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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skipper who wrote (24205)	8/11/1998 1:52:00 PM
From: Emile Vidrine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"Julius Caesar wrote his own material, on the Gallic War, which he led. As far as I know, his authorship is not disputed, and the text reads much more as what one would expect of a historical text than the new testament (although certainly not unbiased). The new testament reads like the religious manual it is (perhaps due to years of editing by the early church)." Hi Sipper, Don't you think it is reasonable to assume that Caesar's Gallic War should talk about military matters? By the same logic, is it unreasonable for the eyewitness historical accounts in the bible to focus on religious matters as you imply? I dont think so! After all, they are writing about an historical personage who claimed to be the Son of God and about historical events that were prophesied in the Old Testament. It seems reasonable that the New Testament writers should focus on the religious aspects of this historical event, just as it was reasonable for Caesar to focus on military matters. It only reads like a "religious manual" because your mind was been biased against this ancient and contemporary historical document called the New Testament. For example, notice how you are not at all suspicious about possible tampering with Caesar's origninal document, and also seem to have full confidence that it is authentic. With the historical documents in the New Testamet, you immediately assume tampering and religious motives, and imply that this tampering and religious motives altered the document. Your attitude shows that you have never honestly examined the ancient contemporary documents contained in the New Testament. The New Testament is an ancient historical document, and if you examine it as an authentic historical source of information about the life of Jesus and the early Christian Church, you will find that it contains important and accurate information about the life of Jesus. I think the thing that most materialist find disturbing in this historical document is the many events in the life of Jesus that indicate that he is indeed who he claims to be---the Son of God. Emile

To: Skipper who wrote (24205)	8/11/1998 3:51:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, you'll have to find evidence of editing by the early church to back your contention. But since the ante-nicene fathers quoted extensively from the same texts we know you'd be better off trying a different tack. Julius Caesar undoubtedly wrote his Commentaries. But the manuscripts we have of that work are fewer and more recent than the numerous and much older copies of the New Testament writings that exist. My Loeb edition of Caesar's The Gallic War states that there are 6 manuscripts extant, which date from the ninth to the twelth century, and that fall into two manuscript camps. As for thinking Caesar an historian, you're in the minority there, as the introduction to the Loeb edition indicates: The Commentaries, as the title implies, were regarded by Cicero and Hirtius as materials for the historian rather than as history proper. By critics of his own and later days, Cicero, Asinius Pollio, Suetonius, Tacitus, Quintilian, Aulus Gellius, Caesar was considered a master of Latin speech. As an orator he was second to Cicero alone; and the literary style of the Commentaries, simple, straightforward, unadorned, found great favor with Cicero himself. Even Asinius Pollio, characteristically finding fault with the inaccuracy of the Commentaries, which, as he thought, would have been revised by their author, has nothing to say against the style. The popular character of the work is seen in the occasional touches of rhetoric, excellent of their kind, and the rarity of technical details.