Originally posted by utherpendragonSorry, I did not mean it ignore your post. I was still getting round to it.
I believe I just did take up your "challenge" and showed only a couple of examples out of many of non christian writers who give credence to the historical existence of a man named Jesus whose followers became known as Christians. If you choose to ignore my post thats fine, but either way there is your proof. Hope I was helpful
I don't think your examples fit my intended challenge. I do not think either writer give any indication of having any firsthand knowledge of Jesus' existence. Or knowledge of his existence via a non-Christian source (eg political records etc) What they do show is knowledge of the existence of Christians and their beliefs. In other words, I do not think they add in any way to Pauls writings or the gospel accounts.
Originally posted by twhiteheadthats ok. my apologies for being impatient.
Sorry, I did not mean it ignore your post. I was still getting round to it.
I don't think your examples fit my intended challenge. I do not think either writer give any indication of having any firsthand knowledge of Jesus' existence. Or knowledge of his existence via a non-Christian source (eg political records etc) What they do show is knowledge of the ...[text shortened]... . In other words, I do not think they add in any way to Pauls writings or the gospel accounts.
I've always said that we know nothing about Jesus. The only source is the bible. And that is never first hand, but always second hand or even third and beyond. The stories about the deeds of Jesus are often been written long time after the eyewittnesses has died. This has very often been taken insultative against those who see Jesus as their prime figure to worship.
I've always said that the bible is written of men with agendas. Politics and power, and other reasons the stories are elaborated. We cannot know its value of truths, because the stories are the only sources of information. Ths too has been taken insultative towards the beliefs of the christians.
I thought I was fairy alone in this opinions, but now when I see the thoughts has been thought by others, much more scolar than me, I feel confident that I'm not far out. I may even be very right in this.
I don't think I am insultative. That's not my intention. Creationists are much more insultative when they deny evolution with their arrogant deliberate insults, so I know that, the same argument pointed at them cannot be more insultive than theirs towrads evolutionists.
But, I am seeking the truth, I want to learn. And this thread teaches me a lot.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou make some good points.
I've always said that we know nothing about Jesus. The only source is the bible. And that is never first hand, but always second hand or even third and beyond. The stories about the deeds of Jesus are often been written long time after the eyewittnesses has died. This has very often been taken insultative against those who see Jesus as their prime figure ...[text shortened]... ionists.
But, I am seeking the truth, I want to learn. And this thread teaches me a lot.
But,the gnostic gospells speak of Jesus and his teachings and thats outside of the Bible. However, many people do not view them as being authentic. Also the Koran speaks of Jesus even though some 500 years after his death.
The fact that Jesus was a actual historic figure is pretty much accepted amongst scholars christian and non christian alike as I showed in the link I provided.
Originally posted by KellyJay“gives us truth” about what? The truth about Physics? Fossils? Chemistry? Economics? Electricity? The origins/evolution of the universe? The origins/evolution of life? If not, then “truth” about what?
I can only imagine they act defensively as those that believe science alone
gives us truth get when it gets questioned, it is a human thing.
Kelly
if so, then surely reason and the evidence is the most reliable indicator of the “truth” about these things.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI pretty much accept that he probably existed. However, I am not convinced that we have any lines of evidence to that effect other than via the mouths of Christians, and none of those are firsthand accounts.
The fact that Jesus was a actual historic figure is pretty much accepted amongst scholars christian and non christian alike as I showed in the link I provided.
Yet I keep hearing Christians announce that because non-Christian writers have mentioned Jesus it somehow gives extra credence to the possibility of his existence, and they tend to imply that these writers somehow provide a separate line of evidence.
You mention the Quran. My point is that the Quran is no more useful in this instance than say "The God delusion" which also mentions Jesus. Both texts get their information essentially from the New Testament.
4 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragonJust want to chime in and say one has to be careful what they mean by "Jesus" when they assert the existence of this figure is accepted by non-theists.
You make some good points.
But,the gnostic gospells speak of Jesus and his teachings and thats outside of the Bible. However, many people do not view them as being authentic. Also the Koran speaks of Jesus even though some 500 years after his death.
The fact that Jesus was a actual historic figure is pretty much accepted amongst scholars christian and non christian alike as I showed in the link I provided.
Non-supernatural historic figure maybe...supernatural son of God historic figure born of a virgin capable of miracles who died on a cross (later resurrected) to pay a price set by God (and since God is claimed to be Jesus, himself) for two early humans eating a naughty fruit in some garden of eden??? I very much doubt it.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead====================================
This keeps coming up in this forum and whenever I challenge it, there is silence. Yet a few days later it is posted again.
Posters claim that there is either archeological evidence that Jesus lived, or that there are non-Christian writers who give credence to the claim that he existed.
Why when I challenge these claims does nobody want to take up the challenge?
This keeps coming up in this forum and whenever I challenge it, there is silence. Yet a few days later it is posted again.
Posters claim that there is either archeological evidence that Jesus lived, or that there are non-Christian writers who give credence to the claim that he existed.
Why when I challenge these claims does nobody want to take up the challenge?
==================================
I wouldn't be carried away in any kind of self congradulations. Some of us realize that the fertile mind can well produce SOME kind of plausible objection to the historicity of Jesus Christ.
"Give me a reason for a historical Christ and I'll match it with an objection, ad infinitum." Wow.
What I see in your challenge is simply a garuantee that you could always imagine some kind of reasonable sounding objection to evidences of a historical Jesus.
The same logic could be used for putting up an argument for perhaps any historical person of the ancient times.
I am sure that in Iran there are even some fertile minded skeptical imaginations who could propose an infinite number of good sounding objections to the Holocaust ever occuring.
Anyone interested?
Christ Myth Debated - Ken Humpreys vs J P Holding
&feature=related
Originally posted by twhiteheadif 100 canadians witnessed the murder of a canadian by an american, and there was a trial deciding if that american should be convicted of murder, could the lawyer of the american demand the prosecution to provide witnesses of other nationality than canadian? could he dismiss the 100 canadian testimonies? would the reason for this dismissal be anything but arbitrary?
Clearly I was not clear about what I meant. I am talking about non-Christian writers that in some way would provide evidence that Jesus existed other than testimony given by Christians. If those non-Christian writers based their conclusions on the testimony of Christians then it doesn't count, as it doesn't provide any new information not contained in the testimony of Christians.
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe analogy doesn't fit.
if 100 canadians witnessed the murder of a canadian by an american, and there was a trial deciding if that american should be convicted of murder, could the lawyer of the american demand the prosecution to provide witnesses of other nationality than canadian? could he dismiss the 100 canadian testimonies? would the reason for this dismissal be anything but arbitrary?
I am not demanding witnesses. I am not trying the existence of Jesus. I am challenging the claim that any such witnesses exist.
I am asking why so many people feel the need to claim such witnesses and deliberately pass on false information regarding such witnesses.
If there was Zero evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, would it cause Christians to loose their faith?
Originally posted by twhiteheadyou misunderstood me. witnesses for jesus do exist. you are challenging their reliability, though you didnt know it.
The analogy doesn't fit.
I am not demanding witnesses. I am not trying the existence of Jesus. I am challenging the claim that any such witnesses exist.
I am asking why so many people feel the need to claim such witnesses and deliberately pass on false information regarding such witnesses.
If there was Zero evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, would it cause Christians to loose their faith?
it is like the lawyer of the american claiming the 100 canadians don't exist.