RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 12:40 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 12:36 pm)dyresand Wrote:(December 21, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Brucer Wrote: A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.
They are all fallacies, and provide no evidence to support a myth. In fact, I will pick one at random and show you why it's not a legitimate argument:
If you were referring to the criminal court system, you might have a point. But it is not a crime to consider Jesus as a historical person, therefore if any court of law were to be used it would be a civil court of law.
Civil courts of law do indeed allow hearsay evidence.
And that is just 1 example of the lack of honest reasoning and rationale put into arguments such as these, and that is why they fail.
LYING FOR THE CHURCH
The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.
The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.
In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]
The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told them.
In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."
In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it."
Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?
source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::
And how does any of this in anyway demonstrate proof that Jesus was a myth? It does absolutely nothing. It proves nothing. It is just another smoke and mirror Mythicist argument.
Will you continue to copy and paste those pathetic arguments?