NationStates Jolt Archive

Show me where the Gospel of Matthew makes any claims about it at all.


About it's author? It doesn't - in it's native form. Indeed - there is no independent evidence that 'Matthew' was even a real person.

But, if not 'Matthew', then who? And... why should we accept it at all?


I didn't verify any claims. The gospel according to Matthew doesn't identify its author as a source.


You didn't verify what? I think you misread my post...


"heard' Heard from who? What they have from their own experiences and from what they heard from other eyewitnesses perhaps? As the church fathers claim? Perhaps.


And which witness saw Joseph's vision? Pathetic. You're admitting they just wrote down everything they heard (or made up? No way to know), and yet you still claim it as credible witnessing?


Unaccredited is irrelevant to us, we couldn't validate names and address even if we had a list of them. We can't say which events the author witnessed in most cases as the author doesn't identify themselves (in most cases). The collection of testimonies is not disqualified just because we aren't given their names.


No. But it is a lot less valuable as evidence, because it speaks of things the author can NOT have seen.


If we have a narrative of two people talking, we can 'assume' the author is telling us that they have the testimony of one of those two people OR they are one of those two people. IF we choose to call them a liar, we can do that even if they did give us names and addresses. Having names and addresses would change nothing.

We don't have to call anyone a liar - we just don't have to accept their testimony as very worthwhile if we can't even be sure it is 'theirs'.

Then you are saying a scribe can't record the testimony of another person. Nonsense.

Nope and lying about what I said is making you look more and more incredible. I said a scribe who writes a story down without crediting the source and passes it off as his own is a liar. A scribe who passes on a story from someone else without crediting them is participating in hearsay.

The only time scientifically or legally we treat testimony as if it were from direct witnesses is if we can show that it is. Here we can't. In fact, all evidence suggests it's not. Unsurpisingly, we rarely use the "but he could have told them about it after he died" defense to make something witness testimony.

That's not what he said: It's not what he meant, but it is how it works. Either the author can record the testimony of others or he cannot. The majority says that a scribe CAN record the testimony of a eye-witness and the recording itself is then the recording of the witness, not the scribe. The gospel author is not disqualified just because they too might have witnessed some of the events being recorded.

So a scribe can record the eye-witness testimony of another, but Jocabia's saying its origin has to be demonstrated before it is treated as an eye-witness account.

Ancient documents cannot be 'demonstrated' to be true even if you do have names and addresses on them, they, by their very nature, cannot be validated with names and address or any other type of accreditation. Thus, demanding such an evidence that would prove to be useless even if it is provided, is really just a red herring argument in the first place.

As you know, the producers of the gospels (those that kept them around and canonized them) are the ones that made the claims of who wrote what and when and where, and for all we know, they got it right. However, to us, now, putting names and addresses on the testimonies would be useless because we couldn't validate anything. This is why ancient documents have an exception to the hearsay rule in courtrooms. The validity of the testimony can be belittled and questioned and challenged, but neither side gets to rule out the other side from using them as evidence all the same.

Nope, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Jesus said nothing to his apostles that is outside of the gospels during the three years before he was crucified (and for Christians, no reason to assume he didn't talk to them and make his own testimony after the crucifixion either).

So - you want to add to the scripture?

Your 'evidence' is... well, things you claim, but the scripture doesn't?

There's no evidence that Jesus DIDN'T have three arms - by your logic, that is now a valid assumption.

So - you want to add to the scripture?

Your 'evidence' is... well, things you claim, but the scripture doesn't?

There's no evidence that Jesus DIDN'T have three arms - by your logic, that is now a valid assumption.

I didn't add anything to the scripture. It says of itself that Jesus said many other things not recorded...

Very good, I have no real beef with any of that... only exception would be the remark that pretends for even a second that they would be 'better' if they had it. I disagree, they would not be improved or harmed one wit either way.


Then you simply don't understand how historical sources are evaluated. That's not a bad thing, but it makes you unsuited for a real debate about historicity.


They CAN know. They CAN have spent time with the people that were there that told them what happened. And thus, they become scribes of other people's testimony.


How many Bible texts assert that THAT is their nature?

How many of them are the gospels?


Mary's testimony would be a good choice. Why do you assume she never talked to them?

I don't - but I don't assume she spent a lot of time with the apostles, discussing who she fucked.

Then you simply don't understand how historical sources are evaluated. That's not a bad thing, but it makes you unsuited for a real debate about historicity.

Aww, you gave up on real debate and attacked me instead... That's sad, and bad form and evidence that you are losing and getting desperate I suppose.


How many Bible texts assert that THAT is their nature?

How many of them are the gospels?

The book of Acts describes how the authors of the gospels narrative all spent time together and spoke and shared testimonies.

I don't - but I don't assume she spent a lot of time with the apostles, discussing who she fucked.

Then you pretend that you haven't read the narrative. Clearly her story is different than you portray it.

Which real historians writings did you have in mind? Got any links, any place I can get these writings and read them for myself?


Err... what?

You want me to track down historians for you, so you can read their work and be sure they DIDN'T claim the middle east got over-ran by zombies?

Shouldn't you have already checked, before you accepted the gospels as true? Or do you just believe ANYTHING you find in the bible?



John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Okay... well, John was talking about a spiritual life, rather than fleshy... but I suspect you already knew that. Also... accepting it anyhow... how are already dead people, going to put their faith in Jesus so they can be re-animated?

I didn't add anything to the scripture. It says of itself that Jesus said many other things not recorded...

But it doesn't say what those things were.

You claim Jesus told the apostles loads of witness testimony, and you... what.. expect us to believe you? You accept it as true because Jesus COULD have said it?

Jesus COULD have said he and Judas were gay lovers, too... and it's even supported by the scripture! Unlike your little 'assumption'.

Aww, you gave up on real debate and attacked me instead... That's sad, and bad form and evidence that you are losing and getting desperate I suppose.


Not at all. You just said you don't think being able to attribute a source to a real person would make it a better source.

I didn't attack you... if you REALLY believe that, you DON'T know anything about evaluating sources!


The book of Acts describes how the authors of the gospels narrative all spent time together and spoke and shared testimonies.


The book of Acts.. as written by someone who wasn't there?


Then you pretend that you haven't read the narrative. Clearly her story is different than you portray it.

So... you think she DID spend time discussing her sex-life with the apostles?

Err... what?

You want me to track down historians for you, so you can read their work and be sure they DIDN'T claim the middle east got over-ran by zombies?

Shouldn't you have already checked, before you accepted the gospels as true? Or do you just believe ANYTHING you find in the bible?

Simply pointing out that you have no contemporary 'real' historians to speak of at all and yet you refered to them as proof of a negative.

Okay... well, John was talking about a spiritual life, rather than fleshy... but I suspect you already knew that. Also... accepting it anyhow... how are already dead people, going to put their faith in Jesus so they can be re-animated?



John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

About believing in the "dead" and thinking there is no resurrection of the flesh, like you just did...
Matthew 22
29But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." 33And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Not at all. You just said you don't think being able to attribute a source to a real person would make it a better source.

I didn't attack you... if you REALLY believe that, you DON'T know anything about evaluating sources!
You think we can validate a name and address of a Jew or Gentile who lived in Judea almost two thousand years ago? Then you DON'T know anything about evaluating historical sources from that time period.

The book of Acts.. as written by someone who wasn't there?
Never said you have to believe it. Of course, if you are going to limit all your history books to only authors who were at the event described in the book they wrote then you are going to be eliminating most of the history books at every library AND you will be reducing your chances of have a better understanding of those events.

So... you think she DID spend time discussing her sex-life with the apostles?
I think there is no reason that she couldn't have shared the birth narratives.

Simply pointing out that you have no contemporary 'real' historians to speak of at all and yet you refered to them as proof of a negative.


Cite me.

I claimed nothing as proof of a negative.


John 8:58
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

About believing in the "dead" and thinking there is no resurrection of the flesh, like you just did...
Matthew 22
29But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living." 33And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Which of those says anything about zombies? Which one of those said that the dead people believed in Jesus?

You think we can validate a name and address of a Jew or Gentile who lived in Judea almost two thousand years ago? The you DON'T know anything about evaluating historical sources from that time period.


Ooh! Ooh! You attacked me!

I'm not sure what you think you're talking about... it's not necessarily impossible to find corroboration, IF a source is provided. It's certainly better than trying to corroborate alleged witnesses WITHOUT the sources being cited.

As an example, Martial is actually a very useful tool for corroboration, although this particular time/place would have been outside of his remit.


Never said you have to believe it. Of course, if you are going to limited all your history books to only authors who were at the event described in the book then you are going to be eliminating most of the history books at every library AND you will be reducing your chances of have a better understanding of those events.


A 'better understanding' is only worth having if it's true. I don't need a 'better understanding' of events that someone made up.


I think there is no reason that she couldn't have shared the birth narratives.

Sure. I bet they all sat round and shared maxipads.

Cite me.

I claimed nothing as proof of a negative.

Yes you did.

QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;13346759
It has to be said, the zombie invasion is probably my favourite part of the whole story... it's kind of a shame no one else thought it worth mentioning... neither 'real' historians, nor the other Gospel-ists.

Other people not mentioning it implies it didn't happen? That's claiming proof of a negative. You did it.

Which of those says anything about zombies? Which one of those said that the dead people believed in Jesus?

Raising the dead flesh of others and himself, no where did it say he was talking 'spiritually' only.

That makes as much sense as saying "Did George Washington exist." Is there not ample documentation to prove it? Not to mention faith, as well.

Yes he does exist, but that is simply my opinion.

Yes you did.

QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;13346759
It has to be said, the zombie invasion is probably my favourite part of the whole story... it's kind of a shame no one else thought it worth mentioning... neither 'real' historians, nor the other Gospel-ists.

Other people not mentioning it implies it didn't happen? That's claiming proof of a negative. You did it.


You're not very good at this, are you. I didn't say it didn't happen. I didn't say it IMPLIED it didn't happen - I said it was a shame no one else mentioned it.

While I certainly have my doubts - and the lack of other testimony doesn't help allay them - I wouldn't claim lack of evidence as PROOF of anything anyway.

I'd personally LOVE that story to be corroborated. Like I said, it's one of my favourite parts of the story.


Raising the dead flesh of others and himself, no where did it say he was talking 'spiritually' only.

Or, you know... actually answer the question?

I've noticed you dodge a lot.

EDIT: I notice you dodged this one, too: "Shouldn't you have already checked, before you accepted the gospels as true? Or do you just believe ANYTHING you find in the bible?"

Is there not ample documentation to prove it?


Ample? Yes. Adequate? Not even close.

Not to mention faith, as well.

Which isn't 'evidence', now, is it?

:eek: I don't really see the point in this... the only evidence is the bible.. and some of it is not true. Jesus was born in a manger, poor. He wasn't a kings son and he lived perfectly well as a poor boy. Then it obviously is false that the "god of the poor" could have been given gold, frankincense and myrrh because he would not have accepted it. Anyone thought about that?:D:D

PS: I'm not a Jesus freak though......:gundge:

Jesus was born in a manger, poor.

Even that does not make sense. Carpenter was a decently paying job.

Miracles are evidence of something inexplicable - if they can be verifiedWhat is that supposed to mean? A miracle that can be verified is what? An event that is inexplicable but can be repeated and examined as any other evidence?

You think we can validate a name and address of a Jew or Gentile who lived in Judea almost two thousand years ago? Then you DON'T know anything about evaluating historical sources from that time period.

This little game is tiresome. You keep acting like certain information can't be validated so it's not useful. A - if the provided information about where these stories came from it would be evidence that the scribes were trying to record credible history rather than simply pass on the faith (the obvious and clear goal of the Gospels). B - if they provided the information it would be evidence that it WAS an attempt to record witness testimony, and we'd be able to analyze who the witnesses were, why they were there, what their role was in the whole thing, and how the information came to be in the Gospels.

There is much more to analyzing a document you want to be treated as historical than just knocking the doors of the people who wrote it. Take the sagas you brought up earlier, I can look at the information in them and validate the information and based on what I find figure out the most reasonable way for the information to end up in the document. In the case of the sagas the only reasonable conclusion is that the stories about going to the Americas are true since they accurately describe the Americas and we can trace where they landed and analyze the information from a archeological perspective.

Now, with the Bible, we have no way to tell where the information comes from, so we can't regard it as witness testimony. CANNOT. It's not rational to treat something as the work of witnesses when there is no evidence for this. Worse, when we analyze the information in the stories, it doesn't match up with what we can verify. Reasonably, when information that would likely have been known by people who were there gives all indication that in the game of telephone that eventually resulted in it being written down it morphed into false data, you simply cannot support the assertion that this is honest testimony of an eyewitness. The locations are wrong. Much of the data that can be verified simply doesn't match up.

Now, if you want to analyze that data, I'd love to go over it with you. However, when I started listing the problems earlier you cried about how I'm not allowed to analyze the credibility of the Bible as a historical document and disappear for a few days.

You wanna play, let's play. But stop trying to avoid the actual way that a document would be verified as the work of eyewitnesses. I don't claim to be able to show that Jesus existed or didn't. I do however claim to be able to show that the entirety of the Gospels cannot be the work of eyewitnesses. They are not faithful testimony. This is verifiable, so long as you don't freak out every time people try to show you why. You wanna play historian, I'm up, but you don't get to cry about how I'm not allowed to demonstrate the problem with the Gospels as eyewitness tellings.

Other people not mentioning it implies it didn't happen? That's claiming proof of a negative. You did it.
Nope. He simply demonstrated the problem with accepting it happened, not the same as claiming proof of a negative. There is a spectrum here, from false to true. There is much ground between false and true. He simply showed why it would be ludicrous to land at true, not why one must necessarily land at false.

This little game is tiresome. You keep acting like certain information can't be validated so it's not useful. A - if the provided information about where these stories came from it would be evidence that the scribes were trying to record credible history rather than simply pass on the faith (the obvious and clear goal of the Gospels). B - if they provided the information it would be evidence that it WAS an attempt to record witness testimony, and we'd be able to analyze who the witnesses were, why they were there, what their role was in the whole thing, and how the information came to be in the Gospels.

And Luke tries to provide that kind of information when he said...

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

1. "Many" have already "undertaken to compile" an orderly account for you (of the events concerning Jesus). We may not know exactly what "many" means but it should seem to be more than one or two (as Mark and Q could hardly be counted as 'many) but it implies more than one or two sources.

2. Who from the beginning "have delivered them to us." The language is of oral tradition via the ministers mentioned and the "Eyewitnesses" are those who actually saw and heard Jesus, together they are the testimonies of those who preached and taught and witnessed and were sources available to Luke. Now we know that Luke says there was oral tradition about Jesus which he could draw upon, AND eyewitness testimony. How this would not have been true for Matthew (who wrote even earlier) is beyond me.

As to John, we have the tradition of the Monarchian Prologue (http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html)

John the apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved very much, last of all wrote this gospel, the bishops of Asia having entreated him, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially standing against the dogma of the Ebionites there who asserted by the depravity of their stupidity, for thus they have the appellation Ebionites, that Christ, before he was born from Mary, neither existed nor was born before the ages from God the father. Whence also he was compelled to tell of his divine nativity from the father. But they also bear another cause for his writing the gospel, because, when he had collected the volumes from the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, and of Luke, he indeed approved the text of the history and affirmed that they had said true things, but that they had woven the history of only one year, in which he also suffered after the imprisonment of John. The year, then, having been omitted in which the acts of the tribes were expounded, he narrated the events of the time prior, before John was shut up in prison, just as it can be made manifest to those who diligently read the four volumes of the gospels. This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet constituted in the body, as the Hieropolitan, Papias by name, disciple of John and dear [to him], transmitted in his EXOTERIC, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated. Truly Marcion the heretic, when he had been disapproved by him because he supposed contrary things, was thrown out by John. He in truth carried writings or epistles sent to him from the brothers who were in Pontus, faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All of that proves NOTHING to those that want to assail it all as lies anyway. Adding names and addresses would not change that perception one wit. For those that can't, or don't want to, or will not accept that the NT works might be authentically relayed to us through the generations, the addition of names and places and where’s and when’s, does no good because those names and places cannot themselves be validated either (after these two millennium).

There is much more to analyzing a document you want to be treated as historical than just knocking the doors of the people who wrote it. Take the sagas you brought up earlier, I can look at the information in them and validate the information and based on what I find figure out the most reasonable way for the information to end up in the document. In the case of the sagas the only reasonable conclusion is that the stories about going to the Americas are true since they accurately describe the Americas and we can trace where they landed and analyze the information from a archeological perspective.

Surely you know that these types of questions and historical research is done relentlessly in regards to NT works and locations?

Now, with the Bible, we have no way to tell where the information comes from, so we can't regard it as witness testimony. CANNOT. It's not rational to treat something as the work of witnesses when there is no evidence for this.
How did you come to that conclussion, that there is no evidence of eyewitnesses? Besides for the Luke stuff I went over above, there are church father writings from the second century that tell us what the oral tradition was associated with these gospels.

Papias wrote a document in the first half of the second century (around 130 AD), called [I]An Exposition of the Lord's Sayings. WE have record of it through Eusebius' recordings. But Papias wrote:

15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
(Eusebius, History, 3.39.15-16 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm))

What does this prove? Nothing to the skeptic. Words, names, addresses, reasons, etc., they do nothing to validate the NT works to those that want to say they are all made up anyway... So it's like I said before, asking for names and addresses and 'signatures' is really just a red herring.

Worse, when we analyze the information in the stories, it doesn't match up with what we can verify. Reasonably, when information that would likely have been known by people who were there gives all indication that in the game of telephone that eventually resulted in it being written down it morphed into false data, you simply cannot support the assertion that this is honest testimony of an eyewitness. The locations are wrong. Much of the data that can be verified simply doesn't match up.

Now, if you want to analyze that data, I'd love to go over it with you. However, when I started listing the problems earlier you cried about how I'm not allowed to analyze the credibility of the Bible as a historical document and disappear for a few days.

I suspect that you find things in the scripture that you don't want there, I suspect you disregard those things by dismissing them as 'morphed into false data' narration. I can't stop you from doing that, no one else can stop you from doing that. Proving that your 'morphed' things are really morphed is a bit harder though.

It really is time you start your own thread on that, I'll join that there. We can move past the if Jesus exists or not debate an into another thread, but there are still plenty of people in this thread that don't want to go into biblical criticism I'm sure.

You wanna play, let's play. But stop trying to avoid the actual way that a document would be verified as the work of eyewitnesses. I don't claim to be able to show that Jesus existed or didn't. I do however claim to be able to show that the entirety of the Gospels cannot be the work of eyewitnesses. They are not faithful testimony. This is verifiable, so long as you don't freak out every time people try to show you why. You wanna play historian, I'm up, but you don't get to cry about how I'm not allowed to demonstrate the problem with the Gospels as eyewitness tellings.

Start that thread, I'll play.

p.s., as for the speed of the responses you get, you will be happier if you learn to use patience. If you need immediate responses, call someone on the phone. The forum is way faster than waiting for real peer reviewed debates though so what are you complaining about? If it takes someone a 'few days off' to get back to the forum that's the way of the internet. A Nonsense complaint that.

Yay. Perfect Circle ftw.

And Devo, even MORE w00t!

Almost all the saints. Most saints are saints because of miracles that have taken place. Now honestly, don't you ask me what miracles are they, because the Church has investigated each thoroughly.Sounds like capable, unbiased hands, since they don't have any reason to doubt anything when they think they already have the answer. No links, eh? Those help on this kind of thread.

There would be thousands of reports, and most are shortlisted. I can give you that of San George Preca. The miracle performed on one man was seen in public.So you can count to one but won't link it?
What model have the saints followed? My model or the model of Jesus?YOUR model is, as you explicitly said, specifically and strictly "jesus".

Padre Pio. You didn't see what he carried?... a lot of emotional baggage? :p
He wasn't that bad.

Exorcism. Who do the exorcists call and pray to in order to perform exorcism? Me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exorcism_of_Emily_Rose
You mean like that?

Appearances. To begin with, the appearances of the Virgin Mary are numerous. Just look them up in Google. Hundreds of witnesses. What does the Virgin Mary preach? The belief in me?YOU look them up to substantiate your own claim. "VIRGIN MARY" preaches *NOTHING*, being nonexistant and all (dead or fantasy, your pick)
You obviously believe in yourself enough to carry some funny and absurd responses, i just don't know that i can really believe in you very much. You're not doing very well in light of the thread nature.
Perhaps, on another thread, where people don't WANT evidence to qualify their positions, you could be a hero .... not a martyr :p

Piccus I agree that Jesus does exist, and one day soon he will return and that will be all the proof any of us need. But some of these folks are trying to use this thread to prove he didn't exist. Thats why regardless of what any of us post here they still refuge to even consider our evidence.
Cry me a river
I cried a river over you

Now you say you're sorry
For being so untrue
Well, you can cry me a river
Cry me a river
I cried a river over you

You drove me, nearly drove me
Out of my head
When you never shed a tear
Some peoples' faith, while being their cross to bear, is just that ... an unnecessary, delusional burden.

It is rather amusing for him to have posted an argument that we've already debunked, and telling us to do research :rolleyes:
It's because, apparently, people who rely on evidence have really short and spotty memories, whereas people who whisper and sing at particular type of faith, while doing mantras and the like, are constant and precise in their form, function, and follow-through. :p

Some peoples' faith, while being their cross to bear, is just that ... an unnecessary, delusional burden.

*chuckle*

if the gospels came with names and addresses of the witnesses on them.
Hahahahahaha!!!!!
...*at post office*
person a: Hello, i'd like to mail some myrrh to this really important person in Judea.
person b: Judea, eh? Got a zip code?
person a: What?
person b: Judea is kinda large. Need to know a few other things.
person a: That's not important.
person b: ... uhm, the package doesn't have much on it.
person a: Sure it does - it's addressed to John in Judea.
person b: That's it?
person a: What else does it need? My faith is the postage.
person b: ... uhm, you're holding up the line.
person a: I know you can do this. It ain't heavy, it's for my brother. John. I KNOW you've heard of him.
person b: Sure, sure ... just put that over there with that person and we'll get right on it.

Which of the apostles do we rely on for our 'witness testimony' of what did (or didn't) pass through Mary's vagina? Which witness describes what he saw foetus-the soon-to-be-Baptist do in the womb? Which apostle saw The Word creating the world?They saw it in a vision?
Or ... better yet ... they all gangbanged her at the right time of the month after wooing her with myrrh and frankincense and their sweet whispery caresses ...

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Sounds like bullshit, or perhaps he didn't understand what death actually was, as evidenced further by that whole "My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me" and the consequential death to follow.
And, you know, everyone including him coming back from the dead.

didn't read the whole thing, so it might be said before... But what the *** i'll post it anyway...

Yes he did exist approximately 2000 years ago. Why do we know that? Because, besides the new testament, there are three sources claiming Jesus was crucificted and died. One of the sources is the Roman "register" where they kept the names of those they sentenced for something... An other source is a Greek philosopher/historian whom tells about the crucification. I can't remember the third source though, would need to search that up :s

Whether Jesus was the son of God/the Messiah or even a good person i don't know since there are no records other then the new testament about that... And after all those books were written 100 years after Jesus' dead, so it is likely the writers of those books didn't knew Jesus themselves...

didn't read the whole thing, so it might be said before... But what the *** i'll post it anyway...

Yes he did exist approximately 2000 years ago. Why do we know that? Because, besides the new testament, there are three sources claiming Jesus was crucificted and died. One of the sources is the Roman "register" where they kept the names of those they sentenced for something... An other source is a Greek philosopher/historian whom tells about the crucification. I can't remember the third source though, would need to search that up :s

Whether Jesus was the son of God/the Messiah or even a good person i don't know since there are no records other then the new testament about that... And after all those books were written 100 years after Jesus' dead, so it is likely the writers of those books didn't knew Jesus themselves...

the bolded source does not exist.

the other sources are upwards of 100 years after the fact and contain little but bits of hearsay they picked up about christians.

the bolded source does not exist.

the other sources are upwards of 100 years after the fact and contain little but bits of hearsay they picked up about christians.

They're probably just as afraid of 153 pages of this topic as they would be of reading the voluminous garbage in the source book. :p

Please tell so to my prof history of philosophy then :) i got it from his course... His name is Prof Beeckman, don't know his first name :s

Why not just use "John", "Mark", "Luke", or "Paul", since they're popular incomplete pseudonyms as well :p

Please tell so to my prof history of philosophy then :) i got it from his course... His name is Prof Beeckman, don't know his first name :s

They're probably just as afraid of 153 pages of this topic as they would be of reading the voluminous garbage in the source book. :p

and who can blame them?

if i hadnt been reading it from the beginning i sure wouldnt start now!

Please tell so to my prof history of philosophy then :) i got it from his course... His name is Prof Beeckman, don't know his first name :s

never challenge a professor!

next time it comes up, ask him for the source. especially the roman list one. tell him youve been having trouble finding it and ask him to help you.

with the other ones (tacitus and flavius josephus probably) ask him when they were written and whether or not they knew jesus or any of the apostles. the tacitus one is particularly disappointing as it only refers to the existence of christians, not the existence of jesus.

and who can blame them?

if i hadnt been reading it from the beginning i sure wouldnt start now!Faith must not be that important, then ... as someone mentioned earlier in this thread or the "atheists" thread of CanuckHeaven's.
:p

i am really looking forward on meeting him again now... Will take some time though, since i don't think i'll be following any more courses of his (it was an optional course i only followed since i didn't liked the alternative...)

What is that supposed to mean? A miracle that can be verified is what? An event that is inexplicable but can be repeated and examined as any other evidence?

Deliberately obtuse?

If I say I just turned into a ice-skating lemming, I'll not be too surprised if you don't feel much immediate temptation to accept my 'miracle' as being factual.

On the other hand, if I turn into an ice-skating lemming in front of 45,000 people, some other opinions might be forthcoming on the validity of my claim, yes?

And Luke tries to provide that kind of information when he said...

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.


I think you fail to understand that passage.

Luke says he is doing as 'eyewitnesses and ministers' ahve done - he doesn't say he is writing what THEY said.


1. "Many" have already "undertaken to compile" an orderly account for you (of the events concerning Jesus). We may not know exactly what "many" means but it should seem to be more than one or two (as Mark and Q [if Q exists] could hardly be counted as 'many) but it implies more than one or two sources.


'Q' could actually have been 'many sources'... any of the New Testament texts could have... and probably were. If a 'source' is actually a compilation of lesser sources...


2. Who from the beginning "have delivered them to us." The language is of oral tradition via the ministers mentioned and the "Eyewitnesses" are those who actually saw and heard Jesus, together they are the testimonies of those who preached and taught and witnessed and were sources available to Luke. Now we know that Luke says there was oral tradition about Jesus which he could draw upon, AND eyewitness testimony. How this would not have been true for Matthew (who wrote even earlier) is beyond me.


Erm... simple? Because the oral tradition might not have been accessible in the time of Matthew? Just one alternative...


How did you come to that conclussion, that there is no evidence of eyewitnesses? Besides for the Luke stuff I went over above, there are church father writings from the second century that tell us what the oral tradition was associated with these gospels.


The Luke stuff didn't say what you think it said. I'm invoking the Montoya Principle on you.

Also - the 'church fathers' saying there were oral traditions... isn't necessarily true. You know that, right?


15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely."


Admitting 'Mark' wasn't 'there', wrote at a great remove, and was writing down only what Peter 'adapted'.

To then claim that 'Mark' committed no error' is optimistic at best, and dishonest at worst.

Please tell so to my prof history of philosophy then :) i got it from his course... His name is Prof Beeckman, don't know his first name :s

Which school are you at? If I know the name of the school I'd be able to nail down his first name.

And Luke tries to provide that kind of information when he said...

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

1. "Many" have already "undertaken to compile" an orderly account for you (of the events concerning Jesus). We may not know exactly what "many" means but it should seem to be more than one or two (as Mark and Q could hardly be counted as 'many) but it implies more than one or two sources.

2. Who from the beginning "have delivered them to us." The language is of oral tradition via the ministers mentioned and the "Eyewitnesses" are those who actually saw and heard Jesus, together they are the testimonies of those who preached and taught and witnessed and were sources available to Luke. Now we know that Luke says there was oral tradition about Jesus which he could draw upon, AND eyewitness testimony. How this would not have been true for Matthew (who wrote even earlier) is beyond me.

As to John, we have the tradition of the Monarchian Prologue (http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html)

John the apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved very much, last of all wrote this gospel, the bishops of Asia having entreated him, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially standing against the dogma of the Ebionites there who asserted by the depravity of their stupidity, for thus they have the appellation Ebionites, that Christ, before he was born from Mary, neither existed nor was born before the ages from God the father. Whence also he was compelled to tell of his divine nativity from the father. But they also bear another cause for his writing the gospel, because, when he had collected the volumes from the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, and of Luke, he indeed approved the text of the history and affirmed that they had said true things, but that they had woven the history of only one year, in which he also suffered after the imprisonment of John. The year, then, having been omitted in which the acts of the tribes were expounded, he narrated the events of the time prior, before John was shut up in prison, just as it can be made manifest to those who diligently read the four volumes of the gospels. This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet constituted in the body, as the Hieropolitan, Papias by name, disciple of John and dear [to him], transmitted in his EXOTERIC, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated. Truly Marcion the heretic, when he had been disapproved by him because he supposed contrary things, was thrown out by John. He in truth carried writings or epistles sent to him from the brothers who were in Pontus, faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All of that proves NOTHING to those that want to assail it all as lies anyway. Adding names and addresses would not change that perception one wit. For those that can't, or don't want to, or will not accept that the NT works might be authentically relayed to us through the generations, the addition of names and places and where’s and when’s, does no good because those names and places cannot themselves be validated either (after these two millennium).



Surely you know that these types of questions and historical research is done relentlessly in regards to NT works and locations?


How did you come to that conclussion, that there is no evidence of eyewitnesses? Besides for the Luke stuff I went over above, there are church father writings from the second century that tell us what the oral tradition was associated with these gospels.

Papias wrote a document in the first half of the second century (around 130 AD), called [I]An Exposition of the Lord's Sayings. WE have record of it through Eusebius' recordings. But Papias wrote:

15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
(Eusebius, History, 3.39.15-16 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm))

What does this prove? Nothing to the skeptic. Words, names, addresses, reasons, etc., they do nothing to validate the NT works to those that want to say they are all made up anyway... So it's like I said before, asking for names and addresses and 'signatures' is really just a red herring.



I suspect that you find things in the scripture that you don't want there, I suspect you disregard those things by dismissing them as 'morphed into false data' narration. I can't stop you from doing that, no one else can stop you from doing that. Proving that your 'morphed' things are really morphed is a bit harder though.

It really is time you start your own thread on that, I'll join that there. We can move past the if Jesus exists or not debate an into another thread, but there are still plenty of people in this thread that don't want to go into biblical criticism I'm sure.



Start that thread, I'll play.

p.s., as for the speed of the responses you get, you will be happier if you learn to use patience. If you need immediate responses, call someone on the phone. The forum is way faster than waiting for real peer reviewed debates though so what are you complaining about? If it takes someone a 'few days off' to get back to the forum that's the way of the internet. A Nonsense complaint that.

You realize even if Luke says what you think it says, it admits that it's an oral tradition NOT eyewitness testimony as a whole. There may be some eyewitness testimony in it, but what? Where? We don't know.

I'm not starting a new thread. We're talking about the crap you're lying about in this thread. Are you admitting you can't defend your assertion and as such have to ignore the information I'm giving. Because I'll accept that. I'm happy to accept that. Until you defend the idea that the ENTIRETY of the Gospels are direct testimony from eyewitnesses, we will laugh when you assert it and call you a dishonest person. Because you are being dishonest. You admit you can't defend you assertion or that you won't.

By the way, if you're wondering how long I'll call you dishonest. It's exactly as long as you'll claim we can't disprove something, you're unwilling to defend.

Almost all the saints. Most saints are saints because of miracles that have taken place. Now honestly, don't you ask me what miracles are they, because the Church has investigated each thoroughly.

The Church's standards there aren't the same as scholarly standards- the Church would accept as proof of a miracle the fact that someone with an illness prays to a certain individual when all treatments failed and was subsequently cured. The reasoning is great if you're a believer because you can accept such a supernatural intervention, but if you're a scholar, you're after an explanation that's rooted in the natural world, which is where that idea of a miracle fails.

Now, if you're going tell me that there are some instances where the natural world can't explain a certain phenomenon you're dismissing outright the possibility that we just haven't figured out the natural explanation for such an event. Several previous instances where miracles were thought to have happened in the past were shown to have entirely natural causes, and, despite what you may think, our knowledge of the natural world is not (and can not ever be considered) complete. Therefore, a scholar can never accept the argument of "a miracle occurred", since it is essentially an argument from silence- just because the natural world hasn't come up with an explanation now doesn't mean that it can't later.

Appearances. To begin with, the appearances of the Virgin Mary are numerous. Just look them up in Google. Hundreds of witnesses. What does the Virgin Mary preach? The belief in me?

How many of those simply just "want" to see Mary in those images? How probable is it that because Mary is an identifiable and recognizable figure that many shapes that look like Mary resemble Mary to those onlookers (while disregarding what else it could look like)? Finally, what does it mean when one sees an image of Mary formed in tree branches or a rock facade? If you ask me they're merely just coincidences- nothing more.

Piccus I agree that Jesus does exist, and one day soon he will return and that will be all the proof any of us need. But some of these folks are trying to use this thread to prove he didn't exist. Thats why regardless of what any of us post here they still refuge to even consider our evidence.

Give me compelling evidence and I'll believe you. Until then I refuse to jump on the historicity bandwagon.

Then there are no eye-witness testimonies of battles during WW2, except for the journalists who wrote while with the troops in the battles? Nonsense.

For World War II we also have field reports, news articles from the day, government statements from the time, the actual weaponry and armour from the day and the preservation of many bunkers and camps. In other words, we've got more than just eyewitness testimony to present as "contemporary evidence". The New Testament stories cannot make such a claim.

You are perfectly free to disregard the assertion even if the gospels came with names and addresses of the witnesses on them.

Which the Gospels never state anyway nor do they claim that it came from such eyewitnesses.

Ancient documents cannot be 'demonstrated' to be true even if you do have names and addresses on them, they, by their very nature, cannot be validated with names and address or any other type of accreditation. Thus, demanding such an evidence that would prove to be useless even if it is provided, is really just a red herring argument in the first place.

I'll echo what Grave_n_idle said and state that you do have a lack of understanding in how sources are evaluated- if you get a document that claims that, say, "X city was destroyed" and you find a bunch of artifacts- such as a victory stele commemorating the event, proof of militaristic damage in the city at the time of its destruction, weapons inside the city, scores of skeletons dated to the time of the city's destruction, and a letter from the city's governor to his superior asking for help from an invading army you can be pretty certain that the document is telling the truth. Absent that, the document cannot be used for anything- in the historical record, anyway (well, okay, the document can still be used as a source for how its writer felt at the time they wrote it but that's beside the point).

The above applies to any source, not just ancient ones. Ancient sources are harder to verify only because of the time constraints involved, but ancient history is by no means "invalid" to piece together just because the sources aren't as easy to come by.

They saw it in a vision?
Or ... better yet ... they all gangbanged her at the right time of the month after wooing her with myrrh and frankincense and their sweet whispery caresses ...

You might be joking, but I have to wonder if one couldn't state the Magi didn't really use the gifts to seduce Mary, arguing that no one really leaves gifts for babies they don't know. Something to ponder.

For World War II we also have field reports, news articles from the day, government statements from the time, the actual weaponry and armour from the day and the preservation of many bunkers and camps. In other words, we've got more than just eyewitness testimony to present as "contemporary evidence". The New Testament stories cannot make such a claim.

Not to mention is an utter lie. My grandfather wrote down stories about WWII in his own hand. We have tons of field documents that were eyewitness accounts. Briefings. Debriefings. And people still alive today who were there.

But choose another war where people aren't still alive who were there, again, we have letters of people fighting in the Civil war (that is eyewitness testimony). Briefs that contain eyewitness testimony (complete with where they came from, which is what is required to make it count). We tons up tons of eyewitness documents.

To make the claim he did, you either have to have not the slightest clue about MOST wars or simply being lying. I find it hard to believe that he really believed we have no eyewitness testimony from WWII. I simply don't believe anyone is that ignorant. Couple that with the complete dishonest attempts to assert that the Gospels are from eyewitnesses while refusing to address the problems with that claim, and we have a liar amongst us.

Not to mention is an utter lie. My grandfather wrote down stories about WWII in his own hand. We have tons of field documents that were eyewitness accounts. Briefings. Debriefings. And people still alive today who were there.

But choose another war where people aren't still alive who were there, again, we have letters of people fighting in the Civil war (that is eyewitness testimony). Briefs that contain eyewitness testimony (complete with where they came from, which is what is required to make it count). We tons up tons of eyewitness documents.

To make the claim he did, you either have to have not the slightest clue about MOST wars or simply being lying. I find it hard to believe that he really believed we have no eyewitness testimony from WWII. I simply don't believe anyone is that ignorant. Couple that with the complete dishonest attempts to assert that the Gospels are from eyewitnesses while refusing to address the problems with that claim, and we have a liar amongst us.

To be fair, I don't think he said "we don't have eyewitness testimony from WWII"- he said that their testimony is well-removed from WWII and that somehow invalidates the WWII account, all while conveniently forgetting everything else- such as the field reports, newspaper accounts, etc.- that is used to validate the account in history. Sounds like a classic retelling of the "Jesus has more sources than Julius Caesar" argument, only with the cast of characters changed.

It seems to me from being engaged so long in this thread that the majority of people (not just Balderdash71964) who argue for the proof of Jesus Christ's historicity do so on the basis of a poor understanding of the historical method, at least in this case. So many times you get people- even scholars- who assert the Biblical story to be true without hesitation yet dismiss other non-Biblical events with the same kind of documentation several Biblical events receive, probably because they just "want" them to be true and thus don't hold them to the same kind of standard they would with other sources. Most of it comes from the fact that the Biblical story, much like the legend of King Arthur and the Homeric Epics, are "great stories", the kind of literature that has had influence on cultures for millenia and thus the feeling is that because it's such a great story it must be true. However, "greatness" is no barometer for historicity, and holding a story true simply based on that category ultimately undermines the story, because "greatness" will go nowhere in convincing skeptics.

It seems to me from being engaged so long in this thread that the majority of people (not just Balderdash71964) who argue for the proof of Jesus Christ's historicity do so on the basis of a poor understanding of the historical method, at least in this case. So many times you get people- even scholars- who assert the Biblical story to be true without hesitation yet dismiss other non-Biblical events with the same kind of documentation several Biblical events receive, probably because they just "want" them to be true and thus don't hold them to the same kind of standard they would with other sources...

I agree. As Ive said many times, there doesnt seem to be any indication outside of untrustable religious sources for the actual existance of Jesus.

The only thing that seems to make him real, is the desire for him to be real.

When asked directly, what, outside any desire for it to be true, makes anyone so sure, they either have no answer, or refuse to answer the question, like Baldy.

To be fair, I don't think he said "we don't have eyewitness testimony from WWII"- he said that their testimony is well-removed from WWII and that somehow invalidates the WWII account

The problem being that he was responding to Ash, who said that the stories were written down long after the witnesses told them. What makes what he say completely and utterly untrue and well within his knowledge that is untrue, is that the ACTUAL WITNESSES have written down the stories as well, not to mention putting the stories in battle reports and the like within days of the events.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe any human being born in the 20th century (I'm assuming he's more than 8) could not be aware that some people actually wrote down what they saw with their own eyes in regards to WWII, that those stories were collected bother for historical use, and kept in that form as sources, and for military uses, again keeping the original sources. To claim their is no eyewitness testimony for WWII because Ashmoria said it's not eyewitness testmony if you write down stories from other people 30 years after they told you without crediting them, is not just willfully ignorant. It requires one to lie.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe any human being born in the 20th century (I'm assuming he's more than 8) could not be aware that some people actually wrote down what they saw with their own eyes in regards to WWII, that those stories were collected bother for historical use, and kept in that form as sources, and for military uses, again keeping the original sources. To claim their is no eyewitness testimony for WWII because Ashmoria said it's not eyewitness testmony if you write down stories from other people 30 years after they told you without crediting them, is not just willfully ignorant. It requires one to lie.

True, true, thanks for clarifying- I knew in the grand scheme of things that part of my post was irrelevant: I just felt you'd misquoted him a little. I do agree he made a rather absurd stretch, considering I don't see the Gospels crediting any eye-witnesses.

Now, as a final point, way back when James Blunt first released "Wiseman" I was convinced that part of the song was written to slam the existence of Jesus (arguing the Magi got high and concoted the whole story [Ed.]). This is what I wrote on my music review site at the time, and I'll put it here for any interested parties:

Link (http://www.geocities.com/corneriarocks/puttingitbluntly.html)

.....

Now, no one else picked up on this, so it is probably just me, although I really think "Wiseman" couldn't be more clear here in its intent, anyway.

^ Figured I'd re-post that- thought maybe it got lost in one of my earlier "big posts". It's there for anyone that's interested.

there is a more than probable chance that there was a man called jesus existed and was executed on a cross, but him being a divine being i doubt it

Possibly. There however is no reliable evidence for him existing as a person, let alone as a magical being.

I wonder about your definition of reliable sources. There is a plethora of evidence supporting his existence--his actual purpose notwithstanding--as much as, say, the Buddha or the prophet Muhammed.

I wonder about your definition of reliable sources. There is a plethora of evidence supporting his existence--his actual purpose notwithstanding--as much as, say, the Buddha or the prophet Muhammed.

Go back and read the thread.
Outside of religious texts, there appears to be nothing.

there is a more than probable chance that there was a man called jesus existed and was executed on a cross, but him being a divine being i doubt it

Actually, its more likely that he did not.
Especially if youre calling him "Jesus".

Unless you mean that mexican guy who lives next door to me. Hes no messiah, but he can sure as hell make a good pork roast.

Papias wrote a document in the first half of the second century (around 130 AD), called An Exposition of the Lord's Sayings. WE have record of it through Eusebius' recordings. But Papias wrote:

15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
(Eusebius, History, 3.39.15-16 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm))

What does this prove?

It would seem to prove that the documents Papias is talking about aren't the same Gospels of Matthew and Mark that we know today: Mark is not written down in 'no particular order' and Matthew is neither a Sayings Gospel (limited to Jesus' "oracles" and interpretations thereof), nor does it show signs of having been translated from a Hebrew original. As both Mark and Matthew are chronological, narrative accounts it seems that we can conclude that either:

1. they were heavily edited (and translated in Matthew's case) by other people, which would undermine their authority as eyewitnesses.

or

2. the documents which Papias spoke of are not the same as the documents we call Matthew and Mark.

I wonder about your definition of reliable sources. There is a plethora of evidence supporting his existence--his actual purpose notwithstanding--as much as, say, the Buddha or the prophet Muhammed.

Mohammed's existence has also been questioned.

Go back and read the thread.
Outside of religious texts, there appears to be nothing.

Thanks, but no thanks. 2309 posts is a little more than I have time for, but I appreciate your helpful advice.

Hmm. That's pretty ambiguous, wouldn't you say? What makes a text religious--anything that pertains to personages that happen to be significant to a specific religion?

Mohammed's existence has also been questioned.

And so has the Buddha's. Any "proof" is becoming increasingly incidental...it's only a matter of time before we start questioning the existence of, say, Alexander the Great.

Thanks, but no thanks. 2309 posts is a little more than I have time for, but I appreciate your helpful advice.

Hmm. That's pretty ambiguous, wouldn't you say? What makes a text religious--anything that pertains to personages that happen to be significant to a specific religion?

Actually, it's not that they're religious. It's that they're unsupported. A document designed to spread a faith is perfectly acceptable as a source with corroboration. Unfortunately, much of what appears in the Gospels (the historical parts, not the miracles) cannot be validated and, in many cases, can show to be very questionable (at best).

And so has the Buddha's. Any "proof" is becoming increasingly incidental...it's only a matter of time before we start questioning the existence of, say, Alexander the Great.

Seriously, is there a little website that all the good little non-thinkers go to with a list of names to compare Jesus to? It's same list of names every time.

If you want to start a thread about the existance of Buddha or Alexander the Great, do so. Feel free. Have fun.

Whether those individuals exist or not does not define whether Jesus does. The evidence for the existence of Jesus is questionable. We've gone over all of it. Repeatedly. You've not presented any. Getting around it by making comparisons that don't hold water won't help you.

Don't we all love Jesus for his mighty outrageous deeds? You Idiots! You're just jealous! ...... yup.

Don't we all love Jesus for his mighty outrageous deeds?nope. he's just another jewish butthole.

True.
I was joking, if not noticed.

And so has the Buddha's. Any "proof" is becoming increasingly incidental...it's only a matter of time before we start questioning the existence of, say, Alexander the Great.

As I've previously pointed out, even if we were to ignore the many references to Alexander the Great in written form, we can infer his existence and a rough framework of his life based on:

-the sudden spread of Greek across the Mediterranean, rapidly becoming the lingua franca
-the numerous contemporary coins showing his face and commemorating his victories
-about a dozen towns and cities being renamed 'Alexandria'
-an enormous new city springing up in Egypt, also named Alexandria
-the ruling dynasty of Egypt being replaced by the Ptolemies (a Greek name), only one of whom (Cleopatra) ever learnt to speak the Egyptian language
-the Persian Empire falling, and being replaced by the Greek Seleucid dynasty

I'd say that this is enough to infer the existence of a mighty Greek (or Macedonian...) leader called Alexander, whose millitary campaigns conquered large amounts of land and overthrew numerous established regimes.

So it's absurd to question the fact of Alexander's existence, although it's entirely legitimate to question the sources which claim he was the son of a god...

Seriously, is there a little website that all the good little non-thinkers go to with a list of names to compare Jesus to? It's same list of names every time.

Maybe I'm being unfair to them, but I wonder whether Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are the only people they've heard of in ancient history.

Actually, it's not that they're religious. It's that they're unsupported. A document designed to spread a faith is perfectly acceptable as a source with corroboration. Unfortunately, much of what appears in the Gospels (the historical parts, not the miracles) cannot be validated and, in many cases, can show to be very questionable (at best).

Really? It can't? Perhaps you would like to take up that statement with the authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail...

Maybe I'm being unfair to them, but I wonder whether Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great are the only people they've heard of in ancient history.

Or maybe that's the only one we thought you'd be able to recognize ;)

One could just as easily insert Hammurabi, Ptolemy the Great or Leonidas of Sparta. And it's not limited to the Mediterranean. Legends, myths, and people don't appear out of nowhere, for one thing. And another, religious and epic texts are as much sources of history as they are a perpetuation of a specific idea(s)--assuming one knows the historical context and can sift through the inherent waist-deep feces of historical ambiguity. For a recent example, the discovery of ancient Troy--achieved through a careful reading of Homer and a methodical and scientific approach to understanding more than the literary (that is to say, unverifiable) aspects. To say that there is no evidence or corroboration--or to discount the applicability of the history in religious texts--is to do a patent disservice to the research of and history itself.

Really? It can't? Perhaps you would like to take up that statement with the authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail...

don't they believe in an centries old secret society that didn't pop up until the 1950's or so, and wasn't all that secret?

As I've previously pointed out, even if we were to ignore the many references to Alexander the Great in written form, we can infer his existence and a rough framework of his life based on:

-the sudden spread of Greek across the Mediterranean, rapidly becoming the lingua franca
-the numerous contemporary coins showing his face and commemorating his victories
-about a dozen towns and cities being renamed 'Alexandria'
-an enormous new city springing up in Egypt, also named Alexandria
-the ruling dynasty of Egypt being replaced by the Ptolemies (a Greek name), only one of whom (Cleopatra) ever learnt to speak the Egyptian language
-the Persian Empire falling, and being replaced by the Greek Seleucid dynasty

I'd say that this is enough to infer the existence of a mighty Greek (or Macedonian...) leader called Alexander, whose millitary campaigns conquered large amounts of land and overthrew numerous established regimes.

So it's absurd to question the fact of Alexander's existence, although it's entirely legitimate to question the sources which claim he was the son of a god...

About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus, we have numerous references to a man claiming to descend from the line of David and possibly seeking to reinstate, through dynastic legitimacy, the throne of David in Judea. Almost immediately after, numerous sects arise in the Middle East claiming to be "Christians"--followers of a man they call Jesus. These sects, though differing in their views of what happened, agree on one thing: Jesus the man. Churches arise in his (and after 323 AD, His) name, the Romans until Constantine pursue an aggressive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish policy; though the latter mainly culminated in 72 AD with the sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Throughout history, wars have been fought, kingdoms have risen and empires have spanned the globe in His name.

This much is true. Now, discounting Jesus' existence is possible, as with Alexander, though the evidence is highly in favor of at least an implicit assumption of some guy of that name in the past. Divinity, miracles, faith are one thing, and should be ( in my mind) thoroughly questioned. But his existence--as Alexander's--is based firmly in reality.

don't they believe in an centries old secret society that didn't pop up until the 1950's or so, and wasn't all that secret?

The book is an investigation (hypothetical, and methodically documented and researched) into the question of several historical anomalies apparently linked by a group known as (among other names) the "Priory of Sion," yes.

Which school are you at? If I know the name of the school I'd be able to nail down his first name.

hey rome, since you know stuff...

im interested in reading about the persecution of christians under nero. what ancient authors should i be looking up?

(yeah i picked a post of yours at random)

About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus, we have numerous references to a man claiming to descend from the line of David and possibly seeking to reinstate, through dynastic legitimacy, the throne of David in Judea. Almost immediately after, numerous sects arise in the Middle East claiming to be "Christians"--followers of a man they call Jesus. These sects, though differing in their views of what happened, agree on one thing: Jesus the man. Churches arise in his (and after 323 AD, His) name, the Romans until Constantine pursue an aggressive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish policy; though the latter mainly culminated in 72 AD with the sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Throughout history, wars have been fought, kingdoms have risen and empires have spanned the globe in His name.

This much is true. Now, discounting Jesus' existence is possible, as with Alexander, though the evidence is highly in favor of at least an implicit assumption of some guy of that name in the past. Divinity, miracles, faith are one thing, and should be ( in my mind) thoroughly questioned. But his existence--as Alexander's--is based firmly in reality.

You're missing the point: Jesus' existence is attested to only by anonymous accounts, written a long time after the actual events. Everything you list could be explained equally well without an actual man beginning it. The evidence for Alexander can only be explained by a conquering general called Alexander.

hey rome, since you know stuff...

im interested in reading about the persecution of christians under nero. what ancient authors should i be looking up?

(yeah i picked a post of yours at random)

I'm not rome but IIRC Suetonius and Tacitus both touch on it. That'd be The Twelve Caesars and The Histories respectively. If you don't mind more contemporary writers, Edward Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapters 15 and 16 marked the beginning of modern scholarship on the subject.

About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus, we have numerous references to a man claiming to descend from the line of David and possibly seeking to reinstate, through dynastic legitimacy, the throne of David in Judea. Almost immediately after, numerous sects arise in the Middle East claiming to be "Christians"--followers of a man they call Jesus. These sects, though differing in their views of what happened, agree on one thing: Jesus the man. Churches arise in his (and after 323 AD, His) name, the Romans until Constantine pursue an aggressive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish policy; though the latter mainly culminated in 72 AD with the sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Throughout history, wars have been fought, kingdoms have risen and empires have spanned the globe in His name.

This much is true. Now, discounting Jesus' existence is possible, as with Alexander, though the evidence is highly in favor of at least an implicit assumption of some guy of that name in the past. Divinity, miracles, faith are one thing, and should be ( in my mind) thoroughly questioned. But his existence--as Alexander's--is based firmly in reality.

"About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus,"

what time frame are you thinking of?

I'm not rome but IIRC Suetonius and Tacitus both touch on it. That'd be The Twelve Caesars and The Histories respectively. If you don't mind more contemporary writers, Edward Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapters 15 and 16 marked the beginning of modern scholarship on the subject.

thanks

the rise and fall would require me to actually go into town when the library is open *shudder* but it probably does have good sources.

thanks

the rise and fall would require me to actually go into town when the library is open *shudder* but it probably does have good sources.why shudder ?

Really? It can't? Perhaps you would like to take up that statement with the authors of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail...

I certainly would. And in past debates have. However, since they're not here and you are, how about you make your case, instead of posting a link with no argument. This is a debate. You don't get to keep making one liners.

You want to go at it with me, I'm up, but you got do your own legwork.

About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus, we have numerous references to a man claiming to descend from the line of David and possibly seeking to reinstate, through dynastic legitimacy, the throne of David in Judea. Almost immediately after, numerous sects arise in the Middle East claiming to be "Christians"--followers of a man they call Jesus. These sects, though differing in their views of what happened, agree on one thing: Jesus the man. Churches arise in his (and after 323 AD, His) name, the Romans until Constantine pursue an aggressive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish policy; though the latter mainly culminated in 72 AD with the sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Throughout history, wars have been fought, kingdoms have risen and empires have spanned the globe in His name.

This much is true. Now, discounting Jesus' existence is possible, as with Alexander, though the evidence is highly in favor of at least an implicit assumption of some guy of that name in the past. Divinity, miracles, faith are one thing, and should be ( in my mind) thoroughly questioned. But his existence--as Alexander's--is based firmly in reality.

Oh, there certainly have been men by that name. Lots of them. Tens of thousands I'm certain. That doesn't make them the subject of the faith.

Meanwhile, a strong argument could be made and has been made given for a new face being put on an old myth to make it more Jewish. Given that there is a totally rationally reason for the springing up a legend about a Jewish man who would end the oppression, and a decent reason for absorbing the legends of other religions in order to absorb their followers, (something that can be shown to happen throughout the history of Christianity. Christmas and Easter anyone?) You have an obligation to make a stronger than circumstantial case when there is so much evidence of a general policy of this religion to revamp old ideas.

Yes you did.


It has to be said, the zombie invasion is probably my favourite part of the whole story... it's kind of a shame no one else thought it worth mentioning... neither 'real' historians, nor the other Gospel-ists.

Other people not mentioning it implies it didn't happen? That's claiming proof of a negative. You did it.



Raising the dead flesh of others and himself, no where did it say he was talking 'spiritually' only.

So, you think zombie invasions were a common enough event that no-one deemed it important enough to make any record of it?

By the way, if you're wondering how long I'll call you dishonest. It's exactly as long as you'll claim we can't disprove something, you're unwilling to defend.

I wasn't wondering how long you would be doing it at all. I've noticed that you resort to calling me a liar every time you drop an argument or try to change the focus of one.

I've show you 'how' the gospels could be eyewitness accounts, I've shown you how the NT says gospels are compiled/assembled and I've shown you early Christian documents that make the claim that they are eyewitness accounts with names (accreditation) of who wrote what where and when, AND last but not least I've told you how none of those names and places would make one wit of difference to someone that doesn’t believe any of it is true anyway. I've addressed and rebutted every aspect of that challenge, I've not convinced you, and I've said you wouldn't be convinced. So the only way you can call me dishonest now is because you are actively bearing false witness against me, that makes you the liar, not me.

So, you think zombie invasions were a common enough event that no-one deemed it important enough to make any record of it?

Which non-biblical records from the third decade of the first century in Judea did you have in mind that we could use to look up that event, and see if anyone else thought it was worth recording?

To be fair, I don't think he said "we don't have eyewitness testimony from WWII"- he said that their testimony is well-removed from WWII and that somehow invalidates the WWII account, all while conveniently forgetting everything else- such as the field reports, newspaper accounts, etc.- that is used to validate the account in history. Sounds like a classic retelling of the "Jesus has more sources than Julius Caesar" argument, only with the cast of characters changed.
...

Thank you. You are much closer to what I was trying to say than whatever it is Jocabia thinks he is talking about when he attacks what I said.

But what I was using from the example was not proof or disproof of WW2 events, but the idea of a eye-witness recording his testimony many years after the sequence of events have taken place. I was attacking the statement that a eyewitness testimony needs to be recorded during the time period that the sequence of events take place. I drew upon the WW2 example because it's events could not be questioned, not because I was questioning them (as Jocabia ridiculously and falsely claims that I meant).

Which non-biblical records from the third decade of the first century in Judea did you have in mind that we could use to look up that event, and see if anyone else thought it was worth recording?

"He comes from the grave, his body a home of worms and filth. No life in his eyes, no warmth of his skin, no beating of his breast. His soul, as empty and dark as the night sky. He laughs at the blade, spits at the arrow, for they will not harm his flesh. For eternity, he will walk the earth, smelling the sweet blood of the living, feasting upon the bones of the damned. Beware for he is the living dead.
-Obscure Hindu text, circa 1000 B.C.E

Which non-biblical records from the third decade of the first century in Judea did you have in mind that we could use to look up that event, and see if anyone else thought it was worth recording?

id expect any record that covers the time of 30-40 AD to mention the zombie invasion as well as the resurrection. walking dead just dont come around very often.

It would seem to prove that the documents Papias is talking about aren't the same Gospels of Matthew and Mark that we know today: Mark is not written down in 'no particular order' and Matthew is neither a Sayings Gospel (limited to Jesus' "oracles" and interpretations thereof), nor does it show signs of having been translated from a Hebrew original. As both Mark and Matthew are chronological, narrative accounts it seems that we can conclude that either:
I disagree entirely with your assesment about Mark. To another eye-wintness, Marks account could very easily be the beginning in the front and the ending in the end, but the middle sections and chapters are many single paragraph events, stories, parables etc., that could all be out of order. To someone else that was there, Mark could be all mixed up. Like a person describing a football game, he's got the first kickoff in the right place, and the final score at the end, but he tells plays that happened in the fourth quarter told first, he's got first quarter plays told after half time etc.

As the Matthew, I tend to agree with your assessment. As you and I have spoken earlier about this, you know that I think a Hebrew version of Matthew may in fact be the Q everyone is looking for, but that is all speculation. But Papias doesn’t say that the early Matthew view is a sayings gospel, even if I do agree that it probably was.

1. they were heavily edited (and translated in Matthew's case) by other people, which would undermine their authority as eyewitnesses.

or

2. the documents which Papias spoke of are not the same as the documents we call Matthew and Mark.

1. I don’t think Mark needs to be heavily edited at all.
2. The Matthew spoken of may not be the same Matthew we have today, but that’s not a given either, even if I do agree, we don’t know.

But mainly, there ARE other options. Mark is correctly described already and Matthew Hebrew version may still be discovered and it turns out that it is not a sayings gospel and Matthew we have today is actually older than Mark. It’s another possibility.

id expect any record that covers the time of 30-40 AD to mention the zombie invasion as well as the resurrection. walking dead just dont come around very often.

I agree, but my point was that there are no other records to look it up in, none that I am aware of anyway. Any non-biblical records from that period in Judea would be very helpful in this debate and yet no side has produced any yet. So shhort of new archaeological discovery, I don't think we have any contemporary Judea sources at all.

Thank you. You are much closer to what I was trying to say than whatever it is Jocabia thinks he is talking about when he attacks what I said.

But what I was using from the example was not proof or disproof of WW2 events, but the idea of a eye-witness recording his testimony many years after the sequence of events have taken place. I was attacking the statement that a eyewitness testimony needs to be recorded during the time period that the sequence of events take place. I drew upon the WW2 example because it's events could not be questioned, not because I was questioning them (as Jocabia ridiculously and falsely claims that I meant).

What you replied to didn't say the problem was that it wasn't written down right away. She said the problem was that it wasn't written down until after the several decades after the second-hand source (at least) heard the story. In other words, she plainly said she was talking about the fact that this story was an oral tradition by your very own quotes for several decades before the first time it was put to paper.

Unless you're unawarethat first-hand accounts aren't an oral tradition, then you're gonna have to admit your claims are dishonest.

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

You claim that there is "irrefutable evidence" that he exists. Why don't you present some? And the bible doesn't count.

I wasn't wondering how long you would be doing it at all. I've noticed that you resort to calling me a liar every time you drop an argument or try to change the focus of one.

What argument did I drop? Please. Point out which argument I was unwilling to defend. This should be good.

Meanwhile, I call you a liar because you claim that you aren't defending the Bible's historical value and have been claiming that for nearly the entire thread, whenever I try to show the flaw in considering a historical document. You do so to avoid defending your assertion. This is debate. Your assertion either gets demonstrated or dismissed. That means addressing all of the rebuttals, not just those you want to address.


I've show you 'how' the gospels could be eyewitness accounts, I've shown you how the NT says gospels are compiled/assembled and I've shown you early Christian documents that make the claim that they are eyewitness accounts with names (accreditation) of who wrote what where and when, AND last but not least I've told you how none of those names and places would make one wit of difference to someone that doesn’t believe any of it is true anyway. I've addressed and rebutted every aspect of that challenge, I've not convinced you, and I've said you wouldn't be convinced. So the only way you can call me dishonest now is because you are actively bearing false witness against me, that makes you the liar, not me.

No, you've not. I've presented several problems with calling the Gospels eyewitness accounts in total, many of which you've openly refused to address on any level. Until you show that the rebuttals are flawed or in some way invalid, your point is dismissed.

You don't just get to present your argument and consider it done. You either defend the flaws in your claims or you admit you cannot. Regardless, as it stands, your claim that you've demonstrated that this could be eyewitness accounts is a lie. You're not wrong. You're lying. You admit you're unwilling to address certain rebuttals. You understand how debate works. You've been told many times that you need to address said rebuttals. And you have claimed it's "off-topic" all the while continuing to claim that no evidence has been shown to debunk your claim. This makes it a lie. When you're ready to defend your assertion seriously, your assertion will be taken seriously.

What you replied to didn't say the problem was that it wasn't written down right away.

Yes she did, I'll quote it for you.

Winesses don't have to write during the sequence of events themselves.
yeah they kinda do.

if you tell me about something you saw some time in the past and 30 years later *I* write it down, its hearsay.
You can read it yourself. This second part you typed was a different converstion in this thread, you mixed up the two things and combined them.

[QUOTE=Dododecapod;13308355]It is extremely likely that someone named Iesus, possibly of the town of Nazareth in Judea, did exist, and preach, in Jerusalem some forty or so years before the Judean Rebellion.


hahahahaha!:eek:

you made a spelling mistake!:headbang:

(or it is meant to say that);)

anyway, jesus did exist but the fact of him being a divine being is completely illogical. stop being christian (a load of rubbish) and become buddhist! he definitely did exist and in his religion no divine beings.:D

i love smilies!:rolleyes::cool::eek::upyours::fluffle::(

So believing that Jesus healed the dead is ridiculous but the idea that Buddha sat under a tree for 20 years (or however long it was) is perfectly logical?

It's all the same load of crap. None are so vile and twisted as the religion of Muhammed though

[QUOTE=Tethys 13;13308389]

So believing that Jesus healed the dead is ridiculous but the idea that Buddha sat under a tree for 20 years (or however long it was) is perfectly logical?

It's all the same load of crap. None are so vile and twisted as the religion of Muhammed though

I think the Buddha sat under a tree for 9 days, then came up with a whole load of stuff, incidently i don't follow any religion but if i had to i'd choose Buddhism.

Yes she did, I'll quote it for you.


You can read it yourself. This second part you typed was a different converstion in this thread, you mixed up the two things and combined them.

while i am done with this discussion and you lost long ago, i do see where there was perhaps a bit of a problem with what you wrote

i took the THEMSELVES to refer to the witnesses not the events.

What argument did I drop? Please. Point out which argument I was unwilling to defend. This should be good.

Meanwhile, I call you a liar because you claim that you aren't defending the Bible's historical value and have been claiming that for nearly the entire thread, whenever I try to show the flaw in considering a historical document. You do so to avoid defending your assertion. This is debate. Your assertion either gets demonstrated or dismissed. That means addressing all of the rebuttals, not just those you want to address.




No, you've not. I've presented several problems with calling the Gospels eyewitness accounts in total, many of which you've openly refused to address on any level. Until you show that the rebuttals are flawed or in some way invalid, your point is dismissed.

You don't just get to present your argument and consider it done. You either defend the flaws in your claims or you admit you cannot. Regardless, as it stands, your claim that you've demonstrated that this could be eyewitness accounts is a lie. You're not wrong. You're lying. You admit you're unwilling to address certain rebuttals. You understand how debate works. You've been told many times that you need to address said rebuttals. And you have claimed it's "off-topic" all the while continuing to claim that no evidence has been shown to debunk your claim. This makes it a lie. When you're ready to defend your assertion seriously, your assertion will be taken seriously.

You can call me liar all you want. I addressed your challenges. I'll quote them now so that other people reading this won't have to look it up themselves.

Each gospel is the testimony of only one witness? Why would that be, especially as none of the gospels make that claim of themselves? I don’t see why that would be true at all nor why we should assume it needs to be true to be an accurate recording of the eye witness testimony described in the gospels.

People keep presenting that assumption as if it’s the only one we can have when we examine the books for historicity and yet that claim flies in the face of the fact that we all recognize that a scribe can write the testimony of someone else and the testimony is the witness of the speaker, not the scribe. So why then, when the scribe is a witness of certain events themselves they suddenly are incapable of being the scribe for other witnesses testimony of events they haven’t seen themselves? They would not be disqualified from recording such testimony for any reason that I can think of.

If there was a 10 event narrative with 5 witnesses (for example) I don’t see why an entire story of the 10 events can’t be written by a singular scribe and the entire account told from eyewitness testimony but no one singular person saw all ten events. For example:

Person A witnesses events 1, 5, 7, 8, 10
Person B witnesses events 3, 4, 5, 7, 10
Person C witnesses events 3, 6, 8, 9, 10
Person D witnesses events 1, 2, 3, 9, 10
Person E witnesses events 2, 4, 5, 6, 10

All ten events would be witnessed by at least 2 persons, and all persons could witness certain other events and nobody has to witness to more than half of the events themselves, including the author/scribe (lets say person A transcribed the narrative for posterities sake).

But that’s just an example, when considering the gospel narrative, there would have been 11 apostles and dozens if not hundreds of other witnesses who gathered and shared their testimonies with each other in the years following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as was told to us to of happened in the book of Acts. With literally hundreds witnesses, both Jew and Gentile, men and women, adults and children, there would be an almost unlimited supply of eye witness testimony for a gospel scribe/author to draw upon to complete his/her book and not have to be present for all the events in the book and yet the entire book would be an eyewitness testimony of all events described. I see no reason to say Andrew (for example) can’t be a testifier of the Baptism of Jesus by John in all four gospels.

And Luke tries to provide that kind of information when he said...

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

1. "Many" have already "undertaken to compile" an orderly account for you (of the events concerning Jesus). We may not know exactly what "many" means but it should seem to be more than one or two (as Mark and Q could hardly be counted as 'many) but it implies more than one or two sources.

2. Who from the beginning "have delivered them to us." The language is of oral tradition via the ministers mentioned and the "Eyewitnesses" are those who actually saw and heard Jesus, together they are the testimonies of those who preached and taught and witnessed and were sources available to Luke. Now we know that Luke says there was oral tradition about Jesus which he could draw upon, AND eyewitness testimony. How this would not have been true for Matthew (who wrote even earlier) is beyond me.

As to John, we have the tradition of the Monarchian Prologue (http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html)

John the apostle, whom the Lord Jesus loved very much, last of all wrote this gospel, the bishops of Asia having entreated him, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and especially standing against the dogma of the Ebionites there who asserted by the depravity of their stupidity, for thus they have the appellation Ebionites, that Christ, before he was born from Mary, neither existed nor was born before the ages from God the father. Whence also he was compelled to tell of his divine nativity from the father. But they also bear another cause for his writing the gospel, because, when he had collected the volumes from the gospel of Matthew, of Mark, and of Luke, he indeed approved the text of the history and affirmed that they had said true things, but that they had woven the history of only one year, in which he also suffered after the imprisonment of John. The year, then, having been omitted in which the acts of the tribes were expounded, he narrated the events of the time prior, before John was shut up in prison, just as it can be made manifest to those who diligently read the four volumes of the gospels. This gospel, then, after the apocalypse was written was made manifest and given to the churches in Asia by John, as yet constituted in the body, as the Hieropolitan, Papias by name, disciple of John and dear [to him], transmitted in his EXOTERIC, that is, the outside five books. He wrote down this gospel while John dictated. Truly Marcion the heretic, when he had been disapproved by him because he supposed contrary things, was thrown out by John. He in truth carried writings or epistles sent to him from the brothers who were in Pontus, faithful in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All of that proves NOTHING to those that want to assail it all as lies anyway. Adding names and addresses would not change that perception one wit. For those that can't, or don't want to, or will not accept that the NT works might be authentically relayed to us through the generations, the addition of names and places and where’s and when’s, does no good because those names and places cannot themselves be validated either (after these two millennium).



Surely you know that these types of questions and historical research is done relentlessly in regards to NT works and locations?


How did you come to that conclussion, that there is no evidence of eyewitnesses? Besides for the Luke stuff I went over above, there are church father writings from the second century that tell us what the oral tradition was associated with these gospels.

Papias wrote a document in the first half of the second century (around 130 AD), called [I]An Exposition of the Lord's Sayings. WE have record of it through Eusebius' recordings. But Papias wrote:

15. "This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able." And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
(Eusebius, History, 3.39.15-16 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm))

What does this prove? Nothing to the skeptic. Words, names, addresses, reasons, etc., they do nothing to validate the NT works to those that want to say they are all made up anyway... So it's like I said before, asking for names and addresses and 'signatures' is really just a red herring.



I suspect that you find things in the scripture that you don't want there, I suspect you disregard those things by dismissing them as 'morphed into false data' narration. I can't stop you from doing that, no one else can stop you from doing that. Proving that your 'morphed' things are really morphed is a bit harder though.

It really is time you start your own thread on that, I'll join that there. We can move past the if Jesus exists or not debate an into another thread, but there are still plenty of people in this thread that don't want to go into biblical criticism I'm sure.



Start that thread, I'll play.

p.s., as for the speed of the responses you get, you will be happier if you learn to use patience. If you need immediate responses, call someone on the phone. The forum is way faster than waiting for real peer reviewed debates though so what are you complaining about? If it takes someone a 'few days off' to get back to the forum that's the way of the internet. A Nonsense complaint that.

while i am done with this discussion and you lost long ago, i do see where there was perhaps a bit of a problem with what you wrote

i took the THEMSELVES to refer to the witnesses not the events.

You and I may never agree, not with issues nor with 'who' won. However, at least you and I can disagree and move on with the conversation/debate. But with Jocabia going on and on about his own imaginary discussions and issues, I end up having to prove that I never said I don't believe there is evidence about WW2? And or he’s calling me a liar again?

It's pathetic and an entirely unnecessary drain on the flow of the conversation and the debate, having to stop every couple of posts to clarifying things never even argued about.

You and I may never agree, not with issues nor with 'who' won. However, at least you and I can disagree and move on with the conversation/debate. But with Jocabia going on and on about his own imaginary discussions and issues, I end up having to prove that I never said I don't believe there is evidence about WW2? And or he’s calling me a liar again?

It's pathetic and an entirely unnecessary drain on the flow of the conversation and the debate, having to stop every couple of posts to clarifying things never even argued about.

yes

i am content to have explained my position and leave it to the "audience" to decide who won. i dont need my opponent to admit defeat. few people ever admit defeat in these things. (although i do prefer to end up emphasizing the points where my opponent and i agree)

You can call me liar all you want. I addressed your challenges. I'll quote them now so that other people reading this won't have to look it up themselves.

Um, no, you haven't.

Where does the practice of letting convicted criminals go come from? Provide one source, any source from that time period that tells of Pilate or any Roman doing so. Or would letting criminals go not be worth noting.

How do you explain the coincidence that the other criminal was named Jesus? That the other criminal's last name was "The son of the Father"? That this story smacks of an oral tradition that got confused and thus created two men?

What rational explanation do you have that dismisses the more rational conclusion that an oral tradition created Barabbas?

Let's start there. Because that would both support the idea that this was a real event passed down until it got twisted up and that the Bible is not an eyewitness account. It makes a good argument for the historicity of Jesus Christ and a bad one for your claim that this is just a scribe wrting down eyewitness accounts.

Yes she did, I'll quote it for you.


You can read it yourself. This second part you typed was a different converstion in this thread, you mixed up the two things and combined them.

Wow. Actually I did. I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. You're correct there. Your statement was still stupid, but it was on topic. It was stupid because it implies that only witness tales we have are from other people writing them, which we don't. And it ignores that she specifically mentioned repeatedly that you'd have to document your source. And it ignores that asking a witness what happened yesterday and asking a witness what happened 30 years ago are not remotely the same. AT ALL. But you're right that I misread, honestly and with no sarcasm. I was wrong about what it said.

You and I may never agree, not with issues nor with 'who' won. However, at least you and I can disagree and move on with the conversation/debate. But with Jocabia going on and on about his own imaginary discussions and issues, I end up having to prove that I never said I don't believe there is evidence about WW2? And or he’s calling me a liar again?

It's pathetic and an entirely unnecessary drain on the flow of the conversation and the debate, having to stop every couple of posts to clarifying things never even argued about.

You can move on when you address the problems with the idea that the Bible is an eyewitness account. Or you can stop making the claim. Or you can be told you're lying when you say you've supported your claim. Those are the only outcomes you've got available to you.

I disagree entirely with your assesment about Mark. To another eye-wintness, Marks account could very easily be the beginning in the front and the ending in the end, but the middle sections and chapters are many single paragraph events, stories, parables etc., that could all be out of order. To someone else that was there, Mark could be all mixed up. Like a person describing a football game, he's got the first kickoff in the right place, and the final score at the end, but he tells plays that happened in the fourth quarter told first, he's got first quarter plays told after half time etc.

The fact that he begins at the beginning and ends at the end would seem to imply that it's written in roughly chronological order, but I've just been over it and I can't see that much room for leeway in chronology:

Mark 1-3 are fairly tightly linked, and with the exception of the two sabbath parables (picking grain and healing) I don't think much of it could be moved.
Mark 4 begins with "Again Jesus began to teach by the lake" which implies that it follows directly on from the lake preachings in Mark 1-3. Although the three following parables could be moved, Mark 4:35 starts with "That day when evening came", which implies that all of the parables were told at the same time ('that' wouldn't make sense otherwise).
Mark 5 follows directly on from Mark 4.
Mark 6:1-29 follow directly on from Mark 5. 6:30-56 have to go together but don't necessarily follow on from 1-29.
The whole of Mark 7 has to go together, but it doesn't necessarily follow the main chronology.
Mark 8:1-21 follows on from Mark 7, Mark 8:27-38 go together.
Mark 9:1-32 follows on from Mark 8. Mark 9:33-50 go together.
Mark 10:1-12 follow on from Mark 9. Mark 10:13-31 flow naturally from this but I admit they don't necessarily continue. Mark 10:32-52 go together.

The whole of Mark 11-16 are then chronological (each section follows neatly on from the one before).

So at a minimum, 7/16 of the Gospel (Mark 1, 11-16) is in chronological order. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Mark 1-5 are chronological as well, which would make it at least of 11/16 (for the sake of simplicity I treating each chapter as being of equal length).

That certainly doesn't sound like a book written in 'no particular order'.

Forgive me, but after all that reading I'm going to log off for the night. I'll try to reply to the rest of your post in a couple of days if I get the chance.

Fine. The topic is now biblical criticism then?

Um, no, you haven't.

Where does the practice of letting convicted criminals go come from? Provide one source, any source from that time period that tells of Pilate or any Roman doing so. Or would letting criminals go not be worth noting.

The gospels. We have more than one version of them.

How do you explain the coincidence that the other criminal was named Jesus? That the other criminal's last name was "The son of the Father"? That this story smacks of an oral tradition that got confused and thus created two men?

What was Jesus name? Yahshua or Yahshuah? Which one do you think means Jesus? If they both do then maybe Jesus sone of Man and Jesus Barabbas shared the same first name? You do know that many Jewish names honor God in one way or another? Yes, in fact, the fact that Jesus was a very common name at the time is frequently brought up when discussion of artifacts with the name Jesus on them are discovered. None of the New Testament compilations in the original Greek contain "Iesous" as the name of Barabbas, nor is there any evidence within Greek grammatical forms that Barabbas was anything more than a proper name, its a non issue. How many Johns, Mikes and Jims are there? Too many to make much out of finding a couple of them together.

What rational explanation do you have that dismisses the more rational conclusion that an oral tradition created Barabbas?
Perhaps you would like to tell us which ones you had in mind.

Let's start there. Because that would both support the idea that this was a real event passed down until it got twisted up and that the Bible is not an eyewitness account. It makes a good argument for the historicity of Jesus Christ and a bad one for your claim that this is just a scribe wrting down eyewitness accounts.

It makes no such situation at all. You over estimate the value of this objection. (and I still assert that biblical criticism is not the topic of this thread)

You can move on when you address the problems with the idea that the Bible is an eyewitness account. Or you can stop making the claim. Or you can be told you're lying when you say you've supported your claim. Those are the only outcomes you've got available to you.

I've already addressed the how’s and why’s of it, other people can read them if they want. You found my position unconvincing, we are aware of that, fine, good for you. But clearly I’ve made my position and posted it. As to the only options available to me, it sure is a good thing for me that you don't make the rules then isn't it.

You obviously overestimate your own importance in this aspect.

...
Forgive me, but after all that reading I'm going to log off for the night. I'll try to reply to the rest of your post in a couple of days if I get the chance.

I look forward to reading it.

Fine. The topic is now biblical criticism then?

What part don't you understand. The topic is the historicity of Jesus, but if you are arguing that we have eyewitness testimony for Jesus in the way of the Gospels, and you have, then addressing the stories of Jesus in the Gospels in necessary.

I'm not criticizing the Bible, in fact. I just don't think it is what you say it is.


The gospels. We have more than one version of them.

Yes, and they all seem like they are interrelated and got their stories from the same place. We're trying to support the Gospels. Saying, they're right because they say it, is not support. Again, what source do we have besides the documents of a faith that such a practice exists. Your answer explains why we shouldn't trust the historicity of the Gospels. You wanna try again?


What was Jesus name? Yahshua or Yahshuah? Which one do you think means Jesus? If they both do then maybe Jesus sone of Man and Jesus Barabbas shared the same first name? You do know that many Jewish names honor God in one way or another? Yes, in fact, the fact that Jesus was a very common name at the time is frequently brought up when discussion of artifacts with the name Jesus on them are discovered. None of the New Testament compilations in the original Greek contain "Iesous" as the name of Barabbas, nor is there any evidence within Greek grammatical forms that Barabbas was anything more than a proper name, its a non issue. How many Johns, Mikes and Jims are there? Too many to make much out of finding a couple of them together.

Jesus was a common name. I'm pointing to the "coincidence" in light of the other information we have. I have to mention one to mention the others. Jesus "the Son of the Father" was not. Jesus "the Son of the Father" leader of an insurrection was not. Jesus "the Son of the Father" leader of an insurrection, one of who was freed by a practice that has not historical basis, is right about where we've stretched the bounds of reason.

Meanwhile, we a lot of really odd coincidence there that you dismiss with a wave your hand. We have two men named Jesus, one of which calls himself the Son of the Father, and the other whose name means the Son of the Father. We have two men who are both accused of trying usurp power. We have an description of the event that speaks to a practice NEVER documented anywhere that cannot be traced to any known source and seems, well, unlikely. When you put that together, the burden is on you to show ANY reason why we should see this for what it appears to be. A description of events that got told so many times that it got distorted. A wave of your hand isn't gonna do it.




Perhaps you would like to tell us which ones you had in mind.

Which what? The creation of Barrabas is the oral tradition I'm referring to. It was just a story that eventually got stretched by the game of telephone. Despite your, you can't prove it so I don't have to address it nonsense, when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can't just say you're not going to address the duck till you see genetic proof.


It makes no such situation at all. You over estimate the value of this objection. (and I still assert that biblical criticism is not the topic of this thread)

Of course you do. Because if we criticise the historicity of these stories you've got nothing. This isn't about the Bible. This is about your "eyewitness" source. Meanwhile, it does create that situation. The scholarly concensus is the one I just gave you. It comes from literally centuries of research. You dismiss it as invalid, but you could at least address why we have no record outside of a document designed to spread faith of the practice of letting criminals go. Particularly, since the criminal they supposed let go was described as leading an insurrection.

By the by, I'm writing this in between loads, so I'm making a lot of typos. My apologies to anyone reading. Please do you best to divine my meaning. (Pun intended).

The gospels. We have more than one version of them.They're not from the time period. They're from way later. It's like someone today writing a book on WW2 based on hearsay: not worth the paper it would be written on.

They're not from the time period. They're from way later. It's like someone today writing a book on WW2 based on hearsay: not worth the paper it would be written on.

It's not hearsay. Just because it doesn't cite the source, we don't know the author, most of the things it claims happened cannot be supported anywhere else and it often describes events and places in ways that don't match up with any scholarly understanding, doesn't mean it's not direct eyewitness testimony. Don't be silly (and by silly, I mean logical).

yes, there is irrefutable evidence that he did in fact, exist. The question arises in if he was who he said he was (i.e. the son of God and the saviour of man). To say he didn't exist is to turn a blind eye to basic historical and archaelogical fact.

A) That's not strictly speaking true.
and B) Anybody who can give a single ABSOLUTELY true statement past "What did you have for dinner last Thursday", is either I) A very bad scientist, II) Extremely lucky or III) Some sort of divine being, which leads us back to...

Anyway, I don't think he did, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.
Being the divine incarnate on the other hand....

I've already addressed the how’s and why’s of it, other people can read them if they want. You found my position unconvincing, we are aware of that, fine, good for you. But clearly I’ve made my position and posted it. As to the only options available to me, it sure is a good thing for me that you don't make the rules then isn't it.

You obviously overestimate your own importance in this aspect.

No, I've finally gotten you to address the first of MANY objections to your claim that it is eyewitness testimony. You don't get to treat an assertion as accurate until you've addressed the objections. Doing otherwise is dishonest.

Now that you've finally attempted to address them, finish. When you've actually addressed the "magical practice we have no history for", we'll move on to my NUMEROUS other objections of which you've addressed none.

It's generally considered impolite to point out that you are posting and masturbating at the same time.

You have no idea how accurately that describes the work I'm currently doing.

By the by, I'm writing this in between loads, so I'm making a lot of typos. My apologies to anyone reading. Please do you best to divine my meaning. (Pun intended).

It's generally considered impolite to point out that you are posting and masturbating at the same time.

You have no idea how accurately that describes the work I'm currently doing.

That's just a little disturbing.

Im so bloody sick and tired of threads like this! 'Did Jesus really exist?'

I'll simply say this; if he did exist, then he preached about faith and about believing in him, and if there was indisputable proof that Jesus existed, then it wouldnt be faith or belief, it would simply be knowledge.

Today the most popular theories of creation are the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, but we must remember that at one point Spontaeneous Generation (ie, place wheat in a corner and in a few weeks mice will 'spontaeneously generate' to eat the wheat) was considered as plausible as the Big Bang and Evolution are now. In another 50 or 100 years, there's a good chance there will be another set of theories that discount much of the Big Bang and Evolution that we consider today to be fact, yet it's still considered fact, and believers in it will still turn to the religious and call them fools for being so.

Humanity will never know everything, and if you believe in almost any religion theres lots of things humanity was and is never intended to know. So there really is little to no point of arguing that jesus never existed; every jew, islamic and christian will argue that he did, and every atheist will argue that he didnt, and in the end there will be no more christians and no more atheists because of it. All we'll have is a bunch of people that got worked up, some of them insulted and offended, over nothing and to no positive end.

Im so bloody sick and tired of threads like this! 'Did Jesus really exist?'

I'll simply say this; if he did exist, then he preached about faith and about believing in him, and if there was indisputable proof that Jesus existed, then it wouldnt be faith or belief, it would simply be knowledge.

Today the most popular theories of creation are the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, but we must remember that at one point Spontaeneous Generation (ie, place wheat in a corner and in a few weeks mice will 'spontaeneously generate' to eat the wheat) was considered as plausible as the Big Bang and Evolution are now. In another 50 or 100 years, there's a good chance there will be another set of theories that discount much of the Big Bang and Evolution that we consider today to be fact, yet it's still considered fact, and believers in it will still turn to the religious and call them fools for being so.

Humanity will never know everything, and if you believe in almost any religion theres lots of things humanity was and is never intended to know. So there really is little to no point of arguing that jesus never existed; every jew, islamic and christian will argue that he did, and every atheist will argue that he didnt, and in the end there will be no more christians and no more atheists because of it. All we'll have is a bunch of people that got worked up, some of them insulted and offended, over nothing and to no positive end.

That's ridiculous. The existence of Jesus doesn't have to be an article of faith. Faith would still be required to believe He performed miracles and/or is the Messiah. Claiming that knowledge of the existence of Jesus the Christ is the point is, well, really missing it altogether.

Im so bloody sick and tired of threads like this! 'Did Jesus really exist?'


and *I* am sick of threads that ask "who would win a fight between <someone> and <someone else> but *I* have the good sense to NOT LOOK AT THEM.

and *I* am sick of threads that ask "who would win a fight between <someone> and <someone else> but *I* have the good sense to NOT LOOK AT THEM.

That reminds me. Who would win in a fight between Jesus and Paul? Jesus can perform miracles, but Paul is wiley.

That reminds me. Who would win in a fight between Jesus and Paul? Jesus can perform miracles, but Paul is wiley.

paul wins because jesus turned the other cheek.

reflects history too. paul was the big winner in christianity.

I honestly fail to see how it matters. If he did exist, that doens't necessarily mean he performed miracles, and if he didn't exist, that doesn't mean there wasn't someone who performed the miracles, or maybe many people did.

Regardless, proof or not, people are still going to believe, and that is the important thing.

And, I have a question. Why do people ask these sort of questions? I mean, seriously, I see no point. Even if there was proof, anyone who didn't believe would say that the proof is fake, and if there is no proof, people who do believe would say that it doesn't matter.

Neither side will be swayed from its position, and unless the OP is one of those (highly) rare people that are actually on the fence, and not just pretending to be an asshole, I would say it doesn't matter, and this thread is pointless.

But, then again, I love pointless, opinion/faith based arguement as the next guy. :D Meh.

You might be jokingNow i can't tell. Like many suspicious issues in this thread, something that started as a jape or some kind of whim ... it carries more weight now with the following assessment ...
but I have to wonder if one couldn't state the Magi didn't really use the gifts to seduce Mary, arguing that no one really leaves gifts for babies they don't know. Something to ponder.I also wonder if there's any really cool paintings or drawings or sculptures depicting such a holy event.

You want to go at it with me, I'm up, but you got do your own legwork.
:)

Seriously, is there a little website that all the good little non-thinkers go to with a list of names to compare Jesus to? It's same list of names every time.

I don't know why they don't pick a figure like Prester John or any of the Parthian kings (who we only know about because of the Roman accounts- the Parthians left little of their own material), people who are comparable in terms of historicity (unlike Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, George Washington, etc.). It still wouldn't add much to the debate (since the historicity of another figure won't prove the historicity of Jesus Christ) but at least they'd look a little less foolish.

It's generally considered impolite to point out that you are posting and masturbating at the same time.
Wasn't that in the stickies at the top of the page? :p
And remember that some people *don't* post in any different fashion.

Or maybe that's the only one we thought you'd be able to recognize ;)

One could just as easily insert Hammurabi, Ptolemy the Great or Leonidas of Sparta. And it's not limited to the Mediterranean. Legends, myths, and people don't appear out of nowhere, for one thing. And another, religious and epic texts are as much sources of history as they are a perpetuation of a specific idea(s)--assuming one knows the historical context and can sift through the inherent waist-deep feces of historical ambiguity. For a recent example, the "discovery of ancient Troy"--achieved through a careful reading of Homer and a methodical and scientific approach to understanding more than the literary (that is to say, unverifiable) aspects. To say that there is no evidence or corroboration--or to discount the applicability of the history in religious texts--is to do a patent disservice to the research of and history itself.

Corrected you. Troy is far from being considered "discovered"- the man who claims to have found it- Heinrich Schliemann- did so on a personal mission to prove the historicity of The Illiad instead of just looking and seeing what he could find. Some parts of the claimed site of Troy- such as the discovery of weapons and human skeletons- do point to a possible explanation pointing to the historicity of the Trojan War, but the research there is far from conclusive, meaning other explanations (such as a natural disaster) have not been ruled out. Regardless, the site is the best anyone could find attesting to the historical accuracy of the Trojan War and it's dubious at best- no contemporary record exists chronicling the existence of figures such as Odysseus, Agamemnon, Priam, etc. and it's not even known if the site claimed to be Troy actually held that name at the time. There's only one reason why the Trojan War is considered "historically accurate" by some scholars- the fact that Homer gets so many of the Bronze Age details right, including never giving any of the warriors iron equipment, although this claim is dubious without contemporary evidence.

Yes, you're correct in saying that stories have been used as evidence in the historical record, but to assert that just because other stories have been used as evidence before or that because "there's a long-standing myth floating around so it must be true" is to completely misunderstand the historical method. The existence of a story in a text says nothing unless other artifacts (such as, say, a letter, pottery, weapon fragments found, etc.)- taken from the period said story is held to have occurred- can be presented backing up the story's claims. Otherwise, all we have is just a story.

About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus, we have numerous references to a man claiming to descend from the line of David and possibly seeking to reinstate, through dynastic legitimacy, the throne of David in Judea.

You have any sources of that (which are *not* in the Bible and are thus independent of the Church, which has an inherent reason to promote the historicity of Jesus Christ seeing how Christ is the Church's central figure)?

hey rome, since you know stuff...

im interested in reading about the persecution of christians under nero. what ancient authors should i be looking up?

(yeah i picked a post of yours at random)

It's been a while since I read the sources themselves (I took a course on this about two years ago) but I'll do my best.

Anyway, the only source that mentions anything about Nero persecuting Christians is Tacitus. Other historians- such as Suetonius and Cassius Dio- make no mention of Christians in regards to the Great Fire.

Regarding Nero in general, Suetonius wrote of a man who started off his reign well and was well-liked but eventually went crazy after realizing how powerful he actually was. The idea of a "completely evil Nero" originated much later, especially (not surprisingly) in Christian sources.

thanks

the rise and fall would require me to actually go into town when the library is open *shudder* but it probably does have good sources.

The book itself is actually called "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and, since it was published in 1776, it's available online:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1365&Itemid=27#toc_list

This thread come up yet for comparison?
http://www.jesuspolice.com/detail_review_section.php?id=31

What model have the saints followed? My model or the model of Jesus?


Hmmm ...
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mq4.html

...Anyway, the only source that mentions anything about Nero persecuting Christians is Tacitus. Other historians- such as Suetonius and Cassius Dio- make no mention of Christians in regards to the Great Fire.

Regarding Nero in general, Suetonius wrote of a man who started off his reign well and was well-liked but eventually went crazy after realizing how powerful he actually was. The idea of a "completely evil Nero" originated much later, especially (not surprisingly) in Christian sources...

You forget Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum--Nero (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-nero-rolfe.html), c. 110 C.E. (Life of Nero, 16)

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Corrected you. Troy is far from being considered "discovered"- the man who claims to have found it- Heinrich Schliemann- did so on a personal mission to prove the historicity of The Illiad instead of just looking and seeing what he could find. Some parts of the claimed site of Troy- such as the discovery of weapons and human skeletons- do point to a possible explanation pointing to the historicity of the Trojan War, but the research there is far from conclusive, meaning other explanations (such as a natural disaster) have not been ruled out. Regardless, the site is the best anyone could find attesting to the historical accuracy of the Trojan War and it's dubious at best- no contemporary record exists chronicling the existence of figures such as Odysseus, Agamemnon, Priam, etc. and it's not even known if the site claimed to be Troy actually held that name at the time. There's only one reason why the Trojan War is considered "historically accurate" by some scholars- the fact that Homer gets so many of the Bronze Age details right, including never giving any of the warriors iron equipment, although this claim is dubious without contemporary evidence.

Yes, you're correct in saying that stories have been used as evidence in the historical record, but to assert that just because other stories have been used as evidence before or that because "there's a long-standing myth floating around so it must be true" is to completely misunderstand the historical method. The existence of a story in a text says nothing unless other artifacts (such as, say, a letter, pottery, weapon fragments found, etc.)- taken from the period said story is held to have occurred- can be presented backing up the story's claims. Otherwise, all we have is just a story.



You have any sources of that (which are *not* in the Bible and are thus independent of the Church, which has an inherent reason to promote the historicity of Jesus Christ seeing how Christ is the Church's central figure)?

besides, the discovery of troy is NOT the discovery of the trojan war.

it is akin to finding nazareth (which has a good chance of not existing in 1AD but there is a possible site for it somewhere).

it proves little about the accuracy of the iliad--if anyone desires to prove anything about a story so full of obvious religious exaggeration.

Thank you. You are much closer to what I was trying to say than whatever it is Jocabia thinks he is talking about when he attacks what I said.

But what I was using from the example was not proof or disproof of WW2 events, but the idea of a eye-witness recording his testimony many years after the sequence of events have taken place. I was attacking the statement that a eyewitness testimony needs to be recorded during the time period that the sequence of events take place. I drew upon the WW2 example because it's events could not be questioned, not because I was questioning them (as Jocabia ridiculously and falsely claims that I meant).

Going back to the original post, it seems Ashmoria was arguing more about the strength of sources- if you have an eyewitness account from within a day or a week of the claimed event, it's stronger than an eyewitness account that's told 30 years after the fact. Regardless, though, having "just" an account that purports to be an eyewitness account- regardless of how close to the event it describes- means that said event is on flimsy grounds historically, because there's no way to tell if the account is just telling a story or telling the truth.

Going back to the original post, it seems Ashmoria was arguing more about the strength of sources- if you have an eyewitness account from within a day or a week of the claimed event, it's stronger than an eyewitness account that's told 30 years after the fact. Regardless, though, having "just" an account that purports to be an eyewitness account- regardless of how close to the event it describes- means that said event is on flimsy grounds historically, because there's no way to tell if the account is just telling a story or telling the truth.

She made that argument as well, but more specifically in a different place of the thread, where I addressed that issue by pointing out that a frequently said story over a period of thirty years is remembered verbatim by the teller, like an old Shakespearean actor knows his words without looking at the book anymore. The actor likely knows the words better than then Shakespear himself likely remembers his own words...

And, I have a question. Why do people ask these sort of questions? I mean, seriously, I see no point. Even if there was proof, anyone who didn't believe would say that the proof is fake, and if there is no proof, people who do believe would say that it doesn't matter.

Because it's a relevant question regarding the historical record- if one is going to claim that someone existed in the past, they are required to provide proof, because only then can the claim be substantiated. It's got nothing to do with being religious or anti-religious.

Neither side will be swayed from its position, and unless the OP is one of those (highly) rare people that are actually on the fence, and not just pretending to be an asshole, I would say it doesn't matter, and this thread is pointless.

If you've got compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ, present them and I'll be convinced. It's really that simple.

...
If you've got compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ, present them and I'll be convinced. It's really that simple.

What could possibly qualify as compelling evidence, something that everyone in the thread would agree to as compelling? Many people think the evidence already presented is compelling, others would dismiss an army of angels blowing their horns and Jesus arriving on the clouds as a scheme of the pope and his lackeys. ;)

Okay, I erred. However, Suetonius doesn't write of Nero blaming the Christians for the fire- he writes of Nero unfairly punishing certain groups during his reign, one of which were the Christians. Tacitus is the only historian that ties Nero and the Christians directly to the Fire.

Okay. But it seems to occur after the fire...

You forget Suetonius: De Vita Caesarum--Nero (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-nero-rolfe.html), c. 110 C.E. (Life of Nero, 16)

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Okay, I erred. However, Suetonius doesn't write of Nero blaming the Christians for the fire- he writes of Nero unfairly punishing certain groups during his reign, one of which were the Christians. Tacitus is the only historian that ties Nero and the Christians directly to the Fire.

It's been a while since I read the sources themselves (I took a course on this about two years ago) but I'll do my best.

Anyway, the only source that mentions anything about Nero persecuting Christians is Tacitus. Other historians- such as Suetonius and Cassius Dio- make no mention of Christians in regards to the Great Fire.

Regarding Nero in general, Suetonius wrote of a man who started off his reign well and was well-liked but eventually went crazy after realizing how powerful he actually was. The idea of a "completely evil Nero" originated much later, especially (not surprisingly) in Christian sources.



The book itself is actually called "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and, since it was published in 1776, it's available online:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1365&Itemid=27#toc_list

what about authors who wrote about the rabid persecution of christians between nero and constantine?

That reminds me. Who would win in a fight between Jesus and Paul? Jesus can perform miracles, but Paul is wiley.

Jesus, hands down. Anyone who has control over demons wins over a person who doesn't, no matter how clever he might be.

paul wins because jesus turned the other cheek.

reflects history too. paul was the big winner in christianity.

I'd say Peter won pretty big himself- I mean, he did come to be the world's first (and longest reigning) Pope.

Jesus, hands down. Anyone who has control over demons wins over a person who doesn't, no matter how clever he might be.



I'd say Peter won pretty big himself- I mean, he did come to be the world's first (and longest reigning) Pope.

what good is being pope when you are NOT infallible and end up having to defer to an upstart like paul?

If atheists are such independant thinkers why do they get so upset at religious people? It shouldn't bother them... I'm a Christian, I have no problem with a person of any other belief as long as they live that belief genuinely- whether it be a life that follows the teachings of Jesus... Budha... Mohommed.... or whoever, including nobody. I encourage those who strike out against Christianity to not be so quick to judge. The bad and negative things associated with us are not a result of the faith, rather, it is people. There will always be bad people in the world, or people who do bad things. This applies to all aspects of all things, including Christianity. But that doesn't mean Christianity is faulty, people are faulty. How interesting that Christianity teaches how to live a life free of such fault. Interestingly enough, most religions are similiar in this regard...
If I were to think in an atheist logic, I would think that being an atheist would be a bad idea. This is because, as an atheist, if I were right, when I died I would cease to exist. But if I was wrong, I would go to hell. Therefore, thinking as an atheist- (ironically) I should choose a religion. Even more logically, I should choose the most common, as the odds would be more in my favor. Therefore, using atheist logic, you should all look into becoming Christians.
Now isn't that an interesting twist.

besides, the discovery of troy is NOT the discovery of the trojan war.

it is akin to finding nazareth (which has a good chance of not existing in 1AD but there is a possible site for it somewhere).

it proves little about the accuracy of the iliad--if anyone desires to prove anything about a story so full of obvious religious exaggeration.

Precisely. I find when it comes to these "great stories", people are quick to jump to conclusions just because they want those stories to be true, in doing so poorly practicing history. You can't read into sources past what is there, look "hoping to find proof of said story" and/or ignoring other possibilities for what a source might actually say because in doing so you're doing a disservice to history (by not upholding its research standards) and to the story itself, since you risk being foolish in front of the skeptics. The standards for historical research have to be applied unconditionally- otherwise they are meaningless.

If atheists are such independant thinkers why do they get so upset at religious people? It shouldn't bother them... I'm a Christian, I have no problem with a person of any other belief as long as they live that belief genuinely- whether it be a life that follows the teachings of Jesus... Budha... Mohommed.... or whoever, including nobody. I encourage those who strike out against Christianity to not be so quick to judge. The bad and negative things associated with us are not a result of the faith, rather, it is people. There will always be bad people in the world, or people who do bad things. This applies to all aspects of all things, including Christianity. But that doesn't mean Christianity is faulty, people are faulty. How interesting that Christianity teaches how to live a life free of such fault. Interestingly enough, most religions are similiar in this regard...
If I were to think in an atheist logic, I would think that being an atheist would be a bad idea. This is because, as an atheist, if I were right, when I died I would cease to exist. But if I was wrong, I would go to hell. Therefore, thinking as an atheist- (ironically) I should choose a religion. Even more logically, I should choose the most common, as the odds would be more in my favor. Therefore, using atheist logic, you should all look into becoming Christians.
Now isn't that an interesting twist.

soooooo religion is a matter of a popularity contest?

is it fair to only count those livng today? perhaps to be safe we should count up all the adherents who have ever held a particular religious belief? that might lead us to hinduism or buddhism.

oh and is it enough to be .... catholic...when any good southern baptist might tell you that papists dont get into heaven (and vice versa of course)

so how do i pick a particular christian belief? did you sign up for the roman catholic church because it is the most popular of all the christian sects?

what if its NOT a matter of popularity but a matter of best revelation and its ISLAM that is correct--it does have a sizable number of believers. or maybe its the church of jesus christ of latter day saints because god really did have one more testament to give us.

there are just so many choices and so many hells to avoid.

soooooo religion is a matter of a popularity contest?

is it fair to only count those livng today? perhaps to be safe we should count up all the adherents who have ever held a particular religious belief? that might lead us to hinduism or buddhism.

oh and is it enough to be .... catholic...when any good southern baptist might tell you that papists dont get into heaven (and vice versa of course)

so how do i pick a particular christian belief? did you sign up for the roman catholic church because it is the most popular of all the christian sects?

what if its NOT a matter of popularity but a matter of best revelation and its ISLAM that is correct--it does have a sizable number of believers. or maybe its the church of jesus christ of latter day saints because god really did have one more testament to give us.

there are just so many choices and so many hells to avoid.

As always: one-poster. Why bother?

As always: one-poster. Why bother?

it is my theory that they are not all puppets but that some, maybe most, are newbies who found the game during winter vacation.

a religious thread is attractive to a good christian boy who wants to defend his faith.

i like to respond in hope that it will make a new guy feel like if he posts, someone will read it and respond. if we are always cold and non-responsive we wont get new members.

i would have liked someone to have done the same to me on my first (or first 1000) posts.

i like to respond in hope that it will make a new guy feel like if he posts, someone will read it and respond. if we are always cold and non-responsive we wont get new members.


Audrey II: Must be blood.
Seymour: That's disgusting.
Audrey II: Must be fresh.
Seymour: I don't want to hear this ....

:)

it is my theory that they are not all puppets but that some, maybe most, are newbies who found the game during winter vacation.

a religious thread is attractive to a good christian boy who wants to defend his faith.

i like to respond in hope that it will make a new guy feel like if he posts, someone will read it and respond. if we are always cold and non-responsive we wont get new members.

i would have liked someone to have done the same to me on my first (or first 1000) posts.

I really doubt that coddling the little fools will get them to post further. Hell, the thread that originally got me to join NSG, about a month after I created Deus Malum, was a thread in which Bottle and Dem basically annihilated, utterly and completely, New Ritlina and a few others in an Abortion debate.
My first post, in that thread, went completely unnoticed and uncommented on.

I really doubt that coddling the little fools will get them to post further. Hell, the thread that originally got me to join NSG, about a month after I created Deus Malum, was a thread in which Bottle and Dem basically annihilated, utterly and completely, New Ritlina and a few others in an Abortion debate.
My first post, in that thread, went completely unnoticed and uncommented on.

yeah but we're tough (or stupid). most people need a bit of encouragement.

sure it hasnt helped much in this thread since the majority of one-post posters never responded to criticism of their posts.

but a few did. so if they are NSG material (meaning they can stand to be evicerated) they will come back in another thread. if not, well, at least they defended their faith. thats more than the other one-post posters did.

yeah but we're tough (or stupid). most people need a bit of encouragement.

sure it hasnt helped much in this thread since the majority of one-post posters never responded to criticism of their posts.

but a few did. so if they are NSG material (meaning they can stand to be evicerated) they will come back in another thread. if not, well, at least they defended their faith. thats more than the other one-post posters did.

I suppose that makes some sense. Still seems like a wasted effort.

what about authors who wrote about the rabid persecution of christians between nero and constantine?

My bad, I thought we were just discussing Nero.

Anyway, I don't know the answer offhand- it's been a while since I read those sources- but I do know that Tacitus (maybe), Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Pliny the Younger all have accounts on Christians. That said, I do know there were three Emperors who were engaged in major persecutions- Nero (and here it's disputed if Tacitus wrote "Christ" or "Chrestus", a common slave name), Domitian and Diocletian- with the others engaged in sporadic persecutions if Christian figures started trouble. It appears to me that Christianity slowly grew from a peripheral, marginal cult in Rome to that of the dominant religion by the time of Constantine, and that the Romans never seemed to worry about it until the Christians themselves caused any trouble.

Hope that helps.

what good is being pope when you are NOT infallible and end up having to defer to an upstart like paul?

Not sure I know what you mean.

What could possibly qualify as compelling evidence, something that everyone in the thread would agree to as compelling? Many people think the evidence already presented is compelling, others would dismiss an army of angels blowing their horns and Jesus arriving on the clouds as a scheme of the pope and his lackeys. ;)

A number of contemporary sources outlining the following:

-A birth record that is undeniably Jesus'
-The fact there was a great preacher named Jesus whose public works were so great, people called Him "the Messiah". A series of letters or a local scribe's writing describing His ministry and His works would do, and/or a commemorative sign or stone dedicated to the work Jesus had done (you can't tell me that after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead no one would be thankful of it)
-Records of His discussions with the Jewish leaders (which could include a transcript of a meeting involving the leaders asking each other what they should do with Him). This point could also include evidence for the previous point, since the leaders would undoubtedly describe His works.
-The actual execution order for Jesus

I'd say that first and foremost is a contemporary source for Jesus' Ministry because that would undeniably make His story accurate within the records of history. Otherwise, everything else is suspect- they could be describing *the* Jesus or just some guy named Jesus, since it's the Ministry that sets Jesus Christ apart from the other people named Jesus.

Okay. But it seems to occur after the fire...

This is what "The Life of the Caesars- Nero, 16" says in full:

XVI. He devised a new form for the buildings of the city and in front of the houses and apartments be erected porches, from the flat roofs of which fires could be fought [This was undoubtedly after the great fire]; and these he put up at his own cost. He had also planned to extend the walls as far as Ostia and to bring the sea from there to Rome by a canal. During his reign many abuses were severely punished and put down, and no fewer new laws were made: a limit was set to expenditures; the public banquets were confined to a distribution of food, the sale of any kind of cooked viands in the taverns was forbidden, with the exception of pulse and vegetables, whereas before every sort of dainty was exposed for sale. Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition. He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city [Because of their disorderly conduct].

"During his reign"= meaning throughout his entire reign, not just the period after the Great Fire. Given the context of the passage (including 15), Suetonius is discussing Nero's reign in general, plus Suetonius' writings here are not meant to be entirely chronological- they're "an overview".

.

Make up your mind Rome, which opinion do you hold?

1. Nero (and here it's disputed if Tacitus wrote "Christ" or "Chrestus", a common slave name), Domitian and Diocletian- with the others engaged in sporadic persecutions if Christian figures started trouble. It appears to me that Christianity slowly grew from a peripheral, marginal cult in Rome to that of the dominant religion by the time of Constantine, and that the Romans never seemed to worry about it until the Christians themselves caused any trouble.
Making it sound like maybe Nero didn’t persecute Christians at all.

Or,
2. "During his reign"= meaning throughout his entire reign, not just the period after the Great Fire. Given the context of the passage (including 15), Suetonius is discussing Nero's reign in general, plus Suetonius' writings here are not meant to be entirely chronological- they're "an overview".
Making it sound like Nero punished Christians, but maybe not for the fire?

Tacitus is clearly supported by Suetonius account, that Nero 'punished Christians.' You have no reason to state that 'Romans never seemed to worry about it until the Christians themselves caused any trouble' because neither of the two accounts say they were guilty of anything, only that they were punished. The statement by Tacitus is not disputed by Suetonius so there is no reason to project that the punishment could have occurred before the fire. The statement, Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition would be true before or after the fire so there is no reason to suggest that either Tacitus or Suetonius are correct when clearly they can both be correct.

You on the other hand seem to have slipped and displayed your own bias, when you said in the same post that Nero might not have punished "Christians" but you admit that Suetonius says it as well.

I can say with entire certainty, but to my knowledge it is a fact that Jesus did exist and was crucified. It is taught as a historical fact in the American school system, this might just get me bashed at due to geographic location, but I'm seventeen and like most people can only experience what I read unless I travel out to places I read about-- which will be sometime, decent income is about 2 years away.

Anyway- It's taught, it's in our textbooks, which is a published history textbook. Given that it's safe to say he existed, and he is admitted to exist in the Jewish religion.

The dispute is him being the Messiah, to my knowledge Jewish people are still awaiting the Messiah, Christians and Catholics feel their messiah was crucified for our sins and will return.

--So yes, a man named Jesus was alive; and he taught compassion and was crucified-- But there is absolutely no mortal proof to his miracles or ties to being our savior.

...As many of you have said, it doesn't affect my daily life- so I don't really care beyond the historical fact.

My bad, I thought we were just discussing Nero.

no mistake. we were. now i want to know more. just a few names to check out. now that im on a "cross check religion and history" kick im wondering how accurate the persecution of christians was. there was some pretty gory stuff on the history channel a few months back but...well... you know the history channel.


Not sure I know what you mean.


well peter, the rock on which jesus founded his church, the one who could decide what would be loosed in heaven and what would be held as a sin, had to defer to paul--a man who never met jesus in the flesh--on whether or not christians had to be jews before they could be christians.

pope benedict wouldnt put up with that kind of thing.

...
well peter, the rock on which jesus founded his church, the one who could decide what would be loosed in heaven and what would be held as a sin, had to defer to paul--a man who never met jesus in the flesh--on whether or not christians had to be jews before they could be christians.

pope benedict wouldnt put up with that kind of thing.

That argument was held by Peter as well, and that's when Paul was assigned as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul brought the argument to the council, but Peter defended it at the council.

Acts 15
Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

I can say with entire certainty, but to my knowledge it is a fact that Jesus did exist and was crucified. It is taught as a historical fact in the American school system, this might just get me bashed at due to geographic location, but I'm seventeen and like most people can only experience what I read unless I travel out to places I read about-- which will be sometime, decent income is about 2 years away.

Anyway- It's taught, it's in our textbooks, which is a published history textbook. Given that it's safe to say he existed, and he is admitted to exist in the Jewish religion.

The dispute is him being the Messiah, to my knowledge Jewish people are still awaiting the Messiah, Christians and Catholics feel their messiah was crucified for our sins and will return.

--So yes, a man named Jesus was alive; and he taught compassion and was crucified-- But there is absolutely no mortal proof to his miracles or ties to being our savior.

...As many of you have said, it doesn't affect my daily life- so I don't really care beyond the historical fact.

lol

excellent defense! if its in an american highschool textbook it must be true.

unassailable logic.

peter conceded.

Peter had the vision of the food and knew Paul was right.

That argument was settled by Peter actually, and that's when Paul was assigned as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul brought the argument to the council, but Peter is the one that settled it.

Acts 15
(7)Peter stood up and said to them,...

19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues."


peter conceded.

yeah but we're tough (or stupid). most people need a bit of encouragement.

sure it hasnt helped much in this thread since the majority of one-post posters never responded to criticism of their posts.

but a few did. so if they are NSG material (meaning they can stand to be evicerated) they will come back in another thread. if not, well, at least they defended their faith. thats more than the other one-post posters did.

I personally only respond if there's something worth responding to- otherwise, I'll just ignore it. It's hard to tell if someone's being a one-post wonder or an honest poster and considering how many points are recycled, I just don't bother refuting them, opting to concentrate on something worth my time.

I also always figure that if someone's going to stick around, they're going to do so regardless of whether we respond to them or not. I know I went into NSG- and still do- thinking I'll just post replies to a thread or post that interests me and if someone responds to me, great, if not I'll just move to the next post. I do grant that some people might stick around for a little bit if they feel "noticed" but I doubt they'd stay that long if that's their only persuasion, considering "post-whoring" is frowned upon on these parts.

peter conceded.

My bust. Perhaps it was James, not Peter that said the "therefore my judgment..."

I was going by memory and re-read it 'closely' only after I posted it. Peter did argue for the inclussion of gentiles, but James ruled on the case.

(I'm going to fix my older post, I'm putting this in to admit it) *redface, head bowed*

Aren't we a bit off-topic? I mean, Baldy gets pissed if you get off-topic. Or rather, he gets pissed if you talk about the historicity of the parts of the Bible he claims are the eyewitness tales of Jesus. If you ACTUALLY change the subject, he can't wait to join in because at least it's not an arguement he's getting pounded in.

Make up your mind Rome, which opinion do you hold?

1. Nero (and here it's disputed if Tacitus wrote "Christ" or "Chrestus", a common slave name), Domitian and Diocletian- with the others engaged in sporadic persecutions if Christian figures started trouble. It appears to me that Christianity slowly grew from a peripheral, marginal cult in Rome to that of the dominant religion by the time of Constantine, and that the Romans never seemed to worry about it until the Christians themselves caused any trouble.
Making it sound like maybe Nero didn’t persecute Christians at all.

Or,
2. "During his reign"= meaning throughout his entire reign, not just the period after the Great Fire. Given the context of the passage (including 15), Suetonius is discussing Nero's reign in general, plus Suetonius' writings here are not meant to be entirely chronological- they're "an overview".
Making it sound like Nero punished Christians, but maybe not for the fire?

Tacitus is clearly supported by Suetonius account, that Nero 'punished Christians.' You have no reason to state that 'Romans never seemed to worry about it until the Christians themselves caused any trouble' because neither of the two accounts say they were guilty of anything, only that they were punished. The statement by Tacitus is not disputed by Suetonius so there is no reason to project that the punishment could have occurred before the fire. The statement, Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition would be true before or after the fire so there is no reason to suggest that either Tacitus or Suetonius are correct when clearly they can both be correct.

You on the other hand seem to have slipped and displayed your own bias, when you said in the same post that Nero might not have punished "Christians" but you admit that Suetonius says it as well.

First of all, what that post of mine was replying to was Ashmoria's request of Roman writers who wrote about Christianity, of which Tacitus and Suetonius are considered to be a part of. Their inclusion is disputed (since now I've learned both might have used "Chrestus" instead of "Christ" in their writings, according to some scholars anyway), but it doesn't change the fact that they're included.

Second of all, I discussed in that post- part of which was a reply to you, the other to Ashmoria- what the sources seperately said. In the part of the post responding to Ashmoria, I stated what each source seperately stated- Tacitus may be writing about Christ, but he may also be writing about Chrestus. I didn't say there that "Nero didn't persecute the Christians"- all I said was that Tacitus may or may not be writing about Christians there. I'm commenting on the source, not the event.

As for Suetonius, that's in reply to you- what I said to Ashmoria is unrelated to what I said to you, since it's a different discussion. In that discussion, I viewed both sources as if they were writing about Christians, since that's the context of the discussion, and I said that Suetonius never wrote that Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire whereas Tacitus did. Both of them agree that Nero persecuted Christians, but both don't agree as to why- Tacitus says "The Great Fire" and Suetonius says he just unfairly and randomly picked on them.

Now, me saying that Nero persecuted Christians is a long way from saying that *all* Roman Emperors did it (as Nero is just one of the Roman Emperors). In Pliny's letters, Trajan didn't authorize it until the Christians became too outward with their actions- in other words, Trajan didn't bother with it until the Christians caused trouble. The other Roman Emperors undertook similar actions, employing sporadic persecutions that didn't even target all Christians and only doing so if they felt they were causing trouble- they were not "random". Furthermore, not all Emperors took action- in addition to Nero, there was Pliny's work (in Bithynia only), Domitian (whose persecution was said to have spawned the Book of Revelations) Marcus Aurelius (who thought the Christian idea of the immortality of the soul was a threat to the state), Septimus Severus (who reacted to the Church's growing power), Maximinus Thrax (only the Church leaders), Decius (the first universal and organized persecution- the others were just edicts and isolated), Valerian and Aurelian (continuing Decius' edict, which was to enforce the Roman religion) and Diocletian (the most violent of the persecutions also intending to be the most thorough, calling for the burning of Christian writings). That's not *all* the Emperors- we're missing Emperors such as Vespasian, Titus, Antonius Pius, Hadrian and Phillip the Arab, among others, with most of those persecuting Emperors being in the 200s (Severus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian and Diocletian). So for the first 200 years or so of Christianity the Romans didn't even bother with it unless they had a reason to- like Pliny and Marcus Aurelius (I'd include Domitian and Nero but neither Emperor was well-regarded by the Romans themselves). The persecution didn't always or randomly happen.

no mistake. we were. now i want to know more. just a few names to check out. now that im on a "cross check religion and history" kick im wondering how accurate the persecution of christians was. there was some pretty gory stuff on the history channel a few months back but...well... you know the history channel.

That's got me thinking- I should have a look myself. I don't think I've come across much in terms of Roman writers writing about Christianity but that's an interesting side project because no doubt some of the actions undertaken by the State were blown out of proportion by Christian scribes intent on gaining a few more converts.

well peter, the rock on which jesus founded his church, the one who could decide what would be loosed in heaven and what would be held as a sin, had to defer to paul--a man who never met jesus in the flesh--on whether or not christians had to be jews before they could be christians.

pope benedict wouldnt put up with that kind of thing.

I see...still, considering that, it's not much evidence of Paul having comparable powers in regards to Jesus...I mean, controlling demons is far more of a weapon than that of simple persuation, unless there's something in Paul's breath. :D

If atheists are such independant thinkers why do they get so upset at religious people?

I only get upset at religious people when they are stupid, same as my criteria for non-religious people

It shouldn't bother them... I'm a Christian, I have no problem with a person of any other belief as long as they live that belief genuinely- whether it be a life that follows the teachings of Jesus... Budha... Mohommed.... or whoever, including nobody.

Definitely admirable if actually true

I encourage those who strike out against Christianity to not be so quick to judge. The bad and negative things associated with us are not a result of the faith, rather, it is people. There will always be bad people in the world, or people who do bad things. This applies to all aspects of all things, including Christianity. But that doesn't mean Christianity is faulty, people are faulty. How interesting that Christianity teaches how to live a life free of such fault. Interestingly enough, most religions are similiar in this regard...

See above

If I were to think in an atheist logic, I would think that being an atheist would be a bad idea. This is because, as an atheist, if I were right, when I died I would cease to exist. But if I was wrong, I would go to hell. Therefore, thinking as an atheist- (ironically) I should choose a religion. Even more logically, I should choose the most common, as the odds would be more in my favor. Therefore, using atheist logic, you should all look into becoming Christians.
Now isn't that an interesting twist.

Not really, its just a bunch of crap

I can say with entire certainty, but to my knowledge it is a fact that Jesus did exist and was crucified. It is taught as a historical fact in the American school system, this might just get me bashed at due to geographic location, but I'm seventeen and like most people can only experience what I read unless I travel out to places I read about-- which will be sometime, decent income is about 2 years away.

Anyway- It's taught, it's in our textbooks, which is a published history textbook. Given that it's safe to say he existed, and he is admitted to exist in the Jewish religion.

The dispute is him being the Messiah, to my knowledge Jewish people are still awaiting the Messiah, Christians and Catholics feel their messiah was crucified for our sins and will return.

--So yes, a man named Jesus was alive; and he taught compassion and was crucified-- But there is absolutely no mortal proof to his miracles or ties to being our savior.

...As many of you have said, it doesn't affect my daily life- so I don't really care beyond the historical fact.

You went to a christian school didn't you?
I'm assuming this because unless things are far worse where you're at, the public school system does not teach that.

First of all, what that post of mine was replying to was Ashmoria's request of Roman writers who wrote about Christianity, of which Tacitus and Suetonius are considered to be a part of. Their inclusion is disputed (since now I've learned both might have used "Chrestus" instead of "Christ" in their writings, according to some scholars anyway), but it doesn't change the fact that they're included.

Second of all, I discussed in that post- part of which was a reply to you, the other to Ashmoria- what the sources seperately said. In the part of the post responding to Ashmoria, I stated what each source seperately stated- Tacitus may be writing about Christ, but he may also be writing about Chrestus. I didn't say there that "Nero didn't persecute the Christians"- all I said was that Tacitus may or may not be writing about Christians there. I'm commenting on the source, not the event.

As for Suetonius, that's in reply to you- what I said to Ashmoria is unrelated to what I said to you, since it's a different discussion. In that discussion, I viewed both sources as if they were writing about Christians, since that's the context of the discussion, and I said that Suetonius never wrote that Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire whereas Tacitus did. Both of them agree that Nero persecuted Christians, but both don't agree as to why- Tacitus says "The Great Fire" and Suetonius says he just unfairly and randomly picked on them.

Now, me saying that Nero persecuted Christians is a long way from saying that *all* Roman Emperors did it (as Nero is just one of the Roman Emperors). In Pliny's letters, Trajan didn't authorize it until the Christians became too outward with their actions- in other words, Trajan didn't bother with it until the Christians caused trouble. The other Roman Emperors undertook similar actions, employing sporadic persecutions that didn't even target all Christians and only doing so if they felt they were causing trouble- they were not "random". Furthermore, not all Emperors took action- in addition to Nero, there was Pliny's work (in Bithynia only), Domitian (whose persecution was said to have spawned the Book of Revelations) Marcus Aurelius (who thought the Christian idea of the immortality of the soul was a threat to the state), Septimus Severus (who reacted to the Church's growing power), Maximinus Thrax (only the Church leaders), Decius (the first universal and organized persecution- the others were just edicts and isolated), Valerian and Aurelian (continuing Decius' edict, which was to enforce the Roman religion) and Diocletian (the most violent of the persecutions also intending to be the most thorough, calling for the burning of Christian writings). That's not *all* the Emperors- we're missing Emperors such as Vespasian, Titus, Antonius Pius, Hadrian and Phillip the Arab, among others, with most of those persecuting Emperors being in the 200s (Severus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian and Diocletian). So for the first 200 years or so of Christianity the Romans didn't even bother with it unless they had a reason to- like Pliny and Marcus Aurelius (I'd include Domitian and Nero but neither Emperor was well-regarded by the Romans themselves). The persecution didn't always or randomly happen.


All of that is very nice, thank you for writing it. Honestly.

However, you didn't actually answer the question directly, but perhaps indirectly? I never said 'all' emperors, I was talking about Nero and the first persecutions, and I asked if you thought it really happened or if you thought it did not. Additionally, it takes more than an emperor alone to persecute subjects (Christians or otherwise). When you say what the Emperors did it with causes, you failed to mention what else goes on in the Roman society around those records. You don't mention the writings of Pliny, Celsus, Porphyry or Julian. We can see their opinions of Christians from their own writings.

The Christians As The Romans Saw Them, Robert L. Wilken,
"To say, then, that Christianity is a superstition is not a matter of simple bias or the result of ignorance; it expresses a distinct religious sensibility. When Tacitus wrote that Christianity was the "enemy of mankind," he did not simply mean he did not like Christians and found them a nuisance (though this was surely true), but that they were an affront to his social and religious world. When later critics faulted Christians for not participating in civic affairs or in the military, the point of such criticism was as religious as it was social, although the specific acts mentioned do not appear to us to be religious. "You do not go to our shows, you take no part in our processions, you are not present at our public banquets, you shrink in horror from our sacred games" (Minucius Felix, Octavius 12). Roman games were religious events as well as shows for gladiators or gymnastic contests. page 66

I think that is a more accurate view of how the Romans saw the Christians. I think you under represent the threat the Romans felt from the new Christian doctrines. Even when Pliny first wrote about how to punish Christians (execution for all or just some, execution for even those that retract belief, or not etc.), their only crime was the fact that they were Christians and the local meat butchers complained because they didn't contribute to the market of sacrificial offerings.

But I do thank you for your opinion, I do like reading your posts, please don't misunderstand me just because I challenge you from time to time.

You went to a christian school didn't you?
I'm assuming this because unless things are far worse where you're at, the public school system does not teach that.

Jesus Christ does appear in a lot of history books- secular or not- so I'm not as quick to say 27th Heaven had to have gone to a Christian school.

Then again, I'm not American so I don't know their school system all that well, although I doubt the American public school system wouldn't teach Jesus Christ as a historical figure given that other history books do.

All of that is very nice, thank you for writing it. Honestly.

<snip>

Thank you. :)

Now, for the rest of your post- I assumed you meant all Emperors since you stated "You have no reason to state that 'Romans never seemed to worry about it until the Christians themselves caused any trouble' " in a reply to me.

Regardless, though, you're missing the context of what was written somewhat- do not forget, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc. were members of the Roman upper class and looked at disdain at any populist movement that could threaten their positions- don't forget, those writers were only about a century or two removed from the populist uprising by Julius Caesar, so it's safe to say they're not going to have quite a favourable an opinion on a grassroots movement such as Christianity.

Furthermore, no matter what personal objections the Romans may have to a particular group, they wouldn't intervene unless the situation called for it- with the Empire that big, they wouldn't bother themselves with every petty little flare-up. In regards to Christianity, the only time serious action was undertaken was in the 200s- Domitian's persecution is disputed, Nero's persecution seemed localized and none were organized until Decius' persecution. That indicates the "threat" of the Christians wasn't so powerful that the Romans *had* to take action, and even there is sound reasoning for Roman overreaction- the 200s was the period of the "Crisis of the Third Century", where the Roman Empire nearly fell so Rome was most likely sensitive to *any* threat, no matter how small. I also don't see where a "liked" Roman Emperor (which excludes Domitian and Nero) didn't undertake a persecution without justification- Trajan was content to leave it be unless the Christians went too far with it, and Marcus Aurelius, the "Philosopher Emperor", saw philosophical objections to Christianity.

I can tell you with absolute certainty, that Jesus is not discussed in highschool text books in my state, excepting parochial schools.

In fact, more than a few stinks have been raised about such things.

In my little town, the "unofficial religious capital of the world", he most certainly NOT taught, excepting the most casual of references.
However, for a small town we have 5 or 6 religious-based schools, most of these do not include 10-12th grade.

Actually, it's not that they're religious. It's that they're unsupported. A document designed to spread a faith is perfectly acceptable as a source with corroboration. Unfortunately, much of what appears in the Gospels (the historical parts, not the miracles) cannot be validated and, in many cases, can show to be very questionable (at best).

There is a connection to being religious, and it is this:

A religious text is sufficient, for the purpose of faith - but that is no guarantee of it's historical factual accuracy.

So - we likely encounter the same problem in just about any case where we assess religious evidence - it just isn't 'designed' to be historically analysed - that's not it's 'job'.

Consequently, while it may be very useful in a religious context... well, it's only as much help as you can verify, in a historical arena.

About the time of, and immediately after, Jesus, we have numerous references to a man claiming to descend from the line of David and possibly seeking to reinstate, through dynastic legitimacy, the throne of David in Judea. Almost immediately after, numerous sects arise in the Middle East claiming to be "Christians"--followers of a man they call Jesus. These sects, though differing in their views of what happened, agree on one thing: Jesus the man. Churches arise in his (and after 323 AD, His) name, the Romans until Constantine pursue an aggressive anti-Christian and anti-Jewish policy; though the latter mainly culminated in 72 AD with the sacking of the Temple in Jerusalem. Throughout history, wars have been fought, kingdoms have risen and empires have spanned the globe in His name.

This much is true.

True? Show your sources... there's a fair chance we've already analysed most (all?) of them.

Which non-biblical records from the third decade of the first century in Judea did you have in mind that we could use to look up that event, and see if anyone else thought it was worth recording?

Are you for real? We have no record of a pretty incredible event - except one religious group.

Some of us express doubts, in absence of corroboration...

And YOU demand us to provide sources to 'support' our doubt?

Are you for real? We have no record of a pretty incredible event - except one religious group.

Some of us express doubts, in absence of corroboration...

And YOU demand us to provide sources to 'support' our doubt?

and I hope hes not trying to insinuate that there are any christian documents dating from that time, either.
From what I can tell, there is only ONE fragment of a document that MAY be from the first century, and most scholars put it late 3rd century.

Fine. The topic is now biblical criticism then?


You act like it is inappropriate to apply critical techniques to the only sources we have, that century, on the subject...


The gospels. We have more than one version of them.


Which have been shown to be, at very least, heavily influenced by one another. Not to mention later migration and redaction...

They may as well be treated as one source - for al we know, they are.


What was Jesus name? Yahshua or Yahshuah?

Which one do you think means Jesus?


Neither, 'Jesus' is a transliteration of Yeshua, not the other way around.


If they both do then maybe Jesus sone of Man and Jesus Barabbas shared the same first name? You do know that many Jewish names honor God in one way or another? Yes, in fact, the fact that Jesus was a very common name at the time is frequently brought up when discussion of artifacts with the name Jesus on them are discovered. None of the New Testament compilations in the original Greek contain "Iesous" as the name of Barabbas, nor is there any evidence within Greek grammatical forms that Barabbas was anything more than a proper name, its a non issue.


Barabbas means 'son of the father'. It's practically nonsensical as an actual name. Like the idea that Egyptians called their son 'Moses'... which would basically mean 'was born'...

The scripture is full of titles and descriptions, that later readers have assumed are names - Melchesidec, HaSatan, and Sodom, for example.


How many Johns, Mikes and Jims are there? Too many to make much out of finding a couple of them together.


That rather depends on the circumstances.

Michael being Hebrew (Miyka'el) - and meaning 'who is like God', if we were describing someone who was being discussed as being 'godlike'... it would be a little questionable to find that character AND a 'Michael' in the same place, doing the same thing.

If atheists are such independant thinkers why do they get so upset at religious people? It shouldn't bother them... I'm a Christian, I have no problem with a person of any other belief as long as they live that belief genuinely- whether it be a life that follows the teachings of Jesus... Budha... Mohommed.... or whoever, including nobody. I encourage those who strike out against Christianity to not be so quick to judge. The bad and negative things associated with us are not a result of the faith, rather, it is people. There will always be bad people in the world, or people who do bad things. This applies to all aspects of all things, including Christianity. But that doesn't mean Christianity is faulty, people are faulty. How interesting that Christianity teaches how to live a life free of such fault. Interestingly enough, most religions are similiar in this regard...
If I were to think in an atheist logic, I would think that being an atheist would be a bad idea. This is because, as an atheist, if I were right, when I died I would cease to exist. But if I was wrong, I would go to hell. Therefore, thinking as an atheist- (ironically) I should choose a religion. Even more logically, I should choose the most common, as the odds would be more in my favor. Therefore, using atheist logic, you should all look into becoming Christians.
Now isn't that an interesting twist.

Cool! So, Mithraism was right just before Christianity, and Islam will probably be right straight afterwards! Yay! Wait long enough and you can basically pick which one you want!

and I hope hes not trying to insinuate that there are any christian documents dating from that time, either.
From what I can tell, there is only ONE fragment of a document that MAY be from the first century, and most scholars put it late 3rd century.

Actually - I think that's kind of the point he's trying to make... like - because there is NO evidence, it's not surprising that there's no evidence for zombies.

He's basically right, it's not that surprising that none of no sources contain zombies.

But then - since it's the outlandish claims of the bible that need corroborating... that's really not my problem. It's him that needs the evidence... doubt needs no corroboration.

You act like it is inappropriate to apply critical techniques to the only sources we have, that century, on the subject...



Which have been shown to be, at very least, heavily influenced by one another. Not to mention later migration and redaction...

They may as well be treated as one source - for al we know, they are.



Neither, 'Jesus' is a transliteration of Yeshua, not the other way around.



Barabbas means 'son of the father'. It's practically nonsensical as an actual name. Like the idea that Egyptians called their son 'Moses'... which would basically mean 'was born'...

The scripture is full of titles and descriptions, that later readers have assumed are names - Melchesidec, HaSatan, and Sodom, for example.



That rather depends on the circumstances.

Michael being Hebrew (Miyka'el) - and meaning 'who is like God', if we were describing someone who was being discussed as being 'godlike'... it would be a little questionable to find that character AND a 'Michael' in the same place, doing the same thing.

I've been trying to get him to address these problems for over a week. I'm not gonna hold my breath that it's gonna happen today.

The craziest one is where this tradition of the Passover Feast came from and why NO ONE mentioned that the Romans were setting criminal free like this.

Actually - I think that's kind of the point he's trying to make... like - because there is NO evidence, it's not surprising that there's no evidence for zombies.

There most certainly IS proof of zombies!

We have the Holy Trinity!

Night of the Living Dead.
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead.

If these movies are just make-believe, then why have so many people watched them so quickly over the last few decades?
If these films arent real, then how do you account for the hordes of eye-witnesses to these films?

Theres no proof that George Romero isnt the Son of God.




But then - since it's the outlandish claims of the bible that need corroborating... that's really not my problem. It's him that needs the evidence... doubt needs no corroboration.

Did I mention that Haitian Zombies may be real too?

I've been trying to get him to address these problems for over a week. I'm not gonna hold my breath that it's gonna happen today.

The craziest one is where this tradition of the Passover Feast came from and why NO ONE mentioned that the Romans were setting criminal free like this.

Off-topic, perhaps... but it just popped into my head...

Transubstantiation is necessary! The Catholics were right, all along. If the bread and wine don't become the flesh and blood, the lamb is not eaten, the Passover sacrifice is not complete, and there is no remission of sin.

Welcome to my head, circa 4am.

There most certainly IS proof of zombies!

We have the Holy Trinity!

Night of the Living Dead.
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead.

If these movies are just make-believe, then why have so many people watched them so quickly over the last few decades?
If these films arent real, then how do you account for the hordes of eye-witnesses to these films?

Theres no proof that George Romero isnt the Son of God.





Did I mention that Haitian Zombies may be real too?


Wait, multiple sources? Who can argue with that? Wait, does it say anywhere in the movie that it's not real? Cuz if it doesn't, then it must be real.

Unfortunately, this greatly resembles the arguments of Baldy. Want me to find a dozen or so quotes?

Off-topic, perhaps... but it just popped into my head...

Transubstantiation is necessary! The Catholics were right, all along. If the bread and wine don't become the flesh and blood, the lamb is not eaten, the Passover sacrifice is not complete, and there is no remission of sin.

Welcome to my head, circa 4am.

I cannot sleep and tomorrow is gonna SUCK.

I cannot sleep and tomorrow is gonna SUCK.

True, this. I can't sleep because my baby is being a poorly lil sossidge and I have to pet him. Which means I can't type, either. :D

Unfortunately, this greatly resembles the arguments of Baldy. Want me to find a dozen or so quotes?

Intentional.

Thats why its middling-funny.

True, this. I can't sleep because my baby is being a poorly lil sossidge and I have to pet him. Which means I can't type, either. :D

You can't type one-handed? What kinda parent are you?

BTW: infant paracetamol for baby, brandy for you.

You can't type one-handed? What kinda parent are you?

BTW: infant paracetamol for baby, brandy for you.

Nyquil.

The stuffy, achy, shutthellupandgotosleep medicine.

Intentional.

Thats why its middling-funny.

Honestly, I'd be more amused if Baldy was doing it on purpose, but sadly he thinks it's a reasonable argument.

Honestly, I'd be more amused if Baldy was doing it on purpose, but sadly he thinks it's a reasonable argument.

He's tenacious.
I'll give him that.

In this case, I tend to think that the atheist has the slight advantage, as "we" are attempting to prove nothing. Merely discuss the accumulating doubt.
He, and folks like him, are attempting to "prove"* his p.o.v, with next to nothing to support it, and much to discredit it.

* by prove, I mean advocate.

All I will say, is that I believe he existed. You however do not have to believe that he existed, or was even real in the first place. But I will say this. I will still tell you the story. It is your choice to believe or not.

You can't type one-handed? What kinda parent are you?

BTW: infant paracetamol for baby, brandy for you.

No brandy for me - work tomorrow. Baby has had his meds, but he's a persistent little bugger. :D

And I am still typing... just more slowly, and with more editting. :) (Got used to it when he was a noob).

Alli will say, is that I believe he existed. You however do not have to believe that he existed, or was even real in the first place. But I will say this. I will still tell you the story. It is your choice to believe or not.

What if I dont want you to tell me the story?

Alli will say, is that I believe he existed. You however do not have to believe that he existed, or was even real in the first place. But I will say this. I will still tell you the story. It is your choice to believe or not.

Have you discovered the truth of 'no god'? Can you spare me five minutes while I explain to you why your belief system is consigning you to a fate worse than death? Do you want me to explain to you how you can slowly decompose and not go anywhere, after you die?

Gee... preaching IS fun!

But it's not debate.

What if I dont want you to tell me the story?

I never said you had to listen.

Have you discovered the truth of 'no god'? Can you spare me five minutes while I explain to you why your belief system is consigning you to a fate worse than death? Do you want me to explain to you how you can slowly decompose and not go anywhere, after you die?

Gee... preaching IS fun!

But it's not debate.

no it never was debate. and if you feel like you must tell me of such things, then feel free.

But just as I sad before, you don't have to listen, as neither do I.

no it never was debate. and if you feel like you must tell me of such things, then feel free.

But just as I sad before, you don't have to listen, as neither do I.

Actually, it was a debate. Which is why I commented on your decision to preach, rather than debate.

I never said you had to listen.


Ok. See, what we do here, is debate such topics. If youre not interested in such debate, then it looks like you came to preach, in wich case, please take it elsewhere.

All I will say, is that I believe he existed. You however do not have to believe that he existed, or was even real in the first place. But I will say this. I will still tell you the story. It is your choice to believe or not.

Fair enough.
But before you start - is there any objectively verifiable truth to your story ? There are after all millions of them and I cannot listen to all. So I need to be selective.

Fair enough.
But before you start - is there any objectively verifiable truth to your story ? There are after all millions of them and I cannot listen to all. So I need to be selective.

And so many share elements... objectively verifiable is MOST important... but something different to a hundred other stories would be nice, too.

The Zombies are good. I like that bit.

No brandy for me - work tomorrow. Baby has had his meds, but he's a persistent little bugger. :D

And I am still typing... just more slowly, and with more editting. :) (Got used to it when he was a noob).

You probably should have practiced the editing bit more. A lot more. I remember those times and you're typing was almost gibberish.

And so many share elements... objectively verifiable is MOST important... but something different to a hundred other stories would be nice, too.

The Zombies are good. I like that bit.

The "zombies" weren't new though either. (Sorry to be serious, but it's true.)

Barabbas means 'son of the father'. It's practically nonsensical as an actual name. Like the idea that Egyptians called their son 'Moses'... which would basically mean 'was born'...

The scripture is full of titles and descriptions, that later readers have assumed are names - Melchesidec, HaSatan, and Sodom, for example.
...


Agreed. But you left out another option, that it's not 'Barabbas', but rather, Bar Abbas.

Actually - I think that's kind of the point he's trying to make... like - because there is NO evidence, it's not surprising that there's no evidence for zombies.

He's basically right, it's not that surprising that none of no sources contain zombies.

Agreed, that was my point. That's two in a row.

Off-topic, perhaps... but it just popped into my head...

Transubstantiation is necessary! The Catholics were right, all along. If the bread and wine don't become the flesh and blood, the lamb is not eaten, the Passover sacrifice is not complete, and there is no remission of sin.

Welcome to my head, circa 4am.

I can tentatively agree with this too, which makes this three in a row!

*looks out window to see if it looks like the apocalypse* :p

Wait, multiple sources? Who can argue with that? Wait, does it say anywhere in the movie that it's not real? Cuz if it doesn't, then it must be real.

Unfortunately, this greatly resembles the arguments of Baldy. Want me to find a dozen or so quotes?

Yes please. Quotes of me are always appreciated.

True, this. I can't sleep because my baby is being a poorly lil sossidge and I have to pet him. Which means I can't type, either. :D

*says prayer for the health of the baby ;)*

Agreed. But you left out another option, that it's not 'Barabbas', but rather, Bar Abbas.

Can't be. These are reliable documents.

Yes please. Quotes of me are always appreciated.
I suspect they will be. I don't think they will be by you. This is gonna be fun.

Can't be. These are reliable documents.

What do you mean 'can't be?' It would look exactly the same in ancient greek documents.

What do you mean 'can't be?' It would look exactly the same in ancient greek documents.

They wouldn't have noted a difference? But, but, that would be inaccurate? These were clearly meant as historically accurate documents. They must have made an effort to be sure the stories were recorded accurately and faithfully, no? I mean, you've been arguing for a week, that we can treat them as such. Are you sure you want to continue to say that these documents can't even go so far as getting a name right?

Meanwhile, so again, this man just happens to have a descriptive name and your choice is to just randomly decide, well maybe it was a different name that when combined just happens to have the nonsensical description that, ta da, describes Jesus "Son of the Father." Yeah, that doesn't really address the problem there, sparky.

Now back to this practice, that isn't documented anywhere outside the Bible. Interesting that historians didn't find it worth noting. Any explanation?

They wouldn't have noted a difference? But, but, that would be inaccurate? These were clearly meant as historically accurate documents. They must have made an effort to be sure the stories were recorded accurately and faithfully, no? I mean, you've been arguing for a week, that we can treat them as such. Are you sure you want to continue to say that these documents can't even go so far as getting a name right?

Actually, you don't seem to understand, it would be perfectly accurate either way.... But please continue with you mockery which only really reveals your ignorance of the subtleties of the issue.

Meanwhile, so again, this man just happens to have a descriptive name and your choice is to just randomly decide, well maybe it was a different name that when combined just happens to have the nonsensical description that, ta da, describes Jesus "Son of the Father." Yeah, that doesn't really address the problem there, sparky.

Maybe it really is time for you to get some more sleep, because you've entirely missed the boat on this one.

If it should be translated 'bar Abbas' then Barrabas name would have been, Yehoshuah bar Abbas(Iesoun ton Barabban), and Jesus' name would have been Yeshua (Iesoun ton legomenon Christon), not even close to each other.

However, I'm not arguing that it is necessary for it to be that way, it is not. I'm only pointing out the possibility that it might be thus it must be at least considered. The Syrian manuscriptes calling it Jesus Barabbas could be entirely mistaken. The main point is that the condemned person who is undeservedly given his release represents all of mankind, Jesus taking 'our' place on the cross. To argue that Barrabas was a mistake of scripture is really just to misunderstand the story entirely.

Now, me saying that Nero persecuted Christians is a long way from saying that *all* Roman Emperors did it (as Nero is just one of the Roman Emperors). In Pliny's letters, Trajan didn't authorize it until the Christians became too outward with their actions- in other words, Trajan didn't bother with it until the Christians caused trouble. The other Roman Emperors undertook similar actions, employing sporadic persecutions that didn't even target all Christians and only doing so if they felt they were causing trouble- they were not "random". Furthermore, not all Emperors took action- in addition to Nero, there was Pliny's work (in Bithynia only), Domitian (whose persecution was said to have spawned the Book of Revelations) Marcus Aurelius (who thought the Christian idea of the immortality of the soul was a threat to the state), Septimus Severus (who reacted to the Church's growing power), Maximinus Thrax (only the Church leaders), Decius (the first universal and organized persecution- the others were just edicts and isolated), Valerian and Aurelian (continuing Decius' edict, which was to enforce the Roman religion) and Diocletian (the most violent of the persecutions also intending to be the most thorough, calling for the burning of Christian writings). That's not *all* the Emperors- we're missing Emperors such as Vespasian, Titus, Antonius Pius, Hadrian and Phillip the Arab, among others, with most of those persecuting Emperors being in the 200s (Severus, Maximinus, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian and Diocletian). So for the first 200 years or so of Christianity the Romans didn't even bother with it unless they had a reason to- like Pliny and Marcus Aurelius (I'd include Domitian and Nero but neither Emperor was well-regarded by the Romans themselves). The persecution didn't always or randomly happen.


ohmygod im way out of my depth on this question. the romans had far too many emperors that ive never heard of.

i did look at pliny's letter to trajan asking if he should prosecute ALL christians or only the troublemakers and outlining how he decided who was a christian and who wasnt. i have no clue where bithynia is. that was after 100AD (i think) so there was already some amount of problem with christians causing trouble with the romans.

i have no clue where bithynia is.

Hard to blame you - it scarcely warrants a footnote in most history books. It was a country in Asia Minor. It was a long-standing ally of the Romans, but had become little more than a backwater by the time Rome began to get really powerful. Young Julius Caesar supposedly (according to his political rivals, that is) had an affair with their King Nicomedes IV during a diplomatic mission.

On RomeW's topic, I agree - Roman persecutions of Christians were pretty sporadic. They were often unoffical local persecutions, fuelled by rumours of cannibalism (from garbled reports about the act of taking communion).
'Official' persecutions generally focussed not on Christians as a whole, but on those Christians who refused to at least pay lip service to worshipping the emperor.
The Romans weren't inclined to suppress unfamiliar religions. Not because they were a nice, politically correct people, but because they were scared of what the foreign gods might do to them.

Back to lurking...

ohmygod im way out of my depth on this question. the romans had far too many emperors that ive never heard of.

i did look at pliny's letter to trajan asking if he should prosecute ALL christians or only the troublemakers and outlining how he decided who was a christian and who wasnt. i have no clue where bithynia is. that was after 100AD (i think) so there was already some amount of problem with christians causing trouble with the romans.

The Roman Empire lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted Christians for fewer than twelve of them. The 'Christian Empire' also lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted non-Christians through all of them.
Until the early years of the 2nd century, Roman administrators were ignorant of the existence of the Christians. For a generation that followed they remained indifferent to this obscure 'Jewish' sect (and its many different factions) but, in time, this indifference gave way to contempt and then irritation.

The still marginal but growing numbers of Christians turned the misfortunes of the Roman world to their advantage. The radicals directed their energies towards frightened widows and abandoned children, towards the slave and criminal classes. Every defeat in battle, every pestilence and natural calamity, was seized upon as evidence of divine censure and retribution. With zeal and anticipation, the Christians predicted further ruin and desolation. Among the feckless peoples of the great cities, the fear of imminent judgement and the threat of eternal torment were spread like a contagion. Only by submission to Christ could the individual hope for salvation. "Babylon" would surely fall and most of humanity would perish.

Yet it was only when the empire was itself in peril that the Roman state acted violently against the enthusiasts of Christ, and only then because the obstinate prejudices of the zealots undermined desperate measures taken to defend Roman civilization.

Source: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html

So basically the persecution complex is just the church playing the victim card.

Actually, you don't seem to understand, it would be perfectly accurate either way.... But please continue with you mockery which only really reveals your ignorance of the subtleties of the issue.

If there is no difference why did you bring it up? There is a difference, so it can't be PERFECTLY accurate either way.



Maybe it really is time for you to get some more sleep, because you've entirely missed the boat on this one.

If it should be translated 'bar Abbas' then Barrabas name would have been, Yehoshuah bar Abbas(Iesoun ton Barabban), and Jesus' name would have been Yeshua (Iesoun ton legomenon Christon), not even close to each other.

However, I'm not arguing that it is necessary for it to be that way, it is not. I'm only pointing out the possibility that it might be thus it must be at least considered. The Syrian manuscriptes calling it Jesus Barabbas could be entirely mistaken. The main point is that the condemned person who is undeservedly given his release represents all of mankind, Jesus taking 'our' place on the cross. To argue that Barrabas was a mistake of scripture is really just to misunderstand the story entirely.

I didn't miss the boat. First of all, you're completely pulling things out of your anus. Most of your "solutions" to problems with the historicity of the Bible is to simply claim something happened for which you have no evidence. What you're showing is exactly why we shouldn't treat it as historically accurate. It's because we have to completely make up scenarios, rather far-fetched scenarios and a whole lot of them, to make it's historicity no longer a question.

Second of all, I agree with your assessment of the story. We agree it's an allegory. I suppose we can dispense with the claim it's history then. You do realize that history doesn't just happen to unfold as an allegory. Made-up stories do, or stories that have been changed until they become an allegory do.

By the way, I noticed you snipped out my question. What about this practice that is only documented in one story, from several books of faith, all of which are thought to borrow from each other? Any explanation for the lack of any corroboration? Or would you prefer to keep dodging the question simply because it casts serious doubts on your "eyewitness" claim?

The Roman Empire lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted Christians for fewer than twelve of them. The 'Christian Empire' also lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted non-Christians through all of them.
Until the early years of the 2nd century, Roman administrators were ignorant of the existence of the Christians. For a generation that followed they remained indifferent to this obscure 'Jewish' sect (and its many different factions) but, in time, this indifference gave way to contempt and then irritation.

The still marginal but growing numbers of Christians turned the misfortunes of the Roman world to their advantage. The radicals directed their energies towards frightened widows and abandoned children, towards the slave and criminal classes. Every defeat in battle, every pestilence and natural calamity, was seized upon as evidence of divine censure and retribution. With zeal and anticipation, the Christians predicted further ruin and desolation. Among the feckless peoples of the great cities, the fear of imminent judgement and the threat of eternal torment were spread like a contagion. Only by submission to Christ could the individual hope for salvation. "Babylon" would surely fall and most of humanity would perish.

Yet it was only when the empire was itself in peril that the Roman state acted violently against the enthusiasts of Christ, and only then because the obstinate prejudices of the zealots undermined desperate measures taken to defend Roman civilization.

Source: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html

So basically the persecution complex is just the church playing the victim card.

i think its more a matter of perspective.

from the perspective of the all powerful roman empire the christians were a minor annoyance who had to be slapped down now and then

form the perspective of a small but fiesty church, anything done to them by the romans was a disaster. they didnt have lots of extra people to lose to martyrdom.

i think its more a matter of perspective.

from the perspective of the all powerful roman empire the christians were a minor annoyance who had to be slapped down now and then

form the perspective of a small but fiesty church, anything done to them by the romans was a disaster. they didnt have lots of extra people to lose to martyrdom.however, the "losses" and what was done to them were blown out of proportion and now define the understanding of quite a number of people when it come to the roman empire. likewise a lot of people think that the biblical account is accurate in describing the situation in judaea in the respective era.

however, the "losses" and what was done to them were blown out of proportion and now define the understanding of quite a number of people when it come to the roman empire. likewise a lot of people think that the biblical account is accurate in describing the situation in judaea in the respective era.

But the Bible is a historical document. It must be. The fact we can actively prove parts of it don't describe the reality of the era must be a hoax of some type.

however, the "losses" and what was done to them were blown out of proportion and now define the understanding of quite a number of people when it come to the roman empire. likewise a lot of people think that the biblical account is accurate in describing the situation in judaea in the respective era.

yes but "blown out of proportion" is a matter of perspective.

it would only be wrong if they made up instances of persecution.

If there is no difference why did you bring it up? There is a difference, so it can't be PERFECTLY accurate either way.

You sure like to dig your own holes deep don't you. It would have been spelled exactly the same way in the manuscripts the syriac scribe was reading when he wrote them into Jesus Barabbas (a translation error, not a authenticity error). I can't believe you are going to force me to give you a lesson of how they spelled and wrote then. Please look it up before you embarrass yourself any further.

I didn't miss the boat. First of all, you're completely pulling things out of your anus. Most of your "solutions" to problems with the historicity of the Bible is to simply claim something happened for which you have no evidence. What you're showing is exactly why we shouldn't treat it as historically accurate. It's because we have to completely make up scenarios, rather far-fetched scenarios and a whole lot of them, to make it's historicity no longer a question.

Who was it you think is pulling stuff out of their anus? I think its the other way around here.

Second of all, I agree with your assessment of the story. We agree it's an allegory. I suppose we can dispense with the claim it's history then. You do realize that history doesn't just happen to unfold as an allegory. Made-up stories do, or stories that have been changed until they become an allegory do.

I didn't say it was allegory. I never once supposed it was allegory. If Jesus predicts his own crucifixion three time before going to Jerusalem, you think its unbelievable that Barabbas can be arranged to exist?

By the way, I noticed you snipped out my question. What about this practice that is only documented in one story, from several books of faith, all of which are thought to borrow from each other? Any explanation for the lack of any corroboration? Or would you prefer to keep dodging the question simply because it casts serious doubts on your "eyewitness" claim?


Really? Have any reason to doubt it?

yes but "blown out of proportion" is a matter of perspective.not necessarily. it may be a matter of agenda.

not necessarily. it may be a matter of agenda.

... and usually is

You sure like to dig your own holes deep don't you. It would have been spelled exactly the same way in the manuscripts the syriac scribe was reading when he wrote them into Jesus Barabbas (a translation error, not a authenticity error). I can't believe you are going to force me to give you a lesson of how they spelled and wrote then. Please look it up before you embarrass yourself any further.

Your explaining things away by claiming there are errors in the document. First of all, I think it's funny that when you want to just guess at something it's a reason to buy the hog, but when we suggest some guesswork that casts doubt, you just dismiss it without evidence. You don't get it both ways. Potential explanations are just that until supported. However, reasonable objections must be dismissed properly. That's how scholarly work happens. Not the other way around. You want us to treat even the most nonsensical explanation as true until we can prove it false.



Who was it you think is pulling stuff out of their anus? I think its the other way around here.

Amusing. Why don't you tell me about how a reasonable explanation for the rather obvious allegory is that Jesus arranged the events before they happened. So now the only way we can accept the Bible has ANY veracity at all is to first accept that Jesus is God. You're starting with conclusion in hand. Which doesn't disprove your faith mind you. In fact, as a matter of faith, I approve. But if you have to start out with the conclusion that Jesus is God therefore not just the miracles, but the events that are impossible to be history simply because no one saw them, or they require us to believe the Jews suddenly tossed out their laws, or becuase he ends up standing next to a man with his name and description who is set free by a practice that didn't exist, we explain it by "He's God, He can do anything." Yeah, that's the point when you lost the historicity argument and hard.


I didn't say it was allegory. I never once supposed it was allegory. If Jesus predicts his own crucifixion three time before going to Jerusalem, you think its unbelievable that Barabbas can be arranged to exist?

Ah, so now the historical analysis requires us to accept that Jesus created a real-life allegory in order to explain the series of problems with that story.

Let's see which explanations you've now offered as evidence of the historicity of these "eyewitness" accounts. "Jesus told them after he died." "Jesus arranged to be standing next to a man with the same name as him so that man would represent mankind." You do realize that you've long since delved into faith and FAR away from anything that could be remotely considered evidence, yes? We could also claim the Gospels are "eyewitness" accounts because they came in a dream, but there would be nothing of scholarly value in such a claim.



Really? Have any reason to doubt it?

As predicted, avoiding the question. I gave the reason to doubt it. As far as every other source is concerned no such practice existed. It appears to be entirely unique of this story. Why?

I have a reason to doubt the whole story. I've given them. Instead of simply admitting that the doubt is justified, you explained by invoking a miracle. Amusing, but an admission that there is nothing scholarly about your claims here.

Let's just use that to explain every problem with the Bible's historicity. Why doesn't this match the documents from the era? God didn't want it to. Why does this seem to be an error in translation? Cuz God wanted you to think that. I mean, if you're just going to fall back on that when you get cornered, just start there and we can all dismiss your ability to address this from a historical point of view right from the start. Any argument that requires us to accept he's a deity before the argument makes sense is a circular argument.

"Jesus was God."
"We don't even know he existed."
"Yes we do."
"We do. How? There are major flaws in the stories that attest to his existence. Some of them are next to impossible."
"Not for God."

yes but "blown out of proportion" is a matter of perspective.

it would only be wrong if they made up instances of persecution.

And there you go, Ash. I got him to admit he can't reasonably explain parts of the story of Jesus as real events without first assuming that Jesus is God and therefore can manipulate those events in any completely improbable manner. Now when a story seems completely made up, it's because God "made it up" to teach us something. And by "made it up" I mean forced the events to happen as an allegory.

ok so I will write a book about this head of lettuce. In the book I will state I was divinely inspired by the lettuce to write the book. Further that is obvious proof it is a god.

I will probably have to suffer persecution for it, so I have the opportunity to be a martyr.

So 100 years after my death, someone will write gospels about me. No reason to question the historical truths because we have to by definition consider any and all possible explanations. We cannot prove it either way, just a matter of belief.

By then I am sure to have millions of followers, because people are sheep. The uneducated will have hope that by eating the holy communion of lettuce everyday they will know the lettuce-god. I mean, why wouldn't people believe it then? Lots of people couldn't be wrong of course.

Oh and then we can point to the writings! I am sure there would be newspaper articles, maybe even an interview in Time magazine. The powers that be will be up in arms over my message because they might lose money in their own church racket.

Most educated people would realize it is false, but the 'logical' ones know you can never dismiss it. After all, there is no proof either way the lettuce spoke to me!

So we have come full circle. 200 years from now people would doubt I ever existed to begin with. Besides, there would probably be 100 offshoots or sects of the belief system by then. However this adds to the mystique.

So someone, 250 years from now will found new churches, take in money and claim they knew the lettuce head I had 250 years ago. Imagine the T-shirt sales.

So in short, all this proves is that most people are gullible. They want to believe in something. They have to know there is something better than them helping and guiding their lives, or they cannot imagine existence.

I have heard religious people state clearly they would kill themselves if there was no god. It shows the feebleness of the mind of these people.

We have to make good decisions in our lives and sift through the rubbish. Difficult if your agenda is to find something to put false hope into.

But if it makes you happy, go for it.

ok so I will write a book about this head of lettuce. In the book I will state I was divinely inspired by the lettuce to write the book. Further that is obvious proof it is a god.

I will probably have to suffer persecution for it, so I have the opportunity to be a martyr.

So 100 years after my death, someone will write gospels about me. No reason to question the historical truths because we have to by definition consider any and all possible explanations. We cannot prove it either way, just a matter of belief.

By then I am sure to have millions of followers, because people are sheep. The uneducated will have hope that by eating the holy communion of lettuce everyday they will know the lettuce-god. I mean, why wouldn't people believe it then? Lots of people couldn't be wrong of course.

Oh and then we can point to the writings! I am sure there would be newspaper articles, maybe even an interview in Time magazine. The powers that be will be up in arms over my message because they might lose money in their own church racket.

Most educated people would realize it is false, but the 'logical' ones know you can never dismiss it. After all, there is no proof either way the lettuce spoke to me!

So we have come full circle. 200 years from now people would doubt I ever existed to begin with. Besides, there would probably be 100 offshoots or sects of the belief system by then. However this adds to the mystique.

So someone, 250 years from now will found new churches, take in money and claim they knew the lettuce head I had 250 years ago. Imagine the T-shirt sales.

So in short, all this proves is that most people are gullible. They want to believe in something. They have to know there is something better than them helping and guiding their lives, or they cannot imagine existence.

I have heard religious people state clearly they would kill themselves if there was no god. It shows the feebleness of the mind of these people.

We have to make good decisions in our lives and sift through the rubbish. Difficult if your agenda is to find something to put false hope into.

But if it makes you happy, go for it.

What a precious little rant. Useless. Demonstrative of your rather withered grasp of logic and your desperate need to argue strawmen. But precious nonetheless. Excellent post. Bodes well for your stay on NSG.

What a precious little rant. Useless. Demonstrative of your rather withered grasp of logic and your desperate need to argue strawmen. But precious nonetheless. Excellent post. Bodes well for your stay on NSG.

I am not taking your flame bait.

I am not taking your flame bait.

Mine? I'm reacting to your statements about logic and they are untrue. I made equally sarcastic and truly less venomous statements in reply. Seriously, I encourage you to take your post and mine to moderation and see who they think is baiting whom. I'll bring them all of our posts on the topic as well, so they have the proper context of my response since it's the same context you have. I'm quite ready to accept their decision.

Meanwhile, here's the problem with your attempts to bait people on this topic. Logic requires us to use evidence to land at conclusions. We do have evidence that lettuce doesn't talk. Until you provide counter-evidence your claim is dismissed.

We can similarly dismiss claims of people reviving after 3 days. Of healing by touch. Of fetuses greeting one another. And any number of things for which we have evidence. You want us to make conclusions in absense of evidence and that doesn't happen. No amount of little "stories" where you complain about the bounds of logic inaccurately are going to change the rules of logic. It's rather simple really.

Moreover, your "story" wasn't debate. It was an end around debate. Rhetoric and poor rhetoric at that. Instead of just demonstrating your point, you avoid the point by not replying to direct criticism and instead complaining through absurd rants like the above. That my reply inspired you to so quickly get upset evidences the point of your bait. You were hoping for me to respond to your claims about logic and your grasp of the subject so you could complain to the mods. As I said, I hope you do so. If I'm afoul of the rules, I'd like to know.

I can tell you with absolute certainty, that Jesus is not discussed in highschool text books in my state, excepting parochial schools.

In fact, more than a few stinks have been raised about such things.

In my little town, the "unofficial religious capital of the world", he most certainly NOT taught, excepting the most casual of references.
However, for a small town we have 5 or 6 religious-based schools, most of these do not include 10-12th grade.

That's what I was getting at- every time I've seen Jesus in a history textbook His existence is treated in a cursory manner, often just a line or two (usually in the context of Christianity). If they expanded on it, of course some would think it would border on preaching so they don't. However, I also don't think a teacher could say "Jesus does not exist" since that would also cause a firestorm, or even if it was "Jesus' historical existence is questionable" (which is more accurate to the scholarly reality).

All I will say, is that I believe he existed. You however do not have to believe that he existed, or was even real in the first place. But I will say this. I will still tell you the story. It is your choice to believe or not.

Considering we're talking in a historical context, provide historical evidence and I'll believe.

ohmygod im way out of my depth on this question. the romans had far too many emperors that ive never heard of.

LOL- the Roman Empire, as an institution (discounting the Republic and Kingdom days)- lasted in the West (which housed Rome) for just over 500 years (27 BC-AD 480), and lasted in the East (Byzantium) for over 1,000 years, so that's why I found your post there amusing.

Doesn't surprise me though- what most people know about the Romans involves really just a century of the Empire's existence- from the time of Julius Caesar (who rose to the Consulship in 59 BC) to approximately the time of Nero (who died in AD 68), probably because that period contains the best known and/or storied of the Emperors- Caesar (not technically an Emperor but included as such), Augustus (27 BC-AD 14), Tiberius (14-37), Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54) and Nero (54-68). You'd probably still get wide knowledge of Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius and Constantine, two of Rome's other celebrated Emperors, but that's it. I've got a hunch it's got something to do with sources (I do know that research for the later part of the Empire's period, not just the first century, is a relatively new field) and probably also because the Romans themselves waxed nostalgic upon their "earlier eras" so they wrote a lot about them and with good reason- that's Rome's most successful period. Small wonder why those figures lasted longer to today and others who may have had comparable success (such as Trajan) slid by the wayside.

i did look at pliny's letter to trajan asking if he should prosecute ALL christians or only the troublemakers and outlining how he decided who was a christian and who wasnt. i have no clue where bithynia is. that was after 100AD (i think) so there was already some amount of problem with christians causing trouble with the romans.

Bithynia corresponds to modern northwest Turkey. It's the city which houses Nicaea, although the Roman capital was Nicomedia. It's roughly in the same area where the Christian Church gained steam as Ephesus was nearby, as was Corinth.

The Romans weren't inclined to suppress unfamiliar religions. Not because they were a nice, politically correct people, but because they were scared of what the foreign gods might do to them.

I liken it more to the idea that the Romans simply didn't want to bother themselves with every little flareup that occurred in the Empire- it's simply too big for them to send Army after Army to deal with an insignificant little rabble-rouser only causing problems with the locals. When it did send an Army, it was only because the locals somehow threatened and/or directly opposed the State- otherwise, the Romans were content letting everyone mind their own business.

Plus, I really think the Romans were far more accepting than people give them credit for, even if it wasn't intentional- we have the "Constitutio Antoniniana" from Caracalla which granted citizenship to all freeborn people of the Empire regardless of nationality (even though Caracalla instituted this law for tax purposes), Constantine's Edict of Toleration (more a reactionary move to stop the Christian quarrelling instead of for any real interest in Christianity, although Constantine did get baptized on his deathbed) and the flourishing of many different religions throughout the Empire, among others. The Romans themselves were probably not intentionally tolerant, but they did value equality and fairness as much as we do today (just in different contexts) and were pragmatists, which is where they owe their success to- whereas other empires refused reform to "uphold traditions" the Romans readily reformed theirs, a major reason why the Empire lasted as long as it did (I still think it does but that's a seperate issue).

The Roman Empire lasted more than a thousand years and persecuted Christians for fewer than twelve of them.

I agree with it in principle but I have to call you out there- twelve seems a little low, considering how many Emperors performed sporadic persecutions themselves. It's probably closer to 50, since it was in the 200s when the persecutions really began.

I agree with it in principle but I have to call you out there- twelve seems a little low, considering how many Emperors performed sporadic persecutions themselves. It's probably closer to 50, since it was in the 200s when the persecutions really began.

Well the author is Kenneth Humpheries but he does have a multitude of sources for his work. This is from the same page and outlines what you suggest.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html

Rome and the Christians: The "Persecution" Myth
Emperor Reign Duration of Persecution / Location / Victims
Nero 54-68 For several nights in 64 AD Nero's garden was illuminated by a "vast multitude" of torched Christians. Well, that's the myth.
Galba, Otho, Vitellius 69 No evidence that the Roman government was even aware of Christians, let alone bothered to persecute them.
Domitian executed his cousin Flavius Clemens and banished his niece Domitilla. The charge was 'atheism' and 'Jewish manners', which has allowed both Jews and Christians to claim then as 'martyrs'. Given that Domitilla's freedman subsequently assassinated the emperor the episode was clearly a matter of palace politics and not a 'persecution.'
Vespasian 69-79
Domitian 81-96
Nerva 96-98
Trajan 98-117 Famously told Pliny "not to seek out" Christians nor to act on anonymous charges.
Pliny's ignorance of the Christians other than awareness of their name is certain evidence that there were no laws directed at the sect.
Hadrian 117-138 Hadrian had to wage a 3-year war with Jewish fanatics and was contemptuous of the Jews and, by extension, the Christians, but continued Trajan's policy of tolerance.
Antonius Pius 138-161 Continued Trajan's policy of tolerance.
"Local outburst" has to be conjured up to explain the claimed martyrdom of 86-year-old bishop Polycarp in either 155, 165 or 177!
Marcus Aurelius 161-180 Trying desperately to defend the empire against its enemies, Marcus threatened exile to those spreading morbid superstitions.
"Local outburst" has to be conjured up to explain the lurid tale of "50 martyrs" in Lyons (Gaul) in 177.
Claimed trial and martyrdom for Justin Priscos aka Justin Martyr (100-165?) in Rome.
Commodus 180-192 Dissolute son of Marcus was unconcerned by the Christians. Perhaps he should have been. One of his concubines, Marcia, a Christian, was complicit in the murder of Commodus in 192.
Pertinax, Didius Julianus 192-193 No evidence of persecution
Septimius Severus

Soldier-aristocrat from north Africa.
During his reign, churches became major land owners and adopted the practice of giving annual 'presents' to provincial governors. 193-211 In 202 Septimius issued a decree forbidding conversion to Judaism (Iudaeos fieri). Later Christian writers reinterpreted the edict – probably no more than an attempt to prohibit circumcision – as a "persecution of Christianity".
Clement of Alexandria (c150-215) makes the claim: "Many martyrs are daily burned, confined, or beheaded, before our eyes", though we have nothing to confirm this.
In a scene worthy of Monty Python, it seems the young Origen (182-251) was spared because his mother "hid his clothes". Apparently, his father, Leonides, lost his head. Later in life, Origen was visited by a curious Empress Mamaea.
Tertullian (160-220) in Carthage claimed:
"The Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds its rain, if there is earthquake or famine or plague, straightway the cry arises: ‘The Christians to the lions!’" (Bruce, p180)
Should we believe this? Tertullian's inventions include Marcus Aurelius honouring Christian soldiers and the emperor Tiberius being a closet Christian! Gibbon comments drolly how curious it is that the uncompromising fanatic did not himself suffer martyrdom!
Carthage also provides the tale of a young girl, cruelly tortured, then boiled in a kettle of burning pitch with her mother, and also the story of Perpetua, a young noblewoman, and Felicitas, a slave girl, holding hands and kissing before being thrown to wild beasts. (Interesting choice of names, don't you think?)
Caracalla 211-217 No evidence of persecution
(Some 25 emperors) 217-249
Decius

Soldier-aristocrat from the Balkans and first emperor to die fighting a foreign army in battle.

249-251 250-251
After a half century of chaos, Decius tried desperately to restore stability and unity to the empire and the ‘peace of the gods' (pax deorum). He appointed roving commissioners, who required all citizens to honour the traditional state gods by sprinkling incense on a brazier or pouring a libation for the health of the emperor. Loyal subjects received a certificate of compliance (libellus).
The real consequence of Decius's policy (which was not directed specifically at Christians) was to cause division within the ranks of the brethren, isolating the extremists.
Christian historians gleefully regard this as the "first real persecution" because some fanatics refused to toast the emperor's health and provoked the state into retaliation.
Decius died fighting the Goths and the empire returned to chaos.
Martyrs: Bishops Fabianus of Rome, Babylos of Antioch, and Alexander of Jerusalem and the x-rated martyrdom of St. Agatha, apparently at the hands of a senator! For just over a year, Rome was without a bishop.
Gallus 251-253 252 Arrest and imprisonment of Pope Cornelius.
Plague ravages Rome.
Loss of Syrian provinces to Persia.
Valerian


Aristocrat who entrusted the western empire to his son Gallienus. Suffered the ignominy of being used as a foot stool by Sapor I, before being flayed – much to the glee of the Christians. 253-260 Valerian fought a desperate war on the Persian front in which he himself was captured and killed. Disaffection in the army was a serious concern and Valerian tried to expropriate the wealth of the church for the war effort.
257 Edict required the clergy to sacrifice to the State gods on pain of exile, and property sequestrated.
258 Summary execution of clergy who refused to sacrifice.
Martyrs: Pope Sixtus II, his deacon Lawrence, and 6 other deacons. Apparently, Lawrence was slowly roasted on a grill and as a result (really!) became the patron saint for cooks. Legend says he found the strength to tell his executioners "Turn me over. I am done on this side." Well we wouldn't want a half-cooked saint, would we?
At Carthage St. Cyprian, exiled under the first edict, was now recalled and publicly beheaded. As a yardstick of these troubled times, during Cyprian's reign as bishop, 4 Roman emperors and their families had perished.
"It is remarkable that, of so great a multitude of bishops in the province of Africa, Cyprian was the first who was esteemed worthy to obtain the crown of martyrdom." – Gibbon.
Gallienus 253-268 No evidence of any persecution for half a century. Celebrated by the Church as the "Peace of Gallienus". Church becomes a property and land owner. Bishops appear at the imperial court.
"The emperors allowed the Christians in their service to make the freedom of the faith almost a matter of glory."
– Eusebius of Caesarea
Claudius Gothicus 268-270
Aurelian 270-275
(Several more emperors) 275-284
Diocletian

Diocletian, son of a freed slave who became a Roman Emperor. For 18 of his 20 year reign he tolerated the Christians. Even his wife and daughter took an interest in the cult.


"The western provinces, which were under the control of Maximian and Constantius, were scarcely affected"
– Ferrill ( p202) 284-305 303-305
After the Persian war of 297-298, the caesar Galerius became increasingly concerned with disaffected Jews and fanatical oriental cults, notably Christian ones. Even his own wife (Diocletian's daughter) had been mixing with the Christ followers! He adopted a policy that soldiers and administrators in his service had to affirm their loyalty by a sacrifice to the old gods. Those who refused were obliged to quit their posts.
During the winter of 302/303 Galerius urged upon Diocletian a tougher stance on Christianity. As a result, Diocletian and Maximian met in Rome and jointly issued their infamous laws.
In February 303 an edict was promulgated for the destruction of churches and sacred books, the death penalty for secret assembly, and for the punishment of leading Christians by loss of public office and civil rights.
An African bishop, Felix, was beheaded for failing to hand over books. This led to a stampede of others who did so, the so-called 'Traditors'. Some martyrs are reported from Spain but none from Britain.
Later in 303 a further edict required the arrest and imprisonment of all Christian clergy, who, none the less, were to be released after sacrifice to the old gods.
In April 304 a final edict required that all Christians – clergy and laity – were to sacrifice on pain of death. But only one year later, in May 305, after a lifetime of service to the empire, the ailing emperor retired and the persecution was halted.
Galerius


Galerius, son of a Greek shepherd who became a Roman Emperor. 293-311 303-311
Persecution confined to eastern provinces and a period of 3 years. An edict issued by Galerius in 308 ordered that all men, with wives, children, and servants, were to offer sacrifice to the gods, "and that all provisions in the markets should be sprinkled with sacrificial wine." Cruel, eh?!
Shortly before his death, Emperor Galerius issued an Edict of Toleration in April 311.
"We have been especially anxious that even the Christians, who have abandoned the religion of their ancestors, should return to reason."
Maximinus Daia
305-313 Resumed persecution after death of Galerius but within months had to abandon the policy to fight a civil war with Licinius. Lost, fled and died.
"The defeat of Maximin soon delivered the church from the last and most implacable of her enemies." – Gibbon
Constantine 306-337 The "Saviour" of the Christians triumphs.

I liken it more to the idea that the Romans simply didn't want to bother themselves with every little flareup that occurred in the Empire- it's simply too big for them to send Army after Army to deal with an insignificant little rabble-rouser only causing problems with the locals. When it did send an Army, it was only because the locals somehow threatened and/or directly opposed the State- otherwise, the Romans were content letting everyone mind their own business.

That too. Especially given the known problems of leaving ambitious generals in charge of armies in remote places.

What you say about Romans and tolerance carries some weight. By the standards of their time, I suppose they were probably quite accepting.
Not sure though - I'd have to give it some thought, and it's not really on-topic enough to be worth the bother.

Heres the wiki article on the subject:

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

sorry if this was posted already, I don't really have time to read through thousands of posts :rolleyes:

From what I read on wiki there seems to be enough evidence to support that jesus existed; but its for people to decide for themselves if he did the thing described in the bible.

Your explaining things away by claiming there are errors in the document. ...
I'm claiming no such thing, I've told you twice, now you are lying. But fine, whatever, it never ends with you and you seem to think you are ‘onto something’ when it’s entirely misdirection on your own part.

Barabbas in greek. Bible Societies’ textual apparatus, Matthew 27:17 reads: “...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesoun ton Barabban] or Jesus who is called Christ [Greek: Iesoun ton legomenon Christon]”?

Syriac manuscripts of Matthew present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

The Caesarean group of texts, which have been identified as possibly being the origin of many parts of the New Testament present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest [ a late 4th century manuscript of the four canonical gospels of the New Testament.], present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.


You have no real arguments do you? Do you have any actual knowledge of the data we are talking about at all or are you just using second hand tinfoil hat website material? You turn the smallest 'non-issues' into large made up mirages, facades that you can attack and hold up and then you act like I have to disprove every little irrelevant iota you can think of even when they don’t make sense.... it's ridiculous.

It very well could have been read as Barabbas or bar Abba, I didn’t make it up, I only pointed out to GnI that he forgot to include that possibility. There were no errors spoken of in the document at all, stop bearing false witness.

I'm claiming no such thing, I've told you twice, now you are lying. But fine, whatever, it never ends with you and you seem to think you are ‘onto something’ when it’s entirely misdirection on your own part.

Barabbas in greek. Bible Societies’ textual apparatus, Matthew 27:17 reads: “...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesoun ton Barabban] or Jesus who is called Christ [Greek: Iesoun ton legomenon Christon]”?

Syriac manuscripts of Matthew present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

The Caesarean group of texts, which have been identified as possibly being the origin of many parts of the New Testament present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest [ a late 4th century manuscript of the four canonical gospels of the New Testament.], present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

Typical. As you point out, the accepted earliest documents present his name as having the meaning "Son of the Father". Throwing a bunch of information in the air and hoping that people will fail to notice that even by your own reading it still has the meaning I pointed to.

When I commented on error, I baited you into pointing out that your comment had no meaning, that it makes no difference. You were attempting to obscure the issue by making comments that don't address it.

Now, given that you admit what is the scholarly concensus, that the name was Jesus Bar Abbas, address the point itself. I didn't say their names were the same. I said the name of one just happens to describe the other. Quite a stretch, unless one is simply a misunderstanding in the course of the telling, as we often seen with such stories, that someone mistook the description as a name and decided there were two people.



You have no real arguments do you? Do you have any actual knowledge of the data we are talking about at all or are you just using second hand tinfoil hat website material? You turn the smallest 'non-issues' into large made up mirages, facades that you can attack and hold up and then you act like I have to disprove every little irrelevant iota you can think of even when they don’t make sense.... it's ridiculous.

Tinfoil hat? Your explanation was that it was the intent of God to make Barabbas be there to represent man. You do realize that in historical stories, no one represents concepts. In historical stories, people are just the people who were there.

I love that you call a typical scholarly view "tinfoil hat" while claiming the better explanation is that it's a miracle-created allegory in order to get around the rather obvious problems in the story.

Of the two theories, which do you think would make it into a peer-reviewed publication. The theory that Bar Abbas represented man being saved by Jesus even though he was a real person and in real story there is no literary representation (oh make sure you include that the reason this historical event has an author is because God is that author), or we have my theory that over time the title of the man, Jesus who is called the Son of the Father, and the man himself became two seperate characters. It's not a conspiracy. There are dozens upon dozens of similar examples of Bible stories where that's happened. So I have evidence. And you have "it's a miracle". THere's a tinfoil hat here, but I think we both know where it rests.



It very well could have been read as Barabbas or bar Abba, I didn’t make it up, I only pointed out to GnI that he forgot to include that possibility. There were no errors spoken of in the document at all, stop bearing false witness.

You try to obscure the truth by occasionally dropping a fact or two like it changes the meaning, hoping that someone won't call you on it. Now that you admit that the accepted evidence is that one was named Jesus "Son of the Father" how do you address the problem that one person in this story happens to be the title of the other.

Now, back to the argument you've not addressed in three weeks. Why is there this practice of releasing criminals and yet it is not document ANYWHERE except in a story, that just happens to use that practice to explain why there were two people and only one was executed. It just happens to be the practice that makes the whole story work as an allegory. It makes the sacrifice of Jesus in place of the sinner make sense.

It lends itself to the conclusion that this was a historical story that got molested in the retelling.

As of yet, you've done everything but offer an explanation for why we cannot find this practice that ties the whole together in any documentation that does not include this story, all of which seem to have gotten this story from the same place.

...
When I commented on error, I baited you into pointing out that your comment had no meaning, that it makes no difference. You were attempting to obscure the issue by making comments that don't address it....

Being caught and exposed in a mistake, instead of admiting it you back peddle and try to pretend you did it all on pupose. Sounding every bit like Pee Wee Herman after crashing his bike, jumping up and brushing himself off while saying, "I did it on purpose!" hoping all around will believe him


...You try to obscure the truth by occasionally dropping a fact or two like it changes the meaning, hoping that someone won't call you on it. Now that you admit that the accepted evidence is that one was named Jesus "Son of the Father" how do you address the problem that one person in this story happens to be the title of the other.

It could change the meaning of the name. Barabbas is a combination of two Aramaic words, bar, which means son, and abba, which means father. So Barabbas means "son of the father." It may also be derived from the Aramaic words bar for son and rabbon for master or rabbi. If that is the case, Barabbas would mean "son of a rabbi." In the same way Simon was Peter's first name and Bar-Jonah was his family name (so to speak). It points out that the name Barabbas very well could just be a name, not a description. A posibility that GnI seemed to have left out so I mentioned it, to have you freak out over nothing and say I claimed the scripture had errors in it.

Heres the wiki article on the subject:

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

sorry if this was posted already, I don't really have time to read through thousands of posts :rolleyes:

From what I read on wiki there seems to be enough evidence to support that jesus existed; but its for people to decide for themselves if he did the thing described in the bible.

since you bothered to look it up (and since im not going to look at it again) what points did you find were most persuasive?

Being caught and exposed in a mistake, instead of admiting it you back peddle and try to pretend you did it all on pupose. Sounding every bit like Pee Wee Herman after crashing his bike, jumping up and brushing himself off while saying, "I did it on purpose!" hoping all around will believe him

Yes, it's just coincidence I baited you into explaining the earliest usage, explaining that it doesn't make a difference. It's coincidence I baited you into blaming the reason the story appears to be an allegory, becuase it's God's allegory where he uses people as representations of ideas. Certainly the most plausible of the explanations for why this story sounds like an allegory.

You've not caught me saying anything wrong. You saw me pointing out your squirming. I'll continue to do so.


It could change the meaning of the name. Barabbas is a combination of two Aramaic words, bar, which means son, and abba, which means father. So Barabbas means "son of the father." It may also be derived from the Aramaic words bar for son and rabbon for master or rabbi. If that is the case, Barabbas would mean "son of a rabbi." In the same way Simon was Peter's first name and Bar-Jonah was his family name (so to speak). It points out that the name Barabbas very well could just be a name, not a description.

Uh-huh. Squirming again. So your new explanation is that "Son of the Father" is really "Son of the Teacher". Hmmm... and what is the scholarly concensus there? We both know. They agree with me. But hey, generally the scholars all gather around the tinfoil hat theory.
I noticed you dropped the whole tinfoil hat thing, too. Backfired just a little, huh?

Now, back to the argument you've not addressed in three weeks. Why is there this practice of releasing criminals and yet it is not document ANYWHERE except in a story, that just happens to use that practice to explain why there were two people and only one was executed. It just happens to be the practice that makes the whole story work as an allegory. It makes the sacrifice of Jesus in place of the sinner make sense.

It lends itself to the conclusion that this was a historical story that got molested in the retelling.

As of yet, you've done everything but offer an explanation for why we cannot find this practice that ties the whole together in any documentation that does not include this story, all of which seem to have gotten this story from the same place.

You point out which government policy manuscripts we have that should have mentioned it and didn't and then we can talk. In the meantime, the basis for your argument on the lack of evidence to prove a negative. It doesn't work that way. Of course there are no documents from the first century governors policies, up until they first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, in Caesarea Maritima, people argued about whether or not he even existed! And you want to argue that because I don't have a written copy of his holiday scheduling, I have to assume the gospel writers made it up? Nonsense and misdirection on your part.

Yes, it's just coincidence I baited you into explaining the earliest usage, explaining that it doesn't make a difference. It's coincidence I baited you into blaming the reason the story appears to be an allegory, becuase it's God's allegory where he uses people as representations of ideas. Certainly the most plausible of the explanations for why this story sounds like an allegory.

You've not caught me saying anything wrong. You saw me pointing out your squirming. I'll continue to do so.

You falsely accused me of lying, now you're proud of yourself? How messed up is that?

You point out which government policy manuscripts we have that should have mentioned it and didn't and then we can talk. In the meantime, the basis for your argument on the lack of evidence to prove a negative. It doesn't work that way. Of course there are no documents from the first century governors policies, up until they first physical evidence relating to Pilate was discovered in 1961, in Caesarea Maritima, people argued about whether or not he even existed! And you want to argue that because I don't have a written copy of his holiday scheduling, I have to assume the gospel writers made it up? Nonsense and misdirection on your part.

No, it isn't. The basis of my argument is that the abundant lack of evidence is reason for rejecting your conclusion. You have to make twist upon twist of fact in order to reach anything resembling a plausible conclusion.

Hell, your explanation of the story is that REAL people are representations of ideas in the story because God planned it that way. Seriously, do you think that as long as you can say "God did it" you've addressed the objections. This has long passed silly into sublime.

Lack of evidence is a reason for doubt. It doesn't prove false. It's a reason to not see something as true.

Now, back to the point.

So, this practice was a practice of Pilate? Was a practice of Romans? A practice of Jews? Seriously, you've got an explanation for everything else. Let me guess, God did it? I never asked for a holdiay schedule. I'm asking you to explain the practice of freeing a murderer and rebel as a tradition on Passover.

You falsely accused me of lying, now you're proud of yourself? How messed up is that?

I bait you into all kinds of things and happily admit it.

And it wasn't false. I demonstrated you were lying.

So tell me more about your explanation of this event that requires us to believe it was the handiwork of God in order for it to be even remotely plausible. Hint: When you have to invoke God to make your theory of "eyewitness" to make sense, you're in trouble from a historicity standpoint. BIG TIME.

I think I've adequately demonstrated why I brought this part of the Bible up. After squirming and hiding and running and complaining, you couldn't offer a remotely reasonable explanation for the fact this reads like an allegory other than claiming God authored said allegory.

You can't offer any response to the problems with practice other than "well, if you can't prove it false, I can treat it like it's true."

Don't you see how your arguments wouldn't be worth the light our monitors use to display them.

Interesting tidbits for the discussion: (From http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeoplenewtestament/p/Barabbas.htm )

Who was Barabbas?:
Barabbas was a criminal whom the gospels say was released by the Romans instead of Jesus. Bar-abbas means “son of the father,” thus a false “son of the father” was chosen by the Jews to be released while the true “son of the father” was delivered to the Romans for crucifixion. Some early manuscripts of Matthew give Barabbas a surname: Jesus. This may have been a copyist error because the Greek words for “to you” (“release to you Barabbas”) could have looked like an abbreviation for Jesus.
When did Barabbas live?:
Assuming that Barabbas even existed, which is unlikely, we have absolutely no information about when he was born or when he died.
What did Barabbas do?:
The gospel authors describe Barabbas variously as a bandit, a thief, and a participant in political insurrection. Romans typically treated political rebels as bandits, crucifying them along a busy road as a warning to others.

Why was Barabbas important?:
There was no custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy day, but even if there were Pilate would never consent to allow Barabbas go over Jesus. No one who tried to overthrow Roman rule was allowed to live. Jesus, even if he did claim to be King of the Jews, hadn’t done anything overt or violent yet.
Why did Mark make up Barabbas and the custom of letting prisoners go on a holy day? Probably for the same reason that he made up the image of crowds of Jews calling out for Jesus to be crucified: it allows him to shift the blame for Jesus’ death away from the Roman authorities and onto the shoulders of the Jews. Mark’s community of Jewish Christians lived outside Palestine and under Roman rule. They would have been watched and had the authorities found them developing a religious sect after a man executed by Romans for being a political revolutionary, they would have cracked down even harder.

-------------

Does seem rather telling.

So tell me more about your explanation of this event that requires us to believe it was the handiwork of God in order for it to be even remotely plausible. Hint: When you have to invoke God to make your theory of "eyewitness" to make sense, you're in trouble from a historicity standpoint. BIG TIME.
...

I gave you an example of something to really complain about, the fact that the gospel's say Jesus told them three times (at least) that he was going to be crucified, something like that might be worth debating, to show YOU how stupid your barabbas red herring was. You continued to lie by falsely accusing me of saying something you now claim that you knew all along that I didn't say...

I bait you into all kinds of things and happily admit it.

No, it's not baiting, it's called lying. You've been a poster of questionable value in this topic up until now but now you're an admittted lair and your value as a poster on this topic worse than if you hadn't posted anything at all...

Interesting tidbits for the discussion: (From http://atheism.about.com/od/biblepeoplenewtestament/p/Barabbas.htm )
-------------

Does seem rather telling.
Thank you, that's exactly the kind of tinfoil hat theology that I suspected Jocabia was using.

Thank you, that's exactly the kind of tinfoil hat theology that I suspected Jocabia was using.

Glad to help.

Popcorn anyone?

I gave you an example of something to really complain about, the fact that the gospel's say Jesus told them three times (at least) that he was going to be crucified, something like that might be worth debating, to show YOU how stupid your barabbas red herring was. You continued to lie by falsely accusing me of saying something you now claim that you knew all along that I didn't say...

Amusing. I got you to stop being evasive. I'm quite proud of that actually. The part about Jesus doesn't show anything at all.

The other part was just another attempt at being evasive on your part. Anything to avoid the point. And once again I ignored those attempt at stayed to the point that you're so afraid of. You're still avoiding. You want to talk about how I got you to admit that you can't support your claims without invoking the aid of God, to avoid that I got you to admit.



No, it's not baiting, it's called lying. You've been a poster of questionable value in this topic up until now but now you're an admittted lair and your value as a poster on this topic worse than if you hadn't posted anything at all...

Um, you don't know how debate works, do you? You're being evasive, so I trapped you into saying exactly what I needed you to admit. I do it all the time and repeatedly did it in this conversation. I'm pretty well-known for it and openly admit to doing it. It's like bluffing in poker. It doesn't make a liar. It makes me better at debate than you are, since your hand is now on the table and it's shown to have nothing in it.

By the way, when your scholarly argument requires you to explain it was an act of God, you lost the debate. Thanks for playing.

Thank you, that's exactly the kind of tinfoil hat theology that I suspected Jocabia was using.

This isn't theology. We're talking about history. No one is talking about the faith, we're talking about historicity. It might help your argument if you recognize what we're talking about.

Meanwhile, in a scholarly discussion you can't explain away my "tinfoil hat" argument with claiming God makes it make sense. Yeah, my argument is so craaazy, that you had not choice but to invoke God.

Do you realize how laughable that is?

Now, you do recognize that your continued use of that term in order to avoid that you, yourself, said that Barabbas "represented mankind" is a fallacy. Address the argument. Trying to call it a conspiracy theory is just another form of weak debate. What's the matter? You out of miracles? Come on. Offer a defense and not fallacies.

This popcorn is a little stale. Better make a fresh batch.

However, I'm not arguing that it is necessary for it to be that way, it is not. I'm only pointing out the possibility that it might be thus it must be at least considered. The Syrian manuscriptes calling it Jesus Barabbas could be entirely mistaken. The main point is that the condemned person who is undeservedly given his release represents all of mankind, Jesus taking 'our' place on the cross. To argue that Barrabas was a mistake of scripture is really just to misunderstand the story entirely.

I didn't say it was allegory. I never once supposed it was allegory. If Jesus predicts his own crucifixion three time before going to Jerusalem, you think its unbelievable that Barabbas can be arranged to exist?

The irony of you calling my theory tinfoil hat when this is your only way to dispute it is wildly amusing. Apparently, historical events have real people who represent ideas and those people can be "arranged to exist". What's more plausible? That Jesus arranged the existence of someone so the story can represent his sacrifice for all of us sinners, the existence of a man with the same name and title as Jesus, in other words a real-life allegory, or it's actually an allegory written to represent exactly what you say.

Cute hat found with google search
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m288/snopesphoto/50%20-%20Tin%20Foil%20Hat/EveMGTFH.jpg

Cute hat found with google search

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m288/snopesphoto/50%20-%20Tin%20Foil%20Hat/EveMGTFH.jpg

As much as that photo is funny, i find it difficult to relate it to if jesus really exists.
Maybe i'm not being very imaginative.:D

As much as that photo is funny, i find it difficult to relate it to if jesus really exists.
Maybe i'm not being very imaginative.:D

Well I tried to find an image of "jesus" in a tin foil hat so it would be more on topic. Might have to photoshop one.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but one of the scholastic interpretations of Barabbas is that he was "invented" by anti-Judaizers in the mold of Paul of Tarsus to get on the good side of the Romans. The interpretation is that Yeshua, who was known to pray to God by addressing him as "Father" was known as "Bar-abba." The crowd was clamoring for Pilate to release Barabba, who was really the historical Jesus.

If Pilate were responsible for the death of Jesus, the protrayal of the Jews in the Gospels is wrong, according to the view. Paul and the anti-Judaizers shifted the blame away from the Romans and onto the Jews to be able to market the Christian faith more openly.

It's just an interpretation, though. I personally thinks it has the kernels of truth in it; but that's just my humble scholastic opinion.

Well I tried to find an image of "jesus" in a tin foil hat so it would be more on topic. Might have to photoshop one.

Image spamming isn't a good idea, being that it's against site rules.

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but one of the scholastic interpretations of Barabbas is that he was "invented" by anti-Judaizers in the mold of Paul of Tarsus to get on the good side of the Romans. The interpretation is that Yeshua, who was known to pray to God by addressing him as "Father" was known as "Bar-abba." The crowd was clamoring for Pilate to release Barabba, who was really the historical Jesus.

If Pilate were responsible for the death of Jesus, the protrayal of the Jews in the Gospels is wrong, according to the view. Paul and the anti-Judaizers shifted the blame away from the Romans and onto the Jews to be able to market the Christian faith more openly.

It's just an interpretation, though. I personally thinks it has the kernels of truth in it; but that's just my humble scholastic opinion.

No, der. Didn't you read. Baldy's already explained that the reason it sounds like an allegory is because God wrote it that way. What possible objection could a scholar have to such an explanation?