Re: Channel 4's 'The Qu'ran'

On Jul 16, 1:41 pm, "AndyW" <Andrew.white...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Tournifreak" <wendy...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b96975b0-ff52-4bb3-b748-f1c0dba4d771@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There is vast and overwhelming evidence that Jesus existed, and no
serious historian doubts this. A flavour:
1. The 4 accounts of his life recorded in the Bible, plus many extra-
Biblical texts that relate events in his life.

Not valid. A book about a person cannot be used as evidence that he existed.
The canon of Sherlock Holmes literature records the life and activities of
Holmes but he did not exist. You cannot use the existince of a book as
evidence of existence of the subject of the book

Of course it's valid. You can't just dismiss all manuscript evidence
like that. For example, what we know about Julius Caesar comes from
Pliny the Elder and Cicero. Now you can't just say that their writings
about Julius Caesar do not provide evidence of the existence of Julius
Caesar. That's crazy. You're consigning the whole or written history
into the bin.

What you can do is decide on the basis of the manuscripts, whether the
author(s) were reliable, whether the documents we have today are the
same as what they wrote (see below), and whether what they wrote was
intended as history or as fiction.

2. The existence of the church from 1st Century AD. The Christians
were falsely accused of being behind the destruction of Rome in AD64.
Where did they come from? It is unthinkable that this movement should
arise based on a fictional character who (didn't) live less than 30
years previously.

There are numerous Sherlockian societies in existence around the world but
it is not unthinkable that they are based an a fictional character.
Numerous organisations have formed and created their own back story.

Yes, but in the space of 30 years? And were willing to die rather than
renounce their belief in this fictional character that they had(n't)
seen and heard. I can't imagine many members of Sherlockian societies
being prepared to die for their belief that Holmes existed!

The council of niceae met and decided on the divinity of Jesus. Accordingly
texts that did not agree with the new position as agreed was thrown out.
Several councils have met over the years and the bible has changed as the
councils have added or excluded according to their decisions.
The bible is therefore not inerrant as the councils have changed it as
required.

How about an example? I think you misunderstand the purpose of the
various councils. The Council of Nicea met to affirm the (already
orthodox) belief that Jesus was/is God. I don't think any texts were
affirmed or thrown out at Nicea.

Perhaps you meant the Council of Carthage? (AD397) At this meeting,
they decided the order of the books of the Bible, and 'made official'
the already-established list of orthodox books.

There were lots and lots of heretical texts, written by unknown
authors, with very late dates, containing all sorts of bizarre ideas,
some for nefarious purposes. The councils recognised that it was
important for the leadership to take a clear stand against heresy.

And they made the right decisions. You can still read the gnostic
gospels and various others if you really want to. But their late
dates, unknown authorship, and flat contradiction by more reliable
manuscripts has caused them to be rejected for 2000-odd years.

It is a simple matter to tailor your book of evidence to prove that the man
existed and was divine by excluding anything that detracts from this view..
The Christian church began as a cult and became a way to bolster the roman
empire, then became a business and political power.

Sadly, this is true (the last bit anyway!)
Religion and politics should never be mixed. As someone said (I wish I
knew who), "If you mix religion and politics, you get politics."
Political power tends to corrupt even the best religious believers.

3. Independent historical sources: Josephus, Pliny the Younger,
Tacitus, Thallus, Suetonius, Celsus, Lucian...basically every
contemporary historian mentions Jesus.

Pliny did NOT mention Jesus. He mentioned Christ.

One and the same, I think most would agree.

Lucian did not mention a Jesus he did say that Christians worship a man.
Celsus did mention specifically but only to deny his abilities and call him
a mere man and a fraud - hardly evidence to the fact that he was christ.

Remember the objective of my argument was to show that Jesus existed.
Celsus' comments re: Jesus certainly show that, regardless of what he
actually though of Jesus.

Thallus refrence is of dubious authenticity . His link with Jesus is a
second-hand mention in one of Julius Africanus Sextus's text. Since he was a
Christian writer his is not an independent source.

The fact that he was a Christian makes him no less of a useful source
than the anti-Christian Lucian and Celsus.

Lucian wrote a satire on christians. He mentions their leader (not by name
IIRC) and has a dig at the fact that they belive that they are immortal but
follow a dead man as leader. Again hardly solid evidence.
Suetonius does not mention Jesus but instead mentionss christians in the
riots of 50AD by which time jesus was dead.

Mentions are not evidence. Texts on the Church of the SubGenius *mention*
that the followers revere Bob Dobbs but he did not exist
If Jesus was such a powerful person there should have been a lot of
historical evidence regarding his acts and deeds - outwith the bible which
was edited by it's own adherents.

It must be remembered that Jesus' teachings and miracles were done
(for the most part) in a remote backwater of occupied Palestine. There
is lots of historical (manuscript) evidence for the existence of
Jesus, but perhaps not as much as there might have been if he had
taught in Rome, or Athens.


That's why no-one doubts it.

He
certainly claimed to be God. And unlike David Ike, he backed up his
claim with credible evidence.

What evidence?

All sorts of evidence.  Again, a flavour:
1. Miracles - the like of which has not been seen before or since.

Reported in the bible which is circular arguement.
Sherlock holmes must have existed because he performed amazing feats of
deduction as reported in the books.
Also see the above section on the ecumenical councils editing the bible.

I think I've dealt with this above.

2. Profound teaching - if God came to earth, he woudl say some pretty
radical things, right? Well, he did. (Matthew ch 5,6,7 are probably
the best known)

But many of these teachings as not unique. Bhuddism predated Jesus by 500
years and many of their teachings are similar.
Why does Matt 5,6,7 prove his existence if the teachings are not
substantailly new? Whether or not Buddha existed or irrelevant as the wisdom
undoubtedly did and clearly predates the semon on the mount.

No, not *all* his teachings were unique. But the fact that he is
quoted regularly 2000 years later is *evidence* that he was someone
very special. Just like Buddha was someone very special, on account
that he is (probably) quoted widely.

3. Fulfillment of ancient prophecy. There are dozens of prophecies in
the Old Testament, written hundreds of years before Jesus, that he
fulfilled. These prophecies cover his lineage, birthplace, virgin
birth; the date of his birth; his miracles, parables ad teaching; the
events leading up to his death - entry into Jerusalem, betrayal,
trial; the manner of his death - torture and crucifixion;
resurrection, and the formation of the early church. There's a summary
of some of them here:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html
(Although I don't agree with all the site's contents)

Biblical prophesies are not valid - cyclical reasoning again. I cannot use
Holmes literature to show that he existed
Besides it is possible to engineer a conclusion to a prophesy and so
strengthen an invalid case (or else engineer the accounts). Norstadamians
have been manipulating events to fit in with prophesies for ages.

You cannot use the bible to prove that the subject of the bible existed for
two reasons:-
1) It is a logical fallacy to use a book as evidence that the subject of the
book existed.
2) The bible has been edited and altered throughout history with books being
added, removed and edited as time went onwards. There is, naturally, a
dispute over this with evangelicals denying the large body of historical
evidence as lies and instead believe that Peter, Paul and John wrote or
collated the whole New Testament.

The large body of historical evidence supports the assertion that
Peter, Paul, John, Luke, Matthew (and the others) wrote the NT. Many
books have come out in the last few years that try to deny this. They
are basically re-hashing old German higher criticism from the latter
part of the 19th century. But in the main, they have been debunked
many many years ago.

There is a huge amount of historical data that lists the history and 'family
tree' of the NT. As late as the late 1500s, ecumenical councils were still
adding and deleting passages, psalms etc.

I don't think this is true. The NT as we know it was listed
"officially" in AD397 at the Council of Carthage. And almost the same
books were regarded as authentic by about AD160.

Another issue, which you may be hinting at, is the ongoing work of
Biblical textual criticism. Of course, there is an ongoing job to do
in deciding which of the huge numbers of documents provide the most
accurate version of the original autographs. As more documents are
unearthed (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), this process will continue
and improve, and better translations will be made as we gain a better
understanding of the original languages. But this process is hugely
unlikely to bring about any significant changes to the Biblical texts
now, only the odd word here and there.

Jon.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Historical evidence for Jesus ?
    ... Let's look again at the evidence for the 27 books of the NT: ... Paul's letters say nothing of a historical Jesus of Nazareth - merely ... and containing numerous errors of history. ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)
  • Re: making fun of atheists
    ... so you take their actual existence as a matter of faith. ... you take it on faith that the evidence for Jesus is somehow ... Jesus, date at least decades after he supposedly died. ... on one hand, you're totally relying on first hand accounts, on the ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: 2 questions for creationists
    ... There is as much if not more on Jesus as Julius Ceasar. ... more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar invading Britain. ... Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is ... sources for all that period of history are these three plus Cassius ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: From Shakespeare COde, racial relations
    ... but you never give any evidence to ... Still provable history there Crossed Dave. ... So how was Troy destroyed? ... proves the existence of the Greeks gods from the Iliad. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Three old rules of journalism that should be changed
    ... the actual existence of people like Socrates and Plato are just as ... Sasquatch and Jesus. ... no good evidence for the existence of Jesus. ... we're talking Western European history. ...
    (misc.writing)