|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2011 : 09:04:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Falconjudge
... I... Well, there goes my last 18 years...
|
Please don't consider those years wasted. You no doubt learned quite a bit and had many good times. Its just that now you are becoming more knowledgable about religion and its place in the world. It took me considerably longer thab 18 years to wise up to the nonsense of religion, but they were good times too, and the fact that I was mistaken about the reality of God and Jesus doesn't change that. I too felt initially that Christianity was the bedrock of my existance, the foundation of my reality and that losing it would set me somehow adrift, disconnected from the world. But that didn't happen. REALITY became the foundation. What was TRUE. I realized that the scientific method was the only reliable way to determine what was true, the only way to reliably differentiate between ideas that had merit and those that don't. Its not an ending, its a beginnning. You are going to learn more about the real world now than you ever could before because you are no longer holding onto nonsensical ideas that can get in the way. |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
 |
|
|
darwinalogos
New Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2011 : 18:43:00 [Permalink]
|
kil And the only evidence for Jesus's death and resurrection is the bible.
As I already stated we have secular historians who have reliable information about both "Jesus's death and resurrection", such as I told you Tacitus states that Nero wanted to shift the blame for the fire of Rome off of him to "a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians.Christus, from whom they got their name, had been excuted by sentence of procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor; and the pernicious superstition was checked for a short time, only to break out afresh, not only in Judaea, the home of the plague, but in Rome itself,". In this we can see that the knowledge of Jesus, his death, the person who sentenced him to death, the land where this place, and the name of his followers was known in Rome about 64 AD. Plus the negitive attitude of Tacitus demonstrates he has no desire to propagate this "superstition" which leads to his credibility. When you add Joesphus and Pliny the Younger's testimony to this we get a picture like this: - Jesus lived during the reign of emperor Tiberius (Lk.3:1).
- Pontus Pilate was governor when Christ died (Mt.27:2, Lk.23:1, Acts 3:13
- That his followers worshiped him as a god (Lk.24:51, Jn. 20:28)
That Christ was executed as a crminal (Lk.23:2). - This happened in Judea (Mk.11:16)
-
- That his followers thought he was the Jewish Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Acts 26:1-32,2:14-47)
Portions of this list taken from Paul Barnett's IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE? Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. P. 26 . As to the Nicaean Council being the place where the NT was decided my answer is yes and no. Yes, because it was voted on there but that wasn't the reason the council was called, it was originally called to settle a dispute between 2 bishops who had differing views on the nature of Christ.No, because as I've already said the NT was accepted and being quoted by secondary sources (ie the early church fathers and in teaching materials). Yes there were disputed books, Hewbrews, Revelation, but for the most part the NT today is what was voted on. Now as to if they "edited them"? No. Did they throw out spurious books? Yes. But not there they were warned by Jesus and the Apostles to beware of false teachings and to compare what they knew to be true against any "so called new revelations" so you would read in the NT (Gal.1:6-11) "I am astoished that you are quickly deserting the one who called you...and are turning to to a different gospel_which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and trying to pervert the gospel of Christ... I want you know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something man made up". The entire NT is made up of warnings like that and the church has every right and duty to throw out spurious books just as SFN would if someone was saying they were someone their not. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2011 : 19:29:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos
As I already stated we have secular historians who have reliable information about both "Jesus's death and resurrection", such as I told you Tacitus states that Nero wanted to shift the blame for the fire of Rome off of him to "a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians.Christus, from whom they got their name, had been excuted by sentence of procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor; and the pernicious superstition was checked for a short time, only to break out afresh, not only in Judaea, the home of the plague, but in Rome itself,". In this we can see that the knowledge of Jesus, his death, the person who sentenced him to death, the land where this place, and the name of his followers was known in Rome about 64 AD. |
But it wasn't published until 116 AD, eighty-plus years after Jesus allegedly died. How can it be considered anything but hearsay? Hell, a mere 10 years after 9/11, we have people thinking that Saddam Hussein was somehow responsible.| Plus the negitive attitude of Tacitus demonstrates he has no desire to propagate this "superstition" which leads to his credibility. |
No, reporting Christianity as a superstition doesn't source or even add to his credibility regarding events that took place over 20 years before he was born.Not an eyewitness, either.| ...and Pliny the Younger's testimony... |
The "testimony" taking the form of a letter asking for directions on what to do with the pesky Christians, some 70 years after Jesus allegedly died.| ...That his followers thought he was the Jewish Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Acts 26:1-32,2:14-47)... |
So what? We've got plenty of evidence that Christians believe these things, but not a scrap of evidence that these things are true. We're asking for the latter, but all you can provide is hearsay from decades after the events in question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos
New Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 00:31:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave W u got issues maybe your football team lost like mine but be responsible to your flock |
| Edited by - darwinalogos on 09/12/2011 01:05:43 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 02:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos
Dave W u got issues maybe your football team lost like mine but be responsible to your flock
|
Dave served you some well founded critique, and this the answer you can muster up? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 04:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos
... When you add Joesphus ...
|
Why would you include Josephus in support of Jesus Death and Resurection? These Josephus additions are still disputed and have been since the 17th century. A primary problem with the Josephus additions is as you have pointed out in support of the NT, being quoted and source by other early church fathers/leaders. Eusebius was the first to quote the Jesus passages early in the 4th century and then quoted verbatim.
Originally posted by darwinalogos
As to the Nicaean Council being the place where the NT was decided my answer is yes and no. Yes, because it was voted on there but that wasn't the reason the council was called, it was originally called to settle a dispute between 2 bishops who had differing views on the nature of Christ.No, because as I've already said the NT was accepted and being quoted by secondary sources (ie the early church fathers and in teaching materials).
|
And as Kil has pointed out you are still using the Bible as evidence for itself. Tautological I would say, "The Bible is true because the Bible says that it is true." |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Falconjudge
New Member
USA
23 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2011 : 08:50:09 [Permalink]
|
What court in the world would release a defendant on his own word of honor?
"I didn't kill him! It's true, because I said I didn't!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is this the best you got
