NationStates Jolt Archive

Image spamming isn't a good idea, being that it's against site rules.

Seemed to be pertinent to your defense. Just trying to help.

Seemed to be pertinent to your defense. Just trying to help.

I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out the flaws in his claims. His is the defense.

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.

Of course. Don't get me wrong though- any tolerance Roman officials might have had probably had more to do with pragmatic concerns (i.e., "they don't bother us, we won't bother them") than an actual desire to be tolerant, but it is true that within the Empire many different ideas and cultures were allowed to flourish (with some of their ideas even incorporated into the Roman culture). Furthermore, if you read Roman writers, equality and fairness were high on their list of values; plus the extent of their disdain for other peoples has more to do with them being "egotistical Romans" as opposed to harbouring an actual hatred towards another people (well, Hadrian legendarily hated Jews but that's an isolated case and probably has to do with the fact the Jews revolted twice during his reign).

Yeah, it's off-topic somewhat but it does put in perspective the idea of Christian persecution within the Roman Empire, because it shows that the idea of Roman racial discrimination against Christianity (I'll use that term since that's how it's characterized) is wildly off the mark.

<snip>

I do find fault in Humphreys' assertion that Diocletian persecuted Christians for two years (he really did it for eight) but it's a minor quibble on an otherwise agreeable point.

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.

"Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd." (Matthew 27:15)

"Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested." (Mark 15:6)

"But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover." (John 18:39)

^ The Bible is pretty clear that the Jews had an annual custom where the governor of Judea released a prisoner for Passover, yet no other source (most notably Josephus) makes mention of this practice; plus characterizations of Pontius Pilate (being a difficult, unyielding and inconsiderate man to the Jews) casts doubt that Pilate would even respect such a custom. At best, if such an event occurred, it would have been "made up" on the spot, probably to rile up the populace and to scold them for not taking care of their own business (as Pilate clearly says in the Gospels relating to the handover of Jesus Christ) and not because any actual tradition occurred.

I'm not defending anything. I'm pointing out the flaws in his claims. His is the defense.

Looked like he kicked you good from here. Oh well, I tried.

I do find fault in Humphreys' assertion that Diocletian persecuted Christians for two years (he really did it for eight) but it's a minor quibble on an otherwise agreeable point.

I don't agree with everything he says, but I have done some independent research from his sources, and found him on the whole to be pretty concise. Who can be really sure though with it that long ago and sketchy (questionable?) accuracy. His book is pretty good.

Looked like he kicked you good from here. Oh well, I tried.

Your bias is showing. When you lose a debate cheerleading someone saying the exact opposite of you is just sad. You realize that his argument is to establish the historicity of Jesus Christ. Are you actually claiming you've found it compelling? Interesting. Or is this just sour graps.

Meanwhile, please explain to me how my theory is "tinfoil hat" when as can be shown it's a commonly discussed opinion among scholars, and so far the only rebuttal he's offered is... well, that's because God made it happen. He actually claimed a person was created to fit the story and that's why that person is representative. And of course he stilll cannot do anything but ignore the problem with the "custom".

Are you really trying to show that your feelings are more important than logic? Because if so, you're doing a great job.

...
Meanwhile, please explain to me how my theory is "tinfoil hat" when as can be shown it's a commonly discussed opinion among scholars, and so far the only rebuttal he's offered is... well, that's because God made it happen. He actually claimed a person was created to fit the story and that's why that person is representative. And of course he stilll cannot do anything but ignore the problem with the "custom".
...

You falsely portray my position, you have admitted that you do it on purpose and knowingly, that means you are a liar. Please refrain from intentionally lying.

You falsely portray my position, you have admitted that you do it on purpose and knowingly, that means you are a liar. Please refrain from intentionally lying.

I baited you into clarifying your position. It's not false that you claimed the PERSON of Barabbas was made to exist for the purpose of representing man. It's not false that you claimed that the story is a representation. These are facts. I've quoted them back at you.

it's also a fact that you still will not addres the "custom" and instead choose to focus on how I unfairly forced you to actually state your position clearly instead of the nonsense you've been trying to get away with.

Now, are you claiming you didn't say the purpose of the story is to be representative of the sacrifice of Christ and the sinner going free? Are you claiming that's not the purpose of the story? Are you claiming that purpose wasn't said to have been achieved, according to you, by making Barabbas exist?

Clear questions. Or keep avoiding because you know that clearly representing your position demonstrates its flaws. We both know that's why you're so upset that I tricked you into displaying your true argument. "God did it". For two pages you've snipped out every on-topic point to complain that I tricked you. Go ahead. Snip again. Each time you demonstrate that it was NEVER your goal to address the problems with your claim, but rather to hope no one noticed them. You're upset because I'm outlined them clearly. Answer the questions.

Answer the post asking why this custom goes against everything we know about the era AND has no recorded history at all, except in a story you described as having the intent of relaying the message of Christ's sacrifice by dying in place of a man who represented mankind.

Now who wants to bet I get a reply, but not to the bolded parts that actually address the topic. Any takers?

I baited you into clarifying your position. It's not false that you claimed the PERSON of Barabbas was made to exist for the purpose of representing man. It's not false that you claimed that the story is a representation. These are facts. I've quoted them back at you.

Liar

Please stop erroneously portraying my postions. I see no further need to waste time debating with somone that lies and can't admit when they are wrong. I'm posting this only to ask you to stop lying about my positions.

Now who wants to bet I get a reply, but not to the bolded parts that actually address the topic. Any takers?

Nope, since he's already responded (I wouldn't have taken that bet anyways)

Liar

Please stop erroneously portraying my postions. I see no further need to waste time debating with somone that lies and can't admit when they are wrong. I'm posting this only to ask you to stop lying about my positions.

See. Once again, ignored everything that could allowed you to have debated your position, rather to avoid, to confuse, to defer, to blame. No debate. Would you like for me to quote the number of times you've replied while avoiding my rather clear questions. It would break the page, but I could just list links.

Meanwhile, let's play the quote game on what I'm "lying" about. I mean, I know you're upset that you FINALLY clarified your position, something you've been avoiding for a week, and I nailed you, but let's see if I'm lying about what you said.

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.

If I don't get that Barabbas is a representation of all of mankind, then I must have misunderstood the point of the story. I thought the point of history, was to tell a story faithfully. Historical stories just happen. They don't have representative figures. So I asked why you called it an allegory (you didn't, but you said the equivalent, because I wanted this next bit.)

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?

So people arrange for people to exist now? That's a normal way to rationally explain how a true story can have literary kind of representation?

Oh, right, you didn't really say these things. The fact that I tricked you into them must somehow mean you didn't really say them. But, hey, complain about how I tricked you some more. That's almost like debate.

I baited you into clarifying your position. It's not false that you claimed the PERSON of Barabbas was made to exist for the purpose of representing man. It's not false that you claimed that the story is a representation. These are facts. I've quoted them back at you.

it's also a fact that you still will not addres the "custom" and instead choose to focus on how I unfairly forced you to actually state your position clearly instead of the nonsense you've been trying to get away with.

Now, are you claiming you didn't say the purpose of the story is to be representative of the sacrifice of Christ and the sinner going free? Are you claiming that's not the purpose of the story? Are you claiming that purpose wasn't said to have been achieved, according to you, by making Barabbas exist?

Clear questions. Or keep avoiding because you know that clearly representing your position demonstrates its flaws. We both know that's why you're so upset that I tricked you into displaying your true argument. "God did it". For two pages you've snipped out every on-topic point to complain that I tricked you. Go ahead. Snip again. Each time you demonstrate that it was NEVER your goal to address the problems with your claim, but rather to hope no one noticed them. You're upset because I'm outlined them clearly. Answer the questions.

Answer the post asking why this custom goes against everything we know about the era AND has no recorded history at all, except in a story you described as having the intent of relaying the message of Christ's sacrifice by dying in place of a man who represented mankind.

I'll give you another chance to get back on-topic. The bolded parts. You don't want me to trick you into debating properly, then how about you do it voluntarily.

Nope, since he's already responded (I wouldn't have taken that bet anyways)

It was a sucker bet. That's why he's so pissed. I got him to explicitly say the Barabbas was "arranged to exist" and to claim the story is figurative (which is what you're calling a story when you're talking about who represents what). He even went so far as to say that if you don't get the representation then you're missing the point of the story. You know what figurative is the opposite of? True. Exact. Historical. Real.

It was a sucker bet. That's why he's so pissed. I got him to explicitly say the Barabbas was "arranged to exist" and to claim the story is figurative (which is what you're calling a story when you're talking about who represents what). He even went so far as to say that if you don't get the representation then you're missing the point of the story. You know what figurative is the opposite of? True. Exact. Historical. Real.

I already told you what that was for, you are lying about my position again. please stop lying about my position.

I already told you what that was for, you are lying about my position again. please stop lying about my position.

Hehe. Again, you fail to address the argument.

I'll try again, this time with no summary of your position. The two quoted posts. Please explain them. How does one arrange existence?

Hehe. Again, you fail to address the argument.

I'll try again, this time with no summary of your position. The two quoted posts. Please explain them. How does one arrange existence?

I'm not going to argue with you, I already told you that too. I had previously thought that you simply misunderstood nearly everything I ever said, I had a hard time understanding how that could be but I tried and tired of trying to explain every little elementary nonsensical misunderstanding you came up with. But now that you've admitted you falsely represent other peoples arguments because you think you are 'baiting them' I have no further desire to waste any time at all on you.

(FYI: baiting is asking questions and using the answers against the person giving the answers. Falsely portraying a persons argument to see how they react is closer to flamebaiting then it is baiting, perhaps you will have better success in the future if you remember that.)

For today though, stop lying about my positions/arguments. If you can’t portray them accurately, please refrain from portraying them at all.

I'm not going to argue with you, I already told you that too. I had previously thought that you simply misunderstood nearly everything I ever said, I had a hard time understanding how that could be but I tried and tired of trying to explain every little elementary nonsensical misunderstanding you came up with. But now that you've admitted you falsely represent other peoples arguments because you think you are 'baiting them' I have no further desire to waste any time at all on you.

(FYI: baiting is asking questions and using the answers against the person giving the answers. Falsely portraying a persons argument to see how they react is closer to flamebaiting then it is baiting, perhaps you will have better success in the future if you remember that.)

For today though, stop lying about my positions/arguments. If you can’t portray them accurately, please refrain from portraying them at all.

I didn't portray them just now. I asked you to. Once again, you've refused to actually clearly present your argument.

Do it however you like. Link the post where you "explained your position" relative to those two posts. Quote them. Recite them again. Explain another way. You keep claiming I'm lying about them, then present them more accurately. I quoted them. What WERE you trying to say?

(Baiting is getting people to say what you want them to say. Flamebaiting is when you want them to flame. Trollbaiting is when you want them to troll. I was baiting you into a clear admission of your position. It's a common tool in arguments and I use it all the time. I'ts entirely within site rules and you're only pissed because the clearer we see your argument the more obvious it is that you've not got a leg to stand on.)

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?

Quotes of you. You claimed I misrepresented them. Please explain what this means. Because I know what it says.

This little play is called why I tricked Baldy -

Baldy: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean? You meant this.
Baldy: No. Liar.
Me: Okay what did you mean? You meant this #2.
Baldy: No. Liar.
Me: Okay, then why don't you tell me what you meant?
Baldy: I already did. You're a liar.
Me: Okay, try again, then. Here are the posts. What do they mean?
Baldy: You're a big, fat, stinky liar.

This has been a production of Jocabia, Inc.

Now, how about we get back to the regularly scheduled DEBATE.

This little play is called why I tricked Baldy -

Baldy: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean? You meant this.
Baldy: No. Liar.
Me: Okay what did you mean? You meant this #2.
Baldy: No. Liar.
Me: Okay, then why don't you tell me what you meant?
Baldy: I already did. You're a liar.
Me: Okay, try again, then. Here are the posts. What do they mean?
Baldy: You're a big, fat, stinky liar.

This has been a production of Jocabia, Inc.

Now, how about we get back to the regularly scheduled DEBATE.


Apparently, he ment " You're a big, fat, stinky liar." Pick your ears, not your nose.:p

Apparently, he ment " You're a big, fat, stinky liar." Pick your ears, not your nose.:p

Usually, I'll waste no more time with you comes right about the time, they're cornered. You'll notice the very distinct effort to not actually explain his position, just to bitch about my reaction to his relatively clear statements.

NSG did the same thing when she claimed I flamebaited her after she wrote a nonsenical rant rather than address the actual arguments people are making. It's pretty much what a lot of posters do when actually expressing their position clearly doesn't seem like it will stand the test of review.

And fine, I'm a tricky, tricky liar, with poopy pants and funny hair. And I look old. And my boots stomp around all silly. I'm an awful, awful person. NOW, can you actually state what your position is that I've been so malicious misrepresenting according to you, Baldy?

Liar

Please stop erroneously portraying my postions. I see no further need to waste time debating with somone that lies and can't admit when they are wrong. I'm posting this only to ask you to stop lying about my positions.

Their position is always a non-position and any small erroneous comment is attacked ad nauseum and somehow this strengthens their position in their mind. Lying is just a part of their strategy, but they twist it until it is no loger recognizable.

Your bias is showing. When you lose a debate cheerleading someone saying the exact opposite of you is just sad. You realize that his argument is to establish the historicity of Jesus Christ. Are you actually claiming you've found it compelling? Interesting. Or is this just sour graps.

Meanwhile, please explain to me how my theory is "tinfoil hat" when as can be shown it's a commonly discussed opinion among scholars, and so far the only rebuttal he's offered is... well, that's because God made it happen. He actually claimed a person was created to fit the story and that's why that person is representative. And of course he stilll cannot do anything but ignore the problem with the "custom".

Are you really trying to show that your feelings are more important than logic? Because if so, you're doing a great job.

I found his ability to debate far superior to yours. I do not have to agree with his position to admire his technique in dispatching you.

Their position is always a non-position and any small erroneous comment is attacked ad nauseum and somehow this strengthens their position in their mind. Lying is just a part of their strategy, but they twist it until it is no loger recognizable.

That sums it up nicely.

This little play is called why I tricked Baldy -

Baldy: That's not what I meant.
Me: What did you mean? You meant this.
Baldy: No. Liar.
Me: Okay what did you mean? You meant this #2.
Baldy: No. Liar.
Me: Okay, then why don't you tell me what you meant?
Baldy: I already did. You're a liar.
Me: Okay, try again, then. Here are the posts. What do they mean?
Baldy: You're a big, fat, stinky liar.

This has been a production of Jocabia, Inc.

Now, how about we get back to the regularly scheduled DEBATE.

So this childishness proves your non-position how?

That sums it up nicely.

I'm debating the historicity. My position is that the historicity of Jesus the Christ cannot be compelling evidenced either way. That's my positon. And it requires me to attack the evidence in either direction. See how easy that is.

So this childishness proves your non-position how?

The only way to prove my position is to get people to show their claims and address them. For that reason I have to press you to be clear about your claims because if I don't you cry for 30 pages about how I misrepresented you.

Your position was that in the absense of evidence the false position is the default. That requires me to prove nothing, since it's incorrect by the very nature of debate, logic and science.

Our friend, Baldy, is much more careful to keep his position obscure. That's why he's so pissed. I forced him to be clear and he essentially cannot defend what he said without admitting that he used a miracle to rectify a problem in his position.

Now he's going to complain I'm misrepresenting him again, while carefully not actually correcting his position.

I found his ability to debate far superior to yours. I do not have to agree with his position to admire his technique in dispatching you.

Yes, you've proven to be a very fair and unbiased judge. Clearly demonstrating your understanding of logic when you claimed that until something is shown to be true it is false.

The only way to dispatch someone claiming the data is not compelling is to show that it is. So either you don't understand my position or you're admitting you're wrong, and that Baldy has presented a compelling case for historicity. Which is it?

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?

Quotes of you. You claimed I misrepresented them. Please explain what this means. Because I know what it says.

(I'm going to keep presenting these until you clarify them.)

I found his ability to debate far superior to yours. I do not have to agree with his position to admire his technique in dispatching you.

So you've basically found his debating compelling on the subject of there being a historical Jesus? Basically the opposite of what you've been arguing for this entire thread? I guess this is the only way you can cut your losses at this point, to admit the other side was right all along.

So you've basically found his debating compelling on the subject of there being a historical Jesus? Basically the opposite of what you've been arguing for this entire thread? I guess this is the only way you can cut your losses at this point, to admit the other side was right all along.

Well, you know a person openly refusing to clarify their points, over and over, to the point of getting angry when someone traps them into doing so, generally is a superior debator. Just ask anyone I demonstrated had hinged their entire position on a logical fallacy and they'll tell you.

...
Our friend, Baldy, is much more careful to keep his position obscure. That's why he's so pissed. I forced him to be clear and he essentially cannot defend what he said without admitting that he used a miracle to rectify a problem in his position.


Liar. Stop.

Quotes of you. You claimed I misrepresented them. Please explain what this means. Because I know what it says.

(I'm going to keep presenting these until you clarify them.)

I already answered that... A LONG TIME AGO. You keep misrepresenting and you already said you do it on purpose so stupidity can not be your excuse. I answered it, I'll quote myself.

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...

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...

Now stop, leave my position out of it, you lie, you mischaracterize, you fabricate, your argument has no basis in truth.

Liar. Stop.



I already answered that... A LONG TIME AGO. You keep misrepresenting and you already said you do it on purpose so stupidity can not be your excuse. I answered it, I'll quote myself.



Now stop, leave my position out of it, you lie, you mischaracterize, you fabricate, your argument has no basis in truth.

That's not an answer. That's another avoidance. We are talking about this specific event. What does your attempt to get me talking about the prediction of his death. That's a seperate issue that we're not moving to until you address this one, no matter how badly you want to sweep this under the rug. Calling it a red herring is your attempt to not answer. It's not an answer. In fact, your response clearly shows that you did everything BUT actually clarify these posts.

Now address what you meant below -

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?
Saying, I don't want to talk about it, it's a red herring, isn't an answer. You claimed I misrepresented what these mean. Fine. Let's pretend that's true. Say specifically what you mean when you said "Barabbas can be arranged to exist". Last time I checked, I can't arrange the existence of people. Can you?

Explain what you meant when you said if you don't undertstand that Barabbas represents all of mankind you missed the point of the story? Why did an eyewitness event have a "point" and have characters that represent "all of mankind"?

See, your quote shows you avoiding the claims in those posts altogether. I'm trying to stop you. Or simply admit that you cannot defend what you said. I know you're pissed because I trapped you into saying something you didn't want to admit, but trying to wave your arms as hard as you can won't make it go away. So you can explain what you meant, or keep calling me a liar, while demonstrating that it's the calling me a liar that's more important than clarifying your position.

So you've basically found his debating compelling on the subject of there being a historical Jesus? Basically the opposite of what you've been arguing for this entire thread? I guess this is the only way you can cut your losses at this point, to admit the other side was right all along.

That's not what NSG said. Scoring a debate does not require that one be convinced of the position, and a debate judge is not supposed to allow their own positions to influence their score card. The statement; I found his ability to debate far superior in no way is an endorsement of the position in question, only the manner in which the position was presented.

... I know you're pissed because I trapped you into saying something you didn't want to admit, but trying to wave your arms as hard as you can won't make it go away. So you can explain what you meant, or keep calling me a liar, while demonstrating that it's the calling me a liar that's more important than clarifying your position.

I call you liar because you are lying AND ask you to stop. I've told you I'm done debating with you, what part of this is hard for you to understand? You do this endlessly and daily, its a new Jocabia misunderstanding nearly every time you post and it takes up too much time from real debate/discussion. I'm only hear now to stop you from misrepresenting my position on purpose without calling you on it and asking you to stop. So stop.

That's not what NSG said. Scoring a debate does not require that one be convinced of the position, and a debate judge is not supposed to allow their own positions to influence their score card. The statement; I found his ability to debate far superior in no way is an endorsement of the position in question, only the manner in which the position was presented.

Yes, we know what sour grapes was scoring.

Come on, you just claimed you clarified those posts by quoting a third post that brings up a seperate topic and only tacitly points to the post and calls them a red herring.

If you know how debate works, you can't just call something a red herring. You have to show WHY it's a red herring.

So where are all these points you scored, that she's giving you? The repeated "liar", "liar", "liar". Or the continued refusal to actually address those posts you claim I'm lying about? That you accused of several fallacies without ANY indication of how or why they apply? That every time someone gets you cornered on a specific point, you wanna talk about something else, like the several times Jesus said he would be crucified.

I've been driving you back at this story since the debate began and you started complaining about it at first mention. Why? Because we both know it stinks of being an allegory. And so far your best defense of the one thing we both agree on, that the way it is now, it has representative characters in it, is that he was 'arranged to exist."

So, now, you wanna try, you know, actually presenting an argument that wouldn't be laughed out of every scholarly publication, science classroom, debate club in the country?

Here's where you start. What I meant by those posts was.... (here's where you actually answer).

Meanwhile, given NSG's desire to show the non-historicity of Jesus, why isn't she arguing against you? I know. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Your as annoyed by me as she is and she likes the company.

I call you liar because you are lying AND ask you to stop. I've told you I'm done debating with you, what part of this is hard for you to understand? You do this endlessly and daily, its a new Jocabia misunderstanding nearly every time you post and it takes up too much time from real debate/discussion. I'm only hear now to stop you from misrepresenting my position on purpose without calling you on it and asking you to stop. So stop.

Yes, that's what usually happens when I'm getting drubbed, people freak out and complain about debating with me.

If I'm a liar, proving it is relatively easy. Simply clarify your position form the two quoted posts. Calling me a liar doesn't clarify anything other than your rather see-through attempts to avoid addressing those posts.

Again, I never lied. I pressed you into saying exactly what I wanted you to say. I tricked you. Whining about it for 10 pages is pretty sad. Get over it. I didn't kill your grandmother. I tricked you into stating something that you are now very reluctant to explain.

Certainly, since it's a redd herring you can explain why it's a red herring. At the same time, you can explain what your two posts mean (not why you want to avoid them, which is what the post you presented explained), so that your position, which you complained I lied about, will be clear. Generally when someone keeps calling someone a liar, while not specifically telling what the truth would be, it's kind of like saying it's a red herring, or strawman or any of a number of attempts to dismiss an argument without addressing it. Demonstrate that I'm lying when I summarize those posts, by explaining the flaw in what I said.


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?

Demonstrate the lie. I claim these clearly state that you claimed REAL people are figurative characters and when called on the fact that real people can't represent an abstract idea in real events, you explained it away with "you think its unbelievable that Barabbas can be arranged to exist." I ask you, how does one arrange for the exitence of another? Can you do this? Can I? How can an historical figure represent an abstract idea in a true story? How is that possible?

I found his ability to debate far superior to yours. I do not have to agree with his position to admire his technique in dispatching you.

What exactly were those points on which he dispatched me? Score his argument. This should be interseting.

Obviously, I'm interested in learning exactly where I could have improved.

Now, since my position is that of the attack, you're going to have to show how he estabilished his position, what challenges I raised, and how he dealt with those challenges. Now, considering you're claiming that the compelling position is of the historicity being false, you'll be able to show a more adequate rebuttal than I gave, of course. A great opportunity for all of us to learn about debate, demonstrate your position, rather than just spamming the thread with your venomous remarks, and to destroy his claim, all at the same time. You win in every way.

No, der. Didn't you read. Actually can't. Am really a monkey. Just lucky with the keys.

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?

It's a good theological argument for those who are persuaded and appeased by such things. Unless "God" is a 32 year old IT worker from Hoboken, it is patent nonsense.

Or were we already debating that? :D

Actually can't. Am really a monkey. Just lucky with the keys.



It's a good theological argument for those who are persuaded and appeased by such things. Unless "God" is a 32 year old IT worker from Hoboken, it is patent nonsense.

Or were we already debating that? :D

Do me a favor. There are two posts quoted above. They have bolding in them. Would you summarize what they say?

You too, Deus. Your honest opinion of what that post says and what conclusions it leads you to.

Ash, if you wouldn't mind, your input would be great, alone with anyone else in this thread.

Do me a favor. There are two posts quoted above. They have bolding in them. Would you summarize what they say?

You too, Deus. Your honest opinion of what that post says and what conclusions it leads you to.

Ash, if you wouldn't mind, your input would be great, alone with anyone else in this thread.

*grumbles something about "actually making me have to do work."*

The conclusion Balders seems to reach in the second post, as a result of the convenient allegory in the first, is that it was somehow "arranged" for Barabbas to be there, in spite of there being no evidence of a tradition of releasing prisoners for Passover. It's replacing a lack of evidence with Goddidit and pretending it makes sense.

*grumbles something about "actually making me have to do work."*

The conclusion Balders seems to reach in the second post, as a result of the convenient allegory in the first, is that it was somehow "arranged" for Barabbas to be there, in spite of there being no evidence of a tradition of releasing prisoners for Passover. It's replacing a lack of evidence with Goddidit and pretending it makes sense.

Actually it was an attempt to do nearly the exact opposite. Take the bolding off (read it plain, despite how Jocabia tries to present his opinion in other peoples words by bolding what he wants to emphasis) and maybe you can see that the god gambit part was to imply that if you (jocabia) are going to attack the god gambit of the scripture story itself, attacking barabbas being real or not is like complaining about a tea cup full of water in your hand while you are standing in a pool of water up to your waist.

Get on to the real discussion and quit pussyfooting around and lying that bar-abbis is spelled differently than barabbas in greek (but when called on it later you claim you knew better all along)...

Except Jocabia was saying nothing about the God gambit of the text itself. Yet again: this is a discussion on historicity, not theology.

It should be about historicity I agree, but he insists that biblical criticism belongs in this thread, and after many, many complaints and requests that he start a different thread for that, and many many refusals of his, he insisted we do it here.

Actually it was an attempt to do nearly the exact opposite. Take the bolding off (read it plain, despite how Jocabia tries to present his opinion in other peoples words by bolding what he wants to emphasis) and maybe you can see that the god gambit part was to imply that if you (jocabia) are going to attack the god gambit of the scripture story itself, attacking barabbas being real or not is like complaining about a tea cup full of water in your hand while you are standing in a pool of water up to your waist.

Get on to the real discussion and quit pussyfooting around and lying that bar-abbis is spelled differently than barabbas in greek (but when called on it later you claim you knew better all along)...

Except Jocabia was saying nothing about the God gambit of the text itself. Yet again: this is a discussion on historicity, not theology.

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*

Thank you. :)

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

no if iremember, your debate was on the decomposition of bodies after death, not on the subject at hand.

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.

ooh, dont we like to point fingers. i never came here to preach, but neither to debate. i just voiced my opnion of the topic.

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.

as is your right, yet it is also your right to select what you listen to, and i never demanded your attention. Would you care to explain faith, or the fact of space. on another note. what makes objectively verifyable truth - truth
or verifyable to begin with.

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?

Summarize? Barabbas could be an allegorical figure representing redemption, and to argue that Barabbas is simply a mistake missing the point of the Jesus story. Analysis: This is a common scholastic intepretation as well. Nothing unusual about it.

Which is then seemingly contradicted by saying that Barabbas could have easily been created or a mistake in the text. This is an about-face from the previous statement that Barabbas "represented" redemption for all mankind.

Conclusion: contradiction. Both statements present a differing analysis of the problem of Barabbas, but both are at odds with another.

However, we must consider that the intentions of the authors are unclear- we are operating from an exigetical standpoint. The problem arises when we come to choose the lens in which to view the primary source- the Bible - and analyze the literary devices present in the text. Both statements represent differing theological interpretations. Each is a valid interpretation of the text.

Good enough for you?

i never came here to preach, but neither to debate. i just voiced my opnion of the topic.

*listens to sound of pin drop*

...
Which is then seemingly contradicted by saying that Barabbas could have easily been created or a mistake in the text. This is an about-face from the previous statement that Barabbas "represented" redemption for all mankind.

Conclusion: contradiction. Both statements present a differing analysis of the problem of Barabbas, but both are at odds with another.
Oh, that's good. I wasn't intending the 'at odds' with each other, but yes, I can see that. What I was thinking of though would be more along the lines of a real person example that the author was sure to make an example of. Such as Peter failing. Making sure it apears in the gospel and making sure that the reader sees the lesson for the rest of us (that even the best of us fail and have to get back up and keep trying because we can find success in Christ later etc., etc., etc.,) but making sure that the story appears in the written account in a way that inspires in no way was ment to imply that the event intself didn't take place and/or was invented by the author.

...However, we must consider that the intentions of the authors are unclear- we are operating from an exigetical standpoint. The problem arises when we come to choose the lens in which to view the primary source- the Bible - and analyze the literary devices present in the text. Both statements represent differing theological interpretations. Each is a valid interpretation of the text.

Good enough for you?


Good enough for me, you should post more often ;)

Oh, that's good. I wasn't intending the 'at odds' with each other, but yes, I can see that. What I was thinking of though would be more along the lines of a real person example that the author was sure to make an example of. Such as Peter failing. Making sure it apears in the gospel and making sure that the reader sees the lesson for the rest of us (that even the best of us fail and have to get back up and keep trying because we can find success in Christ later etc., etc., etc.,) but making sure that the story appears in the written account in a way that inspires no way implies the event intself didn't take place and/or was invented by the author.

Ah, I see. The problem is that since we don't know who wrote the biblical accounts, we can't make a concrete judgement about the story. The author might not have even seen the hypothetical conversation between Pilate and the Jews! My Gospel is a little spotty, but I can't recall even the Apostles being present at the judgement. Without knowing, we can only guess about Barabbas.

Good enough for me, you should post more often ;)

I'm a UN/II/NS poster. Rarely delve into General. But see what rational discussion can do!

It should be about historicity I agree, but he insists that biblical criticism belongs in this thread, and after many, many complaints and requests that he start a different thread for that, and many many refusals of his, he insisted we do it here.

I'm discussing whether or not the Bible is a eyewitness account of Jesus, as you claimed. That's necessary to historicity. This has nothing to do with theology. You claimed it as evidence of his historicity.

When you require require God to make the claim of "eyewitness" accounts make sense, then you've lost the historicity debate.

So you've basically found his debating compelling on the subject of there being a historical Jesus? Basically the opposite of what you've been arguing for this entire thread? I guess this is the only way you can cut your losses at this point, to admit the other side was right all along.

A very unique interpretation for sure. One can admire level headed presentations without being convinced of the conclusion. I have no losses to cut so your statement would not be valid.

Oh, that's good. I wasn't intending the 'at odds' with each other, but yes, I can see that. What I was thinking of though would be more along the lines of a real person example that the author was sure to make an example of. Such as Peter failing. Making sure it apears in the gospel and making sure that the reader sees the lesson for the rest of us (that even the best of us fail and have to get back up and keep trying because we can find success in Christ later etc., etc., etc.,) but making sure that the story appears in the written account in a way that inspires in no way was ment to imply that the event intself didn't take place and/or was invented by the author.

Actually, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think you were suggesting the author arranged, but rather God (or Jesus) arranged it. Was that not what you said? If so, there would be no conflict between the two posts.

A very unique interpretation for sure. One can admire level headed presentations without being convinced of the conclusion. I have no losses to cut so your statement would not be valid.

Can you present the compelling arguments he's given that are unrefuted in our debate? Can you present what objections I posted to those claims? Can you present how he dealt with those?

How would you deal with those compelling arguments?

Well, you know a person openly refusing to clarify their points, over and over, to the point of getting angry when someone traps them into doing so, generally is a superior debator. Just ask anyone I demonstrated had hinged their entire position on a logical fallacy and they'll tell you.

Maybe, but constantly haranging people on minutia and twisting their words is far more compelling?

Your points are non-positions and your debating is more of a re-interpretation of what someone said (usually far from the correct one) followed by a sledgehammer to crush the minutia. I am unconvinced of your non-positions.

Yes, we know what sour grapes was scoring.

Just because you have sour grapes does not mean any of us do. Most of your 'points' are ridiculous. So I have no sour grapes over them and I won't lose any sleep over it.

Balderdash has called you a liar. Based on his assertions and your posts I cannot refute his claim. I think he has you on several points.


Meanwhile, given NSG's desire to show the non-historicity of Jesus, why isn't she arguing against you? I know. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Your as annoyed by me as she is and she likes the company.

I do not believe there was a historical 'jesus'. However, watching you squirm is quite fun, whether I do it or Balder does it. Until you two finish your exchange, I am happy just to watch you claim, counter claim, re-interpret, pretend to be superior, and see where it goes.

Can you present the compelling arguments he's given that are unrefuted in our debate? Can you present what objections I posted to those claims? Can you present how he dealt with those?

How would you deal with those compelling arguments?

Making a judgement call on his technique does not require me by default to do your homework.

I would have refutations of his evidence if I saw fit to engage him. At the moment, I am preparing to go to bed so that would not be my first choice. Perhaps in the morning.

Until then, I am just getting a laugh before I retire to bed.

Maybe, but constantly haranging people on minutia and twisting their words is far more compelling?

Your points are non-positions and your debating is more of a re-interpretation of what someone said (usually far from the correct one) followed by a sledgehammer to crush the minutia. I am unconvinced of your non-positions.

What you call non-positions are the only logical positions when there is no compelling evidence. Your failure to accept this, doesn't change their value. But thank you for going ahead and explaining exactly what "quality" analysis we've got of my arguments. That you don't understand the importance of not taking a position in absense of evidence, exactly what you failed to debate understand in our debate is the only thing you managed to bring up.

What you call minutia was that you were claiming that logically one can arrive at a conclusion with no evidence. It's laughable, and hardly minutia.

However, admittedly minutia is often where the flaw in a position lies. The reason so many people manage to have illogical positions is not because they're stupid but because, they like you, haven't really thought out the specific and important details.

Suggesting that a problem with one of the most important tales in the story of Christ being used as a problem with its historicity is unimportant is laughable.

Making a judgement call on his technique does not require me by default to do your homework.

I would have refutations of his evidence if I saw fit to engage him. At the moment, I am preparing to go to bed so that would not be my first choice. Perhaps in the morning.

Until then, I am just getting a laugh before I retire to bed.

No, that's okay. You already demonstrated your knowledge of debate. There is no danger anyone will takes yours for an unbiased or reasonable analysis.

Just because you have sour grapes does not mean any of us do. Most of your 'points' are ridiculous. So I have no sour grapes over them and I won't lose any sleep over it.

Balderdash has called you a liar. Based on his assertions and your posts I cannot refute his claim. I think he has you on several points.

Yes, a basic logical fallacy is ridiculous right. Shall I go back and see how many people tried to explain the same fallacy to you.

I can't refute his claim? That I'm a liar. Um, you do recognize that what "I" am has nothing to do with the debate. What points does he have me on?



I do not believe there was a historical 'jesus'. However, watching you squirm is quite fun, whether I do it or Balder does it. Until you two finish your exchange, I am happy just to watch you claim, counter claim, re-interpret, pretend to be superior, and see where it goes.

Heh. Like I said, there's no danger that anyone will take your position on the matter as reasonable.

What you call non-positions are the only logical positions when there is no compelling evidence. Your failure to accept this, doesn't change their value. But thank you for going ahead and explaining exactly what "quality" analysis we've got of my arguments. That you don't understand the importance of not taking a position in absense of evidence, exactly what you failed to debate understand in our debate is the only thing you managed to bring up.

What you call minutia was that you were claiming that logically one can arrive at a conclusion with no evidence. It's laughable, and hardly minutia.

However, admittedly minutia is often where the flaw in a position lies. The reason so many people manage to have illogical positions is not because they're stupid but because, they like you, haven't really thought out the specific and important details.

Suggesting that a problem with one of the most important tales in the story of Christ being used as a problem with its historicity is unimportant is laughable.

You can't be a good egg all your life, sometimes you have to decide to hatch or rot.

You can't be a good egg all your life, sometimes you have to decide to hatch or rot.

Heh. Thanks, but I've hatched, I just recognize that my position isn't one I can validate as compelling. I recognize the limits of scholarship, logic and science. However, you couldn't have given a better explanation of what's wrong with your understanding of how this works.

I happen to believe Jesus was real, but I'm not dishonest enough to suggest that means the evidence is compelling. Fortunately, I'm not so insecure that I have to justify everything I choose to believe as supported by evidence when it's not there. And, by fact, the evidence for your position AND Baldy's is not there.

The evidence is what decides what has hatched or not. It has nothing to do with deciding. You realize that what you're putting out there suggest you make a decision to support a position as if the evidence is compelling regardless of whether it is.

The fact is something we simply don't know. It's a law of the universe. Pretending otherwise isn't logical. It also doesn't determine what I feel is right or what I choose to believe. We're not talking about faith or beliefs. We're talking about whether or not we can land at such a decision in a scientific manner.

Ah, I see. The problem is that since we don't know who wrote the biblical accounts, we can't make a concrete judgement about the story. The author might not have even seen the hypothetical conversation between Pilate and the Jews! My Gospel is a little spotty, but I can't recall even the Apostles being present at the judgement. Without knowing, we can only guess about Barabbas.
In the end there is much speculation, on every side, yes. But analyses of what we do have can be enlightening and revealing from time to time (at least for me).

And we don’t have to go to the supernatural to find clues of possible witnesses in the gospels themselves about who testified to the Barabbas incident…

An unnamed disciple…
John 18
15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, 16 but Peter stood outside at the door. …
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters.
29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?"
And by verse 40 we have the Barabbas episode. We have no reason to assume the disciple is not still with the ‘court’ of the high priest and witnessing it all.

Another could be the centurion who may have witnessed the entire passion from Pilate to the cross, before the end of the day says…
Luke 23
47Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent!"

Additionally: Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus could have assisted in the compilation of witness testimony… But perhaps they didn’t find out about it until after the crucifixion was already taking place and they showed up only at the end, just in time to bury Jesus without seeing how it came about...

Also, we can use (but I don’t recommend it) later sources than the gospels: Many early Christians firmly believed that Pilate wrote an account that confirmed the entire event and trial. And they wrote about what it said, and the idea was so popular that both the Christians and the anti-Christians had their own versions of what Pilate wrote by the fourth and fifth century…

And last but not least for those who believe, the story itself dictates that Jesus returned and testified of his own events to the apostles.

The fact that some church fathers wanted to remove the name of barabbas because he shared the same first name seems to be at odds with assuming that other church fathers invented him...If they invented him why not simply give him a name like "everymanican humanicus" (I jest :p)

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

I am?

Couldn't help it.

What can I say, editing is easier with two hands, too. :D

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

Appreciated. Thanks. :)

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


This.

It made me laugh.

Thankyou. :D

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.

I left out the possibility that 'barabbas' is 'just a name', because it just doesn't fit. In the context of the culture, (different to ours in that names MEAN something), the concept of 'just a name' loses some of it's weight. In the context of the criptures (where names are seldom JUST names), the 'just a name' argument actually begins to drop on the wrong side of sharp little Occam.

If you're reading your scripture, and you happen across a name that means something - you need to seriously consdier that that particular name is there for a very good reason, and it might have NOTHING to do with the actual names of any characters involved - if they even exist(ed).

Thank you, that's exactly the kind of tinfoil hat theology that I suspected Jocabia was using.

That doesn't really address any of the points made, now does it?

The figure of Barabbas does work very well as a later addition to the story, for the reasons set out. There is no verifiable way of tracking Barabbas, and there is no evidence that the Romans allowed (or would have allowed) the 'tradition' that allegedly freed Barabbas.

Indeed, as the article says - if Barabbas was in direct confrontation to Roman rule, it is unlikely that he would have been offered as an alternative to a blasphemous priest.

What the source doesn't mention, is another possibility - That the 'Barabbas' in the text IS Jesus... that the two characters are actually one, and that - in the 'original' story, Jesus was allowed to go free. In a later rendition, Jesus is crucified, so how do you deal with the story that everyone has heard in the oral tradition up to this point? Simple - you rename one of your 'Jesus' figures. Just enough to cloud the identity, whilst not being an actual lie.

Far fetched? Maybe - but hardly unprecedented - after all, at least two people kill Goliath - but the identity of the victim is clouded, by referring to him as 'Goliath of Gath' and 'Goliath the Gittite' (ignoring the fact that someone from Gath IS a Gittite. The issue is further clouded by the addition of "the brother of" intot he text, but not from any translational source).

no if iremember, your debate was on the decomposition of bodies after death, not on the subject at hand.


Then you don't remember. My little 'decomposition' preaching followed your own little sermon of derailment. I was involved in the actual 'debate' in this thread long before your little post...

Oh, that's good. I wasn't intending the 'at odds' with each other, but yes, I can see that. What I was thinking of though would be more along the lines of a real person example that the author was sure to make an example of. Such as Peter failing. Making sure it apears in the gospel and making sure that the reader sees the lesson for the rest of us (that even the best of us fail and have to get back up and keep trying because we can find success in Christ later etc., etc., etc.,) but making sure that the story appears in the written account in a way that inspires in no way was ment to imply that the event intself didn't take place and/or was invented by the author.


So... Barabbas was real? Or a narrative device? Which are we deciding?

...Your points are non-positions...

I'm wondering how this is actually a bad thing?

Someone has made a claim... someone else has said 'prove it'.

"Prove it" is a non-position, but it's hardly unreasonable. And, there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with it... except from the point of view of the people making claims, who are now being told to provide reasonable support.

Or - am I missing something?

So... Barabbas was real? Or a narrative device? Which are we deciding?

React to those two quotes. They quite obviously embarrass him since they inspired him to scream "LIAR" for four or five pages without ever explaining what they actually mean. Another poster analyzed them and got the reply that it was meant to be suggested it was a real story, thus we have a real story with figurative characters were "arranged to exist." The scholarly problems with such an assertion didn't miss me.

That the only way to deal with my "tinfoil hat" theory was to invoke an ability to arrange characters like an author would without there actually being an author pretty much requires us to go way out of our way to reach the obvious conclusion... there was an author and that's the story reads like a perfect little allegory of the sacrifice Jesus made to save mankind. Somehow, "he was arranged to exist" is a bit more difficult and less plausible than "he got added to the story" in the telling.

And just that one story that our friend, Baldy, didn't want to discuss demonstrates that one cannot reason out that the Gospels are eyewitness events without failing to recognize obvious problems with such a conclusion. Baldy was wise to avoid that problem like the plague because it rather handily delivered the failure of his conclusion.

I'm wondering how this is actually a bad thing?

Someone has made a claim... someone else has said 'prove it'.

"Prove it" is a non-position, but it's hardly unreasonable. And, there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with it... except from the point of view of the people making claims, who are now being told to provide reasonable support.

Or - am I missing something?

You can't be a good egg all your life. At some point you have to decide to hatch and, presumably, ignore the evidence and just make up a conclusion and claim the evidence is compelling when it isn't.

React to those two quotes. They quite obviously embarrass him since they inspired him to scream "LIAR" for four or five pages without ever explaining what they actually mean. Another poster analyzed them and got the reply that it was meant to be suggested it was a real story, thus we have a real story with figurative characters were "arranged to exist." The scholarly problems with such an assertion didn't miss me.

That the only way to deal with my "tinfoil hat" theory was to invoke an ability to arrange characters like an author would without there actually being an author pretty much requires us to go way out of our way to reach the obvious conclusion... there was an author and that's the story reads like a perfect little allegory of the sacrifice Jesus made to save mankind. Somehow, "he was arranged to exist" is a bit more difficult and less plausible than "he got added to the story" in the telling.

And just that one story that our friend, Baldy, didn't want to discuss demonstrates that one cannot reason out that the Gospels are eyewitness events without failing to recognize obvious problems with such a conclusion. Baldy was wise to avoid that problem like the plague because it rather handily delivered the failure of his conclusion.

There's my problem - and that's why I need Balders to hop back on and tell me which premise we are accepting for the debate:

The testimony is narrative and malleable - and thus, not 'eyewitness testimony' in any real sense... but it DOES have the advantage of being open to such nice motifs as (apparent) setpieces like allegory...

Or:

The testimony is all true, and factual, and presented as-it-happened from eyewitnesses... with the disadvantage that things that LOOK like allegory, or narrative convenience, MUST actually be 100% real.

I wonder which one we're going with? I favour the narrative option, myself.

You can't be a good egg all your life. At some point you have to decide to hatch and, presumably, ignore the evidence and just make up a conclusion and claim the evidence is compelling when it isn't.

I haven't really paid attention to my unhatched egg-ness, I admit.

I'd best look to that, and it will all become clear?

attacking barabbas being real or not is like complaining about a tea cup full of water in your hand while you are standing in a pool of water up to your waist.

It's relevant to the debate- if Barabbas is in fact real then there's a chance the Passover ritual stated in the Gospels is also real, as Barabbas is central to that part of the story. If Barabbas is not, then at least that part of the story has some serious inconsistencies, to say the least.

Now, if I can weigh in on your little quarrel with Jocabia, it seems to me from glancing at the posts that quite a bit of it has to do with the fact you've never directly replied to this:

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.

If you have, point it to me.

It should be about historicity I agree, but he insists that biblical criticism belongs in this thread, and after many, many complaints and requests that he start a different thread for that, and many many refusals of his, he insisted we do it here.

In this context, Biblical criticism isn't out of place- we *are* dealing with validating what's in the text and if the text has some historical inconsistencies and errors they're worth pointing out.

An unnamed disciple…
John 18
15 Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, 16 but Peter stood outside at the door. …
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters.
29 So Pilate went outside to them and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?"
And by verse 40 we have the Barabbas episode. We have no reason to assume the disciple is not still with the ‘court’ of the high priest and witnessing it all.

The rest of John 18:16 explains that Peter did enter the courtyard, and John 18:28-29 is ambiguous with regards to who saw the Barabbas episode- in John 18:28, the Jews were said to have waited outside the palace doors, where, in John 18:29, Pilate came out to address them. So, presumably Peter and the other disciple could have been in the crowd, but John does not say that for sure.

It still doesn't discount the possibility that the Barabbas tale is at least garbled- maybe Peter and the other disciple didn't get a chance to see Pilate and Jesus standing together and maybe misheard Pilate (I'm going to doubt that Pilate had a firm grasp of Aramaic if he spoke it at all, considering Pilate's own disdain for the Jews and the fact that the Romans routinely issued decrees in their native Latin regardless of whether or not the locals understood the language) or didn't catch what he said completely. Instead of there being two people, it's entirely possible that Pilate really asked the Jews "how do you see Jesus? The Son of the Father or King of the Jews?" (upon which the latter response would label Jesus a political opponent and thus worthy of execution), with maybe the other call for Barabbas being for Caiaphas, the High Priest who was present at the proceedings, to address the crowd. However, because Peter and the disciple didn't catch the whole episode for whatever reason they mistakenly assumed there were two prisoners instead of one and that's how Barabbas got "created" Biblically.

Still doesn't lend much credence to its historicity though- we've still got the problem that no other source outside of the Bible mentions Pilate's practice here, plus it seems out of character (as depicted by Josephus, anyway) for Pilate to even consider respecting Jewish customs.

Just because you have sour grapes does not mean any of us do.

From my vantage point, it seems like you have the sour grapes, not Jocabia. He called you out for saying that a lack of evidence is proof that said subject didn't exist (and I did too, if I recall correctly), and (maybe I missed it) but I didn't see a response. He is aggressive with it I'll give you that but I certainly haven't seen you address it.

In this context, Biblical criticism isn't out of place- we *are* dealing with validating what's in the text and if the text has some historical inconsistencies and errors they're worth pointing out.


Absolutely.

If we're trying to debate the reality of Jesus - and we can finetune what it is we are trying to validate through a little self-consistent pruning - biblical criticism should probably actually be our first tool, not a tool we cast aside.

Absolutely.

If we're trying to debate the reality of Jesus - and we can finetune what it is we are trying to validate through a little self-consistent pruning - biblical criticism should probably actually be our first tool, not a tool we cast aside.

Particularly when it's been entered into evidence repeatedly by so many with regards to the subject of the very stories we're analyzing. It's not like we're discussing Paul or the OT. We're talking about stories about Jesus and whether they historical or allegorical, whether the characters are real or representative (they cannot be both, despite the explanations already given).

When one is claiming we have an eyewitness account, the Gospels, that every story in it is the work of eyewitnesses, addressing those stories that certain call such a claim into question, at the very least, or disprove it entirely, at the long end, then you have to address such claims. That he would try to pretend this a theological discuss rather than historical calls into question his understanding of the arguments.

\Now, if I can weigh in on your little quarrel with Jocabia, it seems to me from glancing at the posts that quite a bit of it has to do with the fact you've never directly replied to this:



If you have, point it to me.

My larger issue is that he described the text I was discussing as both representative and 100% true, with some arranging of existence. When I bring it up he claims I'm lying about the meaning of what he said, but when asked to clarify, he says he's already done so, though the best he's linked to is a case where he suggest that topic is a red herring (with no explanation of why it's a red herring) and a change of subject.

We're discussing the historicity of Jesus the Christ. It's been repeatedly suggested that the Bible, particularly the Gospels are being rejected as objects of faith, but I'm looking to analyze whether the stories in them are direct testimony, or simply verbal traditions put to paper. This is very important to getting to whatever truth there is to be found. If just one story is found to have figurative representations, something already stated by my opponent, then it doesn't disprove Jesus, of course, but we certainly have found a reason to not treat the bible as a work of direct witness.

Looking at what they actually are, how they fit into the picture brings us closer to the truth of historicity, not further. Anyone genuinely looking to explore the claim of historicity would want to explore these questions and entertain them if they have merit or lay them to rest if they don't. As of yet, it seems we cannot do either, mostly because Balders refuses to directly address the issue without someone tricking him into it.

My larger issue is that he described the text I was discussing as both representative and 100% true, with some arranging of existence. When I bring it up he claims I'm lying about the meaning of what he said, but when asked to clarify, he says he's already done so, though the best he's linked to is a case where he suggest that topic is a red herring (with no explanation of why it's a red herring) and a change of subject.

We're discussing the historicity of Jesus the Christ. It's been repeatedly suggested that the Bible, particularly the Gospels are being rejected as objects of faith, but I'm looking to analyze whether the stories in them are direct testimony, or simply verbal traditions put to paper. This is very important to getting to whatever truth there is to be found. If just one story is found to have figurative representations, something already stated by my opponent, then it doesn't disprove Jesus, of course, but we certainly have found a reason to not treat the bible as a work of direct witness.

Looking at what they actually are, how they fit into the picture brings us closer to the truth of historicity, not further. Anyone genuinely looking to explore the claim of historicity would want to explore these questions and entertain them if they have merit or lay them to rest if they don't. As of yet, it seems we cannot do either, mostly because Balders refuses to directly address the issue without someone tricking him into it.

I know- that post seemed to be the most recent example I could find of a major point Balderdash71964 didn't address, which is what you have been chiding him for all along. I felt the mudslinging dragged away from the topic a bit and maybe some perspective would direct it back on course.

You and Grave_n_idle are right though- understanding precisely the words in the Bible is fundamental to deriving whatever historical truth can be found in it. Thus, it's important not to miscategorize it or its stories because doing actually sets back the quest for truth as whatever conclusions drawn will be done on flimsy grounds. We can't give the Bible any special favours in historical analysis simply because it's a religious text- if it's to be judged as a text that describes history it's got to be held to the same standards as the other texts- doing it any other way does it a disservice.

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.


Question for you Baldy, if you would.

Why is your interperetation above the only correct one? Why cant the story of Barrabas and Jesus mean anything else?
Why couldnt it also, or even especially make a point of the populaces intense desire to see Jesus killed? Especially considering Jesus' stance on the Jewish authorities, and to a lesser degree, the Roman.

Particularly if we are temporarily assuming he existed, the entire reason he would have been executed for is "rabble rousing", or even for being seen as a threat as he gained more and more followers.

If the Jews and Romans both are shown (with the exception of Pilate himself, who "washed his hands" of the whole mess) to really want Jesus' execution, this makes thier "sudden conversion", (as in the case of Longinus) MUCH more dramatic, in the end, no?

Personally, I find your interperetation a bit of a stretch.

Question for you Baldy, if you would.

Why is your interperetation above the only correct one? Why cant the story of Barrabas and Jesus mean anything else?
Why couldnt it also, or even especially make a point of the populaces intense desire to see Jesus killed? Especially considering Jesus' stance on the Jewish authorities, and to a lesser degree, the Roman.

Particularly if we are temporarily assuming he existed, the entire reason he would have been executed for is "rabble rousing", or even for being seen as a threat as he gained more and more followers.

If the Jews and Romans both are shown (with the exception of Pilate himself, who "washed his hands" of the whole mess) to really want Jesus' execution, this makes thier "sudden conversion", (as in the case of Longinus) MUCH more dramatic, in the end, no?

Personally, I find your interperetation a bit of a stretch.

I don't, actually. I think it's pretty well-supported that only Jesus was there at all, thus the made up practice, and the name that is another title for Jesus the Christ. In the telling it gained some of what you're describing, in protecting the Romans from fault, but also gained the allegorical context that gives us a story that almost directly represents the sacrifice of the Son of Man for mankind. The innocent is killed and the "sinner" goes free. That's why Barabbas becomes a murderer, the worst kind of sin.

What I do find a stretch is that story just happens to become a perfect allegory, have so many historical holes, but is 100% true. That is a stretch Reed Richards couldn't pull off.

I don't, actually....What I do find a stretch is that story just happens to become a perfect allegory, have so many historical holes, but is 100% true. That is a stretch Reed Richards couldn't pull off.

I agree.

However, for a moment, I wanted to break away from the last ten pages.
Just for the sake of "moving along", we're taking the story as its presented. Its historicity aside, Im asking why Blady's interperetation is the "right" one.

As I said, it makes for some nice added drama, and displays the guilt of all parties involved, most especially the man who actually delivers the coupe de grace.

That doesn't really address any of the points made, now does it?

By that point I wasn't trying to address his issues (real or imaginary or intentionally obtuse as they may or may not be for any issue he brings up). He by that time was saying that my defense was miracle based and he was attacking that façade that he had built himself. Realizing that debating with Jocabia isn’t really debating at all because you have to spend ninety percent of your time (or so it seems) correcting his mischaracterization of your own side…

The figure of Barabbas does work very well as a later addition to the story, for the reasons set out. There is no verifiable way of tracking Barabbas, and there is no evidence that the Romans allowed (or would have allowed) the 'tradition' that allegedly freed Barabbas.

What the source doesn't mention, is another possibility - That the 'Barabbas' in the text IS Jesus... that the two characters are actually one, and that - in the 'original' story, Jesus was allowed to go free. In a later rendition, Jesus is crucified, so how do you deal with the story that everyone has heard in the oral tradition up to this point? Simple - you rename one of your 'Jesus' figures. Just enough to cloud the identity, whilst not being an actual lie.

Admittedly, the gospels differ on if it was a roman custom or a Jewish custom but they agree in saying it happened. They have the person of the roman governor correct, they give the location (and we know this to be a real historical location) and the event described can be seen as a superstitous governor who resisted killing Jesus for a crime he thought he was innocent of but used the occasion to obtain pledges of loyalty from his subjects (when the crowd is saying we have no king but Caesar, them are essentially making loyalty pledges for the future. There is enough evidence to suggest that the basic facts of the case are still intact in the narrative, what then causes us to question the Barabbas event as unhistorical in the midst of what otherwise seems to be an archaeologically supported story?

Far fetched? Maybe - but hardly unprecedented - after all, at least two people kill Goliath - but the identity of the victim is clouded, by referring to him as 'Goliath of Gath' and 'Goliath the Gittite' (ignoring the fact that someone from Gath IS a Gittite. The issue is further clouded by the addition of "the brother of" intot he text, but not from any translational source).
I can’t ‘prove’ the story is true, nor can I ‘prove’ that the supposition that Jesus Barabbas and Jesus from Galilee are not one and the same. But IF Christ was rebel leader who attempted to raise an army or start an insurrection at the temple (during the table turning or some such thing), one would think that his ‘army’ of followers would have been executed with him as well, but Pilate never mentions going out and trying to arrest other Galileans. No, the narrative stories tells us that Barabbas may have been nothing more than a murderer with terrorists ties and THAT does not fit the speculative description of Jesus from even the minimalist’s perspective of a real historical Jesus.

So... Barabbas was real? Or a narrative device? Which are we deciding?

I'm supporting both. I don't see how either is an either/or exclusionary proposition. Real and emphasized by all four gospel sources because its a strong narrative event for them.

Question for you Baldy, if you would.

Why is your interperetation above the only correct one? Why cant the story of Barrabas and Jesus mean anything else?
It could mean something else, but I can point to who the authors were and why the were telling the story at all. What motivated them to publish it? I attempt to present the generic “Christian” perspective. ( I admit many Christians will disagree with what level of correctness I present that perspective though )


Why couldnt it also, or even especially make a point of the populaces intense desire to see Jesus killed? Especially considering Jesus' stance on the Jewish authorities, and to a lesser degree, the Roman.
Which crowd do you think was there? I contend that is was a crowd that consisted lof the priests and their ilk, come to the governors residence with Jesus in tow early in the morning to quickly end it. There is no reason to assume the poor city populace in general (people who would have been Jesus supporters) would have been allowed to just 'hangs out' in front of the governors' house waiting for things to happen. In the same way a pro choice rally can chant one thing on the street in front of the white house and the very next day a pro life rally can be held in the exact same spot with a totally new 'crowd' chanting for the exact opposite thing as the crowd the day before. Different day, different crowd.

Particularly if we are temporarily assuming he existed, the entire reason he would have been executed for is "rabble rousing", or even for being seen as a threat as he gained more and more followers.
IF that's why Pilate had him executed we have nothing to base that assumption on. There is no reason to believe that a hard man accustomed to ordering the harsh treatment of malcontents (Pilate) would need a guilty' person to punish. However, the narrative does say that Pilate became 'afraid' of punishing him (and a very likely reason would be that Pilate was a superstitious man who fear 'bad karma' so to speak if he killed an innocent 'magic man.') But to suppose that Jesus was a rabble rouser, how come Pilate didn't go out to arrest the rest of Jesus' troublemakers? Likely because he didn't think Jesus was guilty of rabble rousing in a rebellious way toward his authority.

If the Jews and Romans both are shown (with the exception of Pilate himself, who "washed his hands" of the whole mess) to really want Jesus' execution, this makes thier "sudden conversion", (as in the case of Longinus) MUCH more dramatic, in the end, no?

Personally, I find your interperetation a bit of a stretch.

Of course you find my interpretation a bit of stretch ;)

By that point I wasn't trying to address his issues (real or imaginary or intentionally obtuse as they may or may not be for any issue he brings up). He by that time was saying that my defense was miracle based and he was attacking that façade that he had built himself. Realizing that debating with Jocabia isn’t really debating at all because you have to spend ninety percent of your time (or so it seems) correcting his mischaracterization of your own side…

Uh-huh. You mean that I got you to specifically say "he was arranged to exist". Who arrranged for him to exist and how did they do it without a miracle? Feel free to clarify. We all know why you won't. You've been called on it by all but one person in the thread.

"He keeps on focusing on the stuff I don't want to talk about instead of the strengths of my claim like I'd prefer. I hate when people do that." When you suggest everyone is ALWAYS reading you wrong, even the guy who politely looked at the two posts and told you about how your statements suggest an author making up the character, the only way to get you to take a firm stance on what your posts say is to just wildly guess and force you to explain them. However, on the two posts in question, I'm not wildly guessing. I'm quoting them and offering you a chance FOR ONCE to act like you're trying to make a rational point and explain what you meant instead of dancing around trying not to get nailed down to anything.

You're not the first person to get caught foolishing thinking they can simply avoid the weak points in their argument by ignoring them or acting like they've addressed by saying things that are either meaningless or off-topic and you won't be the first one to get away with it.


Admittedly, the gospels differ on if it was a roman custom or a Jewish custom but they agree in saying it happened. They have the person of the roman governor correct, they give the location (and we know this to be a real historical location) and the event described can be seen as a superstition governor who resisted killing Jesus for a crime he thought he was innocent of but used the occasion to obtain pledges of loyalty from his subjects (when the crowd is saying we have no king but Caesar, them are essentially making loyalty pledges for the future. There is enough evidence to suggest that the basic facts of the case are still intact in the narrative, what then causes us to question the Barabbas event as unhistorical in the midst of what otherwise seems to be an archaeologically supported story?

That it has some truth is not the issue. The issue is that so much of the story is up in the air defies your claim that it's an eyewitness account.


I can’t ‘prove’ the story is true, nor can I ‘prove’ that the supposition that Jesus Barabbas and Jesus from Galilee are not one and the same. But IF Christ was rebel leader who attempted to raise an army or start an insurrection at the temple (during the table turning or some such thing), one would think that his ‘army’ of followers would have been executed with him as well, but Pilate never mentions going out and trying to arrest other Galileans. No, the narrative stories tells us that Barabbas may have been nothing more than a murderer with terrorists ties and THAT does not fit the speculative description of Jesus from even the minimalist’s perspective of a real historical Jesus.

The narratives tell us all sorts of crimes that Barabbas committed. Wildly different crimes. The contradictions in those accounts give us reason to disregard them as innaccurate and likely made-up. That doesn't address the rest of the story though, or why the "eyewitness" accounts got it so wrong.



I'm supporting both. I don't see how either is an either/or exclusionary proposition. Real and emphasized by all four gospel sources because its a strong narrative event for them.

You claimed this is an eyewitness account. Narrative devices don't happen in real life. Real people don't represent abstract ideas.

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.

You discuss possibilities about the name of Barabbas and whatnot, but you move past the possibilities to the main point of the story. Here you explicitly call Barabbas a representational character and say if one doesn't realize that they are misunderstanding 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?

Who arranged for the existence of Barabbas and how?

You've avoided answering the question. You admit you've avoided answering the question. And I've been asking you about this event for several weeks now, for good reason. It easily and clearly demonstrates that this story is representative by your own admission. It can't be both figurative and an true eyewitness account at the same time. Real life doesn't work that way.

Now, as long as you have no way to dismiss the issue with representational characters in real life, your claim this is an eyewitness account is thoroughly debunked.

There's my problem - and that's why I need Balders to hop back on and tell me which premise we are accepting for the debate:

The testimony is narrative and malleable - and thus, not 'eyewitness testimony' in any real sense... but it DOES have the advantage of being open to such nice motifs as (apparent) setpieces like allegory...

Or:

The testimony is all true, and factual, and presented as-it-happened from eyewitnesses... with the disadvantage that things that LOOK like allegory, or narrative convenience, MUST actually be 100% real.

I wonder which one we're going with? I favour the narrative option, myself.

You'll note that your answer of both, once again avoids the question. He is talking about whether the characters are representative, in which case your claim it is eyewitness testimony is false, or your claim of it being eyewitness testimony is true. Your answer was both. You see why I'm giving you a hard time about refusing to be clear. How is it both an eyewitness account and made up?

It's relevant to the debate- if Barabbas is in fact real then there's a chance the Passover ritual stated in the Gospels is also real, as Barabbas is central to that part of the story. If Barabbas is not, then at least that part of the story has some serious inconsistencies, to say the least.
I agree with the premise, if Barabbas doesn’t exist the whole narrative is brought into question, yes… I also suspect that this a cause of why it is being challenged in this manner in the first place, the challenge is based on nothing but pure speculation and the arguments main proof is the lack of physical evidence of Barabbas is a evidence of negative of Christ and the narrative. (That’s why I called it tinfoil hat theology, the requirement that we can only know the truth via ‘conspiracies’ revealed)

Now, if I can weigh in on your little quarrel with Jocabia, it seems to me from glancing at the posts that quite a bit of it has to do with the fact you've never directly replied to this:


If you have, point it to me.

I had said this earlier in defense of my spelling:
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.
The significance of the difference would be that one is nothing more than a surname applied via the person’s heritage and the other might be a description of the person in question. That the difference is in the eye of the reader, not that there would be any difference in the spelling on the source material (which was a big contention of Jocabia that he claimed I had to be wrong about, but then said he was lying on purpose just to get me to react...and so on and so forth ad nauseaum)... so I dropped it entirely thereafter as assuming it was finished.

In this context, Biblical criticism isn't out of place- we *are* dealing with validating what's in the text and if the text has some historical inconsistencies and errors they're worth pointing out.
I’m not he author of this thread, AND even if Jocabia and others say that they think this is appropriate here, we also have people saying it is not. But to begin biblical criticism is then to demand a biblical apologetic response from me, it defiantly leads to questions outside of the ‘Did Jesus Exist’ parameter.

The rest of John 18:16 explains that Peter did enter the courtyard, and John 18:28-29 is ambiguous with regards to who saw the Barabbas episode- in John 18:28, the Jews were said to have waited outside the palace doors, where, in John 18:29, Pilate came out to address them. So, presumably Peter and the other disciple could have been in the crowd, but John does not say that for sure.
I would assume that Peter is not still there but that the other disciple was still there (the other disciple possibly being John himself). But if the disciple was John or someone else, the narrative of Barabbas in found in more than one gospel, it has long standing in the narrative itself, in other words, outside of Luke, the accusation that Barabbas is a mistake or misunderstanding is an accusation against the original authors, not an addition to the earlier works. In other words, it’s not a ‘mistake’ that the gospels say what they say about Barabbas, they say what they say and they’ve always said it (again, with the outside possible exception of Luke’s account of Barabbas).

It still doesn't discount the possibility that the Barabbas tale is at least garbled- maybe Peter and the other disciple didn't get a chance to see Pilate and Jesus standing together and maybe misheard Pilate (I'm going to doubt that Pilate had a firm grasp of Aramaic if he spoke it at all, considering Pilate's own disdain for the Jews and the fact that the Romans routinely issued decrees in their native Latin regardless of whether or not the locals understood the language) or didn't catch what he said completely. Instead of there being two people, it's entirely possible that Pilate really asked the Jews "how do you see Jesus? The Son of the Father or King of the Jews?" (upon which the latter response would label Jesus a political opponent and thus worthy of execution), with maybe the other call for Barabbas being for Caiaphas, the High Priest who was present at the proceedings, to address the crowd. However, because Peter and the disciple didn't catch the whole episode for whatever reason they mistakenly assumed there were two prisoners instead of one and that's how Barabbas got "created" Biblically.
Speculation is fun, but its still speculation. To suggest Barabbas was an linguistic misunderstanding would then have to account for why there was any folklore legends about Barabbas the person after the event? Some of the non biblical Barabbas stories (although thy don’t have to be true, I’m pointing out that they existed very early) have to be accounted for? Why make up stories about someone if that everyone knows doesn’t exist? I’m pointing out that the earliest Christians must have believed Barabbas must have been a real person, not a choice the ‘crowd’ made what kind of criminal they thought Jesus to be.


Still doesn't lend much credence to its historicity though- we've still got the problem that no other source outside of the Bible mentions Pilate's practice here, plus it seems out of character (as depicted by Josephus, anyway) for Pilate to even consider respecting Jewish customs.

I take a different position, one that suggests that Pilate was careful and purposeful in regard to customs of the Jews in order to avoid revolts and uprisings in his troublesome province, we all know he had a hard enough time doing it though. Even the shields his soldiers’ carried could cause headaches for him just from the logos they bore. I’m not saying he was good at it, I’m saying he was aware of the small things that could set them off and thus he complied to ease his own life, not make theirs easier.

Who arranged for the existence of Barabbas and how?

You've avoided answering the question. You admit you've avoided answering the question. And I've been asking you about this event for several weeks now, for good reason. It easily and clearly demonstrates that this story is representative by your own admission. It can't be both figurative and an true eyewitness account at the same time. Real life doesn't work that way.

Now, as long as you have no way to dismiss the issue with representational characters in real life, your claim this is an eyewitness account is thoroughly debunked.

You are a red faced liar. YOU KNOW I answered it, I will quote YOU answering my answer that proves you know I answered it.

Oh, that's good. I wasn't intending the 'at odds' with each other, but yes, I can see that. What I was thinking of though would be more along the lines of a real person example that the author was sure to make an example of. Such as Peter failing. Making sure it apears in the gospel and making sure that the reader sees the lesson for the rest of us (that even the best of us fail and have to get back up and keep trying because we can find success in Christ later etc., etc., etc.,) but making sure that the story appears in the written account in a way that inspires in no way was ment to imply that the event intself didn't take place and/or was invented by the author. Actually, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think you were suggesting the author arranged, but rather God (or Jesus) arranged it. Was that not what you said? If so, there would be no conflict between the two posts.

You know I already answered it. You are mischaracterizing my argument on purpose so that you can pretend that I made a God-Gambit defense. Why do you do that? Because you don't really debate, you lie instead. You pretend someone says something they did not say so you can attack what you made up instead of what they actually say. You never ‘gave’ me the benefit of the doubt at all, you took a few words and you tried to twist them into an argument that you wanted me to say because you wanted to attack that. You always misunderstand OR you always mischaracterize arguments, your choice.

You want to twist words, fine, do it all day long but leave your fake version of what you pretend are my arguments out of it. I’m not debating with someone that lies, there too many other people here to debate with I’m not going to waste time on someone that wants to make false accusations just to see how someone responds to a false charge…

I agree with the premise, if Barabbas doesn’t exist the whole narrative is brought into question, yes… I also suspect that this is a it is being challenged in this manner in the first place, the challenge is based on nothing but pure speculation and the arguments main proof is the lack of physical evidence of Barabbas is a evidence of negative of Christ and the narrative. (That’s why I called it tinfoil hat theology, the requirement that we can only know the truth via ‘conspiracies’ revealed)

Um, no one is alleging a conspiracy. I am alleging that the story bears the mark of being retold over and over until certain parts get lost in telling (or added). You have admitted that it bears the mark of representative characters. And rather than explain how a real person could represent an abstract you claimed that I'm denying the power of Jesus arranging for such a character to exist.


I had said this earlier in defense of my spelling:
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.
The significance of the difference would be that one is nothing more than a surname applied via the person’s heritage and the other might be a description of the person in question. That the difference is in the eye of the reader, not that there would be any difference in the spelling on the source material (which was a big contention of Jocabia that he claimed I had to be wrong about, but then said he was lying on purpose just to get me to react...and so on and so forth ad nauseaum)... so I dropped it entirely thereafter as assuming it was finished.

Again, you drop them all seperately as not important and then claim it's tinfoil hat theology. It's not theology, it's history, first of all. Second, it's yet another mark of the story going through many retellings. It resembles other stories in the Bible that were passed orally. If it were the only thing, you could wave it off, but since it's not and everything consistently demonstrates the marks of a oft retold story, you need to address the points together.



I’m not he author of this thread, AND even if Jocabia and others say that they think this is appropriate here, we also have people saying it is not. But to begin biblical criticism is then to demand a biblical apologetic response from me, it defiantly leads to questions outside of the ‘Did Jesus Exist’ parameter.

This isn't about the theology. I know you keep claiming this, but this isn't about the faith. It's about whether the stories about Jesus can be said to be eyewitness accounts, which is VERY pertinent to the whether Jesus exist. We are talking about history, not theology. Because it's a discussion of the Bible doesn't make it theology and more than carbon dating a copy of the ilead is a book club.

Meanwhile, the author of the thread echoed some of my question. Also, in General, the OP's do not own the thread. If the information is pertinent to the discussion, it's pertinent. No one sets that.

Are you honestly claiming that a discussion of the historicity of the Jesus stories found in the Bible are not pertinent to whether or not he existed?

And it has been pointed out to you that:
1) this isn't a court of law thus the hearsay rule is immaterial
2) You stated they were eye-witness accounts
3) You then stated they were not eye-witness accounts

As you can see, the OP has often joined in the discussion of whether or no the Gospels are eye-witness, which is what I'm discussing. I happen to be focusing on a particular story, since showing that one is not eyewitness debunks your claim that the Gospels are a faithful (read: legitmate, not religious faith) attempt at collecting the eyewitness accounts, since in order for that to be true, it must be only eyewitness accounts, something you've also said.

Um, no one is alleging a conspiracy. I am alleging that the story bears the mark of being retold over and over until certain parts get lost in telling (or added). You have admitted that it bears the mark of representative characters. And rather than explain how a real person could represent an abstract you claimed that I'm denying the power of Jesus arranging for such a character to exist.

Liar. Stop.

You are a red faced liar. YOU KNOW I answered it, I will quote YOU answering my answer that proves you know I answered it.



You know I already answered it. You are mischaracterizing my argument on purpose so that you can pretend that I made a God-Gambit defense. Why do you do that? Because you don't really debate, you lie instead. You pretend someone says something they did not say so you can attack what you made up instead of what they actually say. You never ‘gave’ me the benefit of the doubt at all, you took a few words and you tried to twist them into an argument that you wanted me to say because you wanted to attack that. You always misunderstand OR you always mischaracterize arguments, your choice.

You want to twist words, fine, do it all day long but leave your fake version of what you pretend are my arguments out of it. I’m not debating with someone that lies, there too many other people here to debate with I’m not going to waste time on someone that wants to make false accusations just to see how someone responds to a false charge…

Your ad hominems don't address the issue.

That is not an answer.

Again, how was the existence of Barabbas arranged? You did not answer that. You said you weren't claiming Barabbas wasn't real. That has never been my question. You answered another person's point about whether your statement intended to say that Barabbas was ONLY a character (made-up). You really don't understand the question?

You said explicitly Barabbas was "arranged to exist". By whom? How?

You said so in response to another claim BY YOU that Barabbas is a representative character. I told you representative characters don't exist in real life and suggested it gives indication of the story not actually being a truthful retelling, and you explained it by saying Barabbas could have been arranged to exist. Again, how? Why?

Simple questions. Answer them.

Yes or no, did you say that Barabbas represents mankind? Yes or no, did you say that Barabbas was "arranged to exist"? If those two are true, explain how one arranges to exist outside of miracles. Explain how one makes real life people representative outside of miracles.

Liar. Stop.

Heh. Again, ad hominem. I have quotes. It clearly states that. If you intended something else, then explain what you intended. What you told the person in the quote you showed me responding to is that you didn't intend to claim that Barabbas wasn't a real character. I agree. I've never said otherwise. I simply asked how this real character could represent mankind in a real story that can't possilby have allegorical elements. When you stated that Jesus predicted his death three times, at least, you stated that it was also possible for Jesus to arrange for Barabbas to exist.

Don't both denying what I've quoted you saying. Your nonsensical flames really don't help your argument. In fact, they evidence that you don't have one.

...
This isn't about the theology. I know you keep claiming this, but this isn't about the faith. It's about whether the stories about Jesus can be said to be eyewitness accounts, which is VERY pertinent to the whether Jesus exist. We are talking about history, not theology. Because it's a discussion of the Bible doesn't make it theology and more than carbon dating a copy of the ilead is a book club.
...

This is a lie of yours too. But perhaps this one is because you really don't know the difference and you don't understand the terms used. So I'll clarify it so you stop lying about what my position is.

Biblical Criticism =/= Theological discussion.

Biblical criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism) is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."

This is a lie of yours too. But perhaps this one is because you really don't know the difference and you don't understand the terms used. So I'll clarify it so you stop lying about what my position is.

Biblical Criticism =/= Theological discussion.

Biblical criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism) is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."

I'm talking about the historicity of the Bible. It's not a theological discussion. You claimed it was.

I agree with the premise, if Barabbas doesn’t exist the whole narrative is brought into question, yes… I also suspect that this a cause of why it is being challenged in this manner in the first place, the challenge is based on nothing but pure speculation and the arguments main proof is the lack of physical evidence of Barabbas is a evidence of negative of Christ and the narrative. (That’s why I called it tinfoil hat theology, the requirement that we can only know the truth via ‘conspiracies’ revealed)

Shall I quote all the times you referred to the specific discussion I'm having as theology. You mixed the terms. I simply explained to you why this isn't theology and why it's relevant to the discussion. That you forgot that you keep calling my criticism theology is a poor reason to say I'm lying.

Not all discussion of the Bible is theological.

Meanwhile, you recognize the difference between being wrong and lying. I've been tolerant, but please desist with the flames. It's time. if you're incapable of calmly and rationally debating without flames, then perhaps it's time to step away from the computer.

Um, no one is alleging a conspiracy. I am alleging that the story bears the mark of being retold over and over until certain parts get lost in telling (or added). You have admitted that it bears the mark of representative characters. And rather than explain how a real person could represent an abstract you claimed that I'm denying the power of Jesus arranging for such a character to exist.

Liar. Stop.

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?

Liar, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balderdash71964
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?

Liar, huh?

Since it is a question to you, the lying question is not being addressed. He is posing the question of if 'a' then don't you think it would be possible for 'b' to occur. It does not require a conclusion, it is a 'what if' scenario.

Heh. Again, ad hominem. I have quotes. ...

It's not ad hominem, you keep saying I haven't responded to things and I quote you responding to them youself, the words of mine you say don't exist. I tell you that you are mischaracterizing my arguments and to stop, and you refuse and continue to say that I say something that is not my position anyway and knowingly. That makes you a liar.

Please stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balderdash71964
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?



Since it is a question to you, the lying question is not being addressed. He is posing the question of if 'a' then don't you think it would be possible for 'b' to occur. It does not require a conclusion, it is a 'what if' scenario.

You don't know what a rhetorical is, huh?

You think it's unbelievable that a car could actually crash into a bridge? The wording of a question is important, because it's suggestive of the answer you want me to arrive at.

"Don't you think James is an idiot?"
"What? I didn't call him an idiot. I just asked if you thought he was."

It's not ad hominem, you keep saying I haven't responded to things and I quote you responding to them youself, the words of mine you say don't exist. I tell you that you are mischaracterizing my arguments and to stop, and you refuse and continue to say that I say something that is not my position anyway and knowingly. That makes you a liar.

Please stop.

When you respond to my relevant points with "Liar. Stop." It's the definition of ad hominem, it's also a flame.

You have an ignore button. I won't stop posting my objections to your supports for the historicity of Jesus, nor will I continue showing how you've not adequately addressed those objects. At all. You are welcome to ignore my replies even electronically if you so please. That won't make them less responsive or adequate, simply unchallenged.

Your response didn't address what you actually meant. It told what you didn't mean. You've been very clear about all the things your post didn't mean. I'm asking you to explain what you meant by suggesting it's not unbelievable that Barabbas was arranged to exist.

When you respond to my relevant points with "Liar. Stop." It's the definition of ad hominem, it's also a flame.

You have an ignore button. I won't stop posting my objections to your supports for the historicity of Jesus, nor will I continue showing how you've not adequately addressed those objects. At all. You are welcome to ignore my replies even electronically if you so please. That won't make them less responsive or adequate, simply unchallenged.

Your response didn't address what you actually meant. It told what you didn't mean. You've been very clear about all the things your post didn't mean. I'm asking you to explain what you meant by suggesting it's not unbelievable that Barabbas was arranged to exist.

You are attempting character assasination and I'm supposed to just let you have at it? I think not. Especially since you are not attacking MY positions, only your fake versions of what you call my positions. It's not flame to point out where you are being untruthful.

Please stop.

You are attempting character assasination and I'm supposed to just let you have at it? I think not. Especially since you are not attacking MY positions, only your fake versions of what you call my positions. It's not flame to point out where you are being untruthful.

Please stop.

Given that he's been debating you, and you've repeatedly responded not with anything actually substantive, but rather to call him a liar, suggesting that he is the one attempting character assassination is more than a little laughable.

You are attempting character assasination and I'm supposed to just let you have at it? I think not. Especially since you are not attacking MY positions, only your fake versions of what you call my positions. It's not flame to point out where you are being untruthful.

Please stop.

You've called me a liar in EVERY POST for about 10 in a row and I'm attacking YOUR character?

I am attacking your positions. I'm giving you a direct and serious opportunity to clarify your posts. You've said what they don't mean. You will not explain what they mean. You will not directly answer my objections to your arguments and how you explain a representative character being "arranged to exist" in real life.

It is a flame to make entire posts that say I'm a liar. I'm not lying to say that you are unwilling to explain those two posts. Nobody has gotten you to respond with anything but saying you didn't mean to say the character isn't real. I realize that. I'm asking you to explain how a real character can represent an abstract as you said he did and how he can be arranged to exist as you also suggested. These are honest questions to your attempted defense for this story being that of eyewitnesses. This IS the discussion.

If you can't respond with anything but "LIAR", then I suggest you refrain from responding. It's not debate. It's ad hominem. Worse, though, you're not allowed to attack people personally and repeatedly on this forum. Whether you've actually crossed the line is a question for the mods, but it would be much better if you'd stop talking about the person and return the argument the person is making.

You've called me a liar in EVERY POST for about 10 in a row and I'm attacking YOUR character?....

And I told you repeatedly since (ten pages ago according to you, I'm not checking) I'm not going to debate with you. get over yourself and stop.

Given that he's been debating you, and you've repeatedly responded not with anything actually substantive, but rather to call him a liar, suggesting that he is the one attempting character assassination is more than a little laughable.

You can see my debates and positions, it's not like I'm hiding them. Plenty of responses all through the last ten pages (to other people with real questions and challenges).

You can see my debates and positions, it's not like I'm hiding them. Plenty of responses all through the last ten pages (to other people with real questions and challenges).

Given that the last 10 posts of your have been "Liar. Stop." One has to wonder if your definition of debate is different from everyone else's.

Actually he is not debating, just being argumentative.

*chuckle* Yes, because you've done such a good job at staying objective in this discussion.

Given that he's been debating you, and you've repeatedly responded not with anything actually substantive, but rather to call him a liar, suggesting that he is the one attempting character assassination is more than a little laughable.

Actually he is not debating, just being argumentative.

You've called me a liar in EVERY POST for about 10 in a row and I'm attacking YOUR character?

I am attacking your positions. I'm giving you a direct and serious opportunity to clarify your posts. You've said what they don't mean. You will not explain what they mean. You will not directly answer my objections to your arguments and how you explain a representative character being "arranged to exist" in real life.

It is a flame to make entire posts that say I'm a liar. I'm not lying to say that you are unwilling to explain those two posts. Nobody has gotten you to respond with anything but saying you didn't mean to say the character isn't real. I realize that. I'm asking you to explain how a real character can represent an abstract as you said he did and how he can be arranged to exist as you also suggested. These are honest questions to your attempted defense for this story being that of eyewitnesses. This IS the discussion.

If you can't respond with anything but "LIAR", then I suggest you refrain from responding. It's not debate. It's ad hominem. Worse, though, you're not allowed to attack people personally and repeatedly on this forum. Whether you've actually crossed the line is a question for the mods, but it would be much better if you'd stop talking about the person and return the argument the person is making.

Ah the victim. You do play it well.

Ah the victim. You do play it well.

Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion or anything to say on-topic or are you hear to attack me as well? I mean, I find it amusing at all, but you could, well, pretend like you're not just miffed that I soundly defeated your argument, and continue on the topic, or move on.

Continuing to pop in to show your dislike for me is, well, kind of sad, don't you think?

The topic is the historicity of Jesus. You got anything?

And I told you repeatedly since (ten pages ago according to you, I'm not checking) I'm not going to debate with you. get over yourself and stop.

That's okay. I'm going to debate with you. You don't get to require me to stop responding meaningfully to your flawed assertions, no matter how many times you call me a liar.

You don't get to substitute personal attacks for arguments unchallenged.

You've openly said that you aren't actually addressing my arguments anymore (when you point out that your meaningful debate has been directed at other people), so you can either ignore me altogether or continue to flame. Only one of those, however, is going to further attack your own willingness to support your arguments.

And I told you repeatedly since (ten pages ago according to you, I'm not checking) I'm not going to debate with you. get over yourself and stop.

It is basically impossible to 'debate' with someone with a non-position. They are arguing in a vacuum.

Since the original question is "Did Jesus exist?"

As far as I know it is not "Can you scientifically prove if or if they did not exist"

So by definition, it is basically asking for peoples opinions and why. Applying the 'scientific method' and debating in a vacuum are basically worthless.

So it begs the question... Why is jocabia even here? I mean if their point is to basically call people names for having an opinion they cannot substantiate to their satisfaction, they have done it consistently. I guess it makes them feel good.

In the final analysis, it will come down to opinions.

My opinion is this person, 'jesus' did not exist. I cannot prove it, nor do I have any intention of attempting it.

As to the rest, it is all smoke and mirrors, semantecs, and a vain attempt to discredit people for having opinions.

I am not attacking Balderdash for his position, but I do find his explanations well thought out.

The only thing that is certain is jocabia is only interested in arguing 'logic' (Their version of it). They should start a logic thread and beat people to death for the differences. It is after all their purpose.

Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion or anything to say on-topic or are you hear to attack me as well? I mean, I find it amusing at all, but you could, well, pretend like you're not just miffed that I soundly defeated your argument, and continue on the topic, or move on.

Continuing to pop in to show your dislike for me is, well, kind of sad, don't you think?

The topic is the historicity of Jesus. You got anything?

Feel better? I hope this therapy has helped you to become less angry.

Actually he is not debating, just being argumentative.

Your opinion. Whether you call it argumentative or not, I've still posted a reasonable objection to the claim that all of the stories are eyewitness accounts. That objection when explored just led to a wave of the hand dismissal, accusations of lying, a claim it's a red herring, an accusation of it being a conspiracy theory. Basically, the response to my objection has been anything but debate.

Which is it? A lie? A red herring? A conspiracy theory (one wonders what conspiracy I've alleged)? I keep hoping that inside of all this venom I'll see an actual argument, but when one appeared, one explicitly stating the purpose of the story and explaining how that purpose could have been achieved, I've struck hard on it. Because it's the first time a solid suggestion has been made.

That's how such analysis works. You present a theory, the flaws in it are explored and addressed. If they cannot be dismissed (actually dismissed, not ignored) then the theory doesn't hold up.

It is basically impossible to 'debate' with someone with a non-position. They are arguing in a vacuum.

Since the original question is "Did Jesus exist?"

As far as I know it is not "Can you scientifically prove if or if they did not exist"

So by definition, it is basically asking for peoples opinions and why. Applying the 'scientific method' and debating in a vacuum are basically worthless.

So it begs the question... Why is jocabia even here? I mean if their point is to basically call people names for having an opinion they cannot substantiate to their satisfaction, they have done it consistently. I guess it makes them feel good.

In the final analysis, it will come down to opinions.

My opinion is this person, 'jesus' did not exist. I cannot prove it, nor do I have any intention of attempting it.

As to the rest, it is all smoke and mirrors, semantecs, and a vain attempt to discredit people for having opinions.

I am not attacking Balderdash for his position, but I do find his explanations well thought out.

The only thing that is certain is jocabia is only interested in arguing 'logic' (Their version of it). They should start a logic thread and beat people to death for the differences. It is after all their purpose.

Amusing. Saying that the data does not compellingly lead to either conclusion IS a position, as has been explained to you. In order to prove my position, I have to attack the positions of others.

Agnosticism isn't a non-position. I deny that we have compelling knowledge here. That you refuse to acknowledge that position is a short-coming. It is not a reason to come in here and spend all of your time on ad hominem.

I invite you to engage in the topic rather than continuing to demonstrate your dislike for me. I recognize you don't like me. It's too bad because I'd kiss you if you were here. However, your dislike for me isn't relevant to the debate. At all. Your lack of understanding of whether logic is appropriate for a discussion of historicity is amusing and relevant to why you didn't understand my objections to your claims, but really they aren't making an argument FOR your claims. The opposite really.

...What the source doesn't mention, is another possibility - That the 'Barabbas' in the text IS Jesus... that the two characters are actually one, and that - in the 'original' story, Jesus was allowed to go free. In a later rendition, Jesus is crucified, so how do you deal with the story that everyone has heard in the oral tradition up to this point? Simple - you rename one of your 'Jesus' figures. Just enough to cloud the identity, whilst not being an actual lie.

Far fetched? Maybe - but hardly unprecedented - after all, at least two people kill Goliath - but the identity of the victim is clouded, by referring to him as 'Goliath of Gath' and 'Goliath the Gittite' (ignoring the fact that someone from Gath IS a Gittite. The issue is further clouded by the addition of "the brother of" intot he text, but not from any translational source).


When Balderdash originally said the Hebrew translation, I did some research on it. It occurred to me the story might have this element to it. I don't find it compelling, but I do find it an interesting possiblity. There are many contradictions in the pageant as to the dispositions of the characters.

Proof?
^^

The OP has repeatedly explained that the topic of the thread was intended to be the exitence of Jesus historically. He continually calls for evidence and points out where talking about historicity.

History has rules. It requires evidence. In order to justify the historicity of a figure, you have to show evidence.

NSG, what do you think history is if not a science?

Let's say I wanted to start a religion.
I would need a martyr for people to rally around, preferably one who died a long time ago before mass media. Can't have anybody digging up dirt on this guy like he hung a dog as a child or something.

Hmm, should he be from a wealthy family? A powerful one? Naw, people don't have sympathy for trust funders. Maybe the son of a poor blue collar worker, a carpenter. No wait! I want this martyr to be more than a human being. I've got it! The son of a virgin who was magically impregnated by a God...hmm, I wonder if that's too outrageous for people to buy. Well, I can only run it up the flagpole and see if it flies.

To help people swallow this, I'll say that this martyr can see what everyone is doing all the time (like Santa Claus). And if we worship him enough (and by all means do show our support with a nice donation to help spread the word) he will reward us by curing our ailments or causing our soccer team to go to state.

What about people who worship like crazy and don't get any reward? Won't they stop believing (read donating)? Can't have that. Got it! He's saving their rewards for after they die -- there will be a big payoff then. Nobody can prove that won't happen.

Did Jesus exist? Of course he did! Be sure to send money to help spread the word...I can arrange for a monthly donation to be deducted from your account to make it easier if you'd like.

Feel better? I hope this therapy has helped you to become less angry.

Oh, the irony. I'll let you know when I'm so angry that I only participate in a thread to attack a person. Until that happens, let's just stick to the topic. Savvy?

Let's say I wanted to start a religion.
I would need a martyr for people to rally around, preferably one who died a long time ago before mass media. Can't have anybody digging up dirt on this guy like he hung a dog as a child or something.

Hmm, should he be from a wealthy family? A powerful one? Naw, people don't have sympathy for trust funders. Maybe the son of a poor blue collar worker, a carpenter. No wait! I want this martyr to be more than a human being. I've got it! The son of a virgin who was magically impregnated by a God...hmm, I wonder if that's too outrageous for people to buy. Well, I can only run it up the flagpole and see if it flies.

To help people swallow this, I'll say that this martyr can see what everyone is doing all the time (like Santa Claus). And if we worship him enough (and by all means do show our support with a nice donation to help spread the word) he will reward us by curing our ailments or causing our soccer team to go to state.

What about people who worship like crazy and don't get any reward? Won't they stop believing (read donating)? Can't have that. Got it! He's saving their rewards for after they die -- there will be a big payoff then. Nobody can prove that won't happen.

Did Jesus exist? Of course he did! Be sure to send money to help spread the word...I can arrange for a monthly donation to be deducted from your account to make it easier if you'd like.

I have always felt it was about the money and power. Good one.

Ah the victim. You do play it well.

Ah, the topic. You do avoid it well.

Given that the last 10 posts of your have been "Liar. Stop." One has to wonder if your definition of debate is different from everyone else's.

I've not debated Jocabia at all (in the last ten pages) only asked him to stop mischaracterizing my positions, but I've addressed several other people in this thread and I am actively debating the discussion. But either way, Jocabia has reported the episode as flaming in the Mod forum, I’m sure we will get a ruling.

Quoting me, arguing with my positions, all fine, he can say whatever he wants. Mischaracterized my positions though, and continue to do so after I've told him that his representation of my position is not correct is dishonest at the root of it. I've asked him to stop mischaracterizing my position when he argues with it.

in the realm of academia nothing is left untainted by perspective, which is what many people fail to understand. Why is every one so caught up in the science and history which only reflect the time period. There was a time when science said that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, the bones of the behemoth creatures we know as dinosaurs were mistaken for the bones of the likes of herculese and other great heroes from the lore of the ancients.
Next i pose to you this question, do alternate universes exist? Science says so under the principles of quantum mechanics. So instead of questioning the existence of a carpenter that may or may have not lived two thousand years ago perhaps, perhaps you be questioning what is real in this century.

Ah, the topic. You do avoid it well.

Well at times yes. When the main poster is simply arguing the semantics and constantly affirming a non-position.

I find it funny a few pages back they implied I would 'report' them. Funny, it seems they reported it themselves.

Logically, remove the loudmouth from the thread but we will see how it shakes out.

in the realm of academia nothing is left untainted by perspective, which is what many people fail to understand. Why is every one so caught up in the science and history which only reflect the time period. There was a time when science said that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, the bones of the behemoth creatures we know as dinosaurs were mistaken for the bones of the likes of herculese and other great heroes from the lore of the ancients.
Next i pose to you this question, do alternate universes exist? Science says so under the principles of quantum mechanics. So instead of questioning the existence of a carpenter that may or may have not lived two thousand years ago perhaps, perhaps you be questioning what is real in this century.

A lot can be said for personal observation. It is a lot easier to question things you could never be a witness to.

Originally this thread was appealing because of the speculation and evidences presented but the thread has degraded into 'logical vacuums'.

Can't be bothered to read back that far...

Jocabia, what is your position in the debate? Just summarise it for me quickly, thanks.

I've not debated Jocabia at all (in the last ten pages) only asked him to stop mischaracterizing my positions, but I've addressed several other people in this thread and I am actively debating the discussion. But either way, Jocabia has reported the episode as flaming in the Mod forum, I’m sure we will get a ruling.

Quoting me, arguing with my positions, all fine, he can say whatever he wants. Mischaracterized my positions though, and continue to do so after I've told him that his representation of my position is not correct is dishonest at the root of it. I've asked him to stop mischaracterizing my position when he argues with it.

Then clarify your positions. In absense of clarification we are left to guess, which as I've said repeatedly I'll do, and enjoy it. Guessing isn't lying. I'm not attempting to make my characterization fly, I'm attempting to get you to stop equivocating and actualy STATE your position clearly.

You don't like it? I don't care. You can't handle it? I don't care. You deal with it by flaming me. I care. I've been patient. If you don't wish to debate me on a debate forum, fine. Then don't. Replying to me with insults while openly admitting you're unwilling to address the topic with me is something we've seen before a lot. I can tell you that if you do a search, you aren't going to find a lot of kudos from the mods on the topic.

I think that when you're clear and don't wriggle around the topic you can make a very decent argument whether I agree with it or not. Unfortunately, whenever we get into the territory where you can't find an adequate defense you do anything but debate. Other posters are happy to let you slide there, but I won't. Not for you. Not for Deus. Not for anyone trying to avoid the weakness in their arguments. Of course you don't like it. Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't make every effort to keep the debate to the areas where you're strong? But allowing you to do so, would be flawed on my part.

If you can't defend your argument from all sides, then your argument fails. You don't get to complain that I'm not supposed to force you to defend your major source's historicity in a discussion on the historicity of the subject of that source. You don't get to squirm and do everything but state your defense clearly. You don't get to point away and go 'look a shiny object". And you don't get to ignore debate and instead call me names.

Again, I really don't care what you'd like me to do. I'm going to drill the weaknesses in your argument till it breaks. And then, if you don't admit it's been broken, I'm going to kick around the pieces and point and laugh. All within the rules. All a common and effective way of debating. And all of it's gonna happen whether you participate or don't.

A lot can be said for personal observation. It is a lot easier to question things you could never be a witness to.

Originally this thread was appealing because of the speculation and evidences presented but the thread has degraded into 'logical vacuums'.

It's amusing how much being logical pisses you off and then you use a term "logical vaccum" which indicates devoid of logic. Only one of us suggested forcing this topic to adhere to logic isn't useful. My position in the absence of compelling evidence is the only logical one. That you're still complaining about it doesn't change that you don't get to assume a positive claim until you've offered compelling and unchallenged evidence. That's logical. You continue to demonstrate your ire over being shown that something isn't false till proven true.

Well at times yes. When the main poster is simply arguing the semantics and constantly affirming a non-position.

I find it funny a few pages back they implied I would 'report' them. Funny, it seems they reported it themselves.

Logically, remove the loudmouth from the thread but we will see how it shakes out.

Good thing you're not angry or expressing sour grapes. Just good clean rational debate being expressed here.

Anything ON-TOPIC?

Would anyone care to discuss, oh, I don't know, the historicity of Jesus the Christ? Or is the new topic Jocabia and whether or not it's okay for him to apply the rule of logic to discussions of historicity?

Would anyone care to discuss, oh, I don't know, the historicity of Jesus the Christ? Or is the new topic Jocabia and whether or not it's okay for him to apply the rule of logic to discussions of historicity?

So, what's your position on the historicity of Jesus?

Would anyone care to discuss, oh, I don't know, the historicity of Jesus the Christ? Or is the new topic Jocabia and whether or not it's okay for him to apply the rule of logic to discussions of historicity?

It's certainly seemed like it for the past dozen or so pages. Thankfully G-o-g's here now, and things will be a bit less "Liar. Stop." and more "*substantive post*"

in the realm of academia nothing is left untainted by perspective, which is what many people fail to understand. Why is every one so caught up in the science and history which only reflect the time period. There was a time when science said that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, the bones of the behemoth creatures we know as dinosaurs were mistaken for the bones of the likes of herculese and other great heroes from the lore of the ancients.
Next i pose to you this question, do alternate universes exist? Science says so under the principles of quantum mechanics. So instead of questioning the existence of a carpenter that may or may have not lived two thousand years ago perhaps, perhaps you be questioning what is real in this century.

Um, okay. Why are they mutually exclusive?

Why can't discuss the historicity of one of history's most influential figures, whether he existed or not, AND discuss other philosophical posits? And, why, if you think one is more important than the other, would you both to enter a thread at all?

My position is that it doesn't matter.

I know a guy who gets his moral compass from Yoda. He doesn't think Yoda really exists. All that matters, in his case, is that he has a model of moral behaviour to keep him from going to the Dark Side.

My position is that it doesn't matter.

I know a guy who gets his moral compass from Yoda. He doesn't think Yoda really exists. All that matters, in his case, is that he has a model of moral behaviour to keep him from going to the Dark Side.

Sounds pretty sensible.

Admittedly, the gospels differ on if it was a roman custom or a Jewish custom but they agree in saying it happened.


And there are no other sources to even support the custom.

Given that all the sources we do have originate in 'the same place', and that there is no corroboration, why accept it at all?


They have the person of the roman governor correct, they give the location (and we know this to be a real historical location)


So...a later author could name the governor, and knew roughly where the governor's residence was? That's hardly saying a lot.


...and the event described can be seen as a superstitous governor who resisted killing Jesus for a crime he thought he was innocent


Not really - if the story is true, then Jesus was presented to him as a claimant to kingship, in challenge to Rome - and Pilate didn't 'think him innocent' - he DECLARED him innocent.

On the other hand - where's the support for this story? That matches the Barabbas story, but the whole dialogue among the Jews has been about a false prophet, not a pretender king.


...of but used the occasion to obtain pledges of loyalty from his subjects (when the crowd is saying we have no king but Caesar, them are essentially making loyalty pledges for the future. There is enough evidence to suggest that the basic facts of the case are still intact in the narrative,


That Pilate existed, and that he lived in the governor's house? That and no more, maybe. We still can't verify the Passover tradition of releasing a prisoner - it certainly doesn't SOUND like the sort of thing Rome would have done.


...what then causes us to question the Barabbas event as unhistorical in the midst of what otherwise seems to be an archaeologically supported story?


If I say I saw Hitler turn into a monkey in the Aushchwitz prison camp, it is no more 'real' because the person and the place are real.

The elements of conflict look very much like a conflation of stories: A rebel leader, 'son of the father', who is tried but released for want of evidence, and a religious icon, son of The Father', who is (maybe?) tried and found guilty of a religious crime.

One or other may be false... one or other may be from an entirely different period. One may be a redaction of the other. We just don't know - but there's plenty of room to doubt.


I can’t ‘prove’ the story is true, nor can I ‘prove’ that the supposition that Jesus Barabbas and Jesus from Galilee are not one and the same. But IF Christ was rebel leader who attempted to raise an army or start an insurrection at the temple (during the table turning or some such thing), one would think that his ‘army’ of followers would have been executed with him as well, but Pilate never mentions going out and trying to arrest other Galileans. No, the narrative stories tells us that Barabbas may have been nothing more than a murderer with terrorists ties and THAT does not fit the speculative description of Jesus from even the minimalist’s perspective of a real historical Jesus.


Jesus was a false prophet, according to the Jews. IF the story is true. If you read the story as being about insurrection, then Jesus and Barabbas are practically interchangable. Worth mentioning - there IS plenty of amterial which can be taken as calling for revolt - which conflicts other parts of the text where he calls for calm, patience and cooperation. The whole Jesus story is a dichotomy on that agenda.

And that - is all the more reason to suspect that the whole text is redacted... (at least) two separate texts conflated.


I'm supporting both. I don't see how either is an either/or exclusionary proposition. Real and emphasized by all four gospel sources because its a strong narrative event for them.

You support both? You support the idea that the event is both real AND made-up?

Can't be bothered to read back that far...

Jocabia, what is your position in the debate? Just summarise it for me quickly, thanks.

I believe there is certainly enough evidence to make on think there is a real origin to the stories, but from a purely historical perspective such evidence is not compelling enough to settle at the conclusion that Jesus the Christ was a real figure or that he wasn't.

Personally, I'm Christian and believe he was real. My personal opinion has little to do with what I can demonstrate with evidence. Evidence forces one to be more agnostic as to the historicity.

People who don't recognize that data must drive conclusions in any science, don't accept this, but if the evidence was compelling enough for a conclusion the argument of respected scholars wouldn't be so common. It's rare to see a publication that casts doubt on evolution. That's because evolution has compelling evidence. If where you land is your own opinion and nothing more, then clearly you've not got compelling evidence.

NSG claimed the lack of evidence proves non-existence. Of course, it doesn't. She's upset because I showed why it doesn't. I had to. It's the only way to support my position.

Balder is upset that I cast doubt on his position as well. Again, I had to. My position requires that neither alternative position be compelling.

If I couldn't find the holes in either of their arguments, I'd have to admit that their argument is compelling and join them. I follow the evidence. Unlike the other two positions, by argument is defeatable by both sides if they have the evidence. However, neither can, which is why they agree with each other out of frustration with me.

Since the original question is "Did Jesus exist?"

As far as I know it is not "Can you scientifically prove if or if they did not exist"

So by definition, it is basically asking for peoples opinions and why. Applying the 'scientific method' and debating in a vacuum are basically worthless.


Err... no, exactly wrong.

Opinion is exactly what we are NOT talking about. The question isn't 'do you BELIEVE' in Jesus, or "do you BELIEVE Jesus existed"... it's DID Jesus REALLY exist.

Opinion has no place in that debate - the only answers worth anything are those that question his existence, or verify it.

You are attempting character assasination and I'm supposed to just let you have at it? I think not. Especially since you are not attacking MY positions, only your fake versions of what you call my positions. It's not flame to point out where you are being untruthful.

Please stop.

Looking at it from kind of sidelines - Jocabia presented a response to your argument, which you said misrepresented your argument.

Since then he's asked you to clearly state your argument, and you've called him a liar.

What IS the position he's misrepresenting? And how is it misrepresented? How can you keep claiming a lie, if you won't correct it?

I believe there is certainly enough evidence to make on think there is a real origin to the stories, but from a purely historical perspective such evidence is not compelling enough to settle at the conclusion that Jesus the Christ was a real figure or that he wasn't.

Personally, I'm Christian and believe he was real. My personal opinion has little to do with what I can demonstrate with evidence. Evidence forces one to be more agnostic as to the historicity.

There is not enough evidence right now to make a firm decision either way. Do you think it matters if Jesus actually existed?

There is not enough evidence right now to make a firm decision either way. Do you think it matters if Jesus actually existed?

In terms of historicity, yes.

In terms of what it might 'mean', totally different question... there's another thread on it around, somewhere.

Looking at it from kind of sidelines - Jocabia presented a response to your argument, which you said misrepresented your argument.

Since then he's asked you to clearly state your argument, and you've called him a liar.

What IS the position he's misrepresenting? And how is it misrepresented? How can you keep claiming a lie, if you won't correct it?

Honestly, I feel a little bad now. Truly, I just think this is the result of confusion. He just posted in moderation claiming that attempting to guess at his meaning, hoping he'll clarify if I'm incorrect is flaming.

He really does view attempting to get him to clarify his argument as a character attack.

In light of such confusion, I feel like maybe we should all just cut him a break and hope the mods explain what flaming is and why one might expect arguments to be assaulted on a site that allows vigorous and lively debate.

Let's just stop discussing it, let the mods deal with it and simply keep on debating. However, I'm not going to stop pointing out the rather large holes in his argument and how the argument will not stand until they're shored up.

There is not enough evidence right now to make a firm decision either way. Do you think it matters if Jesus actually existed?

I think that's an entirely different question that is entirely opinon. Personally, no, I don't think it should. I live by principles I believe to be right. I believe that they come from Jesus the Christ, but if they don't they won't be less right.

I've said earlier in the thread, if a Surpreme Being told me that I'd go to hell for believing the principles taught by Jesus, I'd go in protest.

I don't worship God. I revere the ideals of justice, wisdom, selflessness, purpose, love and probably more I can't think of right now. I think those ideals come from God, but if they don't I won't turn my back on them. I feel like my beliefs are right. They feel right to me. But I recognize my limitations and yours. I don't expect my understanding is perfect or required. I also can't imagine a just or loving God that punish someone for being wrong while using an intellect that is so limited.

(I'm going to cut that short, because I've answered the question and if I go further it's going to become a discussion about my opinions rather than the topic itself.)

In terms of historicity, yes.

In terms of what it might 'mean', totally different question... there's another thread on it around, somewhere.

I don't think even historically it matters. It would be interesting to know and history strives to be accurate as any science does, but it wouldn't change anything.

Jesus is one of the most influential figures of all time. It's an influence that appears to be waning and finding out he didn't exist might hurry it along, but I don't think it would be a significant death knell. Finding out he did exist for sure wouldn't change anything. Why would it? It doesn't mean he was right.

I'd like to point out the skill with which I've united those defending the Bible and those declaring the Bible tripe in a common goal. They've overlooked their religious differences to combine forces against little, old me. Two people who in most debates would be going after each other rabidly are cheerleading one another. All kidding aside, if I can get just one person denying the existance of Christ and one Christian to understand each other just a little better, to find common ground, the world has become a better place.

Next step, the UN and world peace.

Personally, I'm okay with people just popping in and giving their opinion;

I would be as well, if it wouldn't be dozens of "post and run" people that obviously cutted and pasted their "opinions" and "facts". Especially if they post things that were already shown to be wrong, without adding anything new.

Err... no, exactly wrong.

Opinion is exactly what we are NOT talking about. The question isn't 'do you BELIEVE' in Jesus, or "do you BELIEVE Jesus existed"... it's DID Jesus REALLY exist.

Opinion has no place in that debate - the only answers worth anything are those that question his existence, or verify it.

Personally, I'm okay with people just popping in and giving their opinion; however, if they claim proof/evidence one way or the other they should be prepared to present it and defend it.

It's an interesting position to take, and if you don't mind I'd like to dwell on it a little longer. You say that you don't worship "God," and I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian Yahweh, but if a "supreme being" gave you a choice you a choice between heaven and hell you would choose hell? That if the "supreme being" (prime mover, Allfather, One, whatever) appeared before you and gave you a path to follow, you would reject it?

I only say this because I consider it important to define the terms. Are we talking about Yahweh Lord of Hosts, or are we talking about the God, the creator, the one, the supreme being? Some faiths believe they are one and the same.

To sum up what he's saying: Basically he feels that what he identifies as "The Good" comes from God, but if it were to turn out to not be the case, in that what he believed was "The Good" was contrary to the will of god, he would gladly turn his back to god, rather than turn his back to his ideals, even if it meant eternal damnation.

I've said earlier in the thread, if a Surpreme Being told me that I'd go to hell for believing the principles taught by Jesus, I'd go in protest.

I don't worship God. I revere the ideals of justice, wisdom, selflessness, purpose, love and probably more I can't think of right now. I think those ideals come from God, but if they don't I won't turn my back on them. I feel like my beliefs are right. They feel right to me. But I recognize my limitations and yours. I don't expect my understanding is perfect or required. I also can't imagine a just or loving God that punish someone for being wrong while using an intellect that is so limited.

(I'm going to cut that short, because I've answered the question and if I go further it's going to become a discussion about my opinions rather than the topic itself.)

It's an interesting position to take, and if you don't mind I'd like to dwell on it a little longer. You say that you don't worship "God," and I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian Yahweh, but if a "supreme being" gave you a choice you a choice between heaven and hell you would choose hell? That if the "supreme being" (prime mover, Allfather, One, whatever) appeared before you and gave you a path to follow, you would reject it?

I only say this because I consider it important to define the terms. Are we talking about Yahweh Lord of Hosts, or are we talking about the God, the creator, the one, the supreme being? Some faiths believe they are one and the same.

Personally, I'm okay with people just popping in and giving their opinion; however, if they claim proof/evidence one way or the other they should be prepared to present it and defend it.

Yes, exactly. As long as they claim it's an opinion. Earlier someone she who shall not be named claimed a lack of data proves Jesus didn't exist. That's not an opinion. That's a fallacy.

It's an interesting position to take, and if you don't mind I'd like to dwell on it a little longer. You say that you don't worship "God," and I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian Yahweh, but if a "supreme being" gave you a choice you a choice between heaven and hell you would choose hell? That if the "supreme being" (prime mover, Allfather, One, whatever) appeared before you and gave you a path to follow, you would reject it?

I only say this because I consider it important to define the terms. Are we talking about Yahweh Lord of Hosts, or are we talking about the God, the creator, the one, the supreme being? Some faiths believe they are one and the same.

Actually, I'm sorry, I'm a bit tired. I was actually attempting to say that I don't worship God because S/he's God, but because of the ideals I believe come from God.

Meanwhile, I was saying that if a Supreme Being asked me to reject those ideals in order to follow Him, I would suffer rather than do so. The ideals taught by Jesus which I believe are the ideals of God.

I believe there is one Creator, God. Call him what you want. I won't quibble about ancient texts that clear have lost something over time, or more importantly gained a lot of riders.

Um, okay. Why are they mutually exclusive?

Why can't discuss the historicity of one of history's most influential figures, whether he existed or not, AND discuss other philosophical posits? And, why, if you think one is more important than the other, would you both to enter a thread at all?

I am not attempting to denounce any ones exsistence, however what i was attempring to do was cause people to extrapolate that society essentialy creates a veil not so much as to keep a secret, but to produce citizens conducive of "civilization". The exploration of ancient philosophies and there procreators is not at all a trivial matter how ever what must be realized is that unless one is viewing the original document, in its original dialect and language, then it is near pointless as the meaning is lost whether it be in translation or through censorship by the government.

To sum up what he's saying: Basically he feels that what he identifies as "The Good" comes from God, but if it were to turn out to not be the case, in that what he believed was "The Good" was contrary to the will of god, he would gladly turn his back to god, rather than turn his back to his ideals, even if it meant eternal damnation.

Yes, I don't believe in carrot and the stick morality. I don't do right to gain eternal life or a space in heaven and I don't do it to avoid hell. I do it because I believe it's right. Period. And if I were asked to do wrong with the carrot and stick reversed, then give me the damned stick (pun intended).

Yes, exactly. As long as they claim it's an opinion. Earlier someone she who shall not be named claimed a lack of data proves Jesus didn't exist. That's not an opinion. That's a fallacy.

True

I am not attempting to denounce any ones exsistence, however what i was attempring to do was cause people to extrapolate that society essentialy creates a veil not so much as to keep a secret, but to produce citizens conducive of "civilization". The exploration of ancient philosophies and there procreators is not at all a trivial matter how ever what must be realized is that unless one is viewing the original document, in its original dialect and language, then it is near pointless as the meaning is lost whether it be in translation or through censorship by the government.

How does that relate to your other post I was replying to?

Meanwhile, so if we can't have irrefutable proof, why try? You suggested we discuss something even more abstract?

I agree with the premise, if Barabbas doesn’t exist the whole narrative is brought into question, yes… I also suspect that this a cause of why it is being challenged in this manner in the first place, the challenge is based on nothing but pure speculation and the arguments main proof is the lack of physical evidence of Barabbas is a evidence of negative of Christ and the narrative. (That’s why I called it tinfoil hat theology, the requirement that we can only know the truth via ‘conspiracies’ revealed)

I wouldn't go that far. You made the claim that the Gospels are historically accurate because they are "eyewitness accounts"- however, if this story isn't historically accurate, it cannot be completely an eyewitness account, or at least one that isn't questionable because a solid account would be supported by other independent evidence.

I had said this earlier in defense of my spelling:
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.
The significance of the difference would be that one is nothing more than a surname applied via the person’s heritage and the other might be a description of the person in question. That the difference is in the eye of the reader, not that there would be any difference in the spelling on the source material (which was a big contention of Jocabia that he claimed I had to be wrong about, but then said he was lying on purpose just to get me to react...and so on and so forth ad nauseaum)... so I dropped it entirely thereafter as assuming it was finished.

So do you think it's merely a coincidence that so many parts of "Pilate's Passover custom" add up as if it were an allegory- "Jesus Bar Abbas" means "Jesus Son of the Father", a title associated with Jesus Christ; the fact that one was released for stirring an insurrection and the other was condemned for it; and the fact this custom entertains no other record other than the Gospel? Yeah, "Jesus Bar Abbas" could just simply be a name without
meaning, but the context doesn't fit.

I’m not he author of this thread, AND even if Jocabia and others say that they think this is appropriate here, we also have people saying it is not. But to begin biblical criticism is then to demand a biblical apologetic response from me, it defiantly leads to questions outside of the ‘Did Jesus Exist’ parameter.

If we're to agree on the Bible's historical accuracy it's not out of place to examine its text. I see no reason why critquing the Bible's text is somehow out of line.

I would assume that Peter is not still there but that the other disciple was still there (the other disciple possibly being John himself). But if the disciple was John or someone else, the narrative of Barabbas in found in more than one gospel, it has long standing in the narrative itself, in other words, outside of Luke, the accusation that Barabbas is a mistake or misunderstanding is an accusation against the original authors, not an addition to the earlier works. In other words, it’s not a ‘mistake’ that the gospels say what they say about Barabbas, they say what they say and they’ve always said it (again, with the outside possible exception of Luke’s account of Barabbas).

...

Speculation is fun, but its still speculation. To suggest Barabbas was an linguistic misunderstanding would then have to account for why there was any folklore legends about Barabbas the person after the event? Some of the non biblical Barabbas stories (although thy don’t have to be true, I’m pointing out that they existed very early) have to be accounted for? Why make up stories about someone if that everyone knows doesn’t exist? I’m pointing out that the earliest Christians must have believed Barabbas must have been a real person, not a choice the ‘crowd’ made what kind of criminal they thought Jesus to be.

Lots of fictitious characters have "traditions" and "legends" associated with them- think of all the Trekkies and "Lord of the Rings" enthusiasts we have today. Something or someone doesn't have to be real for a legend to be applied to it/them.

I also didn't say that the authors "made up" Barabbas- I said that if the scenario did actually play out, the viewers mistakenly assumed there were two people in front of Pilate when there actually was just one, with the authors taking the viewer's word for it. At best, the Barabbas story is a garbled account of reality, as there is no independent source for Pilate's custom (the different Gospels don't count- the Bible was compiled for a religious purpose so any book included in it must be tied together as a single source), there's no reason for Pilate to uphold such a custom (since Pilate is characterized as inconsiderate and harsh towards the Jews) and the fact "Jesus Barabbas" is too close a characterization of Jesus for it to be a mere coincidence. To assert that it is historical one must rectify the inherent historical problems with the text, and that is a mighty big hurdle to climb.

I take a different position, one that suggests that Pilate was careful and purposeful in regard to customs of the Jews in order to avoid revolts and uprisings in his troublesome province, we all know he had a hard enough time doing it though. Even the shields his soldiers’ carried could cause headaches for him just from the logos they bore. I’m not saying he was good at it, I’m saying he was aware of the small things that could set them off and thus he complied to ease his own life, not make theirs easier.

According to Josephus, he wasn't afraid to treat the Jews harshly, so I see no reason why he'd even uphold such a custom. Moreover to the point, I doubt Pilate would even be allowed to release a criminal like Barabbas as a guy like him would be too dangerous to let back into society.

This is a lie of yours too. But perhaps this one is because you really don't know the difference and you don't understand the terms used. So I'll clarify it so you stop lying about what my position is.

Biblical Criticism =/= Theological discussion.

Biblical criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism) is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."

Which is what we're doing- making a discerning and discriminating judgement on the historicity of the text. Not out of place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balderdash71964
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?



Since it is a question to you, the lying question is not being addressed. He is posing the question of if 'a' then don't you think it would be possible for 'b' to occur. It does not require a conclusion, it is a 'what if' scenario.

How can someone "be arranged to exist"? They either exist or they don't- you don't create someone to fufill a purpose.

Let's say I wanted to start a religion.
I would need a martyr for people to rally around, preferably one who died a long time ago before mass media. Can't have anybody digging up dirt on this guy like he hung a dog as a child or something.

Hmm, should he be from a wealthy family? A powerful one? Naw, people don't have sympathy for trust funders. Maybe the son of a poor blue collar worker, a carpenter. No wait! I want this martyr to be more than a human being. I've got it! The son of a virgin who was magically impregnated by a God...hmm, I wonder if that's too outrageous for people to buy. Well, I can only run it up the flagpole and see if it flies.

To help people swallow this, I'll say that this martyr can see what everyone is doing all the time (like Santa Claus). And if we worship him enough (and by all means do show our support with a nice donation to help spread the word) he will reward us by curing our ailments or causing our soccer team to go to state.

What about people who worship like crazy and don't get any reward? Won't they stop believing (read donating)? Can't have that. Got it! He's saving their rewards for after they die -- there will be a big payoff then. Nobody can prove that won't happen.

Did Jesus exist? Of course he did! Be sure to send money to help spread the word...I can arrange for a monthly donation to be deducted from your account to make it easier if you'd like.

Interesting, although I think it's grounded more in today's characterizations and actions than how Christianity really started, as I doubt the early Church Fathers were overtly concerned about money.

in the realm of academia nothing is left untainted by perspective, which is what many people fail to understand. Why is every one so caught up in the science and history which only reflect the time period. There was a time when science said that the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, the bones of the behemoth creatures we know as dinosaurs were mistaken for the bones of the likes of herculese and other great heroes from the lore of the ancients.
Next i pose to you this question, do alternate universes exist? Science says so under the principles of quantum mechanics. So instead of questioning the existence of a carpenter that may or may have not lived two thousand years ago perhaps, perhaps you be questioning what is real in this century.

Considering we've studying history in the present and we presently have standards for which we evaluate history, there is no reason to suggest that just because something is in the past it does not mean the historical method cannot be applied to it. The goal is to figure out how the historical record reads today- therefore, we must apply the standards of today. No event gets a free pass because it was "in the past".

Real people don't represent abstract ideas.... hmmm ... even certain posters here on NS? ;)

I'd like to point out the skill with which I've united those defending the Bible and those declaring the Bible tripe in a common goal. They've overlooked their religious differences to combine forces against little, old me. Two people who in most debates would be going after each other rabidly are cheerleading one another. All kidding aside, if I can get just one person denying the existance of Christ and one Christian to understand each other just a little better, to find common ground, the world has become a better place.

Next step, the UN and world peace.
Hey - i didn't attack you. :p

It could mean something else, but I can point to who the authors were and why the were telling the story at all. What motivated them to publish it?

That could be many things. Greed, and lust for political power are are not unfamiliar motivations to any human, not just early christians.


I attempt to present the generic “Christian” perspective. ( I admit many Christians will disagree with what level of correctness I present that perspective though )

So, then, why is the "generic" perspective the "better" choice of interperetations for the insertion of Barrabas?
If, as you say, most of the people amongst the crowd would have been priests, Rabbinical leaders, and the well-to-do Roman elite, the very folks who would want to see Jesus condemned and dealt with. It seems as though you would agree that the story also demonstrates thier desire for Jesus' swift death.

So, instead of your idea of Jesus' "replacing humanity on the cross" role, (which is what I disagree with, it strikes me as far-fetched in terms of a story creation.
That very metaphor isnt exactly going to be universal amongst its different readers.
It makes for a better story, and adds much more drama and angst, to use this hatred the witnesses had towards him, as they condemn him to death, only to realize to thier astonishment as they later witness him die, he was the very son of GOD!"

You see?

For a moment, think of it as a "story".
Adding such interperetations as yours, is to add unnecessary metaphors and symbolism that not everyone will "get". Its much easier, and more to the point, to use those characters to make a direct POINT. The dramatic and rather sudden conversion of Longinus is one such example of a "nice writer's touch", so to speak.
It adds to the unfolding events.




IF that's why Pilate had him executed we have nothing to base that assumption on.

Heh, it seems we have very little to base any of this on, but that hasnt stopped us from discussing it for 180 some odd pages now. :)




There is no reason to believe that a hard man accustomed to ordering the harsh treatment of malcontents (Pilate) would need a guilty' person to punish.

Not so hard if he was indeed having qualms over his actions. (or inactions..?)

For what other reason would Jesus have been arrested by the Roman Authority?
Especially if he had nothing to fear from the Jewish population if he did execute this guy.


However, the narrative does say that Pilate became 'afraid' of punishing him (and a very likely reason would be that Pilate was a superstitious man who fear 'bad karma' so to speak if he killed an innocent 'magic man.')

I suppose that one way of saying it. Another might be that he simply had pangs of conscience about it.

Put yourself in that characters shoes. Whoever this poor schmuck in the chains, who looks like your soldiers spent the good part of an afternoon whipping the monkey shit out of this guy, who from what you can tell, really hasnt done anything wrong, outside of making some rediculous claims of divinity, and being a bit of a nuisance. Except he reputedly has spoken out against the corruption in the Jewish churches, and make sideways verbal shots at Ceasar, wich, while against the law, is hardly uncommon.

These folks are howling for his blood, and wont be swayed.
Given that if these people are serious enough to make a fuss about this, it will add to an already tense military occupation. Not a good idea.
So, what can you do? If they want blood...give it to them.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.




But to suppose that Jesus was a rabble rouser, how come Pilate didn't go out to arrest the rest of Jesus' troublemakers? Likely because he didn't think Jesus was guilty of rabble rousing in a rebellious way toward his authority.

How many Apostles lived to old age?

Uno?

What happened to the rest of them? (ok..most of them).

By "rabble-rouser", I mean he was one of many street corner messiah of the day, except, that this one actually has a growing number of converts. In fact, rumour has it that this has actually done a miracle or two...now, the local Jewish Temple leaders get nervous, becuase he doesnt "do as he's told", and even makes a point to rebel against inner corruption, and defiling of the synagogue.
Who wouldnt get a little nervous at a growing cult that may threaten your power base?



Of course you find my interpretation a bit of stretch ;)

Naturally.
We arent talking about "validity", here.
But yes, a bit taffy-esque. :p

Personally, I'm okay with people just popping in and giving their opinion; however, if they claim proof/evidence one way or the other they should be prepared to present it and defend it.

I'm totally okay with it too... but the other poster was claiming some kind of mandate for what the thread was 'about', and somehow arriving at this being an opinion piece.

Clearly, in light of the actual thread, opinion (while okay), is exactly what we are NOT about, here.

Clearly, in light of the actual thread, opinion (while okay), is exactly what we are NOT about, here.

Right.

We do it for the money, and the sex.

I don't think even historically it matters. It would be interesting to know and history strives to be accurate as any science does, but it wouldn't change anything.

Jesus is one of the most influential figures of all time. It's an influence that appears to be waning and finding out he didn't exist might hurry it along, but I don't think it would be a significant death knell. Finding out he did exist for sure wouldn't change anything. Why would it? It doesn't mean he was right.

Jesus is mainly convenient.

You can find pretty much all the material from the Jesus story elsewhere... you can find pretty much all the worthwhile thinkery in other places. Jesus is a focus - real or not, divine or not - 'he' still serves that purpose.

Even if Jesus could be proved to be pure myth, no substance... well, it didn't hurt Romeo's career. :)

Right.

We do it for the money, and the sex.

There's money?

There's money?

Of course!

Its a religion!

The guy with the biggest hat, gets all the money.

Of course!

Its a religion!

The guy with the biggest hat, gets all the money.

Aha! Found my problem. No hat. Wealth and fortune, here I come!

Aha! Found my problem. No hat. Wealth and fortune, here I come!

Look at what it did for this guy.

He went on to become the leader of the Galactic Empire!

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/pope_350.jpg


AND...here he is feeling sassy in his new, and transfigurationally exspensive "Brokeback Mountain" party wear.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews/uploaded_images/pope-hat-769068.jpg

Look at what it did for this guy.

He went on to become the leader of the Galactic Empire!

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/pope_350.jpg


AND...here he is feeling sassy in his new, and transfigurationally exspensive "Brokeback Mountain" party wear.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/iranianamericanjews/uploaded_images/pope-hat-769068.jpg

I think you're on to something...

http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/images/2006/03/Spaceballs_Dark_Helmet.jpg

I think you're on to something...

http://cache.jalopnik.com/cars/images/2006/03/Spaceballs_Dark_Helmet.jpg

Exactly!

See now, I see a helmet like that and I say to myself, "Now theres a guy who OBVIOUSLY has a HUGE staff." Chock full of competent men, always willing to bend to his will"

Hmm...seems a smidge gay, now...

Exactly!

See now, I see a helmet like that and I say to myself, "Now theres a guy who OBVIOUSLY has a HUGE staff." Chock full of competent men, always willing to bend to his will"

Hmm...seems a smidge gay, now...

Sounded different in your head, eh?

But - yeah, point made. HUGE hat, rules the universe. The defense rests.

Look at what it did for this guy.

He went on to become the leader of the Galactic Empire!

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/pope_350.jpg

Proof God is a Star Wars fan. :p

Proof God is a Star Wars fan. :p

"luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter"
*nods sagely*

i disagree. if someone has made such an impression that authors would write about him after his death, why had nobody taken note earlier. i mean surely there were folks in his, um, flock who could write. why didn't texts pop up right away? why the delay? because the myth had to settle in first? and this has nothing to do with the empire not being interested in him, but with the people knowing him personally. we don't know as much as we do about cicero just because the republic kept record, but because his (pen-)friends collected his letters. why did nobody keep or produce writings while Jesus was still alive?

I suppose they expected Jesus to last forever, being the son of God and all, or that the world was going to end and he was going to take them all to hevan so there'd be no need to write.

I believe that he existed as an actuall person and that the miricles could be a 'placebo effect'.

I wouldn't go that far. You made the claim that the Gospels are historically accurate because they are "eyewitness accounts"- however, if this story isn't historically accurate, it cannot be completely an eyewitness account, or at least one that isn't questionable because a solid account would be supported by other independent evidence.
I made the claim that the gospels are presented to us by the church fathers as eye witness accounts, I argue that their claim has not been disproved and I’ve shown how I think the gospels meet the requirement of being eye witness accounts. HOWEVER, I have not made the claim that they are accurate because they are eyewitness accounts. No more than the testimony of a fan at a sporting event can perfectly recount the sequence of plays that they watched. Their testimony may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an eyewitness account.

So do you think it's merely a coincidence that so many parts of "Pilate's Passover custom" add up as if it were an allegory- "Jesus Bar Abbas" means "Jesus Son of the Father", a title associated with Jesus Christ; the fact that one was released for stirring an insurrection and the other was condemned for it; and the fact this custom entertains no other record other than the Gospel? Yeah, "Jesus Bar Abbas" could just simply be a name without meaning, but the context doesn't fit.
The way the author remembers an event and or uses a true story to make a point in the narrative they are writing is very likely to be affected by how and why the event made an impression on them in the first place. If I’m writing a story about such and such an event and somebody said or did something memorable for me I will be sure to include that event in my narrative and to try and phrase it so that it makes a memorable impression on the readers.

As to the spelling, the oldest versions we have in greek don’t have it at all apparently. The Syriac versions are thought to be copies of Greek originals, we apparently don’t have those greek copies (form the best I can gather). But the spellings proposed for a source we can’t examine could be as different as Yehoshuah bar Abbas (Barabbas) vs Yeshuah Christus (or Chrestos or Chrestus) from the Greek Χριστός (Khristos), via the Latin Christus or maybe it should have been "bar nasha" (son of Man) as Jesus is said to have called himself. But the first writers (Orgin I think) to write of this name simularity at all being a 'problem' was the first name simularity bugging the guy, nothing about the bar Abbas part having any meaning to the name itself outside of just being a surname.

To examine how we even get the name “Jesus” as the first name of anyone in the first century Judea today at all they start with: ישוע [Yeshua`] was translated into Koine Greek as closely as possible in the 3rd-century BC, the result being Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous], and that’s the spelling From Greek, Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous] moved into Latin at least by the time of the Vetus Latina. Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous] was transliterated to Latin IESVS, where it stood for many centuries. Jesu, accusative of Jesum, and nominative of Jesus. To argue that because the second language the gospel was copied into (Syriac from a likely Greek source) and we ended up with the only source of calling Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas (when this never occurs in the Greek versions that we have copies of) is likely to be nothing more than word games with spelling that weren’t created until hundreds of years after the event took place and only after the event and names were translated into a secondary language. In the end its a non sequitur to argue that the it happened before the oldest versions when the oldest versions don't have the problem.

A quick little wiki article on how the names come to us through the ages…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament

If we're to agree on the Bible's historical accuracy it's not out of place to examine its text. I see no reason why critquing the Bible's text is somehow out of line.
It’s not out of line as in I’m not willing to do it, it’s out of line because the historicity of this thread parameter was (from my understanding and several other people have mentioned) outside of the gospel and NT and biblical accounts… Biblical criticism would be pages and pages of scripture quoting, there is no way around it.

Lots of fictitious characters have "traditions" and "legends" associated with them- think of all the Trekkies and "Lord of the Rings" enthusiasts we have today. Something or someone doesn't have to be real for a legend to be applied to it/them.

I also didn't say that the authors "made up" Barabbas- I said that if the scenario did actually play out, the viewers mistakenly assumed there were two people in front of Pilate when there actually was just one, with the authors taking the viewer's word for it. At best, the Barabbas story is a garbled account of reality, as there is no independent source for Pilate's custom (the different Gospels don't count- the Bible was compiled for a religious purpose so any book included in it must be tied together as a single source), there's no reason for Pilate to uphold such a custom (since Pilate is characterized as inconsiderate and harsh towards the Jews) and the fact "Jesus Barabbas" is too close a characterization of Jesus for it to be a mere coincidence. To assert that it is historical one must rectify the inherent historical problems with the text, and that is a mighty big hurdle to climb.
To take the narrative and change it to meet an arguments requirement requires a reason to begin that dissection in the first place (IMO). Is there any older copies that don’t have the barrabbas event or even any Greek versions that call Barabbas Jesus? No. Is there any older legends that say it may be true? No. Is there nothing but speculation from spellings that didn’t present themselves until second and third century translations into Syriac? Yes.

According to Josephus, he wasn't afraid to treat the Jews harshly, so I see no reason why he'd even uphold such a custom. Moreover to the point, I doubt Pilate would even be allowed to release a criminal like Barabbas as a guy like him would be too dangerous to let back into society.
Compare it to modern day prisoner releases in Israel today. It doesn’t sound so far fetched to me. And we know there is no love lost between Palestinian and Israelis today like there was no love lost between Jews and Romans then.

How can someone "be arranged to exist"? They either exist or they don't- you don't create someone to fufill a purpose.
this is how: They exist, the event occurs, the narrative ensures their story is told in a way that makes the point (the moral of the story) clear to the reader (as with any other story with a moral to the story point, true or fictional isn’t even a part of the question).

That could be many things. Greed, and lust for political power are are not unfamiliar motivations to any human, not just early christians.
I didn’t mean to question why publish the scripture in it’s entirety, but rather, why publish the Barabbas part of the story at all if it causes them a problem.

So, then, why is the "generic" perspective the "better" choice of interperetations for the insertion of Barrabas?
If, as you say, most of the people amongst the crowd would have been priests, Rabbinical leaders, and the well-to-do Roman elite, the very folks who would want to see Jesus condemned and dealt with. It seems as though you would agree that the story also demonstrates thier desire for Jesus' swift death.

So, instead of your idea of Jesus' "replacing humanity on the cross" role, (which is what I disagree with, it strikes me as far-fetched in terms of a story creation.
That very metaphor isnt exactly going to be universal amongst its different readers.
It makes for a better story, and adds much more drama and angst, to use this hatred the witnesses had towards him, as they condemn him to death, only to realize to thier astonishment as they later witness him die, he was the very son of GOD!"

You see?

For a moment, think of it as a "story".
Adding such interperetations as yours, is to add unnecessary metaphors and symbolism that not everyone will "get". Its much easier, and more to the point, to use those characters to make a direct POINT. The dramatic and rather sudden conversion of Longinus is one such example of a "nice writer's touch", so to speak.
It adds to the unfolding events.

I’m not ‘adding’ interpretations at all, I’m defending the position the narrative holds for itself. John, for example, puts little commentary all over the place to try and ensure the reader knows exactly why an event described just took place. I’m not arguing that a better story couldn’t be written, I’m arguing that a better story wasn’t written because they were writing what they say happened, not what they created. Can’t change the event to make a better story if you’re trying to tell a true story.


Heh, it seems we have very little to base any of this on, but that hasnt stopped us from discussing it for 180 some odd pages now. :)
It may be true that we have very little to base it on, but a very little is a lot more than the nothing the other side has against it.




Not so hard if he was indeed having qualms over his actions. (or inactions..?)

For what other reason would Jesus have been arrested by the Roman Authority?
Especially if he had nothing to fear from the Jewish population if he did execute this guy.
I argued that Pilate’ motive to do it anyway, despite thinking Jesus innocent, was the pledges of future loyalty from the priests and his ilk he got for doing it for them.


I suppose that one way of saying it. Another might be that he simply had pangs of conscience about it.
That’s the traditional view, and very well could be the correct view, but several people are unconvinced by the idea that he had pangs of conscience, I offered an alternative possibility (superstitious fear of ‘bad karma’).

Put yourself in that characters shoes. Whoever this poor schmuck in the chains, who looks like your soldiers spent the good part of an afternoon whipping the monkey shit out of this guy, who from what you can tell, really hasnt done anything wrong, outside of making some rediculous claims of divinity, and being a bit of a nuisance. Except he reputedly has spoken out against the corruption in the Jewish churches, and make sideways verbal shots at Ceasar, wich, while against the law, is hardly uncommon.

These folks are howling for his blood, and wont be swayed.
Given that if these people are serious enough to make a fuss about this, it will add to an already tense military occupation. Not a good idea.
So, what can you do? If they want blood...give it to them.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

I totally agree.

*now pick you jaw up off the floor, it was bound to happen sooner or later *

"luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter"
*nods sagely*

yoda = jesus. interesting.

In terms of historicity, yes.

In terms of what it might 'mean', totally different question... there's another thread on it around, somewhere.

It's the second question in this thread:

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

The historicity of Jesus is important to those who take a more literal approach to Christianity. Contrast this to Jocabia's position, which focuses more on religion's role as a moral compass. A position such as his, or one that focuses on religion's social aspects, would be relatively unaffected by proof that Jesus did not literally exist. A more literal belief like Balderash's would suffer profoundly if such evidence came to light.

You can see how it might matter to some.

Mod ruling was:
Oh, for pete's sake.

Balderdash71964, stop calling Jocabia a liar. Jocabia, if he doesn't want to debate with you, stop trying to make him.

Now both of you go sit on the naughty seat all through little-lunch!

Thank you Ardchoille, for your time. I’m sorry for being a part of the problem that caused you to have to get involved, but thanks again.


Looking at it from kind of sidelines - Jocabia presented a response to your argument, which you said misrepresented your argument.

Since then he's asked you to clearly state your argument, and you've called him a liar.

What IS the position he's misrepresenting? And how is it misrepresented? How can you keep claiming a lie, if you won't correct it?
I corrected more than once...
Oh, that's good. I wasn't intending the 'at odds' with each other, but yes, I can see that. What I was thinking of though would be more along the lines of a real person example that the author was sure to make an example of. Such as Peter failing. Making sure it apears in the gospel and making sure that the reader sees the lesson for the rest of us (that even the best of us fail and have to get back up and keep trying because we can find success in Christ later etc., etc., etc.,) but making sure that the story appears in the written account in a way that inspires in no way was ment to imply that the event intself didn't take place and/or was invented by the author.


Actually it was an attempt to do nearly the exact opposite. Take the bolding off (read it plain, despite how Jocabia tries to present his opinion in other peoples words by bolding what he wants to emphasis) and maybe you can see that the god gambit part was to imply that if you (jocabia) are going to attack the god gambit of the scripture story itself, attacking barabbas being real or not is like complaining about a tea cup full of water in your hand while you are standing in a pool of water up to your waist.

Get on to the real discussion and quit pussyfooting around and lying that bar-abbis is spelled differently than barabbas in greek (but when called on it later you claim you knew better all along)...

Those quotes of mine answer your question to what is my postion but how is it misrepresented, was that he says I took a God Gambit postion to explain it when I did not.

yoda = jesus. interesting.why? i always figured jesus as a little green retard :p

why? i always figured jesus as a little green retard :p



Yoda is not a retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :upyours:

why? i always figured jesus as a little green retard :p

Chuckle

Yoda is not a retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :upyours:

Help you he can.. hmmmm?

I made the claim that the gospels are presented to us by the church fathers as eye witness accounts, I argue that their claim has not been disproved and I’ve shown how I think the gospels meet the requirement of being eye witness accounts. HOWEVER, I have not made the claim that they are accurate because they are eyewitness accounts. No more than the testimony of a fan at a sporting event can perfectly recount the sequence of plays that they watched. Their testimony may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an eyewitness account.

"Eyewitness" account presumes existence. As such it's necessary to point out the flaws with such a claim. The flaw with this claim is obvious. The story goes against what we can demonstrate about history. It includes people that would be questionable in any context and events that would be questionable in any context. Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is they are not eyewitness accounts.

And since your refutation of the obvious and demonstrable issues with this story required you to point out that it's not "unbelievable that Barabbas can be arranged to exist" AND you admitted that this story bears the marks of an allegory, even going so far as to say that's the ponit, I'd say you can't find a reason why such a conclusion should not be arrived at.

he did dose and always will matthew 28:20

he did dose and always will matthew 28:20

We're not asking if he dosed or not, though it does explain his and his people's rather schizophrenic miracle-seeing. We're asking if he existed.

Mod ruling was:


Thank you Ardchoille, for your time. I’m sorry for being a part of the problem that caused you to have to get involved, but thanks again.



I corrected more than once...




Those quotes of mine answer your question to what is my postion but how is it misrepresented, was that he says I took a God Gambit postion to explain it when I did not.

Neither of which explains why you claimed it's not "unbelievable Barabbas was arranged to exist" in reply to the point about the story.

Many other stories of the Bible are considered to be allegories as well. It's not as if this was just one of many, many stories that were chosen to be told. This story is required to be in Bible if it happened. It's a major event in the life of Jesus and it happens to have a man standing next to him whose name is Jesus' title for himself and have a custom that doesn't seem to exist and goes against everything we know about the relationship between the Romans and the Jews, and basically requires us to suspend reason to accept this as an eyewitness account.

You've fallen so far afoul of occam's razor that you can't claim this resembles a historical argument anymore. This story smacks of an allegory, which happens often when a story is retold enough. IF this story is a true story of the events of Jesus' life, it is not an eyewitness account. I personally think it's among the more compelling evidence because it really does smack of a story that was retold a lot, and would likely be true once we look at it through that lens. Instead of trying to demonstrate historicity at this point, you're trying to cling to your claim of it being an eyewitness account, and really that requires a leap of faith, one you clearly made and got angry that I quoted repeatedly.

I made the claim that the gospels are presented to us by the church fathers as eye witness accounts, I argue that their claim has not been disproved and I’ve shown how I think the gospels meet the requirement of being eye witness accounts. HOWEVER, I have not made the claim that they are accurate because they are eyewitness accounts. No more than the testimony of a fan at a sporting event can perfectly recount the sequence of plays that they watched. Their testimony may be right, it may be wrong, but it is an eyewitness account.

It's not been proven either and it still doesn't rectify the problem that nowhere in the Gospels is it written where Mark, Matthew, Luke and John got their sources- eyewitness or not- nor is it believable that all four of them saw every event with their own eyes (Matthew and Luke record two completely different birth narratives for one- they can't *both* be true, can they?). Really, they're just narratives which may have a kernel of truth to them- they're not eyewitness accounts. The fact they were presented to the Church Fathers as such makes no difference, since the Church was out to justify the Faith, not record history.

As to the spelling, the oldest versions we have in greek don’t have it at all apparently. The Syriac versions are thought to be copies of Greek originals, we apparently don’t have those greek copies (form the best I can gather). But the spellings proposed for a source we can’t examine could be as different as Yehoshuah bar Abbas (Barabbas) vs Yeshuah Christus (or Chrestos or Chrestus) from the Greek Χριστός (Khristos), via the Latin Christus or maybe it should have been "bar nasha" (son of Man) as Jesus is said to have called himself. But the first writers (Orgin I think) to write of this name simularity at all being a 'problem' was the first name simularity bugging the guy, nothing about the bar Abbas part having any meaning to the name itself outside of just being a surname.

To examine how we even get the name “Jesus” as the first name of anyone in the first century Judea today at all they start with: ישוע [Yeshua`] was translated into Koine Greek as closely as possible in the 3rd-century BC, the result being Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous], and that’s the spelling From Greek, Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous] moved into Latin at least by the time of the Vetus Latina. Ἰησοῦς [Iēsous] was transliterated to Latin IESVS, where it stood for many centuries. Jesu, accusative of Jesum, and nominative of Jesus. To argue that because the second language the gospel was copied into (Syriac from a likely Greek source) and we ended up with the only source of calling Jesus Christ and Jesus Barabbas (when this never occurs in the Greek versions that we have copies of) is likely to be nothing more than word games with spelling that weren’t created until hundreds of years after the event took place and only after the event and names were translated into a secondary language. In the end its a non sequitur to argue that the it happened before the oldest versions when the oldest versions don't have the problem.

A quick little wiki article on how the names come to us through the ages…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament

...

To take the narrative and change it to meet an arguments requirement requires a reason to begin that dissection in the first place (IMO). Is there any older copies that don’t have the barrabbas event or even any Greek versions that call Barabbas Jesus? No. Is there any older legends that say it may be true? No. Is there nothing but speculation from spellings that didn’t present themselves until second and third century translations into Syriac? Yes.

....

Compare it to modern day prisoner releases in Israel today. It doesn’t sound so far fetched to me. And we know there is no love lost between Palestinian and Israelis today like there was no love lost between Jews and Romans then.

Like I said, traditions =/= reality. Someone having a tradition doesn't mean they're real, it just means they have a tradition.

Secondly, assuming that the original text just said "Barabbas" and not "Jesus Barabbas", you still don't find it a little coincidental that someone named "Son of the Father" is placed next to someone described as the "Son of the Father", while also being accused of leading an insurrection? The similarities resemble themselves far too closely for me to take it as just "pure coincidence".

Thirdly we still haven't got to addressing the fact there's no source for such a practice outside of the Gospels and no reason to conclude there even *was* one. Just because it happens today doesn't mean it happened in the past, since current practices do not prove the historicity of past ones and it's likely the Israeli practice is borrowed from this passage in the Bible (someone said "hey, this practice makes sense, let's do it" and they did).

It’s not out of line as in I’m not willing to do it, it’s out of line because the historicity of this thread parameter was (from my understanding and several other people have mentioned) outside of the gospel and NT and biblical accounts… Biblical criticism would be pages and pages of scripture quoting, there is no way around it.

Again, we're trying to find a kernel of truth in the Biblical story- again, in order to do that examining the Biblical text is necessary. If things in the story don't make sense then they might not be history, but if they do- and they're balanced out with other, independent sources- then one can be pretty certain it's history.

this is how: They exist, the event occurs, the narrative ensures their story is told in a way that makes the point (the moral of the story) clear to the reader (as with any other story with a moral to the story point, true or fictional isn’t even a part of the question).

Flies in the face of the eyewitness claim, doesn't it? Very rarely- if at all- does a scene develop right before your eyes with a built-in "moral to the story" as it does here. The scene just happens- whatever morals get applied to it only happen if the author is using the story to prove a point, by which case the story doesn't "purely" become an eyewitness account.

I’m not ‘adding’ interpretations at all, I’m defending the position the narrative holds for itself. John, for example, puts little commentary all over the place to try and ensure the reader knows exactly why an event described just took place. I’m not arguing that a better story couldn’t be written, I’m arguing that a better story wasn’t written because they were writing what they say happened, not what they created. Can’t change the event to make a better story if you’re trying to tell a true story.

You're confusing me here- when you replied to me you said that the authors used the story to make some kind of moral point, but now you're saying they're reporting it "as is". Which is it?

The way the author remembers an event and or uses a true story to make a point in the narrative they are writing is very likely to be affected by how and why the event made an impression on them in the first place. If I’m writing a story about such and such an event and somebody said or did something memorable for me I will be sure to include that event in my narrative and to try and phrase it so that it makes a memorable impression on the readers.

You admit then that the narrative is based on an eyewitness account and is not purely an eyewitness account, since the author is using an account to create a narrative, not just "writing what they saw". That then makes it a secondary source, not a primary source- hence the central question to this thread: where are the primary sources for Jesus Christ?

It's not been proven either and it still doesn't rectify the problem that nowhere in the Gospels is it written where Mark, Matthew, Luke and John got their sources- eyewitness or not- nor is it believable that all four of them saw every event with their own eyes (Matthew and Luke record two completely different birth narratives for one- they can't *both* be true, can they?). Really, they're just narratives which may have a kernel of truth to them- they're not eyewitness accounts. The fact they were presented to the Church Fathers as such makes no difference, since the Church was out to justify the Faith, not record history.
I disagree. With the understanding that a scribe can record the testimony of a different person and that different person’s testimony is then recorded, not the scribes testimony. It’s a shame that the gospel scribes didn’t tell us who each witness was nor testify how they know what they know, but they didn’t. We can wish for modern biographical material, but the gospels weren’t an attempt to be modern biographical material, the authors probably never even imagined anything like a modern biography style of work. The authors almost never identify themselves in the stories at all, in fact it seems they intentionally attempt to leave themselves out of it.

But a single witness can go a long way, lets use Andrew and the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and an example. If Andrew, once a follower of John, witnesses Jesus being baptized and some time later becomes a disciple of Jesus, Andrew's ‘testimony’ of what happened at Jesus' baptism would be available then to all of the disciples. Many years later, gospels written down, Jesus' baptism is included in the narratives regardless if Andrew is the scribe or not. If this sort of thing happened today it would certainly require accreditation and the witnesses would/could be asked directly instead of second hand, but we are talking about historical documents and that cross examination is impossible. Like it not, hearsay rules have hearsy rule exceptions for situations like this.

Does this mean that everyone has to accept the testimony given as truth? No, by no means, they can dismiss it if they want and disregard it, but the evidence is still evidence, it doesn’t just go away because some people want to throw it away. And on the other side, the person who IS convinced can know through studying the histories of the narratives how they are original material, how the early Christians understood the same narratives and how new archaeological finds can weed out later additions (if any) and we can rediscover original beliefs and read what the scripture and early church fathers had to say about it and themselves.

The main point being though, each scribe does NOT have to be an eyewitness of every event in each gospel for the gospels to be eyewitness testimonies.

Like I said, traditions =/= reality. Someone having a tradition doesn't mean they're real, it just means they have a tradition.

Secondly, assuming that the original text just said "Barabbas" and not "Jesus Barabbas", you still don't find it a little coincidental that someone named "Son of the Father" is placed next to someone described as the "Son of the Father", while also being accused of leading an insurrection? The similarities resemble themselves far too closely for me to take it as just "pure coincidence".
The name “son of” is not a unique part of the individuals name, as in it appears in many names, so we can dismiss the “bar” part and focus on the “Abbas” part. Abbas can mean father, it can be rabbi, it could be used as teacher. The surname, “son of the Rabbi,” or son of the Teacher, or son of the Father… So no, I don’t find it to be too much of a coincidence. A rich man’s son, a powerful mans son, a man who believes he should be privileged very well might rebel against the Romans and his own leaders who complied with Roman rule, he very well might become somewhat of a terrorist, in fact, I think I just described Osama bin Laden. ;)

Thirdly we still haven't got to addressing the fact there's no source for such a practice outside of the Gospels and no reason to conclude there even *was* one. Just because it happens today doesn't mean it happened in the past, since current practices do not prove the historicity of past ones and it's likely the Israeli practice is borrowed from this passage in the Bible (someone said "hey, this practice makes sense, let's do it" and they did).
Modern day practices do not indicate they occurred in the past, I totally agree. But by showing a modern day example I show that what I’m proposing for motivation of Pontius Pilate are not outside the realms of normal human behaviors, nothing exceptional is needed to believe it. As to the practice not being recorded anywhere else, I would like to know where else we could look? Many many things have been lost since then. Many daily routines and practices of the Jews and Romans in Judea are lost to us today (or lost so far and until further archaeological discoveries are made anyway). But by the very fact that scholars sit around today arguing about whether or not Qumran (for example) was full of scribes, religious zealots or pottery manufacturing workers and no one can disprove the others.… Of course we don’t know holiday practices and customes of the Romans in Judea and it should be no surprise that we don’t have corroborating evidence of a custom like this. We do have some evidence of it though, the synaptic gospels and John and even the apocryphal gospels like Peter have it too. Again, not solid irrefutable proof , but no reason to speculate in the negative and ignore what we do have.

Again, we're trying to find a kernel of truth in the Biblical story- again, in order to do that examining the Biblical text is necessary. If things in the story don't make sense then they might not be history, but if they do- and they're balanced out with other, independent sources- then one can be pretty certain it's history.
I agree. You assume a minimalist kernel will be truth, and I think a we will harvest bushels of grain… Other than that tidbit difference, I agree with you.

Flies in the face of the eyewitness claim, doesn't it? Very rarely- if at all- does a scene develop right before your eyes with a built-in "moral to the story" as it does here. The scene just happens- whatever morals get applied to it only happen if the author is using the story to prove a point, by which case the story doesn't "purely" become an eyewitness account.
Nonsense. Stand inside the front office area of a busy police station for a day and just watch and listen, you will see ‘moral’ of the story incidents happen all day long.

You're confusing me here- when you replied to me you said that the authors used the story to make some kind of moral point, but now you're saying they're reporting it "as is". Which is it?
Both. A sports journalist (for example) is a good journalist if he reports the story in a truthful manner AND entertains with little tidbits of truth and wisdom revealed in his stories. After thirty years of thinking about it and telling the story over and over again, someone like John would very well know when the teaching opportunities in his gospel would occur in his narrative and he’s sure to make the most of them in the gospel testimony when he gets around to having a scribe record it for him.

You admit then that the narrative is based on an eyewitness account and is not purely an eyewitness account, since the author is using an account to create a narrative, not just "writing what they saw". That then makes it a secondary source, not a primary source- hence the central question to this thread: where are the primary sources for Jesus Christ?
Primary sources can be the scribe (like John and Matthew are said to be, but Luke and Mark or nor themselves eyewitness, just scribes) and the witness that gives them the testimony. The oral tradition can be testimony (but I understand your position that oral tradition doesn’t need truth behind it to be tradition), I’m just saying that oral tradition CAN be based on eye witness testimony and the very earliest church fathers we have records of now agree that the gospels were compiled by eye-witness testimony then.

*snip*

Now they're "based on" eyewitness testimony. Before they WERE eyewitness testimony. You're squirming and your claims have change in significant ways. By definition, if they did the things you suggest they did with these stories, then they are no longer primary sources. These stories bear the marks of commentary, not historical recordings. Your own argument suggests this is true.

It's true they may be based on eyewitness testimony. I doubt anyone other than the minute few who are claiming that Jesus definitely didn't exist would argue against such a claim. As you've been informed, that would make them not a primary source.

As has also been asked, why aren't there any primary sources for the existence of Jesus Christ?

It's clear that absent any kind of evidence that isn't modified in the ways you describe, we have to remain agnostic to any claim of the historicity of Jesus Christ. Your argument is practically the best argument anyone could make for such a position. You've demonstrated that no amount of trying will allow one to reasonably show these stories to be direct testimony. Even you have to admit, and have admitted, they bear the marks of a narrative. As such, they need corroboration. And that corroboration just doesn't exist.

I find it interesting that I suggested you'd admitted these exact same things earlier and I was called a liar. You're now AGAIN admitting that these bear the marks of a narrative. That's not an insignificant admission. It's entirely important to any claim of historicity.

I didn’t mean to question why publish the scripture in it’s entirety, but rather, why publish the Barabbas part of the story at all if it causes them a problem.

Well, his names translation aside, again, as I said, it seems to make a point. It can show how eager those present were to see Jesus executed. They would rather have seen a murderer, and a well-known low-life scumbag like Barrabas go free, than Jesus.
As I said this adds a bit of drama, and adds to the dramatic conclusion.




I’m not ‘adding’ interpretations at all, I’m defending the position the narrative holds for itself. John, for example, puts little commentary all over the place to try and ensure the reader knows exactly why an event described just took place. I’m not arguing that a better story couldn’t be written, I’m arguing that a better story wasn’t written because they were writing what they say happened, not what they created. Can’t change the event to make a better story if you’re trying to tell a true story.

Sure you can! George Washington and the Cherry Tree!
What a wonderful little slice of ancient americana that never actually happened, but makes a great narrative. But thats neither here, nor there...

True story?
Hmm...lets shy away from that particular issue just now, as theres nearly 200 pages of that.
Instead let's say that the story itself, is already present, and its what we as individuals take away fromn that story, thats truly important.
Again, I think that the addition of Barrabas provides color and drama to the scene.
It may also show a bit of "MEL Gibson Syndrome", if you know what Im getting at...
Also, added for color.
Regardless of its actual historicity, it makes a nice point, and adds to the story, no?
Lets take another example and compare.

The story of Jesus and the Moneylenders.
Jesus, upset with the corruption and well, overt commercialization going on within the synagogue, gets pissed, grabs a scourge, and tears the place up, admonishing the ones responsible.

This is the most violent we get to see Jesus.
What message do you feel this represents?
Im thinking it goes to show a different side of the man, and his disdain for the defiling of a temple. Usually, we see a beatific Jesus, chock full of "turn the other cheek" mentality.
This example, shows a Jesus, brimming with Righteous Indignation.
Why?
Character development.




It may be true that we have very little to base it on, but a very little is a lot more than the nothing the other side has against it.

Well, I would say its the other way around, so unless you insist, let's not get back into that right now, eh?



I argued that Pilate’ motive to do it anyway, despite thinking Jesus innocent, was the pledges of future loyalty from the priests and his ilk he got for doing it for them.

Hmm... Im not so sure about that. Could he really trust them, considering he was a governing foreigner, in an occupied land, with hostile natives?



That’s the traditional view, and very well could be the correct view, but several people are unconvinced by the idea that he had pangs of conscience, I offered an alternative possibility (superstitious fear of ‘bad karma’).

I wouldnt entirely shit upon that idea, hell, Ive avoided certain deeds for the same reasons, but with a man like Pilate, I would think may be a little less concerned about such things, as such men have many concerns to deal with.
Heavy lies the crown, and all that...



I totally agree.

*now pick you jaw up off the floor, it was bound to happen sooner or later *

You agreed with a dirty, liberal atheist....feel dirty now, dont ya? :P

I disagree. With the understanding that a scribe can record the testimony of a different person and that different person’s testimony is then recorded, not the scribes testimony. It’s a shame that the gospel scribes didn’t tell us who each witness was nor testify how they know what they know, but they didn’t. We can wish for modern biographical material, but the gospels weren’t an attempt to be modern biographical material, the authors probably never even imagined anything like a modern biography style of work. The authors almost never identify themselves in the stories at all, in fact it seems they intentionally attempt to leave themselves out of it.

But a single witness can go a long way, lets use Andrew and the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and an example. If Andrew, once a follower of John, witnesses Jesus being baptized and some time later becomes a disciple of Jesus, Andrew's ‘testimony’ of what happened at Jesus' baptism would be available then to all of the disciples. Many years later, gospels written down, Jesus' baptism is included in the narratives regardless if Andrew is the scribe or not. If this sort of thing happened today it would certainly require accreditation and the witnesses would/could be asked directly instead of second hand, but we are talking about historical documents and that cross examination is impossible. Like it not, hearsay rules have hearsy rule exceptions for situations like this.

Does this mean that everyone has to accept the testimony given as truth? No, by no means, they can dismiss it if they want and disregard it, but the evidence is still evidence, it doesn’t just go away because some people want to throw it away. And on the other side, the person who IS convinced can know through studying the histories of the narratives how they are original material, how the early Christians understood the same narratives and how new archaeological finds can weed out later additions (if any) and we can rediscover original beliefs and read what the scripture and early church fathers had to say about it and themselves.

The main point being though, each scribe does NOT have to be an eyewitness of every event in each gospel for the gospels to be eyewitness testimonies.

All this is just speculation- like I said, nowhere *in* the Bible does it say specifically that it's an eyewitness account. You also cannot assume that the Gospel writers had sources- you've got to prove that they did and such proof isn't forthcoming. Regardless, without independent corroboration (as in, independent of the Bible), you're at a loss showing any of these stories actually happened and thus could have actually *had* eyewitnesses.

The name “son of” is not a unique part of the individuals name, as in it appears in many names, so we can dismiss the “bar” part and focus on the “Abbas” part. Abbas can mean father, it can be rabbi, it could be used as teacher. The surname, “son of the Rabbi,” or son of the Teacher, or son of the Father… So no, I don’t find it to be too much of a coincidence. A rich man’s son, a powerful mans son, a man who believes he should be privileged very well might rebel against the Romans and his own leaders who complied with Roman rule, he very well might become somewhat of a terrorist, in fact, I think I just described Osama bin Laden. ;)

You focus too much on just "Barabbas" and not the entire story. I said to consider it *all*:

-"Barabbas" means "Son of the Father"
-Barabbas in the story is next to someone (Jesus) also referred to as "Son of the Father"
-Barabbas is accused of causing an insurrection. So is Jesus.

Is that *still* just a coincidence?

Modern day practices do not indicate they occurred in the past, I totally agree. But by showing a modern day example I show that what I’m proposing for motivation of Pontius Pilate are not outside the realms of normal human behaviors, nothing exceptional is needed to believe it. As to the practice not being recorded anywhere else, I would like to know where else we could look? Many many things have been lost since then. Many daily routines and practices of the Jews and Romans in Judea are lost to us today (or lost so far and until further archaeological discoveries are made anyway). But by the very fact that scholars sit around today arguing about whether or not Qumran (for example) was full of scribes, religious zealots or pottery manufacturing workers and no one can disprove the others.… Of course we don’t know holiday practices and customes of the Romans in Judea and it should be no surprise that we don’t have corroborating evidence of a custom like this. We do have some evidence of it though, the synaptic gospels and John and even the apocryphal gospels like Peter have it too. Again, not solid irrefutable proof , but no reason to speculate in the negative and ignore what we do have.

No independent sources (especially from where it matters most- Josephus and Roman officials). No contemporary sources. No reason to suspect that Pilate even respected such a practice as it flies in the face of how he's characterized (correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen you address this specifically). It doesn't matter what might have been "lost"- we're dealing with what we have and we can only make conclusions based on that; and we have nothing other than secondary sources (since the Gospels are *not* contemporary to the time) documenting such a practice.

Nonsense. Stand inside the front office area of a busy police station for a day and just watch and listen, you will see ‘moral’ of the story incidents happen all day long.

...

Both. A sports journalist (for example) is a good journalist if he reports the story in a truthful manner AND entertains with little tidbits of truth and wisdom revealed in his stories. After thirty years of thinking about it and telling the story over and over again, someone like John would very well know when the teaching opportunities in his gospel would occur in his narrative and he’s sure to make the most of them in the gospel testimony when he gets around to having a scribe record it for him.

All right...but it's still a minor point. We still have to deal with the fact there's no independent corroboration nor do the Gospels cite their sources so there's no reason to say for sure that they're eye-witness testimonies.

Furthermore, if John wrote it down thirty years later his writing is no longer a "contemporary" to the event since it's too far removed from it to be contemporary. It's still- at best- a secondary source.

Primary sources can be the scribe (like John and Matthew are said to be, but Luke and Mark or nor themselves eyewitness, just scribes) and the witness that gives them the testimony. The oral tradition can be testimony (but I understand your position that oral tradition doesn’t need truth behind it to be tradition), I’m just saying that oral tradition CAN be based on eye witness testimony and the very earliest church fathers we have records of now agree that the gospels were compiled by eye-witness testimony then.

Based on what you're saying here you're still saying they're "based" on these accounts, not that they *are* the accounts (making them secondary sources). Second of all, they are- at best- secondary accounts since they're not contemporary to the events they are describing (the textbook definition of "primary source") since the writing is too far removed from the events to be primary. Third of all, again, without documented, independent corroboration the "eyewitness" claim is nothing more than speculation- again, we have to work with what we have, and what we have are secondary sources written well after the fact of when the events took place.

I corrected more than once...

Those quotes of mine answer your question to what is my postion but how is it misrepresented, was that he says I took a God Gambit postion to explain it when I did not.

Okay... your position is misrepresented by NOT being the God Gambit. But, what does that mean, and what IS your position?

Telling me what it's not, out of an infinite reality, is pretty unhelpful.

I made the claim that the gospels are presented to us by the church fathers as eye witness accounts, I argue that their claim has not been disproved and I’ve shown how I think the gospels meet the requirement of being eye witness accounts.

Are you kidding me?

You STILL argue that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?

and the sex.

Just ask Bottle, eh? :p

You STILL argue that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts?

This reminds me of singular focus that i ran across today ....
http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2e80b687-www.kgan.com.shtml

There's money?

There's sex?

Seriously ... we're both married ... i thought that whole "sex" thing was an urban legend or an inside NS joke.

I disagree. With the understanding that a scribe can record the testimony of a different person and that different person’s testimony is then recorded, not the scribes testimony. It’s a shame that the gospel scribes didn’t tell us who each witness was nor testify how they know what they know, but they didn’t.


It is indeed a shame. If for no other reason than there is no BETTER reason to believe that any of the text is real, than there is to believe it is fiction.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The gospels provide us with less-than-ordinary evidence, if that.


We can wish for modern biographical material, but the gospels weren’t an attempt to be modern biographical material, the authors probably never even imagined anything like a modern biography style of work. The authors almost never identify themselves in the stories at all, in fact it seems they intentionally attempt to leave themselves out of it.


We don't even (honestly) know who the authors were, if they were even real people, rather than collaborative projects.

The decision of the 'author' to remove himself from the work doesn't do a lot to reinforce it's reliability.


But a single witness can go a long way, lets use Andrew and the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and an example. If Andrew, once a follower of John, witnesses Jesus being baptized and some time later becomes a disciple of Jesus, Andrew's ‘testimony’ of what happened at Jesus' baptism would be available then to all of the disciples. Many years later, gospels written down, Jesus' baptism is included in the narratives regardless if Andrew is the scribe or not.


Regardless of whether Andrew even existed or not, too.

Even if he did - the story is so far from the time, that even if Andrew was real, and dictated it direct to the scribe, it would be pretty unreliable. And we have no reason to believe Andrew ever even SPOKE to the scribe.


Like it not, hearsay rules have hearsy rule exceptions for situations like this.


In the US law courts. Which isn't entirely relevent to the debate. But you keep trying with it.


Does this mean that everyone has to accept the testimony given as truth? No, by no means, they can dismiss it if they want and disregard it, but the evidence is still evidence, it doesn’t just go away because some people want to throw it away.


No, but it is so vague and unsourced as to be practically useless without very good corroboration - of which it has... well, none!


The main point being though, each scribe does NOT have to be an eyewitness of every event in each gospel for the gospels to be eyewitness testimonies.


They surely do, unless the text presents itself as records of the eyewitness testimony of another.


The name “son of” is not a unique part of the individuals name, as in it appears in many names, so we can dismiss the “bar” part and focus on the “Abbas” part. Abbas can mean father, it can be rabbi, it could be used as teacher. The surname, “son of the Rabbi,” or son of the Teacher, or son of the Father…


Yep... we can come up with all kinds of long and complicated 'might be' reasons... but the most likely explanation is so often the best.


As to the practice not being recorded anywhere else, I would like to know where else we could look? Many many things have been lost since then.


Tough shit for the historicity of the bible, really. What can't be corroborated finds itself in a vacuum.


After thirty years of thinking about it and telling the story over and over again, someone like John would very well know when the teaching opportunities in his gospel would occur in his narrative and he’s sure to make the most of them in the gospel testimony when he gets around to having a scribe record it for him.


So - the written account, even if it WAS directly transcribed by a witness... is adulterated to be a 'teaching' text?


Primary sources can be the scribe (like John and Matthew are said to be, but Luke and Mark or nor themselves eyewitness, just scribes) and the witness that gives them the testimony.


Actually, we have no real reason to believe any of those people even existed, much less wrote texts... witness or no.


The oral tradition can be testimony (but I understand your position that oral tradition doesn’t need truth behind it to be tradition), I’m just saying that oral tradition CAN be based on eye witness testimony and the very earliest church fathers we have records of now agree that the gospels were compiled by eye-witness testimony then.

We don't have the 'oral tradition'... only what LATTER writers CLAIM it was.

This reminds me of singular focus that i ran across today ....
http://www.kgan.com/template/inews_wire/wires.national/2e80b687-www.kgan.com.shtml

Singular focus... yes, that's the problem... :o

There's sex?

Seriously ... we're both married ... i thought that whole "sex" thing was an urban legend or an inside NS joke.

Pah, I can get sex. (She never has to know, right?) But the money is elusive...

Pah, I can get sex. (She never has to know, right?)Do you mean, like, unconscious? Or somnambulatory consummation?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6540-sleepwalking-woman-had-sex-with-strangers.html
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,22209032-5006003,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3744226.stm

But the money is elusive...Boy howdy. :(
But there's nothing to say we should keep the $ and the sex apart, is there ...


.....



.....



.....IS THERE?!?

Pah, I can get sex. (She never has to know, right?) But the money is elusive...

I'm working on that part as hard as I can. I promise. You should give me a call when you're free, though.

I'm working on that part as hard as I can. I promise. You should give me a call when you're free, though.
Does that cover both of his points?
Oh ... and are there "brownie points" if he's on a football team? :p

Do you mean, like, unconscious? Or somnambulatory consummation?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6540-sleepwalking-woman-had-sex-with-strangers.html
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,,22209032-5006003,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3744226.stm


I've read about that before... it's in my list of excuses to try.. :D

But no, that's not quite what I meant. :o


Boy howdy. :(
But there's nothing to say we should keep the $ and the sex apart, is there ...


.....



.....



.....IS THERE?!?

Here's the problem. I want ME to make money, not some girl who asks me if I want a good time. :D

I've read about that before... it's in my list of excuses to try.. :D
I'd had the thought BEFORE that episode of House, but he did it well. :)

Here's the problem. I want ME to make money, not some girl who asks me if I want a good time. :D
Oh. Did you catch Jocabia's "advance"? The hussy. :p

I'm working on that part as hard as I can. I promise. You should give me a call when you're free, though.

The sex part, or the money part... :D

Free is a relative term. A situation I know you've been all too acquainted with. :)

Does that cover both of his points?
Oh ... and are there "brownie points" if he's on a football team? :p

No, it just means he's not gay. Right?

btw... 'real' football, or that American 'like-rugby-but-for-girls' thing?

No, it just means he's not gay. Right?I don't know that i'm qualified to answer that accurately, actually. o.9

btw... 'real' football, or that American 'like-rugby-but-for-girls' thing?
Good point. I'm not sure which one has more butt-patting.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_RG5aQYspyD0/RydUcEYMUHI/AAAAAAAAAHM/eNV4GR_2cpw/s1600-h/gobucks.jpg

Well, his names translation aside, again, as I said, it seems to make a point. It can show how eager those present were to see Jesus executed. They would rather have seen a murderer, and a well-known low-life scumbag like Barrabas go free, than Jesus.
As I said this adds a bit of drama, and adds to the dramatic conclusion.
I agree that is shows how eager those present were to see Jesus executed. I think that’s the meaning of the narrative, but I don’t see how this make the narrative suspect.
Lets take another example and compare.

The story of Jesus and the Moneylenders.
Jesus, upset with the corruption and well, overt commercialization going on within the synagogue, gets pissed, grabs a scourge, and tears the place up, admonishing the ones responsible.

This is the most violent we get to see Jesus.
What message do you feel this represents?
Im thinking it goes to show a different side of the man, and his disdain for the defiling of a temple. Usually, we see a beatific Jesus, chock full of "turn the other cheek" mentality.
This example, shows a Jesus, brimming with Righteous Indignation.
Why?
Character development.
Not just character development, he was simply trying to drive the money lenders away from the temple. ;) Side point, I suggest that Jesus gets more violent than that story though, when he says what’s he’s going to do later:

Matthew 13
36Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field." 37He answered, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

I think far more people get upset by the above quote than the number of people who get upset by the whipping of the moneylenders stuff. Just saying is all.

In either event, I do see how any of that would be a reason to believe he did or did not do or say these things though.

Hmm... Im not so sure about that. Could he really trust them, considering he was a governing foreigner, in an occupied land, with hostile natives?
Could he trust them? No. But wouldn’t that be a good reason for him to try and get them to swear an oath of loyalty? Not trusting them is why he wanted their pledges.

I wouldnt entirely shit upon that idea, hell, Ive avoided certain deeds for the same reasons, but with a man like Pilate, I would think may be a little less concerned about such things, as such men have many concerns to deal with.
Heavy lies the crown, and all that...
I agree with your assessment, really. He was hesitant to do it for one reason or another, BUT he was a man like Pilate, I would think may be a little less concerned about such things and he overcame those qualms (whatever they were) and ordered the execution anyway.

You agreed with a dirty, liberal atheist....feel dirty now, dont ya? :P
Yes, yes I do. :p No, no I don’t. :)

All this is just speculation- like I said, nowhere *in* the Bible does it say specifically that it's an eyewitness account. You also cannot assume that the Gospel writers had sources- you've got to prove that they did and such proof isn't forthcoming. Regardless, without independent corroboration (as in, independent of the Bible), you're at a loss showing any of these stories actually happened and thus could have actually *had* eyewitnesses.
I CAN claim they had sources because they claim it for themselves. This has been brought up before but I’m bringing up again because it was many many pages ago I’m sure.

Luke 1
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

To me, a key to understanding how the gospels were recorded was revealed to us through Luke.

1. Compiled narratives. More than just the author’s direct testimony alone.
2. Eyewitnesses and ministers. The sources where the testimony comes from.
3. “Certainly of things being taught.” Now we know other sources/traditions were available for cross-references.
So I can assume they had sources because they say they did, and they say those sources included eyewitnesses. As to proving they were telling the truth and weren’t lying? I didn’t say I can prove they weren’t lying, but why must I assume they are lying?


You focus too much on just "Barabbas" and not the entire story. I said to consider it *all*:

-"Barabbas" means "Son of the Father"
-Barabbas in the story is next to someone (Jesus) also referred to as "Son of the Father"
-Barabbas is accused of causing an insurrection. So is Jesus.

Is that *still* just a coincidence?
I perhaps didn’t clarify why I was focusing on the name. IF the name is misinterpreted then the first two steps there fall down. The only ‘coincidence’ then is that they were both being charged with something at the same time. Barabbas is said to have been a notorious prisoner, a rebel in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, and a robber. I don’t see how that description fits the description of Jesus at all. I’ve never heard any justification for calling Jesus a robber or a murderer, and thus, I see no reason to think Barabbas and Jesus might be one and the same.

No independent sources (especially from where it matters most- Josephus and Roman officials). No contemporary sources. No reason to suspect that Pilate even respected such a practice as it flies in the face of how he's characterized (correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen you address this specifically). It doesn't matter what might have been "lost"- we're dealing with what we have and we can only make conclusions based on that; and we have nothing other than secondary sources (since the Gospels are *not* contemporary to the time) documenting such a practice.
As to independent Roman sources; there are no Romans in Judea records from that time period that address customs the Romans had in regard to Jews observing holidays. So there is no ‘missing’ evidence, there is no source we should be able to find evidence of this custom in.

Josephus would have been nice, but even there the fact that it isn’t mentioned should not really raise eyebrows of suspicion either. Josephus lived and wrote after significant changes had occurred in Judea from the time of Christ. Even Tacitus made errors in understanding how the Judean providence was controlled differently from before the death of Herod Agrippa and after it, so it seems easy enough for other historians of Joseph's day to miss the sublte differences and their implications from the time befroe Herod Agrippas death, especially if they didn’t live through the different phrases themselves, like Josephe and Tacitus didn't.

As to those changes, the roman governor’s position changed responsibilities and title from before Herod’s death in 44AD and after, the social climate and tension between Jews and Romans increases steadily (not that it wasn’t high to begin with) through the birth pangs of what would be the soon to be doomed resurrection attempt in the late 60’s. The changes from 44AD onward would have been a steady progression of more and more oppression of civil freedoms and a loss of mutual respect between Romans and Jews, it should be no surprise if goodwill holiday observance customs might be lost sometime between the early 30’s and the late 60’s. Somebody born during that time might never have been exposed to such a custom and thus not record it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur.

As to Pilate and the way he is characterized in history, as an oppressor and mad of mean spirit, I did address motivations for Pilate to understand why he may have behaved in the manner described by the narratives even with that personality trait. To put it briefly, (because it is in other posts of mine) Apprehension at killing an innocent man for a superstitious fear of ‘bad karma’ and/or the pangs of conscience (even if he was a hard man, he may have believed himself to be a fair man). Either way, knowing the type of man he was, he was more than able to put those feelings down and he authorized the execution of a man he thought innocent of the charges brought against him anyway.


All right...but it's still a minor point. We still have to deal with the fact there's no independent corroboration nor do the Gospels cite their sources so there's no reason to say for sure that they're eye-witness testimonies.

Furthermore, if John wrote it down thirty years later his writing is no longer a "contemporary" to the event since it's too far removed from it to be contemporary. It's still- at best- a secondary source.
IMO, corroborating evidence is in the evidence that more than one gospel was written in different times and different places, even after accounting for and considering that the synaptic gospels were written by people aware of the other gospels, we have more than one tradition represented in each, AND we have John, an independent source outside of the synaptic traditions. As to the thirty years later so they might have forgotten things suggestion, I don’t agree that accuracy of events often repeated are lost over a period of years if they are recited frequently. A total random event trying to be recalled after thirty years for the first time would be a problem, but not a testimony that you thought was one of the most important events of your life, like the gospel eyewitnesses seem to have believed.

Based on what you're saying here you're still saying they're "based" on these accounts, not that they *are* the accounts (making them secondary sources). Second of all, they are- at best- secondary accounts since they're not contemporary to the events they are describing (the textbook definition of "primary source") since the writing is too far removed from the events to be primary. Third of all, again, without documented, independent corroboration the "eyewitness" claim is nothing more than speculation- again, we have to work with what we have, and what we have are secondary sources written well after the fact of when the events took place.
I’m saying they can be based on witness testimony (recording the testimony of others) AND they have eyewitness testimony by the very hand of the very scribes writing them in other places. That they claim themselves to be eyewitness accounts and compilations of gathered sources.

Of course he existed. Of course he was a real person. We have substantial proof from not only Christianity--but Islam--as well as other nonreligious texts, that he existed.

A better question to ask would be: "Was Jesus really important?" That, my friend, is up for more serious debate.

Heheh yet another one huh! Go on then lets have this proof?

Of course he existed. Of course he was a real person. We have substantial proof from not only Christianity--but Islam--as well as other nonreligious texts, that he existed.

A better question to ask would be: "Was Jesus really important?" That, my friend, is up for more serious debate.

Balderdash, stop Bible-thumping.
The Bible was first copied by monks, then copied again and again and again, translated, fixed, retranslated, adjusted, translated again...
The gospels were written by senile old men 60 years after the events took place... the Crusades destroyed plenty of other gospels that may have held more truth...

The Bible is merely an exaggerated (and probably mistranslated and mis-representative) account of what happened when some smooth-talking guy who told everyone he was important came along.

It is indeed a shame. If for no other reason than there is no BETTER reason to believe that any of the text is real, than there is to believe it is fiction.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The gospels provide us with less-than-ordinary evidence, if that.
The better reason is that the first critics of the gospels, those most familiar with them in their most original and authentic forms, concluded that the canonized gospels were the testimony of eyewitnesses and scribes with good reason to know, and that the people that spread the narrative gospels (even outside of written versions) claimed the stories in them to be a true and as told by witnesses. That tips the scales from no evidence, to enough evidence to not call them lies without reason. It IS evidence that multiple people claiming them to be testimony, not fiction, from very early.

As to the extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, the multiple gospels give you more than common evidence. Multiple evidences from that time period through the ages to our time period IS more than common everyday evidence when compared to any other event(s) that occurred during that time period in Judea to survive to our times. Is it evidence that must be found to be irrefutable? No. Is it sufficient evidence? I say yes, you say no.

We don't even (honestly) know who the authors were, if they were even real people, rather than collaborative projects.
I am arguing that the books ARE compiled, in a way that would make them collaborative projects. I don’t think that collaborative project would them less authentic, I think it makes them MORE authentic. Of course I think author/scribes did have their own works though.

The decision of the 'author' to remove himself from the work doesn't do a lot to reinforce it's reliability.
I disagree entirely. The attempt to removed yourself from the work is evidence of its authenticity. It can only be driven by modesty and humbleness and a desire to not profit from writing the work itself but to present the work as a gift to the reader. It suggests the stories weren’t written for vain glory or personal gain, like other books where the author wants fame and fortune for being the author of a famous book(s) and they try to cash in on that fame thereafter by writing their name on every page...

Regardless of whether Andrew even existed or not, too.

Even if he did - the story is so far from the time, that even if Andrew was real, and dictated it direct to the scribe, it would be pretty unreliable. And we have no reason to believe Andrew ever even SPOKE to the scribe.
The gospels and the book of Acts clearly shows us that Andrew was Peter’s brother AND he used to follow John, AND he became a disciple of Jesus AND that Andrew and Peter and the others all shared plenty of time together and that they talked to each other. We know that Mark is said to be written by Peter’s account. Again, you don’t have to believe it, I know you don’t. But I also see that you want to pretend that we don’t have any reason to think we know anything about their sources, when in fact this stuff is buried in plain sight.

In the US law courts. Which isn't entirely relevent to the debate. But you keep trying with it.
Is there a General Forum rule book for things like this? No? I didn’t think so. I think if it’s good enough for US law courts its good enough for my debate methodology. You say it is not, I disagree.

No, but it is so vague and unsourced as to be practically useless without very good corroboration - of which it has... well, none!
Two or more witness testimony is not “none.” You don’t think it’s enough, I understand that. But archaeological finds of first century Judea do not show that the picture the narratives paint is an incorrect view of the region during those times. Locations and names and fountains and temples are shown over and over against to be where the narratives testify them to be. “No corroboration” is incorrect. Not enough for you, okay, I agree with that.

They surely do, unless the text presents itself as records of the eyewitness testimony of another.
The text DOES present itself as records of eyewitness testimony of another. Again, Luke 1.

Yep... we can come up with all kinds of long and complicated 'might be' reasons... but the most likely explanation is so often the best.
The most simplistic explanation is that the Syriac translation created a problem where there was none before. That there was no coincidence of names problem in the original sources.

Tough shit for the historicity of the bible, really. What can't be corroborated finds itself in a vacuum.
Good thing there is more than one gospel narrative then huh, none of them are in a vacuum alone that way.

So - the written account, even if it WAS directly transcribed by a witness... is adulterated to be a 'teaching' text?
The narrator’s voice speaking during a story narrative in no way diminishes the authenticity of the story itself. The narrators “voice over” clarifies incidences, not hides them.

Actually, we have no real reason to believe any of those people even existed, much less wrote texts... witness or no.
We don't have the 'oral tradition'... only what LATTER writers CLAIM it was.
You’ve made it abundantly clear that you don’t believe it. I haven’t seen any solid reason presented why someone can’t come to the completely opposite conclusion though.

Balderdash, stop Bible-thumping.
The Bible was first copied by monks, then copied again and again and again, translated, fixed, retranslated, adjusted, translated again...
The gospels were written by senile old men 60 years after the events took place... the Crusades destroyed plenty of other gospels that may have held more truth...

The Bible is merely an exaggerated (and probably mistranslated and mis-representative) account of what happened when some smooth-talking guy who told everyone he was important came along.

The Jesus figure had delusions of grandeur, and good timing. He was praised for what he said and claimed back then, where as anyone today who claims the same thing get locked up in a small room, looking out a tiny window for the rest of their life.

The Bible is all in all a mythology. The Norse believed in Odin, Loki and Ragnarok, just like all Bible based religions today believe in Jesus, Cain, Legion and Armageddon. You can't shun someones beliefs thousands of years ago, and then go around telling people people that Jesus was Gods only child.

What pisses me off these days is the lack of Separation of Church and State. Bush has been pushing the bible on us since day one.:headbang:

Balderdash, stop Bible-thumping.
The Bible was first copied by monks, then copied again and again and again, translated, fixed, retranslated, adjusted, translated again...
The gospels were written by senile old men 60 years after the events took place... the Crusades destroyed plenty of other gospels that may have held more truth...

The Bible is merely an exaggerated (and probably mistranslated and mis-representative) account of what happened when some smooth-talking guy who told everyone he was important came along.

Except for the Monks (scribes) part, none of what you just said comes from anywhere but your own imagination. Clearly you have a serious misunderstanding of what we know about the NT works.

Here, read this, treat it as a basic starter course of what we know and how we know it about the New Testament books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

when you're done reading it please feel free to come back and join in and tell me how wrong I am, you'll have to get in line though ;)

"luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter"
*nods sagely*

But what evidence do we have that yoda existed? I know we have some movies here but we had movies like "The 10 commandments" as well...

Except for the Monks (scribes) part, none of what you just said comes from anywhere but your own imagination. Clearly you have a serious misunderstanding of what we know about the NT works.

Here, read this, treat it as a basic starter course of what we know and how we know it about the New Testament books.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

when you're done reading it please feel free to come back and join in and tell me how wrong I am, you'll have to get in line though ;)

Okay. So the first, original pieces of the Bible were all written in modern English exactly as we see them today?

Have you taken a language course, my friend? Do you know what can happen if something gets worded just slightly wrong? Do you know that there are specific concepts and even words that sometimes have no direct translation?

Not like we're even talking about modern languages. We're talking about old Latin and Greek and Hebrew.

The translation and re-translation of the Bible played a significant part in how it turned out today. How many different versions are there available?

It's not a credible source. Sorry, pal.
Neither is Wikipedia--especially for something as controversial as the Bible. Sorry, dude, try again.

Okay. So the first, original pieces of the Bible were all written in modern English exactly as we see them today?
Is that what I said? Is that what the website I linked you to said? I didn't think so.

Have you taken a language course, my friend? Do you know what can happen if something gets worded just slightly wrong? Do you know that there are specific concepts and even words that sometimes have no direct translation?

Not like we're even talking about modern languages. We're talking about old Latin and Greek and Hebrew.

The translation and re-translation of the Bible played a significant part in how it turned out today. How many different versions are there available?

It's not a credible source. Sorry, pal.
Neither is Wikipedia--especially for something as controversial as the Bible. Sorry, dude, try again.
Not a problem. Have a nice day.

The better reason is that the first critics of the gospels, those most familiar with them in their most original and authentic forms, concluded that the canonized gospels were the testimony of eyewitnesses and scribes with good reason to know, and that the people that spread the narrative gospels (even outside of written versions) claimed the stories in them to be a true and as told by witnesses. That tips the scales from no evidence, to enough evidence to not call them lies without reason. It IS evidence that multiple people claiming them to be testimony, not fiction, from very early.

Who were these multiple people you claim? The authors?

Who were these multiple people you claim? The authors?

I was mostly referring to the Apologetic Fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and the Apostolic Fathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers) and other very early Church fathers as well. People like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna…

Okay. So the first, original pieces of the Bible were all written in modern English exactly as we see them today?

Have you taken a language course, my friend? Do you know what can happen if something gets worded just slightly wrong? Do you know that there are specific concepts and even words that sometimes have no direct translation?

Not like we're even talking about modern languages. We're talking about old Latin and Greek and Hebrew.

The translation and re-translation of the Bible played a significant part in how it turned out today. How many different versions are there available?

It's not a credible source. Sorry, pal.
Neither is Wikipedia--especially for something as controversial as the Bible. Sorry, dude, try again.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Baldy here. You're statements stretch fact to breaking. You should educate yourself on our earliest versions of the scriptures. We don't have to look at how it turned out today. How it looks today doesn't retroactively change the information we have from 1700 years ago.

Basically, you're making unsourced claims and then bitching that his sourced claims aren't good enough for you. It's not a valid argument. You're welcome to come up with an argument that doesn't require us to accept your opinion, based on information you're giving out that is provably ignorant, as fact.

I was mostly referring to the Apologetic Fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr and the Apostolic Fathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers) and other very early Church fathers as well. People like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna…

Most scholars agree that the texts they were talking about were not the texts we have today. The texts we have today are based on those texts, which is why a claim that they could be based on eyewitness testimony would be a valid claim. Unless I rewrite a story as told by a witness verbatum, then it's at least a secondary source. Your own descriptions of these events suggests that's not what happened here. These are eyewitness descriptions like "Fire in the Sky" is a true story.

It's not to say you don't have a point, but you're not using eyewitness accounts, first-hand accounts, and direct accounts properly. Your statements assume these events happened, which kind of circumvents the entire discussion.

Most scholars agree that the texts they were talking about were not the texts we have today. The texts we have today are based on those texts, which is why a claim that they could be based on eyewitness testimony would be a valid claim. Unless I rewrite a story as told by a witness verbatum, then it's at least a secondary source. Your own descriptions of these events suggests that's not what happened here. These are eyewitness descriptions like "Fire in the Sky" is a true story.

It is true that Matthew is said to have been written in Hebrew/Aramaic, depending on how you interpret it, and I personally concede that Matthew today may not be a direct translation of the Hebrew Matthew spoken of. However, IF our version of Matthew is a different work than the Hebrew version talked about by them, our version is an ealy source too as most scholars assume it was written before Luke; AND Luke and Mark and John ARE thought to be the same gospels that the early father wrote about. Which copy, which endings, which phrases, these are debatable, but they definitely had copies of the same books we have copies of (and more).

It's not to say you don't have a point, but you're not using eyewitness accounts, first-hand accounts, and direct accounts properly. Your statements assume these events happened, which kind of circumvents the entire discussion.

My position is that these events likely happened, yes that is true. My opponents believe these events mostly likely did not happen, that too is true. That’s the reason for the debate, of course. I don't see how it circumvents the entire discussion if the discussion in now biblical criticism and not just the historicity of Jesus outside of biblical sources.

It is true that Matthew is said to have been written in Hebrew/Aramaic, depending on how you interpret it, and I personally concede that Matthew today may not be a direct translation of the Hebrew Matthew spoken of. However, IF our version of Matthew is a different work than the Hebrew version talked about by them, our version is an ealy source too as most scholars assume it was written before Luke; AND Luke and Mark and John ARE thought to be the same gospels that the early father wrote about. Which copy, which endings, which phrases, these are debatable, but they definitely had copies of the same books we have copies of (and more).



My position is that these events likely happened, yes that is true. My opponents believe these events mostly likely did not happen, that too is true. That’s the reason for the debate, of course. I don't see how it circumvents the entire discussion if the discussion in now biblical criticism and not just the historicity of Jesus outside of biblical sources.

Actually, I'm one of your opponents and I believe these events happened, just not identically to the recordings of them.

What I can say with relative certainty is that these are not faithful recordings of the events. It requires me to ignore the evidence. This doesn't change the historicity of Jesus the Christ nor whether the events occurred.

You've said that you believe them to be eyewitness accounts. You've said that we have to allow them to be treated as such unless we can prove they aren't. Treating them as eyewitness circumvents the debate of existence, since the eyewitness events include Jesus. "Eyewitness" assumes they happened. There is no escaping that. Biblical criticism is REQUIRE as soon as anyone claims it can be considered eyewitness.

We aren't requiring extra-Biblical sources for Jesus Christ. We're asking for corroboration of the stories of Jesus that would give us a compelling reason to believes these stories are based on a man. There are tons of ways that happens. Corroboration can be in a form that doesn't offer anything up regarding Jesus specifically, but evidences that the stories are accurate or at least accurate enough for the historicity of Jesus Christ to be the most logical conclusion.

...
What I can say with relative certainty is that these are not faithful recordings of the events. It requires me to ignore the evidence. This doesn't change the historicity of Jesus the Christ nor whether the events occurred.
...

A major pillar of my position is the absence of what you call the evidence you would have to ignore to believe the narrative is accurate portrayals of the events they describe. I've been arguing that the narratives say they are accurate portrayals of the events (within human reason) and without causes to doubt them, and as such conditions continue I see no reason to speculate that they are lying.

So if you could provide a distinct list of the evidence(s) against the narrations being accurate portrayals and/or proofs against their historicity of the stories themselves, don't be shy, have at it. I'm not trying to goad you, I'm curious what hard evidences they are that you make such strong statements about, and especially since you believe the claims of biblical authenticity of the events are proven false.

A major pillar of my position is the absence of what you call the evidence you would have to ignore to believe the narrative is accurate portrayals of the events they describe. I've been arguing that the narratives say they are accurate portrayals of the events (within human reason) and without causes to doubt them, and as such conditions continue I see no reason to speculate that they are lying.

So if you could provide a distinct list of the evidence(s) against the narrations being accurate portrayals and/or proofs against their historicity of the stories themselves, don't be shy, have at it. I'm not trying to goad you, I'm curious what hard evidences they are that you make such strong statements about, and especially since you believe the claims of biblical authenticity of the events are proven false.

Lying? That's your false dichotomy again. Lying isn't the only other choice. Wrong. That's the other choice.

I told you the list of evidences. You dismissed them with a wave of the hand. Occam's razor requires us to settle at the most reasonable theory. You require us to molest the evidence and manufacture information we don't have in order to land at a much more complicated theory for the events.

The list which MUST be addressed as a whole for just one story is that a man whose title is "Son of the Father" is standing next to a man whose names means exactly that. We all agree that the man whose name means that has representative elements, the marks of commentary. We all agree that we have no evidence for the event that explains why there are two men. We all agree that we don't know who the eyewitnesses were or how they would come to be recorded. We all agree that some of the acts are out of character for Pilate. All of this can be explained by a story that ended up getting some commentary type elements added over time. Commentary type elements YOU suggested had been added.

The simple explanation for why a story bears the marks of an allegory and the marks of repeated retelling is because it's actually happened. You keep shifting the burden on us to show that these aren't eyewitness events, but the burden is on you to show they are. The evidence present is clear and obvious. Other than claims of people who probably did believe these were recordings of eyewitness accounts (or I'd argue that their words only show that they considered that the origin), we have only clues that suggest that these are, at best, recordings of recordings of recordings, etc., or eyewitness events.

Less than 3 pages and deja moo.

Less than 3 pages and deja moo.

You're always so helpful. What would NSG do without NSG?

You're always so helpful. What would NSG do without NSG?

Get another NSG, funny pun

You're always so helpful. What would NSG do without NSG?

Hard to say. I have to have a source of laughter and jocabian 'logic' is perfect.

*palmtoface*

I can't believe you are still claiming I haven't defended and presented the reasons for thinking there is nothing special about the narrative of the Barabbas event... But okay.

Lying? That's your false dichotomy again. Lying isn't the only other choice. Wrong. That's the other choice.

I told you the list of evidences. You dismissed them with a wave of the hand. Occam's razor requires us to settle at the most reasonable theory. You require us to molest the evidence and manufacture information we don't have in order to land at a much more complicated theory for the events.

Nonsense. The side that wants to say the narration is wrong is the side that wants to molest the evidence and manufacture information we don't have. I'm using the information we do have. Notice that I'm the one that can quote it, obviously I'm not the one manufacturing a way to invent something new from the data we have, I'm describing the event as described in the evidence that actually exists, the vesion with two people.

The list which MUST be addressed as a whole for just one story is that a man whose title is "Son of the Father" is standing next to a man whose names means exactly that. We all agree that the man whose name means that has representative elements, the marks of commentary.
I did not agree. There is no reason to assume it is anything other than just a surname. A totally different name than the name used for Jesus.

We all agree that we have no evidence for the event that explains why there are two men.
Why wouldn't there be two men? One was a murderer and a robber, the other Jesus, one was released, one allowed free. Addtionally, why do you think there were only one men? Two other men get crucified with Jesus, where were they? There should be at least 4 people being charged that day. Thats why there should be more than one there...

We all agree that we don't know who the eyewitnesses were or how they would come to be recorded.
I do not agree with that. The gospel of John says the disciple was with the high priest court.

We all agree that some of the acts are out of character for Pilate.
I do not agree. I've already argued at least two differrent views of what Pilate could be resisting for, AND I've stated a motive for authorizing the execution despite those feelings. It's not out of character for him.

All of this can be explained by a story that ended up getting some commentary type elements added over time.
None of it needs to be explained, I don't agree that there was any problem.

Commentary type elements YOU suggested had been added.
I did not say they had been 'added,' I argue that the message is emphasised so the reader will notice them.

The simple explanation for why a story bears the marks of an allegory and the marks of repeated retelling is because it's actually happened. You keep shifting the burden on us to show that these aren't eyewitness events, but the burden is on you to show they are. The evidence present is clear and obvious. Other than claims of people who probably did believe these were recordings of eyewitness accounts (or I'd argue that their words only show that they considered that the origin), we have only clues that suggest that these are, at best, recordings of recordings of recordings, etc., or eyewitness events.

You assume the impact of too many generations. John very well could be the disciple that went into the priests inner rooms. John's gospel is said to be the last gospel written down, John is said to have dictated the story himself. One witness, one story.

*palmtoface*

I can't believe you are still claiming I haven't defended and presented the reasons for thinking there is nothing special about the narrative of the Barabbas event... But okay.

No, you have. You do so by treating them like they are all seperate.

I say, it has webbed feet, a bill, feathers, quacks and answers to Ducky McDuckerson. You pull them apart and mention that lots of birds have webbed feet. Even feathers. A platypus has webbed feet and a bill. Lots of things have feathers. "Hell, I can quack. You want me to quack. I'll quack for you. You can even call me Ducky McDuckerson." To which I reply, "Creepy."

Obviously I'm joking, but you can't view it all seperately because while seperately you can explain them, together, it becomes a complicated violation of Occam's razor. You're requiring us to ignoring the most poignant conclusion for one that one could ONLY arrive at by assuming it was true first and forcing the data to fit.



Nonsense. The side that wants to say the narration is wrong is the side that wants to molest the evidence and manufacture information we don't have. I'm using the information we do have. Notice that I'm the one that can quote it, obviously I'm not the one manufacturing a way to invent something new from the data we have, I'm describing the event as described in the evidence that actually exists, the vesion with two people.

Amusing. You can't say the text is true cuz it says so. The point is that in order to explain how this might be eyewitness, how we ended up with representative characters, why we have these rather unusual coincidence, and why we have practices that no one else has ever heard of, you have come up with a number of suggestions but all require us to accept these complicated guesses at the events that you'd never make if you weren't already assuming they were true.

Jesus had syphillis and it drove him crazy. The side that says I'm wrong has to prove it, right?


I did not agree. There is no reason to assume it is anything other than just a surname. A totally different name than the name used for Jesus.

It isn't different than the name Jesus uses for himself. How many times in the text does Jesus call himself the "Son of the Father"?



Why wouldn't there be two men? One was a murderer and a robber, the other Jesus, one was released, one allowed free. Addtionally, why do you think there were only one men? Two other men get crucified with Jesus, where were they? There should be at least 4 people being charged that day. Thats why there should be more than one there...

Again, you peice apart the evidence, but the evidence is compelling together. Are all of these things unusual seperately? Nope. Are they unusual together? Yep. Why would Jesus' improsonment be dependent on another's? No explanation other than a made-up practice in the text. Why would we even hear about the second guy? Because of the allegorical element, the value to have him in the story. You see when looked at all together the only way to get that this is an eyewitness account is to assume it must be. Otherwise, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it looks like an story (has elements that don't have historical basis, has unusually and coincidentally named characters and historical figures acting out of character), and sounds like a story (has allegorical elements and plain out obvious narrative devices), something you admit, then it's probably a story.



I do not agree with that. The gospel of John says the disciple was with the high priest court.

So you can tell me that you know who the eyewitness who recorded this story was and how it came to be recorded? Seriously? Come on, that's ludicrous.



I do not agree. I've already argued at least two differrent views of what Pilate could be resisting for, AND I've stated a motive for authorizing the execution despite those feelings. It's not out of character for him.

Yes, I know. You've made up evidence. As I said. Thanks for confirming it. You've shown that rather than simply landing on the obvious conclusion with the information we have before us, we have to invent complicated explanations for the motives, for the missing historical data, for the problematic elements in this story. Landing at it being an allegory simply requires recognizing what you called the main point of the story, the representation for all of mankind, recognizing the meaning of the name of one character is the title for the other, and recognizing that historical elements don't match up with our knowledge of history. My theory requires I not add any facts, any explanations or guess at any motivations. I simply arrive a the simplest solution.





None of it needs to be explained, I don't agree that there was any problem.

Yet, you did have to explain it. You just admitted to explaining the "possible" motives of Pilate and you're guessing at who the eyewitness is and how it got recorded. Lots of guessing. Lots of attempts to explain. When in reality there is an obvious conclusion staring us in the face. As yours is the bigger stretch, yours requires evidence. This is how history works. We don't just assume a story is true until someone proves it false. There is no corroboration for this story and it bears all the marks of an allegory, something you've said in eighteen different ways yourself.



I did not say they had been 'added,' I argue that the message is emphasised so the reader will notice them.

How does one emphasize a message? It requires taking liberties with the story. It stops being a faithful attempt to relay the history and takes on another purpose, a purpose that automatically makes it unreliable. I'll admit my bar stories have certain elements emphasized. I also wouldn't say they are accurate historical accounts.



You assume the impact of too many generations. John very well could be the disciple that went into the priests inner rooms. John's gospel is said to be the last gospel written down, John is said to have dictated the story himself. One witness, one story.

"could very well"? So John witnessed every event in his Gospel? You really want to try to defend that view? This will be fun.

Meanwhile, I don't assume anything. The evidence supports retelling. I've shown how and why. Absent manufactured explanations for motives and missing history and several other complicated insertions, the simplest supportable conclusion is this story is "BASED ON" on a claimed eyewitness event. It seems to me, you've said the same.

No, you have. You do so by treating them like they are all seperate.

I say, it has webbed feet, a bill, feathers, quacks and answers to Ducky McDuckerson. You pull them apart and mention that lots of birds have webbed feet. Even feathers. A platypus has webbed feet and a bill. Lots of things have feathers. "Hell, I can quack. You want me to quack. I'll quack for you. You can even call me Ducky McDuckerson." To which I reply, "Creepy."

Obviously I'm joking, but you can't view it all seperately because while seperately you can explain them, together, it becomes a complicated violation of Occam's razor. You're requiring us to ignoring the most poignant conclusion for one that one could ONLY arrive at by assuming it was true first and forcing the data to fit.

I do view it separately, piece by piece, and when I did I noticed that there aren't any webbed feet at all, it doesn't have any feathers at all, nor a bill, in fact, it's not a duck, its a dog. And so I wonder why these people keep going around calling this dog a duck? The should examine it closer, there are no duck parts.

Amusing. You can't say the text is true cuz it says so. The point is that in order to explain how this might be eyewitness, how we ended up with representative characters, why we have these rather unusual coincidence, and why we have practices that no one else has ever heard of, you have come up with a number of suggestions but all require us to accept these complicated guesses at the events that you'd never make if you weren't already assuming they were true.
First, I was defending myself from your accusations that I was creating evidences. Clearly I'm not the one creating complicated scenarios, mine are the simplest solutions. The argument that the narrative says what it meant to say is the simplest solution.

It isn't different than the name Jesus uses for himself. How many times in the text does Jesus call himself the "Son of the Father"?
I'm not aware of anywhere where Jesus calls himself Barabbas.

Again, you peice apart the evidence, but the evidence is compelling together. Are all of these things unusual seperately? Nope. Are they unusual together? Yep. Why would Jesus' improsonment be dependent on another's? No explanation other than a made-up practice in the text. Why would we even hear about the second guy? Because of the allegorical element, the value to have him in the story. You see when looked at all together the only way to get that this is an eyewitness account is to assume it must be. Otherwise, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it looks like an story (has elements that don't have historical basis, has unusually and coincidentally named characters and historical figures acting out of character), and sounds like a story (has allegorical elements and plain out obvious narrative devices), something you admit, then it's probably a story.

I couldn't disagree more, with your conclusion. When I take it apart and only put back the pieces that are still questions, I don't have any pieces to put back. There is no dilemma if the pieces don't assemble a puzzle.

So you can tell me that you know who the eyewitness who recorded this story was and how it came to be recorded? Seriously? Come on, that's ludicrous.
I can tell you who the church fathers said it was (John). I can tell you what the book of John says (a disciple). Why is it ludicrous?

Yes, I know. You've made up evidence. As I said. Thanks for confirming it. You've shown that rather than simply landing on the obvious conclusion with the information we have before us, we have to invent complicated explanations for the motives, for the missing historical data, for the problematic elements in this story. Landing at it being an allegory simply requires recognizing what you called the main point of the story, the representation for all of mankind, recognizing the meaning of the name of one character is the title for the other, and recognizing that historical elements don't match up with our knowledge of history. My theory requires I not add any facts, any explanations or guess at any motivations. I simply arrive a the simplest solution.
Made up evidence? OMGoodness, your entire argument is pure speculation based on nothing. I’m suggesting possible motivations of a character in the narrative, and you think I’m the one making up evidences. LOL


*out of time, gotta go*

Hard to say. I have to have a source of laughter and jocabian 'logic' is perfect.

Yes, if your ad hominems are evidence of your understanding of logic, and they are, we've not got to go much further than this post.

But since we're looking for laughter, why don't you explain to me again all about how if something can't be shown to be true it's false. Come on. Please.

I do view it separately, piece by piece, and when I did I noticed that there aren't any webbed feet at all, it doesn't have any feathers at all, nor a bill, in fact, it's not a duck, its a dog. And so I wonder why these people keep going around calling this dog a duck? The should examine it closer, there are no duck parts.

Really? Hmmm... so you didn't claim that some elements of the story represent ideas? Are you sure you want to make that claim. I can quote you saying clearly that they are representative numerous times. You've also said it's "based on" eyewitness accounts. You've also admitted that it's clear that certain parts are "emphasized". Claiming there is no evidence of allegory is denying the evidence, not addressing it.


First, I was defending myself from your accusations that I was creating evidences. Clearly I'm not the one creating complicated scenarios, mine are the simplest solutions. The argument that the narrative says what it meant to say is the simplest solution.

It is. Okay, without guessing at motives, without guessing at the eyewitnesses, without guessing at the origin of the practice recorded nowhere else, without guessing at how real people became representative characters, without guessing at Judaic laws were tossed out the window, please demonstrate why this story make any sense at all in the face of the evidence.




I'm not aware of anywhere where Jesus calls himself Barabbas.

You're not aware of anywhere Jesus called himself "Son of the Father"? You sure?

This is exactly the kind of willful ignorance that hurts your argument. Are you really suggesting you didn't realize I was talking about the meaning of Barabbas? Cuz, you can if you like, but I'll quote you admitting you recognize the difference.


I couldn't disagree more, with your conclusion. When I take it apart and only put back the pieces that are still questions, I don't have any pieces to put back. There is no dilemma if the pieces don't assemble a puzzle.

Exactly, you have to look at only the parts. Together, you can't address it. Your explanations only make sense if we're willing to accept a series of made-up scenarios as evidence for the historicity of these stories.

Baldy: "See all that evidence anymore. Watch me make it disappear." *waves hands and then ignores the entire stack*


I can tell you who the church fathers said it was (John). I can tell you what the book of John says (a disciple). Why is it ludicrous?

Hehe. The Church fathers said it was true. Well, then it must be. How dare I even suggest that they wouldn't know.


Made up evidence? OMGoodness, your entire argument is pure speculation based on nothing. I’m suggesting possible motivations of a character in the narrative, and you think I’m the one making up evidences. LOL

*out of time, gotta go*
So you have evidence of the motive of Pilate? You sure about that? You have evidence that John's entire narrative was an eyewitness account of what John saw? You sure about that. Let's see.

Yes, if your ad hominems are evidence of your understanding of logic, and they are, we've not got to go much further than this post.

But since we're looking for laughter, why don't you explain to me again all about how if something can't be shown to be true it's false. Come on. Please.

I realize that Balderdash is no longer occupying your time so you are bored and looking to pick a fight.

I am not going to add kindling to the fire that burns within you. You will just have to play with someone else.

Did John witness when Mary met Jesus and then told the disciples about it? Interesting that it's told like a narrative and he couldn't have been there.

How many examples of instances when he COULD NOT have been there? Logic would make one enough, but let's be realistic. You're not going to accept one. So give me a number.

I realize that Balderdash is no longer occupying your time so you are bored and looking to pick a fight.

I am not going to add kindling to the fire that burns within you. You will just have to play with someone else.

Am I? I'm wondering which of us came into the thread and contributed nothing. Would you like me to quote the number of times you've arrived just to offer up, well, not the slightest value?

There is no fight, sweetheart. The rules of logic are clear to everyone who understands them. I just wondered if you'd care to demonstrate just how solid your analysis of my understanding of logic is, since you attacked it. I notice only one of the two of us doesn't want to get in a logical debate. To be fair, I'm better armed.

I'm gonna go back and find the post where you said that if one makes a bad argument for the conclusion that 2*2 is 4 then it's false. That was classic. I've got to get on a flight, but I'll post it when I get home.

Am I? I'm wondering which of us came into the thread and contributed nothing. Would you like me to quote the number of times you've arrived just to offer up, well, not the slightest value?

There is no fight, sweetheart. The rules of logic are clear to everyone who understands them. I just wondered if you'd care to demonstrate just how solid your analysis of my understanding of logic is, since you attacked it. I notice only one of the two of us doesn't want to get in a logical debate. To be fair, I'm better armed.

You do like to hear yourself talk. I do not engage the unarmed. Time for you to move on.

Besides, why would anyone wish to debate you when your non-position is obvious. So saves time.

You do like to hear yourself talk. I do not engage the unarmed. Time for you to move on.

Besides, why would anyone wish to debate you when your non-position is obvious. So saves time.

Oh, come on, we're just beginning to have fun. Remember, you dropped in for laughs. You have demonstrated that as soon as someone

(Flight got delayed 2 hours)


[Naughty Slave Girls][Jocabia]
An example would be if I said that 2*2=4. My argument for it is you can get the result of any multiplications by adding the two numbers together. In that case, my argument would be wrong, but my conclusion right.[/quote]
Your conclusion is not correct because your argument was refuted by evidence. [/quote]

An example of an invalid (but TRUE) conclusion from an debunked argument. I gave you this example where I conclude that 2*2=4. And then explain it (intentionally mind you) using an invalid argument. Your answer was to say that if the argument fails the conclusion if false.

Due to lack of evidence, the theory that the godman exists has no evidence. Therefore the lack of evidence concludes he does not exist.

Again, your repetition of a classic argument from ignorance. I haven't seen evidence THEREFORE it doesn't exist. I also enjoyed your little truism conclusion there.

A few more gems -
Until you provide evidence of existence, your conclusion cannot possibly be correct.
Apparently whether or not something is actually true or false hinges on how good one is at arguing. Interesting. Also, considering my conclusion is automatically incorrect until proven true, I declare that NSG is older than 13. My evidence is this hunk of cheese sitting next to me. Oh, that's a bad argument. Then my conclusion must be false.

Thanks babe. Still laughing.

Good. You should be. Your treatment of the basics of logic is laughable. Come on, come on, say it again. I'll start it for you.

"Due to lack of evidence, your theory has no evidence. And..."

Come on, tell us again, how you can make conclusions with supporting them. "Jesus doesn't exist because his existence is determined by what evidence has been found. If tomorrow evidence is found, magically he pops into existence." Seriously. It's gold.

Or, here, I'll do you a better one. How about you stop spamming the topic and contribute or move on. I mean, I like to be entertained as much as the next guy, but at least play a new song.

Thanks babe. Still laughing.

Time for me to head home. Hope you find a new playmate. Be good babe.

Well, since we've established we can't conclude non-existence without tossing logic out the window.

Anyone want to try and make some arguments for existence. Baldy's been working alone for 160 pages.

You're not aware of anywhere Jesus called himself "Son of the Father"? You sure?
I'm not aware of him calling himself Jesus bar Abbas. I'm aware of other people doing it though. Like; Hiyya bar Abba, Giuseppe Cesare Abba,
Tamer Abbass, Marta Abba, Nader Sufyan Abbas, Cele Abba, Abba Eban, Simeon ben Abba, Mahmoud Abbas, Ferhat Abbas, Bonfoh Abbass, Abba P. Lerner, Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, Ali Ismail Abbas, Hiam Abbass, Sohail Abbas, Zaheer Abbas, Abu Abbas snd Hiam Abbass, so it seems to be a common enough name today, I suppose it might have been a common enough name then too...


Exactly, you have to look at only the parts. Together, you can't address it. Your explanations only make sense if we're willing to accept a series of made-up scenarios as evidence for the historicity of these stories.

Baldy: "See all that evidence anymore. Watch me make it disappear." *waves hands and then ignores the entire stack*

*takes a close look at the stack and realizes it is just a house of cards and it falls down when I blow on it*

The stack didn't have any substance to it.

Hehe. The Church fathers said it was true. Well, then it must be. How dare I even suggest that they wouldn't know. Their opinion is as good as ours, likely better, seeing as they had more sources and witnesses to speak with and examine...

Did John witness when Mary met Jesus and then told the disciples about it? Interesting that it's told like a narrative and he couldn't have been there.

How many examples of instances when he COULD NOT have been there? Logic would make one enough, but let's be realistic. You're not going to accept one. So give me a number.

I’ve clearly stated my position on the gospels authorship and compilation. I’ve clearly stated that I believe a scribe can record the witnessing of someone else and it still counts a witness testimony. The fact that you still argue against a position I do not hold is discouraging at best…

But again, John does not need to witness every event himself for the testimony of someone else in the gospel of John is still eye witness testimony. I have said this repeatedly so I’m just going to quote myself…

Luke 1
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

To me, a key to understanding how the gospels were recorded was revealed to us through Luke (but it applies to all the gospels).

1. Compiled narratives. More than just the author’s direct testimony alone.
2. Eyewitnesses and ministers. The sources where the testimony comes from.
3. “Certainly of things being taught.” Now we know other sources/traditions were available for cross-references.
So I can assume they had sources because they say they did, and they say those sources included eyewitnesses. As to proving they were telling the truth and weren’t lying? I didn’t say I can prove they weren’t lying, but why must I assume they are lying?

I don't have much time for this, if this is just going to around and around with me rehashing my position and you ignoring it and attacking positions I don't hold, I don't see the point. You can see that I never said John himself witnessed every event in his gospel, I argue he didn't say he did and he didn't need to for his testimony to be an eye-witness account all the same ~ as hearsay rules have hearsay exceptions for ancient/historical documents. The testimony of Mary through the recording of John (or anyone else with an eye-witness account of an experience with Jesus, not just Mary) is sufficient for John to record the event in his gospel and the gospel is still eye-witness testimony. No one is forced to believe it just because it is eye-witness testimony.

(I posted this position several times, in several different responses, I’d appreciate it if you don’t ignore it the next time you attack me, please don't pretend that I argue that every author witnessed for themselves every event in their gospel. Clearly Luke did not, he says so himself as posted above).

I CAN claim they had sources because they claim it for themselves. This has been brought up before but I’m bringing up again because it was many many pages ago I’m sure.

Luke 1
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

To me, a key to understanding how the gospels were recorded was revealed to us through Luke.

1. Compiled narratives. More than just the author’s direct testimony alone.
2. Eyewitnesses and ministers. The sources where the testimony comes from.
3. “Certainly of things being taught.” Now we know other sources/traditions were available for cross-references.
So I can assume they had sources because they say they did, and they say those sources included eyewitnesses. As to proving they were telling the truth and weren’t lying? I didn’t say I can prove they weren’t lying, but why must I assume they are lying?

It's also been pointed out to you that Luke is saying "others have written great narratives they have seen, so I shall do the same". He is not saying "this is my story and these are my sources". So, either he witnessed all the events himself (unlikely since he likely never saw the birth of Jesus, among other events) or he's written a story based on the accounts of others- making it a secondary source.

I perhaps didn’t clarify why I was focusing on the name. IF the name is misinterpreted then the first two steps there fall down. The only ‘coincidence’ then is that they were both being charged with something at the same time. Barabbas is said to have been a notorious prisoner, a rebel in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, and a robber. I don’t see how that description fits the description of Jesus at all. I’ve never heard any justification for calling Jesus a robber or a murderer, and thus, I see no reason to think Barabbas and Jesus might be one and the same.

Let me requote each of the four Gospels as they relate to Barabbas:

"Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, 'Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?' For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him. While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: 'Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.' But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 'Which of the two do you want me to release to you?' asked the governor. 'Barabbas,' they answered. 'What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?' Pilate asked. They all answered, 'Crucify him!' 'Why? What crime has he committed?' asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, 'Crucify him!' When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man's blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'Let his blood be on us and on our children!' Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified." (Matthew 27:15-26)

Barabbas here is called simply "a notorious prisoner" (Matthew 27:16). Nothing is made about his crime.

Notice how Matthew says "which one do you want me to release? Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?" (Matthew 27:17). Why does Matthew say "Jesus who is called Christ?" Why doesn't he just say "Jesus"? Seems to me like there's something missing- like, maybe Barabbas being actually called "Jesus Barabbas", since Pilate made a point of emphasizing that this particular Jesus "is called Christ", something he wouldn't have to do if Barabbas had a completely different name.

"Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. 'Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?' asked Pilate, knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. 'What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?' Pilate asked them. 'Crucify him!' they shouted. 'Why? What crime has he committed?' asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, 'Crucify him!' Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified." (Mark 15:6-15)

Barabbas here is said to have been in prison "with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising" (Mark 15:7). So while Mark says Barabbas is a murder, he also says that Barabbas took part in an uprising.

"Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate. That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies. Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, 'You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.' With one voice they cried out, 'Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!' (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' For the third time he spoke to them: 'Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.' But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed. So Pilate decided to grant their demand. He released the man who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, the one they asked for, and surrendered Jesus to their will." (Luke 23:11-25)

Luke here echoes Mark's account by saying Barabbas took part in an insurrection in the city and committed murder (Luke 23:19). Luke also doesn't say anything about a "tradition to release prisoners"- he says the reason why Pilate wanted to release Jesus was because neither he nor Herod found any justification for imposing a death sentence on Him. So we're already seeing a little difference in the stories.

"With this he went out again to the Jews and said, 'I find no basis for a charge against him. But it is your custom for me to release to you one prisoner at the time of the Passover. Do you want me to release 'the king of the Jews'?' They shouted back, 'No, not him! Give us Barabbas!' Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion. Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged." (John 18:38-40, 19:1)

Again, Barabbas "[took] part in a rebellion" (John 18:40). All four clearly state that Barabbas was involved in some way with a rebellion- just like Jesus was accused of. So, again, we come to two people described the exact same way- both were accused of stirring an uprising and both being called "Son of the Father". Coupled with the fact there's no independent corroboration of having such a custom and, again, how it's out of character for Pilate to do something like this, why must the idea that Barabbas and Jesus *aren't* the same person be discounted?

As to independent Roman sources; there are no Romans in Judea records from that time period that address customs the Romans had in regard to Jews observing holidays. So there is no ‘missing’ evidence, there is no source we should be able to find evidence of this custom in.

Josephus would have been nice, but even there the fact that it isn’t mentioned should not really raise eyebrows of suspicion either. Josephus lived and wrote after significant changes had occurred in Judea from the time of Christ. Even Tacitus made errors in understanding how the Judean providence was controlled differently from before the death of Herod Agrippa and after it, so it seems easy enough for other historians of Joseph's day to miss the sublte differences and their implications from the time befroe Herod Agrippas death, especially if they didn’t live through the different phrases themselves, like Josephe and Tacitus didn't.

As to those changes, the roman governor’s position changed responsibilities and title from before Herod’s death in 44AD and after, the social climate and tension between Jews and Romans increases steadily (not that it wasn’t high to begin with) through the birth pangs of what would be the soon to be doomed resurrection attempt in the late 60’s. The changes from 44AD onward would have been a steady progression of more and more oppression of civil freedoms and a loss of mutual respect between Romans and Jews, it should be no surprise if goodwill holiday observance customs might be lost sometime between the early 30’s and the late 60’s. Somebody born during that time might never have been exposed to such a custom and thus not record it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur.

All the fancy reasoning in the world about "why" we have no sources won't make up for the fact there aren't any. Hence no reason to claim that a custom like this even occurred.

As to Pilate and the way he is characterized in history, as an oppressor and mad of mean spirit, I did address motivations for Pilate to understand why he may have behaved in the manner described by the narratives even with that personality trait. To put it briefly, (because it is in other posts of mine) Apprehension at killing an innocent man for a superstitious fear of ‘bad karma’ and/or the pangs of conscience (even if he was a hard man, he may have believed himself to be a fair man). Either way, knowing the type of man he was, he was more than able to put those feelings down and he authorized the execution of a man he thought innocent of the charges brought against him anyway.

All the more reason for Pilate not to respect the wishes of the Jews and release Jesus Christ- we know that he didn't like the Jews, the Gospels tell us that he thought Jesus was innocent and they also tell us the story of how Pilate released someone named "Son of the Father". I don't think someone who disrespects the Jews as much as Pilate did would even care that they objected to Jesus' release- he'd just do it anyway. Therefore, it's more probable (if the story did actually happen) that Pilate released Jesus, the Jews arrested Him themselves and killed Him (as they were supposed to do under Jewish Law anyway- maybe they didn't initially out of fear of what His followers would do) and the story of Barabbas was concocted so that both the Jews and the Romans could be absolved of responsibility (the Jews because they didn't actually kill Him and because their leaders gauded the crowd into getting Jesus Crucified and the Romans because Pilate is presented as someone who faced an ancient "Catch-22" situation). The story "as-is" requires too much rhetoric and "explanations" for it to stand as 100% accurate.

IMO, corroborating evidence is in the evidence that more than one gospel was written in different times and different places, even after accounting for and considering that the synaptic gospels were written by people aware of the other gospels, we have more than one tradition represented in each, AND we have John, an independent source outside of the synaptic traditions.

Good thing there is more than one gospel narrative then huh, none of them are in a vacuum alone that way.

It's already been pointed out to you that the Biblical books- all grouped with the singular purpose of promoting the Christian/Jewish faith- can in no way be considered "independent" of each other because of the Bible's inherent bias. Therefore, using the Bible to prove what's in the Bible is nothing more than a circular reference- and hardly corroborative proof.

As to the thirty years later so they might have forgotten things suggestion, I don’t agree that accuracy of events often repeated are lost over a period of years if they are recited frequently. A total random event trying to be recalled after thirty years for the first time would be a problem, but not a testimony that you thought was one of the most important events of your life, like the gospel eyewitnesses seem to have believed.

First of all, you're assuming that John (or anyone else who saw the events) have a reason to repeat them constantly over a thirty year period- and they don't. Since you acknowledge that these events were unimportant, they don't have a lot of people asking about them and thus no reason to "repeat" it constantly. Second of all, even if you repeat something every day for the rest of your life, memory still fades- mistakes are going to be made in repetitions as details get garbled and "unimportant" parts get thrown out (I know when I re-write things several times the end product will be missing some things from the original one, no matter how militant I may be about copying it), not to mention the fact that every part of the body- including the brain- ages. So a memory recalled thirty years after the fact is far less reliable than a memory recalled a week, a day or even an hour after the event took place.

I’m saying they can be based on witness testimony (recording the testimony of others) AND they have eyewitness testimony by the very hand of the very scribes writing them in other places. That they claim themselves to be eyewitness accounts and compilations of gathered sources.

The narrative itself sure doesn't suggest that it's both and if it's a compilation of sources then by its very definition it's a secondary source- it'd only become primary if the sources were presented "as-is" (that is, provided that they even pass the "contemporary test", which it does not).

My position is that these events likely happened, yes that is true. My opponents believe these events mostly likely did not happen, that too is true. That’s the reason for the debate, of course. I don't see how it circumvents the entire discussion if the discussion in now biblical criticism and not just the historicity of Jesus outside of biblical sources.

I also believe the Gospels have a kernel of truth and that Jesus probably was historical. However, I'm not going to twist the evidence just to make it so- I'm going to apply the rules of History in this case, as I would in any other case.

Nonsense. The side that wants to say the narration is wrong is the side that wants to molest the evidence and manufacture information we don't have. I'm using the information we do have. Notice that I'm the one that can quote it, obviously I'm not the one manufacturing a way to invent something new from the data we have, I'm describing the event as described in the evidence that actually exists, the vesion with two people.

In all honesty, you're the one that came up with explanations as to why Pilate would suddenly respect Jewish customs when he wouldn't, why there's no contemporary or independent sources for any of the New Testament stories (*the* biggest problem to rectify) and why the Gospels are "compilations of eyewitness accounts" when there's no evidence to support such a claim- I haven't done so (but if I have, point it out to me).

I'm not aware of anywhere where Jesus calls himself Barabbas.

Jesus called God "Abba" and some scholars posit that because He did so He was also called "Bar-Abba"- thus "Barabbas" or "Son of the Father".

Let me requote each of the four Gospels as they relate to Barabbas:

<snip>



isnt it curious that out of the few things that are in all 4 gospels, barabbas makes it? he is in there by name in each one as if he is a character that we all should recognize.

weird

it feels to me like a remnant of a left-behind christianity that had jesus the man seperated from jesus the god before the crucifiction. one part is spared and one is executed. little bit wrong since is it the man barabbas who is let go and jesus the god executed but it still "feels" like that abandoned belief.

I'm not aware of him calling himself Jesus bar Abbas. I'm aware of other people doing it though. Like; Hiyya bar Abba, Giuseppe Cesare Abba,
Tamer Abbass, Marta Abba, Nader Sufyan Abbas, Cele Abba, Abba Eban, Simeon ben Abba, Mahmoud Abbas, Ferhat Abbas, Bonfoh Abbass, Abba P. Lerner, Khwaja Ahmad Abbas, Ali Ismail Abbas, Hiam Abbass, Sohail Abbas, Zaheer Abbas, Abu Abbas snd Hiam Abbass, so it seems to be a common enough name today, I suppose it might have been a common enough name then too...

To quote Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas#.22Jesus_Barabbas.22):

"'Barabbas', or 'Bar-abbas', translates to 'son of the father', which could be a surname. It is not common in any other Hebrew text."

So it probably wasn't common back then. Regardless, it still doesn't prove this "Barabbas" was real as it does nothing to rectify the text's coincidences with the Biblical depiction of Jesus Christ.

Their opinion is as good as ours, likely better, seeing as they had more sources and witnesses to speak with and examine...

First of all, history operates on the standards of today and thus any examination of history must be done in this regard. Thus, whatever sources we have today are the only ones that can enter the historical record- sources that "might have existed" can't, simply because they also "might not exist".

Furthermore, your argument is an "appeal to authority"- just because the Church said it's correct in this regard doesn't make it so.

it feels to me like a remnant of a left-behind christianity that had jesus the man seperated from jesus the god before the crucifiction. one part is spared and one is executed. little bit wrong since is it the man barabbas who is let go and jesus the god executed but it still "feels" like that abandoned belief.well, only the god had to die to undo the original sin. :)