Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (16578)	3/6/2004 3:41:02 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Is your case so weak that all you have left is to resort to character assassination and gratuitous insults? It would seem so. "The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:" You did not include the qualifier with the list that you posted. I can only imagine why. No, your omission made it seem that these historians were contemporary witnesses of these events and then never recorded them. Neither did you mention the fact that Tacitus who was no friend of Christians does indeed mention the founder of the Christian sect. So who is engaging in selective "misstatement, misdirection, and outright deceit"? Tacitus' almost offhand mention of Christianity and it's founder was done in the context of Nero, whom he (Tacitus) would have had an interest in recording. It is ridiculous and anachronistic to demand that ancient historians would have made an extensive effort to chronicle what was then an insignificant sect of Judaism, unless it was in the context of another significant event. the fact that Tacitus is not quoted by the early Church to prove the existence of Jesus is not significant since no one at that time was denying the historical existence of Jesus. So all you have done is set up a straw man and then knocked him down. Was that hard? <<<<Paul's letters are dated in the early to mid 50's so you are at least a hundred years off on your dates.>>>> "I placed the possibilities of Acts between 65 AD and 130 AD as per encyclopedias quoted here:" Actually what I was referring to was this statement. "Added to that, we have the equally incredible event that several decades later (in all probability 150 years) certain people considered these events important enough to write voluminously about them!" Lets do the math A.D.30 plus 150 equals??? Don't let a little matter of a hundred year error stand in the way of winning at any cost. My statement."The book of Acts is dated by many scholars before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and most likely before the death of Paul. Paul's letters are dated in the early to mid 50's so you are at least a hundred years off on your dates." You say "your statement is complete rubbish. Again, you are adopting a policy of deceit, false reference, and false attribution in order to pretend to points. It is a quick way to lose respect, Greg..." People can read for themselves. I don't know why you think your tactics are garnering you any respect. <<<Paul wrote within 20 to 30 years of the resurrection not a century later, not generations later.>>> "WE are not talking about the Resurrection alone. We are discussing the miracle myths of the gospels from the birth of Jesus (purpotedly in 4 BC) till His death. You are absolutely wrong." <<<<To say Paul only deals with the resurrection is also a factual error. The resurrection is the crowning event that if true, verifies all the claims of Christ, and if false, renders everything else that Jesus claimed and did, meaningless. If you are prepared to grant the resurrection, then what is the problem with the other, certainly lesser miracles”>>>> The last statement was obviously tongue in cheek try to smile won't you? However the first part of my statement is correct and destroys you assertion that the events of the life death and resurrection of Jesus were not recorded until "later (in all probability 150 years)" As I said, that means you think they were not written until 180 A.D. which is outside even the latest date you allowed "I placed the possibilities of Acts between 65 AD and 130 AD" Make up your mind will you?