Did Jesus Exist?

[Watcher]

Timor, I think DV can speak for himself, but since you so politely obliged...

Quote[/b] ]No, the burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion. Atheism does not (necessarily) make any positive assertions -- it is the theist, who positively asserts the existence of a "god", on whose shoulders the burden of proof rests.

Wrong Timor. You see, I have my own personal proof of the existence of God. You on the other hand are the one that tosses and turns unless you develop airtight proof for the existence of God.

Quote[/b] ]Argumentum ad antiquitatum. Just because it has survived for 2000 years does not validate it, or even give it an ounce of strength. Surely you acknowledge that there are other religions out there that have been around much longer than Christianity (i.e. Hinduism) or for a very substantial amount of time (Islam), and these you very quickly dismiss. To paraphrase Steven Roberts, once you see why antiquity doesn't support any other religion, you'll see why it doesn't support yours, either.

Ad lapidem. The historical record more than validates Christianity. The fact that the church survived the first century is evidence of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. For Christianity to make the claims it did in the first century and survive the persecution of the Roman Empire proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity’s claims are both valid and strong enough to stand against any and all persecution and attempts to destroy it. Look at the historical record.

Quote[/b] ]
No, the problem is that theists continually plug their ears and close their eyes, clinging to superstition rather than embracing reason. You aren't one to speak on "reality"...

I charge you of the same thing. Maybe you’d care to answer whether you subscribe to the Jesus-myth or not? What’s you scholarly opinion on the matter?

Quote[/b] ]Watcher, we will cotinue throwing around the same arguments that have been going around for years. Will you convert me? Will I deconvert you? Probably not. The only hope for you, Watcher, is your brain.

You can continue to build your strawmen and I’ll happily dance around them as they burn to the ground. I’m looking forward to future discussions with such an omniscient individual such as yourself.

Quote[/b] ]I can't wait for this...

I’m looking forward to it as well.

Quote edited for content to reflect change to original post - Gen

 

[Marcylene]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 31 2004,12:37)]

Quote[/b] ]
Ad lapidem. The historical record more than validates Christianity. The fact that the church survived the first century is evidence of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. For Christianity to make the claims it did in the first century and survive the persecution of the Roman Empire proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity’s claims are both valid and strong enough to stand against any and all persecution and attempts to destroy it. Look at the historical record.

Watcher, will you please elaborate on this? Also, I would like a web address, or any type reference material that you would recommend on church history, Biblical history, as well as science as it agrees with the Bible.
I would greatly appreciate it, thank you for your time.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]EDIT: To save some time I'll go over these historians.  
Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian that produced two major works: History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews.  An apparent reference to Jesus comes from the latter, which is referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Historians believe that this passage, in its present form, was NOT written by Josephus, but was inserted by later Christians.

Actually DV, there are two passages that mention Jesus in Antiquities. We’ll keep the discussion focused on one work at a time to keep the discussion manageable.

I have sourced this information from Holding’s article found here:

I have paraphrased and paired down a lot of the information due to the large amount he has on the topic. I realize not many have the desire to read something that long and exhaustive.

The first and smaller passage you failed to mention is:

Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Now ‘some’ claim that “Jesus, the so-called Christ” is an interpolation. The reality is, there is no textual evidence against this passage at all. It is found in EVERY copy of Antiquities that we have. Now, there are still some who (surprise, surprise) assert there was still time for an interpolation to happen and that there isn’t enough textual evidence to prove otherwise. As Holding puts it, “this amounts to an admission that textual data, as it stands, favors authenticity. Anything beyond that in these terms is speculation and question-begging.”

The other fact to note is this is not even written in a Christian dialect. In other words, the terminology is non-Christian. Holding states: “The designation of James as the ‘brother of Jesus’ contrasts with the documented Christian practice of referring to him as the ‘brother of the Lord’ or ‘brother of the Savior.’ (as in Gal. 1:19 in the NT and Eusebius in later history). The passage ‘squares neither with New Testament nor with early patristic usage.’

Additionally, the emphasis of the passage is not on Jesus or James for that matter. Rather, it is on Ananus the high priest and the turmoil he was responsible for. There is absolutely no praise for James or Jesus, which is what one should expect in an interpolation.

Further, Josephus’ account of the stoning of James differs from the one given by church historian, Hegesippus, who recorded James being stoned and tossed from the roof of the Temple. This is not a likely statement from an interpolator.

Lastly, this passage nor the larger makes the connection between Jesus and John the Baptist which would be expected from an interpolator.

The evidence clearly indicates the genuineness of this passage.

On to the second passage and first that you quoted:

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.

This authenticity of this passage was first questioned in the 18th century and it’s most significant supporter was Voltaire. Very few scholars hold that the entire passage is genuine, however, the view that it is a total interpolation is unreasonable. The middle ground is the most reasonable solution to the debate. Meier notes the “total interpolation” view has its respectable defenders, but it’s not a majority view.

What are some of the reasons for accepting some of the passage as genuine? There is no question that some of the passage is obviously in the style of Josephus. The phrase “Now about this time…” is used often and practically worn out by Josephus. Some skeptics counter by saying someone could have imitated his writing style, but that’s an unreasonable objection and thus has no reasonable answer.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man,

The description of Jesus as a “wise man” cannot be rejected so easily. Josephus and other Jews could have regarded Jesus as a wise man while denying His divinity. Josephus’ language here (and throughout the passage that is not regarded as interpolated) is the obvious middle ground between Christian claims of divinity and Jewish referrals to Him as being a magician and a deceiver.

Now Josephus would have appreciated much of what Jesus said and did. He was not the typical over-zealous, militant messiah that was opposed and defeated by the Romans. His teachings, though subversive, were not directed at Josephus’ Roman patrons, rather they were against the Jewish establishment.

"if indeed one ought to call him a man."

Yes, easily could have been interpolated by a Christian, no debate there.

for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.

The first phrase has also been translated, “For he was one who performed surprising works, and a teacher of people who with pleasure received the unusual.” The first phrase would hardly be used by a Christian to describe His miracles.

He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

This is also rendered, “He stirred up…” Either way, it would be acceptable in describing Him without supposing an interpolation or belief by Josephus. Rather, the phrase seems to contradict the Gospels, which do not portray Him as dealing with “many” gentiles.

He was the Christ,

No doubt an interpolation.

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;

An excellent essay on this particular section by Holding found here:

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.

Yes, another obvious interpolation.

And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

The word “tribe” is key. Josephus used it to describe the Jews and Eusebias also used it to describe Christians. The phrase is best regarded as an expression of surprise (What, those Christians are still here!). Either way, there is no indication of an interpolation.

Now, taking out the obvious interpolations we are left with:

Antiquities 18.3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise 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. 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. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

So what is learned about Jesus and Christianity from this historian/writer?

Josephus ends up being a rich source for confirmation of the Gospel record:

1. Jesus had a brother named James, who was an important member of the church;

2. Jesus was a wise and virtuous man;

3. Jesus had disciples, both among the Jews and Gentiles. Although Meier regards the latter as retorjectory in nature, we may suggest that it is something that simply lacked emphasis in the Gospels.

4. Jesus was called "Christ" by some.

5. Jesus was a worker of surprising deeds - an allusion perhaps to miracle-working power.

6. Jesus was executed by Pilate by means of crucifixion.

7. His execution was prompted in part by the leaders among the Jews.

8. Christians were "named" from Him - which confirms Tacitus' own usage of the terminology.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Oct. 30 2004,10:12)]

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the burden of proof, I know what I believe and I'm not here to save you or prove anything to you. I'm not the Holy Spirit and sometimes Christians get caught up in trying to be the Holy Spirit. I am here to present what I believe and why. I'm here to crush any hint of false doctrine I happen to find and there's a lot of it. I'm not the one that has the problem with all of this "Christian stuff." That would be you, and because you are the one with the issue, the burden of proof to invalidate the Christian faith rests on you the skeptic.

You still have failed to logically explain WHY the burden of proof is on the nonbeliever.

Again, I ask, if I assert belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is the burden of proof on YOU, the disbeliever to prove it not so?

Let me post my quote again, I would like your take on it.

Quote[/b] ]Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or engage in a sensible discussion.

The principle that the claimant has the initial burden of proof is often violated, however, and it isn’t unusual to find someone saying, “Well, if you don’t believe me then prove me wrong,” as if the lack of such proof automatically confers credibility on the original assertion. Yet that simply isn’t true — indeed, it’s a fallacy commonly known as “Shifting the Burden of Proof.” If a person claims something, they are obligated to support it and no one is obligated to prove them wrong.

Quote[/b] ]Let me give you a hint by saying skeptics have been trying for 2000 years and have yet to crack Christianity. The reason? You can't. So every argument you can posit from an atheist's perspective, there is a reasonable theological response. The reality is, it's an impasse.

Isn't it true that the early Christians waged a campaign to silence their critics and opponents? It was a campaign of war and bloodshed. Remember the war against the Gnostics?

I hope you understand what the term REASONABLE means, because I will hold your feet to the fire.

Quote[/b] ]This is where the element of faith comes in so ultimately, you and I are throwing around the same arguments that have been going around for years. Will you deconvert me? No. Will I convert you? No. The only hope for you DV is the Holy Spirit Himself. My job is to present you the gospel and what you do with it is between you and Him. In the end, you will be held accountable whether you like it or not.

Faith has no place in this discussion. Aren't we arguing the HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for Christ?

Quote[/b] ]Regarding the "evidence," I'll point you to some great information from Holding's site that refutes those standard atheist responses to the ancient secular historians you posted on page 2. However, that will have to wait until tomorrow when I have some more time.

Are you going to draw all of your information from J.P. Holding? Or should I call him Robert Turkel?

This was the same man who hosted a cemetary on his website to deceased Bible skeptics. Now that's classy.

This is also the same man that conveniently links to Christian sites as evidence, but fales, many times, to link to opposing views.

He has been described as avoiding "...linking to or even naming the essays he rebuts, and usually avoids so much as naming the author he is attacking. He also routinely changes his essays after being refuted, yet rarely announces the changes or concessions in any way, and he also employs childish insults and other rudeness."
LINK

Turkel/Holding is a documented liar: http://tektonics.com/dishonesty.htm

He also makes things up to win points: http://tektonics.com/blunder.html

He has a long history of evading topics and facts: http://members.aol.com/bbu82/afraid.htm

He claims to have answered points but does not: http://theskepticalreview.com/landprom/where7.html

He ENJOYS making fun of skepdicts, he mocks them and insults them.

There are MANY, MANY more objections to Turkel/Holding that may be found here:

http://members.aol.com/bbu85/hold.htm

A Google search on "J. P. Holding turkel" brings up NUMEROUS objections and problems with this man.

There is even a website set up to question the man and his practices: http://www.tektonics.com/

If you can reconcile all these faults for this man then, and only then, will I spend my valuable time looking at his information.
And THIS is the man you are pinning your argument on?

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]If you can reconcile all these faults for this man then, and only then, will I spend my valuable time looking at his information.
And THIS is the man you are pinning your argument on?

Obviously you're not interested in debating the academically supported information that has been placed in front of you. Let's not begin attacking character here. Every argument you posit is rehashed from infidels.org and if we want to go into character assasination that's fine and I can promise you it will get ugly. Why don't you objectively consider what was posted and respond.

You are conveniently sidestepping the issue like you regularly do. Those sites are nothing more than subjective attacks out of rage that Holding has time and time again effectively refuted arguments from the atheistic community.

What Holding has put together has a long bibliography that you are more than welcome to research. The sources are scholarly and academically sound so please step up to the plate and admit that you cannot chalk all of Josephus' writings up to interpolations.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]Again, I ask, if I assert belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, is the burden of proof on YOU, the disbeliever to prove it not so?

Strawman argument. Look DV, we are not talking about pink unicorns, we're talking about a faith that has documented and historical validity.

Now I have presented to you why the scholarly community accepts Josephus' writings. It's up to you now to refute it. The burden of proof is on you the skeptic.

If you choose to cop out of this debate because of your refusal to waste your valuable time, please understand that you are doing so out of ignorance of the historical record. No, I am not basing my arguments on Holding alone. If you would get past your arrogance and actually research what I put out there, you would see that the historical community does in fact accept the two passages, minus the obvious interpolations, as genuine.

Now the question remains, do you? You tend to deny the evidence even when it's staring you right in the face.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]Let me post my quote again, I would like your take on it.

Your quote can be found at this site:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_burdenofproof.htm

So let me annswer back with one in kind.

Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist

Yes, Google is our friend. When you're ready to stop rehasing Google arguments and face the reality that the secular historical references are not ALL interpolations and you are forced to give credence to Jesus of the Bible and for that matter accept that the NT just might be accurate in its protrayal of Him, maybe we can have a civilised, scholarly discussion.

Maybe you'll come to the same conclusion that C.S. Lewis did. He's often called a "traitor" by those in your camp.

[edit]

However, I don't want to waste your valuable time so here's what I'm going to do. I'll continue to refute your standard atheistic garbage as it is posted and we can continue these little jousting matches until the cows come home.

Please make sure in the future your attacks on the Scriptures are made after you've done proper exegesis, or I'll, as you put it, hold your feet to the fire.

 

[Genesis1315]

This thread is getting heated. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you cannot discuss this civilly, then walk away. Threats will not be tolerated either.

Consider this the warning.

Gen

 

[Dark Virtue]

I agree, I haven't done ANYTHING to warrant personal attacks, but I have been under the gun from the first post in this thread.

If you "love me" as you say, then try treating me that way.

I am not avoiding any arguments. What I'm doing is questioning your sources and the foundation of your arguments.

Wouldn't you do the same?

Your sources thus far have been far from stellar.

I don't understand why you're upset when I use websites to backup/make objections, but don't seem to have any problem using the same for your arguments.

I don't care to take part in any discussion that is full of spite, hate and vehemence. I would be more than willing to discuss this AS GENTLEMEN if you are also willing.

If not, let's end this now.

 

[Watcher]

You're right DV, maybe I've been a little aggressive. I have to be honest by saying it bothers me when we can't even come to an agreement that historians do in fact accept Josephus' works minus the obvious interpolations. I've given you cites from Emeritus Professors of History to prove the academic community accepts Him. I'm sorry those sources are far from stellar.

I can discredit your sources from infidels.org, etc. as being mindless rhetoric which most of it is. For you to completely sidestep Turkel's work because a few sites make some outrageous claims about him is unjustified and unfair.

I'm not claiming Holding is perfect, but who here is? His 'essays' are based on the historic record. They are written with impeccable academic style and research. What I posted regarding Josephus above is not Turkel's creation. He merely wrote an essay using the facts that are available. His sources are documented and valid.

For you to blindly disregard this and not see the obvious is downright frustrating. I'm not perfect, I do get passionate and heated, but I do love you! I liken it to a sibling that can sometimes bring the best out in you if you know what I mean? My heart does break for you because I wish I could impart what is inside of me to you. I know I can't and sometimes that's the frustration. I wish I could show you how real He truly is.

I think it is best at this point for me to back out of this discussion and just realize I can't make you accept anything one way or another. I will limit my posts and threads to theology and the Bible and hopefully head off a lot of the misrepresentations and distortions that occur here. My goal more than anything is to share the gospel and edify my fellow brothers and sisters that may be swayed by less than scholarly opinions of the Bible.

As far as proving to you the existence of Jesus and the historical record that supports it, I'll leave that to your own capable mind. I'm not looking for a decisive victory in this debate. So I have no problem conceding defeat here. No I can't prove to you the historicity of Jesus, and yet I can tell you the truth is right in front of you. I wish you luck on your quest for answers.

Blessings.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]You're right DV, maybe I've been a little aggressive. I have to be honest by saying it bothers me when we can't even come to an agreement that historians do in fact accept Josephus' works minus the obvious interpolations. I've given you cites from Emeritus Professors of History to prove the academic community accepts Him. I'm sorry those sources are far from stellar.

First, thank you for being able to step back and look at this objectionably.

Honestly, I never even got to delve into the meat of the matter because I was busy trimming the fat.

I think we both know which sources I was referring to as being less than stellar.

Quote[/b] ]I can discredit your sources from infidels.org, etc. as being mindless rhetoric which most of it is. For you to completely sidestep Turkel's work because a few sites make some outrageous claims about him is unjustified and unfair.

Please understand that I don't use Internet Infidels as an atheistic bible. It's no surprise that Atheists are in the minority compared to Christians. I don't know if you've ever tried to check just how many atheist sources/websites are out there. There are very few. Have you ever tried looking for Atheist books at bookstores? There's no section devoted to those studies, but there are tons of books for Christian readers. I use Internet Infidels because it is a great storehouse of knowledge. I will be the first to admit there is a lot of rhetoric and mindless ramblings on the site, ESPECIALLY in the forums. I am a member of those forums, for much longer than I have been a member here, yet my post count there is roughly 200. I just don't want to mess with the crap. There are, however, many good pieces of writing on the site, especially in the library section. They include the writings of Thomas Paine, Betrand Russell, CS Lewis and many, many more writers that we can BOTH agree are completely stellar.

Please understand WHY I had a problem with Holding/Turkel. The man's character is questionable. Can you honestly sit there and tell me that you admire the man's character? When you call a man's character into question you doubt EVERYTHING about him. That is why I fought so hard to defend myself against allegations made against me. If you doubt my character then you doubt everything about me. Can I look past his character and judge his works only? Sure, but in order to do so I would have to scrutinize his work more than I normally would, because of his previous record.

May I ask WHY you chose to use his work? Did you know about his background? Do you care about his background? If you honestly don't care tell me how you can look past his shady record. I honestly don't understand why you took this personally, it wasn't an attack against YOU. It was also not an assasination of his character. It's the TRUTH, is it not?

I take this discussion with you differently than others on this board because I consider it more of a formal debate. You didn't seem open to joking or messing around and your attitude seemed to want to make this cut and dry. So I stepped it up a notch and proceeded in a manner that I thought was academic. That includes examining the sources that you used. If the sources aren't deemed worthy, generally they are thrown out. I tried to work with you though and sift through your sources.

Several times you have accused me of sidestepping the issues, and I want to make sure you understand that this was not my intention. It's not a "tactic" that I employ. I truly wanted to examine your sources for credibility.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not claiming Holding is perfect, but who here is? His 'essays' are based on the historic record. They are written with impeccable academic style and research. What I posted regarding Josephus above is not Turkel's creation. He merely wrote an essay using the facts that are available. His sources are documented and valid.

As I stated above, Holding/Turkel's practices are questionable. That, in effect, casts doubt on the library of his works. Don't you think that is a valid assumption? Or should I take all of his work at face value, even though I know his character and background? Would you be willing to do the same? I doubt it, since you have been blindly critical of EVERYTHING at Internet Infidels even though it has redeeming value. As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Quote[/b] ]For you to blindly disregard this and not see the obvious is downright frustrating. I'm not perfect, I do get passionate and heated, but I do love you! I liken it to a sibling that can sometimes bring the best out in you if you know what I mean? My heart does break for you because I wish I could impart what is inside of me to you. I know I can't and sometimes that's the frustration. I wish I could show you how real He truly is.

If the evidence were that plain and that extensive, there would be no logical objection to His existence. PLEASE believe me when I say that I am not in denial, nor do I go out of my way to spit in the face of God. This, again, is a common misconception of atheists. We, quite simply, do not have adequate proof to logically believe in the existence of ANY gods. If you're frustrated, the YOU need to deal with it, because taking it out on me isn't helping matters. Trust me, I share in your frustration. How many times do you think I wanted to reach through the computer and strangle someone for not understanding simple principles of logic? Even if you could prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was a man that walked the earth named Jesus, how do you plan on proving his Divinity? How do you prove that he was the Son of God? As I have already stated, I believe it's quite possible that a historical Jesus walked the earth. I do not, however, believe that this person was who the Bible says he was. His myth was created by the early Christian church, and he grew into a grandiose figure much like Robin Hood and King Arthur.

Quote[/b] ]I think it is best at this point for me to back out of this discussion and just realize I can't make you accept anything one way or another. I will limit my posts and threads to theology and the Bible and hopefully head off a lot of the misrepresentations and distortions that occur here. My goal more than anything is to share the gospel and edify my fellow brothers and sisters that may be swayed by less than scholarly opinions of the Bible.

I think that might be best, to preserve the tenuous friendship and respect we have for one another. In time, maybe we can go through this again. HOWEVER, I am still interested in the information you said you had. I posted early on, common refutations to early historians. If you can point me to links that disprove or discredit those refutations, I would be much obliged.

Quote[/b] ]As far as proving to you the existence of Jesus and the historical record that supports it, I'll leave that to your own capable mind. I'm not looking for a decisive victory in this debate. So I have no problem conceding defeat here. No I can't prove to you the historicity of Jesus, and yet I can tell you the truth is right in front of you. I wish you luck on your quest for answers.

Don't concede defeat, because I am not claming a victory. Instead, let's call it a gentelman's draw.

Quote[/b] ]Blessings.

Live long and prosper.

Sorry, I never know how to answer things like that

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ] Thomas Paine, Betrand Russell, CS Lewis and many, many more writers that we can BOTH agree are completely stellar.

And both of those writers accepted the historicity of Jesus. C.S. Lewis even converted to Christianity after years spent attacking it.

Regarding Holding’s character, every single one of those links you posted are personal attacks from people he has openly debated. Brooks Trubee has an obvious agenda and yet you accept his rantings as fact? Every single attack that you quoted from Infidels.org and Trubee, Holding has responded to. Yet you won’t allow a man to even defend himself? You so quickly judge him by what other skeptics who hate him have to say? What ever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

Like I said, Holding is not perfect but who is. I don’t judge his sincerity nor do I call his character into question. He has grace available just like all of us. If you took the time to read articles from Wells, Till, Trubee and others, you would see the mud slinging, insults, lies, distortions, etc., coming from their side as well. I’m not going to sit here and judge character because I don’t know what’s in their hearts. However, by your standard, I shouldn’t give those men the time of day either.

I believe you are making a mistake in categorically denying the validity of Holding’s work and basing your decision on the individuals that can’t stand him because he has actually debated their skeptical arguments exhaustively and effectively. I’m not denying Holding can get a little sarcastic, but again you need to take into consideration the tone and flavor of the articles he’s responding to. It appears to me you have not. Had you done this, you would see your position applies to your sources as well.

For what it’s worth, here’s Holding’s response to Trubee's false accusations: http://www.tektonics.org/brooksbonked.html

Quote[/b] ]As I stated above, Holding/Turkel's practices are questionable. That, in effect, casts doubt on the library of his works.

I lobby the same accusation towards your infidels.org, TSR, and Trubee sites as well.

Quote[/b] ] If the evidence were that plain and that extensive, there would be no logical objection to His existence. PLEASE believe me when I say that I am not in denial, nor do I go out of my way to spit in the face of God. This, again, is a common misconception of atheists. We, quite simply, do not have adequate proof to logically believe in the existence of ANY gods.

This sounds more agnostic in belief to me. Atheists do tend to ‘spit’ in the face of God. You sources back that notion up completely.

Quote[/b] ] Even if you could prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt, that there was a man that walked the earth named Jesus, how do you plan on proving his Divinity?

I would point us to the early church to prove his divinity. If there was no resurrection, there is no Christian faith. A lot of people don’t realize that the Apostles had no idea Jesus was going to be resurrected. They locked themselves in the upper room—were distraught at the crucifixion of their Lord—were fearful and expecting themselves to be put to death next—and then it happened. They saw ‘someone’ in the room that day. For those men full of fear and trembling to emerge as bold, determined men preaching Jesus’ resurrection—then go on to be martyred for the same belief—I would say it makes no sense to assume they would do this for a lie. The Christian faith, by all appearances, should have died with Jesus on the cross. The Apostles had no motivation to create a fallacy and then go die horrible deaths for it. It just doesn’t make sense.

Quote[/b] ] Don't concede defeat, because I am not claming a victory. Instead, let's call it a gentelman's draw.

I realize I can’t prove this to you beyond the shadow of a doubt. Like you said, if it were that plain there would be no logical objection. However, for me when I factor in the historical record, what we know about the early church and the Apostles, I cannot conclude anything else other than Jesus was who He said He was.

Maybe it’s the Holy Spirit that has indwelled me that is testifying to it as truth and I’m blinded to where I just cannot possibly see how one can look at the information that’s available and come to another conclusion. I understand that it must be this way otherwise, many more would come to the same conclusion. However, I think one can still look at the historical record, deduce the facts from what we know, and make an educated decision. Sure faith will ALWAYS be required by God, but He has left a trail for us to follow, and that’s the absolute truth.

Quote[/b] ] I think that might be best, to preserve the tenuous friendship and respect we have for one another. In time, maybe we can go through this again. HOWEVER, I am still interested in the information you said you had. I posted early on, common refutations to early historians. If you can point me to links that disprove or discredit those refutations, I would be much obliged.

I think you’re more than capable of trimming the fat from Holding’s work. I hope you reconsider and at the very least look at the information that is presented there. Regarding other works that testify to Josephus’ works and what is accepted in regards to interpolations, there are many other sources and I’ll be happy to get those for you. In the end, we have very reliable sources from Josephus and Tacitus and the others are not as reliable, but shouldn’t be categorically disregarded either.

In the end I realize one can, in light of the information that is shown otherwise, completely overlook these early sources as interpolations and be done with it. Often times this is what occurs and many skeptics refuse to give credence to the academic community as a whole by claiming bias or hidden agendas. I just feel this is irresponsible. I know a general consensus among ‘most’ historians does not mean it’s a fact, but it should have a “weighting” affect on the validity of the claims.

You are a passionate and skilled debater DV and my only hope and prayer is that you find the answers you’re looking for.

[edit]

Made a few adjustments in grammar, etc.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Watcher @ Nov. 02 2004,4:07)]

Quote[/b] ]And both of those writers accepted the historicity of Jesus. C.S. Lewis even converted to Christianity after years spent attacking it.

Regarding Holding’s character, every single one of those links you posted are personal attacks from people he has openly debated. Brooks Trubee has an obvious agenda and yet you accept his rantings as fact? Every single attack that you quoted from Infidels.org and Trubee, Holding has responded to. Yet you won’t allow a man to even defend himself? You so quickly judge him by what other skeptics who hate him have to say? What ever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

Like I said, Holding is not perfect but who is. I don’t judge his sincerity nor do I call his character into question. He has grace available just like all of us. If you took the time to read articles from Wells, Till, Trubee and others, you would see the mud slinging, insults, lies, distortions, etc., coming from their side as well. I’m not going to sit here and judge character because I don’t know what’s in their hearts. However, by your standard, I shouldn’t give those men the time of day either.

I believe you are making a mistake in categorically denying the validity of Holding’s work and basing your decision on the individuals that can’t stand him because he has actually debated their skeptical arguments exhaustively and effectively. I’m not denying Holding can get a little sarcastic, but again you need to take into consideration the tone and flavor of the articles he’s responding to. It appears to me you have not. Had you done this, you would see your position applies to your sources as well.

For what it’s worth, here’s Holding’s response to Trubee's false accusations: http://www.tektonics.org/brooksbonked.html

I was more than willing to give Holding a chance...until I looked at that site.

Geeze Louise! That goes above and beyond an attack. Was there REALLY a need for that article to be written that way? What ever happened to Christians turning the other cheek? How can you look at that webpage and STILL back the character of this man?

When I posted the links against Holding I tried to use a variety of sources and not rely totally on Internet Infidels. I know you don't like that site so I wanted to show you that it wasn't just that site that had a problem with him.

Quote[/b] ]I lobby the same accusation towards your infidels.org, TSR, and Trubee sites as well.

Don't you think there's a WEE bit of difference between laying accusations against ONE man and entire web communities?

Quote[/b] ]This sounds more agnostic in belief to me. Atheists do tend to ‘spit’ in the face of God. You sources back that notion up completely.

TRUE atheists do not spit in the face of God. Doing so would be spitting in the face of their own beliefs. How can you put down something you don't believe in? Is it possible to have ANY credible sources that disagree with you? Or will they all be considered unfit? As I have said before, you have to trim the fat on BOTH sides of the fence. Don't condemn the majority because of the outspoken few. That would be like me saying that the KKK and Benny Hinn are representative of Christianity.

Quote[/b] ]I would point us to the early church to prove his divinity. If there was no resurrection, there is no Christian faith. A lot of people don’t realize that the Apostles had no idea Jesus was going to be resurrected. They locked themselves in the upper room—were distraught at the crucifixion of their Lord—were fearful and expecting themselves to be put to death next—and then it happened. They saw ‘someone’ in the room that day. For those men full of fear and trembling to emerge as bold, determined men preaching Jesus’ resurrection—then go on to be martyred for the same belief—I would say it makes no sense to assume they would do this for a lie. The Christian faith, by all appearances, should have died with Jesus on the cross. The Apostles had no motivation to create a fallacy and then go die horrible deaths for it. It just doesn’t make sense.

There are LOTS of things that happened in history that didn't make sense. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Quote[/b] ]I realize I can’t prove this to you beyond the shadow of a doubt. Like you said, if it were that plain there would be no logical objection. However, for me when I factor in the historical record, what we know about the early church and the Apostles, I cannot conclude anything else other than Jesus was who He said He was.

Maybe it’s the Holy Spirit that has indwelled me that is testifying to it as truth and I’m blinded to where I just cannot possibly see how one can look at the information that’s available and come to another conclusion. I understand that it must be this way otherwise, many more would come to the same conclusion. However, I think one can still look at the historical record, deduce the facts from what we know, and make an educated decision. Sure faith will ALWAYS be required by God, but He has left a trail for us to follow, and that’s the absolute truth.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I HATE it when Christians bring up the Holy Spirit. You make it sound like there's NO way possible for non-Christians to understand what you're talking about. Like there's some magical veil over our eyes that only the Holy Spirit can lift. If that is the case, then why EVER bother arguing your point? Simply say, Sorry Bub, you don't the Holy Spirit.

Quote[/b] ]I think you’re more than capable of trimming the fat from Holding’s work. I hope you reconsider and at the very least look at the information that is presented there. Regarding other works that testify to Josephus’ works and what is accepted in regards to interpolations, there are many other sources and I’ll be happy to get those for you. In the end, we have very reliable sources from Josephus and Tacitus and the others are not as reliable, but shouldn’t be categorically disregarded either.

I'm sure I can glean some information from his work. Before I do that, I'd like to know the problems you had with the information I've already posted concerning the early historians.

Quote[/b] ]In the end I realize one can, in light of the information that is shown otherwise, completely overlook these early sources as interpolations and be done with it. Often times this is what occurs and many skeptics refuse to give credence to the academic community as a whole by claiming bias or hidden agendas. I just feel this is irresponsible. I know a general consensus among ‘most’ historians does not mean it’s a fact, but it should have a “weighting” affect on the validity of the claims.

Haven't you admitted though, that there ARE problems with the early historians? I thought you had. This is why I really wanted to know your thoughts on those early historical works. I'm not sure exactly how you feel about them.

Quote[/b] ]You are a passionate and skilled debater DV and my only hope and prayer is that you find the answers you’re looking for.

I believe I have, but the answers I've found weren't the ones I was looking for. I suppose things never work out quite the way you want them to.

 

[Watcher]

Quote[/b] ]I was more than willing to give Holding a chance...until I looked at that site.

What ever happened to Christians turning the other cheek? How can you look at that webpage and STILL back the character of this man?

When I posted the links against Holding I tried to use a variety of sources and not rely totally on Internet Infidels.

You haven’t read many responses from Wells or Till have you? Holding is responding in the very same flavor that all those atheist skeptics use in throwing their own theories around. Just because Holding chooses to not take their insults laying down does not mean he is in violation of ‘turning the other cheek.’ You are taking Jesus’ teaching way out of context. Holding is defending his faith and refuses to cave in to Wells, Trubee, Till and others. The sources of your arguments have their origin from these men. In other words, the links you posted came from those guys. So what we have here is a finger pointing match. You say Holding is offensive and I disagree with you. Not only are most of the allegations false, they are unproven and yet you have taken them as fact.

I’d be curious as to which part of Holding’s defense was offensive to you? I will then be willing to show you an equal or greater offense from Till, Trubee, and Wells. Yet, I still read their articles because I like to see their side even though I’m convinced their arguments lack scholarship. Holding does a fantastic job with apologetics and he has my respect. As I said, I will not be his judge of character because I don’t know what’s in his heart. The flavor and tone of his writing is targeted for the ‘skeptical audience.’ It has the desired effect and in many cases has enlightened even the most hardened.

Quote[/b] ]Don't you think there's a WEE bit of difference between laying accusations against ONE man and entire web communities?

No I don’t because your sources/communities are founded on those three individuals and their essays.

Quote[/b] ]TRUE atheists do not spit in the face of God. Doing so would be spitting in the face of their own beliefs. How can you put down something you don't believe in? Is it possible to have ANY credible sources that disagree with you? Or will they all be considered unfit? As I have said before, you have to trim the fat on BOTH sides of the fence. Don't condemn the majority because of the outspoken few. That would be like me saying that the KKK and Benny Hinn are representative of Christianity.

You have many in the atheist camp that do ‘spit in the face’ of God. We won’t even get into some of the discussions that happen on that site. They are seething with hatred and intolerance for their fellow man and as far as credible sources, I am open to any man’s scholarship, secular or non. But, I’ve studied Wells, Trubee, Till, Archaya, and most of their arguments are far from convincing and their arguments do not have scholarly support as I’ve clearly shown.

Quote[/b] ]There are LOTS of things that happened in history that didn't make sense. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Point taken, but we are talking about a documented, historical persecution of a religious movement that was started on a lie? Can you name one instance in the history of the world where something like this has happened? I can’t. I cannot reason why 12 men would go on to be brutally executed after cowering in a stuffy upper room in fear of their lives. They were not expecting a resurrection. It was over for them. The facts point to a resurrection. Something extraordinary happened on that day—Jesus walked out of that tomb and was seen by thousands. Paul would not have written to those that were alive during Jesus’ ministry and mention the resurrection had it not happened. He would have been labeled a lying heretic with no credibility whatsoever.  The information points to a resurrected Jesus and a Church that was willing to die for this New Hope. The sting of death had been overcome and the promise of an eternal life with the Lord was assured.

Quote[/b] ]Please don't take this the wrong way, but I HATE it when Christians bring up the Holy Spirit. You make it sound like there's NO way possible for non-Christians to understand what you're talking about. Like there's some magical veil over our eyes that only the Holy Spirit can lift. If that is the case, then why EVER bother arguing your point? Simply say, Sorry Bub, you don't the Holy Spirit.

You misunderstood what I was saying DV. I am in no way saying you are some how ignorant of these spiritual things that we talk about. As a matter of fact, God has given every single one of us an inclination towards Him. That is by design. However, the Holy Spirit is something supernatural and hard to articulate in a manner that is tangible. The truth is there is an illumination that occurs when you are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. All I was saying was that the Holy Spirit will no longer allow me to question what I know to be truth that is revealed to my spirit by Him. I can’t describe it any other way than that. In no way was I saying that none of this is possible for you to understand. I hope we have this straight from now on.

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure I can glean some information from his work. Before I do that, I'd like to know the problems you had with the information I've already posted concerning the early historians.

The only problem I had was with the Josephus piece. I decided to move through each source one at a time. With the Josephus piece, you completely left out the 2nd excerpt from Antiquities that is accepted as genuine. Also, you left out the fact that the historical community has already identified the interpolations. I posted the accepted version, minus the obvious interpolations in my original reply. The net result is still a compelling secular reference to Jesus from antiquity that is accepted as a reliable source. Now as we move through the others, I will readily admit the ones that are obvious interpolations. Believe me, I am not ignorant to any of this information and hope that I would not staunchly defend something as authentic and genuine when the majority of historians have already shown that it is not. I do make mistakes and I am sure I will in this discussion. I think we both have an opportunity to learn a lot from each other in that regard.

Quote[/b] ]Haven't you admitted though, that there ARE problems with the early historians? I thought you had. This is why I really wanted to know your thoughts on those early historical works. I'm not sure exactly how you feel about them.

I have already admitted  there are some obvious interpolations. However, I side with the academic community that parts of the passage are indeed genuine. We have no reason at all to doubt the authenticity of Josephus’ writings about Jesus once we remove the clear interpolations.

Quote[/b] ]I believe I have, but the answers I've found weren't the ones I was looking for. I suppose things never work out quite the way you want them to.

If you are truly seeking Him, I can promise you will find Him.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]You haven’t read many responses from Wells or Till have you? Holding is responding in the very same flavor that all those atheist skeptics use in throwing their own theories around. Just because Holding chooses to not take their insults laying down does not mean he is in violation of ‘turning the other cheek.’ You are taking Jesus’ teaching way out of context. Holding is defending his faith and refuses to cave in to Wells, Trubee, Till and others. The sources of your arguments have their origin from these men. In other words, the links you posted came from those guys. So what we have here is a finger pointing match. You say Holding is offensive and I disagree with you. Not only are most of the allegations false, they are unproven and yet you have taken them as fact.

I’d be curious as to which part of Holding’s defense was offensive to you? I will then be willing to show you an equal or greater offense from Till, Trubee, and Wells. Yet, I still read their articles because I like to see their side even though I’m convinced their arguments lack scholarship. Holding does a fantastic job with apologetics and he has my respect. As I said, I will not be his judge of character because I don’t know what’s in his heart. The flavor and tone of his writing is targeted for the ‘skeptical audience.’ It has the desired effect and in many cases has enlightened even the most hardened.

How am I taking Jesus' teaching out of context? It seems pretty clear. I'm not saying Holding was wrong in defending his position, I'm saying he's wrong in HOW he did it. Nor am I defending ANY action that serves to demoralize or put down anyone.

At some point in an argument like this, someone has to rise above the rhetoric and name calling. Holding isn't willing to do so. THAT, in my humble opinion, is very un-Christian. I don't see how anyone can condone the delivery of his defense.

How would you have reacted if I took a page of the Holding Book of Defense and started calling you names?

There's a right way and a wrong way. Holding chose the wrong way.

Quote[/b] ]No I don’t because your sources/communities are founded on those three individuals and their essays.

Good

Quote[/b] ]You have many in the atheist camp that do ‘spit in the face’ of God. We won’t even get into some of the discussions that happen on that site. They are seething with hatred and intolerance for their fellow man and as far as credible sources, I am open to any man’s scholarship, secular or non. But, I’ve studied Wells, Trubee, Till, Archaya, and most of their arguments are far from convincing and their arguments do not have scholarly support as I’ve clearly shown.

As I've stated before, there are very few sites that cater to the Atheist view, and fewer still that are as large as Internet Infidels. There are many, many people who wear the "Atheist" banner that aren't true atheists and that I would hate to see as a representive of that philosophy. Just as there are plenty of men that wear the "Christian" banner that aren't true Christians and that should not be considered representatives of Christianity.

Quote[/b] ]Point taken, but we are talking about a documented, historical persecution of a religious movement that was started on a lie? Can you name one instance in the history of the world where something like this has happened? I can’t. I cannot reason why 12 men would go on to be brutally executed after cowering in a stuffy upper room in fear of their lives. They were not expecting a resurrection. It was over for them. The facts point to a resurrection. Something extraordinary happened on that day—Jesus walked out of that tomb and was seen by thousands. Paul would not have written to those that were alive during Jesus’ ministry and mention the resurrection had it not happened. He would have been labeled a lying heretic with no credibility whatsoever. The information points to a resurrected Jesus and a Church that was willing to die for this New Hope. The sting of death had been overcome and the promise of an eternal life with the Lord was assured.

I'm afraid you my still be laboring under the impression that I deny that there is any evidence that Christ ever existed. I have said before that it is quite possible. The difference is that I don't believe he was Divine or exactly as the Bible has mythified him. (Sorry, not sure if mythified is a word, but it works for me).

This may be another topic entirely, but I believe they WERE expecting Christ to return, and soon, within their lifetimes.

Quote[/b] ]You misunderstood what I was saying DV. I am in no way saying you are some how ignorant of these spiritual things that we talk about. As a matter of fact, God has given every single one of us an inclination towards Him. That is by design. However, the Holy Spirit is something supernatural and hard to articulate in a manner that is tangible. The truth is there is an illumination that occurs when you are indwelled by the Holy Spirit. All I was saying was that the Holy Spirit will no longer allow me to question what I know to be truth that is revealed to my spirit by Him. I can’t describe it any other way than that. In no way was I saying that none of this is possible for you to understand. I hope we have this straight from now on.

Just a few questions...how did God give every one of us an inclination towards Him? How did he do that for the Sumerians, Aborigines and Incans?

How is it possible, then, for me to have a full understanding of the subject if I do NOT have the power of the Holy Spirit in me?

Quote[/b] ]The only problem I had was with the Josephus piece. I decided to move through each source one at a time. With the Josephus piece, you completely left out the 2nd excerpt from Antiquities that is accepted as genuine. Also, you left out the fact that the historical community has already identified the interpolations. I posted the accepted version, minus the obvious interpolations in my original reply. The net result is still a compelling secular reference to Jesus from antiquity that is accepted as a reliable source. Now as we move through the others, I will readily admit the ones that are obvious interpolations. Believe me, I am not ignorant to any of this information and hope that I would not staunchly defend something as authentic and genuine when the majority of historians have already shown that it is not. I do make mistakes and I am sure I will in this discussion. I think we both have an opportunity to learn a lot from each other in that regard.

That's why I'm here, to learn from you. And I hope I bring something to the table to teach you.

Quote[/b] ]I have already admitted there are some obvious interpolations. However, I side with the academic community that parts of the passage are indeed genuine. We have no reason at all to doubt the authenticity of Josephus’ writings about Jesus once we remove the clear interpolations.

I'll have to go back and look over his works when I have a bit more time. Time will be something I no longer have in abundance in the near future.

Quote[/b] ]If you are truly seeking Him, I can promise you will find Him.

How can you promise that? There have been many that have looked for God and never found Him. They were stronger and smarter than I.

 

[PapaToad]

****How can you promise that?  There have been many that have looked for God and never found Him.  They were stronger and smarter than I. ******

He promised it because he believes like I do, That OUR GOD, our savior and Lord will make himself real too you. It is the Promise  of our God we hold as truth. we Believe Father God will stand on his word.

Jesus' Teaching on Prayer (Luke11:1-13)

1One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
2He said to them, "When you pray, say:
  " 'Father,[1]
  hallowed be your name,
  your kingdom come.[2]
   3Give us each day our daily bread.
   4Forgive us our sins,
      for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[3]
  And lead us not into temptation.[4] ' "
5Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'
7"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness[5] he will get up and give him as much as he needs.
9"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
11"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[6] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

 

[Dark Virtue]

BELIEVING doesn't count for much here.

Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean it will happen.

The only one that can make it happen is God. Not your wishing, hoping or praying.

I don't want to sound unappreciative, but that's just how it works.

NO MAN can guarantee it to happen. Why? Just look throughout history. If God shows himself to EVERYONE, then how can you discount the majority of people in this world that have died not knowing him?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I was just playing Lord of the Rings: The Third Age and there was a quote in the game that fits this thread perfectly:

"History became Legend. Legend became Myth."

 

[Marcylene]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Nov. 06 2004,7:58)]If God shows himself to EVERYONE, then how can you discount the majority of people in this world that have died not knowing him?

There is no possible way in the world for anyone to make such a claim as this! Who can read a heart? Who can limit God in such a manner? Who could accuse Him of this? He is Love. There is no way I can prove, but nevertheless could I be convinced, that He is letting people perish without hearing!

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter 3:9

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

The Heavens declare the glory of God...

EVERYONE has an opportunity to be saved. He did not die for the world (John 3:16) in vain!

 

[Dark Virtue]

Now you're just going off of your FEELINGS and not your BRAIN.

I understand that you don't WANT God to let these people die without hearing His word, but it certainly doesn't look that way to me.