Posted on 02/21/2005 7:04:50 AM PST by Alex Marko
So FReepers who ridicule Muslims are not conservatives?
I agree that ridicule is bad manners, but it doesn't seem to correspond to any political ideology.
> Was Julius Caesar also a fantasy then? Plato? Aristotle?
No. There are distinct reasons why they can be reasonably declared to ahve been real, while Christ may be reasonably doubted.
1) They wrote their own stuff.
2) There were numerous independant eywitnesses, including opposing viewpoints. These witnesses existed *at* *the* *same* *time* as the figure in question.
3) Had they not existed, there would have been no particular need to invent them.
4) Their recorded activities were entirely mundane.
> more authentic historic evidence exists for the reality of Jesus than any of the above.
Simply untrue.
> are you a political liberal as well?
"As well" as what? And no, I'm a Conservative. Conservatives question things. Liberals accept things on faith.
I was referring to his completely discounting the facts that point to the historicity of Jesus because he was hurt by Christians in the past, and is still mad at them (and me now, actually).
His emotions have overtaken his brain on this one.
What is the date of the closest manuscript of the Gallic Wars, relative to the nearest manuscripts of the Gospels?
You don't have all the facts, orion. And you are very much depending on faith to back up your worldview.
> How do you know that Caesar 'wrote his own stuff?'
How many of the Gospels is Jesus reported to have written?
> What is the date of the closest manuscript of the Gallic Wars, relative to the nearest manuscripts of the Gospels?
Are you honestly suggesting that Caesar's works were forgeries?
> You don't have all the facts
And you do, I take it.
So, how is Elvis doing these days?
Is the brain separate from the mind? Does Man have a dual nature?
Basic emotions are useful survival traits. Fear keeps you alive, anger defends your young, love keeps you with your mate and your young, etc. Humans, having evolved intellects rather more advanced than the norm, also evolved more complex emotions than the norm.
What is the source of the survival instinct?
Few carnivores eat their own species. Why so? How do they differentiate their species from another species?
One possibility: the universe is extremely complex and chaotic, and not at all set up to make life easy and comfortable. Spirituality may well be simply a means by which humans rationalize such complexities.
Another possibility is that God does exist. Rationalization is a reasoning process; according to those who deny the existence of God, spiritualty is not reasonable.
Dogs sure seem to.
Empirical evidence that one has had a spirtual experience might be a change in behavior after said experience. I have seen no data to indicate that dogs have spiritual experiences (except maybe when I caught them in the kitchen trash can. We had a "come to Jesus" exchange, just ask them!).
Find out when the nearest manuscripts of the Gallic Wars have been found.
I'm not suggesting anything, except that you do further research.
You seem very sure that Caesar existed and that he 'wrote his own stuff.' I just want you to back it up historically.
It will take a while. Get back to me with the facts.
Then do some study about the authenticity of the Gospels using the same methods, and see what you find.
I'm a professor, orion. I just want you do do some homework before you say anything else that further reveals your ignorance on this subject.
> Is the brain separate from the mind?
Well, you can kill a mind without killing the brain, so...
> Does Man have a dual nature?
Umm... sure. What the hell.
> What is the source of the survival instinct?
Basic evolution. Those without a survival instinct don;t survive.
> Another possibility is that God does exist.
And another is that Allah exists. And another is that Azathoth exists. And another is that the universe was sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. And another is that we're all in The Matrix. Lots of possibilities. One must be reasonable, however.
> Empirical evidence that one has had a spirtual experience might be a change in behavior after said experience.
Oh, you mean like going nuts after overdosing on acid? Craving cigarrettes after smoking? Beating the crap out of a guy after finding him nailing your wife, and then no longer treating her kindly? Ceasing to vote Democratic after getting mugged?
OK, that was annoying... one more time:
> I'm a professor
[insert retort about ivory-tower academics HERE]
> You seem very sure that Caesar existed and that he 'wrote his own stuff.' I just want you to back it up historically.
It can be backed up through inductive reasoning. Caesar's existence is not known from a single source, but from a wide variety of sources all dating from the same era, and largely agreeing. This is not the case for Christ. Many of the early reports of Christ are ignored as they are heretical. If you tell me that you ate toast for breakfast this morning, it does not take me much to believe. if you tell me you had refried Velociraptor for breakfast, I will need rather more evidence. Similarly, you tell me that there was once a brilliant military leader who gained political power, that's not terribly exceptional. Tell me about someone who coudl walk on water, materialize food, raise the dead and tinker with peoples souls, I'll want rather more than your say-so. And when your say-so is as inconsistant as the Gospels... well, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
I'll wait.
So far, you haven't provided anything but your own opinions.
If you are going to say that Caesar wrote 'his own stuff' and is an historical figure, the responsibility is yours to back it up with data.
There are, of course, many separate statements about Jesus, and not all of them are necessarily true to the same degree, any more than a careful news story is completely factual.
There are several ways of approaching this. One is to assert that God has taken action to ensure the inerrancy of the Bible. Another approach is to study the Bible as a document like any other. Another approach is to assume that the teachings of Jesus stand on their own without regard to historical inerrancy. I happen to believe this.
Well, you can kill a mind without killing the brain, so...
> Does Man have a dual nature?
Umm... sure. What the hell.
Iggy: If one nature of Man is the physical body, what is the other nature?
>What is the source of the survival instinct?
Basic evolution. Those without a survival instinct don;t survive.
Iggy: Doesn't your anwswer presuppose a survival instinct as a priori? knowledge?
> Another possibility is that God does exist.
And another is that Allah exists. And another is that Azathoth exists. And another is that the universe was sneezed out the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. And another is that we're all in The Matrix. Lots of possibilities. One must be reasonable, however.
Iggy: You must have inadvertently overlooked this part of my question: Rationalization is a reasoning process; according to those who deny the existence of God, spiritualty is not reasonable.
> Empirical evidence that one has had a spirtual experience might be a change in behavior after said experience.
Oh, you mean like going nuts after overdosing on acid? Craving cigarrettes after smoking? Beating the crap out of a guy after finding him nailing your wife, and then no longer treating her kindly? Ceasing to vote Democratic after getting mugged?
Iggy: Those would not be typical of the behavior changes noted as evidence of a spiritual experience (except maybe the LSD one and the voting Democrat one, lol). You have, however, missed one you should try to nail me with: "You mean like killing infidels with an airplane?"
Ah! what if it was mostly metaphor.. True as far as its understood... but telling a huge story simply as metaphor.. Which is was.. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil IS a metaphor.. not an actual TREE.. as are many other things in the telling of that story.. basically biblical sound bites.. Its all in my book..LoL..
> I'll wait.
I've been waiting for reasonable evidence of the mere *existence* of Christ for rather a long time. So far, nada. Yet people do believe.
Of course, people also believe in Bigfoot, so...
The book of Mark is agreed by biblical scholars, (and we are talking, say, Oxford here, among others) to be Peter's eyewitness account as written down by Mark. Luke was a contemporary of Peter and Paul, as well as the other apostles, and is the author of Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles. Mark and Luke were scribes, a common occupation in those days, and were men who often accompanied remarkable teachers and wrote down their teachings and the accounts of their lives. Paul himself was a learned learned Torah scholar who came to see that Jesus was the fulfilment of the Torah prophecies. The account of "walking on water", turning water into wine, performing miracles, etc. served a deeper purpose in teaching that was known to students of the OT.
Josephus, Hillel, Hebrew scribes and a few other Gentile historians do make references to Jesus, proving that He did walk the earth, at that time.
> If one nature of Man is the physical body, what is the other nature?
Nintendo. No, wait... PlayStation. XBox?
> Doesn't your anwswer presuppose a survival instinct as a priori?
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.
> You must have inadvertently overlooked this part of my question: Rationalization is a reasoning process; according to those who deny the existence of God, spiritualty is not reasonable.
That ain't a question.
> You have, however, missed one you should try to nail me with: "You mean like killing infidels with an airplane?"
Well, yes, being converted into carbon dioxide, water vapor and ash can be considered a change in behavior. Unless, of course, that's something you do on a regular basis anyway...
> The book of Mark is agreed by biblical scholars, (and we are talking, say, Oxford here, among others) to be Peter's eyewitness account as written down by Mark. Luke was a contemporary of Peter and Paul, as well as the other apostles, and is the author of Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles. Mark and Luke were scribes, a common occupation in those days, and were men who often accompanied remarkable teachers and wrote down their teachings and the accounts of their lives.
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsOne.htm#One
> Josephus, Hillel, Hebrew scribes and a few other Gentile historians do make references to Jesus, proving that He did walk the earth, at that time.
Incorrect. These scribes wrote well *after* the time of Christ. They no more prove that Christ was real that someone writing today about seeing Elvis walking around makes it so.
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.