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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (230313)	4/22/2005 1:28:14 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573282

Tenchusatsu, I applaud your efforts, but you do realize you are discussing whether Jesus is real or not with an atheist? Message 20977179 As for ted, I guess he isn't a Christian anymore.... Message 20977391 fwiw

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (230313)	4/22/2005 8:54:36 PM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1573282

From the article: >The amount of data (especially historically 'incidental') we have about Jesus in the New Testament--and the appearances that the authors were not collusive--gives us a very, very high level of assurance in this matter. They're not collusive... in a number of cases, they're successive -- they copy off of one another. >Again, professional and academic scholars of the period -- Christian, Jewish, Secular -- accept the New Testament as an adequate witness, both for historical 'existence' and for many pieces of historical detail about Jesus. But why should they? There's no firsthand info in the NT. >Between the NT and Jospheus, there is no serious reason whatsover to doubt the historical 'existence' of the Jesus of Nazareth behind those references. Josephus wasn't born yet when Jesus supposedly lived. All he had to go on was the stories of others, who also likely didn't live when Jesus did. >But as every student of ancient history is aware, it is an elementary error to suppose that the unmentioned did not exist or was not accepted. The Gospels state that multitudes of people trampled each other to see Jesus... you wouldn't think there'd be ONE piece of contemporary info? >If the gospel traditions were invented about AD 100 why is it far from easy (with the exception of John's gospel) to find in them traces of the convictions, emphases, and problems of the Christians of that period? So are there traces of the same for an earlier period? >If the historical existence of Jesus was invented only in about AD 100, why was it necessary to create so many detailed traditions? Why is it necessary to create so many detailed traditions to worship in any religion? >Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). Aren't there multiple things wrong with this statement? >Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!). But they didn't live at the same time as him! This means nothing. Sorry, Tench -- I got nothing out of this. -Z