Islam is a peaceful religion is it..

[Natalinasmpf]

That's just a bald assertion.

So? That is what Christians think. It seems an assertion, well, because evidence comes from nowhere else but faith itself. Take it as reading. Suppose I tell an infant: reading will make you smarter. He or she refuses to believe it, so you hand him documentation on studies showing how literacy greatly impacts a person's life. But that person can't read that documentation. So far, he only has his parents to tell him, some documentation, and his friends don't advocate reading (yet).

Would it be an assertion to tell the infant, that reading makes you smart?

Anyway, assertion or not, that is what our religion believes. I believe we are debating the consistency of our beliefs, and "loopholes". The person I replied to thought it was a loophole in the Christian faith that Hitler could go to heaven had he repented.

That's just a bald assertion.

Oh fine, sort of: was trying to remind people that Hitler is a human being too, with the ability to repent, had he tried.

Really? If that is the case, there wouldn't be any of the Crusades, Inquisition, or witch-hunts. Protestants would not clash with Catholics and Moslems would not fight Christians.

I believe when that happens, the people in questions don't really believe in their faith. They are just selfishly using the faith for their own goals. I meant, truly believed.

In Christianity, when one believes, one is officially on the path to righteousness. Repented; so if Hitler had believed, he would stop hating Jews because he truly believes.

Or do you think criminals shouldn't undergo rehabilitation? Usually, by the time a person believes, God has given one punishment enough. Perhaps through tormenting the soul in question (making one think), or having him serve time.

What on earth are you talking about? Which character are you referring to?

The CHINESE CHARACTER: Righteousness.

You know, like characters in chinese, big = "da"
small = "xiao"

These characters have strokes. Some characters are made up of other characters, pictorial form.

righteousness used to be a character with strokes PICTORIALLY showing, the character for lamb, over the character for altar. Lamb over the altar.

However, Mao Zedong and the CCP changed it 1949, to "cleanse" the language.

[Ben Kenobi]

An important point to note that Antiquities was a record about the Israelis, and Josephus himself was a Jew. So why would he be so reverent towards a Jesus of Nezareth, even calling him the Christ? It simply is absurd.

I agree, it would be absurd for Josephus to be reverant towards Christ, but if you look at the passage, I think you will have to conclude that he is not reverant towards Christ.

Hence my reference to the section, "If indeed he were a man." It seems to me that this is a snide comment, like Josephus is snickering at the claims of Christians, a very appropriate reaction for a Jew.

As for Origen, I don't see how this defends your case. Origen is saying nothing different from what I am, that Josephus does not affirm the divinity of Christ in his writings.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are some scholars who believe that the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection.

Which is the view that I share, alongside many other scholars.

It affirms that Josephus did speak of Christ, while explaining some of the difficulties in the text.

Antiquities 18.3.3

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day

Now, let's see the first part.

It is perfectly legitimate for Josephus to call Jesus a wise man, a doer of good works, and a good teacher. The only part that would seem to cause difficulty is the bit, "if indeed it be lawful to call him a man." It does not need to be asserted an interpolation in order to explain this, if one reads the comment as ironic rather than sincere.

Now, as for his affirmation of the resurrection, that can also be contested. 'for he appeared to them alive again on the third day.'

This can be explained as to why those who believed in him did not leave him. Rather than Josephus saying that Christ died, and rose again, therefore, his disciples did not leave him, rather he reverses the order. His disciples did not leave him, because they believed that he died and rose again.

The only one that seems problematic is what you quote from Origen. 'He was the Christ.' Origen denies that Josephus believed in Christ, and argument more understandeably necessary to assert, if he said this in the text, and there was some confusion.

The fact that Origen does not cite these passages is not evidence of interpolation any more than absence of evidence can serve for evidence of absence. He may have very good reasons to not cite these passages, particularly if they cause problems for his case.

[Ben Kenobi]

Atheism is simply an empirical claim.

Then where is the empirical evidence to support this claim, skywalker?

I thought it was impossible to prove that something does not exist empirically.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then where is the empirical evidence to support this claim, skywalker?

Who is this "skywalker," Obi Wan? Methinks this Star Wars stuff is going to your head...........

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

"If it be lawful to call him a man."

He's hardly going to be snide and complimentary about the same person, if doesn't have much regard for him, is he?

Which one is it? Either he thinks he's a wise Christian teacher, or he mocks him for supposedly being a god.

Do we mock people we think are wise?

Conversely, do we think people are a god and mock them?

And why would it be unlawful to call him more than a man? Especially to an observant aristocratic Jew, from a priestly caste?

Unfortunately I feel it much more likely that this section is intended to make us think that the claims to divinity are true- 'if indeed he were a man'- and given the various theological disputes between early Christian sects about the supposedly divine nature and how it was divided (which make hilarious reading at times- like they're trying to sort out some divine recipe for godhood) this seems to me to fit in more with the tone of the section.

As for many of your bald assertions about what Josephus is supposedly saying, he was a devout observant Jew until his death- not a gushing enthusiastic quasi-Christian.


'Though he gave his children gentile names, he remained dedicated to his Jewish heritage, spending years writing voluminous works to explain & glorify those who championed the laws of Moses to Romans who, in the wake of the Jewish revolt, regarded all Jews as lawless riff-raff & bandits. '

http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html

Which is of course precisely why this section smells so fishy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then where is the empirical evidence to support this claim, skywalker?

Simply the lack of empirical evidence for God. Kuciwalker didn't say it was a positive or negative claim, just a claim.

Atheism doesn't mean disbelief in God, it means having no belief in God--and that is indeed the most reasonable belief considering the lack of empirical evidence. Active disbelief is a minority subset.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
So? That is what Christians think. It seems an assertion, well, because evidence comes from nowhere else but faith itself.

What Christians think do not necessary constitute a logical argument.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Would it be an assertion to tell the infant, that reading makes you smart?

No, because there's empirical evidence to back yourself up.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Anyway, assertion or not, that is what our religion believes. I believe we are debating the consistency of our beliefs, and "loopholes."

Okay. How do you deal with the Problem of Evil?

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Oh fine, sort of: was trying to remind people that Hitler is a human being too, with the ability to repent, had he tried.

These two do not seem to be similar.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
I believe when that happens, the people in questions don't really believe in their faith. They are just selfishly using the faith for their own goals. I meant, truly believed.

Oh com'on. You can do better than the "No True Scotsman" defense.

Example:

"There are no Chinese taller than 6'5""
"What about Yao Ming?"
"He's not really Chinese."

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
In Christianity, when one believes, one is officially on the path to righteousness. Repented; so if Hitler had believed, he would stop hating Jews because he truly believes.

Again, if this is true, Protestants wouldn't slug it out with Catholics.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Or do you think criminals shouldn't undergo rehabilitation?

How is these two related? And how is this related to the consistency of Christianity?

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
The CHINESE CHARACTER: Righteousness.

I know Chinese characters. That's why I asked.

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
righteousness used to be a character with strokes PICTORIALLY showing, the character for lamb, over the character for altar. Lamb over the altar.

Which character is that?

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
However, Mao Zedong and the CCP changed it 1949, to "cleanse" the language.

I think you have overestimated the influence of Christianity on Chinese culture. Another thing you have to remember is, sacrifices were a common thing among ancient religions. The Mayas even sacrificed humans.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is perfectly legitimate for Josephus to call Jesus a wise man, a doer of good works, and a good teacher.

On what basis would Josephus make these judgements? Remember, even if he wasn't very religious and saw Jesus as a heretic and an infidel, he was mostly a historian. As such, it is highly unlikely that he would add his own opinion on a certain person, esp. when he didn't wrt many other figures.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, as for his affirmation of the resurrection, that can also be contested. 'for he appeared to them alive again on the third day.'

Josephus would definitely not called him the Christ. No Jews would do that.

Besides, it is very atypical for Romans to dibble in what appeared to be internal Israeli religious conflicts. Why would he sentence Jesus to death according to Roman laws? If such a man existed, why wouldn't he washed his own hands of him by handing him over to the Jewish elders?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The fact that Origen does not cite these passages is not evidence of interpolation any more than absence of evidence can serve for evidence of absence.

Since it is the burden of a proponent to establish his case, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Only when a person is required to proof a negative that there's a difference.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
He may have very good reasons to not cite these passages, particularly if they cause problems for his case.

It appears that no such passage existed is an excellent reason for not citing them.