There is one choice, 2 votes for Latino Heat's debate

God and Jesus

In reply to loads more philosophy

• God and Jesus

  How can people look at this world and say God and Jesus don’t exist…... The truth is that over 2000 years ago(there is proof) that a man called Jesus was about talking about God….......and he is gonna return soon….....and God has got plans for the world before the apocalypse comes and destroys us all

  100%  Voted for by Latino Heat, artist.

  View 30 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • dauer
    February 21, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    What's your proof?
  • • joshuada
      February 21, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      You don't need proof... Ever been to the Tazmanian Islands off the coast of Australia... They're there, but you've never seen them... But you know they're there... IT IS CALLED FAITH
    • • dauer
        February 21, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        He said there's proof and in this same statement he questions how people can say God and Jesus don't exist. What's the proof?
    • green-eternity
      March 22, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      there are records of a man called Jesus, who lived at this time, did have folowers and who was killed under the Roman rule by methods of a cross. That no one can argue with any more than the existance of henry 8th.
    • • dauer
        March 23, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        You say that as if everyone is aware of these records and the records are verifiably true, when I know for a fact that some of them are most likely false. Unlike yourself, I will name names. Josephus. It is unlikely his records are true. If you want to know why you can do your own research. I think I end up mentioning all this somewhere else in this thread but it's a very long thread.
      • • green-eternity
          March 23, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          Ok dauer. I may have said that in a too manor of fact way if so I apologise. I feel that I dont realy need to say much more as ExistentialTheist has very well said whats needs to be said below.
        • • dauer
            March 23, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            .
  • Nosferatu
    March 5, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    Believe it or not........

    ......there are those of us who say, "How can someone look at the world around us today and still believe in God or Jesus." It is equally baffleing to us why you struggle to maintain your faith as it is to you that we do not believe. There are many reasons not to follow the Christian faith but only one that I can think of 'to' follow it. Fear
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 18, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    A couple other possibilities

    As I am often rather angered by those who are so narrow-minded to claim that there is only one reason, let alone no reasons, to follow a given religion, I would like to refrain from giving a fleshed-out argument here, but will instead list other possible reasons for following the Christian faith: 1. Morally pragmatic reasons- one may find that Christianity posits the most attractive ethical code 2. Love- many find the potential for love on earth best personified through Jesus Christ 3. Empirical knowledge- a much larger chunk of the scientific community in Western society is religious than one might think-- some find Christianity to be the best answer to the origin of the cosmos Please message me if you would like more, or better explanations of the three i offered-- I have plenty of both
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 23, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Ah dauer I am afraid I didnt read your post earlier. I find it interesting that you know "for a fact" that some of the records "are most likely false". If you read your sentence more carefully, you should question what on earth you could mean by that. I have had a number of atheistic professors that are highly regarded nationally who dont even think to question the existence of the historical Jesus, using such words as "undeniable". Unfortunately name-dropping will not get us far as I can just as easily do the same-- Dominic Crossan, Robert Drews and Edwin Yamauchi. As you clearly use qualifiers such as "some" and "most likely", the challenge remains to respond to those that are left over from the "some" and the ones that bear a probability much less than "most likely".
  • • dauer
      March 23, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Are you saying that because you have atheist profesors who believe that there was a historical Jesus that none of the historical mentions of Jesus are most likely false? For the record, I think in all probability there was a historical Jesus. It's also possible he's the combination of several figures. It's all conjecture. If you survey the landscape of modern inquiry into the historical Jesus you're confronted with many different personalities, many possibilities. I'll admit I riddled my statement with inconsistencies. Tom has made the claim for proof along with a statement about the absurdity of disbelief in either Jesus or God. So this has got to be some amazing proof. What's the proof?
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 24, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Well I for one dont agree with Tom, although I side with Christianity for the most part. I personally do not find disbelief in Jesus or God to be "absurd". Most of the professors, historians, philosophers of history, etc. have primarily had problems with the miracles, quite understandably. Unfortunately I dont spend much time or preparation on these posts, and am on my girlfriends computer, so you'll have to give me time where I have a free moment back at my place for "amazing proof", although I'm not entirely sure asking for "amazing proof" on a site such as this is terribly relevant. I think once we get into this "conjecture" talk and concede the vast landscape of possibilities, then we have gotten a bit out of our element for a website of this nature. As for the idea that Jesus was a combination of historical figures, I believe I CAN present you with some pretty good sources for refuting that. I personally am an agnostic, however, and therefore dont consider disbelief to be "absurd", but rather consider the Judeo-Christian story to be a more complete one and a better argument-- sorry if this post seemed a bit irrelevant and superfluous, but just wanted to distance myself from Tom.
  • • dauer
      March 26, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      I was replying to green eternity, who was responding to my reply to Tom. This is entirely about Tom's claim. But I do doubt you have any irrefutable evidence that Jesus is not a combination of a number of figures. That is not to say that there wasn't a central figure, but having a central figure does not in any way preclude the possibility that the Jesus of the Greek Testament was made using multiple figures, in whose numbers I would include also the mythical archetype that contains Mithras, although he is not an individual. Much of the things Jesus is reported to have said have their foundation in something earlier be it Hellenic or Hebrew. What is not may very well be the polemic of a later generation. But you're a professed agnostic so I'm not sure how much you'd disagree with any of this. You seem close to believing you have Truth but I could be mistaken. When it comes to ancient texts there is rarely any proof of their authenticity, but only justification. I've had this talk with Orthodox Jews as well who had their archeological and circumstantial justifications, none of which are any better than the ones the Hindus have or the ones the Muslims have. If I'm misunderstanding your teetering agnostilief please interrupt me.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 24, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Heh just realized I call myself "ExistentialTheist", while I consistently proclaim agnosticism. To clarify, I am hugely in support of religion, Christianity more than any others, and have been on the brink of belief for a couple years. If any brief quote could exemplify my beliefs, it is probably Voltaire's "S'il Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait necessaire a l'inventer" (If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him). Sorry for all those who read this and dont give a crap.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 27, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    What sort of proof would you like? The "proof" you have offered in support of your own idea, or simply in support of your suggested possibility is as speculative as any proof I feel I could offer over this site. Would you simply like a book title, as then Im sure we would get into some endless debate over the credibility of our respective historians. Im not so sure that sayings of Jesus having a foundation either in Hellenic or Hebrew could possibly have anything to do with the argument of Jesus' existence. This argument takes the form: "Jesus said things that have been said before (or at the very least things that are similar to what has been said before), thus Jesus did not (or probably did not) exist." If one were to accept the idea that Jesus' sayings had their foundations in any number of archaic languages, one would not be compelled by necessity to doubt the historical Jesus. If you could please clarify that point. Ive never really been an adherent to the idea that the proof is necessarily always on the believer. Certain critical models can become as speculative as the ones they attack. I have read some, but I will concede that your expertise in this particular branch of history probably far exceeds mine. I guess my position comes more from the philosophy of history that I obtained from the area that is more my specialty-- history of the ancient near east. I simply find the grounds of history, especially when it gets tangled in such issues as this, to be far too shaky, which is why I got into philosophy in the first place. The lack of evidence, if indeed it is found wanting, should not lead to rejection.
  • • dauer
      March 27, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      I never said, "Jesus said things that have been said before and thus Jesus did not or probably did not exist." I said that based on all of the things he has said that could be traced back to other people and based on the nature of his myth that the case could be made. I also told you that I think in all likelihood that the mythical Jesus was based around a historical character and any discussion of him is reduced to conjecture. I was merely pointing out that the case could be made, just as many other cases could be made. Nothing about this is very clear. I'm not sure why you're going on about archaic languages. We just have to look to the Greeks and Hebrews if we want to find his influences, and from there look at the polemical nature of some of the material. You said, " Ive never really been an adherent to the idea that the proof is necessarily always on the believer. Certain critical models can become as speculative as the ones they attack. " (I'm not skipping any lines because I'm not sure how to do so.) I've always felt that belief and proof are two very different things, and there can be no proof of the supernatural, or of any model of God. I reject all philosophical proofs of God on most days as invalid. Most historical evidence for the supernatural is inconclusive or could suggest causality in either direction, like the Ipuwer Papyrus. I don't bother trying to prove that what I believe is True nor do I think anyone should. It's not possible. Justification is possible, but not proof. I disagree with you about the critical models only because they don't suggest the supernatural and they don't read an ancient text that reads like it's biased as if it's objective and True. But there are definitely critical bible theories that seem to be stretching it. The difference is that I haven't claimed any one of them is Truth. But as I said before, you shouldn't have to prove yourself to me. Tom made a brazen claim and I challenged him on it. What do you mean by philosophy of history specifically? " The lack of evidence, if indeed it is found wanting, should not lead to rejection." Is this true of all religions or only Christianity? You can't be a Sanatana Dharmi, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Mormon.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 27, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I certainly have not asked you about your beliefs yet, but I have read that you refer to yourself as a liberal Jew. I am not sure if your brand of Judaism believes literally in the exodus, but I have heard time and time again that there is no proof, but I would not criticize you for continuing to believe. I dont really think we can ever have the appropriate evidence for the existence of a particular carpenter living in the outskirts of the Roman empire. I realize that I probably am holding a crappy double standard here, but it seems reasonable to say that this is one of those situations in which evidence would necessarily bolster his existence, but lack of evidence wouldnt necessarily discredit it-- it seems rather that contrary evidence would.
  • • dauer
      March 27, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      I sent you an IM in response to what you asked me in the chatterbox but I don't think it went through. As I said, I was having the same discussion with Orthodox Jews. I'm a post-denominational Jew but my theology is mainly reconstructionist/renewal. While this article deals mainly with the concept of choesenness, the summary at the top of Recon says all that need be said: ["Description of Recon":http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Chosenness_TO/NJ_ModChosen/NJ_ChosenRecon.htm] This is the statement of principles of Renewal: ["Renewal Principles":http://www.aleph.org/principles.html] I don't believe in a supernatural God, that is, I don't believe God interferes in the laws of physics. That is not to say I think of God as passive or absent. I think of God as active in every moment. But this is for me simply a useful paradigm that helps me to frame my experiences. I would hate it if I suddenly believed that I hold onto Truth and that is why I always try to hold onto doubt, no matter how comfortable I may begin to feel in my worldview. It seems like you do hold to a double standard, but at least you are aware of it.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 27, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Since the nature of this debate revolves largely around the word "proof", your distinction between justification and proof earlier could have cleared up a lot of our disagreements that rest in semantics alone. In answer to the question of consistency of the claim about lack of positive evidence (also inevitably meaning lack of contrary evidence)not yielding disbelief, yes I do believe this applies to all religions. Although certainly I falter at times, I try my best not to evaluate religions on their historical validity, as indeed in either direction (and I dont believe there are many readings of the texts without bias) conjecture plays a large role. I prefer to confine evaluation of religion to science and philosophy. In the example you used of the Ipuwer Papyrus, we have a MUCH greater collection of artifacts and contextual knowledge to evaluate its claims, whereas indeed as I mentioned the alleged historical Christ lived in the outskirts of the Roman empire leaving modern Western scholarship very little in the way of possible first-hand evidence. With this in mind, how exactly is my double standard illogical? (Not trying to be contrary here-- I actually am curious) There seems to be a difference, if indeed you are to use historical principles to evaluate religion, it seems valid to distinguish between lack of positive evidence and myriad negative evidence. On another topic, I am not really sure it is possible to do otherwise than hold your belief as Truth. How is the word belief here anything but empty and useless? I wonder what faculty you use exactly to believe as you do-- certainly it is not like the starving horse standing at a midpoint between identical haystacks.
  • • dauer
      March 27, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Can you explain what you believe about the historical Jesus? If you believe in the Jesus of the gospels, then there should be much evidence of his existence. The most curious silence comes from the Jewish sources. When a "rabbi" goes false messiah the records take notice. Rabbis who do bad things get recorded, like Elisha ben Abuyah who became a heretic. Pious rabbis who do bad things get recorded, like Rabbi Akiva who annointed Bar Kokhba as the messiah. Other false messiahs are mentioned. No mention of Jesus. Why? I could also go into the biblical law which would demand his death for his behavior. So I need you to clarify who Jesus is to you. If you believe in the supernatural Jesus and the Truth of the gospels, you have to contend with how the gospels conflict with Josephus and Philo regarding Pilate's temperament, with the parallels between Jesus and other sons of gods that existed at the same time, as well as a number of other issues. If you admit there is little that can be known about Jesus because of his role in society, then you admit that in reality he had a very small role. To me, the double standard has to do with the assumptions you make before approaching any other book of myth, or your willingness to engage in belief in those books. And please call me on that if I am wrong. You seem to approach the text differently than other texts. You may not have begun that way, but this is what you are doing. Do you approach all sacred texts saying, "there is little positive evidence for the life of Krishna but at the same time, there isn't so much that says Krishna wasn't on earth?" It's a bias towards the literal understanding of a particular mythology. I will answer the next question in another post so it is more readable.
    • dauer
      March 27, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      I do not believe that my paradigm for experiencing the world is Truth. I actually try to experience the world by shifting between a couple different paradigms. I find it unlikely, based on objective evidence, that any book of myth is True, that God breaks the laws of physics. But it's possible I'm wrong. It could be Zeus is looking down at us from Olympus with Hera at his side, or Brahman may really manifest as different gods, or Jesus may really have been the son of God, or God may have really handed down both the written and oral Torahs to Moses on Sinai. But I find all of these unlikely. I could be wrong and I'm open to that possibility. I don't hold what I have as Truth. If someone else believes something else I consider that they might be right, though I have no objections with telling them it's unlikely when I feel like it. I view God pan/panentheistically usually, but I don't believe that this is necessarily the nature of God if God exists at all. It's just helpful for me to view God in this way. Truth says, "I am correct!" and it holds universally. I say, "I might be correct, I might not be. I don't know that I'm correct. But this way of thinking about the world is helpful for me." I suppose that's truth, sure. Because it's my way of viewing the world so it's a personal truth. But not Truth.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 27, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Dauer, I will soon create a new thread in response to the issues that have arisen that stray from the thread we are on so that we dont get carried away here. For the moment, regarding the initial question, I can only conclude that by "proof" you want names, so at long last I will give you a couple, as I certainly havent been anywhere near the Levant myself. John P. Meier wrote a pretty extensive 3 volume history of Jesus. I will admit I read only 1 volume so far, as I am extremely busy this semester, but from what I read I was pretty impressed. If you want a non-Christian defense of the historical Jesus, I have read one of JD Crossan's more popular books and have heard good things about the rest. Regarding my own belief, as mentioned before, I am agnostic. Unlike most, I derive my belief systems pragmatically. At about 12 I first became a serious atheist, of course not understanding the implications of such a choice yet. Certainly I am no guru, but I have read plenty of philosophy to fully realize the emotional/pragmatic outcomes attached to certain belief systems. This is not to say I dont find any reason behind the faiths. If that was true I wouldnt be on here. However, I do recognize the partly speculative nature of any such proofs (that goes for atheism as well). The most I can therefore do in response to any given belief system is consider it a "good argument". I dont necessarily think tolerance as you seem to view it is so indelibly linked to empirical relativism in the realm of religion.... I think that taking each religious figure you mention and examining each is a valid practice. So I suppose at the root of it by belief is "helpful for me" in very much the same way, and if I hold it as more than personal truth (the pragmatic reasons for believing in Christianity that is), well I suppose I am pretty damn arrogant and that your religious pluralism is superior.
  • • dauer
      March 28, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      I do have some questions and clarification. I'm not saying there was no historical Jesus. As I have said I think it's quite likely there was an historical Jesus. Given the nature of the claim of the mythical Jesus and the similarity this claim has to other mythical texts, I find it unlikely. Any attempt to go from "Jesus the man" to "Jesus the godman" is purely speculative and goes against what we know about the world. I'm not sure how you think I think tolerance is linked to empirical relativism in religion. It does appear that believing a particular religion is Truth plants the seeds for fundamentalism and extremism. That is not to say you are or will be either but from my position neither can develop. But personally I just see no reason to commit to any belief that runs contrary to the rules that govern the world, what we know about the development of society, myth, etc. There are many wonderful people who have strong religious beliefs that violate nature. If their paradigms work for them, that's wonderful. Now the questions: #Specifically, what do you believe about Jesus? It would be helpful to know as you seem to have a very different approach and I want to be clear when speaking to you. #Was that last line sarcastic? If it was, why did you say it? If it wasn't, well it seems pretty sarcastic so there's no if it wasn't. #Finally, not a question. But if you're looking for a philosophy website similar to this with more people, older demographic, I can point one out to you. Unfortunately, the majority of people there are atheist, agnostic, and Budhist. Our kind is in the minority. But this site gets very little traffic and a good deal of the people who come here are very young. B'shalom.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 27, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    After looking over that I realize its a pretty incomplete description, message me if you have specific questions.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 28, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Is the philosophy website your refer to Internet Infidels? A good portion of the people on their are a little too dogmatic for my taste. Even if their arguments arent the strongest, I must admit I feel pretty intimidated when in the wolf den, perhaps a sign of weakness on my part, but something that I should get involved in. The last comment was sarcastic, but I didnt mean it to be nasty and I apologize for wording it the way I did. I merely included it to point out a flaw I find in cultural/religious relativism-- perhaps the epitome of a sophist's claim but one that should not be ignored-- "There are no absolutes" as being an absolute in itself (pointing out that relativism in certain forms runs the risk of being elitist and thus self-defeating). Although currently not a card-carrying Christian or even monotheist at that (I really have to change this screen name) I definitely could be categorized as one who is by all means a member of any ethical movement based on Christ. I believe as Nietzsche did regarding Jesus-- that he was a great man, but perhaps even go a step further than N as choosing Christ as the best model for morality rather than as one candidate among the several that N mentions. I find certain leaps from Jesus the man and the god man to be as speculative as you do at times. As mentioned I find the arguments for the historical Jesus far better, but not ultimately conclusive and therefore in any debate of this nature, whether I assign greater merit on either side, historical reasoning cannot take me the whole way. It is this relative stalemate on such issues that led me to existentialism, and my belief in Christ as the pragmatic answer. I think modern philosophy is often much too cruel to Descartes, and that the concept of a clear and distinct idea having an ultimate personification ( the Third Meditation) can be valid when applied in certain circumstances. These things considered if you were to call me a Christian, then I suppose Pragmatic Christian might be the most proper title. My defense of Jesus then lies in a combination of historical evidence, neo-Cartesian reasoning and ethical pragmatism I suppose. If the inevitable implication of this is that on these relative stalemates I will tend to pull the veil over my eyes and vehemently argue for that which I have resolved to anchor myself in, then I suppose in America's eyes I am the worst kind of fundie. I have, however, never mocked another religion nor have I considered another religion a bad thing-- aside from the pseudo-religion of Satanism, whose antagonism I cannot bear, I applaud people of all faiths who piously following their respective code, as long as it does not harm others. Decided disagreement does not, in my opinion, exclude tolerance, although I suppose if I could be pinned as intolerant regarding any philosophical/theological position, it would be Satanism or any other form of anti-theism.
  • • dauer
      March 28, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      If you're rejecting Jesus as a divine sacrifice then you sound like theologically you make fewer leaps in your understanding of the world than I do as on most days I am clearly a theist, albeit one who rejects interference with the laws of physics and one who makes no claim to being correct. I'm actually much more concerned with the experiential, personal, subjective, when it comes to these things. I regard them as such, but that is where I can find meaning for myself. So do you believe that Jesus is the ideal historical model for man or that Jesus is the ideal archetypal model for man? I'm with you on the stalemates. I do the same thing. But for the most part I concern myself very little with unanswerable questions, and when I do construct a paradigm, I do so with an awareness of my building. I strive to be tolerant of all people including Satanists but I sometimes have a hard time with zealots, regardless their cause. I meditate though and that is opening my heart. The websites, there are actually two. They're both mega-forums. The first is a hippy forum. Very nice community there. Lots of Christians, pagans, buddhists, hindus, atheist, people doing their own thing, mystics, and philosophers. Although it is decidedly more focused on religion and mysticism, there's also some nice philosophy talk there. ["hipforums":http://hipforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=47] That should take you directly to the philosophy and religion part of the board. The second is able2know, whose demographic is much older. I think it's one of the few places you'll find Ph.D's online, along with other educated folk. Religion and philosophy each have a separate section. There is "spirituality and religion" as well as "philosophy and debate." I am linking you to ["philosophy and debate":http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=43] and currently while there is a somewhat larger representation of atheists, it is not an atheist board and there are many theists there.
  • ExistentialTheist
    March 28, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    Thank you very much for the links. Unfortunately I dont have time to write a lengthy response (in the middle of a huge Tiananmen Sqaure Paper), but was just taking a break and spending a few moments on those internet time wasters that i tend to devote study breaks to (this is probably less of a time waster than any others though). I reject neither miracles nor Jesus as a divine sacrifice, but when I honestly examine my reasons for belief or "agnostilief" these are not the greatest sources. I dont find miracles to be illogical in any respect-- I think CS Lewis gives a more than sufficient response to Hume, and the uncertainty on this issue that still remains, although as I mentioned I make the remaining leap pragmatically rather than empirically, I envy those who can make the sort of leap of faith that Kirkegaard calls for, and it is something I wish I could learn to do. More hopefully when I finish this awful paper. Be well.
  • jfritzyb
    April 20, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    Pause and consider, my friends...

    First of all, there is a website that poses MOST of the evidence that God exists. www.drdino.com Secondly, there is a man named Josephus that mentions a man named Jesus who was ordered to death by Pilate. "...and the tribe of the Christians exist to this day." Those are HIS words...Now, I know that there are other scholars in here that want to debate whether Josephus did say that or not. But, let's not get into a debate because... 1. Josephus is a Jewish HISTORIAN. This is an established fact. 2. Nobody usually convinces anybody in a debate. So, that being said, I have one more thing to say on this issue...You all want proof that God exists? Well, I'll give you some solid proof... You KNOW that God exists down inside of you...HOWEVER, you CHOSE to ignore that..."thing" inside of you that stated that God existed. Romans 1 says that because people REFUSED to think about God, He let them do what they wanted to do--and then Romans 1 SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS one of the things those people did. The description fits a certain group of people to a "T." You put yourself in GRAVE danger by refusing to think about God. And therefore, what will be your undoing is the fulfillment of your desire to do anything you want to do. And according to Romans, you receive in yourself a punishment. And anyway....You're gonna be judged by God--whether you believe in Him or not. So, I would seriously begin to believe in Him. How can we avoid His wrath on Judgment Day? Some of you think that just because you're a sinner, God will take you and hurl you into hell. Let me tell you something--your actions, while on earth, will judge you when you stand before God on Judgment Day. God will summon all the rocks, trees, and stones as witnessess against you. Revelation says that they WILL be witnesses. So, don't go around thinking God is unreasonable--you are the one desecrating yourself by doing as you please.
  • • dauer
      May 3, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      So you know the evidence against Josephus and yet you still you him as evidence? That's quite cowardly. And you cite the fact that Josephus was Jewish as reason for trusting him? That's hogwash. Read up some biographical information on Josephus and see if you can figure out where his alleigance lied. So I'm not going to mention the issue of the other manuscript or of the fact that Jesus isn't a particularly uncommon name or that Josephus is not an objective source or that Pilate killed many Jews or etc etc because it won't get us anywhere. And I really don't think your Greek Testament quotes are going to hold water against any of the people you're trying to convince. But good luck with that.
    • • jfritzyb
        May 30, 2005
        Edit | Reply

        Confused with what dauer just said...

        "So you know the evidence against Josephus and yet you still use him as evidence? That’s quite cowardly." I have read and reread my post at least three times. I didn't find any statement that said, "Josephus is false."....Unless you're referring to this phrase... "Now, I know that there are other scholars in here that want to debate whether Josephus did say that or not." If this is the statement you're talking about, than let me more explicitly explain what I meant by that phrase....I meant that..."there are certain people and scholars who WANT to debate whether Josephus said that or not." Therefore, that being said, let me say something else...If a disciple of Christ wrote that small bit on Josephus, than they would've mentioned that Jesus was the Savior of the world, the Messiah, and the Christ. ...Josephus didn't make any such claim. He just said that Pontius Pilate killed a man and that His disciples were still running around. ...If you compare the excerpt with the style of writing in the New Testament, you will find that the disciples referred to Jesus as "the Christ" or "the Son of God." These statements are blasphemy in Jewish culture and Josephus NEVER used them in conjunction with Jesus. Therefore, Joesphus actually DID write that excerpt! "Read up some biographical information on Josephus and see if you can figure out where his alleigance lied." Another thing....He was hired by the Roman governor Tiberius to write the history of Israel (and I guess, some of the news of the times.) If he truly was with the Romans BIG time, he could've written about the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped in the wilderness--but he didn't. From his own writings, he wanted his own people to adopt the "advancements in History" so to speak. However, he still had respect for his own people--respect enough to exclude that embarrassing detail about the golden calf and most possibly, a few other things. "And I really don’t think your Greek Testament quotes are going to hold water against any of the people you’re trying to convince. But good luck with that." What Greek testament quotes? Where? Far as I know, I didn't see them anywhere in the last excerpt....

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: