Posted 07 May 2004 - 09:50 PM
[/QUOTE]
| QUOTE |
| Ahh, see, if its to damage his reputation, they consider it fake... sounds fair and unbiased.... |
If you read the arguments I posted I did mention that the gnostic documents to which you are referring don't meet historical criterion for authenticity. Not just some Christian critierion, but universal criterion. I did not merely say, "Oh! This is not consistent with MY Jesus, therefore it cannot be true!" Your critique has nothing to do with my argument.
| QUOTE |
| There is nothing written about Jesus from the time he lived, everything is written post death. How about the Roman texts written during Jesus' life time dont mention him, and then 200 years later when the books were edited, suddenly theres a mention of Jesus, and people claim that thats historically accurate proof? |
If you look at the way ancient people recorded history, most historical records of people's lives were written post death! Remember, they were not like us when it came to who they deemed worthy of having something written about them. B/c writing was not the primary mode of communication (b/c the technology wasn't widespread yet), people only wrote about someone whose impact had been very great. Additionally, they usually wrote about them AFTER they died, b/c then you'd be able to get a healthy perspective on their entire life and the impact of that life (very different from our speed- and information-addicted culture!). By the by, Tacitus wrote about Jesus in AD 120, which is hardly "200 years later." When you complain that there's no hot-off-the-presses material written about Jesus while he was alive, please know that most people were written about "post death" in the ancient world. Their mindset and technology necessitated as much. Your complaint has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the New Testament as much as it does with an assumption that these folks (and NOT just the Christians) should've thought and acted as we do.
You accuse me of assuming that a document is not true simply b/c it presents a portrait of Jesus that is different from the Jesus I follow. However, you seem to believe that a document is suspicious or false if it in some way verifies the Jesus of the New Testament! If you would, please explain how documents were falsified/edited to fit the New Testament testimony.
| QUOTE |
| Oh and how about Crestus being a popular name back then which only meant "Good" and doesnt *prove* Jesus' existance? And btw, besides that, theres only 3 other non-biblical mentions of Jesus, and none of them hold up to scrutiny. |
Crestus was a popular name, but it doesn't mean that we've got the wrong guy. Look at the context in which that quote appears. If it's not referring to the Christ of the New Testament, then who are we talking about? And the fact that there are three extra-biblical texts that mention Jesus is great when you consider that ancient folks didn't write as much as we do! Please show why the texts in question do not hold up to scrutiny.
| QUOTE |
| Go preach your lies about the Christian religion being *proved* elsewhere. And dont throw away evidence just because you dont like what it says. |
What is this "evidence" to which you are referring? If it's any of the gnostic gospels could you please apply the same scrutiny to them as you do to the New Testament, and let's see if they stand up. Peace to you, Stellar.
Edited by trublvr, 07 May 2004 - 09:51 PM.
If truth is not a matter of majority vote, neither is it a matter of minority dissent.
--Douglas Groothius
4
This topic is locked
I veiw the "miracles" that Jesus is said to perform as a lie - nothing more, nothing less. 
I believe Jesus lived, in the same context I believe Osama Bin Ladin lives; I believe both of them to be religiously crazed lunatics.
