By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:07 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Check this out about Lucian:
Few details of Lucian's life can be verified with any degree of accuracy. He claimed to have been born in Samosata, in the former kingdom of Commagene, which had been absorbed by the Roman Empire and made part of the province of Syria. In his works, Lucian refers to himself as a "Syrian". [3] "Assyrian" and "barbarian", perhaps indicating "he was from the Semitic and not the imported Greek population" of Samosata.[4] Lucian almost certainly did not write all the more than eighty works attributed to him â declamations, essays both laudatory and sarcastic, and comic dialogues and symposia with a satirical cast, studded with quotations in alarming contexts and allusions set in an unusual light, designed to be surprising and provocative. His name added luster to any entertaining and sarcastic essay: over 150 surviving m.a.n.u.cripts attest to his continued popularity. The first printed edition of a selection of his works was issued at Florence in 1499. His best known works are A True Story (a romance, patently not "true" at all, which he admits in his introduction to the story), and Dialogues of the Gods (Îεῶν διάλογοι) and Dialogues of the Dead (ÎεκÏικοί Îιάλογοι).
Dosent sound like a reliable witness to me. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
contd. the evidence that Jesus believed He was God is taken from His own words.
He claimed to:
- forgive sin Matthew 9:1-8
- be one in essence with God John 10:30
- be worthy of worship Matthew 14:33
He also claimed that:
- to know Him was to know God John 8:19
- to see Him was to see God John 12:45
- to receive Himm was to receive God Mark 9:37
- to hate Him was to hate God John 15:23 |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:18 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
mike_bennett...re your "Not contemporary" comments. I think you're running from the evidence now.
No secular historian requires contemporary evidence of everything he writes about. For example, Richard (âKing Dickâ) Seddon was born in 1845 and died in 1906. Eminent NZ historian Sir Keith Sinclair (1922 to 1993) has referred to Seddon as âone of NZâs greatest political leadersâ. But Sinclair was born 16 years after Seddon died.
Do you want some more examples?
The same tests of evidence need to |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:19 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
How do you know he actually claimed that.
Taken from a book written after he died, supposedly, and by chaps who never knew him personally, only one was an Apostle and again subsequent to our subjects demise. These guys never even heard him speak! |
|
By: badpumpkin@ymail.com
23/12/2008
6:20 pm Yahoo! Profile:
badpumpkin@ymail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Great guy God, I thank him every day I wake up And still have a pulse... |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| and mike...most of those I named are eminent secular or jewish historians. Josephus, for exmaple was Jewish - he would hardly be sympathetic to the Christian messiah would he now? |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Now you are just being silly.
Richard Seddon did'nt claim to forgive sins.
He did'nt rise from the dead. etc.
I am guessing that if they did, far more stringent tests would be applied to their validity of historic position than was 2000 years ago for Christ.
TYhe writtings included in the Bible, were gathered together hundred of years after, and many valuable writtings were tossed aside which draw the current claims into question.
Not comparing apples with apples |
|
By: badpumpkin@ymail.com
23/12/2008
6:30 pm Yahoo! Profile:
badpumpkin@ymail.com Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| I am with you one this one Mike. There is no way of validating any literature. You do not know the motives or intent of the author.... |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
"No secular historian requires contemporary evidence of everything he writes about"
This is patently true, else the Catholic Church, which incedently is responsibe for the recorded history we know, has erased from History everthing that opposed it.
Consider the Languedoc.
Consider the Library at Alexandria.
The millions of books and m.a.n.u.cripts destroyed by fanatical christians, the millions of lives destroyed, in France and Spain, just because they beleived an alternative history. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| hi mike_bennett...you said <<How do you know he actually claimed that. Taken from a book written after he died, supposedly, and by chaps who never knew him personally, only one was an Apostle and again subsequent to our subjects demise. These guys never even heard him speak!>> Sorry but your incorrect. Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus, an eye witness, and wrote his book in the late 50's AD. Mark was written around 70AD, and was taken from the teaching of Peter, a contemporary of Jesus and an eye witness. John was written as early as the 50's AD, by a contemporary of Jesus and an eye witness. |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Its not like you have some reliable eyewitness accounts.
Everything is second hand.
Oddly the eyewitness accounts such as the Gospel of MAry Magdalene for example, are not included in the bible, prolly coz she was a woman, and we know all about womens rights in christianity eh! |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| hi mike_benett...your missing the point of my comment about Richard Seddon. We're discussing the historical evidnece for the historical person of Jesus. Not His miracles. If you want to be consistent, you have to apply the same historica and evidential tests to thelife of jesus you would to any other historical figure. Otherwise your mind is closed. |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Matthew's works were wrote between 90-100CE in Syria, probably written in the same time range as Luke, as they were unaware of each other's existence. The original works of Matthew were completely anonymous and it was not until about 150CE that the author "Matthew" was assigned to the writings. In traditional pseudepigraphic fashion the author was based on a historic character, in this case on "Mattai", who was a disciple of Yeishu ben Pandeira, who lived in Hashmonean times, predating the Jesus concept, but containing many similarities.
The first two chapters of Matthew, the virgin birth and the genealogy, were not contained in the first versions of Matthew's gospel.
Matthew's gospel contains 92% of the text that appears in Mark! This is a very high percentage - almost a copy - but Matthew corrected many of Mark's blunders about the Jewish ways of life and proceeded, a few versions later, to add the chapters about the virgin birth.
Matthew staked his writing career on the fact that Jesus was a great man, divine and the Messiah. He set out in his writings to prove that Jesus was all of these things.
Matthew went through the Old Testament searching for any passage that he could apply as a prophecy of Jesus' divine nature. In many cases he found a text, and because he did not know Jesus, felt free to invent details in order to make the Old Testament text he was reading appear as a prophecy. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| mike_bennett...you said <<Its not like you have some reliable eyewitness accounts. Everything is second hand.>> Asked and answered. There are first hand, contemporary, eye witness accounts. |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Paul was the original preacher of "Jesus Christ". Yeshua was not called "Jesus" nor "Christ" until Paul concluded that Yeshua had been the Messiah predicted in Scripture. Paul also added much of his own beliefs to the story of the Messiah, including many rituals and parts of the Mithraism religion. He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the Messiah theme of Judaism, and the result was the sacrificial nature of Christ that Christianity has.
Paul opposed Jewish tradition and preached a new covenant from God that included women and Gentiles (non-Jews). This was an important move, allowing many new converts and followers. He gained a new life of which he could be proud. However many of his attempts to preach his new way in the synagogues were rebuked and he spent more than one stretch in prison. He travelled throughout the Mediterranean bringing the Good News to the Gentiles. Paul died in about 64CE after a two year stretch in a prison in Rome.
When the New Testament was compiled, over two hundred years later, it included many of the writings, letters and teachings of Paul, who became the first evangelist and founder of Christianity. The four gospels are written using Paul as their main source, although none of the originals of Paul's writings have survived.
By the time the New Testament was compiled, Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire. |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:47 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
Mark.
This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, between 60 and 80CE, by a Roman convert to Christianity. It was copied word-for-word and used extensively by Matthew and Luke, as their primary source although they edited some details. Nevertheless, the gospel author didn't meet Jesus, wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, and was not a Jew. It is unlikely that Mark knew any Jews. There was no-one to correct his blunders about Jewish life, such as misquoting the 10 commandments, attributing God's words to Moses, and having Jews buy things on the Sabbath. The Gospel of Mark has undergone many changes and there are several ancient versions. The oldest versions of Mark all end at Mark 16:7. The Gospel of Mark contradicts the other gospels on many points and contains internal inconsistencies, some of these were later fixed by Matthew and Luke when they made their own copies of Mark. Half way through the second century the Christian proto-orthodox had come to call it 'Mark', although the author is unknown.
The Gospel of Mark was written anonymously was not known as a Gospel of 'Mark' for over a hundred years. When Christians came to name the Gospels, they picked 'Mark', who they thought should be a disciple of Peter, who in Greek mythology was associated with the Egyptian god Petra, the gate guardian of Heaven.
As a Roman, Mark directed his writings at a Roman audience. He feels it is required to explain Jewish customs, and does not bother to explain Roman culture to his readers. Yet he did not extensively understand Jewish culture, and his gospel once even misquotes the 10 commandments! He commits other errors that no Jew (no long term friend of Peter) could have committed such as having Jews buy things on the Sabbath, of quoting Moses instead of God, and confusing other things. |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:50 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
"During the 1st century BC, a cult of Mithra, made much progress in Rome, after enduring persecution, when some Emperors adopted the religion... Mithra became very popular among the Roman legionaries and later even among the Emperors. The worship of Mithra was first recognized by Emperor Aurelian and he instituted the cult of "Sol Invictus" or the Invincible Sun. Emperor Diocletian also a worshipper of Mithra, the Sun God, burned much of the Christian scriptures in 307 A.D.
This enabled Emperor Constantine to merge the cult of Mithra with that of Christianity that was developing much. He declared himself a Christian but at the same time maintained his ties to the Mithra cult. He retained the title "Pontifus Maximus" the high priest. On his coins were inscribed: "Sol Invicto comiti" which means, commited to the invincible sun. This new blend of the two faiths, he officially proclaimed as Christianity. Christianity spread all over the Roman empire and Eastern Europe by massive persecution and brought and end to a variety of religions that flourished there. [...]
Until the fourth century, Mithra and Christianity were distinct but after Constantine, the two cults were blended to form the new faith that was to conquer most of the world." |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:52 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
mike, re your Matthew post. Don't take this the wrong way, but cutting and pasting from Wikipedia or some secular biblical critique isnt a good look. The material in your latest post is just nonsense. Background the material first.
Literary and Biblical scholars date Matthew at 50AD earliest, some at 70 AD latest. The works of Matthew and Mark are almost completely in accord because they are based on eye witness testimony. Can you name me one of the 'blunders' you mention? The reason Mark doesn't mention the virgin birth is because he doesn't mention anything about Jesus's birth; the book begins with Jesus as an adult! I'm happy to discuss and debate, but please do your own research! |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
This is all secular history, written from the perspective of the person who wrote it.
Except these secular historians say that the writers of the new testament are unreliable. |
|
By: mike_f596
23/12/2008
6:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_f596 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
what is the scource from which you post . it sounds like some one else's opinion . lines like referring to paul "He confused the Hellenic Christ theme with the Messiah theme of Judaism" there is nothing what so ever to back that up .It is just what some one who did not believe "in" or "whom" Jesus is ,wrote down in an attempt to discredit the good news about him .
it was mentioned earlier about second hand knowledge and hearsay.
it is why i refer to personal experience and testimony thereof .. it is first hand and not hearsay |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:56 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
hi mike_bennett
you said <<This is all secular history, written from the perspective of the person who wrote it.
Except these secular historians say that the writers of the new testament are unreliable.>>
OK, name the historians, and the quotes where they say the NT authors are unrelaible. |
|
By: mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:58 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_bennett@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| Hi Mike, the only way that personal experience and testimony work, for a guy who has been dead 2000 years is if you are 2000 years old and walked and talked with him, othewise its not personal experience,its just as you say heresay. |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
6:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| mike can you also quote me your source on Lucian - I know he was antagonistic to Christians, but I can't find your material anywhere. |
|
By: mike_f596
23/12/2008
7:03 pm Yahoo! Profile:
mike_f596 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
that is unless he rose from the dead and is who he claimed to be which makes him both living and eternal ...
in which case its fully possible to walk and talk with him today which is the entire basis of Christianity - A personal relationship with God -
that it not hearsay , what i have testified of often is not hearsay ,it is firsthand tangible experience .
your persistence in refusing to believe doesn't change that . |
|
By: deecee4@xtra.co.nz
23/12/2008
7:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
deecee4@xtra.co.nz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
|
| mike_bennett...you said<<the only way that personal experience and testimony work, for a guy who has been dead 2000 years is if you are 2000 years old and walked and talked with him, othewise its not personal experience,its just as you say heresay.>> Let's cut to the chase. Set aside any claims of deity or miracles. I have presented substantial secular and jewish historical evidence for the person of Jesus. Do you accept this evidence or not? |
|
