| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 04:43:33 AM |
| Object: |
Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------
It is Darwinists, not Christians, who are stonewalling the facts.
Charles Colson with Anne Morse | posted 03/28/2005 10:00 a.m.
It was one of the first—and angriest—post-election hissy fits: In The
New York Times, Garry Wills credited White House political adviser
Karl Rove for getting millions of religious conservatives (whom he
compared to Muslim jihadists) to the polls and sneered, "Can a nation
which believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution
still be called an enlightened nation?"
It's an interesting question, considering the iron grip evolutionists
have had over our educational institutions for a century. And at first
glance, it seems odd that Americans—among the best-educated, most
technologically advanced people in the world—would choose miraculous
stories over scientific ones.
But is there really so little evidence for biblical miracles, and so
much for naturalistic evolution?
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical religion
that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that Jesus, the
Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and place.
Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that have almost
universally supported the biblical accounts. And the life of Jesus, he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/19.112.html
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 11:27:49 AM |
|
|
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
[...]
No t to get into the middle of this fight, but some skeptics (as I
read
them) claim exactly that: there was never an historical figure called
Jesus at the centre of what became the Christian religion.
Personally,
I regard this as a sort of of hyper-skepticism.
Perhaps you do, but that is not really support for your view or
against theirs.
I think that the
Gospels (and other early Christian writings) are largely legendary,
but
it seems more likely to me that those legends accreted onto the
traditions associated with a once-living person, rather than
inventing
the person out of whole cloth to attach themselves to.
Well it isn't merely incredulity that leads people to question
this. Why were their no contemporary accounts of Jesus?
Why do the gospel accounts contradict one another regarding
his alleged birth and alleged death? For instance, Matthew
says Jesus was born in the time of Herrod who died in 4 B.C.
Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria. He became governor in 6 AD.
Matthew says that Herod slaughtered all the first born in the
land in order to kill Jesus. But no other source ever mentions
this alleged genocide. The geneologies of Jesus given by
the Luke and Matthew contradict one another. Etc., etc.
The Bible itself admits that it is not objective reporting "And
many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
-- John 20:30-31
Granted, it may
be difficult or impossible to recover the Jesus of history from
beneath
the Christ of faith.
Disclaimer: I'm not a historian. But then, neither are 90% of the
people who shoot their mouths off on this subject on Usenet, on
either
side of the question. So I've got plenty of company.
-- Kizhe
[rest snipped]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 08:34:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Well it isn't merely incredulity that leads people to question
this. Why were their no contemporary accounts of Jesus?
Because he wasn't really that important until after his death. [Though
the Roman records for Palestine from that era have not yet been found].
Why do the gospel accounts contradict one another regarding
his alleged birth and alleged death? For instance, Matthew
says Jesus was born in the time of Herrod who died in 4 B.C.
Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was governor of
Syria. He became governor in 6 AD.
Because this was part of the back story. Added later, based on vague
and imperfect memories. Note, the earliest Gospel, Mark, has NO birth
story!
The most directly historical parts of the Gospels are the *teachings* of
Jesus, and the fact of his execution.
Matthew says that Herod slaughtered all the first born in the
land in order to kill Jesus. But no other source ever mentions
this alleged genocide.
As Lt. Kizhe Catson said, myths accreted to the person.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 11:03:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
[...]
I think there is no question Jesus existed
Regardless, there is a question.
Not really, except among cranks.
Typical abusive ad hominem from a known pseudo Christian.
No evidence offered for the claim and no reason to suspect
it has any merit whatsoever.
The claim to the contrary was only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it all.
Of course our dishonest friend here doesn't explain, for
example, why the historian Justus of Tiberius (a native
of Galilee) made no mention of Jesus in his historical
account of that period.
He doesn't mention that Philo doesn't mention Jesus either.
John E. Remsburg, in "The Christ" wrote:
"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era
and lived long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote
an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ
is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near
Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and Herodian
massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion and
its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and
resurrection of the dead took place...These marvelous events
which must have filled the world with amazement, had they
really occurred, were unknown to him."
So RP, your presumption that your unsupported assertions
and accusations carry weight here is simply a delusion
of competence on your part.
and the broad events of his life (birth, became an itinerant
preacher/teacher/healer, persecuted by the Romans at the
behest of the Jewish establishment, was cricified)
are as as well established as any ancient history
I don't think so. There are no known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
Clearly there are.
Bald assertion.
But the demand for 'contemporary' accounts is one
only made by atheists about Jesus;
One tell-tale sign of dishonesty is the penchant to distort
or fabricate the statements or positions of the opposing
side, as we see RP do here. This is done consciously by
someone who can't address the actual statements or
positions of the opposing side. Here RP converts my
observation and statement of fact: "There are no known
contemporaneous accounts of Jesus" into a "demand" for
'contemporary' accounts. (His insinuation: "only made
by atheists" is actually a slap at Christians which RP
was simply too obtuse to grasp when he wrote it)
I have yet to see it made for any
other ancient figure.
Ah. So RP has "yet to see" evidence against his claim
so therefore his claim is correct. Well, they don't call
this an appeal to ignorance for nothing.
And virtually everything "known" about Jesus comes from the Bible.
Ad hominem argument, tho.
::sigh:: Poor RP can't even distinguish a factual statement
from an argument. That, or RP is consciously bearing
false witness. Whatever the cause: ignorance, irrationality
or unethical behavior, it is not an encouraging sign.
For future reference, RP,
An argument is a proposition supported by premises.
Not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious.
When someone makes a claim and says, in effect, "trust
me, what I say is true" it is not ad hominem to ask
the obvious question: "why should I trust you?"
(but why better than Julius Ceasar I have no idea).
That can't be right. Better than some 3rd century emperors, if we
exclude archaeological evidence.
RP once again falsely attributes words to me that I have
not written.
That Jesus was a hearler seems incontrovertible.
How come?
The testimony of the sources.
"the sources" he says. LOL!
How else?
RP again "backs up" his unsupported claim by
acknowledging his own ignorance of alternatives to it.
Whether the birth was a `virgin birth', whether he actually died
on
the cross and later returned alive (rather than seeming to die
but
in fact went into a coma, was later revived but soon after died
of his wounds -- as the Passover Plot, e.g. suggests), whether
the miracles listed in the New testament happened as described,
these do not seem to be questions that archeology can answer.
They are not questions that history can answer, period.
Why? If I kick someone in the teeth, that can be shown to have
occurred by the methods of history.
Obviously false analogy noted.
If I raise them from the dead, why
does this suddenly become impossible to show? It's nonsense, I
think.
That is just it. RP doesn't think. If we take the supernatural
accounts of the Bible as historically true, then we must take
the historical accounts of, for instance, Caesar Agustus ascending,
bodily, into heaven as well (attested to by the entire Roman
senate, as reported by Suetonius). Of course, this will not be
accepted by Christians--or even by RP--so what this boils down
to is special pleading by RP.
If a miricle is defined as some sort of violation of natural law
then miricles can't be historical. There simply would be no
rational or consistent criteria for rejecting any claim.
As Hume points out, historical data can only be interpreted
if we assume the same natural laws apply throughout time.
Pure category confusion, it seems to me.
RP again invokes his ignorance as a rationale to scoff at things
he is oblivious of. l
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 03:45:29 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[tedious abuse snipped]
If we take the supernatural accounts of the Bible as
historically true, then we must take the historical accounts
of, for instance, Caesar Agustus ascending, bodily, into
heaven as well (attested to by the entire Roman senate, as
reported by Suetonius).
Suetonius only says (Aug. 100) that an ex-praetor 'actually swore' he
saw the spirit of Augustus ascend when his body was burned.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 07:53:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
[tedious abuse snipped]
I am impressed by how casually RP violates the 9th
commandment here. That gives us some idea of the
"values" he embraces.
What RP has snipped, of course, are my refutations of his
assertions such as
RP:
"The claim [that Jesus never existed] was only
invented as a piece of malice around 1700, which sort of says it all."
He can't explain why the historian Justus of Tiberius (a native
of Galilee) made no mention of Jesus in his historical
account of that period.
RP doesn't mention that Philo doesn't mention Jesus either.
John E. Remsburg, in "The Christ" wrote:
"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era
and lived long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote
an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ
is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near
Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and Herodian
massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion and
its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and
resurrection of the dead took place...These marvelous events
which must have filled the world with amazement, had they
really occurred, were unknown to him."
And so RP whines about abuse as an excuse to evade addressing
the embarrassing flaws in his hot-air assertions. Like his
comic assertion that there "clearly are" known contemporaneous
accounts of Jesus.
He also wanted to avoid exposure of his dishonest tactics:
Del:
"Here RP converts my observation and statement of fact:
'There are no known contemporaneous accounts of Jesus'
into a 'demand' for 'contemporary' accounts."
Etc.
And look at this:
Del:
If we take the supernatural accounts of the Bible as
historically true, then we must take the historical accounts
of, for instance, Caesar Agustus ascending, bodily, into
heaven as well (attested to by the entire Roman senate, as
reported by Suetonius).
RP:
Suetonius only says (Aug. 100) that an ex-praetor 'actually swore' he
saw the spirit of Augustus ascend when his body was burned.
Unbelievable. RP evades the answer to his own question.
I said that history cannot be invoked to show supernatural
claims to be true RP sez:
RP:
Why? If I kick someone in the teeth, that can be shown to have
occurred by the methods of history. If I raise them from the dead,
why
does this suddenly become impossible to show? It's nonsense, I
think
My above explained why it was true and why
his assertion " It's nonsense," was nonsense. So what
does RP do? He focuses on the example--when any
example of a supernatural claim would serve the point
just as well--and he does solely and entirely to avoid
admitting he was wrong.
This is why it is RP is not taken seriously.
P
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 11:02:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
[tedious abuse snipped]
[more abuse snipped]
Del:
If we take the supernatural accounts of the Bible as
historically true, then we must take the historical accounts
of, for instance, Caesar Agustus ascending, bodily, into
heaven as well (attested to by the entire Roman senate, as
reported by Suetonius).
RP:
Suetonius only says (Aug. 100) that an ex-praetor 'actually swore'
he
saw the spirit of Augustus ascend when his body was burned.
Unbelievable. RP evades the answer to his own question.
I said that history cannot be invoked to show supernatural
claims to be true
So here we have it. You made a statement of fact, with the utmost
positiveness, that Suetonius stated x and y. In fact he did not. I've
told you -- courteously -- that it is incorrect. You neither apologise
for stating in your own person as fact that which you did not know to
be true, or else refer the matter to your source. Instead offer
juvenile abuse and ranting. You fall below the minumum standard of
honesty.
***** off, you dishonest little *****.
Roger Pearse
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
03 Apr 2005 05:31:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
wrote:
jfacts@earthlink.net wrote:
RP:
[tedious abuse snipped]
RP:
[more abuse snipped]
RP:
***** off, you dishonest little *****.
LOL! What an amusing hypocrite and sore loser. This is
how RP typically responds when you show him to be dead
wrong. He simply snips, without notice, the text that has
embarrassed him and calls you names.
PS: the dishonest ***** here is the one who deleted the
text that proved him wrong. You can count on RP to
falsely accuse you of what he is guilty of. It is called
projection.
Del:
If we take the supernatural accounts of the Bible as
historically true, then we must take the historical accounts
of, for instance, Caesar Augustus ascending, bodily, into
heaven as well (attested to by the entire Roman senate, as
reported by Suetonius).
RP:
Suetonius only says (Aug. 100) that an ex-praetor 'actually
swore' he
saw the spirit of Augustus ascend when his body was burned.
Unbelievable. RP evades the answer to his own question.
I said that history cannot be invok ed to show supernatural
claims to be true. RP sez:
So here we have it.
LOL. RP telegraphs what most embarrasses him by what he
deletes without notice. In this case (as it often is) it included
his own words. His amusing evasion continues:
You made a statement of fact, with the utmost
positiveness, that Suetonius stated x and y. In fact he did not.
I've
told you -- courteously -- that it is incorrect.
LOL! As if this makes any difference! Does RP go on to
address the issue? Does RP accept this eye witness account
from a highly placed official with the rank of praetor
of Caesar Augustus rising to heaven as historical? Would he
have accepted it if it was the entire Roman senate? RP doesn't
say because he can't admit he was dead wrong. Thus his
amusing evasion.
This is why you can't take RP seriously.
You neither apologise
for stating in your own person as fact that which you did not know to
be true,
Don't do as RP does, do as RP says.
or else refer the matter to your source. Instead offer
juvenile abuse and ranting.
Here is what RP means by "juvenile abuse and ranting."
"My above explained why it was true and why
his assertion 'It's nonsense,' was nonsense. So what
does RP do? He focuses on the example--when any
example of a supernatural claim would serve the point
just as well--and he does solely and entirely to avoid
admitting he was wrong."
LOL! You've been outed, Roger!
You fall below the minumum standard of
honesty.
More projection, Roger, and you know it too. What
a crack up!
Best Wishes,
Delď
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
03 Apr 2005 02:19:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
wrote:
RP:
[tedious abuse snipped]
RP:
[more abuse snipped]
RP:
***** off, you dishonest little *****.
LOL! What an amusing hypocrite and sore loser. This is
how RP typically responds when you show him to be dead
wrong. He simply snips, without notice, the text that has
embarrassed him and calls you names.
Yes, its all he has left.
PS: the dishonest ***** here is the one who deleted the
text that proved him wrong. You can count on RP to
falsely accuse you of what he is guilty of. It is called
projection.
No, he does it to irritate. Its net kook nonsense.
Irritate you into kill filing him and claiming victory.
"So and so could answer me so he killfiled me. I win."
Not kook strategy.
Del:
If we take the supernatural accounts of the Bible as
historically true, then we must take the historical accounts
of, for instance, Caesar Augustus ascending, bodily, into
heaven as well (attested to by the entire Roman senate, as
reported by Suetonius).
RP:
Suetonius only says (Aug. 100) that an ex-praetor 'actually
swore' he
saw the spirit of Augustus ascend when his body was burned.
Unbelievable. RP evades the answer to his own question.
I said that history cannot be invok ed to show supernatural
claims to be true. RP sez:
So here we have it.
LOL. RP telegraphs what most embarrasses him by what he
deletes without notice. In this case (as it often is) it included
his own words. His amusing evasion continues:
You made a statement of fact, with the utmost
positiveness, that Suetonius stated x and y. In fact he did not.
I've
told you -- courteously -- that it is incorrect.
LOL! As if this makes any difference! Does RP go on to
address the issue? Does RP accept this eye witness account
from a highly placed official with the rank of praetor
of Caesar Augustus rising to heaven as historical? Would he
have accepted it if it was the entire Roman senate? RP doesn't
say because he can't admit he was dead wrong. Thus his
amusing evasion.
Tacitus has Vespasian curing blind men with his spittle.
We have the life of Apollianus of Tyana with all his miracles.
We have many, many plaques found at Asclepian temples
attesting to miraculous healings here with help of Asclepius
and Apollo, his patron.
We have true believers of the cult pest Alexander the
Miracle Mongerer, the religous fraud written of by Lucian.
We have miracle working Gnostics and others.
This is why you can't take RP seriously.
You neither apologise
for stating in your own person as fact that which you did not know to
be true,
Don't do as RP does, do as RP says.
or else refer the matter to your source. Instead offer
juvenile abuse and ranting.
Here is what RP means by "juvenile abuse and ranting."
"My above explained why it was true and why
his assertion 'It's nonsense,' was nonsense. So what
does RP do? He focuses on the example--when any
example of a supernatural claim would serve the point
just as well--and he does solely and entirely to avoid
admitting he was wrong."
LOL! You've been outed, Roger!
You fall below the minumum standard of
honesty.
More projection, Roger, and you know it too. What
a crack up!
Best Wishes,
Delď
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "davidm" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 04:08:35 PM |
|
|
Me >>, jfa >, me no >'s, portions deleted without indication. I believe
I quote and am responding to complete points, however.
Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death)
Is 20 or so years "soon after"?
He would have known lots of people who were alive while Jesus was
preaching. Another person on this thread says that Paul is the key
witness and if he is lying about Jesus's existence or story, then
perhaps Jesus did not exist or was very differnt from what we are told.
But if Paul is not lying, the evidence seems pretty good.
There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
I don't think the existence of Christians was ever in dispute.
No, but AFAIK none of the Romans mentioning Christians suggests the
Jesus did not exist. If he did not (and so Paul made him up), it seems
ot me there should be controversies and rumors which the Romans would
have picked up on. (I am simply discussing the historical existence of
a teacher/healer named Jesus of Nazereth. I am not discussing the
accuracy of biblical stories.)
but why better than
Julius Ceasar I have no idea). That Jesus was a hearler seems
incontrovertible.
How come?
My position is that if there was a contemporary dispute about his
existence or about the fact he was known as a healer, some of this
would have come down through Roman sources, but it hasn't.
There are also later Jewish sources that mention Jesus (not always
favorably 8-).
For instance?
Ah, I wish I could remember. I went to a lecture on some aspect of
Jewish history in College (class of 70) where the guy read from sources
from the 2nd or 3rd century that mention Jesus (unfavorably) but the
details are long gone, I am afraid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
02 Apr 2005 08:41:13 AM |
|
|
"davidm" <divaricatum@aol.com> wrote:
Me >>, jfa >, me no >'s, portions deleted without indication. I believe
I quote and am responding to complete points, however.
Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death)
Is 20 or so years "soon after"?
He would have known lots of people who were alive while Jesus was
preaching.
Actually, Paul *himself* was alive, and even a (young) adult, when Jesus
was preaching. Check the timelines. However, it *is* true that Paul
never actually met or heard Jesus.
Another person on this thread says that Paul is the key
witness and if he is lying about Jesus's existence or story, then
perhaps Jesus did not exist or was very different from what we are told.
Except he is not the sole witness. The author of John knew actual
disciples in person, so he is only one removed from the person of Jesus.
This is as close as most ancient historical texts.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 04:59:33 PM |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2005 14:08:35 -0800, "davidm" <divaricatum@aol.com> wrote:
Me >>, jfa >, me no >'s, portions deleted without indication. I believe
I quote and am responding to complete points, however.
Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death)
Is 20 or so years "soon after"?
He would have known lots of people who were alive while Jesus was
preaching. Another person on this thread says that Paul is the key
witness and if he is lying about Jesus's existence or story, then
perhaps Jesus did not exist or was very differnt from what we are told.
But if Paul is not lying, the evidence seems pretty good.
What "the evidence"?
Paul's Jesus is a spiritual, ethereal one. He knows nothing about
Jesus the man.
There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
I don't think the existence of Christians was ever in dispute.
No, but AFAIK none of the Romans mentioning Christians suggests the
Jesus did not exist. If he did not (and so Paul made him up), it seems
ot me there should be controversies and rumors which the Romans would
have picked up on. (I am simply discussing the historical existence of
a teacher/healer named Jesus of Nazereth. I am not discussing the
accuracy of biblical stories.)
Why should they? The sheer lack of evidence for an obscure Jewish sect
that most Romans had never even heard of, is sufficient.
but why better than
Julius Ceasar I have no idea). That Jesus was a hearler seems
incontrovertible.
How come?
My position is that if there was a contemporary dispute about his
existence or about the fact he was known as a healer, some of this
would have come down through Roman sources, but it hasn't.
So demonstrate that there was, otherwise this is merely wishful
thinking.
There are also later Jewish sources that mention Jesus (not always
favorably 8-).
For instance?
Ah, I wish I could remember. I went to a lecture on some aspect of
Jewish history in College (class of 70) where the guy read from sources
from the 2nd or 3rd century that mention Jesus (unfavorably) but the
details are long gone, I am afraid.
By which time Christians were mentioning Jesus and the Jews as
Christ-killers. What do you expect?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert the NOLA Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
01 Apr 2005 05:03:49 PM |
|
|
Paul admits he never met Jesus. Paul claims his authority on a vision
from the "risen Christ" who came to him in a dream. The foundation of
Xtianity is based on one's man's fantasy.
On 30 Mar 2005 14:08:35 -0800, "davidm" <divaricatum@aol.com> wrote:
Me >>, jfa >, me no >'s, portions deleted without indication. I believe
I quote and am responding to complete points, however.
Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death)
Is 20 or so years "soon after"?
He would have known lots of people who were alive while Jesus was
preaching. Another person on this thread says that Paul is the key
witness and if he is lying about Jesus's existence or story, then
perhaps Jesus did not exist or was very differnt from what we are told.
But if Paul is not lying, the evidence seems pretty good.
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 12:30:14 PM |
|
|
davidm wrote:
Me >>, jfa >, me no >'s, portions deleted without indication. I
believe
I quote and am responding to complete points, however.
Saul/Paul (who, of course did
not know Jesus but lived and wrote soon after Jesus's death)
Is 20 or so years "soon after"?
He would have known lots of people who were alive while Jesus was
preaching. Another person on this thread says that Paul is the key
witness and if he is lying about Jesus's existence or story, then
perhaps Jesus did not exist or was very differnt from what we are
told.
But if Paul is not lying, the evidence seems pretty good.
There are plenty of Romans writing about Christians
I don't think the existence of Christians was ever in dispute.
No, but AFAIK none of the Romans mentioning Christians suggests the
Jesus did not exist.
Right, it is not evidence against. I'm saying that it isn't evidence
for.
If he did not (and so Paul made him up),
?
it seems
ot me there should be controversies and rumors which the Romans would
have picked up on.
You'd have to be more specific about what Romans
writing about Christians and when for me to comment.
(I am simply discussing the historical existence of
a teacher/healer named Jesus of Nazereth. I am not discussing the
accuracy of biblical stories.)
but why better than
Julius Ceasar I have no idea). That Jesus was a hearler seems
incontrovertible.
How come?
My position is that if there was a contemporary dispute about his
existence or about the fact he was known as a healer, some of this
would have come down through Roman sources, but it hasn't.
Even if there was no dispute and everybody at the time
of these Roman writings agreed that Jesus existed, this
would not make it more likely true that Jesus existed.
That would be an argumentum ad numeram:
"A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support
or believe a proposition then the more likely that that
proposition is correct; it equates mass support with
correctness."
There are also later Jewish sources th at mention Jesus (not
always
favorably 8-).
For instance?
Ah, I wish I could remember. I went to a lecture on some aspect of
Jewish history in College (class of 70)
And you don't remember it a mere 35+ years later??
where the guy read from sources
from the 2nd or 3rd century that mention Jesus (unfavorably) but the
details are long gone, I am afraid.
Oh ok. I think I know what you mean then.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 10:21:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
<Snip>
As historian Paul Johnson notes, Christianity is a historical
religion that deals in facts and events. Among those facts is that
Jesus, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, in a specific time and
place. Johnson cites the mounting archaeological discoveries that
have almost universally supported the biblical accounts. And the
life of Jesus, he notes, is better authenticated than most other
figures of antiquity, like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson
puts it, "It is not now the men of faith; it is the skeptics who
have reason to fear the course of discovery."
OK.. I have heard this claim quite a few times before, but what do
Christians actually mean by this? After all, we have contemporary
engravings, statues and coins all bearing Julius Caesar's image. We
have books that he wrote. He turns up as a character in all sorts of
people's writings, both on his side and against him. That seems to
me to be pretty damned conclusive authentication of his existence.
What exactly to Christians claim match up with this level of
evidence on behalf of their favourite JC?
I think it's a simpleminded "Jesus had four contemporary biographers"
argument. Also, this sort of thing is intended for the choir, so the
notion of actually justifying it probably never crossed anyone's mind.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
30 Mar 2005 01:30:14 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
[snip]
And the life of Jesus, he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
That's nothing. I once had a fundy tell me that there was better
evidence for Jesus than for Napoleon. He was very surprised when I told
him that Napoleon's body was still in his tomb, that we have documents
written in Napoleon's own hand, etc. That actually shut him up, and I
was able to escape.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
31 Mar 2005 02:52:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:30:14 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
[snip]
And the life of Jesus, he
notes, is better authenticated than most other figures of antiquity,
like Aristotle and Julius Caesar. As Johnson puts it, "It is not now
the men of faith; it is the skeptics who have reason to fear the
course of discovery."
That's nothing. I once had a fundy tell me that there was better
evidence for Jesus than for Napoleon. He was very surprised when I told
him that Napoleon's body was still in his tomb, that we have documents
written in Napoleon's own hand, etc. That actually shut him up, and I
was able to escape.
http://www.napoleonguide.com/waterloo_broob4.htm
Waterloo orders of battle:
British-Allied reserve
18 June, 1815
Battle Description
Battle Simulator
Map
Documentary on the battle
British Order of Battle
Commander: The Duke of Wellington.
Deputy Quartermaster General: Col Sir William de Lancey.
Army strength: 54,000 infantry, 13,000 cavalry, 157 cannons.
/end
So, all those people were out on training maneuvers for several years,
according to the Christian morons.
http://www.napoleonguide.com/medical_ukofficersab.htm
And the officers listed above didn't die from injuries gotten during
combat.
How interesting! Then Christians wonder why others see the most vocal
of them, which sometimes rubs off on them, as drooling idiots.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 08:22:51 PM |
|
|
Jason,
Quoting Paul Johson "opinion" that "Christianity is a historical
religion that deals in facts and events." does not make it true. You
go on to say that it is a "fact" that "Jesus, the Son of God, ...".
Where exactly is the "fact" that Jesus is the Son of God? Which
historical artifact are you choosing to use? Which version of the
Bible, or Koran, or Scrolls, or ??? What makes them fact? Do you know
who wrote them? Is it a "fact" that they were written by human(s)
under the direction of God? Your statement is so completely full of
tautological references, mostly relying on the premise of a pure jump
of faith, that it is almost impossible to even begin a discussion
concerning "facts".
But here goes: Fact 1 - If you are referring to references in the
Bible, then note that the Bible was written by dozens of individuals
over a long period of time (evidence found in writing analysis and
historical artifacts covering numerous "versions"). Fact 2 - The
Scopes Monkey trial occurred in 1925, which is 80 years ago, not a
century. You can hardly claim that evolutionists have "an iron grip"
for a century given the evidence to the contrary - that evidence
extends even to today where there are numerous examples of school
systems teaching "creationism" next to evolutionary theory, and even
school systems that have thrown out books on evolution. Fact 3 -
Americans, in fact, do NOT choose miraculous stories over scientific
ones. Various polls conducted in the last few years have clearly shown
that evolution is accepted by the vast majority. Creationism only
makes the headlines because it is so REMARKABLE that even 40% of
americans believe evolution theory should be replaced by creation
theory. However, the facts are that easily over 90% of the fossil
record perfectly fits evolution. The so called gaps are truly
remarkable for how small they are. Fact 4 - Religious faith and the
concommitant ferver are responsible for ALL major conflicts this world
has seen with the possible exception of WWI. Fact 5 - You can find
hundreds of examples of completely contradictory statements in the
Bible or Koran or really just about any foundational religious "book".
If you really have an open mind, you should read "The End of Faith" by
Sam Harris for an eye opening view of the tremendous cost of "blind"
faith in our modern society. Harris is an extraordinary writer with a
passionate plea for reason to take precedence in a world where nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction are almost freely
available. He argues that a "fact" based spirituality, not religious
dogma, must be quickly evolved and accepted for this world to survive.
The disconnect between technological evolution and our social evolution
has literally given 21st century weapons to 15th century societies - an
extremely dangerous situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Chuck Colson: Verdict that Demands Evidence |
29 Mar 2005 09:00:31 PM |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2005 18:22:51 -0800, "Ron" <ronsonntag@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jason,
Quoting Paul Johson "opinion" that "Christianity is a historical
religion that deals in facts and events." does not make it true. You
go on to say that it is a "fact" that "Jesus, the Son of God, ...".
Ron: Read the headers. Jason is quoting Colson quoting Johnson. Do't
attribute Colson's (or Johnson's) beliefs to Jason, he's only the
messenger, and not on the fundies' side. He just posts articles he
finds that may be of interest in the groups he posts them to.
German
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
