- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
History Channel's Jesus-His Life
Posted on 3/25/19 at 8:40 pm
Posted on 3/25/19 at 8:40 pm
Is anyone else watching this? So many inconsistencies and questioning the Gospels' accounts. IMO, Horrible series.
5
Posted on 3/25/19 at 8:41 pm to Dawgirl
Yeah, facts are a motherfricker for faith
Posted on 3/25/19 at 8:47 pm to Dawgirl
I'm not saying He was an alien, but He was an alien.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 9:22 pm to Dawgirl
is this one of those "the book was way better than the film adaptation" things?
Posted on 3/25/19 at 9:47 pm to Dawgirl
The Gospels don't even mirror each other on common accounts/events, so inconsistency should hardly be objectionable.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 9:52 pm to LSUSoulja08
quote:
is this one of those "the book was way better than the film adaptation" things?
Posted on 3/25/19 at 10:19 pm to Dawgirl
quote:It wouldn't make a lot of sense to base a historical piece on just the Bible.
Is anyone else watching this? So many inconsistencies and questioning the Gospels' accounts. IMO, Horrible series.
You could just read the Bible.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 10:43 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
Yeah, facts are a motherfricker for faith
We have more ancient historical evidence for the Resurrection than we do for the life of Julius Caesar.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 10:46 pm to LSUFreek
Each Gospel was written to a different audience. Different points would have been emphasized to different groups.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 10:48 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
We have more ancient historical evidence for the Resurrection than we do for the life of Julius Caesar.
Link?
We actually have real archaeological evidence that Jews didn’t become monotheist till after the Babylonian captivity.
Wiki
Also we have books tha Caesar wrote, where are Jesus” books?
That’s a rhetorical question BTW, I already know the answer.
This post was edited on 3/25/19 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 3/25/19 at 11:20 pm to Philzilla2k
quote:
quote:
We have more ancient historical evidence for the Resurrection than we do for the life of Julius Caesar.
That doesn't make much sense TBH. You can't really have evidence of that to begin with.
Plus...
Plutarch among other historians were relatively contemporary biographers whether they be Roman or Greek who covered the Emperors extensively and the history of the Empire extensively.
Tacitus mentions a person called Christos once and that just mean't annoited one. That's why historians have debated forever whether Jesus even existed. You can't question the Resurrection because you can't prove or disprove it. So the question was always in history, did Jesus even exist?
We know Julius Ceasar existed. As mentioned he has his own books.
Apart from the earliest Gospel (Mark) supposedly written 70 years after the crucifixion; and the subsequent Gospels written years later...there are only one or two mentions of Jesus in secular history...and they're of "Christos."
So to your point, Julius Ceasar 100% existed...no one refutes this. While there are historians who doubt that Jesus ever existed. I believe he did but his foundation is in the Bible - not secular historical evidence compared to Ceasar.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 11:57 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Tacitus
Damn. You know how to get my historical engine revved.
Posted on 3/26/19 at 12:36 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Plutarch among other historians were relatively contemporary biographers whether they be Roman or Greek who covered the Emperors extensively and the history of the Empire extensively.
Plutarch was born almost 100 years after Julius Caesar's death and Tacitus was born some 100 years or so after Caesar's death.
quote:
We know Julius Ceasar existed. As mentioned he has his own books.
Does he? Because the oldest manuscripts of Caesar's autobiographical writings date back to only the 9th century - some 900 or so years after the man's death. The same goes for the writings of Plutarch, Cicero, and Suetonius - all of which have manuscripts no older than the 5th century.
By comparison, the oldest fragments of the New Testament date to within one century of their authorship.
quote:
That's why historians have debated forever whether Jesus even existed.
There is absolutely no serious historian that doubts Jesus was a real person. Bart Ehrman, the most famous atheist New Testament scholar of this age, will tell you that we have more evidence for the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth than we do for any other figure from antiquity.
quote:
Apart from the earliest Gospel (Mark) supposedly written 70 years after the crucifixion; and the subsequent Gospels written years later...there are only one or two mentions of Jesus in secular history...and they're of "Christos."
The earliest mentioning of Jesus of Nazareth is actually from Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians (written around the year AD 50). And most historians regard Flavius Josephus as having provided the oldest secular account of Jesus of Nazareth (written around the same time as Mark's gospel).
And I also admire how you leave out Tacitus mentioning that "Christos" was was put to death by Pontius Pilate in Palestine, and that the religion created in his name had spread to the city of Rome.
This post was edited on 3/26/19 at 12:43 am
Posted on 3/26/19 at 12:42 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Bart Ehrman, the most famous atheist New Testament scholar of this age, will tell you that we have more evidence for the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth than we do for any other figure from antiquity.
But you said Resurrection over Julius Ceasar. Not whether Jesus existed.
Posted on 3/26/19 at 12:43 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
But you said Resurrection over Julius Ceasar. Not whether Jesus existed.
And I stand by my statement. There is more documentary evidence from antiquity for the Resurrection than there is for the life of Julius Caesar.
This post was edited on 3/26/19 at 12:44 am
Posted on 3/26/19 at 12:45 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Bart Ehrman, the most famous atheist New Testament scholar of this age, will tell you that we have more evidence for the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth than we do for any other figure from antiquity.
But you said Resurrection over Julius Ceasar. Not whether Jesus existed.
And all I'm saying is there has been a real debate throughout history of whether Jesus was a real person or not...that cannot be denied...that's why it's called faith.
There has never been a debate that Julius Ceasar was fictional.
So you can't compare a Roman Emperor with an act (Resurrection) that can't be proved or disproved. The life and times of Ceasar are a real thing...the act of the Resurrection is an act of faith.
There's a difference believing Jesus existed and claiming that the Resurrection has more proof than Julius Ceasars life.
This post was edited on 3/26/19 at 12:49 am
Posted on 3/26/19 at 12:55 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
But you said Resurrection over Julius Ceasar. Not whether Jesus existed.
And as I said above, I stand by my original statement. There is more written evidence from antiquity for the Resurrection than there is for Julius Caesar.
quote:
And all I'm saying is there has been a real debate throughout history of whether Jesus was a real person or not...that cannot be denied...that's why it's called faith.
It's a historical fact that Jesus existed. Anyone who doubts this is not to be taken seriously because then all of ancient history comes into question when you use the same standard of evidence to establish the historical existence for other men and women from antiquity. The first biography we have of Alexander the Great wasn't written until 400 years after his death. The earliest copy we have of Julius Caesar's writings are only 1,200 years old. The same thing goes for the men semi-contemporary to Caesar who wrote about him - Tacitus, Plutarch, Cicero, Suetonius - the earliest writings we have of them come hundreds of years after their deaths.
But because Mark didn't write his gospel until some 40 years after Christ's death, and because the oldest known fragment of Mark dates to only the year AD 125, Christ's existence must be called into question! If we applied the same standard of proof to Caesar and Alexander the Great, all of ancient history would be turned upside down.
The only faith required when it comes to Jesus is whether or not he was divine.
This post was edited on 3/26/19 at 12:58 am
Posted on 3/26/19 at 1:03 am to RollTide1987
quote:
We have more ancient historical evidence for the Resurrection than we do for the life of Julius Caesar.
We have vastly more evidence for Caesar than we have for Jesus, as we would expect. This stupid apologist pseudo argument is actually a highly garbled version of something that has some basis, though is still a weak argument in its own right. It began as an argument about the number and nature of the manuscripts of the New Testament texts and a contrast between them and most other ancient textual evidence.
So we have manuscript fragments and sections of gospels which date to as early as the second century AD, with whole gospel manuscripts dating to the third century AD and intact New Testaments dating to the fourth century AD. Given that the gospels were written in the second half of the first century AD, this means we have manuscript evidence of them very close to their date of composition.
This is in contrast to the manuscript evidence for most other ancient texts of any kind. The Caesar comparison was first made by F.F. Bruce in 1960:
"For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C.) there are several extant manuscripts, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day." (The New Testament Documents, IVP, 5th edition: p. 16)
So, Bruce argues, our manuscript evidence for the texts of the New Testament is vastly closer in date to their time of composition than the manuscript evidence for other ancient texts, such as that for Caesar's Gallic War.
Bruce here is making an argument for the textual integrity of the New Testament books. In the hands of later Christian apologists, most notoriously Josh McDowell, this argument became muddled into something to do with not the integrity of the text but the historical reliability of the contents and the events described, which makes no sense at all. This in turn got garbled still further by repetition until it somehow turned into "there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than there is for Julius Caesar's", which is complete garbage.
By using stupid, garbled "arguments" like this, ignorant fundamentalist Christians play directly into the hands of the "Jesus never existed" anti-theist fringe, who are almost as incompetent and ignorant of history, but not so much so that they can't see this claim about Jesus and Caesar is total crap.
Posted on 3/26/19 at 1:07 am to RollTide1987
I don't understand what you're getting at.
We have Ceasar Coins and Ceasar statues produced while he was alive.
Are you saying Ceasar is fictional? That Shakespeare made him up?
Like I said, I believe Jesus existed but for you to say there is more evidence that he was supernatural than whether Julius Ceasar existed is absurd.
We have Ceasar Coins and Ceasar statues produced while he was alive.
Are you saying Ceasar is fictional? That Shakespeare made him up?
Like I said, I believe Jesus existed but for you to say there is more evidence that he was supernatural than whether Julius Ceasar existed is absurd.
Posted on 3/26/19 at 12:45 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
But because Mark didn't write his gospel until some 40 years after Christ's death, and because the oldest known fragment of Mark dates to only the year AD 125, Christ's existence must be called into question! If we applied the same standard of proof to Caesar and Alexander the Great, all of ancient history would be turned upside down.
Absolutely correct and I also read recently that the original writings of the Book of John may be older than we thought which would put the writings of Matthew, Mark and Luke even older and written even closer to Jesus' death.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News