Atheism

[Djevv]

Djevv, do any of the apologetics sites deal with the question of why Philo never makes mention of Jesus in any of his writing?

Lots of sites do, but only briefly. This one seems reasonably balanced.

 

[Disco08]

Thanks.

But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

This seems like a fairly offhand statement to make without any supporting evidence or reasoning. Philo lived in the Jerusalem area when Jesus lived and the extraordinary events of His life took place and wrote extensively on the Jewish religion and political matters of the time. Why exactly is it 'hardly probable' that he would have heard of Jesus?

 

[Djevv]

Thanks.

But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

This seems like a fairly offhand statement to make without any supporting evidence or reasoning. Philo lived in the Jerusalem area when Jesus lived and the extraordinary events of His life took place and wrote extensively on the Jewish religion and political matters of the time. Why exactly is it 'hardly probable' that he would have heard of Jesus?

Well according to Wiki, he lived in Alexandria and may have only visited Jerusalem once. Interestingly his writings were very influential in Christian thought, and this was part of the reason they were preserved. I think it is reasonable to suppose he has never heard of the small, new jewish sect, which did not begin to spread much outside Judea til the 50s.

 

[Disco08]

I disagree entirely. The events of Jesus' life as described in the NT are extraordinary. There should be no doubt that someone in Philo's capacity (known because of the works he produced) would have heard plenty about the purported King Of The Jews and the marvelous deeds he was performing.

 

[tigertime2]

I disagree entirely. The events of Jesus' life as described in the NT are extraordinary. There should be no doubt that someone in Philo's capacity (known because of the works he produced) would have heard plenty about the purported King Of The Jews and the marvelous deeds he was performing.

Yes, but even the leaders of the Jews did not believe Jesus and dismissed his works as heretical and demonic. So it would not be evidence that because someone from that time did not write about Jesus that he did not exist and he did not do what the NT states he did. I know a doctor in Melbourne who has lived there for 40 years that did not who Alex Jesaulenko was and with modern media, it is wrong to "assume" that a certain person would know someone as famous as Jezza, so your argument is very very thin.

 

[tigertime2]

Can you prove Lord of the Rings isn't the inspired word of God.

That would be an exercise it futility, name one person who claims that it is the inspired word of God?

 

[Disco08]

Yes, but even the leaders of the Jews did not believe Jesus and dismissed his works as heretical and demonic. So it would not be evidence that because someone from that time did not write about Jesus that he did not exist and he did not do what the NT states he did. I know a doctor in Melbourne who has lived there for 40 years that did not who Alex Jesaulenko was and with modern media, it is wrong to "assume" that a certain person would know someone as famous as Jezza, so your argument is very very thin.

Philo wrote about all sorts of things far more trivial than a fake Jesus (had he indeed thought Jesus was a fake). He was also very closely connected to everything Jewish at the time and well connected generally so that news would reach him quickly. Whether he thought Jesus was heretical, demonic or genuine is somewhat irrelevant. You would reasonably expect him to have made note of Jesus either way.

As for your analogy, a doctor who has no interest in football not knowing who a football player is isn't remarkable at all. If you had said that you knew a football writer that had covered AFL/VFL for the last 40 years and he didn't know who Gary Ablett Snr was, then you might have a point.

 

[tigertime2]

I'm smart too, but I choose not to display it!

I am sure you are SixPack, you eat your Veggies.

 

[tigertime2]

Thanks for the compliment tt2 but as I get older I realise that there is a lot I don't know and even more I will never understand. Some call this realisation wisdom, I'm not sure. I call myself an atheist but actually I am more of an agnostic - I'm pretty sure that there is not a deity in the sense that you mean "God" but I can certainly be convinced otherwise. I tend to go hard atheist on threads like these, it's more fun.

In terms of your question, I certainly cannot prove that. The Bible could be the inspired word of God - I'm yet to see definitive evidence that it is and all the historical and cultural evidence points elsewhere in my humble opinion of course. I'm going hard on Djevv in this thread as he claims to understand science and rationality but is not prepared to provide evidence of real rigour. I also have big problems with his methodology, as I've pointed out.

One point I will concede to him though - the Dead Sea scrolls and other discovered documents do provide evidence that parts of the Bible were written in the time they claim to be written. As I've conceded, this is certainly true. I also tend to think (although there is no DIRECT historical evidence for this) that the person that we now call Jesus Christ actually existed and ruffled a few feathers in his time. Was he truly the son of God, conceived through immaculate conception? I tend to think not......

Here is a interesting website

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

 

[Disco08]

That's quite good. They've gone to the effort of scouring the globe for religious scientists to prove that it's the exceptions which prove the rule.

 

[AngryAnt]

Can you point out what the convincing reasons are to accept it. I have put forward a number of reasons for rejecting it.

You've put forward Occam's Razor - not evidence, but a rule of thumb when comparing hypotheses, and a whole bunch of Christian apologetics that is poorly written, research and has an agenda to prove a religious dogma. Evidence of a sort, but very poor quality evidence that does not stand the test of historical or scientific rigour.

I've stated my attitude to the Bible and its contents at least four times now. I'll do so once more. It's a work of literature that is part reference to historical events, part allegory, part metaphor and part made-up nonsense. Revelations anyone?

Look, I am interested in discussing this topic, I find it interesting. Maybe other readers do as well. I've done similar sort of things with Disco and Panther. I'm always prepared to read up if I am unsure on a topic. I'm also willing to put forward ideas and evidence for discussion.
I have been doing this all day (fortunately it is a day off ;D) - you never seem to reply with evidence, only more of your opinions.

Interesting yes, frustrating also! Actually I try to respond with rational argument. I can't disprove the existence of God, and as I've told you I concede that some of the Bible is based on historical events, although authorship is disputed.

The purpose of apologetics is to convince. It cites and uses evidence to make a point.

As for why I posted it, I was asked to provide evidence for my christian faith, so I did, then later added in some links for clarification, if a person was interested.

I was more interested in real scientific or historical evidence, not apologetics.

I have no problem with someone trying to "convince" but I have big problems with the methodologies and evidence presented. Again, you never address the fundamental issue of your own methodology - you believe in something and scratch around for any kind of evidence - no matter how poor or biased - and present it uncritically. Poor evidence is just that, poor evidence.

 

[Djevv]

I disagree entirely. The events of Jesus' life as described in the NT are extraordinary. There should be no doubt that someone in Philo's capacity (known because of the works he produced) would have heard plenty about the purported King Of The Jews and the marvelous deeds he was performing.

Yes this is what the skeptics peddle. I realise that you also believe it, but I respectfully disagree. Jesus had a huge impact on His followers, but a minimal impact on His nation, as exemplified by the fact they had him executed as a criminal.

But I agree with you in a sense, His deeds were marvelous!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I have no problem with someone trying to "convince" but I have big problems with the methodologies and evidence presented. Again, you never address the fundamental issue of your own methodology - you believe in something and scratch around for any kind of evidence - no matter how poor or biased - and present it uncritically. Poor evidence is just that, poor evidence.

This is the same criticism that I leveled Djevv. Your research methodology on these matters is unscientific.

 

[Disco08]

Why would you deride this as 'peddling'? Isn't it quite a logical argument that the deeds Jesus' is alleged to have performed in the NT would have drawn quite a bit of attention? Didn't Jesus' death cause earthquakes and unnatural darkness according to The Bible? Wouldn't you expect to see some type of contemporary report of these events?

Jesus had a huge impact on His followers, but a minimal impact on His nation, as exemplified by the fact they had him executed as a criminal.

You can honestly read the NT and the miraculous events reported within it and tell me you're confident these events wouldn't have become famous even locally?

 

[Djevv]

You've put forward Occam's Razor - not evidence, but a rule of thumb when comparing hypotheses, and a whole bunch of Christian apologetics that is poorly written, research and has an agenda to prove a religious dogma. Evidence of a sort, but very poor quality evidence that does not stand the test of historical or scientific rigour.

I've stated my attitude to the Bible and its contents at least four times now. I'll do so once more. It's a work of literature that is part reference to historical events, part allegory, part metaphor and part made-up nonsense. Revelations anyone?

Interesting yes, frustrating also! Actually I try to respond with rational argument. I can't disprove the existence of God, and as I've told you I concede that some of the Bible is based on historical events, although authorship is disputed.

I was more interested in real scientific or historical evidence, not apologetics.

I have no problem with someone trying to "convince" but I have big problems with the methodologies and evidence presented. Again, you never address the fundamental issue of your own methodology - you believe in something and scratch around for any kind of evidence - no matter how poor or biased - and present it uncritically. Poor evidence is just that, poor evidence.

We're just spinning our wheels here. I suppose that if you accept that the Bible is eyewitness accounts the evidence is anything but poor, otherwise it amounts to nothing. Thats why I was talking about the evidence the textual critics use. Don't you think that this is a really critical point?

 

[Djevv]

Why would you deride this as 'peddling'? Isn't it quite a logical argument that the deeds Jesus' is alleged to have performed in the NT would have drawn quite a bit of attention? Didn't Jesus' death cause earthquakes and unnatural darkness according to The Bible? Wouldn't you expect to see some type of contemporary report of these events?

There is Thallus. Interesting, but no doubt the skeptics are all over it!

You can honestly read the NT and the miraculous events reported within it and tell me you're confident these events wouldn't have become famous even locally?

Look, for a start don't forget that the library at Alexandria was burnt, so some accounts may have been lost. Personally, I don't think he made a big splash except for a relatively short period of time, and only among believing Jews.

I really don't think this argument can ever be resolved as is based on silence, not evidence, but there have been books by secular historians looking at the evidence that were quite positive what we have. I'll see what I can dig up!

 

[Djevv]

This is the same criticism that I leveled Djevv. Your research methodology on these matters is unscientific.

What methodology would you use?

 

[AngryAnt]

We're just spinning our wheels here. I suppose that if you accept that the Bible is eyewitness accounts the evidence is anything but poor, otherwise it amounts to nothing. Thats why I was talking about the evidence the textual critics use. Don't you think that this is a really critical point?

So are you conceding that the Christian Apologetics is rubbish, and that either you believe the Word of the Bible or you don't?

 

[Disco08]

There is Thallus. Interesting, but no doubt the skeptics are all over it!

Given this is the full quote (from a Christian writer writing in 220AD) that is supposed to verify a 3 hour midday darkness, I'm not surprised people are less than convinced.

In the third book of his history, Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun--wrongly in my opinion.

I really don't think this argument can ever be resolved as is based on silence, not evidence, but there have been books by secular historians looking at the evidence that were quite positive what we have. I'll see what I can dig up!

Fair enough. I think it can be reconciled to a large degree logically, but certainly this still leaves room for personal assumptions and prejudice.

 

[evo]

That would be an exercise it futility..

As would trying to prove to you the Bible isn't the inspired word of God.

I mean what evidence short of me producing God then him saying : "Tigertime my good man,the Bible isn't my inspired word" would convince you?