Persecution of christians

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How did we get from discussing an idiotic school in New York to the existance of Jesus?

Because some fanatical atheists wish that he didn't exist. I think it disturbs them for some reason.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

1) They're not historical contemporary documents of the life of Jesus, as the earliest known gospel post-dates his supposed life by 2 decades, at least. If it must be explained why religious dogma isn't taken as historical truth when it's uncorroborrated, well then...

Look at the earlier list of historical 'contemporaries' all of them, including Josephus, wrote well after the events they claim occured, and much later than the synoptic Gospels.

So you say 2 decades is not contemporaneous, yet all these other historians writing centuries afterwards, must be contemporaries to Christ. I smell a double standard.

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the events. The earliest found manuscripts do not have any ascription, and it is commonly believed by theologians that the assigning of others was done c. 120 CE by Papias. On what basis he assigned the authorships is unknown, but the passage in John wherein the author claims to be an eyewitness was added by someone else, since it's not in the earlier manuscripts. That's called forgery.

Citation of the allegedly forged passage would greatly assist your argument. No one ought to have to cite evidence against himself.

Secondly, you claim that Papias had no authority for assigning the authorship of the Gospels, but under what authority do you make the claim? Why did the church accept these authors for their Gospels if they knew them to be falsely attributed?

[Ramo]

True, but you are preventing them from practicing if other religions are allowed to put up such displays.

So either you have all of them, or none of them.

The same argument can be applied to Christmas break. The lack of Ramadan break stops students from practicing Islam more than the inability to put up decorations stops students from practicing Christianity.

And once again, I agree that what the schools did was not just.

But Christmas is not a month-long holiday, compared to Ramadan.

For students, it is (or more than a month for uni students).

Interesting that you admit many Moslems in Moslem countries do not stop working during Ramadan.

Why's that?

Tell that to my school. They avoid any Christian associations with their winter holiday.

They do that to put up the pretense that the motivation for choosing the holiday wasn't entirely secular. You can call it winter break, but it really is Christmas break.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

How does not having an officially sanctioned break prevent Moslems from practicing Ramadan? I live with a Moslem, and he has no problem working and keeping up with his fasts for a month during the day.

For students, it is (or more than a month for uni students).

Wow! I want to go to school where you do. I get 2 weeks, sometimes 3. And the weeks off have very little to do with Christianity.

They do that to put up the pretense that the motivation for choosing the holiday wasn't entirely secular. You can call it winter break, but it really is Christmas break.

Try getting my uni to admit that they celebrate a 'Christmas' break. There are so few Christians that it makes no sense to say that they have the break at Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Do you think Santa Claus exists? We have lots of writings about him...surely he must be real!

He is. Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of children.

[Ramo]

How does not having an officially sanctioned break prevent Moslems from practicing Ramadan? I live with a Moslem, and he has no problem working and keeping up with his fasts for a month during the day.

Of course. And Christians generally have no problem practicing Christianity if they can't put up certain kinds of decoration at school. I'm just saying that the argument you are making can be applied to Christmas break.

Wow! I want to go to school where you do. I get 2 weeks, sometimes 3. And the weeks off have very little to do with Christianity.

IIRC, it's around a month and a half in the US.

Try getting my uni to admit that they celebrate a 'Christmas' break. There are so few Christians that it makes no sense to say that they have the break at Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ.

You and I live in a secular state, so they won't do that.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris:
Look at the earlier list of historical 'contemporaries' all of them, including Josephus, wrote well after the events they claim occured, and much later than the synoptic Gospels.

So you say 2 decades is not contemporaneous, yet all these other historians writing centuries afterwards, must be contemporaries to Christ. I smell a double standard.

I said no such thing in regards to the list of other historians--you haven't ceased making up other people's arguments, I see!

The fact that none of those historians mentions Jesus isn't evidence Jesus didn't exist in and of itself, but it corroborrates the notion, as there aren't any contemporary records that support his existence. Jesus's absense from them is conspicuous when taken alongside the lack of contemporary account, not in and of itself.

Regardless, you'd think that if the events of the gospel were as important as the gospels maintain, these historians would be mentioning them. The paltry reference in Tacitus to Christians (the details of which are refuted by Seutonius) and lack of other mentions make me think that the supposed storm over the supposed prophet Jesus is a good deal exaggerated, at the very least.

Citation of the allegedly forged passage would greatly assist your argument. No one ought to have to cite evidence against himself.

I believe there is only once instance in John in which the author claims to be an eyewitness. I don't have the passage citation handy, but we've discussed this many times before. It was a passage you yourself brought up first.

Secondly, you claim that Papias had no authority for assigning the authorship of the Gospels, but under what authority do you make the claim? Why did the church accept these authors for their Gospels if they knew them to be falsely attributed?

No, I didn't claim Papias had no authority--once again you're conjuring false arguments. I said we have no idea on what basis he made the ascriptions. Given that is was nearly a century after the supposed events, the nature of the difficulty of placing authorship in those days, etc., it's very reasonable to question the validity of his claims. The fanatically faithful have consistently shown a knack for deceit so long as it furthers their agenda. The "church" at that time was not the organization it is today or was even 200 years later--if Papias made the claims "These are written by the apostles," a lot of people will believe him because they simply want to believe him. Standards of scholarship among the laypeople weren't exactly strident then, were they?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He is. Saint Nicholas is the patron saint of children.

I suspect the relationship between the modern concept of Santa Claus to the original St. Nicholas (also a shadowy, disputed figure) is about the same as the relationship between the modern concept of Jesus and whomever the original figure(s) was/were.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I suspect the relationship between the modern concept of Santa Claus to the original St. Nicholas (also a shadowy, disputed figure)

I wasn't aware St. Nicholas' existance was in dispute.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Because some fanatical atheists wish that he didn't exist. I think it disturbs them for some reason.

Funny, but your mind seems to be going. Re-read the thread.

MrFun asked a question as to why some would consider Jesus not to be a historical figure, Jack responded with a very reasonable answer as to why some would think so, and MrFun responded by calling such people "morons."

I think the folks who find the legitimate questioning of the myths are the ones who are truly disturbed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I wasn't aware St. Nicholas' existance was in dispute.

The details of his life are, as very little is known for certain and much of what is claimed to be known is actually undocumented mythology. What we know probably bears very little resemblance to what was truth. The popular stories emerged c. 1000 AD, 700 years after when Nicholas lived.

[DinoDoc]

OK. Now I know who to blame for the idiocy that insued. Thanks Boris.

[Boris Godunov]

When in doubt, blame MrFun.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Funny, but your mind seems to be going. Re-read the thread.

MrFun asked a question as to why some would consider Jesus not to be a historical figure, Jack responded with a very reasonable answer as to why some would think so, and MrFun responded by calling such people "morons."

I think the folks who find the legitimate questioning of the myths are the ones who are truly disturbed.

Right. The calendar was changed because of a myth.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
When in doubt, blame MrFun.

Skanky is going to be jealous.