Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is a little reminder of how historical research is done by historians,
Don't you think that this would be the start of just another controversy ?
I can already hear them ....... If one doesn't want to accept the historicity of the person Jesus Christ one will always find "evidence" for that stance, be ...[text shortened]... nd the passing of time always has the tendency of blurring things.
(1) Researchers should make a plan to find out systematically what primary sources and secondary works are available.
(2) Researchers should make a plan for studying each primary source as part of a larger systematic plan.
There are some basic things that you will want to think about for nearly all historic documents:
What is its historical context? ho created it, when, where, and why? Who was the intended audience?
Does it include conventions? Is this a typical document or an unusual one? What problems, assumptions, ideas, and values does the author share with others from this time period?
What is the author trying to accomplish? What assumptions is the author making? What values does the author hold that are reflected in the document?
3. Thinking about what you are finding and developing systematic plans for clarifying things that seem confusing or contradictory lies at the heart of the research process.
4. Your research plan should include publishing what you learn.
http://www.edheritage.org/wolves/researchmethods.htm
The issue of whether Josphus' reference is even his own turns what was, at best, secondary into a tertiary source that cannot be relied on.
It makes no difference if there are conflicting tertiary sources, what is needed is the *primary to establish just what he wrote.
Interpretations are like excuses, everybody has one.
edit: * i used primary in reference to his workas his writing and not as a primary source to wheter Jesus was in fact a real person.
Originally posted by Nemesioyay, now there is one easy way to confirm if there is a god or not...just get him/her to "appear" in some convincing manner for a few seconds, such a short amount of time should be no problem to fit into his/her schedule, since he/her has been around for eternity.......or is he/she a halfwit? such a simple way to prove yourself.....better than playing around with virgins (well maybe not), puppet humans, clouds of smoke, seas, mountains and goats etc.........someone tell god the direct approach is best.......
I was not clear.
There has never been a satisfying, non-relgious examination of
Jesus's existence that yielded a definitively affirmative result.
#1 takes an agnostic stance (by his own admission). He isn't
doubting, but reserving judgment. Having looked at the evidence,
I think that Jesus the man likely existed. Whether he was
the Son of God ...[text shortened]...
the obvious of two solutions, because the extra-Biblical evidence
is pretty scanty.
Nemesio
Originally posted by silver fernHe wants your love, not your terrified allegiance. But one day He will come, and every knee will bow and declare "Jesus is Lord."
yay, now there is one easy way to confirm if there is a god or not...just get him/her to "appear" in some convincing manner for a few seconds, such a short amount of time should be no problem to fit into his/her schedule, since he/her has been around for eternity.......or is he/she a halfwit? such a simple way to prove yourself.....better than playing ...[text shortened]... ke, seas, mountains and goats etc.........someone tell god the direct approach is best.......
Originally posted by DarfiusThis is a Debate forum, not a Sunday Sermon forum. Your posts are off-topic and should probably be moderated if I believed in moderation. Stop being an annoying pest with your inappropriate preaching in the Debate forum.
He wants your love, not your terrified allegiance. But one day He will come, and every knee will bow and declare "Jesus is Lord."
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "If you thought there was no possibility of disagreement, why did you start this thread?"
I thought you would present a better argument, Ivanhoe, but you've dropped back to the same "serious scholars believe" nonsense that Darfius argues. If you thought there was no possibility of disagreement, why did you start t ...[text shortened]... ection to easily stand up in a court of law as Darfius promised).
and " ... So I thank you for your refusal to provide any evidence ... "
and " ... the total lack of evidence believers can put forward ... "
IvanH: Ah, I can see you are your old self again. I was starting to worry about you, No1. ["Ivanhoe, please save me ......"]. I'm happy to see that you pulled yourself together again and are taking the same old stances you are so well known for.
I provided no evidence ? That's one of your favorite lines you have in store for all your opponents, but you probably forgot the Flavius Josephus site, one of the extra-Biblical sources there are. There are more, if you read this thread carefully you'll find them ..... and of course the Gospels themselves which you refuse to look upon and accept as sources of Jewish history writing.
Glad to see you alive and kicking @ss again No1. 😉
Originally posted by ivanhoeI discussed the Josephus site already in this thread and concede that it's SOME evidence, though not very convincing evidence for the reasons I already gave. You're, as usual, selectively quoting, an old trick you just can't stop doing. I do not accept the Gospels as proof of Jesus' existence any more than I accept the Illiad as proof of Achilles' existence again for the reasons given. If you want to debate those reasons please do; obviously my post in the other thread was tongue in cheek but just as obviously the posts in this thread by Darfius and others are not serious debating. I again invite you to peruse the site I mentioned earlier, http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
No1: "If you thought there was no possibility of disagreement, why did you start this thread?"
and " ... So I thank you for your refusal to provide any evidence ... "
and " ... the total lack of evidence believers can put forward .. ...[text shortened]... riting.
Glad to see you alive and kicking @ss again No1. 😉
and address the points raised. That would make this an actual DEBATE, rather than the preaching session Darfius and others want to engage in.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "You're, as usual, selectively quoting, an old trick you just can't stop doing."
I discussed the Josephus site already in this thread and concede that it's SOME evidence, though not very convincing evidence for the reasons I already gave. You're, as usual, selectively quoting, an old trick you just can't ...[text shortened]... r than the preaching session Darfius and others want to engage in.
If you are stating things that aren't true, I will continue to quote "selectively" .... as usual.
You can bet your socks I will.
No1: " ... I again invite you to peruse the site I mentioned earlier, http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
and address the points raised."
..... lol ....... and adress the points raised 😀 😵 😀
Please no1, don't give me any reasons to not take you seriously anymore in the future. That would be most regrettable .......
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "I do not accept the Gospels as proof of Jesus' existence any more than I accept the Illiad as proof of Achilles' existence again for the reasons given. If you want to debate those reasons please do; "
I discussed the Josephus site already in this thread and concede that it's SOME evidence, though not very convincing evidence for the reasons I already gave. You're, as usual, selectively quoting, an old trick you just can't ...[text shortened]... r than the preaching session Darfius and others want to engage in.
If you want to discuss the matter whether the Gospels are to be looked upon as a serious source of Jewish history writing, I want to suggest to you to visit the thread "Is the New Testament ...."
Originally posted by ivanhoeI'll take that as a refusal to debate the issue that you started a thread about. You're a very strange individual, Ivanhoe.
No1: "You're, as usual, selectively quoting, an old trick you just can't stop doing."
If you are stating things that aren't true, I will continue to quote "selectively" .... as usual.
You can bet your socks I will.
No1: " ... I again invite you to peruse the site I mentioned earlier, http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm
and address the ...[text shortened]... easons to not take you seriously anymore in the future. That would be most regrettable .......
Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll take that as a refusal to debate the issue that you started a thread about. You're a very strange individual, Ivanhoe.
No1.
May I suggest you debate Ivan, instead of Ivan debating a web site. You're rebuttal seems one of "Here's a book, debate this". Ofcourse you have every right to employ this strategy, but then most members here (including RBHill) choose to at a bare minimum, copy and paste views they support , instead of (what seems to be) merely passing the buck...
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianActually that's a fair point, but I did summarize some of it on page 6 of this thread:
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I'll take that as a refusal to debate the issue that you started a thread about. You're a very strange individual, Ivanhoe.
No1.
May I suggest you debate Ivan, instead of Ivan debating a web site. You're rebuttal seems one of "Here's a book, debate this". Ofcourse you have every right to empl ...[text shortened]... nd paste views they support , instead of (what seems to be) merely passing the buck...
cheers[/b]
In it, the author points out the extreme paucity of historical references to Jesus: he mentions the ones already sited and two others but points out that there were dozens of other histories written (one by a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, if Jesus existed) that do not mention at all the "greatest event in history". He also points out that there were early "Christian" sects like the Gnostics and Essenes who did not believe in a historical Jesus or Resurrection.
An interesting "kicker" is his comparison with the characteristics of Jesus' story with the stories of Horus (Egypt) and Krishna (India). Both these figures were said to have been born of virgins, to have died and been resurrected and have many other similiarities to the Jesus story. And, of course, these stories pre-date Jesus by hundreds of years. Any of you "fair minded" people like to take a gander at it and refute these points logically?
ME: I hate cutting and pasting and prefer to be given a site to peruse, but that's not everybody's preference. There's other points in it, but these are some of the major ones so I thought they'd be good places to start. Fair enough?
Originally posted by pcaspianIsn't no1's site a proper rebuttal to Ivanhoe's site?
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I'll take that as a refusal to debate the issue that you started a thread about. You're a very strange individual, Ivanhoe.
No1.
May I suggest you debate Ivan, instead of Ivan debating a web site. You're rebuttal seems one of "Here's a book, debate this". Ofcourse you have every right to empl ...[text shortened]... nd paste views they support , instead of (what seems to be) merely passing the buck...
cheers[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauder
In it, the author points out the extreme paucity of historical references to Jesus: he mentions the ones already sited and two others but points out that there were dozens of other histories written (one by a Jewish contemporary of Jesus, if Jesus existed) that do not mention at all the "greatest event in history". He also points out that there were early "Christian" sects like the Gnostics and Essenes who did not believe in a historical Jesus or Resurrection.
Fine. We do know (as you may have overheard in my debate with Nemesio) that the Bible itself discussed the various 'sects' of Christianity, groups of people that broke away from mainstream Christianity that formed their own beliefs.
John 1 CH 2
vs "18 Children, it is the last hour. And as you have heard, "Antichrist is coming," even now many antichrists have come. We know from this that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie comes from the truth. 22 Who is the liar, if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? He is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. "
Part of the reason the Bible was put together in the first place, part of the reason such emphasis was placed in maintaining Biblical accuracy (burning slightly defective Bibles) and rooting out heretics was precisely because of new sects that branched from Christianity.
An interesting "kicker" is his comparison with the characteristics of Jesus' story with the stories of Horus (Egypt) and Krishna (India). Both these figures were said to have been born of virgins, to have died and been resurrected and have many other similiarities to the Jesus story. And, of course, these stories pre-date Jesus by hundreds of years. Any of you "fair minded" people like to take a gander at it and refute these points logically?
The same argument holds for comparisons between Noah and Gilgamesh. The question lies in scriptural accuracy and historical evidence.
For example. With the increase in popularity of Christianity in Rome, many of Rome's religions suffered as a result. Monotheism hurt the idol industry, and soon religions began to borrow from Christianity. Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So to answer the question regarding simularities between Christ and Horus/Krishna, you would firstly have to compare the actuall evidence discovered. The end result or belief (ie: today's belief in what Krisha is/was) is unimportant, the belief prior to the death and ressurection of Christ is what counts. Whilst I am unfamiliar with the belief of Krishna, I would have to assume evidence for these beliefs exist. For that you would unfortunitely need to do some thorough research into the matter.
The only other point I can make is that much of Jesus was prophecised prior to His birth. This has many implications. From the texts in the OT we know that not all prophets were Godly prophets. Indeed the OT does not denounce the ability of fortune tellers to predicts the future (as we know in Saul's case). Whilst this is a rather hefty presumption to make, it may not be entirely impossible for another figure to have prophecised the coming of Christ and that prophecy to play a part in such a religion.
ME: I hate cutting and pasting and prefer to be given a site to peruse, but that's not everybody's preference. There's other points in it, but these are some of the major ones so I thought they'd be good places to start. Fair enough?
The only problem I can see with such a framework is the onus of research. For instance when you copy and paste, you implicitly support those views, as such you would probably have had to cross reference the authors facts. When you point and click however you're not actually supporting or rejecting any views. Simply put (as in your Horus example above), it would now be my responsibility to collect and evaluate any possible simularities for validity. Needless to say, my chess game would suffer 😉
Anyway, if you have time and could be botherd, could you find valid sources to support any views of Horus/Krishna prior to the birth of Christ.
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianI don't have time right now to answer your post in detail but I will after I take a look at some source documents on Horus-Krishna and some of the other ManGods mentioned. Interesting post and I'll get back to you.
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
In it, the author points out the extreme paucity of historical references to Jesus: he mentions the ones already sited and two others but points out that there were dozens of other histories ...[text shortened]... y views of Horus/Krishna prior to the birth of Christ.
cheers