Re: All Evidence is Subjective...


Deadrat wrote:
<jwsheffield@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139693439.654990.166030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Deadrat wrote:
<jwsheffield@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139688649.213348.201050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Deadrat wrote:
<jwsheffield@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1139588623.733219.25530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<snip>

As to positive evidence

Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.

"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter



had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the



Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."


"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,

Please quote an ancient author that says
Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A. D. is wromg.

Jim

Let me see if I've got this straight. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that Polycarp
said that He know the Apostle John who related a narrative about Jesus.
And you accept the narrative about Jesus because no ancient author disputes
Irenaeus' claim about hearing Polycarp's hearsay. Have I got that right?

Deadrat

Tertullian of Carthage circa 200 A.D. also says
Polycarp was appointed by John. Tertullian also
dares people who don't believe the NT to check
out the Apostolic Churches.

"run over [to] the Apostolic Churches, in which the very thrones
of the Apostles are still pre-emminent in their places, in which
their own authentic writings (autheniticae) are read, uttering the
voice and representing the face of them severally . Achaia is very
near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from
Macedonia, you have Philippi;; (and there too) you have the
Thessalononians. Since you are able to cross to Asia[minor], you
get Ephesus. Since, morever, you are close upon Italy, you have
Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very
authority
(of the Apostles themselves).


Prescription against Heretics, p 36, Voll III, "The Ante-Nicene
Fathers"

Today, all you need to do is go to your local Bible
Society and check out the ancient versions of the
Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt),
Vetus Latin, and other ancient churches.

What I am doing is giving evidence and so far
you havn't given a credible tome produced by
the Romans refuting my evidence.

You've given evidence that Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about Polycarp's
statements. Fine. The question in this thread is about contemporary
evidence for Jesus. I don't see how third-hand hearsay qualifies. YMMV.

You have no contemporary evidence(like the Acts of Pilate)
showing it isn't true. Since all historical evidense is hearsay
since the authors are dead, to accept your point woukd be to
reject all history.
My mother told me that many men from Barga barganews.com
fought for Garibaldi. That is over 100 years ago. So, I have
empirical evidense that such evidense can be true.



Weight of evidence for Christianity.

Again. If third-hand hearsay floats your belief boat, that's fine with
me. I'm not arguing that you don't get to weigh the evidence for yourself.
That's not what this discussion is about.

Since your weren't arround in the first century,
your opinion is worthless. Give ancient documentation.
So far you havn't produced an official Roman tome
refuting Christianity.

If you don't believe don't worry,
Luther said, "The non-elect can never
believe."

Is that Luther, the notorious antisemite? (And we have his own writings
to attest to this.) If so, I'm not worried.

Deadrat

Generic fallacy noted.

Your ignorance is noted. Were I to dismiss Martin Luther's
observation that sky is blue, that would be a generic fallacy,
since presumably Luther's attitude toward Jews had no influence
on his color vision. Your values and logic may allow you to accept
Luther as a spiritual advisor; mine do not.

Most of the founders of the German scholarship
were anti semitic, but you accept their mythology.


Today, all you need to do is go to your local Bible
Society and check out the ancient versions of the
Aramaic, Greek, Coptic(both Southern and Northern Egypt),
Vetus Latin, and other ancient churches.

In a court of law witnesses that basically agree as
the ancient churches all having the same four Gospels
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are accepted over
witnesses that disagree as the different "gospels"
of the "gnostics".

As I understand it, the early church sieved and redacted candidate
texts to come up with the canonical Gospels. So it is no surprise
that various churches agree on their contents. This isn't even a
matter of contention in this thread.

It would have been impossible to redact the majority of texts,
since scribes in different areas can't come up with the same
redactions, unless they used the internet with language
translators in the ancient world. Try it, you come up with
a new ending of Mark, and I'll write one. They won't be
the same.



In a court of law (in the US, anyway), hearsay is rarely regarded
as admissible to the truth of a matter. Why secular standards of
evidence should matter to you is beyond me. I was under the
impression that your beliefs were a matter of faith. Is that faith so
weak that you must pursue worldly "evidence"?

Oh! so you have blind faith in your unbelief?
Since you have given no ancient tome disproving Christianity.

My opinion, based on what I've read, is that there is no contemporary
text that mentions Jesus. There may never have been; there may have been
such that have been lost. I don't know. I pass no judgment on third-hand
hearsay. If that's weighty enough for you, then fine.

I gave evidence from Tertullian and Irenaeus that
the four Gospels are based on contemporary evidence.
Read Irenaeus again

"So Matthew ... issued a writting of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writting what Peter



had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the



Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."


"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson,

Regards,

Jim

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons. ... And you accept the narrative about Jesus because no ancient author disputes ... What I am doing is giving evidence and so far ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Remember that John lived on to around 100 ... so a LOT of people knew him directly: Irenaeus' book Adversus ... suggest he had the Gospel as we now have it (particularly given the ... be called evidence that no-one is concerned about provenance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Chronologie
    ... Gnostic protest-exegesis in Alexandria - Cain and the Serpent ... Gospel according to the Hebrews ... Agathobulus teaches Cynic philosophy in Alexandria to Marcion ... JM's Trypho and Apologies (later patched by Irenaeus, ...
    (de.sci.theologie)
  • Re: Once again, where was God?
    ... What do I think of Irenaeus? ... His influence on the church has been ... That Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, even though Irenaeus knew that his own ... John, any more than we know who wrote the Gospel of Thomas. ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons. ... What I am toing is giving evidence and so far ...
    (talk.origins)