Persecution of christians

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

edit: I almost forgot the response to UR's link on the last page regarding the 'integrity' of Richard Dawkins.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3907.asp

Ahem:

Why do you choose to believe the creationist side of that story, and NOT that of Dawkins?

It hardly seems relevant that Dawkins got one of their names wrong. Surely what's more relevant is that they tricked their way into his home. And that they are STILL falsely claiming that Dawkins is STILL unable to answer their question!

Yes, this says a lot about "integrity".

Of creationists.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
All I ask for is a link.

I find it strange that Discovery would run a piece whose sole focus is the issue of authenticity, show the scientists who agree that the ostuary is authentic, and then fail provide an update if it was available.

How about a link from the Discovery Channel itself?
Stone Box Linked to Jesus Called Fake
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20030616/jesusfake.html
The article is dated June 18, 2003.

A link. That is all a I ask.

Ned, you are spending way too much time at drudge.com and limbaugh.com The story was all over the media months ago. Maybe this link will be helpful to you next time:
www.google.com
I just did a google search on "ossuary + Jesus + Joseph + fake" and got 1,090 hits.

Information is a beautiful thing.

[mindseye]

From amazon.com's reviews of Lincoln's book:

The author, who has no academic credentials whatever, wrote a review of his own self-published book and gave himself 5 stars. But he deserves 5 stars only in arrogance. No wonder this pathetic book was a publishing house reject. After promising evidence to support his neanderthal fairytale beliefs, the author presents only stale clichés and discredited, worn-out platitudes. We supposedly need God to explain the universe and life's complexities, but who created God? How did He become so complex? It's a divine mystery, or He needs no explanation because He always existed. The most charitable comment about this book is that it begs the question. Don't waste your time revisiting these chestnuts yet again! I'm happy I only bought the electronic version. What I found so amazing about this book was that the author genuinely seems to believe that he's saying something new or original. All he does is set up logical strawmen, erected solely to be over-enthusiastically knocked down. He cites examples of modern organisms and cellular structure (the result of four billion years of evolution), then wonders how such complicated systems could randomly pop into existence. The answer is, they couldn't. And no scientist claimed they could. This book should have been titled, "Shadow Boxing: The Art of Arrogant Self-Deception." Any time the author lacked understanding of a particular scientific principle, he'd trot out the old "God of the Gaps" argument to "explain" what his theologically-enslaved mind failed to grasp. The author also failed to explain why most of his arguments couldn't just as easily have been used to "prove" the existence of Zeus or Allah. -- Tami Noble, Houston, TX.

Well, Lincoln, at least it sounds like you maintain a consistant style of arguement both at Apolyton and in your book!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You might want to check some sources that were favorable to him as well.

Some sources insist that Uri Geller has parapsychological powers. Not that it's actually true.

Originally posted by Lincoln
But the fact that even the detractors of Jesus wrote about his existence proves that you are grasping at straws.

Two things. First of all, Who wrote of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Is this writing authentic? Secondly, even if you can show that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, you still have to show that he indeed was like what the Gospels asserted.

[Boris Godunov]

On Tacitus:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Tacitus.html

Using Tacitus as "proof" of Jesus's existence is simply absurd, since he mentions "Christus" exactly once in his entire writings, and it's solely to explain what the Christians worshipped. It isn't in any way a verification that Jesus existed, but rather that Christians existed. This hasn't been disputed. Since the existence of Jesus was of no importance to the point of this passage (which was written to show what a **** Nero was), I doubt Tacitus journeyed to Judea, decades after the fact, to verify if this Christus actually existed. He simply took the professed beliefs of the Christians at face value.

Of course, we have no idea where he got this information from anyway--he very well could have just used Christian propaganda floating around at the time. Tacitus was anti-Caesars, and he takes many opportunities to swipe at the emperors. To him, including such inconequential information, even sans verification, wouldn't hurt, since it would be a nice way to negatively paint the emperors.

On Seutonius:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#suetonius

"It is unclear that Suetonius knew of Jesus. Suetonius, the Roman historian and biographer formerly known as Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, wrote several works, including his Lives of the Twelve Caesars, which is an account of the lives of the first twelve Roman emperors. In his Life of Claudius, he writes:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.[109]

In order to use this as a reference to Jesus, McDowell must assume that this 'Chrestus' was Jesus. Thus, in He Walked Among Us, we find McDowell and Wilson declaring that "Chrestus was probably a misspelling of 'Christ' (Greek 'Christus')."[110] Quoting France, McDowell and Wilson argue that 'Chrestus' is a misspelling of 'Christus' because (i) 'Chrestus' is a Greek name; and (ii) the meaning of 'Christus' would be unfamiliar to a Gentile audience. Furthermore, McDowell and Wilson argue (iii) that Christian witnessing to the Jews in AD 49 (similar to that recorded in Acts 18) "probably resulted in the hostilities which led to the expulsion of all Jews from Rome." This, they argue, would have led to the writing of a Roman "police report" which in turn would have attributed the violence to 'Chrestus' (a familiar name).[111]

I find these arguments unconvincing. Indeed, while stating that it is possible that this passage is a misspelled reference to Jesus, France nevertheless dismisses (i) and (ii). According to France, the claim that 'Chrestus' is a misspelling of 'Christus' "can never be more than a guess, and the fact that Suetonius can elsewhere speak of 'Christians' as members of a new cult (without any reference to Jews) surely makes it rather unlikely that he could make such a mistake."[112] McDowell and Wilson never offer any reasons for rejecting France's argument on this point. As for (iii), this is so speculative as to be laughable. There is no evidence of such a police report and there is no evidence that Christian preaching to the Jews led to hostilities which in turn led to the Jews' expulsion from Rome. In sum, then, McDowell and Wilson have been unable to show that this passage even refers to Jesus.

McDowell also quotes Lives of the Caesars--where Suetonius mentions Nero's punishment of Christians--though his reference is incorrect. (McDowell lists the passage as originating in 26.2; the passage is actually found in 16.2.[113]) The passage reads as follows:

Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

McDowell and Wilson think this "verifies" that Christians were "being put to death" for their Christian beliefs.[114]

However, Suetonius "verifies" nothing of the sort. Suetonius only says that Christians were punished, not that they were "put to death." Moreover, Suetonius does not say that the Christians were punished simply for being Christians; indeed, Suetonius does not specify their crime at all. As the Christian New Testament scholar R.T. France, who McDowell quotes repeatedly in his 1988 work, notes

The great fire of AD 64 is not mentioned in this connection, and indeed the punishment of Christians is included in that part of the book (up to section 19) which deals with Nero's good acts, before he turned to vice and crime. (The fire is not reported until section 38, where it is unconditionally blamed on Nero himself.) Nor does Suetonius even so much as mention the 'Christus' from whom their name derived.[115]

In short, this passage is not independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. As Wells argues, this passage "tells us nothing more than what we already know about this from Tacitus and nothing about Jesus himself."[116]

----

The above link actually handily answers all of Lincoln's claims. Funny that cut-n-pastes from fundy sites can be answered with cut-n-pastes from skeptic sites!

[Berzerker]

True Christians do not persecute anyone, so yes, I am talking also about "Christians" persecuting Christians, Jews and whoever else was handy.

You want to tell that to all the people who've been put in jail for their "vices" and "crimes against nature"? Once a "true Christian" uses government to impose their religion on others, they are persecuting people and it doesn't make one bit of difference if the persecution is legal or not any more than the Inquisition's legality means it was no longer persecution...

[Ned]

Here is a better link to the Israeli determination that the Jame ossuary is fake. http://www.archaeology.org/magazine..../ossuary/index

This raises an obvious question, does it not? Why is the Discovery Channel continuing to run an unedited version of the story that the ossary is authentic and carry the DVD of the story on its site?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
This raises an obvious question, does it not? Why is the Discovery Channel continuing to run an unedited version of the story that the ossary is authentic and carry the DVD of the story on its site?

Gullible Christians who want to believe it = $$$. Pat Robertson and the other televangelists learned that a long time ago. Fleecing the flock.

[Ned]

On the issue of "Christian insertions" in Roman documents, these seem more of the variety of adding "theology" to plain text. For example, the original version may have said that Pontius Pilot executed Christ. The revised version might say that Pontius Pilot crucified Jesus Christ.

The presence of these additions, if that is what they are, does not disprove that Jesus Christ existed. That is a significant leap that is not justified.

[Ned]

Boris, Even so, it is false and should be removed or edited.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
The presence of these additions, if that is what they are, does not disprove that Jesus Christ existed. That is a significant leap that is not justified.

Certainly.

We are not looking for evidence to "disprove" the existence of Jesus, we are looking for evidence to show that he did exist.

[molly bloom]

Ned, I wouldn't base your faith on mediaeval forgeries. The 'prison record' of 'Jesus' is part and parcel of the get rich quick schemes of the mediaeval church- a religious foundation with a holy relic (especially a major holy relic) could attract more pilgrims and more sick people seeking miraculous cures. More sick people and more pilgrims= big money bonanza!!! If all the alleged relics in Europe proved the existence of the people that they were purported to have come from, then several saints would resemble Hindu gods, with many arms, heads and legs. John the Baptist alone would give Zaphod Beeblebrox a run for his money. Instead of one true cross, you could have a grove.

By the way, Lincoln, could you also give us some proofs for the existence of Noah's Ark? It's Sunday, and having no local House of Atheism to go to, I have some time on my hands (having persecuted my quota of Christians, Muslims, Jews and animists and assorted pagan idolators this week). That being the case, I'm in need of some diversion, and look forward to your explanation of how 30 000 000 species of creatures (including bacteria, viruses, corals, whales, freshwater fish) managed to cram into a vessel of 3699 m. sq. in area, a height of 13.7 m., with 3 decks. I'm particularly intrigued as to which of the human crew were designated to ensure the survival of human specific diseases. Who was the unlucky one who had H.I.V.? And which one kuru? More to the point- who had the person designated the kuru carrier eaten to contract kuru? I think we should be told.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Certainly.

We are not looking for evidence to "disprove" the existence of Jesus, we are looking for evidence to show that he did exist.

Since the texts exist, I would think that the burden has been shifted to the nay sayers to prove that they all were forgeries or made up.

[Ned]

molly, I am well aware that the "church" was surrounded by forgeries of all kinds. One such forgery was the "Donation of Constintine." Another was a little bit added to the Canons from the Council of Nicea that purportedly acknowledged the Bishop of Rome as the leading patriarch.

But I still believe that what happened was that the forgers "elaborated" on the more simple text, not for reasons for establishing Christs existence, but to advance their own position on theology. That was the main problem of the time - dogma. There was a virtual war among earlier Christians on these issues.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Why? Unless you have already assumed that Jesus did exist and try desparately match some tiny fragments in ancient writings to such a person, there is no reason to make such assumption.

That's nonsense. It's entirely on the basis of similar fragments from Gildas, Bede and the Anglo-saxon Chronicle that we draw practically our entire historical knowledge of all dark-ages British rulers.