03 Dec 10
9 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead===========================================
Why does this keep coming up in this forum? What does your list of "pagan writers who refer to Jesus Christ" have to do with anything? Do you think it constitutes evidence for something? If so, what?
If I (a pagan) mention Jesus Christ in a book, does that constitute evidence for something? What? If I don't count for you list then why not?
Are you und g that anyone would dispute, after all, here you are on this forum, so Christians do exist).
Why does this keep coming up in this forum? What does your list of "pagan writers who refer to Jesus Christ" have to do with anything?
========================================
One of the last ditch attacks of skeptics is to just decide that Jesus Christ never existed at all. So the historicity of Jesus is verified in reply to this desperation.
It comes back to the question "Who in history actually acted the most like God ?" I submit that without dispute, at the top of the short list has to be Jesus Christ.
"God was manifested in the flesh" then comes back largely to a historical matter. We can argue about First Cause, Transcenders of Time, Miracle Doers, Truth Speakers, etc. etc. I maintain we should remember that it is a matter of history that the Person who most displayed attributes of both the Perfect Man and the Complete God is Jesus Christ.
Some skeptics want to run away from history completely. Some are not satisfied to say "These were embellished stories". Finding that refuge inadaquate for that escape they make a blind leap to deny that any Jesus of Nazareth ever lived at all.
So I occasionally remind the forum of history. I admit it was a bit out of the main discussion here.
====================================
Do you think it constitutes evidence for something? If so, what?
===================================
Here you're arguing about miracles. It is a matter of history that a man spent three and one half years and so impacted the world with His life (including miracles) that the effect on human history cannot be ignored.
The historicity of Jesus Christ is like the 800 pound golden gorilla in the living room of human history. If you bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and just try to ignore that Jesus Christ lived, the reminder that He lived will be submitted.
===============================
If I (a pagan) mention Jesus Christ in a book, does that constitute evidence for something? What? If I don't count for you list then why not?
======================================
For people who say no mention or evidence of Jesus occurs outside the propoganda of the New Testament, the early mentions of Jesus by non-Christians serves to demonstrate evidence of His being an actual historical person.
Of course the way and manner of these mentionings is taken into account. Ie. the mere mentioning of Donald Duck or Superman does not establish their historical reality but only their liturary or fictional occurence.
So HOW and MANNER of pagan mentions of Jesus are taken into account. Not just mere mention.
Of course this is to satisfy the anti-New Testament bias. The New Testament is the MAIN source of the mentioning of the historicity of Christ. But that skeptics will suspicion and discard out of hand.
=====================================
Are you under the mistaken impression that one of those writers actually met Jesus, or had reliable direct knowledge of Jesus' existence?
=================================
No. I am not under such mistaken impression. That would probably not qualify them to be non-Christian sources.
In His teaching about His post resurrection ministry, He said that He would manifest Himself to His believers but not to the world.
The world will know only through the testimony and changed lives of the believers. Thus the Christian faith has survived these 20 centuries.
===================================
If so, you are wrong and need to check your sources.
=====================================
Since I intertain no such thought, there is no need to check said sources.
========================================
There is not one single writer who claims to have actually met Jesus in person whether they be pagan or theist.
========================================
Let's start with the theist Saul of Tarsus, or Paul the Apostle.
He maintains He met Jesus. And he authored 13 or so of the 27 New Testament books.
Notice that his mentioning of knowing Jesus is in accord with Jesus teaching about His post resurrection ministry. He said He would manifest Himself not to the world but to His believers from within them as the Spirit of Truth (See John 14).
And Paul's testimony is in accord with Christ's teaching:
"But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me ..." (Galatians 1:16)
Paul Jesus personally because God reveal His Son in Paul. And through the centries countless others have maintained something similar. Thier autobiographies and biographies are availiable.
These may not count to you as having met Jesus. But that is your unbelief speaking. He rose from the dead and made Himself in a form in which He could merge His Person with people - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
This is simply how God chooses to manifest His Jesus in people until the time Jesus Christ physically comes back to the earth.
"In this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, that He has given to us of His Spirit." (1 John 4:13)
=====================================
All pagan writers merely mention the existence of Christians and their belief that Jesus existed (hardly something that anyone would dispute, after all, here you are on this forum, so Christians do exist).
==================================
No some of them mention Jesus Himself. They do not just mention Christians existed.
For example Josephus the Jewish historian. In their desperation skeptics then move their attack to try to invalidate Josephus' mention as a Christian fabrication. This is a blind leap into wild conspiracy theory.
Ie. The Babylonian Talmud (completed by 500 A.D.) in Sanhidrin 43a, "Eve of Passover" contains the following explicit reference to Jesus:
On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and buguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover.
Even when His name is not mentioned explicitly the surrounding comments are insightful as to establish evidence for His historicity. ( I have only a portion of a quotation before me in one source ).
The dark day having occured on the day of the crucifixion of Christ was apparently researched astronomically in parts of the world outside of Jerusalem.
Ie. Samaritan born historian, Thallus (c. A.D. 52) - writes one Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 221), "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [at the tme of the crucifixion of Jesus] as an eclipse of the sun - unreasonably, as it seems to me."
In other words Julius was arguing that a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was the time of the paschal full moon when Christ died on the cross. The darkness that covered the sky could not have been a solar eclipse.
This is insightful to the historicity of Jesus even if Thallus had not mentioned Jesus by name. Of which I am not certain he did or not from this source before me:
06 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI believe that there never was 'nothing' but that in a certain point of the pre-universe a big bang like effect brought into this dimension, this reality all of the universe as we know it. It raises the question of other universes, however I just want to focus on this one.
Lets start with the universe, can you give me something outside of God
that gives all things from nothing or do you have something else in mind
that caused all things to be?
Kelly
So , like I keep repeating , the universe is a paradox. "In the beigining" God was in heaven and all was good. Then he decided to create a universe and did. So this universe was set in motion with all its laws and such...
But all the while God was just in the process of expanding His territory. We, as God's agents, are here to colonize this part of the universe.By colonize I mean bring more Light into this part of the cosmos. Gods Light. We are all here together to raise this planet from her slumber and take up our immutable posts as eternal bhuddas thus raising our planet from a class 3 planet ("planet of sorrows" ) to a class 4 or 5 planet. On the one hand we will move into a new reality that will exceed our wildest dreams and on the other hand we will 'return home' and realize that God was really us all along and all percieved separations from God (death,sorrow,etc.) were just mispercieved separations.
We all have our parts to play
I tried to put this post into simplistic language in the hope my messag will come across clearer..
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelWow, where do you get all of that knowledge from?
I believe that there never was 'nothing' but that in a certain point of the pre-universe a big bang like effect brought into this dimension, this reality all of the universe as we know it. It raises the question of other universes, however I just want to focus on this one.
So , like I keep repeating , the universe is a paradox. "In the beigining" God w ...[text shortened]... ut this post into simplistic language in the hope my messag will come across clearer..
Kelly
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczel“...I believe that there never was 'nothing' ….”
I believe that there never was 'nothing' but that in a certain point of the pre-universe a big bang like effect brought into this dimension, this reality all of the universe as we know it. It raises the question of other universes, however I just want to focus on this one.
So , like I keep repeating , the universe is a paradox. "In the beigining" God w ...[text shortened]... ut this post into simplistic language in the hope my messag will come across clearer..
So do I because 'nothingness' cannot exist and even the empty vacuum of space is 'something'!
But I find the rest of your post to be unclear.
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczel============================
I believe that there never was 'nothing' but that in a certain point of the pre-universe a big bang like effect brought into this dimension, this reality all of the universe as we know it. It raises the question of other universes, however I just want to focus on this one.
So , like I keep repeating , the universe is a paradox. "In the beigining" God w ...[text shortened]... ut this post into simplistic language in the hope my messag will come across clearer..
But all the while God was just in the process of expanding His territory. We, as God's agents, are here to colonize this part of the universe.By colonize I mean bring more Light into this part of the cosmos. Gods Light. We are all here together to raise this planet from her slumber and take up our immutable posts as eternal bhuddas thus raising our planet from a class 3 planet ("planet of sorrows" ) to a class 4 or 5 planet. On the one hand we will move into a new reality that will exceed our wildest dreams and on the other hand we will 'return home' and realize that God was really us all along and all percieved separations from God (death,sorrow,etc.) were just mispercieved separations.
=============================================
These are some interesting thoughts. But they do sound much like what I read in the Bible itself.
Do you have a problem with Jesus Christ being the standard model of what God actually wants to fill this creation with ?
I mean He is called "the Firstborn among many brothers" Why do we not allow Him to be the Lord and Captian of this great journey cooperating with His salvation ?
Seems to be that you would more closely examine the only One who can take us there.
07 Dec 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton...'nothingness' cannot exist...
“...I believe that there never was 'nothing' ….”
So do I because 'nothingness' cannot exist and even the empty vacuum of space is 'something'!
But I find the rest of your post to be unclear.
This sounds to me like a statement of belief. Nothing could quite conceivably have existed prior to the inception of the universe, could it not?
07 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI doubt it; whether or not one can define what existed prior to the conception of the universe (and I doubt they ever will - at least in any valid sense); it was most certainly not "nothing" - some mechanism gave rise to it...something existed.
[b]...'nothingness' cannot exist...
This sounds to me like a statement of belief. Nothing could quite conceivably have existed prior to the inception of the universe, could it not?[/b]
An empty box is still a box!