NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently that's what a judge in Italy has required a Italian priest to do, after an atheist sued the priest for speaking out against this particular man's books.(or at least thats what i gathered from the article).

here is the article in full(courtesy of http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html)
Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest
From Richard Owen in Rome

AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.

Yesterday Gaetano Mautone, a judge in Viterbo, set a preliminary hearing for the end of this month and ordered Father Righi to appear. The judge had earlier refused to take up the case, but was overruled last month by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that Signor Cascioli had a reasonable case for his accusation that Father Righi was “abusing popular credulity”.

Signor Cascioli’s contention — echoed in numerous atheist books and internet sites — is that there was no reliable evidence that Jesus lived and died in 1st-century Palestine apart from the Gospel accounts, which Christians took on faith. There is therefore no basis for Christianity, he claims.

Signor Cascioli’s one-man campaign came to a head at a court hearing last April when he lodged his accusations of “abuse of popular credulity” and “impersonation”, both offences under the Italian penal code. He argued that all claims for the existence of Jesus from sources other than the Bible stem from authors who lived “after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

Signor Cascioli maintains that early Christian writers confused Jesus with John of Gamala, an anti-Roman Jewish insurgent in 1st-century Palestine. Church authorities were therefore guilty of “substitution of persons”.

The Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius mention a “Christus” or “Chrestus”, but were writing “well after the life of the purported Jesus” and were relying on hearsay.

Father Righi said there was overwhelming testimony to Christ’s existence in religious and secular texts. Millions had in any case believed in Christ as both man and Son of God for 2,000 years.

“If Cascioli does not see the sun in the sky at midday, he cannot sue me because I see it and he does not,” Father Righi said.

Signor Cascioli said that the Gospels themselves were full of inconsistencies and did not agree on the names of the 12 apostles. He said that he would withdraw his legal action if Father Righi came up with irrefutable proof of Christ’s existence by the end of the month.

The Vatican has so far declined to comment.

THE EVIDENCE

The Gospels say that Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary in Bethlehem, grew up in Nazareth, preached and performed miracles in Galilee and died on the Cross in Jerusalem

In his Antiquities of the Jews at the end of the 1st century, Josephus, the Jewish historian, refers to Jesus as “a wise man, a doer of wonderful works” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles”

Muslims believe Jesus was a great prophet. Many Jewish theologians regard Jesus as an itinerant rabbi who popularised many of the beliefs of liberal Jews. Neither Muslims nor Jews believe he was the Messiah and Son of God

Tacitus, the Roman historian who lived from 55 to 120, mentions “Christus” in his Annals. In about 120 Suetonius, author of The Lives of the Caesars, says: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, Emperor Claudius expelled them from Rome.”
-------------

Ok, does it make sense that one would have to prove one's faith? Thats like asking a blind man to prove that gass is green and the sky is blue(generically speaking, of course). I think that this case should be thrown out immediatly, on the basis that it is over two different beliefs, that with the right evidence, could make either side look right.

Chrestus was a popular name at the time, not a misspelling of "Christ". Furthermore, Tactius lived after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, about a generation afterwards at that.

The Josephus passage has been shown to be a forgery.

There is no contemporary writings about Jesus, there is no evidence independant of the bible that he ever existed.

I'm not entirely sure what Italian law is making this happen, but it doesn't seem like most governments ban history books based on conjecture, so I really don't see what actually proving said being would have to do with legality.

I don't think that people can hide behind faith on the issue of Jesus, however, because unlike God Jesus would theoretically leave evidence.

Chrestus was a popular name at the time, not a misspelling of "Christ". Furthermore, Tactius lived after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, about a generation afterwards at that.

There is no contemporary writings about Jesus, there is no evidence independant of the bible that he ever existed.


Well, with all due respect, I'm not saying we should try to prove he existed or whatever. What I am saying is that this court case is a waste of time, and in turn will only hurt people. If one side or the other can validly prove their point, then those of the opposite beleif will be left with their beleifs meaning nothing.

Well, with all due respect, I'm not saying we should try to prove he existed or whatever. What I am saying is that this court case is a waste of time, and in turn will only people. If one side or the other can validly prove their point, then those of the opposite beleif will be left with their beleifs meaning nothing.
Well, if one side is unable to prove that Jesus existed then that doesn't mean necessarily that he didn't, it just means that they are incapable of proving he did.

I don't get the point of the court case at all though.

What the hell does “abusing popular credulity”. mean?

If the situation is, as it is being presented... then the action is not only reasonable, but also logical... and, ultimately, very fair.

"AN ITALIAN judge has ordered a priest to appear in court this month to prove that Jesus Christ existed.

The case against Father Enrico Righi has been brought in the town of Viterbo, north of Rome, by Luigi Cascioli, a retired agronomist who once studied for the priesthood but later became a militant atheist.

Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence".

The Priest denounced the Atheist in print... he basically called him a liar, it would seem.

Thus - the judge is seeing that accusation verified.

If the Atheist IS wrong (and the denunciation is fair), then the priest shall be able to prove that Jesus existed - and the judge can find in favour of the priest.

If the Atheist cannot be proved wrong, then the denunciation is unfair, and the judge will find in favour of the Atheist.

seems like a fun case

From my understanding, there has never been a debate between anyone IF Jesus existed, but rather WHAT Jesus was. Because there is concrete evidence in historical texts about Jesus, besides the bible, (i.e. the koran). Instead the debate is if Jesus was really the Son of God like he said.

From my understanding, there has never been a debate between anyone IF Jesus existed, but rather WHAT Jesus was. Because there is concrete evidence in historical texts about Jesus, besides the bible, (i.e. the koran). Instead the debate is if Jesus was really the Son of God like he said.

Then, my friend... your 'understanding' is rather flawed.

Within the last few weeks, the very subject in question has had a thread on this very forum devoted to it.

Indeed - since there is NO concrete evidence, no independent contemporary evidence at all..... the only real surprise is that MORE people have yet to question this 'fact'.

From my understanding, there has never been a debate between anyone IF Jesus existed, but rather WHAT Jesus was. Because there is concrete evidence in historical texts about Jesus, besides the bible, (i.e. the koran). Instead the debate is if Jesus was really the Son of God like he said.


A book based on the Bible and Torah and their traditions of recording oral histories? Concrete evidence? Perhaps not

From my understanding, there has never been a debate between anyone IF Jesus existed, but rather WHAT Jesus was. Because there is concrete evidence in historical texts about Jesus, besides the bible, (i.e. the koran). Instead the debate is if Jesus was really the Son of God like he said.
There are a small but growing number of historians who don't consider Jesus to have existed at all due to insufficient evidence of his existence. Well, a complete lack of evidence. The problem is that before nobody ever thought to question it. The Koran was written a couple hundred years after the fact, it's not a historical document when it comes to detailing the life of Jesus.

Ok, does it make sense that one would have to prove one's faith? Thats like asking a blind man to prove that gass is green and the sky is blue(generically speaking, of course). I think that this case should be thrown out immediatly, on the basis that it is over two different beliefs, that with the right evidence, could make either side look right.
The case is a matter of libel the priest wrote a newsletter and publically denounced the author of a book. I would have to read what he wrote to form my own opinion on the value of the case. If indeed there was an attack on the author and his book claiming he was intentionally missleading his readers. The priest would have to establish that there is evidence for the existance of christ, as the book written by the man he denounced claims no evidence exists. Obviously before you can truthfully claim he is lieing you need to at least establish that there is evidence.

But that is all speculative and depends on what the priest wrote.

If the situation is, as it is being presented... then the action is not only reasonable, but also logical... and, ultimately, very fair.



The Priest denounced the Atheist in print... he basically called him a liar, it would seem.

Thus - the judge is seeing that accusation verified.

If the Atheist IS wrong (and the denunciation is fair), then the priest shall be able to prove that Jesus existed - and the judge can find in favour of the priest.

If the Atheist cannot be proved wrong, then the denunciation is unfair, and the judge will find in favour of the Atheist.

While this would make sense if the case was about the denunciation, the article seems to indicate that the atheist is accusing the priest of lying about Jesus rather than of slandering the specific atheist. That's what I don't get. It would make sense to charge the priest with lying about and insulting the atheist, but charging him with lying to the public seems to ignore the fact that history is always argued about.

Chrestus was a popular name at the time, not a misspelling of "Christ". Furthermore, Tactius lived after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, about a generation afterwards at that.

The Josephus passage has been shown to be a forgery.

There is no contemporary writings about Jesus, there is no evidence independant of the bible that he ever existed.

This site proivdes a fairly good summary of the extra-biblical evidence that a person called Jesus existed in the timeframe of the Bible.
He is mentioned by Josephus, The Talmud, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus and Pliny the Younger.
It has been said that there is more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed. Are you going to refute his existence?

The problem is that before nobody ever thought to question it.

Interestingly, I have a citation here for The New Jesus Myth and its Ethical Value, International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Oct., 1911), pp. 19-39.

And the book The Christ Myth (pub. 1910) figures largely in it.

This site proivdes a fairly good summary of the extra-biblical evidence that a person called Jesus existed in the timeframe of the Bible.
He is mentioned by Josephus, The Talmud, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus and Pliny the Younger.
It has been said that there is more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed. Are you going to refute his existence?

What site?

It has been said that there is more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed. Are you going to refute his existence?

Indeed (bare in mind I am not an Ancient History scholar), there is little contemporary evidence for many ancient people who's existence is never challenged.

To be honest, I'd be very surprised if there was a plethora of evidence for a carpenter from out in the sticks of a peripheral Roman province, who was executed for sedition or what ever.

I don't know. The case, as written by the article seems to imply that the atheist is accusing over some comments that the priest put in writing, but it doesn't go into much detail over that.

Extra biblical evidence of Jesus so far has proven to be unreliable and, in some cases, fake. The poster who said there's more evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar is sadly misinformed.

There might have been some guy, or guys, on which the character of Jesus was based, just in the same way that there could have been a guy on which Robin Hood or King Arthur were based. That doesn't mean he did everything they say he did or that he was who they say he was.

This case should be fun to watch, though. That is, if the priest shows up.

This case should be fun to watch, though. That is, if the priest shows up.

Though not as fun as this (http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy_regions/liguria_emilia_romagna/2005/current-affairs/teacher-sues-rail-company-for-ruining-his-life/) case. Also passing through the Italian courts at the moment.


Though maybe that's just me.

Though not as fun as this (http://www.italymag.co.uk/italy_regions/liguria_emilia_romagna/2005/current-affairs/teacher-sues-rail-company-for-ruining-his-life/) case. Also passing through the Italian courts at the moment.

But that's a stab at the spirit of Italy itself! :eek:
First there will be trains on time, then dreadful weather, and to finish it off it will be tea at five.

Ok, does it make sense that one would have to prove one's faith?
When the faith makes historical, factual, claims, then yes, it absolutely makes sense. The events either happened or they didn't - there is either evidence for them or there isn't. "Faith" cannot change the reality, any more than psychosis or wishful thinking can.

Thats like asking a blind man to prove that gass is green and the sky is blue(generically speaking, of course).
A blind man - good analogy :) But the underlying issue in this case is that the "blind man" is denouncing someone else for making such claims, when, to use the analogy, he is blind and therefore incapable of knowing whether or not the claims are true.

I think that this case should be thrown out immediatly, on the basis that it is over two different beliefs, that with the right evidence, could make either side look right.
The purpose of a court of law is not to determines what looks right, but what is right, and I don't think that grounds for claiming that Jesus existed can stand up to the legal rules of evidence.

It's wonderful that, after 2000 years, such a case has come to court. I hope nobody gives in to pressure not to offend the Christian establishment.

This site proivdes a fairly good summary of the extra-biblical evidence that a person called Jesus existed in the timeframe of the Bible.
He is mentioned by Josephus, The Talmud, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus and Pliny the Younger.
It has been said that there is more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed. Are you going to refute his existence?
He is not mentioned by Josephus, that is a well-known forgery created much later on.
Tactius's supposed mention was already discussed. Tactius was born a generation after Jesus' supposed existence and wrote about Chrestus, not Christ, not Jesus. Chrestus was a popular name at the time.
If I recall, Suetonius and Thallus mentioned the followers of a man that the followers claimed was executed under Pilate, not a direct refrence to the man himself. Pliny the younger was also around much later than Jesus' supposed existence.

Furthermore, in the trial in question, the burden of proof is on the priest to prove that Jesus existed, not on the author to prove he didn't exist.

To claim that there are more external refrences of Jesus' existence than Caesar's is either deceitful, naive or stupid.

But that's a stab at the spirit of Italy itself! :eek:
First there will be trains on time, then dreadful weather, and to finish it off it will be tea at five.

Well, we all know what happened the last time trains ran on time in Italy...

Interestingly, I have a citation here for The New Jesus Myth and its Ethical Value, International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Oct., 1911), pp. 19-39.

And the book The Christ Myth (pub. 1910) figures largely in it.
Before = Much earlier on in the past 2,000 years, not the past hundred or so.

If I see the sun in the sky at midday and he does not, he cannot sue me for it.
---This is correct, but this is not what happened.

If I do NOT see the sun in the sky at midday, and I write a book about its absence, you cannot DEFAME me for publishing that experience.
The only defense to that would be to prove that your statements are the truth.
Since religion is automatically based on faith and inherently literally unprovable, the judge was being sarcastic and merely letting opposing counsel know they had lost.

Before = Much earlier on in the past 2,000 years, not the past hundred or so.

Well we seem to be using the language differently.

But I mentioned it, since I had the source to hand. However, I'm sure that it has been thought of well before then though.

To be honest, I'd be very surprised if there was a plethora of evidence for a carpenter from out in the sticks of a peripheral Roman province, who was executed for sedition or what ever.
This is a man who is said to have travelled the countryside, preaching and spreading his gospel. There were historians about, philosophers et c who would have heard news of such a man and come to see him and write about him. There were a number of censuses preformed during his time (not on the biblical timescale though, they got a number of details wrong there) and at the very least, an execution order would have been found. The romans kept track of who they executed, you know, and these records survive.

Well, with all due respect, I'm not saying we should try to prove he existed or whatever. What I am saying is that this court case is a waste of time, and in turn will only hurt people. If one side or the other can validly prove their point, then those of the opposite beleif will be left with their beleifs meaning nothing.
That shouldn't be too much of a problem for the atheist, since (I hope) his beliefs are not articles of faith, but conclusions based on available evidence. When new evidence comes to light, conclusions change. That's the way rational thinking works.

As for the priest's position, his beliefs have been the root cause of vast amounts of hurt, suffering, war, genocide and personal agony over many centuries. It's time that they, and all faith-based belief, were shown up for what they are.

Well we seem to be using the language differently.

But I mentioned it, since I had the source to hand. However, I'm sure that it has been thought of well before then though.
Well, from the time christianity came to be the official religion of the roman empire people stopped doubting that the man existed. People forged historical documents to support their claims that he did, for quite some time the question was probably left alone at least out of fear of persecution for even thinking, let alone publishing a work on the subject. It has only been in the realtively recent past that people have had the freedom to actually examine the evidence and a growing number of historians are realizing that there is no independant, contemporary evidence the man existed at all.

athiests:rolleyes:

I have a question... straight up, no bs.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.

If I see the sun in the sky at midday and he does not, he cannot sue me for it.
---This is correct, but this is not what happened.

If I do NOT see the sun in the sky at midday, and I write a book about its absence, you cannot DEFAME me for publishing that experience.
The only defense to that would be to prove that your statements are the truth.
Since religion is automatically based on faith and inherently literally unprovable, the judge was being sarcastic and merely letting opposing counsel know they had lost.
Except that in this case, the priest made the statement that Jesus did exist and defamed the man in such a way. This is an issue of history, not an issue of faith. I don't think the judge was being sarcastic.

athiests:rolleyes:

I have a question... straight up, no bs.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.
I'm not an atheist.

And I celebrate present-day and the solstice, not christmas.

This is a man who is said to have travelled the countryside, preaching and spreading his gospel.

I doubt a modern state such as the US has the capability to keep track of all wandering hick bible bashers, never mind an empire that existed millennia ago.

There were historians about, philosophers et c who would have heard news of such a man and come to see him and write about him.

Why? There were a great deal on "messiahs" (self proclaimed and otherwise) around at the time. I see nothing particuarly special about Jesus which would mean he would attract scribes that would write down his existence.

There were a number of censuses preformed during his time (not on the biblical timescale though, they got a number of details wrong there) and at the very least, an execution order would have been found. The romans kept track of who they executed, you know, and these records survive.

That seems quite an assumption, that all records survive.

Not that any of this means that Jesus did exist, just I don't find any of it convincing that Jesus didn't exist.

Though this whole debate seems rather silly to me. Though that is probably due to my particular agnostic beliefs. It isn't that I believe or disbelieve in the existence of God/Jesus Christ/The Invisible Pink Unicorn, just I don't care if they exist or not.

athiests:rolleyes:

I have a question... straight up, no bs.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.

I don't.

How is this relevant to the topic?

This is a man who is said to have travelled the countryside, preaching and spreading his gospel. There were historians about, philosophers et c who would have heard news of such a man and come to see him and write about him. There were a number of censuses preformed during his time (not on the biblical timescale though, they got a number of details wrong there) and at the very least, an execution order would have been found. The romans kept track of who they executed, you know, and these records survive.
I don't know, there were a lot of traveling preachers back then, some wackier than others, so that by itself may not have brought much attention. One thing we know is that Romans reserved crucifiction for the worst kind of criminal, those seditious against Rome or the Emperor, and clearly Jesus teachings by itself were not that. There are records, however, of a Zealot leader being crucified around the times of Jesus.

Perhaps it was a combination of freedom fighter-wacky preacher that started going from mouth to mouth and it just grew and grew.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.

Kind of. Not that simple. As said above, I'm agnostic due to apathy with the whole god thing. And if I had the choice, I wouldn't celebrate Christmas, but coming from a very Catholic background, my whole family as well as a near total proportion of my friends do. So I am forced to play along.

There are records, however, of a Zealot leader being crucified around the times of Jesus.


Just one? From my understanding of the period the Romans were about as well liked in Judea as the US military is in Iraq.

I don't.

How is this relevant to the topic?


because I know alot of atheist who do so, because they want gifts.

I frown upon it

athiests:rolleyes:

I have a question... straight up, no bs.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.
I don't, but I also have a question. What does the modern concept of Christmas have to do with the birth of Christ anymore? I know practicers of Islam and Hindi religions who celebrate Christmas anyway just because it's a neat thing to do. Heck! I even celebrated Diwali and Eid this year for pretty much the same reason.

I don't know, there were a lot of traveling preachers back then, some wackier than others, so that by itself may not have brought much attention. One thing we know is that Romans reserved crucifiction for the worst kind of criminal, those seditious against Rome or the Emperor, and clearly Jesus teachings by itself were not that. There are records, however, of a Zealot leader being crucified around the times of Jesus.

Perhaps it was a combination of freedom fighter-wacky preacher that started going from mouth to mouth and it just grew and grew.
Uh... did you read the bible? Who was executed next to Jesus? A theif?
Jesus was trying to cause unrest, he overturned tables in the temple, (probably also destruction of property in there too) that would have been enough of a crime to warrant execution.

And Historians wrote about many other wandering preachers, why was this one completely ignored?

Kind of. Not that simple. As said above, I'm agnostic due to apathy with the whole god thing. And if I had the choice, I wouldn't celebrate Christmas, but coming from a very Catholic background, my whole family as well as a near total proportion of my friends do. So I am forced to play along.


forced to play along?

If I was in a family full of aetheists and almost all of my friends were too, I would celebrate it none the less.

I doubt a modern state such as the US has the capability to keep track of all wandering hick bible bashers, never mind an empire that existed millennia ago.
Yet a number of them were written about.

Why? There were a great deal on "messiahs" (self proclaimed and otherwise) around at the time. I see nothing particuarly special about Jesus which would mean he would attract scribes that would write down his existence.
I see, so he's special enough to be a saviour and the son of god, but not special enough to have attracted attention of people who would put him in the history books.

That seems quite an assumption, that all records survive.
The records of everyone Pilate executed survived.

Not that any of this means that Jesus did exist, just I don't find any of it convincing that Jesus didn't exist.
I'm not saying for sure he didn't exist either. I'm just saying that there's absolutley no evidence he did.

Though this whole debate seems rather silly to me. Though that is probably due to my particular agnostic beliefs. It isn't that I believe or disbelieve in the existence of God/Jesus Christ/The Invisible Pink Unicorn, just I don't care if they exist or not.
I'm agnostic too. Doesn't mean I appreciate people proclaiming that their godmen were historical figures when they probably weren't.

athiests:rolleyes:

I have a question... straight up, no bs.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.

Not here. I work sixteen hours a day over the Christmas period.

Well, from the time christianity came to be the official religion of the roman empire people stopped doubting that the man existed.

Because after all, the Roman Empire is the only place that matters when looking at this period :rolleyes:

People forged historical documents to support their claims that he did, for quite some time the question was probably left alone at least out of fear of persecution for even thinking, let alone publishing a work on the subject.

Yet we have plenty of evidence that widely held heterodox beliefs did exist during this period. And really it was only in the early modern period that the church really went at it to root out dissenting views. Replacing local superstition and folk lore with church sanctioned teachings.

and a growing number of historians are realizing that there is no independant, contemporary evidence the man existed at all.

This has been long known about now. There are many ancient personages where no independent, contemporary evidence exists.

because I know alot of atheist who do so, because they want gifts.

I frown upon it

Maybe they do. But the topic of this thread is not "Atheists want gifts", but the story of a judge in Italy who demands proof for the existance of a person called Jesus.

forced to play along?

If I was in a family full of aetheists and almost all of my friends were too, I would celebrate it none the less.
Have you ever had a family member storm out of the house because you let them know you didn't believe in god and Jesus and the like? Is that something you'd want to deal with once a year in what's already a stressful time or is it something you would rather sweep under the rug and ignore to make your family happy?

Atheists generally don't care what religions other people celebrate. Hell, they'll probably still buy you presents out of respect for your religion.

forced to play along?

If I was in a family full of aetheists and almost all of my friends were too, I would celebrate it none the less.

Not quite the same as being the moaning, killjoy git in the corner though is it?

In your case, celebrating Christmas would be regarded as a small eccentricity, similar to me celebrating festivus (NB: Seinfeld is not widely known about or watched here).

There is a social expectation in my case to play along, to go through the motions. The same cannot be said for the case you put forward.

Yet we have plenty of evidence that widely held heterodox beliefs did exist during this period. And really it was only in the early modern period that the church really went at it to root out dissenting views. Replacing local superstition and folk lore with church sanctioned teachings.
So the gnostics weren't heavily persecuted in the fourth century CE?

This has been long known about now. There are many ancient personages where no independent, contemporary evidence exists.
Name some, please.

*smacks hand against forhead*
Aw jeez, not this shit again!

Uh... did you read the bible? Who was executed next to Jesus? A theif?
That's the point, that the bible is not that reliable. It shouldn't be taken as a factually correct account of everything that happened.
We know that Romans carried out crucifictions because there are accounts of the practice, and we also know that it was reserved as the worst kind of punishment because there are surviving pieces of laws and descriptions of trials.

That the Romans had made an exception just for this one guy seems unlikely.

Jesus was trying to cause unrest, he overturned tables in the temple, (probably also destruction of property in there too) that would have been enough of a crime to warrant execution.
Nah, if the Romans had done that for every guy who was mildly disruptive there would have ran out of people quickly. Perhaps some flagelation and that's it, or being enslaved.

And Historians wrote about many other wandering preachers, why was this one completely ignored?
No, there are accounts that there were lots of wandering preachers. Sort of like how there are a lot of televangelists today, but they just spoke of them like saying "oh, it was a rainy year" but without going into detail of just how many, who they were and what they preached about. If that were the case there would be no problem in identifying Jesus.

That also presents the possibility that the Jesus we get now is a combination of several of the more colourful preachers plus a dose of imagination.

Who gives a rat's ass whether Jesus existed or not?

Yet a number of them were written about.

And this proves what?

Some where written about. Some weren't. You asserted that simply going around preaching automatically suggest that one would be written about. But since these sorts of people were ten a penny, it is unrealistic to expect them all to be recorded.

I see, so he's special enough to be a saviour and the son of god, but not special enough to have attracted attention of people who would put him in the history books.

The idea that he was the son of God is not one that I hold.

The records of everyone Pilate executed survived.

Really? Evidence?

I'm agnostic too. Doesn't mean I appreciate people proclaiming that their godmen were historical figures when they probably weren't.

Meh, if it gives them a small fuzzy feeling inside and doesn't intrude on my ability to whatever the hell I want, I see no reason to complain. Especially in a case like this where the chances of critical evidence coming to light approach nil.

That's the point, that the bible is not that reliable. It shouldn't be taken as a factually correct account of everything that happened.
We know that Romans carried out crucifictions because there are accounts of the practice, and we also know that it was reserved as the worst kind of punishment because there are surviving pieces of laws and descriptions of trials.

That the Romans had made an exception just for this one guy seems unlikely.


Nah, if the Romans had done that for every guy who was mildly disruptive there would have ran out of people quickly. Perhaps some flagelation and that's it, or being enslaved.
I wasn't aware that the bible got that many important details wrong. This seems to support the idea that curcifixion was used on Jesus in the bible to imitate the earlier pagan godmen though. Mitrhras was crucified on a hill, even next to two thieves, one of whom converted and the other didn't. The fact that the romans wouldn't have executed Jesus seems to me to strenghthen the copying of earlier myths into a new setting rather than the appearance of an actual man who claimed and did all that is attributed to Jesus. Interesting.

No, there are accounts that there were lots of wandering preachers. Sort of like how there are a lot of televangelists today, but they just spoke of them like saying "oh, it was a rainy year" but without going into detail of just how many, who they were and what they preached about. If that were the case there would be no problem in identifying Jesus.

That also presents the possibility that the Jesus we get now is a combination of several of the more colourful preachers plus a dose of imagination.
Or perhaps the preachers combined with earlier mythologies. They were abundant due to the roman occupation.

Who gives a rat's ass whether Jesus existed or not?

I do, because it's irritating when people blindly place their faith in a religion where the founder can't even be proven to have existed. It's not logical.

Atheists generally don't care what religions other people celebrate. Hell, they'll probably still buy you presents out of respect for your religion.


Atheists generally dont care what religions other people celebrate?
So wy is it that every year come christmas time, theres always aetheist rallying to stop a christmas tree from being put up in the center of a town.

Meh, if it gives them a small fuzzy feeling inside and doesn't intrude on my ability to whatever the hell I want, I see no reason to complain. Especially in a case like this where the chances of critical evidence coming to light approach nil.
The problem is that they become persistant and annoying in their conversion attempts based on this fact of the existence of a man for which there is no evidence.
I don't care one way or another whether he really did exist, all I know is that there is no evidence, no proof that he actually did and that a lot of people act like absolute jerks to anyone who points this out.

I do, because it's irritating when people blindly place their faith in a religion where the founder can't even be proven to have existed. It's not logical.
If it's logic you're after, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. This is the dude who supposedly was gifted with the mutant ability to multiply food, right?

Where's the logic in that shit?

So the gnostics weren't heavily persecuted in the fourth century CE?

I never suggested otherwise. Just questioning your claim that due to prevailing opinion and state prosecution, there was no heterodox beliefs regarding Jesus.

I can prove Jesus existed: he's still around, watering the plants at my old high school.



Jokes aside: The bible is admitted to be something that should not be taken literally. So trying to prove something out of it is usually an exercise in futility. Using an text that not only requires you to take hundreds of articles on faith alone is usually not the best way to go around trying to prove a fact. I'm just left wondering why so many people know the bible is fictionalized yet still believe it as if every word were true.


A side point:
So I was talking with my parents about a friend, and let them know she was wiccan. My mom, without thinking goes "ewww". That led to a discussion where my parents basically called every religion except christianity evil. My response was that christianity was pretty much pagan (holidays, symbols, miracles as well, etc. . . . all taken from the pagans). They didn't believe me. I wish some people would wake up and do some back history on their own damn religion. For being raised religious they don't know a whole lot about the history of it.

There is a social expectation in my case to play along, to go through the motions. The same cannot be said for the case you put forward.



I suppose.
Your right, both situations are quite different.

*smacks hand against forhead*
Aw jeez, not this shit again!

Lost the picture?

What the hell does “abusing popular credulity”. mean?


I have to agree, what the heck does abusing popular credulity mean? The italian goverment is just being dumb.

Atheists generally dont care what religions other people celebrate?
So wy is it that every year come christmas time, theres always aetheist rallying to stop a christmas tree from being put up in the center of a town.
Because it's public property, thus owned by all and it is putting up something that reflects beliefs they do not hold. Would you like it if they used your money to put up a shrine to Isis?
Put the tree up in your own home, they won't give a flying fuck then.

That also presents the possibility that the Jesus we get now is a combination of several of the more colourful preachers plus a dose of imagination.

Which to be honest, is closer to what I think is the case. Then the idea he existed as a whole person or who was completly made up...


Or perhaps the preachers combined with earlier mythologies. They were abundant due to the roman occupation.

...Tempered with a little bit of that.

I have to agree, what the heck does abusing popular credulity mean? The italian goverment is just being dumb.
The italian government is being dumb because they used a phrase you don't understand?

because I know alot of atheist who do so, because they want gifts.
I know a lot of Christians who celebrate it mainly for the gifts, too.

I also know a lot of people of different faiths and none who celebrate it because it is a tradtional holiday of goodwill and family gathering - a holiday with pre-dates Christianity. Whether it's called Christmas, or Yuletide, or Saturnalia, or Winter Solstace, is neither here nor there - "Christmas" just happens to be the usual word at the moment.

And it has nothing to do with this thread - which is about proof of the existence of Jesus. Even if Jesus existed, December 25th was almost certainly not his birthday.

The italian government is being dumb because they used a phrase you don't understand?
Confusing the Italian judiciary with the Italian government is pretty dumb, too.

If it's logic you're after, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. This is the dude who supposedly was gifted with the mutant ability to multiply food, right?

Where's the logic in that shit?

Strangely enough, there was a TV programme on the other night where two Scotsmen did just that.

They were quite funny, though I don't think I'd worship them.

Confusing the Italian judiciary with the Italian government is pretty dumb, too.
Yeah, that too. (damnit, I miss that little popup of all the emoticons... insert embarassed smiley here)

I do, because it's irritating when people blindly place their faith in a religion where the founder can't even be proven to have existed. It's not logical.

Isn't that what all religions do?

Isn't that what all religions do?
Not really, some religions don't have founders, many don't care whether the founder really existed, the only religions where I can think of it mattering are the abrahamic ones. And even then I've never heard a jewish person go on about how important the existence of men mentioned in their texts are.

Even if Jesus existed, December 25th was almost certainly not his birthday.

Which even the church (well the Catholic one), knows. It is simply when his birth is celebrated. Kind how in Britain, the Queen celebrates her birthday in the summer, even though she was born in winter.

because I know alot of atheist who do so, because they want gifts.

So then your beef is with being propertorial rather then with atheism.

Because it's public property, thus owned by all and it is putting up something that reflects beliefs they do not hold. Would you like it if they used your money to put up a shrine to Isis?
Put the tree up in your own home, they won't give a flying fuck then.


Normally there are donations for such an event.

Also why should the majority of the population not be able to express its releigious beliefs because a few people who dont agree with it. These few people are almost always aetheist. people of other faiths do not complain. just aetheists.

Not really, some religions don't have founders, many don't care whether the founder really existed, the only religions where I can think of it mattering are the abrahamic ones. And even then I've never heard a jewish person go on about how important the existence of men mentioned in their texts are.

Sorry, misread what LeClairia wrote.

saw founder as God, rather then as an earthly prophet promising divine truth.

Normally there are donations for such an event.

Also why should the majority of the population not be able to express its releigious beliefs because a few people who dont agree with it. These few people are almost always aetheist. people of other faiths do not complain. just aetheists.

I try not to be a spelling nazi since I'm terrible at spelling. But it is Atheist.

Though in regard to what you wrote. Around here it seems to be a nervous pen pushing beaurocrat scared they might offend someone.

Sorry, misread what LeClairia wrote.

saw founder as God, rather then as an earthly prophet promising divine truth.
Ah, I gotcha.

But then if you look at buddhism, there aren't any gods. I'm sure a number of animistic religions aren't concerned with proving that everything has a spirit et c.

Normally there are donations for such an event.

Also why should the majority of the population not be able to express its releigious beliefs because a few people who dont agree with it. These few people are almost always aetheist. people of other faiths do not complain. just aetheists.
The majority of the population can express their religious beliefs. That's why they have their own homes, churches, other private property (hell, go to the mall or any store leading up to christmas if you want to see christmas trees) where they can express their religious beliefs to their heart's content. It doesn't have to be on city property. In fact, it doesn't seem fair to people who don't share in those religious beliefs.

Unless you're going to allow atheists to put a giant curtain around the giant chrstmas tree...?

So then your beef is with being propertorial rather then with atheism.

My views are, if your going to be an athesidt, then why contradict yourself by celecrating a religious holiday. dont be "wishywashy". have your views and stick with them. I find those kind of people hypocritical

My views are, if your going to be an athesidt, then why contradict yourself by celecrating a religious holiday. dont be "wishywashy". have your views and stick with them. I find those kind of people hypocritical
Because most atheists (hell most christians) don't celebrate it as a religious holiday. They celebrate it as a commercial holiday.
Also, if you were going to be free of hypocricy, you'd celebrate christmas without all the pagan rituals. No christmas tree, no gift giving et c.

But then if you look at buddhism, there aren't any gods.

But then we get into the debate over wether Buddhism is a religion or not ;)

(For my part I have no idea, having only a pasing knowledge of Buddhism, and seeing the the debate as semantics of the worst sort.)

I'm sure a number of animistic religions aren't concerned with proving that everything has a spirit et c.

Concerned with proving no.


My views are, if your going to be an athesidt, then why contradict yourself by celecrating a religious holiday. dont be "wishywashy". have your views and stick with them. I find those kind of people hypocritical

I feel you have missed a memo. Christmas is no longer primarily a religious festival, but a celebration of consumerism, excess, waste and tackiness.

The majority of the population can express their religious beliefs. That's why they have their own homes, churches, other private property (hell, go to the mall or any store leading up to christmas if you want to see christmas trees) where they can express their religious beliefs to their heart's content. It doesn't have to be on city property. In fact, it doesn't seem fair to people who don't share in those religious beliefs.

Unless you're going to allow atheists to put a giant curtain around the giant chrstmas tree...?


funny, especially since you said this before;

"Originally Posted by Dakini
Atheists generally don't care what religions other people celebrate. Hell, they'll probably still buy you presents out of respect for your religion"




and to Anarchic Conceptions reply

"I try not to be a spelling nazi since I'm terrible at spelling. But it is Atheist."

Yeah, Im terrible at spelling. If you look back at all my posts you will see I misspelled it at least three times

funny, especially since you said this before;

"Originally Posted by Dakini
Atheists generally don't care what religions other people celebrate. Hell, they'll probably still buy you presents out of respect for your religion"
There's a difference between celebrating your religon and shoving it in everyone's faces.

f
Yeah, Im terrible at spelling. If you look back at all my posts you will see I misspelled it at least three times

Well, I wouldn't have mentioned it. But you mispelled it the same way continually, so wasn't sure if it was just a late night or not knowing how it was spellled :)

There's a difference between celebrating your religon and shoving it in everyone's faces.


Whatever dakini, you go on and enjoy your life, die, then burn in hell for not believing.


Yes, I used the religious burn in hell card... I wasnt, but you had to make the stupid comment first.

goodnight everybody

Whatever dakini, you go on and enjoy your life, die, then burn in hell for not believing.


Yes, I used the religious burn in hell card... I wasnt, but you had to make the stupid comment first.

goodnight everybody

What a shinning example we have here. Comes in and makes a post unrelated to the topic and then says someone will burn in hell. I guess this is the type of poster we should be getting accustomed to. :rolleyes:

Im not one to usually do that, but she was pissing me off

Whatever dakini, you go on and enjoy your life, die, then burn in hell for not believing.


Yes, I used the religious burn in hell card... I wasnt, but you had to make the stupid comment first.

goodnight everybody
Oh, well, isn't this sweet of you. First you make a fuss about not being able to shove your religion down the throats of non-believers and then you condemn me to hell. Well, I'll probably see you there Mr. "I don't listen to my own god's commandments about how it's not my place to judge people" and waht stupid comment did I make? That you seem to think you have the right to use public property as a forum for promoting your religious beliefs over the beliefs of others?

Im not one to usually do that, but she was pissing me off

Aww but whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Your not a LaVey Satanist in disguise are you? :rolleyes:

Im not one to usually do that, but she was pissing me off
Oh, what an excuse.

"I only hit that guy because he was asking for it. He pissed me off."

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy.

Aww but whatever happened to turning the other cheek? Your not a LaVey Satanist in disguise are you? :rolleyes:

Better then a scientologist.

Better then a scientologist.

Shh Tom Cruise is watching everything you do.....

There is no contemporary writings about Jesus, there is no evidence independant of the bible that he ever existed.

What about the Koran?

Forget the whole topic. The fact of the matter is we should all be ashamed. sins are not to be categorized from worst to least or least to worst. All sins are bad int he eyes of God, Equally. We are just as guilty as the italian judge because if my memory serves me correctly judging is a sin. Lying, coventing, dishonoring parents, dis-honoring the sabath, and taking the lords name in vain are just a miniscule number of names of the sins that most of us commit every day. Not to menition we do not thank God enough and we do not pray enough period. We need to all become more aware of our society and become a sinnign light for God. Not sin.:D

What about the Koran?
Not contemporary. Not very factual either.

Not contemporary. Not very factual either.

Yeah I meant to take the contemporary out. :headbang:

Just pointing out that the Bible isn't the only text that mentions Jesus.


mattr0cka

"Sono pazzi questi Romani"

I figured I'd post that (an Italian parody of the official title of the Roman Empire, "Senatus Populusque Romae") given that this case (and the one that's suing the train company) are just what I'd expect out of us Italians. What can I say other than we're nuts?

(Oh, and to the person who talked about the trains being on time in Italy- if that were to happen, it'd be a sign of the Apocalypse ;) )

I wasn't aware that the bible got that many important details wrong. This seems to support the idea that curcifixion was used on Jesus in the bible to imitate the earlier pagan godmen though. Mitrhras was crucified on a hill, even next to two thieves, one of whom converted and the other didn't. The fact that the romans wouldn't have executed Jesus seems to me to strenghthen the copying of earlier myths into a new setting rather than the appearance of an actual man who claimed and did all that is attributed to Jesus. Interesting.

There are some scholars who are even questioning the Barabbas story. The records on Pontus Pilate don't show a "Passover tradition" like the Bible does, and reflect a Pilate who was extremely disliked by the Jews, bringing further into question why Pilate would even respect Jewish traditions. More radical views claim that "Barabbas" is actually Jesus himself (I believe the word means "the Father" or "the Son"- not entirely sure).

What about the Koran?
That was writen several hundred years after the alleged fact. Haven't you been paying attention to the thread?

Yeah I meant to take the contemporary out. :headbang:

Just pointing out that the Bible isn't the only text that mentions Jesus.


mattr0cka
The Koran doesn't prove Jesus' existence though.

What about the Koran?That stupid Judge case... is not only about Christianity.. but also about the Jews, Muslims, Budhidts, Induists , Shintoists, etc, etc, etc...

That judge's logic is that we should all become Scientologists, Raelists, Atheists... or even Mormons.. :rolleyes:

That was writen several hundred years after the alleged fact. I dont care when it was written.. If you care It is your problem.. not mine.

Better then a scientologist.Daikini is going to say that Scientology are better than The JEWS, MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, BUDHISTS, etc...

only because the Scientology Founder did not die thousands of years ago.

..
..
*edit*
DISCLAIMER ...JUST IF SOME POSTERS DO NOT GET IT...
WHEN I SAID "DAIKINI IS GOING TO SAY.."

IT DOES NOT MEAN SHE HAS LITERALLY SAID THAT.. FOR MORE DETAIL GO TO THIS LINK
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10205557&posted=1#post10205557
AND CHECK POST #4

Daikini is going to say that Scientology are better than The JEWS, MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, BUDHISTS, etc...

only because she can prove their "prophet" exist. :rolleyes:

uhh ocean I'd say you should stop putting words in someone elses mouth and take a step back.

That stupid Judge case... is not only about Christianity.. but also about the Jews, Muslims, Budhidts, Induists , Shintoists, etc, etc, etc...

That judge's logic is that we should all become Scientologists, Raelists, Atheists... or even Mormons.. :rolleyes:

Technically, the Mormons are still Christians. They're on the fringe of Christianity but they're still Christians, so they can't be counted in the latter group.

Technically, the Mormons are still Christians. They're on the fringe of Christianity but they're still Christians, so they can't be counted in the latter group.You are right.. of course..

I was thinking in the lines of Daikini.. "Prove that the Religion founder existed".. and since Joseph Smith did not Die so long ago...

so.. My mistake..

BTW am logging off (work to do)

Daikini is going to say that Scientology are better than The JEWS, MUSLIMS, CHRISTIANS, BUDHISTS, etc...

only because the Scientology Founder did not die thousands of years ago.
Wtf is your problem, buddy?
I never said any religion was bad, only that the founder of your particular religion might not have been a historical figure. I haven't looked into Mohammed much, but I've been under the impression that he wrote the Koran if he didn't and there is no evidence for him, then that's a whole other discussion, Buddhism does not depend on the existence of Siddharatha Guatama, as it is the message that is important, not the man.

And furthermore, Scientology was a religion invented by a man who once said "If you want to make money, start a religion" and seems to be targetted at those who are even more gullible than most religious figures with scripture that reads like bad science fiction (in fact, I think it started as bad science fiction) so don't presume that I think it's a legitimate religion or even a good one at that. Isn't this sort of garbage you're going off on against forum regulations?

You are right.. of course..

I was thinking in the lines of Daikini.. "Prove that the Religion founder existed".. and since Joseph Smith did not Die so long ago...

so.. My mistake..

BTW am logging off (work to do)
You know what, if you're going to flame and defame me, you could at least learn to spell my name correctly.

You know what, if you're going to flame and defame me, you could at least learn to spell my name correctly.

Daikeeny, I don't appreciate you saying that I have the silhouette of a pregnant woman, or that my dog looks like a little hairy poofter.

Now, you're saying that people who go to Film School only get tattoos to be pretentious.

Daikeeny, I don't appreciate you saying that I have the silhouette of a pregnant woman, or that my dog looks like a little hairy poofter.

Now, you're saying that people who go to Film School only get tattoos to be pretentious.

What?

What?
I think s/he is joking.

I think s/he is joking.

I figured...but it came from so far off left field I was dumbfounded.

I figured...but it came from so far off left field I was dumbfounded.

Great, now you're saying my jokes suck like a needle-tracked she-male in a Vegas bus station bathroom stall, trying to get rent money when its turned so cold, even for January.

Is their a U.S. equivalent for the legal claim of "abusing popular credibility"?

Great, now you're saying my jokes suck like a needle-tracked she-male in a Vegas bus station bathroom stall, trying to get rent money when its turned so cold, even for January.

Is their a U.S. equivalent for the legal claim of "abusing popular credibility"?

I think you just showed it :p

All kidding aside, don't take too much stock in this case. It's only us Italians going nuts again.

Is their a U.S. equivalent for the legal claim of "abusing popular credibility"?
Probably not : if there was, most of your politicians would be in jail :)

And furthermore, Scientology was a religion invented by a man who once said "If you want to make money, start a religion" and seems to be targetted at those who are even more gullible than most religious figures with scripture that reads like bad science fiction (in fact, I think it started as bad science fiction) ...
Bad fiction. No science.

I remember a case where a holocoust denier got nailed. It was sweet to watch him lose.

I seem to rememer somthing about Herod Antipas mentioning a man called Jesus in a letter to the Roman Senate,when I try to run a search on the guy all I get is a load of religous sites.Any ideas where I can find unbiased info on the guy?
As for the Romans keeping records,Yes they did but "Josephus, the Jewish historian, tells us that when the rebellion broke out against the Romans in AD66, one of the first things the rebels did in Jerusalem was to burn the archive building, which held all the death notes and other documents which could be used against them."
http://www.theturning.org/folder/millardinterview.html
This thread reminds me of a film called 'The Man who Sued God'.

I seem to rememer somthing about Herod Antipas mentioning a man called Jesus in a letter to the Roman Senate,when I try to run a search on the guy all I get is a load of religous sites.Any ideas where I can find unbiased info on the guy?
Wikipedia says : "A much later spurious 'letter of Herod Antipas' is sometimes naively cited as being in 'records of the Roman senate.' The reference itself is equally spurious; there are no such records of the Roman Senate."

The letter sounds to me like a forgery from centuries later, like the supposed Letter of Pilate. If it was genuine, reputable theologians and scholars would make a big deal of it (because it would be the only contemporary evidence for Jesus in existence), but they don't.

Wikipedia says : "A much later spurious 'letter of Herod Antipas' is sometimes naively cited as being in 'records of the Roman senate.' The reference itself is equally spurious; there are no such records of the Roman Senate."

The letter sounds to me like a forgery from centuries later, like the supposed Letter of Pilate. If it was genuine, reputable theologians and scholars would make a big deal of it (because it would be the only contemporary evidence for Jesus in existence), but they don't.
Thought that.I'm more intrested in finding any evidence to support the claim that there was a man called Jesus preaching in the Palastine area around the suggested times rather than going into some 'was he the son of God' rant.Given what I seem to be able to find through the internet and other sources(yes, some of us still read books) it does seem likely that there may have existed a man who may have inspried the 'Jesus' cult.Its trying to narrow it down thats the problem.There are so many willing to jump on any source as proof of Jesus being 'God'(Remember that burial urns a few years back with the names of a man called Jesus and a woman called Mary being found together.)to get any unbiased info on the subject.

athiests:rolleyes:

I have a question... straight up, no bs.

Who of all of you celebrate christmas. Honestly, who in this thread does.

Christmas can bite my ass, happy?

I try not to be a spelling nazi since I'm terrible at spelling. But it is Atheist.

Though in regard to what you wrote. Around here it seems to be a nervous pen pushing beaurocrat scared they might offend someone.

Stop debunking Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas.

Thought that.I'm more intrested in finding any evidence to support the claim that there was a man called Jesus preaching in the Palastine area around the suggested times rather than going into some 'was he the son of God' rant.Given what I seem to be able to find through the internet and other sources(yes, some of us still read books) it does seem likely that there may have existed a man who may have inspried the 'Jesus' cult.Its trying to narrow it down thats the problem.
Indeed it is, primarily because there is no contemporary evidence, and in subsequent centuries the Church destroyed whatever contrary evidence it could get its hands on.

There may have been a man from around that time who inspired the Christian myth; there may have been a man from a different time; or the story may very probably come from an amalgum of different sources and different religions. Much of what is contained in the NT is not original.

Indeed it is, primarily because there is no contemporary evidence, and in subsequent centuries the Church destroyed whatever contrary evidence it could get its hands on.

There may have been a man from around that time who inspired the Christian myth; there may have been a man from a different time; or the story may very probably come from an amalgum of different sources and different religions. Much of what is contained in the NT is not original.

That may be the reason.One can only wonder if a person such as Christ ever existed,would he have wanted an entire religion devoted to worshiping him, or would he have prefered a few people spreading the message he was trying to spread.Having read quite a few books on Mohandas K Gandhi,the 14th Dali Lama ect,it would seem that there are still 'prophets' in the world today.I'm begining to understand that the messanger is not important so much as the message.However, as for the preist up before the judge, if he proves legally that there was a man called Jesus,does that mean thatmean that the pope legally has to accepet the concequences of being his representative on earth?Think of all the fun we could have with organised religion should that happen.

People have a tendency to write thier own histories as they see it, & histories are rewritten to suite the individuals in charge continuosly, even today. Some fellow in Iraq says the holocost never occurred, alot of German's would like to believe him. American's have a tendency to leave minorities out of thier history, only recently acknowleging thier contributions.
Concievably you can argue about anything. What you cannot argue about is:
If Jesus is a made up persona, that persona has certainly done alot better than Harry Potter in being mentioned & believed in.

Thought that.I'm more intrested in finding any evidence to support the claim that there was a man called Jesus preaching in the Palastine area around the suggested times rather than going into some 'was he the son of God' rant.Given what I seem to be able to find through the internet and other sources(yes, some of us still read books) it does seem likely that there may have existed a man who may have inspried the 'Jesus' cult.Its trying to narrow it down thats the problem.There are so many willing to jump on any source as proof of Jesus being 'God'(Remember that burial urns a few years back with the names of a man called Jesus and a woman called Mary being found together.)to get any unbiased info on the subject.

I've seen a documentary recently that was trying to find traces of proof for the existence of Jesus, but also suggested othe options regarding the origins of the Christian church.
One suggestion was that Paul had (deliberately or accidentally) split the figure of John the Baptist in two people, John and Jesus. John's existance is supported by a little more proof than Jesus', and he was a know and popular preacher in those days.
Paul had neither met Jesus nor John in person, his authority rests basically on a bad fall from his horse and an ensuing trauma in which he claims to have had a revelation. After that event, the early Christian church became heavily influenced by himself and his teachings, it is suspected that he had a hand in the selection of the gospels that form today's New Testament and more importantly, in the decision which accounts of Jesus' live to leave out.

If that were the case, it would explain why it is so hard to obtain proof of Jesus' existance today, why there are virtually no records available and why there seems to be no physical evidence either.

People have a tendency to write thier own histories as they see it, & histories are rewritten to suite the individuals in charge continuosly, even today. Some fellow in Iraq says the holocost never occurred, alot of German's would like to believe him. American's have a tendency to leave minorities out of thier history, only recently acknowleging thier contributions.
Concievably you can argue about anything. What you cannot argue about is:
If Jesus is a made up persona, that persona has certainly done alot better than Harry Potter in being mentioned & believed in.
That is true just look at what is happening to Zulkuf Kisanak and Orhan Pamuk.Two men draged through the courts for telling the truth about genocide.

I've seen a documentary recently that was trying to find traces of proof for the existence of Jesus, but also suggested othe options regarding the origins of the Christian church.
One suggestion was that Paul had (deliberately or accidentally) split the figure of John the Baptist in two people, John and Jesus. John's existance is supported by a little more proof than Jesus', and he was a know and popular preacher in those days.
Paul had neither met Jesus nor John in person, his authority rests basically on a bad fall from his horse and an ensuing trauma in which he claims to have had a revelation. After that event, the early Christian church became heavily influenced by himself and his teachings, it is suspected that he had a hand in the selection of the gospels that form today's New Testament and more importantly, in the decision which accounts of Jesus' live to leave out.

If that were the case, it would explain why it is so hard to obtain proof of Jesus' existance today, why there are virtually no records available and why there seems to be no physical evidence either.
I assume you mean 'the raod to Damacus' Paul.Think I caught that too.He went from being a persecuter of Christians to being their greatest advocator?

As a christian, I'm not really too concerned about whether or not he was a real person.

Myabe there is no irrefutable proof he existed. But is there irrefutable proof he didn't? Same basic argument as God. Can't prove one way or the other, and we fall right back into faith, don't we?

But let's suppose that for argument's sake that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ the man never existed. It still wouldn't change my faith. Why? My faith is based entirely in the IDEAL of Jesus Christ as savior. Whether the man really lived or not is really a minor detail. He's alive in my mind.

I don't know if it's my loose grap of reality, my firm grasp of quantum physics or just my love for fiction, but I decided a long time ago that what is REAL and what is TRUTH are never exactly the same thing.

The Josephus passage has been shown to be a forgery.


Really, can you prove that?

I assume you mean 'the raod to Damacus' Paul.Think I caught that too.He went from being a persecuter of Christians to being their greatest advocator?

Yes, that's the guy. Heavily influenced by gnostic teachings and greek philosophy, too.
You can find that in his generally averse attitude towards anything concerning sex, and towards women as being slightly less important than slaves...

I've seen a documentary recently that was trying to find traces of proof for the existence of Jesus, but also suggested othe options regarding the origins of the Christian church.
One suggestion was that Paul had (deliberately or accidentally) split the figure of John the Baptist in two people, John and Jesus. John's existance is supported by a little more proof than Jesus', and he was a know and popular preacher in those days.
It's equally, if not more, likely that Paul's Jesus lived on Earth in an earlier age, or even that Paul never imagined him to have been an Earth-based man at all, but someone who's life was lived out in a spiritual realm.

Paul tells us nothing about Jesus the man, and doesn't cite Jesus's teachings at times when it would make sense to do so if he knew about them.

Paul had neither met Jesus nor John in person, his authority rests basically on a bad fall from his horse and an ensuing trauma in which he claims to have had a revelation. After that event, the early Christian church became heavily influenced by himself and his teachings, it is suspected that he had a hand in the selection of the gospels that form today's New Testament and more importantly, in the decision which accounts of Jesus' live to leave out.
That suggestion is way off the wall, since Paul was almost certainly dead before the Gospels were written. The decisions about which gospels were canonical weren't made until centuries later.

As a christian, I'm not really too concerned about whether or not he was a real person.

Myabe there is no irrefutable proof he existed. But is there irrefutable proof he didn't? Same basic argument as God. Can't prove one way or the other, and we fall right back into faith, don't we?

But let's suppose that for argument's sake that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ the man never existed. It still wouldn't change my faith. Why? My faith is based entirely in the IDEAL of Jesus Christ as savior. Whether the man really lived or not is really a minor detail. He's alive in my mind.

I don't know if it's my loose grap of reality, my firm grasp of quantum physics or just my love for fiction, but I decided a long time ago that what is REAL and what is TRUTH are never exactly the same thing.

I think it's an admirable attitude, really. It forecloses both fanatism and over-literal interpretation of the bible, giving you a very adult approach to faith which easily allows for abstractions.

Ok, does it make sense that one would have to prove one's faith? Thats like asking a blind man to prove that gass is green and the sky is blue(generically speaking, of course). I think that this case should be thrown out immediatly, on the basis that it is over two different beliefs, that with the right evidence, could make either side look right.

lol

Same basic argument as God. Can't prove one way or the other, and we fall right back into faith, don't we?



In a world that is chock full of squeaky wheels, bleeding hearts who cry "tolerance for this, tolerance for that, how dare you not show tolerance and compassion", you will find it curious, and yet very consistent that those liberal voices will be, as a rule, the very first to cite your line of thinking as folly, not worthy of consideration, and heap every and any form of derision upon you for such a belief.

So much for tolerance. Physicians, heal thyselves.

Personally, I am antagonistic toward religion. However, religion, despite claims to the contrary, is an institution, and the individuals who may follow are not the religion itself, but unfortunately get lumped in with the dubious spin often planted in the media by those whole hold influence in the administrative heirarchy of one religious denomination or another. The faithful seem to pay the price for the public relations foibles of the administrators of faith.

It is a fundamental truth that each person, atheist, agnostic or believer, cannot go through a single day without relying on faith of some kind. It may not be faith in a transcendental being, but it may be faith in some "truth" offered by science or ideology, and it is certainly, demonstrably true that historically, those "truths" are tranisient, and are every bit as subject to error, falsification and fraud as any truth offered by a source of religious faith.

Until omniscience is a trait that is bestowed upon each human being, the questioning of the veracity of another man's faith is the biggest folly of them all.

Yes, that's the guy. Heavily influenced by gnostic teachings and greek philosophy, too.
You can find that in his generally averse attitude towards anything concerning sex, and towards women as being slightly less important than slaves...
Ah there is nothing like spending a Sunday afternoon in front of the font of knowledge that is RTE 1.His attitudes have had some very far reaching effects within christianity as a whole, one could argue even more so those of the original Paul.

That suggestion is way off the wall, since Paul was almost certainly dead before the Gospels were written. The decisions about which gospels were canonical weren't made until centuries later.

These are the estimated dates for the origins of the current gospels:

* Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Mark: c. 68–73
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90–110.
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel))

But you are right regarding the time of decision on the "official" gospels, sometime around 300 AD if I remember correctly.
I should have phrased it better, really. I didn't mean that Paul went around handpicking gospels he liked and destroying others he didn't care about. But he did influence the early Christian church immensly, and in my opinion, the gospels that were finally chosen reflect Pauls ideals and ideas about Christianity more than anyone elses.

Really, can you prove that?
It's so hard to find unbiased work on the subject online...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate.
Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative." 18
Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the passage as legitimate. 8

If you want to find the book mentioned: Michael Martin, "The case against Christianity," Temple University Press, (1993) then you're more than welcome to.

As a christian, I'm not really too concerned about whether or not he was a real person.

Myabe there is no irrefutable proof he existed. But is there irrefutable proof he didn't? Same basic argument as God. Can't prove one way or the other, and we fall right back into faith, don't we?

But let's suppose that for argument's sake that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ the man never existed. It still wouldn't change my faith. Why? My faith is based entirely in the IDEAL of Jesus Christ as savior. Whether the man really lived or not is really a minor detail. He's alive in my mind.

I don't know if it's my loose grap of reality, my firm grasp of quantum physics or just my love for fiction, but I decided a long time ago that what is REAL and what is TRUTH are never exactly the same thing.
Its refreshing to hear someone defend the ideal as opposed to the belief structures heaped upon that ideal.

It's so hard to find unbiased work on the subject online...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

Flavius Josephus: He was a Jewish historian who was born in 37 CE. In his book, Antiquities of the Jews, he described Jesus' as a wise man who was crucified by Pilate.
Most historians believe that the paragraph in which he describes Jesus is partly or completely a forgery that was inserted into the text by an unknown Christian. The passage "appears out of context, thereby breaking the flow of the narrative." 18
Josh McDowell, Don Stewart and other conservative Christians accept the passage as legitimate. 8

If you want to find the book mentioned: Michael Martin, "The case against Christianity," Temple University Press, (1993) then you're more than welcome to.

To give one reason for why some experts believe it to be a forgery:

The bible claims that Herod, in a fit of jealousy and fearing for his power as a puppet king in Judea, had all male children in Bethlehem under the age of 2 slaughtered when the three magi didn't return to him to inform him further on the newborn "King of Jews".

Josephus, who in his biography of Herod Antipas virtually dwells on the gory details, such as the murder of Herod's two sons on his order or the rumours that Herod kept the body of his first wife conserved in a jar of honey hidden somewhere in the palace to visit her at night, never once mentions the slaughter of these children at all.
If it was connected to Jesus in any way, and he did make mention of the - somewhat less gory and less spectacular - crucifiction, why wouldn't he mention this incident?

Its refreshing to hear someone defend the ideal as opposed to the belief structures heaped upon that ideal.

Belief structures created by flawed, basic human beings. Human beings that often had an agenda of their own. Much like history, honestly.

These are the estimated dates for the origins of the current gospels:

* Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Mark: c. 68–73
* Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90–110.

I've read at least one or two scholars who challenge the usually-accepted dating of the Gospels, and date them all after 100 AD.

I should have phrased it better, really. I didn't mean that Paul went around handpicking gospels he liked and destroying others he didn't care about. But he did influence the early Christian church immensly, and in my opinion, the gospels that were finally chosen reflect Pauls ideals and ideas about Christianity more than anyone elses.
Some of the ideas in the Gospels reflect Paul's views, but the story of Jesus the man, born in Bethlehem, teaching the Sermon on the Mount etc, crucified by the Romans, owes nothing to Paul, as far as we can tell. The earthly life of Jesus simply does not feature in his epistles; he is interpretted as referring to such a man because of what was written later, not because of anything he said.

To give one reason for why some experts believe it to be a forgery:

The bible claims that Herod, in a fit of jealousy and fearing for his power as a puppet king in Judea, had all male children in Bethlehem under the age of 2 slaughtered when the three magi didn't return to him to inform him further on the newborn "King of Jews".

Josephus, who in his biography of Herod Antipas virtually dwells on the gory details, such as the murder of Herod's two sons on his order or the rumours that Herod kept the body of his first wife conserved in a jar of honey hidden somewhere in the palace to visit her at night, never once mentions the slaughter of these children at all.
If it was connected to Jesus in any way, and he did make mention of the - somewhat less gory and less spectacular - crucifiction, why wouldn't he mention this incident?
Prehaps there was no massacre.'At the time Bethlehem was a small village and it and its surrounding area would have had a very small population. Albright and Mann estimate the village would have had only some 300 people at the time, Raymond E. Brown estimates it was around a thousand. These numbers clash with the traditional view of thousands of deaths, but it helps explain why the massacre was not mentioned by any hisotrians such as Josephus. At the same time Brown notes that the double word all shows that the author of Matthew is trying to portray a large massacre.'-Wikipedia.

It is a fundamental truth that each person, atheist, agnostic or believer, cannot go through a single day without relying on faith of some kind. It may not be faith in a transcendental being, but it may be faith in some "truth" offered by science or ideology, and it is certainly, demonstrably true that historically, those "truths" are tranisient, and are every bit as subject to error, falsification and fraud as any truth offered by a source of religious faith.
There is a fundamental difference between "faith" as a belief in something despite the lack of evidence, and "faith" which is really just a high (but always provisional) level of confidence based on empirical testable evidence. Everybody relies on the latter; many don't rely on the former.

Concievably you can argue about anything. What you cannot argue about is: If Jesus is a made up persona, that persona has certainly done alot better than Harry Potter in being mentioned & believed in.
Harry Potter is mentioned by far more people, and far more widely, than Jesus was after a mere eight years. Of course he's not believed in, though - people are far more clear about the difference between fact and fiction than they were in the 1st century, and nobody is trying to pass the Potter stories off as fact.

Two thumbs up for the judge! :Dhttp://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
It's about time a judge with some sense in his head stands up again this religious nonsense! :D

It's very clear that the Josephus text has been forged to have any evidence that their "Jesus" actually existed. Now if he actually existed and wasn't just a product of their fantasy (just like "God"), they wouldn't need to rely on forgeries.

The "Chrestus" in the Tacitus text was a common name at that time, so it's by far not a proof for the existance of a specific person. Besides, it was written some time already after Jesus' supposed life and death.

A lot of the Bible consists of myths and legends of completely "heathen" origin that were common at that time and were just somewhat rewritten to fit with the Christian scheme. They twisted anything around as it fit their needs. Then, over the many years since it was first written down, it was rewritten again and again countless times by the church to fit actual demands at that time so today's bible has not much in common anymore with the first bible written down.
In effect, the Bible is certainly anything but a reliable source for historical information.

Some of the ideas in the Gospels reflect Paul's views, but the story of Jesus the man, born in Bethlehem, teaching the Sermon on the Mount etc, crucified by the Romans, owes nothing to Paul, as far as we can tell. The earthly life of Jesus simply does not feature in his epistles; he is interpretted as referring to such a man because of what was written later, not because of anything he said.

I'm not talking about his epistels, but about some rather obvious inacurracies, such as the claim that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem because of a census ordered by Augustus.
Roman records don't report anything of a census at that time, and such a massive organisational effort would have to be mentioned somewhere other than the bible.
It's quite possible that the entire episode is nothing but an invention to undermine the claim that Jesus was in fact the messiah by fulfilling the prophecy that the messiah would be born in "The City of David"

This site proivdes a fairly good summary of the extra-biblical evidence that a person called Jesus existed in the timeframe of the Bible.
He is mentioned by Josephus, The Talmud, Tacitus, Suetonius, Thallus and Pliny the Younger.
It has been said that there is more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed. Are you going to refute his existence?

Josephus wasn't even born until after the alleged death of Jesus. Thus, he can, in NO WAY, have been a witness. Add to which, much of the Josephus text about Christians, is strongly suspected to have been added in even later, by some unknown 'editor'.

Tacitus, likewise, was born some time after the alleged crucifixion.

ALL of the accounts outside of Christian scripture, are hearsay... reports based on what a person 'heard'... which is NOT the same as an eyewitness account, by a long way.

NONE of the evidence available can claim to be objective, contemporary AND independent.

Even the so-called Gospels were written LONG after the fact, often by people who never even MET Jesus... and, if one looks at Matthew and Luke carefully, one can see that the two accounts are NOT eye-witness testimony... but accounts drafted from a single earlier scripture... (which the serious theological academic community refers to as the "Q" scripture).

It HAS been said that there is "...more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed..."... but it is simply NOT true.

One doesn't need to 'refute' the existence of Jesus... one only needs to show that there is doubt. If there is 'doubt', then it is not a 'hard fact'... but a matter of blind faith.

Myabe there is no irrefutable proof he existed. But is there irrefutable proof he didn't? Same basic argument as God. Can't prove one way or the other, and we fall right back into faith, don't we?
Yes, if one definitely asserts their existence one way or the other. But the mistake is to make any definite assertion in the absence of good and convincing evidence.

But let's suppose that for argument's sake that there is irrefutable proof that Jesus Christ the man never existed. It still wouldn't change my faith. Why? My faith is based entirely in the IDEAL of Jesus Christ as savior. Whether the man really lived or not is really a minor detail. He's alive in my mind.
This is a muddling of language. What is alive in your mind is a concept of a man, not a living, flesh and blood, human being, semi-divine or otherwise. You might as well say that helicopters flew in the sixteenth century because they existed in Leonardo Da Vinci's mind.

The point about the Christian faith, surely, is that one will be saved outside of what is in one's mortal mind. Such a claim requires evidence from outside of that mind.

I don't know if it's my loose grap of reality, my firm grasp of quantum physics or just my love for fiction, but I decided a long time ago that what is REAL and what is TRUTH are never exactly the same thing.
Doesn't that depend on whether you're talking about truth as a statement of external facts, or as an expression of subjective values? In a factual, material, sense, reality and truth are one and the same (even if our perception of them is imperfect). In the expression of ideas and ideals, they may not be; but the existence of a particular man in the first century is not merely an idea - it either was or was not a concrete, material, fact.

I'm not talking about his epistels, but about some rather obvious inacurracies, such as the claim that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem because of a census ordered by Augustus.
The epistles are all we have from Paul, and they don't mention Mary, Joseph or Bethlehem. I agree that there are obvious historical inaccuracies in the Christian story, but you can't blame them on Paul.

It's quite possible that the entire episode is nothing but an invention to undermine the claim that Jesus was in fact the messiah by fulfilling the prophecy that the messiah would be born in "The City of David"
I think that is almost certainly what happened in much of the Gospels - the Jesus story was invented after the fact in order to appear to fulfill prophecies.

The epistles are all we have from Paul, and they don't mention Mary, Joseph or Bethlehem. I agree that there are obvious historical inaccuracies in the Christian story, but you can't blame them on Paul.


I think that is almost certainly what happened in much of the Gospels - the Jesus story was invented after the fact in order to appear to fulfill prophecies.

I'm not "blaming them on him". But I'm pretty certain that Paul was the main character in the history of Christianity to drive the faith into the direction of "Jesus Christ, the messiah, the son of god" and away from "Jesus of Nazareth, son of a carpenter and itinerant preacher". And that's the influence and the understanding of Jesus' life under which the gospels were written.

I personally believe Christ to have existed, but more in the light of the overal times. there were many messianic cults during those days in Palestine, most of whom we only know of through indirect accounts.
The live and times of Jesus Christ is no different. While I agree that people bikker about dates of texts and true first hand references, this is perhaps a wrong way of looking at it.
Consider this: we have several books (i.e. gospels, koran sammanite texts) dealing with the live of Jesus. Most of these are written after Jesus supposedly died. What is remarkable is that all this text agree on the main aspects. This is most prominent in the gospels and sammanite texts (the koran was written much later so shouldn't be involved), which in itself is remarkable. Why? because these text were written in roughly the same period in diverse places around the mediterean. This could mean a couple of things:
- they're we all rewrites of the same text (unlikely, because of the differences in the texts where the details are concerned)
- they're all different perspectives on the live of this man named Jesus.

I tend to go for the second one, mainly because of the time in which the first gospels were written. This was done in a time when the original disciples of Jesus would be close to death or dead. This is important because for a fledgeling faith it is important to hang on to the basics. What do you do if your main source to the original Jesus has just died or is dying? You record his story so that it may live on.
Besides if these people were looking to create a revolution or something of that kind, they would (or could and probably should) have chosen a better figure to lead/personify their movement. (although there is evidence to suggest that mostly Paul and Peter removed some of the original ideas Jesus had, such as mandatory surcumsision, because it stood in the way of the growth of their group)

I personally believe Christ to have existed, but more in the light of the overal times. there were many messianic cults during those days in Palestine, most of whom we only know of through indirect accounts.
The live and times of Jesus Christ is no different. While I agree that people bikker about dates of texts and true first hand references, this is perhaps a wrong way of looking at it.
Consider this: we have several books (i.e. gospels, koran sammanite texts) dealing with the live of Jesus. Most of these are written after Jesus supposedly died. What is remarkable is that all this text agree on the main aspects. This is most prominent in the gospels and sammanite texts (the koran was written much later so shouldn't be involved), which in itself is remarkable. Why? because these text were written in roughly the same period in diverse places around the mediterean. This could mean a couple of things:
- they're we all rewrites of the same text (unlikely, because of the differences in the texts where the details are concerned)
- they're all different perspectives on the live of this man named Jesus.

I tend to go for the second one, mainly because of the time in which the first gospels were written. This was done in a time when the original disciples of Jesus would be close to death or dead. This is important because for a fledgeling faith it is important to hang on to the basics. What do you do if your main source to the original Jesus has just died or is dying? You record his story so that it may live on.
Besides if these people were looking to create a revolution or something of that kind, they would (or could and probably should) have chosen a better figure to lead/personify their movement. (although there is evidence to suggest that mostly Paul and Peter removed some of the original ideas Jesus had, such as mandatory surcumsision, because it stood in the way of the growth of their group)

The 'spread' of the story need have nothing to do with any actual deaths of Messiah or Apostles.

It's just the way stories grow. People tell them to each other, and they spread. They usually manage to maintain a fair deal of the 'basics', although different people might consider different things 'basic'... which explains diversity in focus of texts.

So - if a story spreads about this guy that lived 30 years ago... it doesn't ACTUALLY matter who tells the story, if the 'guy' lived, or if any of the elements are true. That 'story' will spread.

I'm not "blaming them on him". But I'm pretty certain that Paul was the main character in the history of Christianity to drive the faith into the direction of "Jesus Christ, the messiah, the son of god" and away from "Jesus of Nazareth, son of a carpenter and itinerant preacher".
This looks like backwards history to me. Paul created the "messiah, son of god" Christianity, and then the carpenter's son, teacher, story was grafted on to it at a later date. AFAIK, there is no evidence at all that the itinerant preacher story existed before Paul, or that he knew or cared anything about such a story.

I just hope no one has an argument like this with a philosophy professor becuase then you will have a tril on trying to prove that Socrates actually existed. It is a similar problem of Socrates appearing in books by one author. At least with Jesus you have four accounts of pretty much the same thing. :headbang:

The 'spread' of the story need have nothing to do with any actual deaths of Messiah or Apostles.

It's just the way stories grow. People tell them to each other, and they spread. They usually manage to maintain a fair deal of the 'basics', although different people might consider different things 'basic'... which explains diversity in focus of texts.

So - if a story spreads about this guy that lived 30 years ago... it doesn't ACTUALLY matter who tells the story, if the 'guy' lived, or if any of the elements are true. That 'story' will spread.

While that is true. You must admit it strange that various source all point to Jesus as this messianic figure. Why not to Abbas or Peter for that matter?
Both could have served as the messias (if their backgrounds were slightly altered). Why invent someone? Picking someone real gives the stories relevance and somewhat more an aura of authenticity

I just hope no one has an argument like this with a philosophy professor becuase then you will have a tril on trying to prove that Socrates actually existed. It is a similar problem of Socrates appearing in books by one author. At least with Jesus you have four accounts of pretty much the same thing. :headbang:

AT least one, written by a non-witness... at least two based on another, earlier 'scripture'.

Four 'copies' of the same document are NOT the same as four independent stories.

I just hope no one has an argument like this with a philosophy professor becuase then you will have a tril on trying to prove that Socrates actually existed. It is a similar problem of Socrates appearing in books by one author. At least with Jesus you have four accounts of pretty much the same thing. :headbang:
According to Wikipedia, sources for Socrates number 4 as well: Plato, Aristotle, Aristophanes and Xenophon.

AT least one, written by a non-witness... at least two based on another, earlier 'scripture'.

Four 'copies' of the same document are NOT the same as four independent stories.

How come you are sure they are copies of the same document? As far as I know there is no evidence for this.

While that is true. You must admit it strange that various source all point to Jesus as this messianic figure. Why not to Abbas or Peter for that matter?
Both could have served as the messias (if their backgrounds were slightly altered). Why invent someone? Picking someone real gives the stories relevance and somewhat more an aura of authenticity


First: According to the Jewish scripture - Jesus does NOT serve any better as 'Messiah' than either of those other figures. According to Jewish scripture, Jesus is not Messiah.... and it is that same 'Jewish scripture', that is claimed as the 'justification' for belief in Jesus as 'Messiah'.


Second: If I tell you that Judas is Messiah, and YOU tell that story to your friend.... and he tells it to HIS friend... and SHE tells it to her friend...

If we all wrote our stories... who would be "messiah" in our stories? If all the stories start from the same premise, the will (with minor changes, perhaps) probably agree more than they disagree.


Third: There is no need to invent someone. Almost all the miraculous 'powers' and 'history' attributed to Jesus, were already present in other, earlier stories.... from Horus to Serapis to Buddha to Zoroaster.

All the Greek Scriptures did, perhaps... was put a recognisably Jewish name on much older stories. No 'invention' is needed.


Fourth: Have you READ religious texts written two thousand years ago? "Realism" and "authenticity" are not ALWAYS the big selling points.

How come you are sure they are copies of the same document? As far as I know there is no evidence for this.

Have you never heard of the "Q" scripture?

Basically - theological academics recognise that Mark is the 'basis' of the Gospel heirarchy - but, that Matthew and Luke add some elements to the Mark story... but both add the SAME elements... thus suggesting a second 'earlier' text - which is often simply labelled the "Q" scripture.

So - original text is Mark.

Then, Matthew and Luke are written by interpolation of Mark with material from "Q".

John wasn't even 'there'. The John Gospel is thus either a fiction, or hearsay.

Here's a quick link to a "Q for Dummies" level introduction... sorry it's only Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

[Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.][QUOTE]

Unbelievable:
If one man has a right to state his opinion than so does another.

[Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.][QUOTE]

Unbelievable:
If one man has a right to state his opinion than so does another.

Indeed.

And, if one man feels he has been maligned, the law allows him to call for justice.

In this case, it was the Atheist maligned by the priest.

Of course - if Jesus thinks he has been maligned by the Atheist, I'm sure the same court would be more than willing to entertain any case he would like to bring...

While that is true. You must admit it strange that various source all point to Jesus as this messianic figure. Why not to Abbas or Peter for that matter?
It's not strange at all, since the various sources all come from the same belief-community. There were other Messianic figures around at the time - not all sources claim that Jesus was the messiah (but many of those which claimed otherwise have been destroyed).

Both could have served as the messias (if their backgrounds were slightly altered). Why invent someone? Picking someone real gives the stories relevance and somewhat more an aura of authenticity
The evolution of a myth is a lot more complicated than simply inventing someone. No doubt the myth's proponents believed what they were saying.

In any case, there is an advantage to a fictional figure : there would be no eye-witnesses to deny the claims; nobody to say "He didn't say that" or "It didn't happen that way".

Anybody who posted in this thread, prove your brain exists. None of this "I'm doing stuff, aren't I?" Jellyfish don't have brains; they work soley on electrical impulses, and you have no biological evidence to suggest that you haven't mutated into one of these jellyfish creatures.
Look, all I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. You have a brain, and Jesus existed. Both are true. Stop trying to argue, or you're wasting everyone's time on something that truely doesn't matter.

First: According to the Jewish scripture - Jesus does NOT serve any better as 'Messiah' than either of those other figures. According to Jewish scripture, Jesus is not Messiah.... and it is that same 'Jewish scripture', that is claimed as the 'justification' for belief in Jesus as 'Messiah'.
I never claimed him to be the messiah, I'm just trying to show he existed (same as the other figures). The names of the other figures were thrown in my text to illustrate the fact people usually talk about real persons, they don't make them up if they don't have to.



Second: If I tell you that Judas is Messiah, and YOU tell that story to your friend.... and he tells it to HIS friend... and SHE tells it to her friend...

If we all wrote our stories... who would be "messiah" in our stories? If all the stories start from the same premise, the will (with minor changes, perhaps) probably agree more than they disagree.

Agreed..but we would still be talking about a person who existed (mostly because:
A I don't just take someone word for it
B I'm prety sure you don't either so you probably know this judas character

sorry just messing with ya)


Third: There is no need to invent someone. Almost all the miraculous 'powers' and 'history' attributed to Jesus, were already present in other, earlier stories.... from Horus to Serapis to Buddha to Zoroaster.

All the Greek Scriptures did, perhaps... was put a recognisably Jewish name on much older stories. No 'invention' is needed.

Yes..And why is Jesus a more recognisable name? (because I assume you are refering to before the scriptures were written..)
People back then were no stupider than we are now..they don't just believe every person they hear.
So unless there was a conspiracy by 12 people to tell everyone they knew Jesus Christ..there has to be something more (unless you have evidence of this consiparcy ofcourse)


Fourth: Have you READ religious texts written two thousand years ago? "Realism" and "authenticity" are not ALWAYS the big selling points.
Yes I have...and with realism I mean enough to make believe it might happened (in case of the miracles), so you relate it to a person or name they could have heard of (lends credibility to the story).

Anybody who posted in this thread, prove your brain exists. None of this "I'm doing stuff, aren't I?" Jellyfish don't have brains; they work soley on electrical impulses, and you have no biological evidence to suggest that you haven't mutated into one of these jellyfish creatures.
Look, all I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. You have a brain, and Jesus existed. Both are true. Stop trying to argue, or you're wasting everyone's time on something that truely doesn't matter.

To MANY people, Jesus 'matters'.

That doesn't equate to him actually existing.

There is so little evidence to prove the existence of a historical Jesus... it takes a deliberate leap of faith to accept he did.

Historical 'truth' does not NEED to agree with spiritual 'truth' in order for either of them to be 'valid'.... it just depends what you WANT from that information.

Have you never heard of the "Q" scripture?

Basically - theological academics recognise that Mark is the 'basis' of the Gospel heirarchy - but, that Matthew and Luke add some elements to the Mark story... but both add the SAME elements... thus suggesting a second 'earlier' text - which is often simply labelled the "Q" scripture.

So - original text is Mark.

Then, Matthew and Luke are written by interpolation of Mark with material from "Q".

John wasn't even 'there'. The John Gospel is thus either a fiction, or hearsay.

Here's a quick link to a "Q for Dummies" level introduction... sorry it's only Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

Thanks..i didn't know of this document (my specialty is newest history).
I cn't make any judgement about the relevance or authenticity of this information, because:
1 I haven't read it yet
2 I'm not a real expert on the field

To MANY people, Jesus 'matters'.

That doesn't equate to him actually existing.

There is so little evidence to prove the existence of a historical Jesus... it takes a deliberate leap of faith to accept he did.

Historical 'truth' does not NEED to agree with spiritual 'truth' in order for either of them to be 'valid'.... it just depends what you WANT from that information.

I agree with you completly. It's just that to my mind there is more evidence that the person Jesus existed than there is that there wasn't one

People back then were no stupider than we are now.
That's debatable. While, as human beings, they had the same mental potential as we have, they didn't have anything like the same degree of knowledge or understanding, and we're probably far more credulous than most modern people.

So unless there was a conspiracy by 12 people to tell everyone they knew Jesus Christ..there has to be something more (unless you have evidence of this consiparcy ofcourse)
We don't know that 12 people did claim to have known Jesus Christ, especially as a first-century earthly human being. This is part of the myth.

[Signor Cascioli, author of a book called The Fable of Christ, began legal proceedings against Father Righi three years ago after the priest denounced Signor Cascioli in the parish newsletter for questioning Christ’s historical existence.][QUOTE]

Unbelievable:
If one man has a right to state his opinion than so does another.
The other man does not have the right to accuse the first man of lying when he is not.

Myabe there is no irrefutable proof he existed. But is there irrefutable proof he didn't? Same basic argument as God. Can't prove one way or the other, and we fall right back into faith, don't we?

Perhaps, but a court of law (and this started concerning a case before a judge) works under rigorous logic, and rigorous logic says that you can't prove a negative. So the burden of proof is on the person affirming something.

It's the same principle underlying the "innocont until proven guilty". Otherwise you'd have to prove that you didn't commit a crime if somebody were to accuse you.

That's debatable. While, as human beings, they had the same mental potential as we have, they didn't have anything like the same degree of knowledge or understanding, and we're probably far more credulous than most modern people.
We don't know that 12 people did claim to have known Jesus Christ, especially as a first-century earthly human being. This is part of the myth.

Agreed, especially since they accepted normal people (such as the emporers) to be gods.
My biggest problem with the theorie is: why invent someone to be your messiah? What is in it for the writer(s)? if they want fame, they could use themself as messiahs. If they want to avoid being persuceded, they failed because they were persecuted.
I don't see an up side to making someone up.

I never claimed him to be the messiah, I'm just trying to show he existed (same as the other figures). The names of the other figures were thrown in my text to illustrate the fact people usually talk about real persons, they don't make them up if they don't have to.

Agreed..but we would still be talking about a person who existed (mostly because:
A I don't just take someone word for it
B I'm prety sure you don't either so you probably know this judas character

sorry just messing with ya)

Yes..And why is Jesus a more recognisable name? (because I assume you are refering to before the scriptures were written..)
People back then were no stupider than we are now..they don't just believe every person they hear.
So unless there was a conspiracy by 12 people to tell everyone they knew Jesus Christ..there has to be something more (unless you have evidence of this consiparcy ofcourse)

Yes I have...and with realism I mean enough to make believe it might happened (in case of the miracles), so you relate it to a person or name they could have heard of (lends credibility to the story).

Do you believe that Hercules was the son of God?

Do you believe that Osiris was murdered by his brother Seth?

Do you believe that Marduk slew Tiamat, and shaped our world from her flesh?

By your logic, these must all have been 'real people'... because "people usually talk about real persons, they don't make them up if they don't have to"...

There is no more 'need' to 'invent' Hercules (Heracles), than there is to 'invent' Jesus.

As to why Jesus is a 'more recognisable name'..... simply because Yeshua, Joshua, 'Jesus'... was a fairly common name at THAT time, in THAT place.

If you wanted to 'retell' a story today, you would be more likely to call your character "Bob" or "John", than 'Nefert", for example.... you retell stories with contemporary names.

(The same is true when you retell foreign tales... how many English speakers call Cinderella, "Aschenputtel"?)

And - I have to ask... where do you get this 'conspiracy of 12 people' from? I assume you mean the Apostles.... but WHY do you believe THEM to be real?

To MANY people, Jesus 'matters'.

That doesn't equate to him actually existing.

There is so little evidence to prove the existence of a historical Jesus... it takes a deliberate leap of faith to accept he did.

Historical 'truth' does not NEED to agree with spiritual 'truth' in order for either of them to be 'valid'.
IMHO, it does when the spiritual "truth" is making historical claims. Either Jesus the man walked this Earth or he didn't, and if he didn't, then it is a lie to claim that he did.

If people want to claim that the Jesus story is a myth full of valid meaning, that's fine, but I see no excuse for making unfounded claims about its veracity, distorting history, and undermining rational, critical thinking with spurious "leaps of faith".

Anybody who posted in this thread, prove your brain exists. None of this "I'm doing stuff, aren't I?" Jellyfish don't have brains; they work soley on electrical impulses, and you have no biological evidence to suggest that you haven't mutated into one of these jellyfish creatures.
Look, all I'm saying is that it doesn't matter. You have a brain, and Jesus existed. Both are true. Stop trying to argue, or you're wasting everyone's time on something that truely doesn't matter.
Brains work on electrical impulses. And if you want to get a CAT scan, you can prove your brain exists (doesn't mean you use it though)
The existence or non-existence of Jesus does matter for this court case. The priest accused the author of a book of lying by saying that it is possible Jesus did not exist. The priest asserted that Jesus did exist as a historical figure. In order to show that it's not libel, the priest must prove that Jesus did exist as a historical figure. However, there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus did exist as a historical figure and that is what we've been discussing.

Furthermore, can you name any threads on here that couldn't be reasonably called "a waste of time"?

Thanks..i didn't know of this document (my specialty is newest history).
I cn't make any judgement about the relevance or authenticity of this information, because:
1 I haven't read it yet
2 I'm not a real expert on the field

As I recall... nobody has 'read' Q.... but there is much evidence to support it as the 'transition' between 'tanakh' and 'Gospel'.

I agree with you completly. It's just that to my mind there is more evidence that the person Jesus existed than there is that there wasn't one

There is 'evidence'... yes.

But none of it is contemporary AND independent.

There is more evidence that Batman exists, than that he doesn't.

Do you 'believe' in Batman?

Agreed, especially since they accepted normal people (such as the emporers) to be gods.
My biggest problem with the theorie is: why invent someone to be your messiah? What is in it for the writer(s)? if they want fame, they could use themself as messiahs. If they want to avoid being persuceded, they failed because they were persecuted.
I don't see an up side to making someone up.
They didn't make themseves messiahs because they were going on the story a friend of a friend's mother's sister-in-law heard from her grandfather who heard from his nextdoor neighbour... basically an urban legend. People don't add themselves into urban legends, they keep the story or add another famous person who might fit the bill into it.

Is there any historical proof that Jesus existed?

The ancient historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. We will look at what some of these people have said.
Cornelius Tacitus

Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
Lucian of Samosata

Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.
Suetonius

Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].
Pliny the Younger

Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.
Thallus and Phlegon

Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.
Mara Bar-Serapion

Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
Josephus

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!
The four Gospels

The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.

Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously!

Agreed, especially since they accepted normal people (such as the emporers) to be gods.
My biggest problem with the theorie is: why invent someone to be your messiah? What is in it for the writer(s)? if they want fame, they could use themself as messiahs. If they want to avoid being persuceded, they failed because they were persecuted.
I don't see an up side to making someone up.

So - by extension... you MUST accept that Zeus is real? And Jupiter? And Baal? And Marduk?

Do you believe the Book of Mormon to be true?

I agree with you completly. It's just that to my mind there is more evidence that the person Jesus existed than there is that there wasn't one
Well, of course, if there was no Jesus, then there would be no evidence of his existence whatsoever.

Furthermore, there are plenty of people named Jesus. It was a popular name at the time. And hell, I met someone on a bus who was named Jesus. I could prove he exists, there I have proven that a man named Jesus exists, not the right Jesus though.

Atheists generally dont care what religions other people celebrate?
So wy is it that every year come christmas time, theres always aetheist rallying to stop a christmas tree from being put up in the center of a town.

I had to reply to this - people like that are rather irritating - slap 'em. Same way that ignorant christian (and otherwise) folk go around proclaiming that only they'll go to "heaven" and everyone else will be partying with satan to the tune of Nelly's "Hot In Herre" (*cringe* that would be hell).

Live and let live... Join in even. I'm a hindu, but I celebrate christmas for what it is to me - a time to be with family and give, and share and put up a christmas tree, from which i can eat the minty candy canes. But I'd go to church too, if anyone asked me to go with them, and celebrate it that way.

For me faith is based on faith itself, and a respect and interest of another persons faith.

But as for this case - the long lost focus of this article, I think its likely to cause quite an uproar. And rightly so, Noone should be allowed to denounce, insult or defame another person based on their beliefs - as the priest has allegedly done - but it seems to have become more of a debate about the existance of Christ - which is rather unfair.

I pity the defence and i sincerely doubt that the priest will be able to present a legitimate case, considering the arguements (above) that nothing from the bible, or after Jesus' time would be considered as evidence.

If he did exist - as a whole person - and not a collection of persons and ideas put together by christians as propaganda/ a "character" on whom they could found a solid religion upon, then he has had quite an influence, eh?

It would be extremely interesting to see proof of his existance - though it wouldn't change my opinions or beliefs (other than that i'd know Jesus Christ existed).

There's my 2 cents...

Do you believe that Hercules was the son of God?

Do you believe that Osiris was murdered by his brother Seth?

Do you believe that Marduk slew Tiamat, and shaped our world from her flesh?

By your logic, these must all have been 'real people'... because "people usually talk about real persons, they don't make them up if they don't have to"...

There is no more 'need' to 'invent' Hercules (Heracles), than there is to 'invent' Jesus.

As to why Jesus is a 'more recognisable name'..... simply because Yeshua, Joshua, 'Jesus'... was a fairly common name at THAT time, in THAT place.

If you wanted to 'retell' a story today, you would be more likely to call your character "Bob" or "John", than 'Nefert", for example.... you retell stories with contemporary names.

(The same is true when you retell foreign tales... how many English speakers call Cinderella, "Aschenputtel"?)

And - I have to ask... where do you get this 'conspiracy of 12 people' from? I assume you mean the Apostles.... but WHY do you believe THEM to be real?


No I do not believe those people to be real people, mostly because the are never mentioned in other text besides the stories the originally appear in. And because most of those stories are ment to explain certain things people didn't understand at the time.
Now I know it is slipperly ground to claim someone existed when there is little evidence to support it. In my field it is very important to verify your sources, however in this case that would mean that they would have to be (a) text(s) about Jesus not written by a believer and close to the period when Jesus supposedly lived (secondary texts).
To be very honest I do not know if such a text exists. Unfortunately that is the case for a lot of people who we believe existed.
The thing about the apostels was written before I knew about this Q text thing

On the original post.How would one LEGALLY argue for or against the existance of the historical figure of Jesus Christ?

The ancient historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. We will look at what some of these people have said.
Read some of the posts above. All of those have been debunked as either false or unreliable. And some of them are simply accounts that "there were Christians," and of course there were.

How do we know that Jesus really existed? How do we know that Abraham Lincoln existed or George Washington or the founding fathers who signed our declaration of Independence testifying that they were all eye-witnesses to this history and agree to its contents? We know they existed because historical documents tell us they existed and we hold these as credible testimony. As individuals, very few of these men are mentioned in great detail. Mostly their names show up in history as having been at an event but little is known about them as individuals. Where is Jesus mentioned in history? Obviously, the Bible will give the detailed description of Jesus because He is the central figure of the Bible. However, Jesus is accounted for in many other historical documents.

First, lets look at the Talmud. The Talmud is a historical document that includes commentaries on the Jewish books of the law and civil and religious records. The Talmud is very hostile to Jesus. The Talmud praises the trial, conviction and execution of Jesus. The Talmud also refers to Jesus as a bastard son of Mary. The account of Jesus in this historical document was clearly written by those who were openly enemies of Jesus. In a courtroom, if your enemy testifies on your behalf, willingly or unwillingly, it is a highly credible testimony. The Talmud testifies on behalf of many of the Bible’s claims about Jesus. It verifies the existence of Jesus, that Jesus was a teacher, the trial of Jesus as instigated by the religious leaders, and the conviction and crucifixion of Jesus. Even more importantly, the Talmud verifies that Jesus performed many healings and miracles. It claims that Jesus did these through sorcery, but the key evidence is that the enemies of Jesus do not dispute the miracles. They testify that Jesus indeed performed the miracles that the Bible recounts for us. If your enemy validates your works, that is a strong testimony, even if he judges your intentions as evil.

Josephus the great Jewish historian wrote about Jesus. Josephus also claimed that Jesus was a teacher that wrought many surprising feats. He won over many Jews and Greeks. He was condemned under Pilot and killed. He appeared restored after three days and his followers were called Christians after Him.

Roman governor Pliny the Younger wrote about sending Christians off to be executed for "stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy that ought not to go unpunished...". "They would not recant and they worshipped and honored Christ as if he were a god".

There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus did in fact exist and other historical documents hold testimonies that do not contradict the biblical account.

On the original post.How would one LEGALLY argue for or against the existance of the historical figure of Jesus Christ?
Tha same way as one legally argues the existence of any other event or person : using the rules of evidence.

The failure to prove Jesus's existence in a court of law won't amount to proof that he didn't exist, but it will mean that the priest was wrong to defame someone for questioning it.

Tha same way as one legally argues the existence of any other event or person : using the rules of evidence.

The failure to prove Jesus's existence in a court of law won't amount to proof that he didn't exist, but it will mean that the priest was wrong to defame someone for questioning it.

But surely the burden is not on the preist to prove that Jesus did exist but on the person who is bringing the case to prove that he was wronged?

Is there any historical proof that Jesus existed?

The ancient historical record provides examples of writers, philosophers and historians who lived during or not long after the time Jesus is believed to have lived and who testify to the fact that he was a real person. We will look at what some of these people have said.
You haven't read this thread at all. Oh well, I shall debunk piece by piece anyways. It will be nice to have it all in one place.

Cornelius Tacitus

Tacitus lived from A.D. 55 to A.D. 120. He was a Roman historian and has been described as the greatest historian of Rome, noted for his integrity and moral uprightness. His most famous works are the Annals and the Histories. The Annals relate the historical narrative from Augustus’ death in A.D.14 to Nero’s death in A.D. 68. The Histories begin their narrative after Nero’s death and finish with Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. In his section describing Nero’s decision to blame the fire of Rome on the Christians, Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname), was executed by Pilate, the procurator of Judea during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberias. Tacitus was hostile to Christianity because in the same paragraph he describes Christus’ or Christ’s death, he describes Christianity as a pernicious superstition. It would have therefore been in his interests to declare that Jesus had never existed, but he did not, and perhaps he did not because he could not without betraying the historical record.
1. Tactius was born after Jesus' supposed execution, he was not an eyewitness to his life.
2. Chrestus as already mentioned by a number of posters was not a common misspelling of Christ, it was a popular greek name at the time.
3. Christ is not a surname, it is a title, much like Buddha is a title, not a name.

Lucian of Samosata

Lucian was a Greek satirist of the latter half of the second century. He therefore lived within two hundred years of Jesus. Lucian was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it. He particularly objected to the fact that Christians worshipped a man. He does not mention Jesus’ name, but the reference to the man Christians worship is a reference to Jesus.
Again, not an eyewitness and he is just repeating claims made by people who believed that Jesus was a man.

Suetonius

Suetonius was a Roman historian and a court official in Emperor Hadrian’s government. In his Life of Claudius he refers to Claudius expelling Jews from Rome on account of their activities on behalf of a man Suetonius calls Chrestus [another misspelling of Christus or Christ].
Again, Chrestus is a greek name not a misspelling of Christ.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny was the Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor (AD. 112). He was responsible for executing Christians for not worshipping or bowing down to a statue of the emperor Trajan. In a letter to the emperor Trajan, he describes how the people on trial for being Christians would describe how they sang songs to Christ because he was a god.
1. Not an eyewitness
2. Repeating claims of others, not making his own assertions.

Thallus and Phlegon

Both were ancient historians and both confirmed the fact that the land went dark when Jesus was crucified. This parallels what the Bible said happened when Jesus died.
For one thing only two of the four gospels (Matthew and Mark) wrote of a darkness at the crucifixion, they also described earthquakes and zombies... none of those were mentioned by Thallus.
Secondly, Thallus described an eclipse, which was impossible due to the timing of the crucifixion (which was during a full moon) and would not have lasted three hours or covered the entire earth.
Furthermore, the passage and the history of Thallus himself have been altered and lost so much that it is impossible to even put a date on when he would have written his histories (in fact, it should have been written in 70BCE, long before Jesus' supposed existence)
So far I've been unable to find the Phlegon passage in its entirity, but from what I gather, he mentioned a solar eclipse and did not say a damn thing about any Jesus.

Mara Bar-Serapion

Some time after 70 A.D., Mara Bar-Sarapion, who was probably a Stoic philosopher, wrote a letter to his son in which he describes how the Jews executed their King. Claiming to be a king was one of the charges the religious authorities used to scare Pontius Pilate into agreeing to execute Jesus.
1. Not an eyewitness as he was several generations after the fact.
2. As already discussed, the jewish populace weilded no political power, if someone was executed, it was the romans who did it.
3. This letter was most likely written after 153 CE, after the dispersal of the jewish populace.
4. The "wise king" refrence is not necessarily Jesus.

Josephus

Josephus was a Jewish historian who was born in either 37 or 38 AD and died some time after 100 AD. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one famous passage described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and actually rose from the dead!
1. Born after the alleged Jesus in question was already dead andything he wrote was hearsay.
2. This passage was a complete forgery, as already discussed a number of times.

The four Gospels

The four Gospels are the four accounts of Jesus’ life, which are contained in the New Testament part of the Bible. Historians will tell you that the closer an historical document is written to the time of the events it describes, the generally more reliable it is as a source of information about those events. Matthew’s Gospel account of Jesus’ life is now reckoned to have been written sometime between AD 70 and AD 80. Mark’s Gospel is dated between AD. 50 and AD. 65. Luke’s Gospel is dated in the early AD 60s and John’s Gospel sometime between AD 80 and 100. If Jesus died sometime in the AD 30s, it is clear that Mark, Luke and Matthew wrote their Gospels within living memory of Jesus’ death. John’s Gospel comes later and probably outside of living memory for most as John lived to an unusually old age for the ancient period, but the accuracy of his Gospel was verified no doubt by those who read the earlier Gospels.

Another feature of the Gospels is that they were written by men who either knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who themselves knew Jesus personally. Matthew was a former tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus. Mark was a close associate of Simon Peter, who is regarded as being Jesus’ most prominent disciple whilst Jesus was on the earth. Luke was a close associate of Paul who is the most famous of Christian missionaries and who wrote the largest contribution to the New Testament. Paul, in turn, was a close colleague of Simon Peter. John was the former fisherman who became the closest disciple of Jesus. The accounts of such men need to be considered at least seriously!
Another feature of these gospels is that they get a number of things blatantly wrong (the whole bit about Herod executing infants, the timing of the censuses et c) and the earliest among them was written in 70 CE, generations after Jesus' supposed execution by men who could not have met him. They are hearsay.

....There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus did in fact exist and other historical documents hold testimonies that do not contradict the biblical account.
There is huge doubt. Not all documents are equal - there is a fundamental difference between primary evidence and later hearsay. The evidence for Washington, Lincoln et al is primary, plentiful and corroborated. The documents you cited about Jesus were written decades or more later, when the Jesus myth was already established. They are hearsay, not primary nor contemporary.

But surely the burden is not on the preist to prove that Jesus did exist but on the person who is bringing the case to prove that he was wronged?

No, as the priest is accused of defaming the author. That can easily be proven, as the priest obviously published an article.
Now it's up to the priest to prove that the person he accused of lying actually did lie.

But surely the burden is not on the preist to prove that Jesus did exist but on the person who is bringing the case to prove that he was wronged?
Yes, but if he was defamed for questioning something which can't be proven, then he was wronged. Every unproven fact is questionable.

But surely the burden is not on the preist to prove that Jesus did exist but on the person who is bringing the case to prove that he was wronged?
Apparently he was wronged not because the priest says Jesus existed, but because the priest called him a liar and such for saying Jesus didn't exist. And basically what the atheist asks is "show me proof that Jesus existed before you can call me a liar."

Where is Jesus mentioned in history? Obviously, the Bible will give the detailed description of Jesus because He is the central figure of the Bible. However, Jesus is accounted for in many other historical documents.
No, he is not.

First, lets look at the Talmud. The Talmud is a historical document that includes commentaries on the Jewish books of the law and civil and religious records. The Talmud is very hostile to Jesus. The Talmud praises the trial, conviction and execution of Jesus. The Talmud also refers to Jesus as a bastard son of Mary. The account of Jesus in this historical document was clearly written by those who were openly enemies of Jesus. In a courtroom, if your enemy testifies on your behalf, willingly or unwillingly, it is a highly credible testimony. The Talmud testifies on behalf of many of the Bible’s claims about Jesus. It verifies the existence of Jesus, that Jesus was a teacher, the trial of Jesus as instigated by the religious leaders, and the conviction and crucifixion of Jesus. Even more importantly, the Talmud verifies that Jesus performed many healings and miracles. It claims that Jesus did these through sorcery, but the key evidence is that the enemies of Jesus do not dispute the miracles. They testify that Jesus indeed performed the miracles that the Bible recounts for us. If your enemy validates your works, that is a strong testimony, even if he judges your intentions as evil.
The passage regarding Jesus in the Talmud was written circa 200 CE claiming he existed circa 200 BCE and used information being spread by the christians that would have been widely available circa 200CE. It doesn't prove a damn thing.

Josephus the great Jewish historian wrote about Jesus. Josephus also claimed that Jesus was a teacher that wrought many surprising feats. He won over many Jews and Greeks. He was condemned under Pilot and killed. He appeared restored after three days and his followers were called Christians after Him.
This passage was forged by a christian apologist in the 4th century.

Roman governor Pliny the Younger wrote about sending Christians off to be executed for "stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy that ought not to go unpunished...". "They would not recant and they worshipped and honored Christ as if he were a god".
He's retelling what the christians believe, this doesn't prove anything, again.

There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus did in fact exist and other historical documents hold testimonies that do not contradict the biblical account.
There is plenty of doubt, in fact, it is a wonder people believe in a historical Jesus to begin with.

No I do not believe those people to be real people, mostly because the are never mentioned in other text besides the stories the originally appear in. And because most of those stories are ment to explain certain things people didn't understand at the time.
Now I know it is slipperly ground to claim someone existed when there is little evidence to support it. In my field it is very important to verify your sources, however in this case that would mean that they would have to be (a) text(s) about Jesus not written by a believer and close to the period when Jesus supposedly lived (secondary texts).
To be very honest I do not know if such a text exists. Unfortunately that is the case for a lot of people who we believe existed.
The thing about the apostels was written before I knew about this Q text thing

Actually - Hercules turns up in two different 'canons' of 'scripture'... as either Hercules, or as Heracles. Within each of those canons, there are several accounts that feature that character...

And, many characters from 'other' religions are described, even within the Bible... Moloch (an Ammonite local 'god'.... although the name just means "King"), Jupiter, Mercurius, Diana, Dagob, Baalim (actually, a misunderstanding renders this as one character in the first place... Ba'alim actually means 'lords'), Tammuz (Akkadian vegetaition god) etc.

But surely the burden is not on the preist to prove that Jesus did exist but on the person who is bringing the case to prove that he was wronged?

Possibly.

But, not under any western laws I know of.

If I say you murder and eat babies....

Is the burden of proof on you, to PROVE I am lying...

No - in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the 'libeler'/slanderer, to prove their accusations are 'true'.

The priest called the Atheist a liar (we assume)... the priest has to prove that what the Atheist said is untrue.

Possibly.

But, not under any western laws I know of.

If I say you murder and eat babies....

Is the burden of proof on you, to PROVE I am lying...

No - in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the 'libeler'/slanderer, to prove their accusations are 'true'.

The priest called the Atheist a liar (we assume)... the priest has to prove that what the Atheist said is untrue.
In which case to prove that Jesus Christ the historical figure did exist?
Good point.Got me.Silly thing to say in hindsight.

In which case to prove that Jesus Christ the historical figure did exist?
Good point.Got me.Silly thing to say in hindsight.

It's a tricky one... so don't feel bad...

"Person A" says "story x" is (probably) a lie...

"Person B" says "story x" is true, so "Person A" must be a liar...

"Person A" says there is no way to PROVE "story x" is true... so, it is wrong of "Person B" to denounce him....

It's a case about lying about lying... perhaps... and, that is what makes it 'confusing'.

:)

Possibly.

But, not under any western laws I know of.

If I say you murder and eat babies....

Is the burden of proof on you, to PROVE I am lying...

No - in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the 'libeler'/slanderer, to prove their accusations are 'true'.

The priest called the Atheist a liar (we assume)... the priest has to prove that what the Atheist said is untrue.

Still though I'd hate to be the judge on that one.And with the wealth of the catholic church paying for the lawyers you can guarentee they will have better arguments than I.

Absence of proof is proof of absence

Still though I'd hate to be the judge on that one.And with the wealth of the catholic church paying for the lawyers you can guarentee they will have better arguments than I.
They still can't make historical documents appear out of thin air. They'll likely drag it out forever or lose rather quickly being unable to provide proper documentation.

Still though I'd hate to be the judge on that one.And with the wealth of the catholic church paying for the lawyers you can guarentee they will have better arguments than I.

That shouldn't matter... although, what should happen isn't always what does happen.

Theoretically, a non-partisan judge MUST find that it is a matter of faith... and so, the Atheist's 'belief' is as valid as the Priests' belief.

In which case, he has to find against the priest.

But, that's in theory....

Absence of proof is proof of absence

That's not actually true, my friend.

Absence of proof is proof of absence

No it isnt

*g* It's no use, my even trying today.

*g* It's no use, my even trying today.

Really? You not having a good day of it, thus far, then? :)

Absence of proof is proof of absence
No... but it is evidence of absence.

No... but it is evidence of absence.

Only in as much as it is 'evidence of absence... of evidence'... no?

Its allright for atheists to call Christians liars, stupid, crazy and compltetely criticize and ridicule their teachings in such a pointless patronising way, but as soon as one christian acuses one atheist of lying, theres a whole fucking court case about it!!

Uh, heres my 2 cents although I havent reaad the entire thing and dont know if anybody has posted this yet. By the way im mitch.
I personally believe that there is proof of existance of Jesus just as much as there is for anybody else in that time period. Julius cesar for example, had little written text about him yet we do not deny his existance. Also, if you have visted old catholic churches you wil find "holy relics" in some of them. Though it is very plausible that these do not offer healing powers that is not the point. The point is that there is a shroud that has been burnt in a fire in the medival times. This shroud is said to be the one that covered Jesus. Though it is not concrete evidence this also hold a 3d image when studied closely of a man that has been nailed in the wrists and the feet. This means that it was not made by an artist in the medival times because if you look at any old picture of Jesus on the cross, he is nailed at the hands, which, theroectially is impossible. The weight of his body could not be held by that. Along with this, if the body is put in a computer image, it will come up being that it is possible for it to be an actual body and that in fact, the head is slightly tilted up, as old Jewish traditions instructed when a man was buried. The only thing is that this shroud, when tested for the age of the cloth, turned out to be in the 10th century. This cannot truly say anything though because fire, a chemical reaction, can change the make up of the shroud to show it was made in a later date then it truly was.
Also, since i read something about the question of not if he existed but what was he I shall try to address that as well. Either he was a lier or he was the messiah. No "good teacher" is a lier, so it is unethical to call him such. He called himself the messiah. Either all his teachings were a lie since they all focused on him or he is the actual messiah. When I say that all teaching focused on him, I mean that they either did focus on the physical him or God, which in theory, was Jesus manifested.

(sorry about the spelling, I'm not to good at typing)

Fascinating stuff guys but histroical figures vanish without any trace. Take the Mongols and Shakespere. I mean one of the greatest empires in the history of humanity left virtually no trace of who they were, and only 1 book. We know more about cavemen then a 15th century tribe.
Shakespere, one of THE most reknown persons alive in the Western world, and nobody knows who he was so it would be virtually impossible to trace the real Jesus.

Only in as much as it is 'evidence of absence... of evidence'... no?
No, I meant what I said. It is circumstantial evidence.

Its allright for atheists to call Christians liars, stupid, crazy and compltetely criticize and ridicule their teachings in such a pointless patronising way, but as soon as one christian acuses one atheist of lying, theres a whole fucking court case about it!!
Victimizing Christians doesn't help.

Its allright for atheists to call Christians liars, stupid, crazy and compltetely criticize and ridicule their teachings in such a pointless patronising way, but as soon as one christian acuses one atheist of lying, theres a whole fucking court case about it!!
This particular christian put it in a newsletter and it constituted libel.

By the way, love the persecution complex.

Fascinating stuff guys but histroical figures vanish without any trace. Take the Mongols and Shakespere. I mean one of the greatest empires in the history of humanity left virtually no trace of who they were, and only 1 book. We know more about cavemen then a 15th century tribe.
Shakespere, one of THE most reknown persons alive in the Western world, and nobody knows who he was so it would be virtually impossible to trace the real Jesus.
It's thought that Shakespere might have been a group of writers or a pen name. Thus, William Shakespere might not have really existed.

I also find it hard to believe that the Mongols left no evidence. They occupied a large portion of Asia, invading several nations in the process.

...or you could just say, "proving" a historically unique event isn't the same as scientifically "proving" a principle of physics or chemistry.

Or go a step further...

It's possible to argue that no one can "prove" that any event -- say, yesterday -- happened. All anyone can "prove" is that an awful lot of us share the belief that it did. Why should anyone think it logically follows that our agreed belief in yesterday "proves" it happened? Attempts to "prove" that yesterday happened amount to no more than agreements to a belief in the (approximate) similarity of our subjective psychological states of consciousness. That's a long way from proving that those (only approximately) similar psychological states correspond to a "real" objective world in any way.

It would follow that what we call "historical evidence" is no more than the consensus that (a) items exist that we're calling relevant to the original event, and (b) these items somehow are relevant in the sense that they are evidence about the nature of the original event as having actually happened. But this evidence just falls victim to the same objection as before. Such "evidence" is just another layer of our states of consciousness. It proves nothing except that we think we agree about something.

but they did leave evidence. They left it in the form of how they effected the world.

I also find it hard to believe that the Mongols left no evidence. They occupied a large portion of Asia, invading several nations in the process.
Aye; especially since this happened well within the period of recorded history (12th-13th Century).

but they did leave evidence. They left it in the form of how they effected the world.
Well, plus all that archaeological and documented stuff.

Well, plus all that archaeological and documented stuff.
And their genes, they spread them all over the place.

Its allright for atheists to call Christians liars, stupid, crazy and compltetely criticize and ridicule their teachings in such a pointless patronising way, but as soon as one christian acuses one atheist of lying, theres a whole fucking court case about it!!

If I believed your claims to be representative of an actual 'truth'... rather than of a collective 'martyr complex'.... I'd be forced to say:

"That is the benefit of the Moral Highground".

Aye; especially since this happened well within the period of recorded history (12th-13th Century).

Yes, but you're forgetting one important detail... the Mongols didn't really "conquer" so much as they just burned and plundered. Any decent civilization they occupied they just taxed 110% in exchange for -not- totally wiping them out, like the Russians. The eventual death of Ghengis also allowed his sons to bicker and tear what land they had unified apart pretty quickly... so yeah...

Uh, heres my 2 cents although I havent reaad the entire thing and dont know if anybody has posted this yet. By the way im mitch.
I personally believe that there is proof of existance of Jesus just as much as there is for anybody else in that time period. Julius cesar for example, had little written text about him yet we do not deny his existance. Also, if you have visted old catholic churches you wil find "holy relics" in some of them. Though it is very plausible that these do not offer healing powers that is not the point. The point is that there is a shroud that has been burnt in a fire in the medival times. This shroud is said to be the one that covered Jesus. Though it is not concrete evidence this also hold a 3d image when studied closely of a man that has been nailed in the wrists and the feet. This means that it was not made by an artist in the medival times because if you look at any old picture of Jesus on the cross, he is nailed at the hands, which, theroectially is impossible. The weight of his body could not be held by that. Along with this, if the body is put in a computer image, it will come up being that it is possible for it to be an actual body and that in fact, the head is slightly tilted up, as old Jewish traditions instructed when a man was buried. The only thing is that this shroud, when tested for the age of the cloth, turned out to be in the 10th century. This cannot truly say anything though because fire, a chemical reaction, can change the make up of the shroud to show it was made in a later date then it truly was.
Also, since i read something about the question of not if he existed but what was he I shall try to address that as well. Either he was a lier or he was the messiah. No "good teacher" is a lier, so it is unethical to call him such. He called himself the messiah. Either all his teachings were a lie since they all focused on him or he is the actual messiah. When I say that all teaching focused on him, I mean that they either did focus on the physical him or God, which in theory, was Jesus manifested.

(sorry about the spelling, I'm not to good at typing)

I don't think the shroud is all it's cracked up to be. Nor the auromatic assumption that was real based on the term "Good Teacher" less I'm missing something.

No, I meant what I said. It is circumstantial evidence.

Only of absence...

Just because I haven't opened the door to my room (thus - absence of evidence that there is light in there)... does not mean that it is evidence there is NO light in there....

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

miceandmen wrote:

Tacitus affirms that the founder of Christianity, a man he calls Chrestus (a common misspelling of Christ, which was Jesus’ surname),

Unfortunately, incorrect. Judeans of the first century did not use surnames; they relied upon the more clumsy stylings of "Joseph, son of Judah" or "Esther of Elebius", for a couple of made up examples.

The term Christ is actually a title, meaning "the Messiah". The proper name to use to refer to the individual mentioned in the Bible was either "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus, son of Joseph". Given Nazareth was a small town, he probably used the former, since there would be little chance of being mistaken for someone else.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But you might as well assume it is until something else turns up to the contrary (eg. opening the bedroom door and seeing the light is on in that last guy's analogy).

Uh, heres my 2 cents although I havent reaad the entire thing and dont know if anybody has posted this yet. By the way im mitch.
I personally believe that there is proof of existance of Jesus just as much as there is for anybody else in that time period. Julius cesar for example, had little written text about him yet we do not deny his existance.
I'm not so sure about this...

Also, if you have visted old catholic churches you wil find "holy relics" in some of them. Though it is very plausible that these do not offer healing powers that is not the point. The point is that there is a shroud that has been burnt in a fire in the medival times. This shroud is said to be the one that covered Jesus. Though it is not concrete evidence this also hold a 3d image when studied closely of a man that has been nailed in the wrists and the feet. This means that it was not made by an artist in the medival times because if you look at any old picture of Jesus on the cross, he is nailed at the hands, which, theroectially is impossible. The weight of his body could not be held by that. Along with this, if the body is put in a computer image, it will come up being that it is possible for it to be an actual body and that in fact, the head is slightly tilted up, as old Jewish traditions instructed when a man was buried. The only thing is that this shroud, when tested for the age of the cloth, turned out to be in the 10th century. This cannot truly say anything though because fire, a chemical reaction, can change the make up of the shroud to show it was made in a later date then it truly was.
About the shroud of turin.
1. The image is of a man of over 6 feet tall, this would make him a giant for those days. This would have been noted.
2. The fact that a hand is moved over the genitals suggests that it is faked.
3. The fact that the "blood" is found to have cell walls (found only in plants) suggests that it was fake.
4. The fact that there's no mention of it until I think the 1300s suggests it was faked around that time.

Also, since i read something about the question of not if he existed but what was he I shall try to address that as well. Either he was a lier or he was the messiah. No "good teacher" is a lier, so it is unethical to call him such. He called himself the messiah. Either all his teachings were a lie since they all focused on him or he is the actual messiah. When I say that all teaching focused on him, I mean that they either did focus on the physical him or God, which in theory, was Jesus manifested.
The other alternative is that people put words in his mouth. He didn't write anything down, people wrote about him 40+ years after his death (assuming he existed in the first place, which as discussed throughout this thread there is no evidence of)

This entire case is stupid. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!! I mean what is the point in both parties spending money on one person being a little upset about being told he is wrong. That sounds to me like he is striving for attention. "AWW! Didn't your mommy and daddy hug you enough when you were little". Seriously, grow up! Court used to be a place where you could decide if OJ killed his family or not, now it is a place for little children to fight and argue with each other. Hey here is the verdict. Mr. Atheist Man will be fined on account of STUPIDITY and Mr. Preist should be slaped on the hand for trying to argue retardation!!!!!!!!!!!!!

miceandmen wrote:



Unfortunately, incorrect. Judeans of the first century did not use surnames; they relied upon the more clumsy stylings of "Joseph, son of Judah" or "Esther of Elebius", for a couple of made up examples.

The term Christ is actually a title, meaning "the Messiah". The proper name to use to refer to the individual mentioned in the Bible was either "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus, son of Joseph". Given Nazareth was a small town, he probably used the former, since there would be little chance of being mistaken for someone else.

"Joseph, son of Judah" is actually, a form of surname... we use the same today in our Johnson, Anderson, Peterson, etc. Or Von Braun, for example. Or McAdam.

Perhaps, we are dealing with a character who was
Yeshua ben Chrestus'? (Yeshua - son of - Chrestus)?

Not that I believe that avenue, of course... just that you can't necessarily just rule it out.

Yes, but you're forgetting one important detail... the Mongols didn't really "conquer" so much as they just burned and plundered. Any decent civilization they occupied they just taxed 110% in exchange for -not- totally wiping them out, like the Russians. The eventual death of Ghengis also allowed his sons to bicker and tear what land they had unified apart pretty quickly... so yeah...
I'm finding a lot of details about the Mongols with a quick google search... whether it's all based in archeology or historical records, the fact of the matter is that the Mongols left quite a trail of evidence behind.

But you might as well assume it is until something else turns up to the contrary (eg. opening the bedroom door and seeing the light is on in that last guy's analogy).

I don't honestly believe you use this as a 'rule' in life...

Unless you really do assume that, everything you cannot see, does not exist...

So - no bacteria.... no darkside of the moon.... no back of your own head....

"Joseph, son of Judah" is actually, a form of surname... we use the same today in our Johnson, Anderson, Peterson, etc. Or Von Braun, for example. Or McAdam.

Perhaps, we are dealing with a character who was
Yeshua ben Chrestus'? (Yeshua - son of - Chrestus)?

Not that I believe that avenue, of course... just that you can't necessarily just rule it out.
It doesn't mention anything about a Yeshua though, just Chrestus. So it's likely that it was a man named Chrestus who caused the ruckus in Rome that got the jews expelled, nothing at all to do with any Jesus.

This entire case is stupid. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!! I mean what is the point in both parties spending money on one person being a little upset about being told he is wrong. That sounds to me like he is striving for attention. "AWW! Didn't your mommy and daddy hug you enough when you were little". Seriously, grow up! Court used to be a place where you could decide if OJ killed his family or not, now it is a place for little children to fight and argue with each other. Hey here is the verdict. Mr. Atheist Man will be fined on account of STUPIDITY and Mr. Preist should be slaped on the hand for trying to argue retardation!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree to a degree, but Atheist opinion aside, the priest -did- put the arguement against the author into a printed newsletter which is libel, which is ILLEGAL... so yeah ;)

4. The fact that there's no mention of it until I think the 1300s suggests it was faked around that time.

The only piece of dating done on the shroud was a radiocarbon dating conducted on an area which is now recognised as a repair area. This does not mean that other parts of the shroud are what it is claimed to be.

This entire case is stupid. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!! I mean what is the point in both parties spending money on one person being a little upset about being told he is wrong.
The party who called him wrong and a liar has to prove that he was wrong. It doesn't seem likely he'll be able to do so.

That sounds to me like he is striving for attention. "AWW! Didn't your mommy and daddy hug you enough when you were little". Seriously, grow up! Court used to be a place where you could decide if OJ killed his family or not, now it is a place for little children to fight and argue with each other. Hey here is the verdict. Mr. Atheist Man will be fined on account of STUPIDITY and Mr. Preist should be slaped on the hand for trying to argue retardation!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And what do you know, court is also a place you can go if someone slanders you too.

The only piece of dating done on the shroud was a radiocarbon dating conducted on an area which is now recognised as a repair area. This does not mean that other parts of the shroud are what it is claimed to be.
I love how you ignored the fact that the blood on the piece is made of plant material, that the figure would have been a giant, oh, and I forgot the part about the anatomically incorrect forearms.

At any rate, I'm talking about the fact that the shroud magically appeared in the 1300s, not that it was radiocarbon dated to then. There was no mention of it beforehand.

At any rate, I'm talking about the fact that the shroud magically appeared in the 1300s, not that it was radiocarbon dated to then. There was no mention of it beforehand.
It was dated to around then. As I have already said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As an archaeologist myself, I follow this axiom almost everyday.

Only of absence...

Just because I haven't opened the door to my room (thus - absence of evidence that there is light in there)... does not mean that it is evidence there is NO light in there....
If no one checked that the light in the room is out, but even one person makes a claim that it is out, then we have witness testamony as evidence. This is not an absence of evidence. But anyway the claim was about proof.

The fact that there is no evidence of god is not proof that god does not exist, but it is circumstantial evidence that god does not exist; this is whole reason that we have hard atheists. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, unrelated facts that lead to a conclusion. It may not be a correct conclusion, or a logical conclusion, or even a deduction, but it is a conclusion.

It was dated to around then. As I have already said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As an archaeologist myself, I follow this axiom almost everyday.
So everything else doesn't matter then? The shroud must be authentic because the radiocarbon dating must have been wrong despite the fact that it's not blood, but plant material, the forearms are unusually long, the bit of having the hand cover the genitals is not a traditional burial pose, the man is obscenely tall for that era and it magically appeared more than a thousand years after the death of the individual it was supposed to wrap.

So everything else doesn't matter then? The shroud must be authentic because the radiocarbon dating must have been wrong despite the fact that it's not blood, but plant material, the forearms are unusually long, the bit of having the hand cover the genitals is not a traditional burial pose, the man is obscenely tall for that era and it magically appeared more than a thousand years after the death of the individual it was supposed to wrap.
That's not what I meant. I apologise for not expressing myself properly. What I meant was that the Radiocarbon dates are accurate. What I should have said was that we can not prove it as a forgery or as an authentic artefact.

That's not what I meant. I apologise for not expressing myself properly. What I meant was that the Radiocarbon dates are accurate. What I should have said was that we can not prove it as a forgery or as an authentic artefact.
...except that again, as I said, the forearms are unusually long, the man is unusually tall, the body is not positioned in a way consistent with burial (hand covering genitals) the "blood" is made of plant material...

If no one checked that the light in the room is out, but even one person makes a claim that it is out, then we have witness testamony as evidence. This is not an absence of evidence. But anyway the claim was about proof.

The fact that there is no evidence of god is not proof that god does not exist, but it is circumstantial evidence that god does not exist; this is whole reason that we have hard atheists. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, unrelated facts that lead to a conclusion. It may not be a correct conclusion, or a logical conclusion, or even a deduction, but it is a conclusion.

So... what you were saying is:

"absence of evidence IS evidence of absence"...

but...

not in any 'logical' or 'correct' way?


Then, we agree.

So... what you were saying is:

"absence of evidence IS evidence of absence"...

but...

not in any 'logical' or 'correct' way?


Then, we agree.
Actually, as I said, the claim was about proof. 'Absence of proof is circumstantial evidence of absence.'

And not necessarily logical or correct. Circumstantial evidence suggests a scenario, which, with the inclusion of deduced information, might be entirely logical.

Ok for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that it is a forgery and that Jesus Christ did not exist. Go spend a month alone in the desert, miles from the nearest human. If you do not feel that there is nothing else out there, then you are no man.

I will say this, if Christ did not exist, why do we still have a holiday on the 25th of December? Or Easter? I would propose that all atheists are banned from celebatrating Christmas, and must work on that day.

I personally hope that there is something else, a greater force that acts to help us. I find it comforting that there is something waiting me at the end of my life.

Ok for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that it is a forgery and that Jesus Christ did not exist. Go spend a month alone in the desert, miles from the nearest human. If you do not feel that there is nothing else out there, then you are no man.
Except that I have a birth certificate, school records, tax reports, letters sent and received, email correspondances, a driver's lisence a health card et c. There is much evidence of my existence, however you're right, I'm not a man. This Jesus character left no trace whatsoever, thus making his existence impossible to prove.
Furthermore, it's not a forgery if he never existed, it's a fable or a myth or urban legend perpetuated throughout the years.

I will say this, if Christ did not exist, why do we still have a holiday on the 25th of December? Or Easter? I would propose that all atheists are banned from celebatrating Christmas, and must work on that day.
December 25th was originally the roman festival Saturlinia, the egyptians celebrated the rebirth of Orisis then, the birth of Mithras was said to be then and it is also close to the winter solstice. (it is a pagan holiday bastardized to suit the needs of a new religion, essentially.)
Easter comes from Estora, a fetility goddess and it replaces the vernal equinox as a celebration of spring and fertility. (hence the bunny rabbits, eggs and other fertility symbols)
And what you're proposing is religious discrimination, I propose that if atheists have to work that day, then everyone else does as well.

I personally hope that there is something else, a greater force that acts to help us. I find it comforting that there is something waiting me at the end of my life.
Well, that's nice. It doesn't make it true though.

I will say this, if Christ did not exist, why do we still have a holiday on the 25th of December? Or Easter? I would propose that all atheists are banned from celebatrating Christmas, and must work on that day.
You really don't want to go there...

I will say this, if Christ did not exist, why do we still have a holiday on the 25th of December? Or Easter? I would propose that all atheists are banned from celebatrating Christmas, and must work on that day.

Willamena is correct. You really, really, REALLY don't want to go there.

It's funny when christians think their religious traditions are completely original, isn't it?