Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cheese
wow...is that the best this Christian Minister can do to support evidence that Jesus was a historical person?
The dialogue that Justin and Trypho have takes place in the 2nd century!
That is like someone taking a conversation I have today about an alleged person, let's call him "Pumpkinhead," who I'll claim for my religious motivations allegedly existed in 1900 ... and then people 1800 years from now producing it as evidence of Pumpkinhead!
Where are the records from 1900????
How can my statement 100 years after an alleged existence be considered any sort of evidence?
What a joke.
|
Sorry, but I think you misunderstood that passage. It was about Drews trying to prove Jesus didn't exist by saying Trypho, a Jew, while trying to attack Christianity, made that argument in the conversation already in the 2nd century. The passage merely proves Trypho didn't make the argument.
It is curious that Jews, who fought Christianity bitterly during the early years, didn't choose to bring up the fact that Jesus didn't exist in their fights. On the contrary, their main line of defense was that Jesus was an illegitimate son of Maria. Would've been all too easy for the good folks that lived during the time Jesus allegedly lived in Palestine just to say "hey guys, I was here then, he wasn't here then".
In fact it is even more curious that people converted to Christianity shortly after Jesus's death in Palestine. There wasn't one single Jew who thought "blimey, I don't remember this guy dying in Jerusalem"? Lucky, that, since it would've been a disastrous strike to the Early Church.
Add to this the net of tradition, ripples in the pond if you will, different versions of what Jesus had said or done, appearing all of a sudden in Palestine... then being put to the letter by some later, when it was started to be considered important (early Christians thought Christ would come back very soon, so why write it down?).
Then you have the few non-Christian quotes (I don't see anyone challenging Tacitus anymore? anybody?) and a lot of people "deceived" all around the known world quickly... I believe it's a good case.
Lastly, it is a clear-cut consensus among the historians and theologians. Even atheists and agnostics among the scholars (of this area of expertise) admit there was a man named Jesus. Almost to a man. Those among the theologians who like to attack Christianity every chance they get still admit Jesus existed. Not because they want to but because they have to.
Frankly, there are so many ways to attack the church and the Christianity that you might as well pick some of the more succesful ones. This one ain't gonna cut it.