Originally posted by checkbaiterThese have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
Originally posted by checkbaiterI think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
http://www.probe.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=77
Thanks for the link.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just continue to "kick against the goads."
These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
Originally posted by no1marauder"These have all been discussed before ... "
These have all been discussed before; they are some, third (or more) hand evidence for the existence of an actual person named Jesus. None of them suggest anything extraordinary about him except the obviously added phrases in Josephus' account. Do you have a point?
Not by the newer people on the site.
Stop looking at yourself as the centre of the universe, marauder.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis isn't true, Ivanhoe. There are people who do not find the evidence compelling.
I think everybody, theist, deist, atheist and other -ists can safely accept the fact that Jesus Christ was an historic figure who lived in the Holy Land about 2000 years ago.
Thanks for the link.
I find the evidence compelling, but not totally conclusive. But, part of that is directly
related to how much less important Jesus was in the eyes of the government and His
contemporaries than the Gospels suggest.
Anyway, when you say 'Jesus Christ,' it's like you're using it as a last name. It was
a title, and I'm sure none of the secular records would record that.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "There are people who do not find the evidence compelling."
This isn't true, Ivanhoe. There are people who do not find the evidence compelling.
I find the evidence compelling, but not totally conclusive. But, part of that is directly
related to how much less important Jesus was in the eyes of the government and His
contemporaries than the Gospels suggest.
Anyway, when you say 'Jesus Christ,' it's like you ...[text shortened]... name. It was
a title, and I'm sure none of the secular records would record that.
Nemesio
There are people who do not find the evidence for the evolution theory compelling and I'm sure some of them never will find it compelling. So what ?
Do you prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Jesus Christ" ?
Do you prefer "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of "Jesus Christ" ?[/b]Originally posted by ivanhoe
There are people who do not find the evidence for the evolution theory compelling and I'm sure some of them never will find it compelling. So what ?
I feel that this is analogy is a little loose, but not wholly inapplicable.
I do believe that schools should teach the weaknesses of the theory of
evolution -- the things hitherto undiscovered, missing links and such. If
this raises some doubts about the evolutionary theory, that's fine because
it will lead to inquiry and exploration. I feel that information and the
quest for it is never a bad thing (or at least I can't think of an example).
If it ratifies the theory, then great! If it alters it, then great! If it supplants
it with a new one, then great!
Similarly, people should be aware that the evidence for Jesus's existence
is not air tight/rock solid. The fact that the ancient evidence for Jesus in
non-Christian sources is pretty little thin leads to developments in our
understanding of 1st-century Judeo/Proto-Christian world.
I've said that I think it is improbable that Jesus didn't exist a number of
times, even highly improbable. But it is more probable to think that He
didn't than to think that the earth is 6000 years old.
Nemesio
Originally posted by HalitoseShould have read further down the thread, lol.
Any ideas, David C? I'm sure you disagree...
Absolutely none of the extra-biblical references to the figure portayed in the NT are of any veracity. There may have been a Jewish Rabbi called Yeshua...in fact, as LH has pointed out in the past, there were many such individuals. However, the central figure that Christians have come to accept as their saviour is a wholly syncretic creation, IMO. A pure anthropomorphization of the Sun, preceded by other 'saviour' figures, including the recently-discussed Roman Mithras.