- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 534
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Why I think Jesus Didn't Exist: Historian Explains the Evidence That Changed His
St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (Lightfoot translation)
The First Epistle of Clement
So far, your arguments aren't very convincing.
You can't be serious. That's not "quoting Acts." Honestly, try reading the letters yourself instead of lifting from a flaky apologist website. This is typical of the misrepresentations/exaggerations that I've come to expect from Apologists.1. I've read the argument, and honestly its extremely unconvincing.
2. Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians quotes Acts 11:26 ..... ignatius died 108 AD ... EARLY second Century, 1st Letter of Clement quotes Acts 20:35, Celement died around 101 CE.
St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Magnesians (Lightfoot translation)
The First Epistle of Clement
Iraneus yes- late 2nd century. But Tertullian? Where? He's late 2nd century/early 3rd century anyway.Then there is Tertullian and Irenaeus.
Or you could try watching the video I linked to or read his books as your views of what he is saying miss the mark.3. No, If I'm not mistaken Carrier believes Jesus was a myth who was narratized, a God who was narratized as a human and re-diefied later.
I agree it's entirely possible there was an ordinary man called Jeshua and the gospel writers later made up a lot of the stories lifting key parts from the scriptures to make him "fulfil' prophecies etc. But you are off the mark if you think that Carrier is just saying people "wrote a story of a Mythical God in the context of the OT". There is far more to it and requires an understanding of the Hellenized Jewish philosophical views of the time. For example, what do you know of Philo's writings about the Logos?4. That's the point, the awkwardness of it, and spurious Connection, makes it MUCH more likely that the early disciples re-read the OT in the context of Jesus, rather then Write a story of a Mythical God in the context of the OT, the narratives read like a history which is interperated through the OT.
The archaeology? How about reading the works of Josephus and Philo for starters? By the way, what do you think the mystery cults actually were?5. You have to look at the archaeology of the time, Jerusalem was a temple priesthood ruled city, in the city of Jerusalem the mystery cults were not a big deal, around the area, in parts of galilee, maybe, but not in the city of Jerusalem where CHristianity started.
And actually look at the mystery cults, they don't match Christianity in anymore than a very very very vague way.
So far, your arguments aren't very convincing.
Last edited: