- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Basically the mainstream Christianity we see today is the result of one heretical group winning over the other. The 'early church fathers' were just more organized than the other splinter groups and thus succeeded in spreading their form of Christianity. Christianity in its infancy was one big power struggle with the losers usually being put to death.
Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 09 2007,23:46) Basically the mainstream Christianity we see today is the result of one heretical group winning over the other. The 'early church fathers' were just more organized than the other splinter groups and thus succeeded in spreading their form of Christianity. Christianity in its infancy was one big power struggle with the losers usually being put to death.
Alot of people were killed because of Christianity agree.History has proven that through out the ages.Like that song goes Onward christian soilders..But the real question is who were they fighting?
It sure wasnt Roman empire. 
Quote (Unisage @ Nov. 10 2007,05:25) Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 09 2007,23:46) Basically the mainstream Christianity we see today is the result of one heretical group winning over the other. The 'early church fathers' were just more organized than the other splinter groups and thus succeeded in spreading their form of Christianity. Christianity in its infancy was one big power struggle with the losers usually being put to death.
Alot of people were killed because of Christianity agree.History has proven that through out the ages.Like that song goes Onward christian soilders..But the real question is who were they fighting? It sure wasnt Roman empire.
you are right.Things are exactly as prophesied.
2 Thessalonians 2
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition
2 Timothy 3
2 Timothy 4
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
Real Christians is identified by their fruit.
Quote Darwin wrote books. His contemporaries quoted him from direct hearing. There are photographs of him. I have stood in his study where there are photos of him sitting at his desk. That's not too bad, as evidence goes, don't you think?
Of course I wasn't questioning darwins existence. I was asking if you were knowledgeable of him, despite your not being a contemporary.
Your answer was “yes.”
So too with tacitus, although not a contemporary of Jesus.
Quote I happen to think it likely that Jesus was an historical figure, but the history really isn’t there to support my belief. –stu
So, just for the record, stu, you believe things that you don't believe have supportive evidence.
Quote Why are you all debating whether Jesus pre-existed? Shouldn't you be validating whether or not he existed in the first place? –Oct 24, Pre-existence thread, TOWSHAB.
But, here, you say:
Quote As I've said more than once (I think I have) I don't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, So I assume you now understand why I would think you did question his existence, having said that we have to validate “whether or not he [Jesus] existed.”
Hi David
++”Of course I wasn't questioning darwins existence. I was asking if you were knowledgeable of him, despite your not being a contemporary. Your answer was “yes.” So too with tacitus, although not a contemporary of Jesus.
No, I think you are distracting from the main point. Darwin had contemporaries who wrote about him from personal contact with him. Jesus didn’t.
(stu) I happen to think it likely that Jesus was an historical figure, but the history really isn’t there to support my belief.
++”So, just for the record, stu, you believe things that you don't believe have supportive evidence.
Well I have fairies at the bottom of my garden who have a plan for you, and all others willing to accept them. I’m afraid it is very difficult to give you evidence that you are likely to accept; they don’t form images in photographs, and when I try to record their sermons no sound is heard. If you could just have faith in the salvation they offer…
Stuart
Quote No, I think you are distracting from the main point. Darwin had contemporaries who wrote about him from personal contact with him. Jesus didn’t. I think you're in the wrong thread. This one is a challenge to any who can prove Gamaliel existed.
Secondly, the point I was making when I began mentioning Darwin (if you will remember) was that you, Stu, were not around when he was alive (not a contemporary) yet you, Stu, are knowledgeable of him, aren't you?
Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus but he was a knowledgeable guy who knew that Jesus did exist. (Yes, there are no photos, as you said, but you can't expect there to be, can you?)
Quote (stu) I happen to think it likely that Jesus was an historical figure, but the history really isn’t there to support my belief. ++”So, just for the record, stu, you believe things that you don't believe have supportive evidence.
Well I have fairies at the bottom of my garden who have a plan for you, and all others willing to accept them. I’m afraid it is very difficult to give you evidence that you are likely to accept; they don’t form images in photographs, and when I try to record their sermons no sound is heard. If you could just have faith in the salvation they offer…
Hey, you're the one that said it, saying: I happen to think it likely that Jesus was an historical figure, but the history really isn’t there to support my belief.
You, stu are clearly willing to believe things in which you also believe there isn't evidence for. I find that quite silly.
Everything I believe, I also believe there is evidence for. I'm not as trusting as you, I guess.
david.
Oh, HAS ANYONE FOUND ANYTHING ON GAMALIEL?
Quote As I've said more than once (I think I have) I don't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, I just doubt that a man who supposedly did all of the things in the Christian bible that would have drawn attention form every historian in the area would have made it into the annuls of history. –towshab.
It would have “drawn attention from every historian.” Which historians exactly?
The ones who were studying Christian history?
There's a list of historians that SHOULD HAVE written about Jesus. It is below:
# Martial — this was a writer of poetry and satire also. How would Jesus find a place here?
# Arrian — this guy lived in the second century, and wrote works concerned with Alexander the Great! That's 300 years before Jesus, quite a stretch for a mention! (“Alexander defeated the Persians. By the way, this has nothing to do with Jesus, who
lived 300 years later.”)# Petronius — this was a writer of a novel called the Satyricon. Bartleby adds: “Among the surviving fragments the most complete and valuable section is the Cena Trimalchionis (Trimalchio's Dinner), presenting a humorous episode of vulgar display on the part of a man whose great wealth is newly acquired.” Maybe Jesus could have served the main course or the wine!
# Dion Prusaeus — this guy was an orator, a specialist in speaking skills. Do books on public speaking today go off topic to mention Jesus?
# Paterculus — Authored an amateurish history of Rome. Paterculus was a retired army officer of Tiberius. He published in 30 A.D., just when Jesus was getting started in His ministry. Jesus never set foot in Rome, so it is hard to see where he would fit in this guy's works.
# Appian — a Roman historian of the second century who wrote a history of Roman conquests from the founding of Rome to Trajan; only about half of his books have survived fully intact. Again, Jesus didn't lead any Roman armies, so where would he fit here?
# Theon of Smyrna — a mathematician and astronomer who wrote a “handbook for philosophy students to show how prime numbers, geometrical numbers such as squares, progressions, music and astronomy are interrelated.” Maybe Theon could have counted the 5000 people fed fishes and loaves?
# Phlegon
# Persius — we have only a few lines from this fellow, who was a satirist who wrote six plays that we know of. Like the previous satirists, there is no reason for Jesus to be mentioned.
# Plutarch — this fellow wrote a large number of essays and mini-biographies. He lived until around 120 AD and of all the people on this list other than Philo and Justus, would have been the likeliest to mention Jesus. However, in light of the considerations noted above, and the bigotry of Romans towards superstitious peoples like the Jews and Egyptians, it seems unlikely that Plutarch would have put Jesus in his roster of Greco-Roman heroes.
# Justus
# Apollonius — Bartleby lists over a half dozen men with this name; it is not clear which one Remsberg refers to, so I cannot comment. The closest found by our Research Assistant is a grammarian and linguist from the 2nd century.
# Pliny the Younger
# Tacitus
# Quintillian — this fellow was a writer on oratory and rhetoric. Again, where is there room for mentioning Jesus, in what was essentially a how-to manual of public speaking?
# Lucanus — Seneca's nephew, all we have by him is one poem and some books recording the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. Where should Jesus have been worked into it?
# Epictetus — Bartleby reports that this guy wrote nothing — all his teachings were set down by a disciple!
# Silius Italicus — this guy was a poet who wrote a big poem about the second Punic War. Jesus was there, of course, serving in the chow tents…?
# Statius — this guy was a poet who wrote the Thebaid, about the Seven against Thebes, the Achilleid, a life of Achilles, and a collection of poems called the Silvae. I see plenty of reason to mention Jesus, don't you?
# Ptolemy — another astronomer and mathematician who lived in the second century. I might suppose some skeptics want a mention of the Star of Bethlehem, but if as I suppose it was mostly a natural phenomenon interpreted by the magi astrologically, Ptolemy may have mentioned it, but would hardly have connected it to Jesus — even if he knew that connection Christians made, which he would have dismissed as superstitious nonsense; it would need to be shown that Ptolemy also had an interest in things like astrology and omens from other nations.
# Hermogones — the only person I have found by this name was a second-century Stoic painter whose material was addressed by Tertullian. It is not clear if this is who Remsberg refers to, so I will have to leave this one alone for now.
# Valerius Maximus — wrote a book of anecdotes for orators around 30 AD. In other words, the ancient equivalent to one of those desktop Dilbert calendars. Where does Jesus belong in this?
# Pompon Mela — Tekton Research Assistant “Punkish” found this one for us; the problem was that Remsberg didn't give the full name. Pomponius Mela was a Roman geographer from Spain and would have no reason to mention Jesus.
# Quintius Curtus — this fellow wrote a history of Alexander the Great — again, where would Jesus fit into this?
# Lucian
# Pausanias — a Greek traveler and geographer of the second century who wrote a ten-volume work called Descriptions of Greece. Check your travel guidebooks for Greece for mentions of Jewish miracle workers in a different country!
# Valerius Flaccus — a poet of the first century who wrote a work called the Argonautica. Does anyone want to explain where Jesus fits into this one?
# Florus Lucius — Tekton Research Assistant “Punkish” has found this to be a Roman historian who was interested in dates prior to the birth of Christ. No help here for Remsberg.
# Favorinus — a skeptical philosopher of the second century who wrote works of rhetoric. As with the other such works above, no reason to mention Jesus here.
# Phaedrus — this fellow was an author of fables (like Aesop's). He would no more mention Jesus than would the Grimm Brothers.
# Damis — this is the guy who wrote the bio of Apollonius of Tyana — he lived in the second century and doesn't mention Jesus, most likely because he has his own man to promote!
# Aulus Gellius — a second-century lawyer who put together collection of essays on law, antiquities, and various other subjects. Sounds like a nice place to mention Jesus!
# Columella — this fellow wrote about agriculture and trees! No comment needed!
# Dio Chrysostom — an orator of the second century who wrote eighty orations on literary, political, and philosophical subjects. I see no room for a mention of Jesus here.
# Lysias — the only person by this name in Bartleby lived in 400-300 BC! I'll have to look into this one further.
# Appion of Alexandria — a second-century historian who wrote a history of Rome in 24 books. Again, Jesus had no part in Rome's history, so why should he be mentioned here?
# Josephus
# Philo
# Seneca — this teacher of Nero's wrote a number of personal epistles and other works. Seneca may have conceivably had reason to refer to Jesus. But considering his personal troubles with Nero, it is doubtful that he would have had the interest or the time to do any work on the subject, and none of the works he wrote would have had the occasion to include Jesus. Here is a list of his writings from Bartleby.com:
His Epistolae morales ad Lucilium are essays on ethics written for his friend
Lucilius Junior, to whom he also addressed Quaestiones naturales, philosophical-rather than scientific-remarks about natural phenomena. The so-called Dialogi of Seneca include essays on anger, on divine providence, on Stoic impassivity, and on peace of soul. Other moral essays have also survived, notably De elementia, on the duty of a ruler to be merciful, and De beneficiis, on the award and reception of favors. The Apocolocyntosis is a satire on the apotheosis of Claudius. The most influential of his works, at least in so far as European literature is concerned, were his tragedies. It is generally agreed that his plays were written for recitation and not for stage performance. Nine plays, based on Greek models, are accepted as his-Hercules Furens, Medea, Troades, Phaedra, Agamemnon, Oedipus, Hercules Oetaeus, Phoenissae, and Thyestes. A tenth, Octavia, is now ascribed to a later imitator.# Pliny the Elder — Pliny the Elder was a writer on science and morality issues; none of his writings would have had a reason to refer to Jesus.
# Suetonius
# Juvenal — this was a writer of satires. Again, from Bartleby:
He is known chiefly for his 16 satires, which contain a vivid representation of life in Rome under the empire. They were probably written in the years between A.D. 100 and A.D. 128. The biting tone of his diatribes has seldom been equaled. From the stern point of view of the older Roman standards he powerfully denounces the lax and luxurious society, the brutal tyranny, the affectations and immorality of women, and the criminal excesses of Romans as he saw them, especially in his earlier years.
(http://www.tektonics.org/qt/remslist.html)Explain to me why these writers should have mentioned Jesus.
Jesus was not considered to be historically significant by historians of his time. He did not address the Roman Senate, or write extensive Greek philosophical treatises; He never travelled outside of the regions of Palestine, and was not a member of any known political party. It is only because Christians later made Jesus a “celebrity” that He became known. Sanders, comparing Jesus to Alexander, notes that the latter “so greatly altered the political situation in a large part of the world that the main outline of his public life is very well known indeed. Jesus did not change the social, political and economic circumstances in Palestine (Note: It was left for His followers to do that!) ..the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought.”
Harris adds that “Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and therefore to have carefully documented” Christian origins. How were they to know that this minor Nazarene prophet would cause such a fuss?Jesus was executed as a criminal, providing him with the ultimate marginality. This was one reason why historians would have ignored Jesus. He suffered the ultimate humiliation, both in the eyes of Jews (Deut. 21:23 – Anyone hung on a tree is cursed!) and the Romans (He died the death of slaves and rebels.). On the other hand, Jesus was a minimal threat compared to other proclaimed “Messiahs” of the time. Rome had to call out troops to quell the disturbances caused by the unnamed Egyptian referenced in the Book of Acts [Sand.HistF, 51] . In contrast, no troops were required to suppress Jesus' followers. To the Romans, the primary gatekeepers of written history at the time, Jesus during His own life would have been no different than thousands of other everyday criminals that were crucified.
Jesus marginalized himself by being occupied as an itinerant preacher. Of course, there was no Palestine News Network, and even if there had been one, there were no televisions to broadcast it. Jesus never used the established “news organs” of the day to spread His message. He travelled about the countryside, avoiding for the most part (and with the exception of Jerusalem) the major urban centers of the day. How would we regard someone who preached only in sites like, say, Hahira, Georgia?
Jesus' teachings did not always jibe with, and were sometimes offensive to, the established religious order of the day. It has been said that if Jesus appeared on the news today, it would be as a troublemaker. He certainly did not make many friends as a preacher.
Jesus lived an offensive lifestyle and alienated many people. He associated with the despised and rejected: Tax collectors, prostitutes, and the band of fishermen He had as disciples.
Jesus was a poor, rural person in a land run by wealthy urbanites. Yes, class discrimination was alive and well in the first century also!
So, why would those “historians” (who mostly weren't historians) even felt a need to mention Jesus?
Hi David
++”I think you're in the wrong thread. This one is a challenge to any who can prove Gamaliel existed.
I think the intent of this thread is to use the lack of evidence for one historical figure to justify belief in another. Hence your (logically unsound) reference to Darwin. So it is relevant to this thread that your motive is questioned.
++”Secondly, the point I was making when I began mentioning Darwin (if you will remember) was that you, Stu, were not around when he was alive (not a contemporary) yet you, Stu, are knowledgeable of him, aren't you? Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus but he was a knowledgeable guy who knew that Jesus did exist.
Well we could circle this airport all day without ever landing. I have pointed out that there is no relevant analogy here.
++”You, stu are clearly willing to believe things in which you also believe there isn't evidence for. I find that quite silly. Everything I believe, I also believe there is evidence for. I'm not as trusting as you, I guess.
The fairies are not very impressed by this argument. They remind me to tell you of the torments that are in store for all silly afairists who do not believe in the miracles enacted by their pudgy green fingers, things that must be taken on blind (and deaf) faith alone.
Stuart
Quote If you do not believe in Jesus because you feel there is a lack of evidence he existed, I challenge you to prove that Rabbi Gamaliel (Gamaliel the Elder) was a real person. Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2007,17:16) Quote If you do not believe in Jesus because you feel there is a lack of evidence he existed, I challenge you to prove that Rabbi Gamaliel (Gamaliel the Elder) was a real person.
According to strict reading of scripture, if Jesus did not exist then the christian god does not exist. If the christian god does not exist then the dangerous End Times nonsense is no longer relevant. That's why Jesus's provenance, but more importantly the records of what he did, is important. Wars have been, and could in the future be started as a result.As Towshab says, if Gamaliel was a fictional character, then so what?
Jesus may have been a real person whose ministry and miracles were invented after his death, which is what I think is probably the most likely explanation, but if it will make the world a safer place, then I am quite happy to deny the existence of both.
Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,18:36) Explain to me why these writers should have mentioned Jesus.
I think you're answering you're own question. Think about it: Jesus was supposed to be the final Moshiach of the Jewish people, his coming was to usher in all sorts of wonderful things. Yet none of it happened.Yet regardless of the historian, the things Jesus did would have caught someone's attention, not just anonymous writers 40 years later. Feeding thousands at a time (twice) with just a few loaves and some fish. Preaching to multitudes from a mountain. Even your bible says he was famous (Mat 4:24, 9:31, 14:1) yet his 'fame' never made it outside the anonymous writings of the GT. Even Paul never met him (which speaks volumes). Then at his death the darkness covered the whole earth for 3 hours, there was an earthquake, zombies walked the earth.
The silence is deafening isn't it?
End times Moshiach? No way. Itinerant preacher made into the Messiah after his death by Paul? You betcha.
Uh by the way how can we be sure any of the historians you listed ever existed?
Quote Wars have been, and could in the future be started as a result. –stu
Ya, eventually the U.N. will ban religion, because of this. It will be shortly after this that they will think they have achieved peace and security.
Quote (david @ Nov. 10 2007,08:36) Quote Why are you all debating whether Jesus pre-existed? Shouldn't you be validating whether or not he existed in the first place? –Oct 24, Pre-existence thread, TOWSHAB.
But, here, you say:
Quote As I've said more than once (I think I have) I don't doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, So I assume you now understand why I would think you did question his existence, having said that we have to validate “whether or not he [Jesus] existed.”
Any comment towshab?Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 11 2007,01:49) Quote (david @ Nov. 09 2007,18:36) Explain to me why these writers should have mentioned Jesus.
I think you're answering you're own question. Think about it: Jesus was supposed to be the final Moshiach of the Jewish people, his coming was to usher in all sorts of wonderful things. Yet none of it happened.Yet regardless of the historian, the things Jesus did would have caught someone's attention, not just anonymous writers 40 years later. Feeding thousands at a time (twice) with just a few loaves and some fish. Preaching to multitudes from a mountain. Even your bible says he was famous (Mat 4:24, 9:31, 14:1) yet his 'fame' never made it outside the anonymous writings of the GT. Even Paul never met him (which speaks volumes). Then at his death the darkness covered the whole earth for 3 hours, there was an earthquake, zombies walked the earth.
The silence is deafening isn't it?
End times Moshiach? No way. Itinerant preacher made into the Messiah after his death by Paul? You betcha.
Uh by the way how can we be sure any of the historians you listed ever existed?
I see no explanation in your comments. Obviously, there is very little reason why any of those people (The “historians”) should have mentioned Jesus.What you do to try to get around this is list several things that you think should have made the “history books.”
There are many miraculous things in the Hebrew scriptures which somehow didn't make it into these history books, either.
Things back then, were obviously, rather different than today. I ask again: Why oh why would any of those people that are often listed as the historians of that should have made a history of Jesus?
Acts 22:3
3 “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.Wikipedia:
In the Talmud, this Gamaliel bears the title “Rabban”, a rabbinic title given to the Nasi (head) of the Sanhedrin, of which he is the first of seven appointed leaders of that school of Hillel which earned the title. . . .
In the Mishna he is spoken of as the author of certain legal ordinances affecting the welfare of the community and regulating certain issues concerning conjugal rights. . . .
Gamaliel I held a reputation of one of the greatest teachers in the annals of Judaism.The “so what” or “who cares” argument of both stu and Towshab only seem to show that they can't prove to me that he existed, anymore than one can prove that Jesus did.
Except for the book of acts, (which towshab doesn't trust) all we have to prove that Gamaliel existed is a bunch of third-hand (at best) hearsay.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
