Posted on 02/21/2005 7:04:50 AM PST by Alex Marko
> Ah! what if it was mostly metaphor..
Or almost entirely metaphor. Or entirely metaphor. Too many Christians hereabouts base their faith, and their views of the faith of other Christians, on the belief that what is obviously metaphor was, in fact, a literal account.
Nonsense. There is no reason for Jewish historians to "make up" Christ. Even His enemies acknowledge Him. It is rumored that the Talmud speaks ill of Him today. Tacitus mentioned Him, Suetonius mentioned Him, and Phlegon, all mentioned Him, but no doubt, they are all liars
What is a christian.?.
Some christians are not christains as some muslims are not muslims at all.. Putting kittens in an oven don't make them muffins.. and a donkey dressed as a horse don't make it so even if the hee-haw is supressed..
Everyone is "preaching something".. You preach far more loudly by what you DO than by what you say.. What you DO is what you are preaching.. If what you do and say differ, the first one fooled is yourself..
Oh, wait, do let me address this:
Nope. Put two critters together. If one does stuff that leads it to survive, and the other does stuff that doesn't lead it to survive, then a "survival instinct" can be implied
Just something to think about, you don't have to answer: Which came first, the "primordial ooze that was struck by lightning", or the instinct for survival?
'Bye now.
and one last thing --- His birth was recorded in the Jewish genealogies, and we know this, for when He made his claim to be descended from David, the Jews, who were sticklers for family records, did not dispute it, and if He had not been born, they would have had proof of it, and still would
> There is no reason for Jewish historians to "make up" Christ.
Sigh. Nobody is saying that "Jewish historians" made up Christ. What I'm saying is that a Jewish historian writing two decades after Christ is supposed to have died is hardly likely to be able to "prove" that Christ did live. What Josephus siad, in effect, was, "There are a lot of Christians, and they believe X, Y, Z." Well, I can also write "There are a lot of Hare Krishnas, and they believe X, Y and Z," but that does not mean that X,Y, and Z are in fact true.
> Tacitus mentioned Him, Suetonius mentioned Him, and Phlegon, all mentioned Him, but no doubt, they are all liars
How many historians mentioned Mohammad?
I have read the complete works of Josephus, and I assure you, that is not "what he said". You don't seem to have read anything historical-- why dont you go read some History and then get back to us
> when He made his claim to be descended from David, the Jews, who were sticklers for family records, did not dispute it
And who would have recorded that dispute if they had made it?
You are argueing that an absence of evidence is evidence for existence. In the very early years, people would have no more spent their efforts denying CHrist than skeptics of the late 1990's spent debunking the Heaven's Gaters. Simply wasn't worth the effort.
Your ignorance of the Jewish culture is also extensive. Josephus can be purchased at amazon
> I have read the complete works of Josephus, and I assure you, that is not "what he said".
What more did he have to say about Christ than the following?
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day."
I've not found more. In all his recorded works that I'm aware of, this short paragraph is about it. Not a ringing endorsement.
And then there's the debate among scholars over whether that paragraph is authentic, or jsut tacked in later by Christian scribes. Since this discussion has included those who argue that Caesar 's works may be forgeries... then so too must Josephus's works be considered possible forgeries.
> Which came first, the "primordial ooze that was struck by lightning", or the instinct for survival?
The former. Without life, there is no instinct. Instinct does not exist until there is some sort of operating system.
> Your ignorance of the Jewish culture is also extensive
Maybe so. But that doesn't address my arguement.
If paper is expensive, publication is prohibitive, and the Empire is laoded with flash-in-the-pan cults, many based on the same sort of Messiah... how much effort would you devote to debunking every single one individually? For frap's sake, how many other cults were debunked like you think Christianity would have been had it been wrong?
it addresses the argument, and quite well. Jews consider their genealogy to be of the utmost importance, and records were, and are, kept. When Jesus made his claim, it would have been an easy thing for them to corroborate. It was common for them to be able to trace their lines back to Adam. Read the Books of Chronicles if you don't believe me.
Only somewhat. I was going off of memory. Yes, he's a bit more blunt... "he was Christ." But how did he know that? Writing from Rome, from decades removed.
It appears that Josephus himself was awed by it. Perhaps flesh and blood did not reveal it (Matthew 16:17)
> records were, and are, kept
I see. Are there extant records from 4 BC to, say, 35 AD? You'd think people would tout them.
> When Jesus made his claim, it would have been an easy thing for them to corroborate.
Would it, now? Assume, for the sake of arguement, the Jesus eithjer did not exist, or did not exist as he is now thought to have. When would his claim of geneology thus have been made public?
And also: assume for the sake of arguement that Jesus did make such a claim at that time. Further assume that corroboration or denial was done. Where are those records of that corroboration? What are the chances that a denial would now exist? Look what happened to early Christian heretics. They were nearly erased from history. If there was a report of an official denouncement... what would have happened to it?
> It appears that Josephus himself was awed by it
Awed enough to write *one* paragraph? Well, whoop-de-doo.
there have been millions of Christians who wrote no paragraph, so one Jewish historian, yes, awesome!
> so one Jewish historian, yes, awesome!
Wait. Was he Jewish? Or was he Christian?
It's an important distinction. Can you tell the class why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.