On 29 Jun, 06:43, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:51:49 -0400, ogro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Padraigh
>
> ProAmerica) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> =3D=3D> I have yet to find but a very few legitimate historians who deny
t=
he
> =3D=3D>existance of Jesus.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 It is not necessary to "deny the
existence=
" of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jesus, since there isn't an iota of
proof =
of his
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 existence in the first place.
Every professor of ancient history in every university in the world
disagrees with you.
> =3D=3D>Outside of the New Testament, He is mentioned in the Jewish
Talmud;=
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Nope. =A0There is no consensus among
histo=
rians whether
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jesus is mentioned in the Talmud at all.
What is the source of your information on the consensus of historians?
> =3D=3D> the Holy Qu'ran of Islam,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Q'uran was written almost 700 years
AF=
TER Jesus
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 supposedly died, and nothing in it can
be =
considered
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 evidence of Jesus's historicity.
Why? Just because it is late? This will not do.
> =3D=3D>and the detailed histories ofJosephusand
> =3D=3D>Tacitus, among others.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 "Detailed histories," my ass.
Detailed histories seems like a good description of the 16 books of
Annals and the 20 books of Antiquities to me. Would you clarify your
comment? Or do you mean only that each refers to him only in
passing? If so, how is this a problem for you?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Josephuswas born in 37 C.E. -- some four
ye=
ars AFTER
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jesus supposedly died.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Tacitus was born in 56 C.E. -- some 23
yea=
rs AFTER
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Jesus supposedly died.
Yet any historian will tell you that Josephus is the primary source
for all the Herodian dynasty, and that Tacitus is our best source for
all the reign of Tiberius, never mind Jesus. It sounds as if you have
imbibed some rather ignorant sources here.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Obviously, neither man could have been a
w=
itness to
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the supposed existence of Jesus.
Um, this appears to be an excuse to ignore data. Such a proceeding --
to manufacture a silence and then argue from lack of evidence -- is
for children, surely?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Any mention of Jesus in their writings
wou=
ld of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 necessity have been hearsay, rumour or
fol=
k tale.
Is that what you call archives?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Besides that, the one supposed mention
of =
Jesus
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 inJosephus'swork, Testimonium Flavianum,
i=
s
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 almost universally regarded as a forgery
i=
nserted
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 later by Christians trying to fake
evidenc=
e of Jesus's
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 historicity.
I'm sorry to tell you that your source on this was a century out of
date, and badly informed. There are two mentions. The short passage
has almost universally been considered genuine, even at the high water
mark of scepticism ca. 1900. The long passage was then generally
considered an interpolation. It was NOT considered a forgery. It was
NOT considered a forgery to prove that Jesus existed, for no-one in
antiquity ever denied this, and only fools believe it now. A century
on, however, the TF is generally considered authentic but corrupt,
although many scholars consider it an interpolation.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Nice try, Christians, but no ceegar.
Well, the Christians have facts and evidence. You have to find
excuses to ignore them. It's fairly clear who wins there.
> =3D=3D>THe Gospel of Luke contains many descriptions of places; to date,
n=
ot
> =3D=3D>ONE of these desciptions has been proven wrong. In fact, many of
hi=
s
> =3D=3D>descriptions once thought wrong have been shown to be right. IF
he =
got
> =3D=3D>that right dosn't that lend credence to the rest of his gospel?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Not a bit. =A0The accurate recording of
na=
mes and
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 descriptions of places does not in any
way=
confer
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 authenticity to claims of miraculous
event=
s and
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 supernatural phenomena.
No indeed.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Also, there may be something called the
Bo=
ok of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Luke, but there is no evidence that
there =
really WAS
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 a Luke, or that if there was, he
actually =
wrote what
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 was later ascribed to him.
I'm afraid that you are ill-informed. The testimony of the historical
record is otherwise.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The fact, which you won't want to
acknowle=
dge but
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 is true nonetheless, is that not a
single =
piece of
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 writing that mentions Jesus has been
trace=
d to his own
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 time.=A0
This is not so, and seems rather absurd. Indeed even in 150 AD there
were people going around who had known apostles personally, and heard
them speak about Jesus.
> That's because everything about him was MADE
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 UP later, by members of the sect that
form=
ed around
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 him.
Unless you can produce ancient sources to sup****t this, I would ask
you to withdraw it as untrue.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In the total absence of any evidence of
Je=
sus
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 historicity, it is not unreasonable to
ass=
ume that
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legend of Jesus is just myth.
There is no absence. Those to try to assert it (dishonestly) have to
find excuses to ignore the evidence. But speculation is not evidence
either.
It is a clear sign that atheism is not true, that it has to deploy
ignorant and obscurantist arguments like this.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|
