On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:21:10 -0400, ogrowup@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Padraigh
ProAmerica) wrote:
==>1) I reiterate: the early appearance of the written Gospels (between
50-
==>85 AD) is strong evidence AGAINST the storys being fantastic fables.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
The earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels
date to the 4th century -- that's 400 years AFTER
Jesus supposedly lived and died. You don't have a
shred of evidence that any written "gospels" appeared
between 50 - 85 CE. And even if some did, that would
not constitute evidence that they were not mere
fables.
==>There were still witnesses alive to the events recorded, and they would
==>have spoken out if the stories were falsified.
That's one of the silliest things I've ever read.
For one thing, almost everyone in biblical times
was illiterate and couldn't write. And how would
anyone know whether anyone who lived then had
"spoken out" about anything? Tape recorders,
as you know, didn't come along until somewhat later.
And, all that aside, the argument that someone
"would have" done this or that is not an argument
at all, but childish speculation.
==>2) The dating of the gospels, and the other boks of the New Testament,
==>is boosted by literary analysis.
No, they're not. "Analysis" of ancient writings by
latter-day academics may be intriguing, but
certainly provides no credible evidence of the
veracity of what was written.
==>The language used, as well as the
==>locations and background, apply ONLY to the area around Jerusalem circa
==>30-35 AD.
Who can say, since the material in the "gospels" was
translated and re-translated numerous times?
==>NO anachronisms have been found in even the oldest source
==>material (fragments of Matthew and John from late in the First Century
==>have been found).
As I pointed out, The earliest surviving complete
copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century.
Only fragments and quotations exist before that.
One has to desperately WANT to believe, to
claim that accounts that appeared 400 years
after the events described bear anything but
the remotest resemblance to what actually
occurred -- particularly when descriptions
of those alleged events are to be found nowhere
else.
==>3) The letters of Paul (some of which predate the Gospels) form much
of
==>the theological foundation of the faith. These letters had to be
written
==>before Paul's death in Rome, circa 66 AD.
Or they were written much, much later, and
simply (and apocryphally) called the "letters of
Paul" by the real author(s).
==>4) There is indeed a mntion of Jesus in Josephus.
Mention that is almost universally regarded by
scholars as a forgery.
==>PART of the mention is
==>questionable- a remark about His miracles and status as the true Son of
==>God, but the first part of the statement is usualy accepted by
==>historians.
Absolutely wrong. What is usually accepted by
historians is that the mention of Jesus in
Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum, was
inserted later by Christian scholars who wished
to manufacture "evidence" for Jesus's
existence. In any case, Josephus was born
AFTER Jesus supposedly died, so even if
he did mention Jesus in his writings, such
mention would have been based on hearsay
and folk tales, not personal knowledge or
observation. Josephus is in no way evidence
that Jesus actually existed.
==>5) The mention in the Talmud is that a blasphemer named Jesus was
==>executed; he was the result of a rape of an innocent woman by a Roman
==>soldier.
There is no scholarly consensus that the Jesus
mentioned in the Talmud is the Jesus of
Christianity. Jesus was a common name in
those times. And even if he was, that is
certainly not evidence for Jesus's alleged
divinity.
==>SOMETHING happened in Jeusalem in that period.
Many things happened in Jerusalem in that
period.
==>SOMETHING convinced a
==>group of people to abandon families, friends and jobs to spread the
==>words of someone new.
The world has known countless sects and cults that
have formed around mythical or charismatic figures,
both before and after biblical times. That fact is
evidence of nothing except man's persistent
gullibility.
==>SOMETHING gave them the strength to accept the
==>persecution they were sure to face.
Fascinating how the persecuted of one age so
readily become the persecutors of another,
isn't it?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
|
