|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
inukshuk
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Location: korea
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:52 pm Post subject: jesus COULD read |
 |
|
He could read. He was conceived without male sperm. When he died his body flew to heaven. He then flew back down riding clouds. These are quite impressive powers. He could have grasped the power of reading via god's help. No questions asked.
Apparently, he also had the power to erase all known info about him. There is as much factual info on Noah's ark as there is for big-J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DHC
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The book EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT by Josh McDowell provides numerous source references all listed in one place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inukshuk
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| you have to provide a point or argument before you can offer a reference. Are you saying Jesus was alive? What info are you claiming as fact? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
demaratus
Joined: 13 Apr 2005
Location: Searching for a heart of gold, and I'm gettin' old
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are a number of sources which are of a non religious nature which mention Jesus as a man, and as a seditionist. Josephus (37 CE) is one, Lucian (125 CE) , Tacitus (56 CE) , and Pliny the Younger (61 CE) are also non religious sources about Jesus. Weather or not he was literate is irrelevant to the existence of Jesus as a person. Many, historical figures of great importance have been illiterate whoopee! I guess we should call into question all people, places and events which were documented from oral history.
Also Being a Jew, Christian or Muslim doesn't mean you will be literate. the majority of Christians historically have not been able to read the bible or even understand what was being preached to them at the church service in Latin. Currently most new Christian and Muslim Converts are born in nations with very low rates of literacy. Being a Jew also doesn't mean you would be fluent in Hebrew then or now. Most Jews I know can't read or speak Hebrew. And I would also wager that a large number of Muslims can't read or speak Arabic.
Literacy as a feature of religion is a fallacy, literacy is more of a feature of class and wealth than it is of religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DHC
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Demaratus has some good points. As I mentioned before , get a copy of EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT and in the book you will find more detail of the references to Josephus , etc. but also other references. If you wish further information go to a reputable research university and research the references further. What you will find will surprise you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| demaratus wrote: |
| There are a number of sources which are of a non religious nature which mention Jesus as a man, and as a seditionist. Josephus (37 CE) is one, Lucian (125 CE) , Tacitus (56 CE) , and Pliny the Younger (61 CE) |
Josephus's mention was added to his writings by other scholars long after the fact. Probably because Christians were burning non christian works and historians wanted to preserve his histories so they threw in a bit about Jesus.
Pliny the Younger wrote 100 years after the fact. Ummm. His passage just amounts to "Christians believed in this christ guy".
Tacitus wrote 100 years after the fact. His passage just amounts to "Christians believed in this christ guy".
Lucian wrote 100 years after the fact. His passage just amounts to "Christians believed in this christ guy".
This isn't really anything more than historians simply repeating what believers believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
demaratus
Joined: 13 Apr 2005
Location: Searching for a heart of gold, and I'm gettin' old
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| demaratus wrote: |
| There are a number of sources which are of a non religious nature which mention Jesus as a man, and as a seditionist. Josephus (37 CE) is one, Lucian (125 CE) , Tacitus (56 CE) , and Pliny the Younger (61 CE) |
Josephus's mention was added to his writings by other scholars long after the fact. Probably because Christians were burning non Christian works and historians wanted to preserve his histories so they threw in a bit about Jesus. |
Can you prove this? The first part that is, the second is pure speculation on your part. It is accepted as fact that Josephus did write about Jesus, but that the texts have been embellished and altered but, he still did write about Jesus.
I know you don't have faith in Christianity (which is fine btw) but why attack the historical Jesus?
I'm not a Christian apologetic either, but doubting the idea that Jesus was actually a historical person seems petty to me.
I honestly believe that there are so few contemporary accounts of Jesus, because for the vast majority of people he was nothing more than a strange Jew who's teachings were very unpopular at the time, and in fact didn't catch on seriously for several hundred years. The reasons why there are few accounts of Jesus the person make perfect sense. After all, why should people expect a lot of good historical accounts of the life of a man who was considered nothing more than a crazy Jewish healer and magician?
The references to Jesus made by Pliny, Tacitus and Lucian were less than 100 years after the death of Jesus (Jesus died in 36 CE). But they are non religious references to Jesus, written by non Christians.
I wish there was more about the real historical person and daily life of Jesus. I don't believe whatsoever in the whitewashed image that the Catholic church has painted for most of the world. The Gnostic gospels certainly depict Jesus the person, in a more believable way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
inukshuk
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| they don't refer to Jesus. They refer to Christ (those sources). But Christ, back then, meant "one who transcends" basically. Not a individual person - modern day Christ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| demaratus wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| demaratus wrote: |
| There are a number of sources which are of a non religious nature which mention Jesus as a man, and as a seditionist. Josephus (37 CE) is one, Lucian (125 CE) , Tacitus (56 CE) , and Pliny the Younger (61 CE) |
Josephus's mention was added to his writings by other scholars long after the fact. Probably because Christians were burning non Christian works and historians wanted to preserve his histories so they threw in a bit about Jesus. |
Can you prove this? |
Nooooooo. But there is legit doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_against_authenticity
| Quote: |
| I know you don't have faith in Christianity (which is fine btw) but why attack the historical Jesus? |
I was not aware that questioning the historicity of a living god was an attack. I guess questioning the historicity of Hercules is an attack?
| Quote: |
| The references to Jesus made by Pliny, Tacitus and Lucian were less than 100 years after the death of Jesus (Jesus died in 36 CE). But they are non religious references to Jesus, written by non Christians. |
Dude. I'm just lazy in my math. 70 years. 60 years. Take a pick. It shakes out a human life time passed before these people put pen to paper. And these are my dates from wiki:
| Quote: |
| Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus". |
Wiki says 112 ce, not 61 ce.
| Quote: |
| Tacitus (c. 56�c. 117), writing c. 116, included in his Annals a mention of Christianity and "Christus", the Latinized Greek translation of the Hebrew word "Messiah". In describing Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome c. 64, he wrote: |
Wiki says 116 ce, not 56 ce.
You appear to be citing the year of their birth. I was born in 1966 but that doesn't make me an authority on WWII simply because I was a baby a 25 years after the fact. Why are you citing when they were born and not when they actually wrote their histories?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Greco-Roman_sources |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| demaratus wrote: |
| There are a number of sources which are of a non religious nature which mention Jesus as a man, and as a seditionist. Josephus (37 CE) is one, Lucian (125 CE) , Tacitus (56 CE) , and Pliny the Younger (61 CE) |
Josephus's mention was added to his writings by other scholars long after the fact. Probably because Christians were burning non christian works and historians wanted to preserve his histories so they threw in a bit about Jesus.
Pliny the Younger wrote 100 years after the fact. Ummm. His passage just amounts to "Christians believed in this christ guy".
Tacitus wrote 100 years after the fact. His passage just amounts to "Christians believed in this christ guy".
Lucian wrote 100 years after the fact. His passage just amounts to "Christians believed in this christ guy".
This isn't really anything more than historians simply repeating what believers believe. |
The problem is that the direct sources are likely simply no longer extant.
We lack hundreds of Greek plays. But the extant plays of Sophocles, Aeschylus, etc refer to each other.
I guess I find your reasoning rather weak precisely because you're so keen on direct, 'objective,' and affirmative evidence of Jesus. Jesus was not a world-conquerer (at least not within his time), and his great glory was his death. Furthermore, he was a counter-movement, and a slave revolt. The references to him that we get would either be praising him (i.e., non-objective) or dismissing him as a perverse phenonomen (the Roman perspective). Given the problems of extancy, it is not unreasonable to posit that Jesus actually existed. In fact, I'd rather say the burden is in the doubter's camp to show affirmative evidence that he did not exist, given the myriad sources that do refer to an actual Jesus.
Again, I do not see why the existence of a man named Jesus should be so controversial. Claims of his virgin birth, divinity, miracles, etc, seem to invite reasonable doubt. But I think you're fighting uphill to establish that a man named Jesus who corresponded to the legends did not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karma police
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Location: all roads lead to where you are...
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
this world began and will end here on Dave's ESL Cafe.
repent ELTers! for the story has begun, climaxed and is about to be concluded.
YET, rejoice! for HE has ascended from the ever most depths of all that is considered evil here while paradoxically, HE has descended in sheer splendid glory from the center of all that is clean, cool and righteous. HE has returned and is the sheer perfected persona of love, He is orpheus down and HE alone is your refuge. 
tell them and make them love me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Again, I do not see why the existence of a man named Jesus should be so controversial. Claims of his virgin birth, divinity, miracles, etc, seem to invite reasonable doubt. But I think you're fighting uphill to establish that a man named Jesus who corresponded to the legends did not exist. |
The non religious sources simply amount to a citation of one people's belief. So that's no evidence.
The doubt comes in from something called "Arguments from Silence". The first guy to write about Jesus was Paul. (The gospels were written after Paul's time.) Paul provides zero historical detail about Jesus. The second line of doubt comes from how similar the Jesus myth is to other mythical saviors who we're pretty sure didn't exist. Mithras. Osiris. etc. And finally the gospels themselves are loaded with historical problems. If the gospels can't get his birthplace right and invent things like the slaughter of the innocents to make something fit OT prophesy, why not just invent the guy too? In the middle ages, they invented Prestor John to fulfill a psychological need. Why not invent a savior decades after the fact?
It's not unreasonable to believe maybe there was a man named jesus, just as there was a man named Mohamed. But at the same time there is no compelling evidence to believe in jesus was even a man.
At the end of the day it's a legitimate skeptical position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
