PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
Christ said that as the church does on Earth so it will be in Heaven..
well, that sucks.....
Christ said that as the church does on Earth so it will be in Heaven..
seriously, what does this day, holiday, really mean? it is not the actual birth of christ. in fact, it is traced back to pagen rituals.
i would be interested in how christians (i believe in christ) believe that christmas has anything to do with christ....
i will grant this - it apparently has turned into - a time to think about christ
yet....does anyone really take the time, or is it about getting together with family and exchanging material goods?
CE 116. 85 years after Jesus's death. Even the gospels are a more recent source than that. He got the account from the Christians themselves.
He got his account from the record keeping that Roman's were meticulous to keep. 85 years hardly makes for ancient history. 85 years ago from our time was 1925...are you suggesting our written legal records from that time are untrustworthy?
wife had a cross stitch of this one on our daughter's wall when she was little.....'It means', said the girl, 'that you grew
In your mommy's heart instead of her tummy!'
You wouldn't be suggesting that records from 1925 were equivalent to those salvaged from roman antiquity were you?
I've had a drink so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't quite "antiquity" when the dude was writing about stuff that happened about 40 years before.You wouldn't be suggesting that records from 1925 were equivalent to those salvaged from roman antiquity were you?
I've had a drink so i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
It wasn't quite "antiquity" when the dude was writing about stuff that happened about 40 years before.
dates schmates. I have just got back from our local rooftop bar (chilly tonight, wore a blazer). That's Christmas. Good friends, carols and Christmas songs of childhood vying with the gentle sighing of the swell reminding the sleek white hulls in the marina of peace and good will. After ten the music got wound up a bit, mistletoe was in abundance and tales were told of christmases long ago - in England, in Germany, in Scotland and Australia. When fathers and uncles knelt on the lounge carpet fixing the train set while the rest of the family snoozed before the queen and we kids looked forward to the traditional trifle and the possibility of being heartily sick. Ahh, memories.
And tomorrow we must be prepared to climb Mount Turkey and all the trimmings before an alcohol induced forty (or even fifty) winks.
If the Christians don't mind I will use this day to celebrate the virgin birth of the Good Shepard, Horus.
I'd guess that, in dealing with any sort of historical record, time may be a factor in cross referencing said data with other material, no?
Although maybe i'm all at sea on this matter.
If you'd like to suggest an equivalence between historical record of 1925 and roman antiquity then you go ahead.
Merry Christmas though. In your face sobriety. (i too am surprised how well my body is functioning at present).
How about this: It was not antiquity when he recorded the information. It had only been 85 years prior. He was discussing and dealing with 1st century Christians. Roman courts kept meticulous records...but if you know more on the subject by all means enlighten me.
And Tacitus can be cross referenced by how many sources?
All i would ask you to consider is we actually have records from 1925 whereas records from Rome tend to be, how shall we say, a bit on the patchy side, no?
No...At the time record keeping in Rome was very important-that is why persons were instructed in and hired to the position of "historian". There were other historians' that recorded the times, but you intimate that somehow because of the era there could not have been good record keeping...on what basis do you assert this?
Of course record keeping was important. Ask yourself, though, why that should be so.
Look at modern history. Read accounts of the second world war written by the US and compare with the UK. Look at German histories or even more relevant to the debate, those of Japan. Whenever you pick up any history book or document ask yourself, 'Why was this written? For whom was it written? Is there any way of determining that it was an unbiased, objective record? We can point to archeological finds but seldom can any individual be identified. The Romans liked bathing ... or - the building we have uncovered had a bath so perhaps some Romans liked bathing ... in England .... er.... mmm.
Some documents are certainly credible but they are mostly accounts of transactions, ownership or trade.
The 'history' of Jesus depends and must depend upon faith. You may choose scrolls and scratches on stone and clay but there can never be sufficient evidence to prove them true. In the end if that faith helps you to make sense of things then embrace it, if fairies do it for you, then embrace that.
If you wrote of the world yesterday and I did the same do you think they would be the same?
The history of Jesus as recorded by Tacitus the Roman historian, a non Christian, recounts his trial and execution and the influence those acts had on the new sect known as "Christians". Even Josephus, the Jewish historian of just a few years prior to Tacitius, recorded the events of his execution...
My challenge by WM was to provide a non biblical source for the existence of the person Jesus; I did that. This had nothing to do with faith or belief in Christianity.
The ancient Romans, much like the ancient Jews and Greeks, kept meticulous written records and any history buff knows this.
You have not supplied proof, you have supplied evidence. Evidence of the writings of a single 'historian'. I cannot say that what he said was a true and objective record or that it was a record tinged with the promotion of his own agenda. No one can possibly know that.
Tacitus records of England can be, to some extent, substantiated by archeology but I doubt (I do not know for certain) that the same weight of evidence exists for anyone to accept that Tacitus proves the existence of any single and named person save for his emporers. It is not even certain that he was a Roman!!
My main point and one which I do not believe can be refuted, is that history serves several purposes and the recording of objective, verifiable truth seldom appears at the top of the list. My goodness look at your own history of WWII !!!! Tacitus would have been no different.
And so we must all come back to our own faith or interpretation. If you choose to believe one thing and I choose to believe something else then that is the way it is and that is the way it must be. There are no winners and no losers.