On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 15:42:50 +0100, "James Whitehead"
overtherainbow.com> wrote:
>"Romans is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which
>are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 57 CE."
>
>
>[..]
>>
>> No I argue that there is *no* contemporary evidence for the man or the
>> events that surrounded his life. No earthquakes, no bodies walking the
>> street, no children killed. Nothing. The Gospels were written well after
>the
>> event and in some cases by people not familar with the area. The only
>thing
>> within 300 years of the event is thought to be a forgery by the vast
>> majority of people.
>
>This is not true - there are texts dating to about 120 AD - which scholars
>regard as genuine - part of Johns Gospel.
You seem to be confused about the difference between a genuine text,
and a factual text.
>The letters of Paul precede the gospels are around 40-50 AD - corroborated
>by the roman and Jewish figures.
>There was prior to this a well established oral tradition- sufficient to
>record Pilate - since identified by archaeological evidence.
>
>
>"In a paper read at the centenary meeting of the Society of Biblical
>Literature in New York at the end of 1964, Professor Aland enumerated the
>material now available to New Testament textual critics as comprising 78
>papyri, 224 uncials, about 2,650 cursives and about 2,000 lectionaries (all
>this representing an increase by some 900 manuscripts over thirty years). Of
>these the Munster Institute had then facsimiles (photocopy or microfilm) of
>71 papyri, 208 uncials, 1,910 cursives and 1,320 lectionaries,
>
>Of recent discoveries in New Testament manuscripts the most important are
>the Bodmer papyri. These are papyri acquired by the Bodmer Library, Geneva;
>the name of M. Martin Bodmer now rivals that of Sir Alfred Chester Beatty as
>a collector of biblical papyri. About 1956 the Bodmer Library acquired a
>papyrus codex of John's Gospel (Papyrus 66) which was written about A.D.
>200. The first fourteen chapters are almost complete; the remaining seven
>survive in substantial fragments. Of comparable date in the same collection
>are Papyrus 75, containing the second half of Luke and the first half of
>John, and Papyrus 72, containing the Epistles of Peter and Jude. Much later
>is Papyrus 74 (sixth or seventh century),"
>
>
>Trajan was Roman Emperor in 98-117.
>Trajan also added "that if any one [Christian] denies that he is a
>Christian" by worship of the Roman gods, that person is to be released.
>etc etc.
>
From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Among his literary contemporaries were Tacitus, Juvenal, and the
younger Pliny with whom the emperor carried on an animated
correspondence.
This correspondence belonging to the years 111-3 throws light on the
persecution of Christians during this reign. Pliny was legate of the
double Province of Bithynia and Pontus.
In this territory he found many Christians and requested instructions
from Trajan (Ep. 96).
In his reply (Ep. 97) Trajan considers the confession of Christianity
as a crime worthy of death, but forbade a search for Christians and
the acceptance of anonymous denunciations.
Note, He FORBIDS "a search for Christians and the acceptance of
anonymous denunciations"
Whoever shows by sacrificing to the gods that he is not a Christian is
to be released.
I do not see what point you are trying to make, but it is clear that
he did not persecute xtians.
Where the adherence to Christianity is proved the punishment of death
is to follow.
The action he prescribed rests on the coercive power of the police,
the right of repression of the magistracy, which required no settled
form of procedure. In pursuance of these orders measures were taken
against Christians in other places also. The most distinguished
martyrs under Trajan were Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, and Simeon,
Bishop of Jerusalem. Legend names many others, but there was no actual
persecution on a large scale and the position of the Christians was in
general satisfactory.
All that Trajian actually required of xtians, was that they kept it to
them selves.
Which is interesting, because today, nineteen hundred years later, we
are still asking the same of xtians.
>>
>>> The reason seems to be because of the later christian claims to his
>>> divinity. This doesn't make any sense. The only written evidence of
>>> Pilate is the gospel... i assume he is a fiction. There is no
>>> evidence to show jesus was a fiction - the 'other Messiah's backs up
>>> the likelihood of he being just one of them.
>>
>> There is no evidence to show that Doc Savage was a fiction.
>> However your statemnet that you believe one thing and deny another using
>> exactly the same evidence shows you do what most fundies do. You believe
>> what you want and try to cover it with vague arguements.
>>
>
>I am not a fundie
You're a fanatic.
> - the argument is over an historical figure - all i'm
>saying is given the evidence jesus as a real figure is probable
And still you refuse to produce the evidence.
>- there is
>more evidence for that than many other historical figures and events which
>are generally accepted from texts far more recent...
Then put your evidence where your mouth is.
>it is the fundie
>athetists who are being hypocritical, and tell downright lies...
Of course it is.
It is downright dishonest of us to ask that you produce the evidence
which you most vehemently claim exists, but which you are so reluctant
to share.
>
>> Scholars don't do this. They follow the truth.
>
>Yes and the generally accept the reality of the man jesus - a few do not.
Most historians, do not.
>
>> Do you really think atheists
>> dedicate their lives to bible study? That the divinity schools of "UCSD,
>> Berkeley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Pennsylvania, Chicago, Emory,
>Vanderbilt
>> " which in general support the idea of a fictional Christ is staffed by
>> atheists?
>
>My opinion of atheists was that they were reasonable people - i have now
>seen how unreasonable some can be.
Yes. Well all usenet xtians come to that conclusion; I think it has a
lot to do with our insistence that you support your claims, with
verifiable evidence.
>The existence of an historical jesus like an historical Buddha shouldn't
>make any difference.
Oh but it would.
> - Or Babism - here is a
>religion which has a clearly identified historical figure. The question is
>why do these atheists concentrate on Jesus
Because Buddhists don't come into our NGs, preaching at us, insulting
us, lying about us, and generally wasting our bandwidth.
Nor do they come knocking on our doors, or accost us in the street.
Buddhists do not get up on soap boxes, in the middle of cities, and
rant and rave at innocent passers by.
Xtians alone, of all the religious, do those things.
> - ignoring Buddha, The Gurus and
>the Bab - the last two thought divine by their followers.
>
But they kept it to the faithful, and the interested, and made no
effort to force their beliefs onto anyone else.
>>
>>> The idea of "corroborating accounts" just isn't used about other
>>> historical figures - why - simple: the atheists here *hate*
>>> Christianity (maybe for good reason) they hate therefore christ - and
>>> seek to deny his existence and are not bothered about truth or
>>> integrity in doing so. Evidence the mithras nonsense - even claiming
>>> mithras was called the messiah- a Jewish term for a roman god!,
>>> virgin birth - he is depicted emerging from a rock etc. What is this
>>> - its black propaganda in a war between two sets of
>>> fundamentalists... and in war truth is the first victim.
>>
>> Most athesits here don't bother hating christianity and I know a few
>> christians that have our respect here and in the real world.
>>
>> 99%% of what I have learned about the myth ofChrist comes from Christian
>> scholars. "The Jesus Puzzle" is not new.
>>
>> The story of Jesus complete with virgin birth and rebirth is not new.
>Mithra*
>> is just one closer in time.
>
>Mithra was born an adult from a rock... and dates from around 90AD..*.
>
When the Aryan tribes swept down from the Russian steppes they brought
their gods with them. Some time between 2000 and 1500 B.C.E., these
tribes entered India and Iran, bringing with them one particular
deity. These people, the Mitanni, gave us the first written reference
to Mitra in a treaty between themselves and the Hittites. Signed about
1375 B.C.E., the treaty calls on divine witnesses to pledge its terms.
The Hittites called on the sun go. The Mitanni called on Mitra.
Mitra had been worshipped by the Iranians for centuries when
Zarathustra (we call him Zoroaster, the Greek version of his name)
founded the first revealed religion. Zarathustra announced the primacy
of Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord, who was served by the Amentas Spenta,
or bounteous immortals. Among these was Mithra, whom Ahura Mazda
declared to be "as worthy of worship as myself." Thus Zarathustrian
reform did not replace Mithra in the Iranian Pantheon. It merely
changed his role.
http://www.iranian.com/History/Sept97/Mitra/
Of course, it is not a xtian site, so you might not want to look.
>
>> The time of his birth and death have been celebrated for other gods in
>other
>> times for as long as man could mease the change of seasons - and for that
>> you only need a coupe rocks and some spare time.
>
>His birth was fixed at the roman winter solstice as its unknown - his
>death was fixed by the festival of the Passover - its in the account.
>Certainly Easter is a time of pagan celebration - but with Christianity its
>a Jewish festival what gives time of year of his death. *
>
...And you don't find that significant?
>>
>> The message he gave was nothing new at the time he allegedly gave it.
>>
>> That the gospels come essentially from one source with bits and pieces
>added
>> is hardly news.
>>
>
>Well you might think so - just like the Mithras story which doesnt fit -
>mithras for instance was only for men... Christianity was not.
Cor 1 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch
as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory
of the man.
Cor 1 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the
man.
Cor 1 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the
woman for the man.
Cor 1 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto
God uncovered?
TI1 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
TI1 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
over the
man, but to be in silence.
TI1 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
TI1 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the
transgression.
TI1 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they
continue
in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Oh yes, it includes women.
...So long as they are properly servile.
>But the argument here is about the likelihood of an actual figure, not the
>originality of the message. This would be impossible to discuss with someone
>not interested in the text.
>
Yea, right.
>>>
snip
>>
>> As you pointed out, thre is the same evidence for christ as there is for
>> pilate.
But there isn't, and never was.
>> Good science would say you must reach the same decision about the two.
>>
>
>Does it - then they both existed- there is archaeological evidence for
>Pilate.
There is also documentary evidence outside the bible.
>(actually that isnt good science at all - the fact just helps give
>confidence as to the nature of the text)
>
>>>
snip
>> But the Jesus puzzle holds that there never was a man named
>> Christ.(something the Jews would have thought blasphemy)
>
>Is the Jesus Puzzle *- some crackpot
I assume that you mean "crackpot" in the xtian sense, i.e. something
that disagrees with you.
>book - skimming the web - books and
>sites - again the bias is obvious - such writers could deny any historical
>event including the holocaust....
Without evidence, certainly.
>history is always open to doubt - but
>taking historical figures the evidence for jesus is sufficient to say its
>probable.
In that case, every character, in the Iliad, and the Odyssey, is
probable.
That don't make them factual.
>>>
>>>> As for math being lost, that was a joke right?
>>>
>>> Are there original accounts of Euclid and not just copies of copies
>>> made by xtian monks. (note the pejorative term- ...)
>>
>> Nobody cares who developed the math and almost all math has been developed
>> independantly several times. We don't care if the copies were lost stolen
>or
>
>I like the "WE" - at present you appear on your own ...
Interesting, the way that you remove the headers, so that no one knows
who you are talking to.
Is that philosophy, as well.
>
>> if information added in the margins later became part of the "original"
>> We can prove it right or wrong. Euclidian geometry is plane geometry and
>> only has a name because there are hundreds of other geometrys.
>>
>> To argue it would be lost in the same manneer you argue christ was a real
>> figure may not be a joke to you, but it certainly is to me and I suspect a
>> few others.
>>
>
>The fact is that this knowledge was lost to the west....so it was probably
>an arab Islamic conspiracy - there was no Euclid...
Mmm.
Not even between about 325 BC - about 265 BC?
I see.
>
>>>
>>> What is the documentary evidence for the Buddha existing...
>>>
>>> What is the documentary evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays....
>>>
>>>
>>> In short we could compile a list of historical events and figures
>>> with the evidence for them and see clearly that what a group of
>>> alt.atheists require of one figure they do not of hundreds of others.
>>> Therefore they are not being rational, so providing more evidence
>>> would be a waste of time. Imagine if some archaeologist found the
>>> tomb with the body - christians would have a problem - but the
>>> atheists who deny a real jesus would help them out by claiming it was
>>> a fake. :-)
>>>
>>>
>
Snip plagiarized portion.
