Continued from previous post.

1. I actually agree with you that Jesus was a historical figure [see my first post], but there is very little evidence for his existence. see http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
This being so it is a definate possibility that jesus didn't exist. By the way the ONLY thing that matters is EVIDENCE. Not opinion. The majority of people at one time believed that the sun went round the Earth. Their opinion didn't make it so.

2. . We have NO idea what happened to the Apostles except through tradition. Now according to tradition John blessed a cup of poison & by doing so turned the poison into a snake. When John realised that he was going to die [also according to tradition] He laid down in a hole in the shape of a crusifix & disappeared in a flash of light. Conclusion: I think we can state that tradition might be mistaken sometimes. :)

3. I found this reply strange. I think you misunderstood me.
a) The term "son of god" = someone who puts god's will before anything. There were many Jews before & after Jesus who were referred to as "son of god".
b) Messiah = someone who has been annointed by God. Cyrus the king of Persia was referred to as a Messiah as well as others.

4. Finally you can only approach an ancient document by looking at it through the eyes of the people from that era. The Gospels were NOT written for 21st century Australians. They were written for 1st century jews. Understand their world to understand the gospels.

One final point. How reliable are the gospels? Consider this.
If i told you that I have a book that says that Ned Kelly was a saint & this book was written by Dan Kelly, Joe Burne & Steve Hart. You'd reply "but those are members of the Kelly gang. What about the police reports, the trial records, the newspaper accounts?" The gospels are accounts written by the jesus gang. They are pushing a particular point of view NOT writting history.

Slavery...

There are several instances of slavery mentioned in the New Testament. Most refer to slaves being content in their situation, and doing what is right for their masters (1 Corinthians 7:21; Colossians 3:22; Ephesians 6:5-8; 1 Timothy 6:1; Titus 2:9). There are other mentions made to 'masters' about the right way to treat their slaves (Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1). Nowhere is slavery condoned as such, but also there is no suggestion of uprising against masters. The focus is on how to show Christian principles in your life no matter what situation you are in.

The social conditions of the day were such that people could choose to become slaves as an option to paying debt. It was not necessarily the same as 'slavery' as we know it today. On the contrary, it has been compared to workers in general in today's society ('workers treat your boss with respect'... 'Boss, treat your workers with compassion').

But of course there have been (and still are) many instances of 'Christians' condoning slavery. But that doesn't make it right. And any Christian who uses the NT as a backing for slavery does not understand the gospel message.

Once again, this is just history showing how many things are done in the name of Christ, but does not mean they are of Christ...

:-)

Bosk

"Behind the call for additional non-Christian witnesses to the existence of Jesus is the refusal to accept the testimony of the four writers we do have. Should we reject the four because they are not forty? The silence of the imaginary majority cannot overthrow the clear testimony of the few. This demand for other witnesses reminds me of the anecdote about a man accused of theft. At his trial the prosecuting attorney brought forward four witnesses who saw him commit the crime, while the defense attorney introduced as evidence fourteen persons who did not see him do it. Needless to say, the man was found guilty!"

This link is very good reading on the matter Bosk.
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Jesus truly is the Son of God, He has always existed and he rose from death.

The Resurrection of the body is real. No one else said or did anything like Jesus. So Christianity is uniquely right or wrong.

Simon Greenleafs 'Testimony of the Apostles' is a good half a page sum up of why the apostles could not have lied.

Genesis, “1. Jesus was a real historical person, and even most athiests will agree with that.”

Historical, yes. But so is father xmas, goldilocks, and the easter bunny.

“2. As I said in a previous post, the writers of the gospel all went to their deaths for saying jesus was God. SO I doubt they purposely misreported their story.”

So they wrote their death accounts from the grave, typical religious reasoning.

“alchemist If you witnessed a huge car accident from the side of the road, and 3 other people witnessed the same accident form different points around the place.”

What a pathetic analogy, I think you should actually read your bible, instead of being ridiculous. Then explain the huge and glaring differences in numbers, as well as locations, actions and words. How can you have one account saying there was one person present, then others saying there were many more.

How can John be factual if there was only Mary there. If that was the case, then his account is secondhand and not factual. Plus all their accounts are second hand, not personally witnessed as none of them were there, just women.

Add to that, none of them could read nor write Hebrew, let alone Greek and you have typical religious fact. As apologists, you fail miserably. But thats religion, a miserable failure.

Martin, we have been down this path before. Simon Greenleaf starts his "testimony" from the standpoint of a believer, and cannot be regarded as impartial in his analysis.

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true."

The text is riddled with similar assumptions that override objections from anyone looking for even-handedness with the evidence.

He makes for example the automatic assumption that Matthew was himself the author of his gospel, despite this being itself in doubt.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0196.asp

Greenleaf blithely states:

"He is generally allowed to have written first, of all the evangelists; but whether in the Hebrew or the Greek language, or in both, the learned are not agreed, nor is it material to our purpose to inquire; the genuineness of our present Greek gospel being sustained by satisfactory evidence."

On the date, he is equally convinced:

"The precise time when he wrote is also uncertain... varying from A.D. 37 to A.D. 64. The earlier date, however, is argued with greater force, from the improbability that the Christians would be left for several years without a general and authentic history of our Savior's ministry"

This simultaneous acceptance of the fact in dispute, and of a wild assumption of an "improbable", is what Greenleaf considers to be evidence.

The pattern is clear: first assume you know, then massage the "evidence" to fit.

As for your "four witnesses", they each saw (or heard about) something different. That wouldn't convict your man of theft, for sure.

This particular form of argumentation is of great comfort to those who believe, but of absolutely no value to anyone who doesn't. The very fact that it is regularly wheeled out as "evidence" adds fuel to their cause - as in, "is this the best you can do?"

Gnome. Where do you do your research?

Slavery in Rome was complex. It is estimated that 40% of the people were slaves. The majority of these were prisoners of war and the majority of these worked doing manual labour on farms, in mines, manning roman galleys, etc. Their lives were miserable and their treatment was generally cruel.

At the other extreme there were slaves who were doctors, teachers, administrators and craftsmen who were treated far better and in between the two groups the household slaves were better off than lower slaves.

In the end it was up to the master how a slave was treated. He could beat them, torture them, rape them and kill them if he chose. Suicide among slaves was high. If a slave killed his master then not only was the slave killed but also any other slave suspected of not rushing to his masters aid.

Not only did the owners own them they also owned their children (slaves were not allowed to marry so technically did not have wives).

Manumission - the freeing of a slave was at the slave owners discretion. He could get a lifetime of cooperative work from a slave by dangling the offer of freedom in front of him. Slaves were often freed but often only after years of service and even then did not have the same rights as full citizens and still had some ties to his master who could change his mind and make him a slave again if he wanted. When the slave died all his property was inherited by his previous master.

It was a Roman Law that if you could not pay your debt then you became the slave of the debtor and if you owed money to more than one person then you would be sliced into pieces and the pieces given to the debtors as payment - just a grisly form of capital punishment- hardly 'voluntary'. As the small independent farmers were unable to survive due to the low price of their commodities and the unpredictability of the crop they often wound up