NationStates Jolt Archive

Was not almost every "holy relic" metioned until that time? I have no doubt that most of those are fake yet there are still those of which can be questioned. The fact that he was a six foot man shows nothing. It may have been unusual but the fact is that it is still very possible. Was it not unusual for a soldier to become a ruler of an empire? I think not. As for the blood, once again, I turn to the fire since there is no other possible explenation. It is already quite a feat to test blood that is what I believe to be 2000 years old. With the fire in there, it makes is doubly hard.
And for Julis cesar, lets make another person more to date as an example. George Washington. No doubt there is substantial evidence that he did exist but if you truly look in it in the same perspective as everybody does about Jesus, did he? After rising from the dead, Jesus was seen in a crowd of 500 people. These people were believers, correct? George Washington was seen by just the same crowd, most likely much greater but they all believed he existed. There are also many letters that prove he existed but whose to say it was not made by somebody completely different? Though we can go on and explain everything else, it comes down to having FAITH that all the evidence is true. No doubt George Washington did exist, but there is always that possible IF that somebody does exist.
Me, do I exist? I think therefore I am. Although I could not be here right now. Is there truly any way to prove that I am not a dream in everybodies mind?

Me, do I exist? I think therefore I am. Although I could not be here right now. Is there truly any way to prove that I am not a dream in everybodies mind?

I could come over and slap you. If you felt it, you're real.

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.

It also makes his existence impossible to disprove.

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.

The English word Easter does not come from Estora, it is a mistranslation from the Old High German. As for the discrimination, I seem to remember it being a free world. I won't be rude about atheists if they do not say that peoples beliefs are erroneous.

Fine, very simple. Atheists are entitled to go through life as they wish. Everyone with a religious belief should be left untroubled about that belief. Happy? Good.

once again, could you prove I felt anything? Maybe test my blood pressure or something? How do you know that all that is real. My point is not that we dont exist, but that it takes faith to know that we do. That is why you wanted to slap me, you had faith that we are real and that drove you to want to slap me

I won't be rude about atheists if they do not say that peoples beliefs are erroneous.
So you're going to be rude to anybody who says you hold erroneous beliefs? Will that include all the religious people who believe that your religious beliefs are erroneous?

Was not almost every "holy relic" metioned until that time? I have no doubt that most of those are fake yet there are still those of which can be questioned. The fact that he was a six foot man shows nothing. It may have been unusual but the fact is that it is still very possible.
The anatomically incorrect nose and forearms and a head 5% too big for the body are not very possible though.

As for the blood, once again, I turn to the fire since there is no other possible explenation. It is already quite a feat to test blood that is what I believe to be 2000 years old. With the fire in there, it makes is doubly hard.
They didn't run a blood test, they ran a test to see what the blood was made of. It was made of plant material, red ochre to be exact. And yes, those sorts of tests are relatively easy on materials that old and older.

George Washington. No doubt there is substantial evidence that he did exist but if you truly look in it in the same perspective as everybody does about Jesus, did he?
Yes, there is actual contemporary evidence for George Washington, but none for Jesus. The earliest mentions of Jesus in the gospels is 70 CE, 40 years after his supposed death. The mentions of George Washington were during his time.

After rising from the dead, Jesus was seen in a crowd of 500 people. These people were believers, correct?
Says a book written 40 years after the fact by people who couldn't have been eyewitnesses.

George Washington was seen by just the same crowd, most likely much greater but they all believed he existed. There are also many letters that prove he existed but whose to say it was not made by somebody completely different? Though we can go on and explain everything else, it comes down to having FAITH that all the evidence is true. No doubt George Washington did exist, but there is always that possible IF that somebody does exist.
Occam's razor. In the case of George Washington's existence, it is a much simpler theory that he did exist and all the letters and correspondance and paintings that are supposed to be written by him or of him are real than it is to assume that they are all made up. With Jesus there is no problem, there is no contemporary eyewitness accounts of his existence. It is all hearsay well after the fact.

Me, do I exist? I think therefore I am. Although I could not be here right now. Is there truly any way to prove that I am not a dream in everybodies mind?
This is an entirely different subject, stop trying to throw people off track. I have to go to class.

It also makes his existence impossible to disprove.
That's neither the point of the thread nor the trial. The point is that the burden of proof is on the believers to prove that he did exist.

The English word Easter does not come from Estora, it is a mistranslation from the Old High German. As for the discrimination, I seem to remember it being a free world. I won't be rude about atheists if they do not say that peoples beliefs are erroneous.
I'll dig up that stuff when I get back unless someone else beats me to it. But really, if you only want to hear your own opinions, either sit alone by yourself and record yourself talking and play it back to yourself or find a group of likeminded individuals who will say what you want to hear all the time, ok?

So you're going to be rude to anybody who says you hold erroneous beliefs? Will that include all the religious people who believe that your religious beliefs are erroneous?
Generally the various religions respect each other. They might not always agree, and there will always be some who take action against others, but for the majority they repect each others views.

Generally the various religions respect each other. They might not always agree, and there will always be some who take action against others, but for the majority they repect each others views.
Okay, now I know you're kidding.

A book written maybe 40 years after his death, but by wittnesses of the entire thing. It could not have been the a story or a prank on the romans also because all of the different accounts are all different yet the same in their own way. No account could be truly taken into account if all four were exactly the same. I would think it impossible at that time to write and print a book, not just one actually, but i believe 20, correct me if im wrong, in a matter of mere days. No, each had to be hand written. With no help from anybody really because the christians were exiled from normal society. 20 books in forty years. thats aproxamantly a book every 2 years. Not to shabby back then wouldnt you agree? In fact, I am making my own novel and it is a complete work of fiction. I am currently on page 200 and it has taken me aproxemently 3 years.

It also makes his existence impossible to disprove.

Correct - and if the atheist had said "Jesus did not exist" the burden of proof would be on him.
But if I read the article right he did not. He just said there is no evidence for Jesus existence - and the priest called him a liar. Which means the priest must now prove him wrong.

The title of this topic is therefor somewhat misleading; it should be "Prove that there is proof that Jesus existed"

This, unfortunately, seems to be the falacy many historians and philosophers create: they suggest that the priest must prove Christ existed... an impossible task. Equally impossible, however, is to definitively prove that he *didn't* exist. It's totally impossible, given the literature to *prove* anything one way or another... though Christian beliefs are built on just that... *believing*. I don't think a case like this should be allowed.

On the other end of the spectrum, a priest decrying an author who speaks out against the existence of Christ in a church bulletin isn't destroying his credibility... the kind of people who read church bulletins are the kind of people who would already think that this guy is a quack.

Honestly, I think he's a quack too.

My first question is what constitues proof. I mean the Gospels were reported to be accounts written by those who where closest to Jesus, but because it is a religious text it is invalid? THat seems a unfair bias towards the gospels. The gospels were written by those who knew Jesus when he was alive. Second the Josephus comment in the book of ANtiquity XVIII chapter 3 Mentions the history of Jesus. Yet because Josephus did not know Jesus, that is invalid? How many historians who wrote about a person after they died knew that person. If this burden of proof is held so high, then most of our written history would be in question.

We must all understand also that at least 1972 years have passed since the time Jesus died. ANy forensic evidence would be lost to the ages, or be untrustworthy, like the Nag Hammadi doccuments. Would they be considered invalid cause time withered a few holes in a few pages? Again this seems to be a unfair burden of proof.

Also in the book of ANtiquities XX, Josephus mentions the brother of Christ being charged and being put on trial. If his brother exists, should that not at least be circumstancial evidence to the fact that Jesus exists? Circumstancial evidence has convicted many people in a court of law, so should not this be tried by the same standards?

THe APostle Peter's body was found, buried in the exact spot the Acts of Peter described, under the vatican, and forensic SCience did discover he was executed by crucifixtion upside down with his feet cut off, as described in the Acts of Peter. If Jesus was a lie, or a myth why would this man decide to stay in rome. Who would knowingly die for a lie? I understand this is not proof but ina court of law motive is one of the 3 criteria for prosecution. ALso bartholmew was filet to death, by his accusers, as well as all the the remaining 11 apostles. Again why would they subjicate themselves to torture and death if they invented a myth?

In the book "the secret archives of the vatican" there is a copy of a document from a Roman solider who reportidly wrote that Jesus "the king of the Jews" was executed. THis Letter was written to Pilot. I can not authentice when the letter was written however.
I have not shown any direct evidence that Jesus existed, but I do belive I have shown enough circumstancial evidence to warent the possibilty of his existance, unless you desire to havea burden of proof so high that we would have to retry most of the court cases in the US.

BTW do not just make a blanket flame against this post for spelling errors. Spelling errors do not discount the ideas being presented.

so, why is the bible not considered true evidence? Little was written at the time, its a shame to blot out one of the, strike that, the biggest selling book in the entire world as evidence. Julis cesar is more of a work of fantasy then Jesus could be. Yet we do not question his existance because he did not show a limit on how one could go to heaven. No, the reason we question Jesus is because he makes many things in our life out to be sin. And do we want to change? Nope. I'll bet you the world that if he acutally made himself out to be a prophet, or a strong pharasie or rabbi, we would not question it.

This, unfortunately, seems to be the falacy many historians and philosophers create: they suggest that the priest must prove Christ existed... an impossible task. Equally impossible, however, is to definitively prove that he *didn't* exist. It's totally impossible, given the literature to *prove* anything one way or another... though Christian beliefs are built on just that... *believing*. I don't think a case like this should be allowed.

The case is not about proving Jesus existed or not. It is about being allowed to say it is not possible to prove he did or did not exist.

To put it differently: for your post the priest would have called YOU a liar too.

so, why is the bible not considered true evidence?

Several reasons. The most commonly mentioned ones:

1. From a scientists/historians point of view it seems to be a mixture of fact and fiction. The age of Methusalem, a world wide flood, the Genesis story and so on are all things which are not readily accepted as fact, since they contradict observations and other sources.
2. The Bible obviously has an agenda and therefor can not be considered an objective source - especially where its "main selling point" is concerned.
3. The Bible seems to contradict itself.

Yes, why can the bible not be considered evidence? It is because it questions the ways of man and some people do not like that. It is why the ten comandments may not be aloud to be displayed in courthouses although 85% of americans say that they are chirstians. It is because it literally persecutes those who truly do wrong and since they dont want to admit it, they do this sort of thing.

My first question is what constitues proof. I mean the Gospels were reported to be accounts written by those who where closest to Jesus, but because it is a religious text it is invalid? THat seems a unfair bias towards the gospels. The gospels were written by those who knew Jesus when he was alive. Second the Josephus comment in the book of ANtiquity XVIII chapter 3 Mentions the history of Jesus. Yet because Josephus did not know Jesus, that is invalid? How many historians who wrote about a person after they died knew that person. If this burden of proof is held so high, then most of our written history would be in question.

We must all understand also that at least 1972 years have passed since the time Jesus died. ANy forensic evidence would be lost to the ages, or be untrustworthy, like the Nag Hammadi doccuments. Would they be considered invalid cause time withered a few holes in a few pages? Again this seems to be a unfair burden of proof.

Also in the book of ANtiquities XX, Josephus mentions the brother of Christ being charged and being put on trial. If his brother exists, should that not at least be circumstancial evidence to the fact that Jesus exists? Circumstancial evidence has convicted many people in a court of law, so should not this be tried by the same standards?

THe APostle Peter's body was found, buried in the exact spot the Acts of Peter described, under the vatican, and forensic SCience did discover he was executed by crucifixtion upside down with his feet cut off, as described in the Acts of Peter. If Jesus was a lie, or a myth why would this man decide to stay in rome. Who would knowingly die for a lie? I understand this is not proof but ina court of law motive is one of the 3 criteria for prosecution. ALso bartholmew was filet to death, by his accusers, as well as all the the remaining 11 apostles. Again why would they subjicate themselves to torture and death if they invented a myth?

In the book "the secret archives of the vatican" there is a copy of a document from a Roman solider who reportidly wrote that Jesus "the king of the Jews" was executed. THis Letter was written to Pilot. I can not authentice when the letter was written however.
I have not shown any direct evidence that Jesus existed, but I do belive I have shown enough circumstancial evidence to warent the possibilty of his existance, unless you desire to havea burden of proof so high that we would have to retry most of the court cases in the US.

BTW do not just make a blanket flame against this post for spelling errors. Spelling errors do not discount the ideas being presented.

So you're going to be rude to anybody who says you hold erroneous beliefs? Will that include all the religious people who believe that your religious beliefs are erroneous?
Yea, theres no need to be rude to people who believe differently then you, cause if ur a christian, ur talkin to 4.5 billion people.

I have not shown any direct evidence that Jesus existed, but I do belive I have shown enough circumstancial evidence to warent the possibilty of his existance, unless you desire to havea burden of proof so high that we would have to retry most of the court cases in the US.

The courts require evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. And the evidence must survive scrutiny. None of the evidence you presented has survived scrutiny, plus they leave far more than reasonable doubt.

3. The Bible seems to contradict itself.
how does the bible contradict itself?

The courts require evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt. And the evidence must survive scrutiny. None of the evidence you presented has survived scrutiny, plus they leave far more than reasonable doubt.


In theory yes, but in actuality most court cases, especially murder and rape cases are tried and usually have convictions with nothing more than circumstancial evidence. If you so not belive me you should examine the court records in your local jurisdiction. OR like Scott Peterson, in reality there was no direct evidence that Lacy Peterson was murdered, her body was too badly decomposed to find evidence, yet there was enough circumstancial evidence, mostly based on Motive that convicted him. I stated that I did not have direct evidence, but I instead gave circumstancial evidence and motive of those closest to Jesus.

The Bible is a point of evidence. It just isn't a very strong one, and it is only one data point.

First, the four Gospels can't agree on a lot of Jesus' life, going to the point of actual contradiction in a few places. Second, the Diet that decided what would and what would not be in the Bible occurred more than three hundred years after the events chronicled, making the possibility - no, near certainty - that contemporary politics was a major influence on what went in and what was labelled Apocrypha. Thirdly, the original documents were in a mish-mash of Latin, Greek and Aramaic - and have, by and large, been poorly translated.

Thus, the Bible is not a good place to start looking for the truth.

Yes, why can the bible not be considered evidence? It is because it questions the ways of man and some people do not like that. It is why the ten comandments may not be aloud to be displayed in courthouses although 85% of americans say that they are chirstians. It is because it literally persecutes those who truly do wrong and since they dont want to admit it, they do this sort of thing.

*points upwards to his edit which gives a slightly better explanation*

Aside: why are you so sure your Bible is a good guide for telling right from wrong ? It doesn't give you the underlying reasoning; just a set of examples and commandments. And if we believe the Bible those rules were made by a God who supposedly impregnated someone elses wife without her explicit permission, allowed this poor woman, her husband and this son he forced on her to be prosecuted and hunted to be finally killed in a gruesome way. This God has also commited massmurder and genocide, enjoys animal sacrifices and so on.

If a human would do all these things, claiming it was "because he loved his children" he would still be convicted. Probably to the chair in several US states. But for some reason calling him "God" means you have to wrship him.

The courts require evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. And the evidence must survive scrutiny. None of the evidence you presented has survived scrutiny, plus they leave far more than reasonable doubt.
True true, yet once again, how can most anything in such a past age be proven without resonalbe doubt? It is certainly quite a feat to prove something about 1 man beyond a reasonable doubt. Espeacially when the main evidence is said to be not good enough. What I want to know is how can anything be considered not good enough when it is a book, maybe not published but written in the exact time of Jesus, telling about Jesus. Wouldnt you think that it was not a hoax if it is known to be published 40 years after his death? If it truly was fiction, wouldnt they have thought up an earlier date to put it at and call it a real mirical that it was finished in lets say a year?

3. The Bible seems to contradict itself.
how does the bible contradict itself?

Read the Gospels and write down the details on Jesus familytree and movements for a quick example. There do exist quite elaborate (/contrived) explanations of these contradictions though.

The Bible is a point of evidence. It just isn't a very strong one, and it is only one data point.

First, the four Gospels can't agree on a lot of Jesus' life, going to the point of actual contradiction in a few places. Second, the Diet that decided what would and what would not be in the Bible occurred more than three hundred years after the events chronicled, making the possibility - no, near certainty - that contemporary politics was a major influence on what went in and what was labelled Apocrypha. Thirdly, the original documents were in a mish-mash of Latin, Greek and Aramaic - and have, by and large, been poorly translated.

Thus, the Bible is not a good place to start looking for the truth.


YOu are right the bible as a whole is not, but if you examine the 32 gospels that have been discovered, especially the earliest ones THomas, Matthew and Mark, followed by luke, although they do disagree in some areas, still has some consistancy, and should not be discarded.

Also If you get 3 people who all witness a event usually as time goes by like say 30-50 years their minds do distort or forget some details. It may not be an ideal starting point but it should still be considered.

Read the Gospels and write down the details on Jesus familytree and movements for a quick example. There do exist quite elaborate (/contrived) explanations of these contradictions though.

THose contridictions are very minor. Was Jesus born ina manger (Maththew) or a cave (Luke). You know that kind of incostancy is really irrelevant in the whole picture.

You see, what the bible does is not limit your life, but tell a way for you to best live it. It is said that God limits your doings to a minimum of everything good but what he really does because as the bible says is love everybody in the world tries to point a way to the most fufilling life. Nothing in the bible contradicts because it all is one way to live the short lives that we live.

IN fact he was born in both. IN those days a manger would most likely be in a cave. This also, very likely, he was not born in the winter but the spring due to the shepards watching over their flocks which is much more reasonable for a baby to be born. The reason that his birthday was set on december the 25 was because another roman holiday was at that same time and the christians hoped to snuff it out. If you would watch the history channel, then this would prove it because I am getting this from there, which, is a completely reliable and unbiased source.

and no room in the inn could either mean that there was no room, or mean that it was not a fit place to have a baby. Both could be very plausiable

You see, what the bible does is not limit your life, but tell a way for you to best live it. It is said that God limits your doings to a minimum of everything good but what he really does because as the bible says is love everybody in the world tries to point a way to the most fufilling life. Nothing in the bible contradicts because it all is one way to live the short lives that we live.


Unfortunatley that is not true. I wish it were. THe over all story is not incosistant, however details are. Was Jesus on the sermon of the Mount, as in mark luke and Matthew, or was it the sermon on the plain as in John. THe time line in The gospel of John is very inconsistant with the time line in the other 3 accepted gospels. But the over all message of God's love, sacrifice and forgiveness is not inconsistant

IN fact he was born in both. IN those days a manger would most likely be in a cave. If you would watch the history channel, then this would prove it because I am getting this from there, which, is a completely reliable and unbiased source.

YEs I did see that episode on the history channel, and i found it interesting. However the spot where Jesus was supposed to be born, where a giant cathedral is currently built, there is no cave. So either there is a incosistancy or the church is wrong about the location.

In theory yes, but in actuality most court cases, especially murder and rape cases are tried and usually have convictions with nothing more than circumstancial evidence. If you so not belive me you should examine the court records in your local jurisdiction.
Which is one of the problems raised against trial by jury and in favor of at least professional jurors. But that's for another thread.

I stated that I did not have direct evidence, but I instead gave circumstancial evidence and motive of those closest to Jesus.
However, the evidence in the Peterson case survived scrutiny. It was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott had enough motive to want to kill Lacy, even though the method and opportunity were not demonstrated. Of course, any good lawyer would appeal based on that.

The circumstancial evidence you present for Jesus, however, has not survived that scrutiny. It hasn't been proved that the gospels were written by close associates of Christ (most scholars agree that they were written at least 40 years after his death by people who knew people who said were close to Christ), and the rest has been proven fake as well. Just look at some of the previous posts on this thread.

That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. As pointed also in this thread, it's not very likely that JC is a completely mythological invention, but could be a real person or persons around who the stories were created, like Robin Hood or King Arthur.

Also consider that we have here a person who claims to be the Son of God and the only way to salvation. That's a very tall statement, and as such requires very tall evidence.

IN fact he was born in both. IN those days a manger would most likely be in a cave. This also, very likely, he was not born in the winter but the spring due to the shepards watching over their flocks which is much more reasonable for a baby to be born. The reason that his birthday was set on december the 25 was because another roman holiday was at that same time and the christians hoped to snuff it out. If you would watch the history channel, then this would prove it because I am getting this from there, which, is a completely reliable and unbiased source.
You are geting what from there? all you have is a hypothesis ... it does not matter if the toothfairy told you this hypothesis ... we are looking for unbiased (as possible) INFORMATION not conjectures

but you see, "supposed to be born." Just as many of the holy relics and such are "supposed" to be imagaes of him. Sadly, i doubt that they are. What we are talking about is not what people made up, but what actually happened and was recorded in the bible.

*points upwards to his edit which gives a slightly better explanation*

Aside: why are you so sure your Bible is a good guide for telling right from wrong ? It doesn't give you the underlying reasoning; just a set of examples and commandments. And if we believe the Bible those rules were made by a God who supposedly impregnated someone elses wife without her explicit permission, allowed this poor woman, her husband and this son he forced on her to be prosecuted and hunted to be finally killed in a gruesome way. This God has also commited massmurder and genocide, enjoys animal sacrifices and so on.

If a human would do all these things, claiming it was "because he loved his children" he would still be convicted. Probably to the chair in several US states. But for some reason calling him "God" means you have to wrship him.

First off, God did not force Mary to bear Jesus.

Luke 1:26-38

" 26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her."

Mary agreed to it, it was never forced on her in any shape or form. Another point that I have come to notice is that everyone says that the bible is false because it contains some subposed(sp?) contridictions. First off, you can not ask someone to prove a person existed and then dismiss their claim on the basis that you don't believe their evidence. Secondly, I have not read all 19 pages, but I was just wondering if anyone has brought up what the 1st century historian Josephus and the James Ossuary has to say about this subject?

And as for incosistant, I already mentioned that before. It proves the authenticity of each mans...whatever that word is for telling their part...

Which is one of the problems raised against trial by jury and in favor of at least professional jurors. But that's for another thread.


However, the evidence in the Peterson case survived scrutiny. It was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Scott had enough motive to want to kill Lacy, even though the method and opportunity were not demonstrated. Of course, any good lawyer would appeal based on that.

The circumstancial evidence you present for Jesus, however, has not survived that scrutiny. It hasn't been proved that the gospels were written by close associates of Christ (most scholars agree that they were written at least 40 years after his death by people who knew people who said were close to Christ), and the rest has been proven fake as well. Just look at some of the previous posts on this thread.

That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. As pointed also in this thread, it's not very likely that JC is a completely mythological invention, but could be a real person or persons around who the stories were created, like Robin Hood or King Arthur.

Also consider that we have here a person who claims to be the Son of God and the only way to salvation. That's a very tall statement, and as such requires very tall evidence.

THe Problem with the claim of the SOn of God, and the way to salvation is it requires a set of evidence that is founded on faith. First Criteria is in order to be the son of God, there must be a God, a faith based claim. Second that God wants you to be saved, and that Jesus does save you. ALl the criteria for evidence in your last paragraph can only be done with faith. Sorry that we can not use empirical evidence to validate that claim

um since i dont know how to quote, Ill just say yes to what he said and say that God does not force us to do anything. His desire is for us to love him and true love is chosen love.

And as for incosistant, I already mentioned that before. It proves the authenticity of each mans...whatever that word is for telling their part...
What the hell are you going on about? You know if you are replying to something said QUOTE IT so we have a clue as to what you are babbling about.

um since i dont know how to quote, Ill just say yes to what he said and say that God does not force us to do anything. His desire is for us to love him and true love is chosen love.
Click the “reply with a quote” link underneath a post to reply in a quote.

What I want to know is how can anything be considered not good enough when it is a book, maybe not published but written in the exact time of Jesus, telling about Jesus. Wouldnt you think that it was not a hoax if it is known to be published 40 years after his death? If it truly was fiction, wouldnt they have thought up an earlier date to put it at and call it a real mirical that it was finished in lets say a year?
The dating of the gospels don't come from the gospels themselves. They're thought to have been written around that age because that's when we find mention of them in other writings. The oldest known copies of the gospels themselves are from much later, about 100 years later.

It's not Christian tradition that says the gospels were written 40 years after the death of Christ, but historical corroboration. Granted, almost everybody agrees that the stories could have been passed around orally before being put in writing. That would explain very well why the inconsistencies and all, but would also have added a lot of embellishments to the actual facts.

no there that is a not faith based claim. If you truly open your heart and look around you'll see a dying theory called the darwin theory and an opening in the sience compartment to a "higher power" as for everything else, as I have said and proven before, everything in life is set on a base of faith, however miniscule

First off, God did not force Mary to bear Jesus.

Luke 1:26-38

" 26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her."

Mary agreed to it, it was never forced on her in any shape or form.

Well, she had no choice, all she could do is accept it.

Another point that I have come to notice is that everyone says that the bible is false because it contains some subposed(sp?) contridictions. First off, you can not ask someone to prove a person existed and then dismiss their claim on the basis that you don't believe their evidence. Secondly, I have not read all 19 pages, but I was just wondering if anyone has brought up what the 1st century historian Josephus and the James Ossuary has to say about this subject?

Yes everything that was brought up in the last few pages has already been discussed earlier (and has been refuted in the case of Josephus and others).

Unfortunatley that is not true. I wish it were. THe over all story is not incosistant, however details are. Was Jesus on the sermon of the Mount, as in mark luke and Matthew, or was it the sermon on the plain as in John. THe time line in The gospel of John is very inconsistant with the time line in the other 3 accepted gospels. But the over all message of God's love, sacrifice and forgiveness is not inconsistant
The message of love as a whole was defiantly inconsistent if you take the bible as a whole.

no there that is a not faith based claim. If you truly open your heart and look around you'll see a dying theory called the darwin theory and an opening in the sience compartment to a "higher power" as for everything else, as I have said and proven before, everything in life is set on a base of faith, however miniscule
You contradict it being a faith based claim by making another faith based claim

Wow

Note to the ignorant the Darwin theory is no longer the current evolutionary theory

Creationists are so behind the times usually

What the hell are you going on about? You know if you are replying to something said QUOTE IT so we have a clue as to what you are babbling about.
k i think i got it. and i was talking about when teh allied powers said that the bible was inconsitant

k i think i got it. and i was talking about when teh allied powers said that the bible was inconsitant
It is at times

There are all kinds of little mistakes

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her."

Mary agreed to it, it was never forced on her in any shape or form.

Examine the sentence "I am the Lord's servant" closely.

THe Problem with the claim of the SOn of God, and the way to salvation is it requires a set of evidence that is founded on faith. First Criteria is in order to be the son of God, there must be a God, a faith based claim. Second that God wants you to be saved, and that Jesus does save you. ALl the criteria for evidence in your last paragraph can only be done with faith. Sorry that we can not use empirical evidence to validate that claim
And that's very nice and well for church and your personal life and all that. But when it comes to a setting that requires empirical proof and the rule of logic, like science or a court, faith simply doesn't cut it.

no there that is a not faith based claim. If you truly open your heart and look around you'll see a dying theory called the darwin theory and an opening in the sience compartment to a "higher power" as for everything else, as I have said and proven before, everything in life is set on a base of faith, however miniscule

What I meant by a faith based claim is that it can not be proven using empirical evidence that can be recreated in a labortory that some people require in order to belive something. The very idea of opening your heart to an idea, does not prove it's existance. However I wish it did personally.

And that's very nice and well for church and your personal life and all that. But when it comes to a setting that requires empirical proof and the rule of logic, like science or a court, faith simply doesn't cut it.


That is very true. Science and Religion use different set of criteria to establish it's claims and dismissals. It is not fair to either side to claim that one side if inferior or wrong based on a criteria that it does not follow, but this is my personal opinion, not a fact in anyway

You contradict it being a faith based claim by making another faith based claim

Wow

Note to the ignorant the Darwin theory is no longer the current evolutionary theory

Creationists are so behind the times usually
Creationists? Although I am not to familiar with the word i suppose it is directed towards Christianity, and I must say that they certainly are not. I'm afraid that they are always ahead of the times since their entire religion is based upon life after death. How can a faith with 1.5 billion or more people in it and rapidly growing be "behind the times"
And of course I made a faith based claim because Ive been trying to tell you that everything is a faith based claim when we talk about any man in history. This increases the further back we go. I want to know if you can find as much proof on julis cesar or any other emporer then jesus

What I meant by a faith based claim is that it can not be proven using empirical evidence that can be recreated in a labortory that some people require in order to belive something. The very idea of opening your heart to an idea, does not prove it's existance. However I wish it did personally.
Yes it doesnt, but it helps you to understand

Creationists? Although I am not to familiar with the word i suppose it is directed towards Christianity, and I must say that they certainly are not. I'm afraid that they are always ahead of the times since their entire religion is based upon life after death. How can a faith with 1.5 billion or more people in it and rapidly growing be "behind the times"
And of course I made a faith based claim because Ive been trying to tell you that everything is a faith based claim when we talk about any man in history. This increases the further back we go. I want to know if you can find as much proof on julis cesar or any other emporer then jesus

Other than Records written by thsoe closest to him (refutted since those that Jesus was closest to was refutted), the writings of Josephus (also refuted here), and many roman coins with his picture on it (may be anybody) guess so :). I jsut believe the burden of proof on this particular topic is too high, and to vague.

I truly doubt that the priest will find evidence to satisfy the courst of Jesus's existance, not because there is lack of evidence, but because it is considered to be unexeptable. If you just look around you, theres the evidence. Kind of ironic that there is a planet with teh perfect climate to fit with our survival. Kind of ironic that the dead sea scrolls were found and have almost exact writing as do bibles and such religious texts have thousands of years later. Kind of ironic that the exact time that we found out how to use oil that we had the means to contain it and use it. Kind of ironic that everything is the way that it is.

And as for incosistant, I already mentioned that before. It proves the authenticity of each mans...whatever that word is for telling their part...
The word is 'testamony'.

Creationists? Although I am not to familiar with the word i suppose it is directed towards Christianity, and I must say that they certainly are not.
Creationism is a philosophy with more or less modern roots that states that the Universe was created by a supernatural being or god. They are not necessarily Christians, but seem to be almost exclusively.

The failure of Creationism is that they try to base their beliefs in the erroneous understanding and application of science, sometimes basing their claims on old scientific statements that have long ago been discarded or corrected. That's why Upward's said they're behind the times.

I want to know if you can find as much proof on julis cesar or any other emporer then jesus
Not only that. You can find far more and better substantiated evidence of him than Jesus. From coins bearing his likeness, to dedications, contemporary writings and verifiable accounts of his actions. It's a pretty sure thing that he existed. Maybe some of the things that he did, like saying "the dice is cast" when crossing the Rubicon, did not happen but his existance is pretty certain.

Of course, if I was to tell you that there was a Roman soldier called Caius who could predict the weather two days in advance, that's a different thing.

I jsut believe the burden of proof on this particular topic is too high, and to vague.
It is, but what I'm getting at here is that though it is near impossible to prove a man's existance 2000 years ago to a court, it is much easier to build a solid foundation of evidence if you are given the ear of somebody who knows it takes faith to truly believe in any record given of the past. In this case, I think it is painfully obvious that Jesus did exist and was the messiah, but who am I but a mere teenager to say such things?

but how can you know that it was Julis? Of course he was real but there are only texts written much past, much more then forty years past, his time about him. The probability of those being false are just as much of that of the bible and maybe more

I truly doubt that the priest will find evidence to satisfy the courst of Jesus's existance, not because there is lack of evidence, but because it is considered to be unexeptable. If you just look around you, theres the evidence. Kind of ironic that there is a planet with teh perfect climate to fit with our survival. Kind of ironic that the dead sea scrolls were found and have almost exact writing as do bibles and such religious texts have thousands of years later. Kind of ironic that the exact time that we found out how to use oil that we had the means to contain it and use it. Kind of ironic that everything is the way that it is.

This is called circular reasoning.

Creationism is a philosophy with more or less modern roots that states that the Universe was created by a supernatural being or god. They are not necessarily Christians, but seem to be almost exclusively.

The failure of Creationism is that they try to base their beliefs in the erroneous understanding and application of science, sometimes basing their claims on old scientific statements that have long ago been discarded or corrected. That's why Upward's said they're behind the times.


Not only that. You can find far more and better substantiated evidence of him than Jesus. From coins bearing his likeness, to dedications, contemporary writings and verifiable accounts of his actions. It's a pretty sure thing that he existed. Maybe some of the things that he did, like saying "the dice is cast" when crossing the Rubicon, did not happen but his existance is pretty certain.

Of course, if I was to tell you that there was a Roman soldier called Caius who could predict the weather two days in advance, that's a different thing.

ALso Ceaser was the emporer, his roots spread across the empire. THe Infant Christain church was not so wide spread during Jesus' lifetime, (mainly 12 people) as such outside writing down their accounts of what happened there will be little evidence. SOrry there were not birth certificates, or Blogs or any other stamp of evidence that mainly exists today. Also without mass communication Jesus had to speak to crowds in person, again oral speeches and teachings do not leave a fingerprint in history other than someone writing them down, which seems to be refutted cause the most accepted texts are the religious ones used in the bible

Other than Records written by thsoe closest to him (refutted since those that Jesus was closest to was refutted), the writings of Josephus (also refuted here), and many roman coins with his picture on it (may be anybody) guess so :). I jsut believe the burden of proof on this particular topic is too high, and to vague.
For the umpteenth time, the gospels were not written by people close to Jesus, and that in itself is not the reason why they're refuted. Also Josephus himself was not refuted, but that passage in particular which was inconsistent with the rest of the text and possibly not a part of Josephus original writing.

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?

whoa sorry bout that

For the umpteenth time, the gospels were not written by people close to Jesus, and that in itself is not the reason why they're refuted. Also Josephus himself was not refuted, but that passage in particular which was inconsistent with the rest of the text and possibly not a part of Josephus original writing.

Lol forgive me, what I was saying in that comment was meant in a light hearted jovial manner. Hince why I put :) behind it. It is difficult to tell on the internet i know

Several historians hold records of Christ, and there is a record of his crucifixtion. Also, several Muslim scholars have notes of him. It is wrong that a cort of law is askin Fr. to point out the obvious.

My point is that if all of those things count as evidence, why does not the bible, wittnesess apart from the bible, a crowd of 500 seeing him after his death, the miraculous occurance of it spreading so quickly, people proffessing their belief in him athough it was pusishable by death, not count as evidence?
Well it does as a sort but not enough to stand on its own … you need to have CORROBORATING evidence too.

One source (specially written by man) does not verifiable truth make. If it did there is more evidence for the Lord of the Rings then there is for Jesus

True, but the reason for all those listings was to show that it was not just from one source. And The lord of the rings, although once again it is a question of faith, faith on what is real, is obviously fictional. Though I must say that the entire book is a symbolic meaning to a mans life and such. Just as CS Lewis writes in the chronicles of narnia

and it was not written by a man, but men, many men all getting the same basic idea across from God to the page.

Several historians hold records of Christ, and there is a record of his crucifixtion. Also, several Muslim scholars have notes of him. It is wrong that a cort of law is askin Fr. to point out the obvious.
Ok show us these documents … I have yet to see them.

Yes, why can the bible not be considered evidence? It is because it questions the ways of man and some people do not like that. It is why the ten comandments may not be aloud to be displayed in courthouses although 85% of americans say that they are chirstians. It is because it literally persecutes those who truly do wrong and since they dont want to admit it, they do this sort of thing.

Totally off-topic, my friend.

This thread isn't about Ten Commandments in public buildings. Hell, it isn't even about how Chritianity is observed in the USA.

To answer your question about why is the bible not considered evidence...

Well, the question is flawed. The Bible IS considered evidence.... it just isn't a very GOOD form of evidence.

The reasons are several:

1) It is written for an agenda. It is a religious book - so there is purpose to it's creation. That doesn't INVALIDATE it... but it does mean that the agenda MUST be borne in mind.

2) It is not 'contemporary'. Even the Gospels were not written DURING the life of Jesus... which adds the possibility of greater error.

3) It is not 'independent'. The stories in the Bible were written by people who were involved IN the young Christian church. Thus, there is a bias to the evidence.

4) Accounts that are held to be eye-witness testimony, turn out (on investigation) to be nothing like. The Gospel of John, was written by a man who never knew Jesus. Paul's texts were written by a man that never met the living Jesus.

5) An additional factor... MANY religious texts date from around that time... and many CLAIM to be written by certain people, and transpire to be written by others. There is not even any way to be certain that the Biblical Gospels were written by the people it is CLAIMED wrote them. Indeed - it is unclear whether THOSE individuals even existed.

Yea, I'm sorry but I'm with him. Although I do not doubt their existance, I have never heard of them

Ok show us these documents … I have yet to see them.

Have fun here are a few sources, if you want more let me know or google search it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

An Excellent source of ancient history and religious content.

THose contridictions are very minor. Was Jesus born ina manger (Maththew) or a cave (Luke). You know that kind of incostancy is really irrelevant in the whole picture.

Except, of course... that it is argued the Bible MUST be true, because it is 'dictated' by God.

So - either that is a lie.... and it was written by men, who MAKE mistakes (like not knowing if it was a cave or a manger)... or...

God is not infallible.

Which do you prefer?

and it was not written by a man, but men, many men all getting the same basic idea across from God to the page.
Yeah right compare the old testament to the new … god of old was a vengeful god … then he had a change of heart and became cuddly god.

The Starwars Books were written by a bunch of men that all managed to get the same point across
Does that make that universe reality?

Have fun here are a few sources, if you want more let me know or google search it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

An Excellent source of ancient history and religious content.
sweet. So yea, add that stuff to my list. So, basically, there is many things in our existance to prove the existance of Jesus but despite all that, the courts still wont go in favor of the priest. It is the basic law of life that christians are put last in teh line of religions.

Except, of course... that it is argued the Bible MUST be true, because it is 'dictated' by God.

So - either that is a lie.... and it was written by men, who MAKE mistakes (like not knowing if it was a cave or a manger)... or...

God is not infallible.

Which do you prefer?

THe Classic response to this line of arguementation is the Bible was written by divinely inspired men. Take that for whatever you want.

Have fun here are a few sources, if you want more let me know or google search it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

An Excellent source of ancient history and religious content.
You might as well have said “somewhere” for all the showing you did.
I love doing research but just providing a list of documents in a category hardly helps prove your point

sweet. So yea, add that stuff to my list. So, basically, there is many things in our existance to prove the existance of Jesus but despite all that, the courts still wont go in favor of the priest. It is the basic law of life that christians are put last in teh line of religions.
No he showed a list of early writings … not necessarily any that support the theory that there are contemporary works that support Jesus

You may have wanted to look at those linked websites before proclaiming them as support for your hypothesis

No, the bible says that God is both merciful and Just. To be merciful was to send down Jesus and give us a way to attone for our sins before that by sacrificing a lamb. To be Just he condems those who dont believe in him to eternity in hell. The reason he performs terrible miricles is because that way we turn to him. 9/11 for example, many people turned to God for answers because of the disaster. Since we dont listen to him in peace, he gives us a chance to be saved through great and terrible disasters

You might as well have said “somewhere” for all the showing you did.
I love doing research but just providing a list of documents in a category hardly helps prove your point

It was not my point to prove but that guy who said that their was massive evidence. I juse decided to help him out. If you seek my ideas and sources look for the big long essay I wrote earlier or if u want i will cut and paste it for you on this page.

that was directed to upward thrust and the vengiful god post

It was not my point to prove but that guy who said that their was massive evidence. I juse decided to help him out. If you seek my ideas and sources look for the big long essay I wrote earlier or if u want i will cut and paste it for you on this page.
Ill read back some I might have missed it

And you did not really help him out lol you just gave him hope that it may be in there ... lol and seemingly confused him I dont think he understands what the resources that you posted are lol

but how can you know that it was Julis? Of course he was real but there are only texts written much past, much more then forty years past, his time about him.
There are also statues, mosaics and the like. There are many, many, contemporary writings from primary sources, that is people who were really there. The writers of the gospels were not really there, they wrote what they heard from someone who said he was really there.
The probability of those being false are just as much of that of the bible and maybe more
Some may be false, in fact some are almost certain to be false and some are in doubt, especially when it comes to some events and happenings. But the probability of all that evidence being false is waaay too low.

As to the event of Jesus appearing after death before a crowd of 500, all we have is that they say that Jesus appeared before crowd of 500, but we don't have testimony from one of those 500, not a single one. Not even a second hand account external to the bible that says "my uncle was in that crowd when Jesus appeared". That casts doubt on that event.

The other stuff you mention is evidence that people believe in a guy name Christ, but not necessarily that he was who they say he was and did everything they say he did. Yes, it's possible that a guy like Jesus was real, and his disciples may have started to spread his teachings around the world. But they were passed around orally, and sometimes they had to face questions like "why should I believe in your god? My god can turn stones into cheese and also came back from amongst the death." To what some disciples may have retorted "oh, yeah, well mine turns water into wine, walk on water and bring other people from amongst the death." They weren't being malicious, they were trying to be heard.

Over time these claims, plus traditions from other peoples may have been brought together to create an image of Christ that's different to that of the real man, and by the time the gospels are put in writing it's very difficult to tell what's real and what's not.

If you think this couldn't happen, check out how urban legends are born and spread. It takes very little time.

I'm not saying that mine is the real, true, explanation. It would be very difficult to prove that this is what happened. But it's possible, and more probable than an incarnated god with magic powers. That's why they call it reasonable doubt.

Ill read back some I might have missed it

And you did not really help him out lol you just gave him hope that it may be in there ... lol and seemingly confused him I dont think he understands what the resources that you posted are lol

HAHA. oh well I tried :)

Looking for evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, I came across the Famous Trials website,
"This is an educational and non-commercial site maintained at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School.
Doug Linder, Professor of Law(Seminar in Famous Trials).(c) 1995-2005. "

Here is a link to the page on the Trial of Jesus. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesus.html)

I was really looking for references to Dr. Simon Greenleaf, whom I remembered hearing about years ago as being a Harvard Law professor who tried to disprove the veracity of the Gospels according to the Rules of Evidence, and found himself instead convinced of the truth of the matter.

"Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen." (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html)

I was hoping for an unbiased source, which is what I believe that I have found here. The links from the Trial page present much interesting material, including a question and answer page with the central questions of this thread, about the historicity of Jesus.

I personally find it hard to believe that a fictional character could account for nearly 2000 years of history. Has any fictional character changed the entire world and had such a lasting effect on the world for such a long period?

And how could a legend or myth spring up within 20 years of someone's death? Paul was spreading his Gentile version of Christianity by then.

Anyway, much good reading there.;)

No, the bible says that God is both merciful and Just. To be merciful was to send down Jesus and give us a way to attone for our sins before that by sacrificing a lamb. To be Just he condems those who dont believe in him to eternity in hell. The reason he performs terrible miricles is because that way we turn to him. 9/11 for example, many people turned to God for answers because of the disaster. Since we dont listen to him in peace, he gives us a chance to be saved through great and terrible disasters
Lol right

"And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD they God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straightness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:" (Deuteronomy 28:53)

God telling you to eat your own children

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." (Leviticus 25:44 , KJV)

God condoning Slavery

"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)

God blessing thoes that dash your children against a rock

Do you really want me to go on?

Lol forgive me, what I was saying in that comment was meant in a light hearted jovial manner. Hince why I put :) behind it. It is difficult to tell on the internet i know
Oh, that's ok. I didn't intend that to come out so harsh either.

Some of these arguements are a tad...circular.

A fair number of assumptions have to take place to take the bible at face value. And of course, taking the bible literally, it'll fall on its face.

So, we must then take the bible, not literally, but as an interpretation.

But whose interpretation do we believe?

Questions, too many questions, far too many problems and incorrect answers.

Proving Jesus was a man, is probably not that difficult, proving he's the son of god, is going to be impossible.

No, the bible says that God is both merciful and Just. To be merciful was to send down Jesus and give us a way to attone for our sins before that by sacrificing a lamb. To be Just he condems those who dont believe in him to eternity in hell. The reason he performs terrible miricles is because that way we turn to him. 9/11 for example, many people turned to God for answers because of the disaster. Since we dont listen to him in peace, he gives us a chance to be saved through great and terrible disasters
Are you claiming 9/11 was a "terrible miracle" performed by God?

I'm not saying that mine is the real, true, explanation. It would be very difficult to prove that this is what happened. But it's possible, and more probable than an incarnated god with magic powers. That's why they call it reasonable doubt.
How is it more possible, and more probable that there is no God with magical powers? Though magical powers is not really what I'd refer to them as. There is no evidence showing that Jesus did not exist and not only is there evidence that he did exist, but i have named them off to you. Everything in the bible is acurate sientifically except the debated subject on if there is a God and there is a messiah from water coming out of his side when the roman soldier stabbing him to blood coming out of his pores when he is praying.

but you see, "supposed to be born." Just as many of the holy relics and such are "supposed" to be imagaes of him. Sadly, i doubt that they are. What we are talking about is not what people made up, but what actually happened and was recorded in the bible.

"What actually happened" and what "was recorded in the bible" have yet to be proved to be related...

[QUOTE=Neu Friesland]Some of these arguements are a tad...circular./QUOTE]


Maybe but some of these points have been argued for about 1972 years now, and I sincerely doubt they will be solved on this forum. Just have fun with it. :)

There is no evidence showing that Jesus did not exist and not only is there evidence that he did exist, but i have named them off to you.

First rule in Logic class, you can not prove a negitive. As such their can never be evidence that something did not exist.

snip
There is no evidence showing that Jesus did not exist
snip
Um you cant prove the non-existance of something.

First rule in Logic class, you can not prove a negitive. As such their can never be evidence that something did not exist.
Damn you beat me to it

First off, God did not force Mary to bear Jesus.

Luke 1:26-38

" 26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her."

Mary agreed to it, it was never forced on her in any shape or form. Another point that I have come to notice is that everyone says that the bible is false because it contains some subposed(sp?) contridictions. First off, you can not ask someone to prove a person existed and then dismiss their claim on the basis that you don't believe their evidence. Secondly, I have not read all 19 pages, but I was just wondering if anyone has brought up what the 1st century historian Josephus and the James Ossuary has to say about this subject?

You note that Mary is informed in verse 31 that she is going to have a child?

You note that she accepts it in verse 38?

You know what they call the procreative act, when you don't get permission?

You know what they call the act, when you do it without permission, even if it IS 'accepted' after the fact?


Oh - and, the James Ossuary has been proved to be a recent fake.

um since i dont know how to quote, Ill just say yes to what he said and say that God does not force us to do anything. His desire is for us to love him and true love is chosen love.

Unless you are Pharaoh, of course.

You've read Exodus, yes?

when the roman soldier stabbing him to blood coming out of his pores when he is praying.

Actually there is a medical condition, I forgot the name of it, but when you truly feel the stress of death, people have sweated out blood. THis has occured more than once in history. FOrgive me though for not remembering the exact name of the condition nor do i have a website for you to look it up.

Are you claiming 9/11 was a "terrible miracle" performed by God?
No, i am not. God does not kill. I am saying that man chose to do it. Once again, God does not force upon us anything. Though it was mans choice, it was God's plan for that to happen and since God knows everything, he knew that despite the death, more people would come to him.

How is it more possible, and more probable that there is no God with magical powers? Though magical powers is not really what I'd refer to them as. There is no evidence showing that Jesus did not exist and not only is there evidence that he did exist, but i have named them off to you. Everything in the bible is acurate sientifically except the debated subject on if there is a God and there is a messiah from water coming out of his side when the roman soldier stabbing him to blood coming out of his pores when he is praying.
It's not more possible. It's just as possible. It is more probable because it is an explanation consistent with human nature and that doesn't require supernatural occurences to explain it.

The evidence you have named, time after time has been proven unreliable and not very good, and has been dealt with in the rest of this thread. There can't be evidence of his non-existence, the mere concept of that is unreasonable.

If you think the bible is accurate scientifically (like the rabbit is a rumiant) you desperately need to update your science.

Gnostic Gospels- an incontravertible primary source attesting to the existence of Jesus Christ.

Well it does as a sort but not enough to stand on its own … you need to have CORROBORATING evidence too.

One source (specially written by man) does not verifiable truth make. If it did there is more evidence for the Lord of the Rings then there is for Jesus

Better book, too... ;)

I personally find it hard to believe that a fictional character could account for nearly 2000 years of history. Has any fictional character changed the entire world and had such a lasting effect on the world for such a long period?

And how could a legend or myth spring up within 20 years of someone's death? Paul was spreading his Gentile version of Christianity by then.
:eek: Time accounted for nearly 2000 years of history, not Jesus.

The world changed based on the story and its inspirational significance, not necessarily on any man. He could just as easily been a mythic figure.

A myth can arise about a living man; but that's not the same context of "myth" as the stories about Jesus. The Christian myth assigns story elements a symbolic meaning, allegory that leads one to realisation of a spiritually inspiring truth.

No, i am not. God does not kill. I am saying that man chose to do it. Once again, God does not force upon us anything. Though it was mans choice, it was God's plan for that to happen and since God knows everything, he knew that despite the death, more people would come to him.

I sense a logical trap coming up...

Gnostic Gospels- an incontravertible primary source attesting to the existence of Jesus Christ.

Haha, good to see someone else on this board who appreciates the Gnostic texts. :)

No, i am not. God does not kill. I am saying that man chose to do it. Once again, God does not force upon us anything. Though it was mans choice, it was God's plan for that to happen and since God knows everything, he knew that despite the death, more people would come to him.
He doesn’t? And here I thought he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were not doing what he wanted

He doesn’t? And here I thought he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were not doing what he wanted

Then there was that whole flood thing and a pinch of Lot's wife.

No, i am not. God does not kill. I am saying that man chose to do it. Once again, God does not force upon us anything. Though it was mans choice, it was God's plan for that to happen and since God knows everything, he knew that despite the death, more people would come to him.
I think in this instance "plan" is a really bad choice of word.

Haha, good to see someone else on this board who appreciates the Gnostic texts. :)

Indeed, you do sometimes wonder as to the education of some posters....

Then there was that whole flood thing and a pinch of Lot's wife.
Cant forget about them

Look what he did to the pharaoh when he did not listen to his mouthpiece mosses. (thing GNI mentioned it though)

THe Classic response to this line of arguementation is the Bible was written by divinely inspired men. Take that for whatever you want.

Which is fair, and an answer I am aware of...

However, it doesn't explain why one Gospel thought Jesus was born at home, and one Gospel though Jesus was born while his parents were on a trip... for example.

Whether you think God is a poor communicator, or you think the transcribers just suffered from mortal lapses...

What it means is, the Bible does contain contradictions, and cannot be the ABSOLUTE literal word of God.


Which means, of course... it is only as good a piece of evidence, as can be supported by corroboration with OTHER sources.

I personally find it hard to believe that a fictional character could account for nearly 2000 years of history. Has any fictional character changed the entire world and had such a lasting effect on the world for such a long period?

Rather depends on whether you believe Marduk to be a fictional person.

If you accept Marduk as real, then he made the world.

If you accept Marduk as fictional, then (apart from making the world), he is part of the canon of literature that inspired the early Hebrew writings... and thus, by extension, Christianity itself.

Ratehr depends on whether you believe Marduk to be a fictional person.

If you accept Marduk as real, then he made the world.

If you accept Marduk as fictional, then (apart from making the world), he is part of the canon of literature that inspired the early Hebrew writings... and thus, by extension, Christianity itself.

Yes but didn't marduk get eaten? Thus Marduk would be dead?

hey i gotta leave and since Im obviously the only person on my side of the field, although it may be much, could u wait till i get back? I cant wait for our conversation to resume

hey i gotta leave and since Im obviously the only person on my side of the field, although it may be much, could u wait till i get back? I cant wait for our conversation to resume

Lol, I am not against you, and sure can't wait til you come back.

umm...technocially no one can prove that Jesus exists, not with physical proof anyway.
I do believe he existed and was, therfore the Messiah, the son of God.
You'll always have your people who refuse to believe, but when the time come hopefully they'll repent.
In the Bible, that should be enough proof right there, it gives tons of information on miracles of Jesus.
And scientists and every other non believer are starting to find out that there is enough proof to ssy he existed and was the Son of God, they're figured out other myterys in the Bible as well.

Ok, let us be fair for a moment here. Who are the historians that mention Jesus of Nazareth? Tacitus, a historian much later than the supposed events. Suetonius, a Roman historian who mentions him briefly, but who also writes history as a soap opera. Pliny the Younger, a source in which the only thing confirmed is a large number of people believing in a Christ character. Phlegon and Thallus, two secular sources transcribed by a African minister. So far all of these sources are terrible frankly.

However, despite all of this, I ask how the gospels would be so together without some historicity. The tales of Uther Paendragon, and Arthur, king of the Britains, differ widely from each other, and yet these stories are but 1,000 years old. How could such similarity be maintained? Just some thoughts for all of you.

Finally, we should clarify the question at hand. Is it legal for the Italian court to prosecute this man? I say no. Thoughts?

- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary, Tyslan

Ok, let us be fair for a moment here. Who are the historians that mention Jesus of Nazareth? Tacitus, a historian much later than the supposed events. Suetonius, a Roman historian who mentions him briefly, but who also writes history as a soap opera. Pliny the Younger, a source in which the only thing confirmed is a large number of people believing in a Christ character. Phlegon and Thallus, two secular sources transcribed by a African minister. So far all of these sources are terrible frankly.

However, despite all of this, I ask how the gospels would be so together without some historicity. The tales of Uther Paendragon, and Arthur, king of the Britains, differ widely from each other, and yet these stories are but 1,000 years old. How could such similarity be maintained? Just some thoughts for all of you.

Finally, we should clarify the question at hand. Is it legal for the Italian court to prosecute this man? I say no. Thoughts?

- Brian Chut
Official Religious Emissary, Tyslan
Okay, he was the start of a religion and he said Peter is like his rock, the foundation on which he'll build his church.
Christdom still exists, why?
Because so many people believe that God and Jesus are living and Jesus physically died for every one's sins on earth.
Plus most of the Bible is mean to be read symbolically not literally, and the Gospels are based upon the writings of his deciples, the reason they differ is because all of them weren't at the same place at the same time, and so on and so forth.

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.

They still are forging evidence--the infamous bonebox with the inscription to the "brother of Jesus" turned up in Israel not long ago..

However, despite all of this, I ask how the gospels would be so together without some historicity. The tales of Uther Paendragon, and Arthur, king of the Britains, differ widely from each other, and yet these stories are but 1,000 years old. How could such similarity be maintained? Just some thoughts for all of you.

The gospels differed wildly too. Not the four in the bible, but the dozens that existed after a while. In the third century the church chose the ones they thought were more likely to be true accounts, and one of the requirements was that they weren't so vastly different. They had no way to check their authenticity of antiquity.

Still, before the invention of the printing press, the bible kept varying and after a few more centuries there were different versions kicking around, and from time to time there have been revisions made by the church (or King James in the case of the English speaking world) to keep consistency.

All this is well documented, no magical explanation.

It seems as if people on this thread are conflating two different questions. The question of whether Jesus is and could do all the things attributed to him by the Bible is a completely different question than whether a man named Jesus existed who influenced people who later wrote parts of the Bible and taught them in his name.

The answer to the first question is almost certainly not; I suppose that it is logically possible that God magically rewrote the laws of physics when Jesus wanted him to, but there is simply no evidence that this is the case, and a lot of empirical data that suggests that this is a highly unlikely occurance. The answer to the second question, however, is almost certainly yes. While you might dispute the veracity of some direct quotations about Jesus in works like Tacitus and Josephus Flavius, you cannot dispute the overall integrity of their works and call yourself a serious historical scholar: there is simply too much empirical evidence that the vast majority of things they said happened did in fact happen. One of those things that both writers say happened was that a sect of Jews emerged roughly between 30-40 A.D. and began teaching what more mainstream Jews considered heretical, namely that the Messiah had already come and died. This sect first tried to reconcile its views with those of the larger Jewish community, and later seperated officially, all the while competing heavily for converts among the non-Jewish and among other Jews.

Now, this fact only makes sense if you assume that the man they claim was the Messiah did in fact exist. Why? Well, primarily because the man they claim was the Messiah was, as a matter agreed upon by both sides, executed in a very public place directly overlooking the central city in the Jewish world. The idea that so many people could be in that city at the time that said man was executed, have no recollection of those events and never see him because he doesn't exist, and yet still be willing to accept that such a man did in fact serve as the central figure in their religion flies in the face of reason. Even more, Tacitus and Josephus make clear that there was never a claim leveled against Christians by Jews that Christ didn't exist, a claim that certainly would have been the first thing leveled against them were he really a mythical and not a historical figure. They claim that Jews argued about whether he did all the things they say he did. In other words, they were arguing about his nature, not his existence.

Moreover, the whole claim about the Jesus myth only works if you don't pay any attention to Jewish history. Jews in those days, as now, are a bit touchy about their religion. Unlike today, however, they demonstrated their willingness to keep their religion pure by open revolt. Several times, they fought against Rome itself to keep out ideas they considered antithetical to their religion, culminating in a war in which Rome razed Jerusalem and completely scattered the Jewish faith. The idea that Jews would fight to the death of their city to keep out pagan ideas but be completely okey-dokey with the spread of the view that their Messiah already came in the form of a Persian demigod is beyond absurd; it is downright stupid.

As such, there is very strong inductive evidence that Jesus was not what the Bible made him: he probably couldn't walk on water, and he definately did not literally raise Lazurus from the dead. That being said, however, there is equally strong inductive evidence that the story of Jesus is based on a real historical figure and was not purely a myth created by early Christians.

Jesus definately EXISTED. It's just if you believe that he was miracle worker or not.

Jesus definately EXISTED. It's just if you believe that he was miracle worker or not.
First read the thread

Then tell me what is definite about his existence?

My first question is what constitues proof. I mean the Gospels were reported to be accounts written by those who where closest to Jesus, but because it is a religious text it is invalid? THat seems a unfair bias towards the gospels. The gospels were written by those who knew Jesus when he was alive. Second the Josephus comment in the book of ANtiquity XVIII chapter 3 Mentions the history of Jesus. Yet because Josephus did not know Jesus, that is invalid? How many historians who wrote about a person after they died knew that person. If this burden of proof is held so high, then most of our written history would be in question.
The gospels are not evidence because it was written at a minimum 40 years after the fact so it could not have been written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.

We must all understand also that at least 1972 years have passed since the time Jesus died. ANy forensic evidence would be lost to the ages, or be untrustworthy, like the Nag Hammadi doccuments. Would they be considered invalid cause time withered a few holes in a few pages? Again this seems to be a unfair burden of proof.
The problem is that no documents written during the supposed lifetime of Jesus exist.

Also in the book of ANtiquities XX, Josephus mentions the brother of Christ being charged and being put on trial. If his brother exists, should that not at least be circumstancial evidence to the fact that Jesus exists? Circumstancial evidence has convicted many people in a court of law, so should not this be tried by the same standards?
As pointed out many times earlier, not only is the Josephus passage a forgery, but it is not eyewitness testimony, but well after the supposed death of Jesus.

THe APostle Peter's body was found, buried in the exact spot the Acts of Peter described, under the vatican, and forensic SCience did discover he was executed by crucifixtion upside down with his feet cut off, as described in the Acts of Peter. If Jesus was a lie, or a myth why would this man decide to stay in rome. Who would knowingly die for a lie? I understand this is not proof but ina court of law motive is one of the 3 criteria for prosecution. ALso bartholmew was filet to death, by his accusers, as well as all the the remaining 11 apostles. Again why would they subjicate themselves to torture and death if they invented a myth?
...Many people die for lies everyday. Also, please provide some proof for this.

In the book "the secret archives of the vatican" there is a copy of a document from a Roman solider who reportidly wrote that Jesus "the king of the Jews" was executed. THis Letter was written to Pilot. I can not authentice when the letter was written however.
Forgery.

I have not shown any direct evidence that Jesus existed, but I do belive I have shown enough circumstancial evidence to warent the possibilty of his existance, unless you desire to havea burden of proof so high that we would have to retry most of the court cases in the US.
The thing is that in this case, direct evidence is required because without it, it is possible that Jesus did not exist, thus that the author of the book was not lying, thus that the priest commited libel against him.

They still are forging evidence--the infamous bonebox with the inscription to the "brother of Jesus" turned up in Israel not long ago..
Indeed. Funny how forgers don't think about the patina when they make inscriptions.

Ok, let us be fair for a moment here. Who are the historians that mention Jesus of Nazareth? Tacitus, a historian much later than the supposed events. Suetonius, a Roman historian who mentions him briefly, but who also writes history as a soap opera. Pliny the Younger, a source in which the only thing confirmed is a large number of people believing in a Christ character. Phlegon and Thallus, two secular sources transcribed by a African minister. So far all of these sources are terrible frankly.

However, despite all of this, I ask how the gospels would be so together without some historicity. The tales of Uther Paendragon, and Arthur, king of the Britains, differ widely from each other, and yet these stories are but 1,000 years old. How could such similarity be maintained? Just some thoughts for all of you.
I'm not sure what the last point is supposed to be, whether you're saying that Jesus was real because the stories about him are similar or whether you're saying he's not because the stories about Arthur are similar too.

Finally, we should clarify the question at hand. Is it legal for the Italian court to prosecute this man? I say no. Thoughts?
It is legal, if there is no absolute proof that Jesus existed, the man commited libel.

And as for incosistant, I already mentioned that before. It proves the authenticity of each mans...whatever that word is for telling their part...
Or it proves that word of mouth distorts stories as they're passed around. Have you ever played telephone?

no there that is a not faith based claim. If you truly open your heart and look around you'll see a dying theory called the darwin theory and an opening in the sience compartment to a "higher power" as for everything else, as I have said and proven before, everything in life is set on a base of faith, however miniscule
1. Saying that Jesus existed is a faith based claim
2. My heart is open, and I don't need you talking down to me as though my IQ is 60.
3. Darwin's theory is not the same as the current evolutionary theory, which by the way is doing just fine.
4. Science has no place for a higher power
5. Not everything in life is based in faith.

Creationists? Although I am not to familiar with the word i suppose it is directed towards Christianity, and I must say that they certainly are not. I'm afraid that they are always ahead of the times since their entire religion is based upon life after death. How can a faith with 1.5 billion or more people in it and rapidly growing be "behind the times"
And of course I made a faith based claim because Ive been trying to tell you that everything is a faith based claim when we talk about any man in history. This increases the further back we go. I want to know if you can find as much proof on julis cesar or any other emporer then jesus
:rolleyes: Ignore the rest of the thread, did you?

The gospels are not evidence because it was written at a minimum 40 years after the fact so it could not have been written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.


Jesus was executed in approximately 33 A.D. The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Thomas were both written in approximately 60-70 A.D., meaning that a person who was 20 when Jesus died would only be about 47-57 years old when those Gospels were written. Life expectancy might have been short in the ancient world, but it wasn't like everyone dropped dead before they turned 45. There were plenty of people, including such notable figures as Socrates that reached well beyond 60 years old. So the idea that no one was a direct eyewitness is more than a bit farfetched. In point of fact, that was probably why the Gospels of Mark and Thomas were written when they were: the last of the Apostles were getting old, and they wanted to record Jesus' story in writing before their eyewitnesses died.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]It seems as if people on this thread are conflating two different questions. The question of whether Jesus is and could do all the things attributed to him by the Bible is a completely different question than whether a man named Jesus existed who influenced people who later wrote parts of the Bible and taught them in his name.QUOTE]
The reason that that pertains to this is the fact that if he did not do what is said in the bible, then the book cannot be taken seriously. Its why those books on people in the past that have a little fiction go in the fiction section. Once again, either he is who he said he was, or he was a lier and that book is nothing but a fictional story.

The question of whether he existed or not is one that can be debated, and has been debated for 2006 years and more. Obviously, we are not going to find the true answer in this short amout of time though it is the job of the christian to try to convert as much as he/she can. The tree that sits beside the road is as much proof as I'll need but obviously people need more facts despite the fact that they have plenty to explain in the first place. If Jesus or God does not exist, then thousands upon thousands of years will have to be explained by "Irony." The hardest part to be able to grasp is that God has been around forever. There was no real begining to him. Even thats hard to swollow for me.

Now, sientists now days can look into a telescope and actually see back in time. Not back in time on our earth of course, but trillions and all those other "illions" of light years away. Because of this vast distance, when observed, it leaves little doubt that "The big bang" theory is false. As for God killing people way back when, that was not him that killed them, but themselves. God is ever merciful and Just. So, he fuffilled this by condeming them to death. Let me put it this way, a judge does not kill, but he can be just. Is a judge charged of murder when he condems a man to death? NO, because the man deserved it. God, being Just, killed the men that killed and sinned and because they did not believe in him, they went to hell. No mortal man with even one sin can look upon God without being killed. So, by being merciful, he gave us a way to get to him, by first sacrifice and then Jesus.

No person can be proven to have lived without circumstantial evidence. If he could have been born a king and made his image in every stone to prove he existed dont you think he would have? But no, he comes from humble places into the world and lives a life exactly as we all do. Nobody can say that he did not expierience what we have expierienced. If he did write his name into every stone and put his image upon a coin and everything else, would we have truly trusted in him? No, because there would be that obvious gap between the king and the common man.

Finally, if he did not exist, wouldnt you have thought that that would have been proven by now? With all of those people out there just dying to prove he did not exist over the thousands of years that he has been known shouldnt there have been proof that he did not exist? There is no doubt that you, as in a general you to all who try to disprove me, are smarter then the many others who have tried to disprove Jesus. The question is no longer that if he existed, but if he existed the way that it is told.

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.

..
..
DISCLAIMER ...JUST IF SOME POSTERS DO NOT GET IT...
WHEN I SAID ".... 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
Do you have anything better to do than attack me?

The gospels are not evidence because it was written at a minimum 40 years after the fact so it could not have been written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.


The problem is that no documents written during the supposed lifetime of Jesus exist.


As pointed out many times earlier, not only is the Josephus passage a forgery, but it is not eyewitness testimony, but well after the supposed death of Jesus.


...Many people die for lies everyday. Also, please provide some proof for this.


Forgery.


The thing is that in this case, direct evidence is required because without it, it is possible that Jesus did not exist, thus that the author of the book was not lying, thus that the priest commited libel against him.


You seem to have missed the point of my arguement. My arguement was merely stating that although there is not much direct evidence, that there is indeed a lot of circumstancial evidence, so much that in the modern US court system it would hold up. My other point was that to force a direct evidence only claim is holding the burden of proof to high after all after 1972 years and about a few hundred wars, most of the proof has disappeared. ALso your commentary against my arguement is kind of a blanket statements, please back up your claims with evidence. THe Pre-markian Passion parable for instance was the first historical document that talks about Jesus written between the years 33-60 ad, and is writtenfrom the point of view of a witness. if it was indeed written in 33 ad, then it would in fact be a eye witness account.

YOur satement about the Apostles, please write evidence that they were lying, not a blanket statement, or a clause of lack of evidence of Jesus' existance, but please show evidence prooving that they indeed made up the conspiracy, that they later died for that you claim.

ALso please show your sources showing that the note from the roman soilder is a forgery, I would love to read it

You seem to have missed the point of my arguement. My arguement was merely stating that although there is not much direct evidence, that there is indeed a lot of circumstancial evidence, so much that in the modern US court system it would hold up. My other point was that to force a direct evidence only claim is holding the burden of proof to high after all after 1972 years and about a few hundred wars, most of the proof has disappeared. ALso your commentary against my arguement is kind of a blanket statements, please back up your claims with evidence. THe Pre-markian Passion parable for instance was the first historical document that talks about Jesus written between the years 33-60 ad, and is writtenfrom the point of view of a witness. if it was indeed written in 33 ad, then it would in fact be a eye witness account.

YOur satement about the Apostles, please write evidence that they were lying, not a blanket statement, or a clause of lack of evidence of Jesus' existance, but please show evidence prooving that they indeed made up the conspiracy, that they later died for that you claim.

ALso please show your sources showing that the note from the roman soilder is a forgery, I would love to read it
I've been pointing out this crap since the start of the thread. I've provided evidence for each of my claims somewhere in these 26 pages multiple times over, I'm really getting tired of it so you can look through for yourself. Hell, if you want to find the link I posted from religious tolerance, it discusses these things too.

Also, the entire point of this thread is to prove that the biblical Jesus must have existed, not to disprove his existence.

And furthermore, I never said there was a conspiracy to create this character. It is likely that the biblical Jesus was loosely based on one of the travelling preachers claiming to be the messiah combined with some hebrew mythology to make him up to be the messiah and some much earlier pagan religions that would have been reintroduced to the region by the romans. I.e. if there was a real historical Jesus, he was nothing whatsoever like the Jesus depicted in the bible.

[QUOTE=Xenophobialand]It seems as if people on this thread are conflating two different questions. The question of whether Jesus is and could do all the things attributed to him by the Bible is a completely different question than whether a man named Jesus existed who influenced people who later wrote parts of the Bible and taught them in his name.QUOTE]
The reason that that pertains to this is the fact that if he did not do what is said in the bible, then the book cannot be taken seriously. Its why those books on people in the past that have a little fiction go in the fiction section. Once again, either he is who he said he was, or he was a lier and that book is nothing but a fictional story.


. . .Um, no. I don't have to believe that Martin Luther King could miraculously cure cancer to believe that what he said in his "I Have A Dream" speech is something that everyone in the world should believe in. Same thing with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount: I can believe it is some of the best moral teaching ever laid down to man without having to believe that he was the literal Son of God.

He can be just a man and still change the world for the better and be worth following. He doesn't have to walk on water before I accept the veracity of what he says, and in the end, if you accept what he says in the Gospel of Luke about loving God and treating all people as your neighbor, that is really all you need to be a Christian.

The question of whether he existed or not is one that can be debated, and has been debated for 2006 years and more. Obviously, we are not going to find the true answer in this short amout of time though it is the job of the christian to try to convert as much as he/she can. The tree that sits beside the road is as much proof as I'll need but obviously people need more facts despite the fact that they have plenty to explain in the first place. If Jesus or God does not exist, then thousands upon thousands of years will have to be explained by "Irony." The hardest part to be able to grasp is that God has been around forever. There was no real begining to him. Even thats hard to swollow for me.

Now, sientists now days can look into a telescope and actually see back in time. Not back in time on our earth of course, but trillions and all those other "illions" of light years away. Because of this vast distance, when observed, it leaves little doubt that "The big bang" theory is false. As for God killing people way back when, that was not him that killed them, but themselves. God is ever merciful and Just. So, he fuffilled this by condeming them to death. Let me put it this way, a judge does not kill, but he can be just. Is a judge charged of murder when he condems a man to death? NO, because the man deserved it. God, being Just, killed the men that killed and sinned and because they did not believe in him, they went to hell. No mortal man with even one sin can look upon God without being killed. So, by being merciful, he gave us a way to get to him, by first sacrifice and then Jesus.

No person can be proven to have lived without circumstantial evidence. If he could have been born a king and made his image in every stone to prove he existed dont you think he would have? But no, he comes from humble places into the world and lives a life exactly as we all do. Nobody can say that he did not expierience what we have expierienced. If he did write his name into every stone and put his image upon a coin and everything else, would we have truly trusted in him? No, because there would be that obvious gap between the king and the common man.

Finally, if he did not exist, wouldnt you have thought that that would have been proven by now? With all of those people out there just dying to prove he did not exist over the thousands of years that he has been known shouldnt there have been proof that he did not exist? There is no doubt that you, as in a general you to all who try to disprove me, are smarter then the many others who have tried to disprove Jesus. The question is no longer that if he existed, but if he existed the way that it is told.

This is mostly a rehash of what I was saying in the first place. We can debate whether or not he was divine: I don't think it's necessary, while you seem to think it is, for instance. The historical record, however, makes no sense if you assume that a group of people got together and made up this Jesus figure. It only makes sense if you assume that there was a historical Jesus.

I've been pointing out this crap since the start of the thread. I've provided evidence for each of my claims somewhere in these 26 pages multiple times over, I'm really getting tired of it so you can look through for yourself. Hell, if you want to find the link I posted from religious tolerance, it discusses these things too.

Forgive me, but I have not found any such claims in these 26 pages, maybe i missed them, nor have I seen your forum on religious tolerance. Please link them so I may read them.

Forgive me, but I have not found any such claims in these 26 pages, maybe i missed them, nor have I seen your forum on religious tolerance. Please link them so I may read them.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
Here's the religious tolerance link, it discusses all documents that people have claimed are linked to the historical Jesus. I'm not sorting through my posts in this thread, I have made many and I'm hungry and just got back from class.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
Here's the religious tolerance link, it discusses all documents that people have claimed are linked to the historical Jesus. I'm not sorting through my posts in this thread, I have made many and I'm hungry and just got back from class.

THank you for linking the forum, we can discuss it when i am done reading it

Do you have anything better to do than attack me?

I'm impressed... I couldn't work out what the point of the post was....

I'm impressed... I couldn't work out what the point of the post was....
He's made the same post (essentially) in several other threads and has been on my case attacking me for the past couple days. (even in threads that I never entered, it seems)

He's made the same post (essentially) in several other threads and has been on my case attacking me for the past couple days. (even in threads that I never entered, it seems)

Sweet. You must be MUCH cuter than me... I still haven't managed to score a stalker. :(

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.
Yes and atheists tend to be far more tollerant of their friends and families religions then christians. I know I typically only talk about religion when some christian starts going on about how I should be going to church, how great god is if I'd only give him a chance.

Sweet. You must be MUCH cuter than me... I still haven't managed to score a stalker. :(
Aww, I'm sure someday you'll have somebody harassing you in every thread you enter. Maybe if you tell OceanDrive3 that Jesus doesnt' exist, christianity is a load of hooey and scientology is the way to go, he'll bother you instead of me. As it is, he's only accusing me of saying these things I never said, if someone really said them then maybe he'd have a reason to go off on them.

Now, sientists now days can look into a telescope and actually see back in time. Not back in time on our earth of course, but trillions and all those other "illions" of light years away. Because of this vast distance, when observed, it leaves little doubt that "The big bang" theory is false.
Dude, really, stay away from science. You'll get a sound bashing that'll be painful to inflict if you don't. Stick with philosopy and you'll do just fine.

Finally, if he did not exist, wouldnt you have thought that that would have been proven by now? With all of those people out there just dying to prove he did not exist over the thousands of years that he has been known shouldnt there have been proof that he did not exist? There is no doubt that you, as in a general you to all who try to disprove me, are smarter then the many others who have tried to disprove Jesus. The question is no longer that if he existed, but if he existed the way that it is told.
Again, you can't prove a negative. You can't get evidence that he didn't exist. What you can do is try to find evidence that he did exist, but that evidence so far has been lacking. Don't you think that with all the people trying to prove that he existed some real evidence proving his existence beyond reasonable doubt would have been found by now?

Could there have been a man or men on which Jesus was based? Yes, undoubtedly. Would that person be who they say he was or do the things they say he did? Highly improbable. Is the Bible an accurate and reliable source of factual, corroborable information? Not even close.

I believe our friend Parmenides would have much to say about this subject of something not existing...

Aww, I'm sure someday you'll have somebody harassing you in every thread you enter. Maybe if you tell OceanDrive3 that Jesus doesnt' exist, christianity is a load of hooey and scientology is the way to go, he'll bother you instead of me. As it is, he's only accusing me of saying these things I never said, if someone really said them then maybe he'd have a reason to go off on them.

But, there is no reason to believe 'Jesus' DID exist.... and, as far as I am concerned there is no reason NOT to suspect Christianity is a load of 'Hooey'....

And, at least Scientology has contemporary evidence.....

Again, you can't prove a negative. You can't get evidence that he didn't exist. What you can do is try to find evidence that he did exist, but that evidence so far has been lacking. Don't you think that with all the people trying to prove that he existed some real evidence proving his existence beyond reasonable doubt would have been found by now?
No, because there is and never will be enough evidence to satisfy the people who have hardened their heart to the subject. And there is evidence that he did exist, but as always, it proves to be as you put it lacking. The entire arguement is that evidence is only taken into account if you have faith that it is true. If I could I would prove, which I have but prove that the proof is right as well. And at that, since it probably wont do anything extra, prove that the proof that my proof is right and prove that my proof for the proof that my proof is right on top of it. This, as you probably have realized goes on forever. I have given the evidence, and it is not my job to provide more but your job to prove me wrong. Only then will my evidence truly be counted as lacking. All of the things that you have stated is all circumstancial.
An example could be that teh bible was sent out 40 years after its time and that because of this it MUST or nearly must have been changed. This in itself could be argueable. And I would have to have proof that my proof is right and then you would most likely come up with something to ridicule that proof so I would prove my proof for my proof is true.

I realize that I said that earlier so I will get strait to the point. It is impossible to prove that he is what he is without debate. Which, since I take the time to repeat myself, has been going on for 2000 years. It seems to me that in a case, though I may not say it the technical way, that a side with much evidence, though it may take a little faith, would win out over the side that says Jesus did not exist based on either what they believe in or common sense. Oh but wait, you could say that that side could provide people with the same views as his as a testimony. Well, christians can do the exact same thing. So, what I'm saying is that until you give solid evidence that the evidence I'm giving is wrong, and that means every last bit, you have lost the battle.

Common sense, or the basic laws of humanity do present a big gap from the concept of a messiah to people, sorry to point fingers, and correct me if you are a christian, such as yourself. But wouldn't common sense also tell you that we do not just die and live in blackness with no life forever? Wouldn't it tell you that there is a reason for life? Now this could be argued, such as in the book anthem, that the meaning of life is to fuffill oneself. Whats the point, we live for an average of 78 to 80 years. To fuffil oneself could also be to hurt others. Terroists carry out who they want to be but does that make what they are doing right? Common sense also tells us that the unraveling of time, could not just be an irony.

A man, after locking himself up for what I believe to be 7 days, proved that he existed by saying, "I think, therefore I am." Very good evidence, but its only one idea isnt it? I have said before that you cannot prove that I, or anybody is truly real. This though, this one sentence, this one idea, seems to be enough to prove it though. Why then does not the bible, and the bible alone, provide enough evidence that there was a Jesus and he did what it says he did. In a nutshell, the bible is one idea, "live life as it instructs and you will find yourself in the kingdom of God.

A very long post I know, so lets take things one at a time, since, everything said can be argued. I will wait for evidence, to the same standard that you call for, to prove that the bible is fictional. Remember, either it is fiction or it is fact.

Look, there isn't any historic evidence, you haven't given us any either, you've just accused us of having hardened hearts and other such nonsense none of which proves the existence of a historical Jesus. In fact this sort of behaviour makes you look more like a fanatic than anything.

Just to jump in for some brief comments - I personally do agree that someone named Jesus most likely existed and was the basis for Christianity, so I'm not going to argue with that.


But wouldn't common sense also tell you that we do not just die and live in blackness with no life forever? Wouldn't it tell you that there is a reason for life?

No, it wouldn't. My common sense tells me that "a reason for life" is just wishful thinking. My common sense tells me that after we die that's it.

(BTW, we don't "just die and live in blackness with no life forever." We don't exist anymore after we die. At all. We don't "live in blackness" - we just don't live.)

Common sense also tells us that the unraveling of time, could not just be an irony.

I think you're misusing the word "irony," because I haven't a clue what that sentence means. Or maybe I just have no clue what the phrase "unraveling of time ... is an irony" could possibly mean.

Remember, either it is fiction or it is fact.

Not necessarily true. There are a LOT of gray areas between "fact" and "fiction." It could be that every word in the bible is literally true, and Jesus was indeed born both in a cave and in his home. It could be that every word in the bible is complete rubbish and it's a totally made up story. And there's plenty of possible grey area in between - maybe it's based on some true occurances but is mostly made-up embellishments, or maybe it's mostly true except for inaccuracies intranscription.

"Either it is fiction or it is fact" is a false statement.

I don't know if it has been discussed before but I think the implications of this case are huge. Imagine the disalusionment of all those people when the defendant fails to prove Jesus existed.

I don't know if it has been discussed before but I think the implications of this case are huge. Imagine the disalusionment of all those people when the defendant fails to prove Jesus existed.

Or the other way around - the anger of the accuser's group if they find his evidence sufficient.

Either way, it seems to me that there is no humanly possible way to find an "unbiased" jury for this case. Whoever wins, his supporters will think "duh, it's so OBVIOUS, why did he even need to spend so much time in court to (dis)prove it" and the opponents will be sure that it was the result of a preconcieved bias on the part of the jury.

I think this case is anything but huge - it's totally pointless, since win or lose it I don't think it'll prove anything to anyone besides who has to pay whose legal fees...

Or the other way around - the anger of the accuser's group if they find his evidence sufficient.

Either way, it seems to me that there is no humanly possible way to find an "unbiased" jury for this case. Whoever wins, his supporters will think "duh, it's so OBVIOUS, why did he even need to spend so much time in court to (dis)prove it" and the opponents will be sure that it was the result of a preconcieved bias on the part of the jury.

I think this case is anything but huge - it's totally pointless, since win or lose it I don't think it'll prove anything to anyone besides who has to pay whose legal fees...

You may very well have a point.

No, because there is and never will be enough evidence to satisfy the people who have hardened their heart to the subject. And there is evidence that he did exist, but as always, it proves to be as you put it lacking. The entire arguement is that evidence is only taken into account if you have faith that it is true. If I could I would prove, which I have but prove that the proof is right as well. And at that, since it probably wont do anything extra, prove that the proof that my proof is right and prove that my proof for the proof that my proof is right on top of it. This, as you probably have realized goes on forever.
Piffle. What is required to convince us, as with any historical claim, is some primary evidence, i.e. it has to be genuine, contemporary and first-hand. It's quite simple, really.

But all we get are the same non-primary sources cited over and over again - sources with which we are already familiar. An inadequate source doesn't become adequate simply by being repeated umpteen times.

The reason we get the same non-primary evidence all the time is that there is NO known primary evidence for Jesus in existence (or known to have ever existed). That's a fact of life - get over it. This argument will only be settled when and if new evidence comes to light; until then, the case for Jesus is unproven.

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.

well he existed because the bible said so. And since the bible is infallible, well is it? I'm confused, or drunk. One of the two.

Physical proof exists in the form of written testimonies. The testimony of witnesses is admissible evidence in a court of law. The court considers testimony as evidence when a witness observes a crime to convict a felon, the court can consider the testimony of a witness of proof of location (i.e., I saw Col. Mustard in the Library with the Candle Stick). The testimony of a defendant can be considered "proof" and multiple witnesses only adds to the credibility of the statement. Testimony of witnesses is considered "proof" enough for convicting a defendant of a crime, it is also proof enough of mere existence.

Proof of ancient witnesses claiming to have seen and heard Christ can be found outside of the Bible as well, via the non-canonical gospels. They, along with the canonical gospels, can be presented in the courtroom as various persons's testimony of eye-witness observance of the existence of Christ.

Such non-bible books as the partial Gospel of Peter, it was found, thousands of years old and undisturbed, in a sandy tomb of an ancient believer in Egypt less than a hundred years ago, a document that could not have been influenced by the not yet existing Orthodox Church at it's conception nor changed since then by being hidden and lost in the desert. It bears witnesses to it’s own claims about the existence of Christ and along with it the Didache document and the gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas etc., can all be brought to the courtroom as evidence of testimonies of several different people that have claimed to have seen Christ.

The arguments against this type of proof in this thread would lead me to believe that the naysayers will now claim that they want to dismiss the gospels AND all of the non-canonical written testimony as well. However, this is a court of law case we are talking about, not what YOU would consider sufficient proof. You can’t just walk into a court room and call all of the testimony liars without proof and expect the judge to ‘take your word for it,’ and have all of their testimonies dismissed. You can’t have it both ways. The judge MUST at least hear their testimony, as there is no contemporary testimony against them, just blank accusations from you naysayers that they are liars, we end up with the same type of charges that brought this case to court in the first place, he said he said…

Think them and call them liars all you want, but can you prove it in a court of law then? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And accusations against the witnesses credibility is merely slander without proof. Their witness, in group, is proof enough for a court of law to rule that there is credible reason enough to rule in favor of existence and especially due to no hard evidence to the contraire, the proof does not need to be sufficient to prove to YOU that Christ existed for the Priest to win this case.

Physical proof exists in the form of written testimonies.
Wrong. Your first sentence shot you in the goodies.
Now maybe use that mentality upon review of anti-administration statements and testimonies and you'll see the problem.

Proof of ancient witnesses claiming to have seen and heard Christ can be found outside of the Bible as well, via the non-canonical gospels. They, along with the canonical gospels, can be presented in the courtroom as various persons's testimony of eye-witness observance of the existence of Christ.
No they cannot! Courts will consider first-hand eye-witness testimonies from identifiable people. None of the Gospels claim to be eye-witness testimonies, all were written long after the events they described, and none of the authors idenitify who they are.

Such non-bible books as the partial Gospel of Peter, it was found, thousands of years old and undisturbed, in a sandy tomb of an ancient believer in Egypt less than a hundred years ago, a document that could not have been influenced by the not yet existing Orthodox Church at it's conception nor changed since then by being hidden and lost in the desert. It bears witnesses to it’s own claims about the existence of Christ and along with it the Didache document and the gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas etc., can all be brought to the courtroom as evidence of testimonies of several different people that have claimed to have seen Christ.
All of these texts are either written far too late to be regarded as primary evidence and/or provide no details about the supposed historical Jesus. None are written by identifiable authors, let alone eye-witnesses.

The arguments against this type of proof in this thread would lead me to believe that the naysayers will now claim that they want to dismiss the gospels AND all of the non-canonical written testimony as well. However, this is a court of law case we are talking about, not what YOU would consider sufficient proof. You can’t just walk into a court room and call all of the testimony liars without proof and expect the judge to ‘take your word for it,’ and have all of their testimonies dismissed.
We wouldn't have to call them liars. Unless we can prove that they are first-hand accounts, the court wouldn't allow any of these documents to be admitted as evidence in the first place!

Being old, or numerous, or in agreement with each other, simply isn't good enough. We need PRIMARY evidence - none of the Gospels, canonical or non-canonical, qualify.

You can’t have it both ways. The judge MUST at least hear their testimony, as there is no contemporary testimony against them, just blank accusations from you naysayers that they are liars, we end up with the same type of charges that brought this case to court in the first place, he said he said…
There are sources contemporary with these documents which dispute them, but even if there weren't, the judge would not have to hear this testimony. He would, and should, dismiss the case for lack of evidence.

Think them and call them liars all you want, but can you prove it in a court of law then? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And accusations against the witnesses credibility is merely slander without proof. Their witness, in group, is proof enough for a court of law to rule that there is credible reason enough to rule in favor of existence and especially due to no hard evidence to the contraire, the proof does not need to be sufficient to prove to YOU that Christ existed for the Priest to win this case.
How many times does it need saying? The authors of these documents are NOT witnesses!! Not one is identifiable, and it's unlikely that any of them were present at the events described. An attorney who tried to waste a court's time by introducing these as witnesses would probably receive a serious dressing down by the judge, and have his professional competancy put into question.

A court does not and should not rule in favour of a case for lack of contrary evidence. If the first-hand, verifiable, evidence is not there for the case, then it would be dismissed.

First prove Gaetano Mautone exists.

Wrong. Your first sentence shot you in the goodies.
Now maybe use that mentality upon review of anti-administration statements and testimonies and you'll see the problem.
Agreed ... though stories are of SOME use as proof it becomes a question of quality

Do we have the ability to corroborate outside of the source
Do we have the ability to verify the author’s identity
Could this person have observed what actually happened or are they recounting other testimony.

First prove Gaetano Mautone exists.


First, "prove" that any of us exists.

And, I'm still waiting for anyone to "prove" that yesterday actually happened, and isn't just an artifact of human psychology, a culturally conditioned subjective state of consciousness.

Space-time events are slippery things -- if they exist at all.

Agreed ... though stories are of SOME use as proof it becomes a question of quality

Do we have the ability to corroborate outside of the source
Do we have the ability to verify the author’s identity
Could this person have observed what actually happened or are they recounting other testimony.

Excellent post.

(Nice set-up, to.... thanks, Straughn)

I don't know if it has been discussed before but I think the implications of this case are huge. Imagine the disalusionment of all those people when the defendant fails to prove Jesus existed.
He only has to prove there is evidence that Jesus existed. For instance, if he can prove that witness testamony is from "reliable witnesses", then he has a case.

He only has to prove there is evidence that Jesus existed. For instance, if he can prove that witness testamony is from "reliable witnesses", then he has a case.

Not at all.

You are missing the context.

The person who is being maligned, is being maligned for stating that there was DOUBT that Jesus existed.

Thus - in order to prove that the article was fair and true, the priest has to demonstrate that there is NO DOUBT that Jesus existed.

In other words, in order to avoid being found guilty, the priest must show CONCLUSIVE evidence that Jesus existed.

Not at all.

You are missing the context.

The person who is being maligned, is being maligned for stating that there was DOUBT that Jesus existed.

Thus - in order to prove that the article was fair and true, the priest has to demonstrate that there is NO DOUBT that Jesus existed.

In other words, in order to avoid being found guilty, the priest must show CONCLUSIVE evidence that Jesus existed.
Well, okay, but I didn't get that from the news article at all. The issued stated there was, "no reliable evidence".

Well, okay, but I didn't get that from the news article at all. The issued stated there was, "no reliable evidence".

And... there is a gaping void between "no reliable evidence" and "there is dount"???

Agreed ... though stories are of SOME use as proof it becomes a question of quality

Do we have the ability to corroborate outside of the source
Do we have the ability to verify the author’s identity
Could this person have observed what actually happened or are they recounting other testimony.
Doubly agreed. For case of legal pursuit, it needs to be determined.
*bows*

Excellent post.

(Nice set-up, to.... thanks, Straughn)
Thank you! *bows*
I owed Greenlander that one. It'd be a shame never to hear a rebuttal to that point. And for some reason that point just doesn't come around enough at the pro-admin guys (who happen to be too-often pro-jud/christ as well in some kind of tweaked regard)
But in keeping true to my "resolution", i'll give a :fluffle: up for Greenlander.

Certain news sites have been posting a banner talking about some movie that refutes the case of "christ" really well, or at least, even the existence of Jesus.
Anyone know anything about it?
I'm not propping it but there's a link that comes up with the words
www.
and
TheGodMovie
and
.com

I haven't gone there yet. Just wondering. It's probably another flick that'll skip right over my lil' podunk town.

And... there is a gaping void between "no reliable evidence" and "there is dount"???
I dunno; is there a difference between no doubt in the existence of the subject, and the veracity of the witnesses?

EDIT: (The answer is: yes!)

Even before Q (as early as maybe 30AD).
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html

Nevertheless (regarding challenges), the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.


Q (as early as maybe 40AD):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q.

When the eyewitnesses are dead, expert witness of written testimony is the only remaining option for evidence. Written testimony is still testimony, regardless that it doesn't make several people here very happy. They are wrong, it will be admissible in a civil court case, which this thread is about.

Who's Jesus? Is he a Jew?

Even before Q (as early as maybe 30AD).
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html

Nevertheless (regarding challenges), the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.


Q (as early as maybe 40AD):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q.

When the eyewitnesses are dead, expert witness of written testimony is the only remaining option for evidence. Written testimony is still testimony, regardless that it doesn't make several people here very happy. They are wrong, it will be admissible in a civil court case, which this thread is about.
Well, appreciation for effort to back up. Even if it is one source you're using,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html for that argument. And as far as "Q" goes ... well, i don't think you'll get very far with that. It doesn't seem like a name from that era. However, there's a capricious character on ST:TNG that goes by that name. "Q" is often a substitute for "quotient".
The siglum Q derives from the German word "Quelle," which means "Source"
HAhahaha! Classic. I sense why you didn't include that very next line there.

On the matter of whether Q was written, Tuckett writes (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 568): "The theory that Q represents a mass of oral traditions does not account for the common order in Q material, which can be discerned once Matthew's habit of collecting related material into his large teaching discourses is discounted (Taylor 1953, 1959). Such a common order demands a theory that Q at some stage existed in written form."
...and we all know that Evolution is a Theory not a Fact. :rolleyes:
So they don't have it but they beg it as a source? Hmmm, not lookin' good.



And i imagine you're still mulling over my point to you for your future arguments with people about the current administration. Hope you don't burst my bubble! :fluffle:

Well, after reading your Q (nyuk) i came to understand that a good majority of it is supposition and rationalization.
Nonetheless, kudos to your efforts to bring a reasonable aspect to the theological side of this debate.
BTW, i get logged out if i spend too long not doing much on here, so if you want me to address all the people on that page, it'll take a few posts, and i'm not particularly interested right now.

Who's Jesus? Is he a Jew?

Only on his mother's side...
;)

Only on his mother's side...
;)
All Jews are, strictly speaking. Jewish status is inherited maternally :)

All Jews are, strictly speaking. Jewish status is inherited maternally :)
Yup and sense inheritance is matriarchal, he also inherited original sin by default.

Yup and sense inheritance is matriarchal, he also inherited original sin by default.
Not according to the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, which holds that Mary was uniquely conceived without sin.

Even before Q (as early as maybe 30AD).
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html

Nevertheless (regarding challenges), the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations.


Q (as early as maybe 40AD):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html

According to the Two Source Hypothesis accepted by a majority of contemporary scholars, the authors of Matthew and Luke each made use of two different sources: the Gospel of Mark and a non-extant second source termed Q.

When the eyewitnesses are dead, expert witness of written testimony is the only remaining option for evidence. Written testimony is still testimony, regardless that it doesn't make several people here very happy. They are wrong, it will be admissible in a civil court case, which this thread is about.

I think you are perhaps deliberately edging your dates. By which I mean, when given a possible range for writing of 30-60BC, you cite the 'as early as 30 BC' figure.

Fair enough... although, by most reckonings, that would actually have the text in question, written BEFORE the date of the alleged events, no?

At least one of your sources is, similarly, making more of it's claims than has REAL support.

The majority of the theological academics in this field agree that there is probably a Pre-Matthew text.... and thus, also, a Pre-Luke text. The idea that Mark is based on a different, earlier Gospel, isn't one that holds much of a centre-stage in the debate.... certainly not to the extent that the article says: "Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars..."

What would have been MORE 'true', would have been to say that many in the field believe that, maybe, Mark was not a document written all in one piece, all at one time... but was an evolution of earlier drafts.... much like the writings of Shakespeare.

We are talking about something "possible", not really "probable".

Not according to the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, which holds that Mary was uniquely conceived without sin.
They say that but as far as I can tell there is no biblical support for it

Either he was sinless or he was a descendent of David. If he is not a decedent of David he does not fulfill the prophecy if I remember right. But if he is a descendent of David he also has inherited original sin like the rest of us


I wonder what the catholic dogma bases it on

Not according to the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, which holds that Mary was uniquely conceived without sin.

Mary was conceived without sin? Not... Jesus?

Mary was conceived without sin? Not... Jesus?
Yes. Contrary to what many believe (including Catholics I've known), the Immaculate Conception is not about the conception of Jesus, but of Mary.

They say that but as far as I can tell there is no biblical support for it

Either he was sinless or he was a descendent of David. If he is not a decedent of David he does not fulfill the prophecy if I remember right. But if he is a descendent of David he also has inherited original sin like the rest of us


I wonder what the catholic dogma bases it on

Both geneologies trace Jesus back through Jeconiah (or Coniah), whom God cursed:

Jeremiah 22:29-30 "O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah".

Thus - according to Jeremiah, Jesus cannot sit on the Throne of David, anyway... because BOTH lineages forbid it.

Yes. Contrary to what many believe (including Catholics I've known), the Immaculate Conception is not about the conception of Jesus, but of Mary.

How would one support that scripturally?

Mary was conceived without sin? Not... Jesus?
Jesus was conceived not by Joseph but by The Holy Spirit

Both geneologies trace Jesus back through Jeconiah (or Coniah), whom God cursed:

Jeremiah 22:29-30 "O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah".

Thus - according to Jeremiah, Jesus cannot sit on the Throne of David, anyway... because BOTH lineages forbid it.
Interesting (that I should have known … damn 24 hr work shifts)

...

We are talking about something "possible", not really "probable".

No, you see, you are arguing for your own personal beliefs, the same as the author who is suing is doing, he wants 'irrefutable' proof for his own conviction, but that's not what the court is going to do. The Judge has to listen to arguments from both sides and determine which side as the most proof, to tip the scales, or toss the entire case out the window (but since he already tried that and it came back, he'll likely have to rule on it this time). And, as such, being a judge and not a biblical scholar nor archeological expert, he'll have to listen to the majority opinion and rule in favor of what the expert witnesses in his courtroom end up saying. Which is, that the majority of expert witnesses will say that they think Jesus existence is proven past a reasonable doubt as far as civil court requirements will be measured. Boom, priest wins, author goes home pissed and unconvinced.

No, you see, you are arguing for your own personal beliefs, the same as the author who is suing is doing, he wants 'irrefutable' proof for his own conviction, but that's not what the court is going to do. The Judge has to listen to arguments from both sides and determine which side as the most proof, to tip the scales, or toss the entire case out the window (but since he already tried that and it came back, he'll likely have to rule on it this time). And, as such, being a judge and not a biblical scholar nor archeological expert, he'll have to listen to the majority opinion and rule in favor of what the expert witnesses in his courtroom end up saying. Which is, that the majority of expert witnesses will say that they think Jesus existence is proven past a reasonable doubt as far as civil court requirements will be measured. Boom, priest wins, author goes home pissed and unconvinced.

I disagree.... the author doesn't need irrefutable proof... the priest does.

The priest is derogatory about the author, because he doesn't agree with the author's assessment that there COULD be doubt that Jesus lived.

The priest claims it as FACT that Jesus lived, and uses it as ammunition against the author.

In order to defend his case, 'all' the priest has to do, is prove that his 'fact' is, indeed, 'factual'.

I disagree.... the author doesn't need irrefutable proof... the priest does.

Nobody needs irrefutable proof. The author asked for it, from the priest, but he's not going to get it. And a civil case will not require it.

The priest is derogatory about the author, because he doesn't agree with the author's assessment that there COULD be doubt that Jesus lived.

Not according to the article. The article says that the author claims no proof outside of the gospels and that the gospels are accepted by faith alone. Could be doubt is irrelevant. There is evidence outside of the gospels. I've already mentioned several non-canonical evidences that could be used by experts in the courtroom that will be used to sway for judgment in favor of the priest’s right to ridicule the conclusion of the author.

The priest claims it as FACT that Jesus lived, and uses it as ammunition against the author.

Again, not according the article, the article says the Priest claimed ‘overwhelming’ evidence in favor of Christ existing, and the author claimed there was none outside of the gospels. The priest will win, for the reasons I already mentioned.

In order to defend his case, 'all' the priest has to do, is prove that his 'fact' is, indeed, 'factual'.

That's what the priest would have to do to prove it to you. But he doesn't need to do that to prove it in the civil court being presided over by the judge regarding the legalities before him.

You’re trying to hold the case you want to see, not the one presented in that article.

Nobody needs irrefutable proof. The author asked for it, from the priest, but he's not going to get it. And a civil case will not require it.



Not according to the article. The article says that the author claims no proof outside of the gospels and that the gospels are accepted by faith alone. Could be doubt is irrelevant. There is evidence outside of the gospels. I've already mentioned several non-canonical evidences that could be used by experts in the courtroom that will be used to sway for judgment in favor of the priest’s right to ridicule the conclusion of the author.



Again, not according the article, the article says the Priest claimed ‘overwhelming’ evidence in favor of Christ existing, and the author claimed there was none outside of the gospels. The priest will win, for the reasons I already mentioned.



That's what the priest would have to do to prove it to you. But he doesn't need to do that to prove it in the civil court being presided over by the judge regarding the legalities before him.

You’re trying to hold the case you want to see, not the one presented in that article.

The thing is... apocryphal sources must be analysed... even in the courtroom (especially, perhaps?) in one of two ways:

Either: a) An apocryphal source is the equivalent of a canonical source... in which case they would be admissable... but are subject to the same question of 'faith'...

or: b) An apocryphal source is NOT the equivalent of a canonical source, in which case they are not 'official'... since the church doesn't consider them 'genuine'.

If the Catholic church wants to bring non-canonical sources into it - they have to admit, publically, that there is 'truth' in the non-canonical scriptures... and I can't see them being willing to do that.

As for "Q", or Pre-Markan scripture... such documents are almost entirely conjectural... the church cannot bring an 'actual Q document' into the room.

I think proving jesus existed is more the job or an archeologist than a preist. Thats like asking a history professor to prove charlamange existed.

Preists and professors deal with the texts and ideas associated with their study, not with proving that their subject matter is real.

The thing is... apocryphal sources must be analysed... even in the courtroom (especially, perhaps?) in one of two ways:

No they don't, it's not a Catholic court of bishops deciding a position of faith, it's a judge deciding if there is enough evidence and reason for the Priest to be able to defend himself from the charges brought by the accuser.

Either: a) An apocryphal source is the equivalent of a canonical source... in which case they would be admissable... but are subject to the same question of 'faith'...

or: b) An apocryphal source is NOT the equivalent of a canonical source, in which case they are not 'official'... since the church doesn't consider them 'genuine'.

Entirely irrelevant, the judge doesn't even need to know the difference between them, outside of being able to ascertain that they are not the four gospels that the author dismissed out of hand, and that they are evidences outside of the churche's control (meaning secular expert witnesses can vouch for them).

If the Catholic church wants to bring non-canonical sources into it - they have to admit, publically, that there is 'truth' in the non-canonical scriptures... and I can't see them being willing to do that.

No, they don't have to give them any credence to use them in a court of law as evidence that they exist. They may choose to, but they would be under no obligation to endorse them. I can bring proof of a DFL town hall meeting without once agreeing or endorsing any of the views held by those people.

If the church decided to defend the priest with only the evidences that they agree with, they could continue to use the evidences I've mentioned, the Didache alone, for example, could be used by the secular expert witnesses that will be able to ascertain the age of the document for the court.

The church can and likely will stay entirely out of it, at least in an official position anyway. I expect that they will allow the Priest's lawyer to use a multitude of secular experts that will disagree with the author's assertion that there is no proof outside of the canonical gospels for the existence of evidence to show that Christ was a person in the first century Judea providence of the Roman Empire.

No they don't, it's not a Catholic court of bishops deciding a position of faith, it's a judge deciding if there is enough evidence and reason for the Priest to be able to defend himself from the charges brought by the accuser.



Entirely irrelevant, the judge doesn't even need to know the difference between them, outside of being able to ascertain that they are not the four gospels that the author dismissed out of hand, and that they are evidences outside of the churche's control (meaning secular expert witnesses can vouch for them).



No, they don't have to give them any credence to use them in a court of law as evidence that they exist. They may choose to, but they would be under no obligation to endorse them. I can bring proof of a DFL town hall meeting without once agreeing or endorsing any of the views held by those people.

If the church decided to defend the priest with only the evidences that they agree with, they could continue to use the evidences I've mentioned, the Didache alone, for example, could be used by the secular expert witnesses that will be able to ascertain the age of the document for the court.

The church can and likely will stay entirely out of it, at least in an official position anyway. I expect that they will allow the Priest's lawyer to use a multitude of secular experts that will disagree with the author's assertion that there is no proof outside of the canonical gospels for the existence of evidence to show that Christ was a person in the first century Judea providence of the Roman Empire.

No - I think you are missing my point.

If apocryphal sources are allowed - they are being considered valid, rather than kind of 'knock-offs' of the formal religion - then they will be treated by the judge, as effectively being the 'same' as the Gospel texts.

If they are NOT considered viable as evidence - that would mean they WERE being accepted as being 'pretend' Gospels, that would unfortunately make a 'better argument' (because it would make them more 'secular'.... but then they would not be viable... as they would not be original sources.

No - I think you are missing my point.

If apocryphal sources are allowed - they are being considered valid, rather than kind of 'knock-offs' of the formal religion - then they will be treated by the judge, as effectively being the 'same' as the Gospel texts.

If they are NOT considered viable as evidence - that would mean they WERE being accepted as being 'pretend' Gospels, that would unfortunately make a 'better argument' (because it would make them more 'secular'.... but then they would not be viable... as they would not be original sources.

The judge doesn't need the documents to be 'valid' doctrine, only old and beyond the reach of the church to manipulate.

Such as the Egarton Gospel 2, http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/egerton.htm , it was independently discovered and can be presented as evidence that is outside of the canonical gospels.

The judge doesn't need to endorse, nor attack, Catholic doctrine and beliefs to address the issue of IS there evidence of Christ's existence via the non-cannon gospels.

The author/accuser will object that they don't prove anything about Christ being divine or holy or doing miracles etc., and in a debate about faith he might win. BUT, he will lose his court case because there IS evidence outside of the cannon gospels, there is plenty of it that can be presented with secular expert witness.

The author/accuser will object that they don't prove anything about Christ being divine or holy or doing miracles etc., and in a debate about faith he might win. BUT, he will lose his court case because there IS evidence outside of the cannon gospels, there is plenty of it that can be presented with secular expert witness.
But it's not simply a question of whether there are ancient documents other than the Gospels which talk about Jesus. Signor Cascioli's knows these documents exist, but contends (correctly) that they were written "after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

The question under consideration is whether there is reason to doubt Jesus's existence, and a court cannot base its judgement on something which merely appears or purports to be evidence - it has to be proved that it is reliable evidence, presumably according to legal rules of evidence. I cannot begin to see how hearsay of unknown authorship and uncertain date could be accepted as reliable.

The judge doesn't need the documents to be 'valid' doctrine, only old and beyond the reach of the church to manipulate.

Such as the Egarton Gospel 2, http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/egerton.htm , it was independently discovered and can be presented as evidence that is outside of the canonical gospels.

The judge doesn't need to endorse, nor attack, Catholic doctrine and beliefs to address the issue of IS there evidence of Christ's existence via the non-cannon gospels.

The author/accuser will object that they don't prove anything about Christ being divine or holy or doing miracles etc., and in a debate about faith he might win. BUT, he will lose his court case because there IS evidence outside of the cannon gospels, there is plenty of it that can be presented with secular expert witness.

I'm not talking 'valid doctrine'.... I'm talking 'valid evidence'.

If I were being investigated for murder, and my defence consisted of "Sam", a male friend of mine, and "Sally" (which is Sam, again... this time in a dress)... the prosecution would likely question the validity of Sally as a witness.

No, no... they'd say.... that's just your other friend. In a dress.

Here endeth the allegory.

It has been said that there is more (and better) extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed than that Julius Ceasar existed.

It is also said that Julius Caeser has his own money from the time period, not to mention family extensions and an entire military record. So unless there's a massive conspiracy from the Roman Mint, Military, and thousands of historians than I'd say that it is a valid statement.

The only problem is that caeser is pretty much deified by many many people and works concerning him seem uncredible.

But it's not simply a question of whether there are ancient documents other than the Gospels which talk about Jesus. Signor Cascioli's knows these documents exist, but contends (correctly) that they were written "after the time of the hypothetical Jesus” and were therefore not reliable witnesses.

I object your honor, conjecture on the part of the prosecution. Let the expert witness’ academic consensus tell us what the documents are and their historical value. And may I remind the court, summary of expert witness in the field today hold that there are multiple claims of witness from multiple sources from the archeological achieves. The religious holdings of these claims, their faith validity of such claims, is irrelevant and their religiosity or lack thereof resides entirely outside of the realm of this court and case and should be dismissed as irrelevant.

The question under consideration is whether there is reason to doubt Jesus's existence, and a court cannot base its judgement on something which merely appears or purports to be evidence - it has to be proved that it is reliable evidence, presumably according to legal rules of evidence. I cannot begin to see how hearsay of unknown authorship and uncertain date could be accepted as reliable.

I object your honor, it is not the case before this court to judge the value of the witnesses claim to the divinity of Christ, but the court must weigh the value of the Priest’s right to ridicule the claims of the accuser, that their IS evidence for the existence of Christ in Palestine during the first century. We have produced literally hundreds of fragments of papyrus and expert witness analyses of said academic opinion on the age of the fragments and their interpreted and widely held interpretation to mean that they claim to have knowledge of the existence of one Christ, Jesus, in the first century Palestine. Do to the lack of evidence to the contraire, we ask the court to immediately hold that there IS overwhelming evidence to support our client's claim that the accusation that there is no evidence is hogwash, and rule immediately in our client’s favor to have a legal right to state such opinions of his in his published documents.

I'm not talking 'valid doctrine'.... I'm talking 'valid evidence'.

If I were being investigated for murder, and my defence consisted of "Sam", a male friend of mine, and "Sally" (which is Sam, again... this time in a dress)... the prosecution would likely question the validity of Sally as a witness.

No, no... they'd say.... that's just your other friend. In a dress.

Here endeth the allegory.

It's not a murder case, it's a civil case and a freedom of speech case. The level of 'proof' required here will rests somewhat lower than a criminal court would require. And because of that, the priest will win.

It's not a murder case, it's a civil case and a freedom of speech case. The level of 'proof' required here will rests somewhat lower than a criminal court would require. And because of that, the priest will win.
its in italy. i dont think we can say what the burden of proof is there or what the test is of libel.

if the priest has to prove that the existance of christ is indisputable, he has a tough road ahead.

as does the poor judge, i bet he puked when that case came back to him.

its in italy. i dont think we can say what the burden of proof is there or what the test is of libel.

if the priest has to prove that the existance of christ is indisputable, he has a tough road ahead.

as does the poor judge, i bet he puked when that case came back to him.


True enough, that. I'm no expert at Italian law, I don't know the specifics of what credentials need to be used to restrict the freedom of speech of the priest. Anyone here have an idea of Italian legal codes and requirements?

However, when reflecting and looking upon their politicians, I'm thinking that's it's likely pretty hard to shut someone up just because they are saying something that might be doubtable and considered stupid by someone else :p :D

True enough, that. I'm no expert at Italian law, I don't know the specifics of what credentials need to be used to restrict the freedom of speech of the priest. Anyone here have an idea of Italian legal codes and requirements?

However, when reflecting and looking upon their politicians, I'm thinking that's it's likely pretty hard to shut someone up just because they are saying something that might be doubtable and considered stupid by someone else :p :D
im thinking its all a publicity ploy on the part of the author. he probably sent a synopsis to every parish in italy and checked ever parish newsletter for the poor soul who bit his "flamebait" so that he could sue and get more publicity for his book.

im thinking its all a publicity ploy on the part of the author. he probably sent a synopsis to every parish in italy and checked ever parish newsletter for the poor soul who bit his "flamebait" so that he could sue and get more publicity for his book.

Oh, you're good tonight aren't ya. I agree now that you mention it, nice observation...

Historical texts being used as evidence sounds bonkers to me. If in 3000 years time similar peoples required similar higher powers to be able to make sense of their lives they may view old documents about people like Superman, James Bond or Bart Simpson and assume that these guys really existed. The fact that anything is documented doesn't mean it's factual. Jesus and his exploits are rather nice little stories and we've been telling these things since day 1 to entertain, inspire and frighten ourselves. My bet is that the bible is a series of adventures of everyone's favourite fictional character - back then that is.

As for "Q", or Pre-Markan scripture... such documents are almost entirely conjectural... the church cannot bring an 'actual Q document' into the room.
Indeed a further example of my point. Most excellent, Grave. *bows*
BTW, this should indeed prove an interesting argument.

Historical texts being used as evidence sounds bonkers to me. If in 3000 years time similar peoples required similar higher powers to be able to make sense of their lives they may view old documents about people like Superman, James Bond or Bart Simpson and assume that these guys really existed. The fact that anything is documented doesn't mean it's factual.
To take historical texts as factual just because they exist would be bonkers, but there's nothing wrong with using them if their provenance and likely factual basis can be established. I'm sure there have been quite a few legal cases (e.g. claims to old peerage titles) which have relied on centuries-old documents.

I would guess that the purpose of expert witnesses in this case will be to establish the extent to which we know the provenance of the available evidence (authors, dates etc).

To my knowledge jesus did exist (I could be wrong), the romans kept good reccord of those who they crucified. However I belive God to be a product of human imagination.

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.

The case has nothing to do with belief, but it has a lot to do with the law.

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.

This is the crux of the case. Righi has every right to believe in christ and Cascioli has every right not to believe in christ, but as soon as Righi denounced Cascioli it then put the burden of proof on Righi. If he can't prove that christ exists then his denunciation is libel.

To my knowledge jesus did exist (I could be wrong), the romans kept good reccord of those who they crucified.
I'm not aware of the existence of any Roman record of whom they crucified in Palestine, let alone one which names Jesus, and I've never seen anyone on either side of the argument cite such a record at any time in the last 2000 years.

This is the crux of the case. Righi has every right to believe in christ and Cascioli has every right not to believe in christ, but as soon as Righi denounced Cascioli it then put the burden of proof on Righi. If he can't prove that christ exists then his denunciation is libel.

That is possibly the most absurd thing I have ever heard

If Righi puts forward evidence the Cascioli could just dismiss it. With no reason. Historians do not sue each other just because one historian disagrees with what antoher said. This is getting the compensation culture into dangerous fields

Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Science
To my knowledge jesus did exist (I could be wrong), the romans kept good reccord of those who they crucified.
I'm not aware of the existence of any Roman record of whom they crucified in Palestine, let alone one which names Jesus, and I've never seen anyone on either side of the argument cite such a record at any time in the last 2000 years.

Guys, aside from anything else, according to the Bible Jesus was crucified by the Judean government, not the Romans. So why would the Romans keep any such records?

1. Jesus.
2. ????
3. Prophet.

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.

Whether he actually existed or not is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that people believe he did. Once they believe it, it doesn't matter how much 'evidence' you throw at them because the issue has become a matter of faith and 'evidence' has no place in faith related arguments. It would be like trying to apply scientific principle to painting an artistic masterpiece - the reasoning you apply would simply be irrelevant to the answer you seek.

Can you blame people for choosing faith over reason? No, because all things are, to an extent, a matter of faith. The most sound of all scientific principles is that scientific theory is not absolute. If it is not absolute, then the scientific community are required to place faith in the concept in question. The difference is that scientific analysis means the leap of faith that scientists are required to make is relatively minor whereas believing in the existence of Christ requires a much bigger leap because of the dubious nature of the evidence involved.

That was the philosopher in me. The historian (my subject) in me says that the evidence supporting Christ's existence is far too weak for any concrete arguments to be made upon it. However, we must deal with the possibility that more concrete records of Christ's existence may have been lost or destroyed during the last two millenia of human existence.

That is possibly the most absurd thing I have ever heard

If Righi puts forward evidence the Cascioli could just dismiss it. With no reason. Historians do not sue each other just because one historian disagrees with what antoher said. This is getting the compensation culture into dangerous fields
I don't know exactly what was said, but I would guess that Father Righi attacked Cascioli's personal integrity, which is why this has become more than a debate about the evidence.

It's not the first time historians have been in court over libel accusations. A few years ago, the holocaust-denying historian David Irving sued American author Deborah Lipstadt. He lost the case, and had his professional reputation shredded in court.

The most sound of all scientific principles is that scientific theory is not absolute. If it is not absolute, then the scientific community are required to place faith in the concept in question.
That is not faith in the religious sense. It is a working assumption based on solid evidence, with the provision that it could be overturned by new evidence or testing (although it is extremely unlikely to be overturned in many cases).

That was the philosopher in me. The historian (my subject) in me says that the evidence supporting Christ's existence is far too weak for any concrete arguments to be made upon it. However, we must deal with the possibility that more concrete records of Christ's existence may have been lost or destroyed during the last two millenia of human existence.
It would be wonderful if more concrete evidence for or against would be dug up, but I'm not holding my breath for it!

That is not faith in the religious sense. It is a working assumption based on solid evidence, with the provision that it could be overturned by new evidence or testing (although it is extremely unlikely to be overturned in many cases).

I disagree. I think the simple difference between the two is the amount of faith required in order to bridge the gap between evidence and conviction. The gap is obviously larger for theists as their evidence is generally of an unsound nature (at least unsound to the scientific mind) and thus they require more faith to bridge it, whereas scientists generally have sounder evidence (and know it) which means the faith required to bridge the gap is much smaller. There is only one type of faith - faith is what is required when there is no certainty or absolute with which to complete our understanding of a concept.

It would be wonderful if more concrete evidence for or against would be dug up, but I'm not holding my breath for it!

I agree but historians can no more deal in absolute certainties than scientists. Therefore, every reasonable historic approach to the question of Christ's existence should include the possibilty that records may simply be missing or be destroyed. If you neglect this aspect of the argument, you are rendering your point incomplete.

That is possibly the most absurd thing I have ever heard

If Righi puts forward evidence the Cascioli could just dismiss it. With no reason. Historians do not sue each other just because one historian disagrees with what antoher said. This is getting the compensation culture into dangerous fields

A better comparison would be to say that historians don't sue each other over their interpretations of events. For example, if a plate was found in Rome with the name Julius on it one historian might say it refered to Julius Ceasar for various reasons, another might say that it refered to another Julius for different reasons, they wouldn't sue over this.

However, if a third historian said that there was no plate and they were both liars they most likely would sue him in order to protect their professional reputations and this is what the court case is about, one party has called another party a liar for claiming there is no evidence, the accused party is taking his accuser to court in order to preserve his reputation.

I agree but historians can no more deal in absolute certainties than scientists. Therefore, every reasonable historic approach to the question of Christ's existence should include the possibilty that records may simply be missing or be destroyed. If you neglect this aspect of the argument, you are rendering your point incomplete.

Yes - but to ASSUME they exist, despite no evidence to support them?

That's niether science nor history... that's either blind-faith, or hopeless optimism.

Yes - but to ASSUME they exist, despite no evidence to support them?

That's niether science nor history... that's either blind-faith, or hopeless optimism.

Nowhere do I mention assumption - I simply say that you must recognise the possibility that records could have been lost, whatever your views are. To assume that the absence of unambiguous historical references means that there never were any records would be reckless. You do not need to assume their existence to avoid this reckless: you simply need to assume the possibilty of their existence.

You know, I get the same line from the Jehovah's Witnesses that knock on the door.

"Have you found Jesus?"

Hey, I didn't know he was missing. We've been renting a room to Jesus for a while at my house, and He's at dinner every night.

Can't prove He existed back then - it's just a book with some text in it.

But He does exist at my house.

You know, I get the same line from the Jehovah's Witnesses that knock on the door.

"Have you found Jesus?"

Hey, I didn't know he was missing. We've been renting a room to Jesus for a while at my house, and He's at dinner every night.

Can't prove He existed back then - it's just a book with some text in it.

But He does exist at my house.

And you cannot disprove he existed back then - lack of evidence is simply not proof, especially when you consider that Jesus is a 2000 year old figure who would have been of interest only to the illiterate in a far flung Roman outpost for most of his life.

Thus you cannot, in all reasonableness, say that "Jesus never existed" because the term 'never' is an absolute and absolutes should never be applied to historic or scientific thinking. I have stated that, in my opinion as a history student, it is more than probable that Jesus did not exist. You could say that it is a near certainty that Jesus did not exist. Those statements are not absolutist in nature, as they allow for doubt and possible improvement of the opinion presented.

To say 'Jesus never existed' is nearly as bad as to say 'Jesus did exist'. Both make considerable leaps over reasonable, logical thinking processes.

Nowhere do I mention assumption - I simply say that you must recognise the possibility that records could have been lost, whatever your views are. To assume that the absence of unambiguous historical references means that there never were any records would be reckless. You do not need to assume their existence to avoid this reckless: you simply need to assume the possibilty of their existence.
That's true, but I don't think anybody in this case is denying Jesus's existence outright. They're saying that it is questionable, or perhaps even that the weight of evidence is against it.

Nowhere do I mention assumption - I simply say that you must recognise the possibility that records could have been lost, whatever your views are. To assume that the absence of unambiguous historical references means that there never were any records would be reckless. You do not need to assume their existence to avoid this reckless: you simply need to assume the possibilty of their existence.
there is a point to that. but it doesnt remove the libel of they man who wrote the book about how there is no real historical evidence of jesus. if it doesnt exist, it doesnt exist.

what is more interesting to ME is finding out that the earlier the christian writing, the LESS is said about the details of christs life, even when it makes sense to mention them or to use something he said as the basis for a religious opinion.

its as if they either didnt know or didnt care about the details of christ's life and ministry.

Nowhere do I mention assumption - I simply say that you must recognise the possibility that records could have been lost, whatever your views are. To assume that the absence of unambiguous historical references means that there never were any records would be reckless. You do not need to assume their existence to avoid this reckless: you simply need to assume the possibilty of their existence.

Yes.... but what you said was: "Therefore, every reasonable historic approach to the question of Christ's existence should include the possibilty that records may simply be missing or be destroyed".

And, since there is no EVIDENCE to suggest such materials ever existed, one should ALSO include the possibility that such articles are works ONLY of imagination.... and should WEIGHT their 'acceptance of possibilities' with the evidence available.

Thus - the evidence shows that, most likely, there are not going to be found these 'records' that so many seem to 'will' to exist.

Sure, they MIGHT turn up.... but, far more likely, they never existed.