Posted on 02/21/2005 7:04:50 AM PST by Alex Marko
> You deny the history because you don't like the miracles?
As I said before: a description of the mundane is easier and more rational to believe than a description of the supernatural. That holds in all cases. And since what little source documentation there is on Jesus comes from well after he was gone (not just earliest extant documents, but earliest *written* documents) and is internally inconsistent, a whole lot of skepticism is called for.
No. Once again, you reveal your ignorance. The documents were not written "well after he was gone."
The documents were written within a century of Jesus life (with Papyrus documents available), and there are more than 4,000 Greek manuscripts available. And there are multiple COMPLETE New Testaments from within 300 years (which, since you obviously know nothing about documentation of early texts, is close). The nearest Gallic Wars document is nearly a millenium after he wrote them, yet you accept his authorship without question.
The 'internal inconsistency' you made up in your head.
You see the truth in front of your very eyes, and yet deny it's existence.
The first disputation of the historical existence of Jesus came nearly two millenia after he walked this earth.
You have been swept in by a phony, inconsistent philosophy, and yet you are like a little yapping dog who won't let go of a pantleg in defending it.
As I said, you don't have to believe Jesus was God, or even that He did miracles, but to deny his earthly existence, just makes you look like a fool.
> The documents were written within a century of Jesus life
As I said: well after he was gone. People started writing about the Risen Elvis far sooner.
This is only for lurkers, because you are clearly blind of your own choosing, but if people were still alive who witnessed the crucifixion (i.e. it was in THEIR LIFETIME) when the documents were written, and no one disputed it's reality, it is historically valid.
How long do you want to hang on to your uneducated and boneheaded viewpoint here?? You have been proven wrong, and no idiotic references to Bigfoot or Elvis will make you look any brighter. You're the only one who thinks you're cute.
Everyone else knows you're stubborn, childish, and wrong.
> if people were still alive who witnessed the crucifixion (i.e. it was in THEIR LIFETIME) when the documents were written, and no one disputed it's reality, it is historically valid.
Interesting point of view. All that's needed is for nobody to be on record disputing the validity of a claim? Wow. And here I was thinking that in order for something to be accepted, it needed more than simply not being contradicted at the time.
Here's a little research project for you: Richard Adams Locke.
> Everyone else knows you're stubborn, childish, and wrong.
Yawn. Your ad hominems do not aid your "arguement."
And if the plain, obvious historical truth doesn't affect you, then why should my words positive, or negative make any difference to you?
But you are mocking your Creator, and the One who loved you and died for you. And that is what you need to focus on.
None of us can do anything here but pray for you, and that is what I've been doing, and will continue to do whenever God brings you to my attention in the future.
You are missing out on the joy of the Lord now, but more importantly will miss out on spending eternity with your Creator if you don't peel the blinders off your eyes before you go to meet Him.
Someone on this thread called you a 'stump.' I said I thought you were seeking the truth. I still think, in spite of all the childish stubborn emotional bluster, that you want to know the Jesus that you pretend didn't exist.
I'm praying that you find the peace that only He can give...........and soon.
Blessings to you, orion.
> plain, obvious historical truth
Incorrect. If I tella tale with some seriously unbelievable aspects to it, the whole tale becomes suspect.
> you are mocking your Creator
Sigh. No, I'm not. It mocks no one to question the validity of a report.
> Jesus that you pretend didn't exist
Again, your biases are getting in the way. I'm not "pretending" he didn't exist. I'm asking for useful evidence that he did. You aren't providing it. The logic you are presenting is *massively* flawed, and would be laughed out of court were this any other topic. And so when I ask for good evidence, you start to rage about "mocking."
> Blessings to you, orion.
I'd rather have the facts. Everything else will then fall into place. But without the facts, it's all speculative handwaving.
Thanks for the conversation. I'm even more convinced, having reviewed the facts, that Jesus is not only an historical figure, proven by 2,000 years of study, but alive today, reigning in power triumphant.
May you find His peace.
> You have the facts.
The facts I have present a fairy tale on par with those in Grimm's Fairy Tales. The evidence does NOT exzceed those of Grimm's, however. Were I to here the Christ story in any other context, I believe I woudl be forgiven for having some skepticism. But as it is, a fantastical tale with no evidentary backup is expected to be believed... or otherwise I am assumed to be a fool, a liar or crazy.
I don't buy it. The "evidence" is circumstantial and hearsay. The best this evidence does is show that some time after Christ's supposed death, some peopel believed. But as I pointed out, repeatedly, some time after Elvis' death, people believed him to be alive as well. So simply believing fervently is no proof against being dead wrong.
Also, your logic is seriously flawed in many other ways. Your objectiosn to assumign the historiocity of, say Julius Caesar and not Jesus Christ coems from the fact that the earliest extant works mentioning Jesus are older than those mentioning Caesar. As I've shown, though, that's amssively untrue. If you pony up the cash, you can own your very own Caesar-era portrait of the man with his name stamped on it. But even so: the logic itself is flawed. If you were to research an old topic - say, Shakespeares plays - you would be well within your rights to use a *modern* printing. You would not need to find Shakespeares original hand-written manuscripts. However, a modern copy of those manuscripts is a more valid reference than an original parchment copy of an essay on those plays written thirty years after Shakespeare's death.
Coupled with the contradictions and historical errors in the Gospels*, it's just a damned hard story to buy into.
*In Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. In Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria. Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD. Also, Herod was reported by MAthew to have slain all the 2-year olds to get rid of the Messiah. But Josephus, who everyone likes to quote as "proving" Jesus, makes entirely no mention of this... even though Josephus liked to chrinicle Herods crimes. Slaughter of toddelrs would be at the top of the list... but it isn't. Mathew says that pieces of silver were paid to Judas... buta s far as I've been able to determine, pieces of silver had gone out of circulation in that area some centuries before. In Mathew 27:5, Judas hangs himself; in Acts 1:18 he bursts open [!].
You lost. Good bye.
Great I thought they sent ya'll over there to drain the swamp and now they want ya to fill it back up........hope the money is good !
Stay safe !!!
> It's over orion
It is indeed. I have presented an arguement backed up by facts and reason... you refuse to face it.
That's your choice.
ROFLOL!!
Could you find that, and post it again??
No.......PLEASE don't try any more. I don't want you to embarrass yourself any longer.
And I've had quite enough of trying to shed light on blind eyes. Only the Lord can get through to you.
Now, go find that Sunday School teacher and punch her lights out, and maybe you'll get rid of this obsession you still have to prove her wrong.
> Could you find that, and post it again??
Post 208. Try reading it this time.
> go find that Sunday School teacher and punch her lights out
There's that Christian charity I've heard so much about...
Yes, you're really doign a great job of persuading me to re-join your fan club.
I really didn't want you to post that again. I've read everything you've said, and frankly, in my four years on FR, you are near the top of the list in vacuuous arguments, and childish stubborness.
Nothing more to be said, son.
As others have said, do some study, learn your history, and get back to us.
That should take you quite a while, considering your present deficit.
Pray for truth as you study. Pray for wisdom. Pray for guidance.....open to where God leads you. Pray.
Final word.
(Insulting me again won't entice me to defend myself. None of this has been about you and me [diversions notwithstanding]. It's been about God's truth.....not mine or yours.......absolute, divine truth).
Pray to find it, as I continue to do as I study and learn more about my Creator, and His Son whom He sent to redeem me from my sin.
Your insults do not change the fact that the historical evidence for Jesus is seriously lacking. The fact that you have chosen to resort to childish insults rather than deal with the points I raised pretty much says it all.
I've nothing more to say to you on this unless you choose to actually debate the issue.
Final word. Pray for wisdom.
Yeah, and in a couple of months, they'll want us to drain it again. LOL
Take care!
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.