."
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
![[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]](https://66.media.tumblr.com/5fb74c6d16622fb3dbb358509c9aec03/tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif)
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
