Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

But Laptop -- even if the disputed passages actually refer to the "Christians" -- that still is not confirmation of the existence of Jesus.

Just as the notion "there is a God" cannot be confirmed by logic or investigation and must simply be a product of "belief" (which is to say, guess)-- the notion "Jesus existed" -- is something that must be arrived at the same way.

I neither know nor care why you have warped an assertion that Josephus foresaw any pronouncement of Eusebius from what i wrote, it is simply not there.

I begin to seriously doubt your reading skills.

In terms of the son of the deity, the virgin birth, the star etc, did not the legends of the birth of a similar deity, Mithras, predate the Christian myth by some period?

Frank Apisa wrote:

But Laptop -- even if the disputed passages actually refer to the "Christians" -- that still is not confirmation of the existence of Jesus.

You'll have to help me out here. Which displuted passages are we discussing?...

Quote:

Just as the notion "there is a God" cannot be confirmed by logic or investigation and must simply be a product of "belief" (which is to say, guess)-- the notion "Jesus existed" -- is something that must be arrived at the same way.

Hmmm, not certain if I agree with this or not. Whilst I accept there isn't overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus, I do believe there is some.

Laptoploon wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But Laptop -- even if the disputed passages actually refer to the "Christians" -- that still is not confirmation of the existence of Jesus.

You'll have to help me out here. Which displuted passages are we discussing?...

Actually -- any of them. All of them.

No passage from antiquity which mentions Christianity -- which obviously DID exist and subsequently developed -- is truly compelling evidence that the man, Jesus, existed -- nor does it tell us much about what Jesus, if such a person did exist, truly was like.

And quite honestly, the "testimony" of Josephus and Tacitus is very suspect in the eyes of Christian scholarship -- and is, so it seems, the invention and alterations of over-ambitious Christians.

Quote:

Quote:

Just as the notion "there is a God" cannot be confirmed by logic or investigation and must simply be a product of "belief" (which is to say, guess)-- the notion "Jesus existed" -- is something that must be arrived at the same way.

Hmmm, not certain if I agree with this or not. Whilst I accept there isn't overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus, I do believe there is some.

I don't even have to "believe" there is some -- I KNOW there is some

But it is circumstantial and hearsay -- and not the kind of evidence upon which I think a solid conclusion can be drawn..

And, it is my opinion that the evidence, such as it is, renders the question of whether or not the Jesus referred to in the Bible is a single individual -- or even a real individual. That question, it is my opinion, now falls into the realm of "belief." You and Steve are certainly free to disagree, but that is my opinion

I think the case for the existence of Pilate (and Rome and a Roman Emperor) is much, much more compelling -- but once again, you are free to see things differently.

Yep, Laptoploon.

I dunno if this is the book you have in mind, (and gosh you're gracious on a good night's sleep), but Joseph Campbell goes into all of this in depth. "The Masks of God" is one example, but it was pretty much his life's work, touched on in most of his books. ("Hero With A Thousand Faces", etc., etc.)

Frank Apisa wrote:

Laptoploon wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

But Laptop -- even if the disputed passages actually refer to the "Christians" -- that still is not confirmation of the existence of Jesus.

You'll have to help me out here. Which displuted passages are we discussing?...

Actually -- any of them. All of them.

No passage from antiquity which mentions Christianity -- which obviously DID exist and subsequently developed -- is truly compelling evidence that the man, Jesus, existed -- nor does it tell us much about what Jesus, if such a person did exist, truly was like.

Given that I've never argued that compelling evidence does/did exist ( I wrote "scant evidence") you'll understand if I don't try to support a position I've never taken.

Quote:

And quite honestly, the "testimony" of Josephus and Tacitus is very suspect in the eyes of Christian scholarship -- and is, so it seems, the invention and alterations of over-ambitious Christians.

I'm aware that Josephus' Antiquities may have been meddled with, a point I've already acknowledge, but even that is only guess work. I've read the arguments and counter arguments. As I've already noted I'm unconvinced and merely offer those passages to show that Christ was named, not just the religion of Christianity.

As for Tacitus, I had no idea that any serious scholars, Christian or otherwise, called this into doubt. Can you point me at these criticisms?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Just as the notion "there is a God" cannot be confirmed by logic or investigation and must simply be a product of "belief" (which is to say, guess)-- the notion "Jesus existed" -- is something that must be arrived at the same way.

Hmmm, not certain if I agree with this or not. Whilst I accept there isn't overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus, I do believe there is some.

I don't even have to "believe" there is some -- I KNOW there is some

But it is circumstantial and hearsay -- and not the kind of evidence upon which I think a solid conclusion can be drawn..

Given that this isn't my position, implict or explict, A point you clearly acknowledge above.
I'll not tackle it.

Quote:

And, it is my opinion that the evidence, such as it is, renders the question of whether or not the Jesus referred to in the Bible is a single individual -- or even a real individual. That question, it is my opinion, now falls into the realm of "belief." You and Steve are certainly free to disagree, but that is my opinion

.

I'm working more on the "balance of probability" rather than belief

Quote:

I think the case for the existence of Pilate (and Rome and a Roman Emperor) is much, much more compelling -- but once again, you are free to see things differently.

I didn't question Rome/Roman Emperor, both areas well documented, so again It's not something I'll tackle as it's a non-issue for me. But I thought it might be interesting to explore the evidence for the existence of another player in this game - Pilate. Quite how that can be dismissed by wrapping it up with a larger question escapes me.

Quote:

Quote:

And quite honestly, the "testimony" of Josephus and Tacitus is very suspect in the eyes of Christian scholarship -- and is, so it seems, the invention and alterations of over-ambitious Christians.

I'm aware that Josephus' Antiquities may have been meddled with, a point I've already acknowledge, but even that is only guess work. I've read the arguments and counter arguments. As I've already noted I'm unconvinced and merely offer those passages to show that Christ was named, not just the religion of Christianity.

As for Tacitus, I had no idea that any serious scholars, Christian or otherwise, called this into doubt. Can you point me at these criticisms?

I was trying to make a point about whether or not Tacitus could offer anything substantive about whether or not Jesus existed. My wording was poor.

Quote:

And, it is my opinion that the evidence, such as it is, renders the question of whether or not the Jesus referred to in the Bible is a single individual -- or even a real individual. That question, it is my opinion, now falls into the realm of "belief." You and Steve are certainly free to disagree, but that is my opinion

.

I'm working more on the "balance of probability" rather than belief

No you are not! But I doubt that I could get you past your blind spot on this -- so why bother. We'll deal with this in a different way later on.

A QUESTION, IF I MAY:

Why do you suppose there is no evidence that Jesus ever condemned slavery?

This is a question I asked over in Abuzz a couple years back. Thought I'd give it a try over here.

No need for an extensive preliminary discussion of why I ask the question. In fact, no need to clarify or justify the question any more than simply to ask it.

Why do you suppose Jesus didn't condemned slavery?

Why do you suppose he never spoke out against it?

I do not think there was any mention of saving the slaves, except in so far as I believe Jesus believed he was offering everyone the chance to be "saved" in a spiritual sense.

The argument is about - or was at the beginning, why he made no pronouncements condemning the practice of slavery.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

And quite honestly, the "testimony" of Josephus and Tacitus is very suspect in the eyes of Christian scholarship -- and is, so it seems, the invention and alterations of over-ambitious Christians.

I'm aware that Josephus' Antiquities may have been meddled with, a point I've already acknowledge, but even that is only guess work. I've read the arguments and counter arguments. As I've already noted I'm unconvinced and merely offer those passages to show that Christ was named, not just the religion of Christianity.

As for Tacitus, I had no idea that any serious scholars, Christian or otherwise, called this into doubt. Can you point me at these criticisms?

I was trying to make a point about whether or not Tacitus could offer anything substantive about whether or not Jesus existed. My wording was poor.

I could no ask you to define substantive.

Quote:

Quote:

And, it is my opinion that the evidence, such as it is, renders the question of whether or not the Jesus referred to in the Bible is a single individual -- or even a real individual. That question, it is my opinion, now falls into the realm of "belief." You and Steve are certainly free to disagree, but that is my opinion

.

I'm working more on the "balance of probability" rather than belief

Quote:

No you are not! But I doubt that I could get you past your blind spot on this -- so why bother. We'll deal with this in a different way later on.

Deal with it anytime that it pleases you to do so. I stand by my "balance of probability" position.

Quote:

A QUESTION, IF I MAY:

Why do you suppose there is no evidence that Jesus ever condemned slavery?

(a) Because it perfectly clear that he was a very minor player in his time. He was just one amongst many "prophets". He could well have done so and chances are it would never have been reported/recorded.

(b) He may have done no such thing and therefore there would have been nothing to report/record.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Question for yourself, when you tap dance, what music to you do this to?

Then you should have.

You are already being very petty -- and this minor concession doesn't really make you seem any less so.

I don't tap dance.

Laptop - I think some of the bible scholar folks have said that there was a recorded instance of Jesus' attitude to slavery being displayed, and that he did not suggest his follower free his slave, or make any comment about slavery, but that the slave be a good slave...it is up there somewhere.

Of course, if you do not accept his deity, and that he spoke the ultimate morality for all time, there is no problem with seeing him as a fallible if rather wise prophet in a land that bred them like rabbits.

Frank's challenge, as I understand it, is, to christians, if he WAS what he claimed to be, how is it consistent that he made no condemnation of such a pratice? Is this not illogical?