The idea or the person

I posted this in a thread in the chess forum in response to a post. It fits here better. So I thought I'd post it here too.

Thread 164029 It is towards the bottom of page 6 in the thread.

"I realize this is a chess forum and not a spirituality forum, but I feel this is necessary to say still since you put it on display in this thread.

Per your profile-"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

I disagree. The Christian faith does not discuss the idea of Jesus Christ but the person of Jesus Christ. Same with Islam regarding Mohammed. It is not the idea of Christ but the person of Christ upon which I make my living (I'm a minister of the gospel).

Regardless of your opinions about Christianity, most will be forced to admit that the person of Christ stands in history as a giant-the ideas are important but less so.

It's all about relationship. It's not about what you know but who you know. I would suggest your premise in that quote is fundamentally flawed. Plus, it came from Eleanor Roosevelt who I respect but I don't believe she was a philosopher or theologian.

Feel free to take this to the spirituality forums now."

Originally posted by AppleChess
I posted this in a thread in the chess forum in response to a post. It fits here better. So I thought I'd post it here too.

Thread 164029 It is towards the bottom of page 6 in the thread.

"I realize this is a chess forum and not a spirituality forum, but I feel this is necessary to say still since you put it on display in this thread. ...[text shortened]... she was a philosopher or theologian.

Feel free to take this to the spirituality forums now."

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

It sounds good, small minds will spend more time discussing people as in running them
down instead of engaging in discussions where they stay on topic. I don't think it is a
hard fast rule, mainly because sometimes there is a need to discuss ideas, events, and
people. The wise mind would know when and how.

I agree with KellyJay, The person you're quoting is misunderstanding the quote by taking it literally. "Discuss people" refers to gossipy, catty or petty kinds of talk. It's not meant to apply to people who discuss Stephen Hawking, world leaders or historical figures.

Originally posted by AppleChess
....Regardless of your opinions about Christianity, most will be forced to admit that the person of Christ stands in history as a giant-the ideas are important but less so. ....

I think, as time passes, that you will come to realise that most will be forced to admit nothing
of the kind.

I, just as an example, don't even think that Jesus even actually existed as a historical figure.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think, as time passes, that you will come to realise that most will be forced to admit nothing
of the kind.

I, just as an example, don't even think that Jesus even actually existed as a historical figure.

You believe Alexander lived? Well there is more historical evidence for Christ than Alexander. Only a fool would deny that the Christ is a real historical personage.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I think, as time passes, that you will come to realise that most will be forced to admit nothing
of the kind.

I, just as an example, don't even think that Jesus even actually existed as a historical figure.

Then you haven't studied much history. Secular sources, Josephus etc, confirm his existence. I have Josephus's works sitting on the shelf in the other room-highlighted and marked where he referred to him. Josephus was a Jew-not a Christian. Jesus was a damnable heretic to Josephus. He mentioned him as part of history.

You also don't seem to have a very good grasp of world affairs and sociology either. I'm not going to argue with you whether you think everything Christ stood for was good or bad. I'm just surprised to find someone who thinks you can be forced over time to admit nothing. The very fact that you feel obliged to write and say what you said speaks to the legacy of Christ in some way-whether that's good or bad is another matter (I of course would argue good).

Take a look at this if you like. It is written by Matthew Parris (an avowed atheist and columnist)-

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3502-matthew-parris-as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god

A quote from it to wet your taste-

"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

Originally posted by AppleChess
Then you haven't studied much history. Secular sources, Josephus etc, confirm his existence. I have Josephus's works sitting on the shelf in the other room-highlighted and marked where he referred to him. Josephus was a Jew-not a Christian. Jesus was a damnable heretic to Josephus. He mentioned him as part of history.

You also don't seem to have a ver ...[text shortened]... Christ in some way-whether that's good or bad is another matter (I of course would argue good).

You can expect such nonsense from googlefudge for he is a self declared atheist numbnuts. 😏

Originally posted by vivify
I agree with KellyJay, The person you're quoting is misunderstanding the quote by taking it literally. "Discuss people" refers to gossipy, catty or petty kinds of talk. It's not meant to apply to people who discuss Stephen Hawking, world leaders or historical figures.

I agree. You are attacking the person's application of the quote; I was attacking the person's presuppositions.

Originally posted by AppleChess
Then you haven't studied much history. Secular sources, Josephus etc, confirm his existence. I have Josephus's works sitting on the shelf in the other room-highlighted and marked where he referred to him.

Isn't Josephus a secondary source and not a primary source?

Originally posted by FMF
Isn't Josephus a secondary source and not a primary source?

A Second Primary Source.

😏

HalleluYahshua !

Originally posted by FMF
Isn't Josephus a secondary source and not a primary source?

I understand Josephus's accuracy has been called into question-although, when dealing with ancient history we sometimes have to work with what we have.

To answer your question fully-Josephus would be both a primary and secondary source. I'm not a historian per say, but I do have training as it was my major in college and has been a focus on my thesis in my current masters (historical theology). So I know a bit about history.

Perhaps a better question for you to ask, FMF, is when would Josephus be a primary source?

Example: if you are willing, for the sake of argument, accept that Christ lived for a moment. Let's place him at the traditional dates around 6-4 BC. When did Josephus write the Antiquities of the Jews? Approximate date 94AD. So about 60 years after Christ's death.

First, off keep in mind by bibliographic standards for ancient texts and events this 60 year gap is rare-we usually have hundreds of years or sources referring to sources that no longer exist.

But, according to the typical historical definition-primary sources are the raw materials of history — original documents and objects which were created at the time under study (not my own definition but it is widely accepted). So, technically Josephus is a secondary source....however lets not be so fast.

What if we ask this question-what was the prevailing view of the historicity of Christ around 100 AD? Then, Josephus is a primary source for that question.

Keep in mind, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, I have numerous other ancient writers who could be summoned forth. I just used Josephus because he is well known.

The earliest known reference that I no of and have heard of that mentions Christ is Thallus in 52 A.D. Some 20 years after his death.

Of course, all these sources are extra Biblical. The Bible itself could be used as a historical referent.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]A Second Primary Source.

😏

HalleluYahshua ![/b]

Josephus' reference was written 50 or 60 years after Jesus is said to have died. What it says about 'early Christians' may well constitute primary source material, but in terms of what it 'proves' about the historicalness of Jesus, AppleChess is mistaken.

Originally posted by AppleChess
What if we ask this question-what was the prevailing view of the historicity of Christ around 100 AD? Then, Josephus is a primary source for that question.

That is all he is. Christians in 100 AD believed what they believed. I don't think it is in dispute.

Originally posted by AppleChess
First, off keep in mind by bibliographic standards for ancient texts and events this 60 year gap is rare-we usually have hundreds of years or sources referring to sources that no longer exist.

Are you claiming that Josephus is referring to sources documenting Jesus' life that were written during Jesus' life and that no longer exist?

Originally posted by AppleChess
However, I have numerous other ancient writers who could be summoned forth. I just used Josephus because he is well known.

Do any of these "numerous other ancient writers" offer any primary evidence of Jesus' existence or about the question of whether he was who/what early Christians claimed he was?