| Msheekha |
| Posted 04/12/11 at 06:53 PM | Reply with quote #31 |
|
| If the Jews (the first Christians were Jews) made up the notion of a savior who never existed, there would be a plethora of writings by their adversaries debunking them. The silence however, is deafening. |
| Loading... | |
| Msheekha |
| Posted 04/12/11 at 10:24 PM | Reply with quote #32 |
|
The peculiarity with the atheist position on this issue is that they demand written sources within a hairs breadth of Jesus' life and then contend that it was not viable for the Jewish hierarchy of the time to mention that Yeshua never actually existed. This is a fantastic claim that reeks of double standards, what better way for the early Jews to squash a movement that threatened the foundation of their beliefs and grip on power than to simply state "guys, why do you charge us with hanging Yeshua, we have not heard of this person in whom you are all willing to die and be persecuted for". Rather what we do hear is that they systematically denied that Yeshua was the Christ, rather odd that.
It is as stupid an argument as to say, Paul spread Christianity so that he could purposefully be beaten and imprisoned to fulfill his sadistic desires.
Atheists also try to impose (ineffectively) a modern perception of information transfer and communication methods on a time, place and culture where oral tradition was as acceptable as written documentation. All atheistic arguments in conflict of the historicity of Yeshua fail under scrutiny and based on this flawed view of history, any written article prior to a certain period of time should be thrown In the scrap heap. |
| Loading... | |
| Kam86 |
| Posted 04/13/11 at 04:10 AM | Reply with quote #33 |
|
hey Msheekha Im Happy you liked my posts. I also believe you have highlighted the awkwardness in the atheist's stance on Jesus quite well, its a weird dichotomy they find themselves in. I maintain that the only reason guys like Ooberman support firnge skeptic's like Robert Price is because it is the only was to avoid the theistic implications of the remarkable life of Jesus. So they postulate non-senscal unsuppoted myth fairy tales. |
| Loading... | |
| Msheekha |
| Posted 04/13/11 at 06:12 AM | Reply with quote #34 |
|
| Quite true Kam, a pig is content frolicking in its filth because it knows no better, it is completely oblivious of the fact that it need not live in such squalor, it need only look up from its pen to see there is a far superior form of existence. |
| Loading... | |
| Noraaron |
| Posted 04/14/11 at 05:17 AM | Reply with quote #35 |
|
| Im often out on the job and write things down on random pieces of paper, names address for clients who call and also measurements and list of things i need to do.
Often they fill my back pocket up, and after a few days i get them all and re write it all on a nice new clean piece of paper that is easier to understand rather than corners of news paper and takeaway wrappers.
Just thought you all might be interested how i write notes.
It sometimes makes me wonder how hard ti would be to write things down even 1000 years ago...no pens, no paper handy....would have been difficult. Still they managed when it was important. |
| Loading... | |
| Msheekha |
| Posted 04/14/11 at 06:54 AM | Reply with quote #36 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by NoraaronIm often out on the job and write things down on random pieces of paper, names address for clients who call and also measurements and list of things i need to do.
Often they fill my back pocket up, and after a few days i get them all and re write it all on a nice new clean piece of paper that is easier to understand rather than corners of news paper and takeaway wrappers.
Just thought you all might be interested how i write notes.
It sometimes makes me wonder how hard ti would be to write things down even 1000 years ago...no pens, no paper handy....would have been difficult. Still they managed when it was important.
It was quite difficult, also considering that only a minuscule amount of people back then could actually read and write! This is true in many nations even in 2011! |
| Loading... | |
| Wagus |
| Posted 04/14/11 at 07:42 AM | Reply with quote #37 |
|
According to Gregory Boyd and Paul Rhodes: Jesus Legend, A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, the mythologizing of the Gospels is not advanced without presuppositions. Here are a couple: § High illiteracy rates in the ancient world: This is based on a chronocentric comparison of cultures rather than the traditional epigraphic analysis of extant artifacts. It assumes that writing materials were expensive, that literacy was the reserved, exclusive domain of the “palatial” scribal class, and that Jewish literacy rates corresponded to that of the general ancient world. Recent archeological discoveries controvert these assumptions: Wood strip and ink were relatively free, extant examples of correspondence originate from various economic classes – including slaves, and the Jewish Synagogue served as the local school for boys. § Oral communication is inherently inaccurate and accretions easily accumulate: Interdisciplinary analysis of oral cultures by folklorists, anthropologists, and ethnographists refute this assumption. Empirical analysis has chronicled the capacity of Oral Tradents to reliably recite narratives lasting up to 25 hours, presented over three days. Tradent ability and audience participation, as a correcting verification, has led some scholars to conclude that oral traditions are less susceptible to mythic accretions than written narratives, when the subject is of critical importance. |
| Loading... | |
| Msheekha |
| Posted 04/14/11 at 07:58 AM | Reply with quote #38 |
|
Hi Wagus,
I need to look into the first point you raised.
But for the second point and as a Semite myself I can tell you that the oral tradition is still a part of our culture today. I can attest that within our community Chinese whispers spread quite rapidly and by the time an event leaves the mouth of person a and is received by person z, it has altered. But what happens eventually is that person a, b, c, d may come across person z and clarify the actual event. Or person z will seek to contact person a or someone close to person a to verify the information. This is where any misinformation is corrected.
In the case of the Gospels, persons a, were the eye witnesses to Christ. So if any stories crept up into the account of His birth, death and resurrection, these eyewitnesses were there to verify if the information was factual. We can verify this as Paul actually went back to Jerusalem to speak with the Apostles about the doctrine he was spreading, he wanted to ensure that nobody was misinformed and that nothing was added or taken away in his delivery of the Gospel. |
| Loading... | |
| Kam86 |
| Posted 04/15/11 at 02:44 AM | Reply with quote #39 |
|
Msheekha
The point you made about the individuals( eye witness's ) being alive as a form of check's and balances is a agreat point and what is frequently overlooked by skeptics. Considering Paul's earliest epistles were in circulation within 18 years of Jesus death, certainly a number of eye witness's were still around to correct him. We even read in Paul's writings that he met with James and Peter to assure the truth of his preaching. Skeptics are too quick to reject Paul as merely having seen a vision of the risen Christ, but they obviously dont do their homework, or they would realize Paul actually relies on eye witness testimony, so his testimony is paramount. This is a point that cannot be emphasized enough.
|
| Loading... | |
| Msheekha |
| Posted 04/15/11 at 03:26 AM | Reply with quote #40 |
|
Hi Kam,
Skeptics seem to draw on their own conclusions based on little to no knowledge of Semitic culture, especially in reference to Biblical doctrines and the understanding thereof.
What they also tend to conveniently forget is that Paul was a Pharisee who would of lived the good life as they say, but decided to leave this life in order to be imprisoned, be beaten, go hungry and sleep out doors, why? For what gain? |
| Loading... | |
| gleaner63 |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 11:19 PM | Reply with quote #41 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ooberman
I don't think it's proven that Jesus was a real person.
Quote: Originally Posted by ooberman
To me it seems clear that the truth is lost to history.
I can make a pretty good case that my grandfather never existed, using some or most of the criteria that you espouse. My grandfather was born in the SC Lowcountry in 1896. The house he was born in no longer exists and his own son wasn't sure of the exact location. No one is still living that witnessed his birth. No one knows who made the delivery and the birth certificate, if there was one, no longer exists. My granddad left no letters, no books and is mentioned in none of these mediums by anyone else. Only one picture survives, and no one can attest to it's actual date, who took it, or where it was taken at. I have no medical records for my grandfather, none whatsoever. I do have a copy of his WWI draft registration card. His body is interred at a remote site at a Methodist Church built prior to the American Civil War on a 5 mile long stretch of dirt road.
Now think about it. Just over a hundred years after the birth of an individual in the most advanced nation on planet Earth, the physical evidence I can present for the existence of my grandpa I could put in an standard envelope. In 25 years there will be no living eyewitnesses that he ever walked the Earth. His casket, the tombstone, the Church and even the land it all sits on will eventually fall prey to the elements. Given that I live near the coast, it's very likely the sea will eventually reclaim the land, washing away any archaeological evidence. Would it then be fair to say, 2000 years down the road that "this person never existed"?
Quote: Originally Posted by ooberman
...we will never know and can't know.
That doesn't lead me to conclude that Jesus existed.
My head's hurting.
|
| Loading... | |
| neilmeyerza |
| Posted 09/13/11 at 08:59 AM | Reply with quote #42 |
|
Quote: I don't think it's proven that Jesus was a real person. To me it seems clear that the truth is lost to history. we will never know and can't know.
Really then how do you explain the 5 1st century Judean historians who attest to Jesus' existence?
Why can the encyclopaedia Britannica attest to Napoleon's existence two and a half century after he lived, but 5 first century judean historians are not enough to prove his existence?
Please Google Josephus. I cannot remember what the other 4 names was off the top of my head
|
| Loading... | |
| Thinking |
| Posted 09/26/11 at 08:57 PM | Reply with quote #43 |
|
| What's the harm in atheists admitting there was a Jewish man named Jesus who claimed to be a prophet, had followers, was proclaimed a miracle-worker, went to Jerusalem, ran into trouble with the authorities, and was put to death?
It's all very well attested to, and was a fairly common happening in those times (Josephus talks about at least several very similar cases). |
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 11/05/11 at 06:06 PM | Reply with quote #44 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ThinkingWhat's the harm in atheists admitting there was a Jewish man named Jesus who claimed to be a prophet, had followers, was proclaimed a miracle-worker, went to Jerusalem, ran into trouble with the authorities, and was put to death?
It's all very well attested to, and was a fairly common happening in those times (Josephus talks about at least several very similar cases).
I don't think there is. I am not a fan of the ressurection argument, but as you may know, the point of the argument has to do with the concept of eschatological (end times) Resurrection being used of Jesus by his disciples before the general ressurection of all people.
|
| Loading... | |
