Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo Paul was 3 generations after JC and the bunch. Why are people today still dissing the moon landings as hoaxes going on 50 years later? Most of those people were not even born till the 1980's. Just saying 3 generations later they are bending the truth.
Your historians are still three centuries late. You can cry about it all you like, Pauls letters are dated to within sixty years of the death of Christ.
Originally posted by sonhouseNo Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles of Christ, Peter, John, etc didn't you learn anything at Sunday school?
So Paul was 3 generations after JC and the bunch. Why are people today still dissing the moon landings as hoaxes going on 50 years later? Most of those people were not even born till the 1980's. Just saying 3 generations later they are bending the truth.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, and quite close to the Jerusalem followers and witnesses being wiped out by the Roman army. Less competition to getting his version of the story accepted.
Your historians are still three centuries late. You can cry about it all you like, Pauls letters are dated to within sixty years of the death of Christ.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSince finnegan has more than adequately discussed the historicity of Alexander I'll focus on some other aspects of your post.
The closest record we have of Alexander was written by those who lived three centuries after his death and yet we never here you call into question his existence or validity of his historical personage or accounts, do we. Yet the Bible contains documents written a mere sixty years after the death of Christ and all we ever get is, historians look ask ...[text shortened]... m for social convenience, a stance which you support.
No it doesn't cry out a man made story.
First I find your use of the word superstitious bizarre, just in case it has some extra meaning I do not know about I checked the Oxford Online dictionary, it does not. Superstition is specific to beliefs in the supernatural. A belief that Jesus did not exist does not rely on supernatural elements. It is not a superstition.
Second, The rime of the ancient Mariner is a good poem, that it is a good poem in no way entails that it's content is historical. Similarly the quality of the teachings reported in the Bible are not, in themselves, evidence of the historicity of the teacher. Pythagoras' theorem was known to the Babylonians and was not invented by Pythagoras, another personage whose historicity is dubious, it was simply attributed to him.
There are several references to Jesus by non-biblical sources which are more or less contemporaneous. The most important is probably Josephus (37AD - 100AD). You might want to point to him for evidence, although it is contested due to the likelihood of Christian interpolation.
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYour pompous and condescending post has little to say despite its verbosity. I and other Christians are perfectly aware of what exists by way of secular history with regards to historical personages and events. Furthermore no one was disputing that Alexander existed and its rather tedious having to point that out. What the real crux of the matter actually is, is that the Bible is the most complete and attested to ancient literature that we have with literally thousands of extant papyri and codices available and one tends to find that its greatest opponents are those that are least likely to have studied it. No one has claimed that the teachings of Jesus are proof of his historicity what was actually claimed was that they are amoung the most sublime and profound teachings. Why you fail to grasp this and make logically fallacious arguments I cannot say. Your rhetoric about the meaning and use of the term superstition is also tiresome. Have you never heard of artistic licence.?
Since finnegan has more than adequately discussed the historicity of Alexander I'll focus on some other aspects of your post.
First I find your use of the word superstitious bizarre, just in case it has some extra meaning I do not know about I checked the Oxford Online dictionary, it does not. Superstition is specific to beliefs in the supernatural. ...[text shortened]... to him for evidence, although it is contested due to the likelihood of Christian interpolation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou talked about the quality of the teachings of Christ in your earlier post in the context of defending the historicity of the Bible. It follows that it was part of your argument and so I am entitled to point out its irrelevance to the historicity of the Bible. Your use of the word superstitious was intended as an insult to historical method, it was rhetoric which I am entitled to undermine. That the Bible has been copied many times in the past couple of thousand years in no way entails that its contents have any historical validity whatsoever. Claiming my points are logically fallacious does not render them so.
Your pompous and condescending post has little to say despite its verbosity. I and other Christians are perfectly aware of what exists by way of secular history with regards to historical personages and events. Furthermore no one was disputing that Alexander existed and its rather tedious having to point that out. What the real crux of the matter a ...[text shortened]... g and use of the term superstition is also tiresome. Have you never heard of artistic licence.?
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAgain you seem intent on making strawman arguments, why is known only to you and its very tedious to have to point it out again and again and again. The fact that there are thousands of extant manuscripts and codices was not provided as proof of the historical validity of the text merely that it is the most attested to ancient document that we, here is the text again so that you may successfully assimilate it this time,
You talked about the quality of the teachings of Christ in your earlier post in the context of defending the historicity of the Bible. It follows that it was part of your argument and so I am entitled to point out its irrelevance to the historicity of the Bible. Your use of the word superstitious was intended as an insult to historical method, it was r ...[text shortened]... rical validity whatsoever. Claiming my points are logically fallacious does not render them so.
The Bible is the most complete and attested to ancient literature that we have with literally thousands of extant papyri and codices available
Please note there was no attempt to utilise this as proof of its historical accuracy and you simply made it up that it was provided as such, why, I suspect because you are empty and devoid of any real arguments with substance.
Now do you have anything of any real merit to contribute or do you not?
Finnegan for his part trotted out the usual trite ones, the census of Augustus , inconsistent details of the birth of Christ (what theses inconsistent details are he has not specified possibly the usual Governship of Quirinius??? ), the slaughter of the innocents by Herod ( again he does not tell us why this should be considered in his words 'a fairy tale' and anyone one that knows anything about Herod can readily determine that such an act is entirely consistent with his known historical character for he was a rather cruel figure) he then goes on masquerading his opinions as if they are somehow factual while brandishing the usual atheistic claims of appeals to what is not known rather than what is, as if such a stance somehow negates the Biblical record. One would like him to specify what he indeed finds 'childish' about the letters of Paul for I think that anyone who has read them would be hard pushed to find anything childish in them.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNot really a good plan given that the Josephus reference doesn't provide any information that would be disputed by someone disputing the historicity of Jesus ie all it really does is provide support for the existence of Christians which really isn't disputed by anyone. I doubt anyone disputes the historicity of Paul although which writings were his may be.
There are several references to Jesus by non-biblical sources which are more or less contemporaneous. The most important is probably Josephus (37AD - 100AD). You might want to point to him for evidence, although it is contested due to the likelihood of Christian interpolation.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat you repeated mention the number of "extant codices and papyri" in the context of what has become a debate on the historicity of the Bible is clearly intended to reinforce your claim that it is historically accurate.
Again you seem intent on making strawman arguments, why is known only to you and its very tedious to have to point it out again and again and again. The fact that there are thousands of extant manuscripts and codices was not provided as proof of the historical validity of the text merely that it is the most attested to ancient document that we, here ...[text shortened]... or I think that anyone who has read them would be hard pushed to find anything childish in them.
Regarding finnegan's statement about Paul's "childishness", here is his comment on a concept that most children can follow:
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.So Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles utterly failed to understand the liar paradox. I find the words "whose mouths must be stopped" somewhat sinister.
Titus 1:10-14 AKJV
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI am not entirely sure what your grievance is with the portion of scripture that you cite.
That you repeated mention the number of "extant codices and papyri" in the context of what has become a debate on the historicity of the Bible is clearly intended to reinforce your claim that it is historically accurate.
Regarding finnegan's statement about Paul's "childishness", here is his comment on a concept that most children can follow:
[quote] ...[text shortened]... understand the liar paradox. I find the words "whose mouths must be stopped" somewhat sinister.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"No one has claimed that the teachings of Jesus are proof of his historicity what was actually claimed was that they are amoung the most sublime and profound teachings."
Your pompous and condescending post has little to say despite its verbosity. I and other Christians are perfectly aware of what exists by way of secular history with regards to historical personages and events. Furthermore no one was disputing that Alexander existed and its rather tedious having to point that out. What the real crux of the matter a ...[text shortened]... g and use of the term superstition is also tiresome. Have you never heard of artistic licence.?
To say they are among the most sublime and profound teachngs requires at least a modest effort to set them alongside alternatives and I am not convinced by this claim. They are by all means attractive in their way but there is not very much direct teaching related in the four gospels, none of them are especially original, certainly not unique, they are not terribly comprehensive and they are highly simplistic. They do not grapple with issues of any complexity and run away from topics of real interest, with smart alec evasions such as "give to Caeser ..."etc in a period of massive political unrest. No the guy was a modest and pleasant enough preacher in the Jewish tradition, of local interest at the time, blown out of proportion by a new religion that he had nothing to do with whatever. Christianity, exactly like Islam, borrowed the Judaic tradition wholesale to attract an aura of gravity and historical weight to what were of course entirely novel religious inventions. Effectively, they just robbed the accumulated social capital of the Jews and put it to a new use. They each found their market in a credulous audience and had they not taken off, then some other religion would have taken up the gap in the market. No big deal. Human history has been like that.