Agreed that Tacitus wrote early 2nd Cent.; point of reference was 64. He wan’t the only Roman contemptuous of anything from Coele-Syria and the general neighborhood; it is as if a new “Messiah” sprang up in northern Idaho with a dozen followers today. Would the NYTimes and/or Wash. Post give it the time of day? Only if it became sensational, like Jones and Koresh. Don’t expect denizens of Rome to notice the colonies for anything but taxes., or to keep down riots.

But the theory that most of NT was 2nd Cent. and therefore not reliable doesn’t fit with the Ante-Nicenes; they had most of our canon and considered it different from 2nd-cent. writings. While they argued over a few books, the 4 accounts we have of the life of Jesus, and the Acts, were considered as accurate history and those we consider apocryphal were not. Thus we have several contemporaneous documents from friendly sources, writing against the backdrop of official repression; how many have been willing to be martyred for Thor, or Zeus? The notion that Rome did not persecute Christians is absurd – the weakest point I’ve heard from you. Of course they persecuted any unlicensed religion, as will always happen with a state religious establishment – why Jefferson opposed that so strongly (as do I). Judiasm was a religio licta; Claudius would not have expelled Jews as such, for their leaders were officially willing to offer a pinch of incence on Caesar’s altar with their fingers crossed. The sort of riots described in Acts were over an unlicensed religious issue where many of those involved were Jews “instigated by Chrestus,” a simple spelling difference like “Silas” and “Sylvanius” or “Timothy”" and “Timotheus” (largely case-ending issues and vowel substitution by sound).

Ramsay’s own statement was that he set out to prove his teachers correct and the Bible in error. (Sorry, I don’t have the ref handy on that, but that’s almost a direct quote from memory, as I recall from “Paul the Traveler in the Roman Empire” which i do not own. Can’t have everything! doggone it!).

Enjoying the friendly, intelligent discussion; Thanks to Mel for hosting the site. Best – Charles – Ro.8:28

Maybe I’ve missed the great reconciliation, but somehow I think it would have made some of the papers and magazines I read.

Wave-particle duality’s been around a while now, since the 1920s; it’s pretty well-attested by quantum mechanics, itself one of the most well-evidenced areas of modern science. Basically, all objects display wave and particle properties; we don’t see that in larger objects because their frequencies are too low.

He is either a lunatic, of the sort who considers himself a mashed potato (what a metaphor!), a liar, or Lord – nothing in between.

That’s a false trilemma, and it begs the question.

Tacitus, Annales, xv.44, written in AD (where did that come from?!) 64 under Nero.

Tacitus actually wrote about Nero in about 115CE. The reliability of this passage is dubious. There is no other corroborating evidence that Nero persecuted the Christians – he was indifferent to the religions in Rome – nor would there have been a multitude of Christians in Rome at that time. ‘Christian’ was not a common term in the first century. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus and yet assumes that his readers know of Pontius Pilate. There is also no corroborating evidence which suggests that Nero started the fire in Rome, either.

It’s possible that the passage is genuine; whether the information it contains is genuine is another matter. Tacitus was not above spreading false rumours to illustrate a moral point, as when he asserted that the Emperor Augustus was murdered by his wife Livia in order to illustrate a point about the moral vices of Nero.

Tacitus was also contemptuous of almost all Easterners – he would not have spent as much time or energy researching Christians as he would have on researching court intrigues, and such things. It’s just as probable that Tacitus is simply mentioning what other people have said to him and asserted to be the truth. Either way, Tacitus is not a viable historical source.

Seutonius, “Vita Claudii,” xxv. 4: “Since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”

Close, but no cylindrical smoking thing.

Chrestus is not Christ. It is, however, a Greek proper name. Suetonius also knew the difference between Jews and Christians – he refers in other works to Christians without the misspelling and without the reference to the Jews; he seems to regard them as being unrelated.

Also see the correspondence between Pliny (the Younger) and Emperor Trajan, found (as are the above quotes) in Bettenson’s “Documents of the Christian Church”, Oxford Press, 1943, 1963.

Pliny, as governor of Bythinia, wrote to Trajan in around 112CE or so. He basically states that some Christians died for their beliefs when tortured before trial. To cut a long story short, Pliny contributes nothing at all to the issue at hand; he was too late and too far away.

The fact that Pliny mentions Christians mentioning Jesus does not prove historicity of Jesus; it proves that someone mentioned him.

whence came they? Did they spring full-grown from the head of a deity?

That’s not an argument for historicity; and if it were, you’d be SOL because the same would apply to Thor, Mithras and Zeus.

Or are the gospel accounts accurate history? Also recommended, the writings of Sir William Ramsay, who began his archeological work about a century ago to prove the BIble wrong, adn ended up being called a “fundamentalist,” a label he rejected.

Given his background as a student of Lit. Hum with its emphasis on Platonism, there’s no surprise there; and it seem doubtful that he actually set out to prove the Bible wrong. I certainly can’t find any biographical evidence to that effect.

More recently, Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” and “More Evidence . . .” The debate over trhe “historical Jesus” is pretty well over.

Only if you ignore the absence of evidence. Josh McDowell is, bluntly, a hack, and shouldn’t be confused with any kind of historian.

Thanks! I’ll check out that book.

God bless!

Mel

Before he earned a doctorate in theology, McGrath finished a doctorate in molecular biophysics! Both from Oxford.

(merong kopya ang ATS Library ng The Dawkins Delusion)

Seutonius, “Vita Claudii,” xxv. 4: “Since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”
(Mentioned in Acts 18:2)

Also see the correspondence between Pliny (the Younger) and Emperor Trajan, found (as are the above quotes) in Bettenson’s “Documents of the Christian Church”, Oxford Press, 1943, 1963. He does not reference the disputed passages in Josephus, or the apocryphal stuff that floated around later, only the best documented materials. There is ample evidence of Christians in the 1st Century; whence came they? Did they spring full-grown from the head of a deity? Or are the gospel accounts accurate history? Also recommended, the writings of Sir William Ramsay, who began his archeological work about a century ago to prove the BIble wrong, adn ended up being called a “fundamentalist,” a label he rejected. More recently, Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands a Verdict” and “More Evidence . . .” The debate over trhe “historical Jesus” is pretty well over. The isue of deity is, of course, a separate matter.

Keep ‘em comin’, guys! Charles – Have a great forever!

Had to do some business first, try to put some food on the table.

Speaking of which, to any one reading this who happens to live in the Philippines, may I shamelessly announce that I’m retailing computer supplies such as flashdrives, hard disks, notebook and desktop computers, optical writers, blank CD’s and DVD’s, etc. If anyone’s interested, please drop me a note at my “About Blog and Blogger” page (where I also shamelessly mentioned my business).

Anyway, that’s one of my main preoccupations as Dayworker. But now I’m back as Nightblogger, and, as promised, I’ve got a new post. Can’t post as much and as often as I want, but I’ll keep ‘em coming if you’ll keep on responding (actually, even if not ).

So…please check out my new post, where I BEGIN to address some points which Mek raised earlier. Actually, I had already been planning to write these series of posts and would have written them anyway even if nobody had responded to this present post, but hey! you guys make my day! Thanks very much for your comments.

God bless you!

Mel

So, Hume said that to adopt Christian faith one would have to see a miracle. That looks to be about right. I have not had the opportunity to ask why the really religious people are that way (due to the fact that religion is a highly private matter hereabouts), but I presume that personal experience is a significant factor.

On reading lists; Kant is of interest, due to being the subject of my current ethics course, having at least the attempts of logical proofs in his writing, and generally having good ideas. He evidently first assumed moral and then postulated God and eternal soul, or something to that effect. We have not made it that far yet.

(Narnia is a priority mainly due to me being a fantasy enthusiast.) I’ll keep the suggestions in mind when checking out the local library the next time.

I do have some thoughts about omnipotence, logic, parallel worlds and so on, but they are not very structured yet.

Re “Did Jesus claim to be God?” The Pharisees certainly understood Him to do so. Even a casual reading of the Fourth Gospel makes that clear. If someone is about to stone me over a misunderstanding, that is certainly the time to clear it up. Also, He accepted worship. (Sorry, Mek, I can’t keep from using the capital for Deity; hope it isn’t too offfensive to you, but it would greatly offend me not to.)
As Lewis says, He is either a lunatic, of the sort who considers himself a mashed potato (what a metaphor!), a liar, or Lord – nothing in between. A good man would not accept worship; surely a liar would not long evoke it. (Some Tv evangelists to the contrary nonwithstanding. They don’t last long.) When Thomas said, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus did not rebuke or correct him.

As Hume said, iin the conclusion to his work on miracles, “So we may conclude that not only was the Christian faith established with miracles, but also that it cannot be believed today without one.” I concur; the experience we call the new birth is a miracle from another dimension, which makes faith possible.

If I’ve missed something from the posts above, or if I’ve missed some of my typos, apologies; it’s been a full day, but this is so interesting to me I couldn’t wait until tomorrow to take a quick look and “shoot from the lip” with a possibly too hasty answer. Like Tommi, I’m enjoying a courteous discussion; they are few and far between, and well worth the time invested. Thanks, Tina and Nemo, for pitching in – it would be great if a few other thoughtful folks wanted to
join, from any of the varied sides of the discussion.

Almost forgot; one place you might want to start a reading list is Voltaire’s “The Sage and the Atheist.” (HInt- the Deist wins.) Then on to Descartes, Pascal, probably Kierkegaard (I recommend “Fear and Trambling”), then Lewis, and then some early Henry Morris, like “Studies in the Bible and Science,” and then Michael Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box.” Narnia is fun, but the primary intellectual exercise there is uncovering the Christian application. I actually had a college prof say Tolliken was not a Christian writer! Some folks have trouble with symbolism, it seems. Well, “mego” so “to bed I go.” Keep wrestling with the angel; I just hope you don’t wrestle so long you limp away. Charles – Ro.8:28

As for the little screed on “god”, I can say that the same thing applies with Thor, and that Baldr died for your sins. And things are not logical or illogical based on perspective; logic is a binary system.

First circles and squares are definitions and thereby not provable. In math we make definition statements often of observable events that are accepted as true as basic axioms. Circles and squares are defined and in basic geometry are separate entities. BUT, if you move into topology, the are equal. As in both are figures that you can lay your pencil on and travel completely around and never pick your pencil up. They are a continuous line or loop, the shape makes no difference. Therefore, there is no difference in a circle and sqare, they are equal. Again, it comes from perspective, how you define what you are speaking of.

Another example, parrallel lines do not intersect, but they can. Have you ever stood on a rail road track on a long flat piece of land? They appear to cross at the horizon. There is an entire branch of geometry that allows parrallel lines to cross and has many real world applications, for example the ability to draw digital pictures that appear to have depth to them. (Simplifying to lay man’s terms)

On the existence of God, you will never prove him, as he is THE axiom. The one accepted truth that all the universe is built upon. The problem is, when you refuse to accept the axiom then all arguments end in a cotradiction. You will look to find an explanation for all that happens and it will not be there, as God is the explanation and you refuse to accept him.

I pray you continue to search and that someday you are able to accept with faith that Jesus is real and did come to pay sins debt for you. For those of us who do believe it is quite logical and all other arguments fail to satisfy.

God bless

Tina

I look forward to reading your response.

Man, you’re fast! Just sneaked a peek into my blog to see the stats, and I found out I had one more comment on my most famous post so far (and it’s not even mine—it’s just a post of an essay from Rev. Blair, who very kindly granted me permission to use it here).

Anyway, I’m writing now to ask you to please bear with my slowness in posting. I didn’t expect that any of my posts would be met with these many comments coming at this pace. But I hope I’ll be able to pick up the pace in time.

I’ll actually be addressing some of the issues which you have already questioned in your comment. Aha! I’m sure that means you’ll be reading THAT next post 8-D. At least that means that it’ll already be sure of being read by someone other than myself.

Peace! As I said before, “I’ll be back” 8-).

Mel

who has been proven to be a person who actually existed in history.

Uh, no. Not actually true.

According to the writings of his followers, he claimed many times to be God.

Except he didn’t. He did at one point claim that “the Father and I are one”, which is commonly and incorrectly taken to be a claim of divinity; it was actually an idiomatic expression meaning, as close as can be translated, one in purpose. The other alleged claims of godhood that people attach to the character are claims of being a messiah, a term attached to various people by the Jews throughout history (for example, Cyrus of Persia was called a messiah); this only works if one assumes, against contemporary Jewish context, that messiah refers to a divine entity, rather than someone appointed by God. Similarly, the use of the term “Son of Man” refers to another idiomatic Semitic expression; in this case, it refers to a human being in the abstract, as a reflection of humanity. The use in Daniel led to the conceptual Son of Man, a term in Judaism referring to a figure of the tikkum olum period of the Messiah. Also, the term “Son of God” is yet another misused phrase; it abounds throughout pre-Christian Judaism in various contexts, but the most likely and contextually-consistent interpretation in light of 1stC Palestine is that it refers again to the Messiah as the promised King of Israel; the title was, after all, given to Kings of Israel as a symbol of their leadership of God’s Chosen People; another interesting corrolary is the use of a similar term for the nation of Israel, and it is most likely that “Son of God” is a metaphorical term, used to denote leadership of Israel during the prophesied Messianic Age, with connotations of appointment by God.

Man, you guys are posting comments much faster than I anticipated. I just posted this yesterday. Thanks very much for visiting and for posting!

Anyway, you said:

Proving that they do exist is a matter of them manifesting in some clearly divine manner, otherwise a working proof is not possible. At least I have not seen anything decisive to either direction.

We Christians believe that God did manifest himself in human form about 2000 years ago. He did this through a person named (in English) Jesus Christ, who has been proven to be a person who actually existed in history. According to the writings of his followers, he claimed many times to be God. Now, as to whether that claim is true or not, THAT, I think, is the question.

I will try to tackle that in my next post. Please bear with me. I am used to posting every other day or every three days (there was even a time when I didn’t post anything new for eight days!). Thanks very much for your patience and understanding.

As Arnie the Terminator says, “I’ll be back” 8-).

God’s grace and peace to you!

Mel

That being out of the way, I appreciate Descartes. He was pretty smart philosopher, even if cartesian dualism is no longer all too credible, and achieved something in the area of math, too. Pascal likewise. Lewis’ Narnia books, which are very Christian fantasy, are something I will read some day.

Christianity (and most other modern religions) does give meaning to life. I think. Well, to the extent they do not contradict free will, they do. I can, fortunately, forge meaning out of existence without religion. I can define such goals as self-improvement, being good, being happy, and making all of those true to the people near me. This way, my life matters to me, and that is enough.

For the record, I am genuinely enjoying the discussion. It is a rare situation that allows me to talk with a sensible religious person about these things, and in a civil way. Thanks.