What Divides Muslims And Christians

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1263390413' post='2036096']
You don't have a good point, though. You've said something and not demonstrated it means anything.
[/quote]
So why did you feel the need to lie? I was asking a simple question - admittedly one that I find it fairly astounding how many Christians believe the wrong answer.

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1263390413' post='2036096']
So what's the percentage of surviving records, what sorts of things did Romans record (what was their criteria for recording) how many historians were alive...there's lots of things for you to do to support your theory. Obviously, these would be estimates. You've dismissed centuries of culture because one guy claimed to perform miracles. Reading the Bible, it seems miracles had happened before. The Jewish culture is quite important in this regard, actually. You're dismissing it because it doesn't fit in the casing for your magic bullet.
[/quote]
I'm not claiming miracles - the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. I have no idea what the percentage is, but a huge number of historical records do survive from that era... as a percentage, it's definitely greater than zero. I've not "dismissed centuries of culture" - that's another assertion you've made that's just plain wrong.

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1263390413' post='2036096']
If you were the sort who was intimately familiar with history, you wouldn't be posting here. You're not some historian--you're a google-scholar at best. You want me to believe you've been poring over primary sources in your half-assed assault on Christendom?
[/quote]
This isn't an assault on Christendom, you're going to have to get overyour persecution complex if you consider asking the question "how manypeople wrote about Jesus while he was alive" to be "assaultingChristendom", half-assed or not.

No, I'm not *intimately* familiar with the history of that period - most of the reading I did was before there was an internet, let alone google, and although I have been known to read primary sources in the British Library, I was looking at something else at the time. However, I would have expected to come across a lot more material if there had been staggering numbers of people writing about Jesus right after he was crucified.

The one thing I am confident of is that I've read more about the subject than at least 90% of people who call themselves Christian.


[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 January 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1263393960' post='2036119']
Sheerignorance. The first generation after Jesus' death we have the earliestChristians going around writing letters to each other. Later on we evensee Roman officials (Pliny the Younger) writing about this obscure,long dead, Roman criminal. Don't be dense; for a single private citizenfrom a Roman occupied territory, the amount of historical detail wehave on Jesus is unparalleled.
[/quote]
Sorry, no, it isn't ignorance - it's the knowledge of the difference between evidence and hearsay - all we have is evidence that there were people who believed a story they'd been told, no evidence that these stories were actually founded in fact.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1263396177' post='2036141']
So why did you feel the need to lie? I was asking a simple question - admittedly one that I find it fairly astounding how many Christians believe the wrong answer.[/quote]
Where did I lie? I have mocked, but truly lying?

[quote]
I'm not claiming miracles - the burden of proof doesn't lie with me. I have no idea what the percentage is, but a huge number of historical records do survive from that era... as a percentage, it's definitely greater than zero. I've not "dismissed centuries of culture" - that's another assertion you've made that's just plain wrong.[/quote]
Welcome to Behind Enemy Lines. You're on the attack. Your point is lacking. Support it.

[quote]
This isn't an assault on Christendom, you're going to have to get overyour persecution complex if you consider asking the question "how manypeople wrote about Jesus while he was alive" to be "assaultingChristendom", half-assed or not.[/quote]
You misinterpret me. I don't feel persectuted by internet personalities such as yourself. I have been assaulted before, but I think it's fun. Would you like the term "challenge" better?

[quote]
No, I'm not *intimately* familiar with the history of that period - most of the reading I did was before there was an internet, let alone google, and although I have been known to read primary sources in the British Library, I was looking at something else at the time. However, I would have expected to come across a lot more material if there had been staggering numbers of people writing about Jesus right after he was crucified.[/quote]
I am impressed. I can't read ancient Greek, Aramaic, Whatever the Romans of that time spoke. Heck, I can't read French. It's cool that the British library makes such documents available to the public.
[quote]
The one thing I am confident of is that I've read more about the subject than at least 90% of people who call themselves Christian.
[/quote]
Okay.


Sorry, no, it isn't ignorance - it's the knowledge of the difference between evidence and hearsay - all we have is evidence that there were people who believed a story they'd been told, no evidence that these stories were actually founded in fact.
[/quote]

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1263406909' post='2036251']
Where did I lie? I have mocked, but truly lying?
[/quote]
If the invention of Mr Horowitz as the direct answer to a direct question isn't a lie, what is? (hold on.. best treat that as a rhetorical question. The thread could get seriously derailed answering it )

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1263406909' post='2036251']
Welcome to Behind Enemy Lines. You're on the attack. Your point is lacking. Support it.
[/quote]
This is where I get confused again - you asserted (inaccurately) that I was "dismissing centuries of culture"; you asked for percentages of historical documents that survive (>0)... both points answered, yet ignored. Is distraction the art of debating defence round here?

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1263406909' post='2036251']
You misinterpret me. I don't feel persectuted by internet personalities such as yourself. I have been assaulted before, but I think it's fun. Would you like the term "challenge" better?
[/quote]
"Challenge" has a much better ring to it

Apologies if I've misinterpreted - I know how that feels

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 07:21 PM' timestamp='1263406909' post='2036251']
I am impressed. I can't read ancient Greek, Aramaic, Whatever the Romans of that time spoke. Heck, I can't read French. It's cool that the British library makes such documents available to the public.
[/quote]
It was in the British Library I found I couldn't read medieval/10C English, either. But luckily they had a translation on hand. I didn't actually get out any original stuff to read, but it was the only place I could get to look at some of the commentaries. To be honest, I'm not sure they'd have allowed me (as a private citizen, not affiliated to any university at the time) access to the really old stuff.

The really cool thing now at the British Library is that their really old book store is a controlled environment right in the middle but surrounded by glass - so you can sit in the café, drinking your cappuccino (providing the company's paying expenses - my last few visits there have been work-related), looking at these centuries-old books. Which I happen to think is fantastic.

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1263412702' post='2036336']
If the invention of Mr Horowitz as the direct answer to a direct question isn't a lie, what is? (hold on.. best treat that as a rhetorical question. The thread could get seriously derailed answering it )[/quote]
Mockery. It's not intended to deceive, clearly not a "lie".


[quote]
This is where I get confused again - you asserted (inaccurately) that I was "dismissing centuries of culture"; you asked for percentages of historical documents that survive (>0)... both points answered, yet ignored. Is distraction the art of debating defence round here?[/quote]
You dismissed as important whether it was common amongst Jews to record history immediately in a written form. How long did it take them to write down accounts of Abraham or Hannukah Harry? This is not unimportant. >0 isn't a suitably informative answer.

[quote]
"Challenge" has a much better ring to it

Apologies if I've misinterpreted - I know how that feels[/quote]okay

[quote]
It was in the British Library I found I couldn't read medieval/10C English, either. But luckily they had a translation on hand. I didn't actually get out any original stuff to read, but it was the only place I could get to look at some of the commentaries. To be honest, I'm not sure they'd have allowed me (as a private citizen, not affiliated to any university at the time) access to the really old stuff.

The really cool thing now at the British Library is that their really old book store is a controlled environment right in the middle but surrounded by glass - so you can sit in the café, drinking your cappuccino (providing the company's paying expenses - my last few visits there have been work-related), looking at these centuries-old books. Which I happen to think is fantastic.
[/quote]
That is cool.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1263413706' post='2036363']
You dismissed as important whether it was common amongst Jews to record history immediately in a written form. How long did it take them to write down accounts of Abraham or Hannukah Harry? This is not unimportant. >0 isn't a suitably informative answer.
[/quote]
I didn't think I was dismissing it as unimportant, but pointing out that if all the stories about him were true, and miracles were being done in front of thousands of people.. this isn't what Jews at the time would normally be seeing, so you wouldn't necessarily expect normal behaviour. It took generations to get round to writing the OT stories (which IMHO were probably suitably embellished over the years to make the Israelites seem more important than they actually were.. but that's another potential thread derail)

>0 is the closest probability I can come up with - without knowing the number of documents or other bits of information created at the time, even finding out how many are left around today wouldn't help give a probability. But it definitely is non-zero.

[Winchester]

The Bible is full of croutons like that. Giant boats full of animals, lakes splitting, angels killing up entire cities...so it wouldn't be that freaky, if we believe the OT.

It makes sense that if it took generations to write about the really big stuff, that one guy running around curing lepers would take a while as well.

[philbo]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 January 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1263414685' post='2036381']
The Bible is full of croutons like that. Giant boats full of animals, lakes splitting, angels killing up entire cities...so it wouldn't be that freaky, if we believe the OT.

It makes sense that if it took generations to write about the really big stuff, that one guy running around curing lepers would take a while as well.
[/quote]
Touché

[Winchester]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1263415320' post='2036387']
Touché
[/quote]
[img]http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r155/mammothmardge/WhiteGoodmanDodgeball.jpg[/img]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='philbo' date='13 January 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1263378977' post='2036057']

You seem very sure about that... yes, the four gospels do overlap (including using the same wording - AIUI that's considered to be because the words were copied, not because they're independent corroborations of the same events); however, accepting that the canonical gospels were written by the apostles themselves is a leap of faith too far for me, I'm afraid. They didn't even use the same language.

[/quote]

You may have noticed my previous post where I explained to Jamie that my statement that a person wrote something does not necessarily mean that they were the ones who put pen to paper. Ie Einstein, Hawking. The scribes of these works would not have credited them with being the true authors unless they were. Why would you credit someone else with your own works? CMP tells us that John wrote his gospel and even if the others did collaborate and have someone else act as the scribes, the fact that they have their name on it means they virtually put their signature on it as the story that they witnessed and thus they were the virtual authors.
Also the history you have been missing has in fact been all put together into one book it's called the Bible.
Yes you are correct the apostles were in fear of their lives and some of what they wrote may have been cryptic, but in the last 2kyears there has been more time spent by learned people deciphering manuscripts and translating them into very much every language on the planet than any other field of study. Have you read about the NIV Bible and how it has come to be?

[philbo]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='14 January 2010 - 02:37 AM' timestamp='1263433042' post='2036593']
You may have noticed my previous post where I explained to Jamie thatmy statement that a person wrote something does not necessarily meanthat they were the ones who put pen to paper. Ie Einstein, Hawking.The scribes of these works would not have credited them with being the true authors unless they were. Why would you credit someone else with your own works?
[/quote]
[size="1"][size="2"]That the gospels were dictated to a third party rather than being actually written by the person concerned is pretty much taken as read; however, there is nothing to prove that the people doing the dictating were those to whom they're ascribed. You ask "why would you credit someone else" - because the person telling the story knew perfectly well they weren't the author and themselves believed that it was true. There's plenty of evidence that there were people around in the second half of the first century who believed the JC story; yet there were people around at that time who believed all sorts of odd stuff. The Christian story has stuck, though. [/size]

(BTW, I think you mean "e.g.")[/size]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='14 January 2010 - 02:37 AM' timestamp='1263433042' post='2036593']
Also the history you have been missing has in fact been all put together into one book it's called the Bible.
[/quote]
But that's not exactly an independent source, is it? Using the Bible as proof of the Bible is a little bit circular.

[Ziggamafu]

"…regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 1:3-4)

"I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that [i]Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.[/i]" (1 Corinthians 15:3-7)

Both of these passages were written within two to three decades after the life of Christ to long established and organized communities of Christians on the other side of the Roman Empire. The passages are regarded as creedal or hymnal formulas and Paul quotes them as if his audience should already know them. He also says that he himself received the creed in 1 Corinthians, so that one predates his own conversion. At any rate, everything adds up to a faith revolving around a historical person that was able to convince people and gain converts within years of that person's alleged resurrection. People claiming to be Christ (a historical figure expected by the Jews; "Christ" means "anointed" - a son of David and heir to the Davidic throne) were not uncommon, yet their names are lost to history. This guy, Jesus, was able to amass a following in his lifetime that persisted even after his death. He had to have been historical or else the following simply wouldn't have been there. And testimonies to his resurrection had to be convincing or the following wouldn't have persisted.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='philbo' date='14 January 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1263473859' post='2036894']
[size="1"][size="2"]That the gospels were dictated to a third party rather than being actually written by the person concerned is pretty much taken as read; however, there is nothing to prove that the people doing the dictating were those to whom they're ascribed. You ask "why would you credit someone else" - because the person telling the story knew perfectly well they weren't the author and themselves believed that it was true. There's plenty of evidence that there were people around in the second half of the first century who believed the JC story; yet there were people around at that time who believed all sorts of odd stuff. The Christian story has stuck, though. [/size]

(BTW, I think you mean "e.g.")[/size]


But that's not exactly an independent source, is it? Using the Bible as proof of the Bible is a little bit circular.
[/quote]
Some months ago I upset people here by writing that the Bible was a collection of ramblings. Bad choice of words! What I was really trying to convey was that the Bible is a collection of Books written in different styles which means that they were not written by the same people or in collaboration. That's why scholars have and still do study these books trying to understand them better. Once again I will say if you do not credit this as an historical account then you may as well throw all history books in the rubbish bin. BTW You haven't commented on my proposal that there has been archaeological evidence. I haven't done any research on the subject myself, I'm just proposing it based on a doco I watched.
i.e. means 'that is to say.' But you are probably correct e.g. would be better.

[philbo]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='14 January 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1263508065' post='2037184']
Some months ago I upset people here by writing that the Bible was a collection of ramblings. Bad choice of words! What I was really trying to convey was that the Bible is a collection of Books written in different styles which means that they were not written by the same people or in collaboration. That's why scholars have and still do study these books trying to understand them better. Once again I will say if you do not credit this as an historical account then you may as well throw all history books in the rubbish bin. BTW You haven't commented on my proposal that there has been archaeological evidence. I haven't done any research on the subject myself, I'm just proposing it based on a doco I watched.   [/quote]

There are some historically verified parts of the bible.. there are some historically verified parts of the Da Vinci Code, too, but that doesn't make it a historically accurate document.

Half of my problem with the Bible is that as people study it, they seem to manage to come up with pretty much anything that supports whatever view they held in the first place.  As a repository of ultimate truth, it's quite staggeringly vague.  Have you ever wondered that if this is the word that God wants to pass on to mankind, why He didn't make it unambiguous?


[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='14 January 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1263508065' post='2037184']i.e. means 'that is to say.' But you are probably correct e.g. would be better.
[/quote]
<grammar pedant>If what comes afterward the "e.g./i.e." are specific examples of the case put beforehand, then it's "e.g."; if what comes before is an instance of a generic that comes afterwards, it's "i.e."</pedant>

..I had the world's most confusing English textbook that served to make everyone in the class uncertain about what the rule is.  It took me ages before I was sure I was getting it right.

[reyb]

[quote name='philbo' date='14 January 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1263514009' post='2037248']
There are some historically verified parts of the bible.. there are some historically verified parts of the Da Vinci Code, too, but that doesn't make it a historically accurate document.

Half of my problem with the Bible is that as people study it, they seem to manage to come up with pretty much anything that supports whatever view they held in the first place.  As a repository of ultimate truth, it's quite staggeringly vague.  Have you ever wondered that if this is the word that God wants to pass on to mankind, why He didn't make it unambiguous?



<grammar pedant>If what comes afterward the "e.g./i.e." are specific examples of the case put beforehand, then it's "e.g."; if what comes before is an instance of a generic that comes afterwards, it's "i.e."</pedant>

..I had the world's most confusing English textbook that served to make everyone in the class uncertain about what the rule is.  It took me ages before I was sure I was getting it right.
[/quote]

Phibo,

It seems you do not accept the bible as an 'authentic' revelation of Christ or a Holy Book.

[reyb]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 January 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1263234599' post='2034902']
Instead of answering your question, which really will get nowhere, let me ask you this:

Do you believe that, say, Gallileo was a real person? Did he live and die and do all the things we hear he did? Why do you believe that? Who told you? What evidence do you have?

Moving further back, how about Polycarp of Smyrna? Was he real, or just invented as a myth for the faithful?

How about Nero? Real, or just a demonized legend?

What about Plato? Moses? Abraham?
[/quote]

Your action speaks louder than your faith.

Let us all be honest and please do not easily doubted our good intention as our discussion progress since I am not trying to insult or belittle anybody or even doubted your sincerity and faith in God but the reason why I am asking you, ‘who told you that the Christ of the Scripture is the historical Jesus’ is simply because I want you to see that this ‘historical Jesus’ - which is now the center of your faith – is just a belief or an interpretation to the scripture and no more than that.

I know you see the truth of the scripture in the eyes of your faith but ‘seeing the truth in the eyes of faith’ is not the same as ‘seeing truth itself’ because even a lie can be seen as truth through faith. And in my previous messages, threads or post in this forum, I am always saying, historical Jesus is a lie.

There is no historical Jesus and these witnesses or writers of the scriptures are not referring to your historical Jesus. They are truly referring to the Christ of God called Jesus but they are not referring to this historical Jesus. Even Apostle Paul warned us regarding this ‘other Jesus’.

Nonetheless, I will ask you again; can you please show us even just one reason in order to believe that they are truly referring to your historical Jesus other than faith?