you cannot see the difference between historical significance and magical son of god. the fact that you cant understand this explains alot.
Like the Gospels written between 50 and 90 AD. Tacitus lived in the Apostolic age. When he began writing John was still alive. He is certainly close to being a contemporary source. The Romans didn't write about the Maccabees either. Josephus detailed their existence in the The Jewish War. If relying on Roman Records we would know nothing of the armed insurrection they led. There are two reasons for this. First most of the scrolls pre-date Jesus's birth by 150 years or more, and second is that Christianity was a competing school of belief. It is probably why the writers of the New Testament didn't write about the Essenes or their leaders.
I wasn’t claiming one way or the other, in fact I stated the Son of God or just some really holy dude. The 2 are not the same. You on the other hand claim his importance in history equal to that of Hitler then claim as far as you know he could be made up. [QUOTE for all i know he didnt even exist anbd the stories about him are made up and assembled from legends about many different dudes.][/QUOTE]
again, you really should be able to understand this. please try to think. a person does not have to exist to be significant to history. allah doesnt exist and tell lunatics to crash planes, but they do nonetheless. santa claus doesnt exist but the idea of him helps toymakers rake in profits every year at christmas. can you understand that? read that last part twice if you must. when you grok it, we can move ahead to another staggeringly simple point. simple historical significane to some particular culture doesnt make you the son of god. beingn the son of god makes you the son of god. not people believing you are, not the fact that there are holidays named after you or books about you. let me play the red argument here. you have faith. i do not. you shouldnt argue anything other than faith makes you believe.
Blasphemy. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the Thains of Thor will come as a large and moving Torg! Your punishment will be severe. During the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form : that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!
We have argued this before. One gospel may be that early. Many sources put some of the gospels as much as 350 years later. In any case, they are not contemporary, although ancient. Certainly their authors were not the disciples. Close, Indeed. But we are not playing horseshoes. :wink: As I have mentioned to you before, I do not object to the statement that Jesus may very well have existed, only that we have no historical or archeological evidence of it. The social evidence and significance of a giant and snowballing religious movement I do not challenge.
Those sources are very clearly out of line with the most historians. There is an overwhelming consensus that the gospels were written and in a form we would recognize by the early second century. Mark, regarded as the source for Luke and Matthew, was likely completed by 70 AD. All 4 are quoted with increasing frequency starting in the mid second century. By the late second century Ireaneus was calling the four gospels the "Pillars of Truth." The fathers of the early church quoted the 4 gospels to such a great extent that all but a few passages can be recreated without the gospels being in tact at all. Their authors were very clearly deciples, lest they would not have been writing books proclaiming the divinity of Jesus. I think you mean to say the authors were not the Apostles they are ascribed to. That would likely be true in the case of the synoptics, but we know John did not author his gospel because the unknown writer very clearly identifies himself as "not John." It is very certain the the gospels were compiled by students of the Apostles who used the Apostles writings or sayings as their source. Ok, so you were wrong to say Tacitus was not even close to a contemprary source. We agree. If you mean that we hav enough evidence that no credible historians even question wheter he existed or not I agree. The historicity of Jesus is just fact.
I guess what I am finding hard to comprehend is how a person who appears to only believe things to be true if they are proven to be black or white, with zero room for tolerating grey. Maybe I am reading you wrong, but that is my take on your stance. All of these beliefs, Santa, Easter Bunny, Jesus, God, etc would be classified in this example as grey, all of which you take the stance of they are stupid or nonexistent. That being the case how can you acknowledge that they have any bearing on history. They never existed, they never were, they are fictitious, there is no evidence of their ever having been, so how can they have any relevance to history, other than some fictitious fairy tale. Ok, so Santa and the Easter Bunny are money marketing machines that create lots of toy sales, I can see where you would admit they have a role in history. But how can they, they don’t exist and the holidays they represent don’t exist, because the religious references that they represent don’t exist. Maybe I am not understanding your position, but to me you sure accept things to be a lot, for things that don’t exist. God = doesn’t exist Jesus = Son of God = doesn’t exist Santa and Easter Bunny = religious holidays Religious holidays = God or Jesus = Santa and Easter Bunny = doesn’t exist So, I understand that fictitious things can affect history, as you pointed out, but I am struggling with why someone who thinks all of these things are stupid would accept that. Because if you accept it as having had or having an effect on history you are accepting them to be real to some degree, and that is my problem with your entire logic. For the record I am not saying that religious beliefs come without flaws, because they do. I just pointing out that your logic is just as flawed, but yet I don’t call your beliefs stupid. Yes, I know there is no Santa or Easter Bunny, but I do acknowledge the religious holidays they center around and represent. So in that manner they are a symbol of those holidays. And for the record Halloween originated as a Pagan Saints celebration centering around a religious belief.
Red: quite right....gracias, senor. Great Pumpkin-Imaginary Angels-Immaterial that should take care of that, I hope. Anyway, the "logical thought process" I was referring to was regarding catholic theology, etc. I still can't figure out what you think is illogical about what the catholic church teaches. I think you just reject the premise....but if you hypothetically accepted the premise that there is God and that Christ was his Son incarnate....then the rest of it makes sense to me. But the thread is rapidly morphing into another subject...but hey, fine by me. I just remember going over the whole historical evidence for Jesus before. That's what I mean about this impoverished mindset though. I think it is unreasonable of you to hold such a ridiculous standard of proof to everything. If forces you to come up with these silly cases about Thor and whether or not he was real, prove it, etc. etc. It ends up in just pure obstinince instead of analysis about what happened, etc. LSUSupafan: Red and martin seem to have lost their religion regarding "consensus". Funny how the consensus of scientists is so relevant regarding Global Warming, sorry, uh, Climate Change but when it comes to history the consensus of historians don't mean jack. Maybe the historians are making bank off the "Jesus Did Exist" racket. I'd love to see the budget numbers of that compared to the IPCC. martin: Another sign the Apocolypse is upon us....I agree with martin. You got that one right.....being the Son of God makes you the Son of God and nothing else. The critical question is was he or wasn't he? Didn't really act like a crazy man....didn't really act like a liar either. Wasn't a passing fad, either. He inspired the most successful religion and culture the world has ever seen, too. You might want to take a second look, based on the evidence. But I doubt you will....you're just too scared of what you might figure out.
