Because they're Christian. You have to assume that they're false if no one else says the same, simply because that's how a scientific process works. Christians cannot be considered an objective source.
Buy on AliExpress.com
What is your god like? (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
- Status
Buy on AliExpress.com
Eusebius, 4th century bishop, the "father of church history" quotes Julius Africanus and says that Africanus quoted Thallus and that Thallus wrote his book in 52 AD.
The books writen by Africanus and Thallus didn't survive and we're forced to trust a 4th century bishop that they wrote what you say they wrote.
The books writen by Africanus and Thallus didn't survive and we're forced to trust a 4th century bishop that they wrote what you say they wrote.
Actually, it was impossible to sneak into to the burial place of Jesus. There was a huge stone that was impossible to move or something like that. I don't know the details too well, but since you're a historian you probably know what I'm talking about.
The other argument, which I also expect by the way, is that Jesus wasn't really dead. Eye witness accounts also state that Jesus was speared brutally and his death was absolutely confirmed.
The other argument, which I also expect by the way, is that Jesus wasn't really dead. Eye witness accounts also state that Jesus was speared brutally and his death was absolutely confirmed.
It's worse than that.
Circumstantial.
Right. Christians said so.
All this has happened before. All this will happen again.
Someone proposed that the Christian claim of a benevolent god is proof of... something... I kind of drifted off to be honest. Thing is, benevolent gods are in fashion right now. The Greek pantheon was rather less decent a bunch. Neither proves anything, excepting possibly some broad social commentary about the time each religion became popular.
Circumstantial.
Right. Christians said so.
All this has happened before. All this will happen again.
Someone proposed that the Christian claim of a benevolent god is proof of... something... I kind of drifted off to be honest. Thing is, benevolent gods are in fashion right now. The Greek pantheon was rather less decent a bunch. Neither proves anything, excepting possibly some broad social commentary about the time each religion became popular.
You have yet to give a reason as to why we shouldn't believe these 'Christian' historians are inaccurate. You do understand that these 'Christians' were Christians for a reason, yes? You do realize that they weren't born 'Christians' with a path to fool the entire world with their lies, yes? You do realize that these 'Christians' were at one point, non-Christians, yes? So you also do realize that the fact of them being Christians is completely irrelevant to whether the information is correct or not?
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
If you're referring to me, I quoted two pieces of 'evidence'. Before that, I may need to clarify: I believe a man called Jesus founded a religion nearly 2000 years ago. I have little doubt that there is historical evidence of this: I read enough of it some years ago, though details are now beyond me. I've seen nothing to convince me of his divinity though. Back to what's on hand.
One of the things I dismissed was a claim of a great darkness in A.D. 32. I can believe it occured. There's some mention of it from an independent commentator. This is taken to be the darkness described in the story of Jesus' death. This is a leap of logic. It might be what it's claimed to be. It might not. It is, to quote myself, circumstantial.
That said, the year makes no sense. Traditionally, Jesus is said to have lived 30 years, preached for 3 and died. That makes A.D. 33. The year of his birth is somewhat in question: I understand the monks who invented our calender system are thought to have miscounted and that Jesus was actually born around 6 B.C. (which is an amusing idea - Christ born several years Before Christ). Regardless, A.D. 32 doesn't show up.
The second thing I commented on was a claim that convincing evidence of Jesus' works was told by some Christians to some guy. I fail to see how this is convincing of anything. I've no doubt that Mormans were proudly proclaiming the works of Joseph Smith 20 years after the founding of their religion.
One of the things I dismissed was a claim of a great darkness in A.D. 32. I can believe it occured. There's some mention of it from an independent commentator. This is taken to be the darkness described in the story of Jesus' death. This is a leap of logic. It might be what it's claimed to be. It might not. It is, to quote myself, circumstantial.
That said, the year makes no sense. Traditionally, Jesus is said to have lived 30 years, preached for 3 and died. That makes A.D. 33. The year of his birth is somewhat in question: I understand the monks who invented our calender system are thought to have miscounted and that Jesus was actually born around 6 B.C. (which is an amusing idea - Christ born several years Before Christ). Regardless, A.D. 32 doesn't show up.
The second thing I commented on was a claim that convincing evidence of Jesus' works was told by some Christians to some guy. I fail to see how this is convincing of anything. I've no doubt that Mormans were proudly proclaiming the works of Joseph Smith 20 years after the founding of their religion.
I don't get your reasoning here at all. You claim that because these people who are telling the stories are 'Christians', this makes the information unreliable. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? If these people are telling the world about the stories of Jesus Christ, wouldn't that almost force them to be Christians?
I don't know what you expect. This is ridiculous.
If someone dies, who do you think will tell his storty to the world? His friends and family, or his hated enemies? What you are saying is this. Because they are his friends and family, there is no reason we should believe them.
I don't know what you expect. This is ridiculous.
If someone dies, who do you think will tell his storty to the world? His friends and family, or his hated enemies? What you are saying is this. Because they are his friends and family, there is no reason we should believe them.
Yes, ofcourse, if you want to believe that. However, you have no legitmate reason for believing this other than the fact that you dislike Christianity. Meaning nothing has been subjected as evidence that these 'Christians' are lying, other than your personal motive for wanting to disbelieve what these Christians have said.
Even if you consider it from their viewpoint, what possible reciprocal benefit could they get by lying about some mythical person curing the sick, and resurrecting from the dead. It doesn't make sense why they would all lie if they did.
My point is, calling 'Christian' historians liars is no different than calling Non-Christian historians liars. In that case, we might as well disregard human history altogether because, well, they could have been lying.
Even if you consider it from their viewpoint, what possible reciprocal benefit could they get by lying about some mythical person curing the sick, and resurrecting from the dead. It doesn't make sense why they would all lie if they did.
My point is, calling 'Christian' historians liars is no different than calling Non-Christian historians liars. In that case, we might as well disregard human history altogether because, well, they could have been lying.
Not quite. You see, from the moment you call yourself christian it is in your best interest to say you saw Jesus. For obvious reasons. I'm not saying that they deliberately fool anyone, but perhaps they did twist the truth a bit. In their eyes for the better even. It would be insane to consider them as a good source anyway and I don't understand why you don't see that.
I agree. There is some evidence he did exist, but it's all secondary. Though that doesn't really matter, because christianity was founded in that era and someone or some organisation must have done it. So someone like Jesus must have existed.
I agree. There is some evidence he did exist, but it's all secondary. Though that doesn't really matter, because christianity was founded in that era and someone or some organisation must have done it. So someone like Jesus must have existed.
i don't know of any non-christian historians that start out with the same basic assumption
- Status