- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfieI assumed you were too educated to attribute the entirety of the life of Jesus of Nazareth to legend.
Sorry I was expecting you to extract which meaning of the word legend I was using from the context of the conversation. I was refering to historical but not verifiable stories.
Even renown skeptical NT textural critic Dr. Bart Erhman, author of "Misquoting Jesus" balked when certain atheists attempted to enlist him among those historians who teach Jesus never existed.
Erhman sets the record straight though he is a mighty strong skeptic. He objects to being misused that way. He says no serious historian doubts that Jesus ever existed.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipI do not doubt the existence of King Agamemnon, however I would be confident in saying his exploits in the Iliad are legend.
I assumed you were too educated to attribute the entirety of the life of Jesus of Nazareth to legend.
Even renown skeptical NT textural critic Dr. Bart Erhman, author of [b]"Misquoting Jesus" balked when certain atheists attempted to enlist him among those historians who teach Jesus never existed.
Erhman sets the record straight though he is a ...[text shortened]... ous historian doubts that Jesus ever existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Mar 15
2 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfie
I do not doubt the existence of King Agamemnon, however I would be confident in saying his exploits in the Iliad are legend.
I do not doubt the existence of King Agamemnon, however I would be confident in saying his exploits in the Iliad are legend.
The comparison between a character of Homer's poem and the New Testament is a good one.
My 1963 book speaking of a comparison probably needs updating. However, I read in "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Giesler and Nix that the New Testament is more likely to be historically accurate.
This is 1963 now, but it says.
5,000 known manuscripts at that time of the New Testament
643 of The Iliad.
Maybe you're more certain about what the NT says about Jesus then what the Illiad says about Agamemnon.
The Illiad is particularly appropriate, since it has the most in common with the New Testament. Next to the New Testament, there are more extant manuscripts of the Illiad (643) than any other book. Both it and the Bible were considered "sacred," and both underwent textual changes and criticism of their Greek manuscripts. The New Testament has about 20,000 lines; the Illiad about 15,600. Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt, whereas 764 lines of the Illiad are questioned. This 5 percent textual corruption compares with one half of 1 percent of similar emendations of the New Testament.
So you have comparatively much more reason to believe the New Testament manuscripts are more likely to have recorded accurate information about Jesus than the Illiad had to report on King Agamemnon.
An update of this information since 1963 would be useful.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipI agree, but it does not negate the point. Proof that a man lived and died does not prove all the tales of fantasy and magic that were added to his story.I do not doubt the existence of King Agamemnon, however I would be confident in saying his exploits in the Iliad are legend.
The comparison between a character of Homer's poem and the New Testament is a good one.
My 1963 book speaking of a comparison probably needs updating. However, I read in [b]"A General Introduction to the Bibl ...[text shortened]... had to report on King Agamemnon.
An update of this information since 1963 would be useful.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
24 Mar 15
4 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieI think what is rather going on is that the standard held for Jesus is much higher than for Agamemnon. I think this has less to do with the miracles attributed to Jesus than with the implications of His words if they be true.
I agree, but it does not negate the point. Proof that a man lived and died does not prove all the tales of fantasy and magic that were added to his story.
Who is bothered by anything Agamemnon said?
On the other hand we have to deal with this Jesus for saying things like -
"I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me." (See John 14:6)
If Jesus walked on the sea and DIDN'T say such things, we would all probably regard Him as no more a nuisance than Agamemnon.
But if Jesus walked on the sea and DID say such things too, some of us think that the sea walk is a good rationale to dismiss the implications of such teachings.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipAll the Muslim, Atheist and Buddhist historians seem to 'deal' with all the 'Im the son of God' quotes without breaking into a theological panic.
I think what is rather going on is that the standard held for [b]Jesus is much higher than for Agamemnon. I think this has less to do with the miracles attributed to Jesus than with the implications of His words if they be true.
Who is bothered by anything Agamemnon said?
On the other hand we have to deal with this Jesus for saying th ...[text shortened]... of us think that the sea walk is a good rationale to dismiss the implications of such teachings.[/b]
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
24 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipIf Jesus walked on the sea and DIDN'T say such things, we would all probably regard Him as no more a nuisance than Agamemnon.
I think what is rather going on is that the standard held for [b]Jesus is much higher than for Agamemnon. I think this has less to do with the miracles attributed to Jesus than with the implications of His words if they be true.
Who is bothered by anything Agamemnon said?
On the other hand we have to deal with this Jesus for saying th ...[text shortened]... of us think that the sea walk is a good rationale to dismiss the implications of such teachings.[/b]
But if Jesus walked on the sea and DID say such things too, some of us think that the sea walk is a good rationale to dismiss the implications of such teachings.
Looks like you are playing hypotheticals.....I thought you didnt do hypotheticals?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Mar 15
2 edits
God is not real to people because of their sins.
God seems absent, far off, non-existence, "not with me," "who knows??" because of the separation their sins makes between them and substantiating that God is there.
The good news is that God knows about the problem and has made abundant provision for the removal of this barrier, this insulation cutting off the enjoyment of God.
The willing and humble in heart who take the provision in Christ's redemptive work can come forward into the presence of an absolutely Holy God of love.
Isaiah 59:1,2
"No, The Lord's hand is not so short that it cannot save; Nor is His ear so heavy that it cannot hear.
But your iniquities have become a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear."
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
26 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonshipGod is not real to people because of their sins
God is not real to people because of their sins.
God seems absent, far off, non-existence, "not with me," "who knows??" because of the separation their sins makes between them and substantiating that God is there.
The good news is that God knows about the problem and has made abundant provision for the [b]removal of this barrier, this in ...[text shortened]... ou and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear." [/quote][/b]
is it any specific sin, or sins in general?
