Council of Nicea did not chose the books of the bible

LOL. Yes, that word's main definition was supposed to be about 'awe' [read: reverence, respect, etc.]. Not fear. Phebeo is the word for actual fear [read: terror, fright, etc.].



I just love to be thorough.



Sure. My apologies for not doing it before. I was trying to prevent the 'agenda pushing' accusation you made towards another member. lol Be back in the morning.

[edit on 9/24/2008 by AshleyD]

No. And Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

According to your standards, then there are no historical figures. No Julius Ceasar, no Tsar Peter of Russia, no George Washington, no Pharoah Ramses II... no anybody. In fact, we are all surrounded by aliens who look like humans or are in a simulation like in The Matrix. Right?

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most attested facts in history. If you don't want to believe the written accounts of His life, then don't believe them. But to formulate elaborate conspiracy theories accusing Christians of syncretism is a waste of time. After all, who cares (unless it is just to get a response to entertain yourself)?

But just as there are Holocaust deniers, there are people who can believe anything. [sigh]

Gday,



No it isn't.
There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

Just later stories from believers.




Do YOU believe the written accounts of the life of Hercules ?





Pardon?
What "elaborate conspiracy theories" ?


Kapyong

reply to post by ScienceDada

---

you make some valid points, some of the reference material i was quoting from was a bit overzealous in the wording, I have already gone through one "revised" version of this video, working on the second.

I do think the issue is more with the wording than the premise as I am sure you would agree.

as my initial reason was to debunk the canon/nicaea thing i kinda rushed the follow through.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by Amenti]

Most historians throughout history are reporting stories. That is what history is most of the time.

For example, there is no "contemporary historical" evidence for most of Egyptian history. The Egyptians often practiced revisionist history as a way to be vindictive against people politically. Thus to erase their memory from historical archives was to somehow to vicariously destroy a person, by erasing their memory from existence.

History is always biased in one form or another. But very little of it is "contemporary." But to fill this criterion, firsthand accounts are quite acceptable for other figures, even those who were believers (as with Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharoahs, who were self-proclaimed gods).

Your premise is really that the evidence about Jesus of Nazareth from the writings of his contemporaries is not reliable has big problems. These contemporaries included Matthew the Evangelist, John the Evangelist, James the Brother of Jesus, and Jude. But that does not mean that the "contemporary" evidence doesn't exist, only that you don't deem it reliable. The same can be said for most of human history.

The idea of "later stories" is a double-standard, especially since memoirs, biographies, and compiled histories are also later stories, and often compiled based on other people's later stories. Most of human history is from "later stories."


That there were 2 individuals who were combined to produce the stories of Jesus, and this was done on purpose by several individuals. This is an example of such an elaborate conspiracy theory.

Feel free to U2U me if you would like another set of eyes.

I think these sorts of viral videos are worthwhile, and I would hate for someone to dismiss your arguments because they pick it apart as I did. Especially given that your base premises are indeed correct.

Gday,



The issue here is historical attestation of Jesus.
Which is very scanty - nothing contemporary, nothing solid.



Not sure if that is true,
but the issue I am discussing here is historical attestation to Jesus.
Of which there is very little, none contemporary.




But,
what does ancient Egyptian changes to their archives have to do with historical attestation to Jesus ?

Are you suggesting the Egyptians erased Jesus from history ?
Are you suggesting a conspiracy to erase Jesus from history ?





This is just not true.
We have a great deal of contemporary evidence for many people in history.

From Augustus Caesar we have :
* contemporary writings from him
* contemporary writings from others who knew him
* contemporary carvings of his actions
* conteamporary coins showing his likeness
* contemporary archeological evidence of his actions

There are a vast number of such people for whom we have a large body of contemporary evidence of many kinds.

For Jesus we have nothing like that.
Nothing contemporary.

Jesus is NOT well attested at all.






We have a great deal of contemporary and/or archeological evidence for Roman Emperors and Egyptian Pharaohs.

We have nothing like that for Jesus.





These books were NOT by contemporaries who met Jesus. Scholars agree - not one of the NT books was written by anyone who met a Jesus.




Scholars agree the NT books were written much later by people who never met any Jesus.

Only faithful believers believe otherwise.



Kapyong





[edit on 25-9-2008 by Kapyong]