NationStates Jolt Archive

well, only the god had to die to undo the original sin. :)

for sure

but the belief was that jesus let the man part die and the god part lived on in triumph.

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.

I found it particularly interesting that Luke (one of the Synoptic Gospels) changes a central part of the Crucifixtion story- instead of Pilate saying he wanted to release Jesus because of a Jewish custom, he wants to release Jesus because he conferred with Herod- while the others keep the story (essentially) as we know it, yet it's pretty consistent that Barabbas is in each story and, at the very least, is a serious criminal. Sounds like the Gospel writers, at the very least, heard the story second-hand, since what Pilate's reasoning (at the very least) is not agreed upon.

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.

How so? I want to add this to the "Barabbas is an allegory" argument.

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.
Luke is not claimed to be an eye witness himself. Luke is said to have been a follower of Paul in Rome. I've never read anything about anyone claiming Luke was an eye witness himself. As to his gospel work though, Luke is the scribe who records the testimony of others, the eye witnesses are not Luke but the testimony of those he got the accounts from. A recorder of the events does not have to be an eyewitness himself.

FYI: the church fathers wrote that Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses, Matthew and John were.

Let me requote each of the four Gospels as they relate to Barabbas:
<snip>
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.
When was Jesus accused of rebellion like Barabbas including murder and robbery? He is not, and that was my point and the point still stands.

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?
I see no point in long rebuttals, you have every opportunity to read what I've said already, I simply say I disagree with your conclusion. Pilate is not acting out of character to gain oaths of loyalty from the priest (when they say, we have no king but Caesar) and the charges against the two men are not the same.

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.
I find your argument here incredulous. After your quoting of the four gospels above, all four of them you take at face value for the charges against Barabbas, and in the VERY SAME PARAGRAPHS, you now doubt the veracity of other words you don’t like because they are about a holiday custom?

You accept that Barabbas is charged with those identifying crimes, and you trust what Pilates mood and opinion is of those various crimes, and so far as they agree with your desired outcome you are willing to accept the verses at face value and as telling you the truth, but the very second a word in the same paragraphs run counter to your debate position, suddenly ALL the gospels agreeing with each other yet they fail to prove their case and they need corroborating evidences from non biblical sources in order for you to find it convincing that it might be a thing that could have occured?

IMO that's bad form. Either use the paragraphs as evidence of what occurred or don't, but to pick the individual words you want to dismiss out of the very same paragraphs you use as proof for other things elsewhere goes beyond the pale. How can anyone debate with the handicap that YOU get to approve which individual words are believable and which ones are not, even when they come from the very same author and the very same source and even from the same paragraphs? I'm finding it incredulous that you didn't catch this double standard of yours before you posted it...

...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.
I truly enjoy arguing with you, I like reading your posts, but you do realize that this last bit here earns you a great big tinfoil theology hat yes? :p You could write pure fantasy fiction with this stuff, I have NO idea what you are basing any of this on outside of your own imagination.

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.
You do realize that the 'Bible' with the NT didn't exist yet, from the sources I've been using as references (early Christian fathers), to them the gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John had to be gathered from different authors and different places and the originated as different sources. The fact that these four are the ones that passed the canonization process as authentic apostolic sources is why they became the gospels in the Bible we know today. They weren't written together, if they would have been I'm sure they would agree with less descriptive differences.

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.

Of course I assume he had a reason to repeat them on a regular basis. Evangelizing and weekly meetings with other Christians. How do you think the Christian beliefs spread during the first century? The beliefs covered the entire Mediterranean and East before the end of the century, they didn't accomplish that by NOT telling the gospel stories everywhere they went...

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).
Luke tells you it's a compilation, why would I doubt him? Contemporary test? Which test, what are the rules?

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.
You're NOT going to twist the evidence just to believe what you believe? Have you read what you wrote above? How is all of your speculations of how the gospels must be not telling the real story NOT twisting the evidence? You've done nothing but twist the evidence in your far spanning speculations.

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 did come up with a couple of speculations to guess the mood of the man in the narrative. I did not change the narrative to meet my mood. I suggest it is the side that wants to change the narrative that has the most explaining to do in this regard, not I.

I found it particularly interesting that Luke (one of the Synoptic Gospels) changes a central part of the Crucifixtion story- instead of Pilate saying he wanted to release Jesus because of a Jewish custom, he wants to release Jesus because he conferred with Herod- while the others keep the story (essentially) as we know it, yet it's pretty consistent that Barabbas is in each story and, at the very least, is a serious criminal. Sounds like the Gospel writers, at the very least, heard the story second-hand, since what Pilate's reasoning (at the very least) is not agreed upon.

I don't want to rain on your parade, I love the gospel of Luke, I really wish we had the first copies of it for the professionalism and authenticity that I think Luke brings to the gospel writing profession. However, the oldest versions of Luke don't seem to have the Barabbas event in it. It IS possible that Luke corrected the oversight himself, but it is also possible that someone else but the Barabbas event into Luke to bring it in line with the other synoptic gospels. On the other hand, there is no way for us to know at this time IF despite that the Luke version is the most accurate. But these sorts of things often end up badly for those that try to use Luke in arguments about the Barabbas incident.

How so? I want to add this to the "Barabbas is an allegory" argument.
I haven't read those books, I have no real opinion about them, but from that little tidbit, it sounds like that little bit is based on bad theology to me.

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.

I don't mean it as an appeal to authority. The records they had that we don't I mention because they quote sections of them in their works. For example, Papias, preserved for us by Eusebius (III, xxix):

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.
Link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)

We know the book existed, we just don't have a copy of it.

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.

You noticed that too, huh? He pretends to be attempting to have a serious debate with us, but he fully recognizes no one is claiming Jesus was called Jesus Barabbas. He was called "Son of the Father", of course. I wonder why one would need to modify an argument in order to avoid it?

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.

We've made this statement several times. Just like a conglomeration of stories not attributed to anyone, that could not possibly have been witnessed by any one person, cannot be called an eyewitness source. When pointing this Baldy replied that they didn't have the same standards. He doesn't seem to realize science and history are not ruled by what people did then, but the rules of the discipline. We don't change the rules because the people who were recording it weren't reliable (not all of them, just the ones whose purpose wasn't to faithfully retell the story).

Luke is not claimed to be an eye witness himself. Luke is said to have been a follower of Paul in Rome. I've never read anything about anyone claiming Luke was an eye witness himself. As to his gospel work though, Luke is the scribe who records the testimony of others, the eye witnesses are not Luke but the testimony of those he got the accounts from. A recorder of the events does not have to be an eyewitness himself.

Based on what evidence other than claims what evidence do we have these are eyewitnessed accounts just scribed? You keep saying that, but A - I'm certain you don't recognize the requirements since you've admitted they violated them and B - you can't actually show the slightest evidence for this far stretch.

Who were these eyewitnesses? We mentioned several times when Jesus was alone? How did a scribe right these events? None of the Gospel writers were there when Jesus was alone. Or the events in the womb. Or the events when he was a child. Or any of a goodly section of the stories that simply cannot be eyewitness events.

Based on what evidence other than claims what evidence do we have these are eyewitnessed accounts just scribed? You keep saying that, but A - I'm certain you don't recognize the requirements since you've admitted they violated them and B - you can't actually show the slightest evidence for this far stretch.

Who were these eyewitnesses? We mentioned several times when Jesus was alone? How did a scribe right these events? None of the Gospel writers were there when Jesus was alone. Or the events in the womb. Or the events when he was a child. Or any of a goodly section of the stories that simply cannot be eyewitness events.

Aye, but isnt reliance on belief in the absence of hard evidence more or less the textbook definition of faith?

Aye, but isnt reliance on belief in the absence of hard evidence more or less the textbook definition of faith?

I think it's pretty funny that he keeps making up these explanations for how everything happened. Things we couldn't possibly know. And then when we say, look at what this means (not what we think it means but what it means) and look at what this is held to represent by the same people who claims it's an actual account and look at these ACTUAL discrepencies, and we're the ones guessing.

Yeah, because talking about historical information is the same as making up why Pilate did something completely out of character. It's disappointing because Baldy keeps accusing everyone of making things up, when the issue here is that Occam puts us rejecting the claim of eyewitness accounts. We have to. It requires us to circumvent evidence with made up motives for why they don't fit.

You noticed that too, huh? He pretends to be attempting to have a serious debate with us, but he fully recognizes no one is claiming Jesus was called Jesus Barabbas. He was called "Son of the Father", of course. I wonder why one would need to modify an argument in order to avoid it?

Heheh. I'm starting to see the same tactic now myself. I said to him "all the fancy reasoning about why we don't have sources doesn't make up for the fact we don't have them" and he responds with "you posted the Gospel verses and took them to be true" when I did no such thing.

We've made this statement several times. Just like a conglomeration of stories not attributed to anyone, that could not possibly have been witnessed by any one person, cannot be called an eyewitness source. When pointing this Baldy replied that they didn't have the same standards. He doesn't seem to realize science and history are not ruled by what people did then, but the rules of the discipline. We don't change the rules because the people who were recording it weren't reliable (not all of them, just the ones whose purpose wasn't to faithfully retell the story).

It's part of the reason why I contemplated teaching history- since so many people just don't understand the historical method. We get far too many people thinking history is just "names and dates" that the whole process- including why it's pertinent to study history- is either poorly understood or ignored. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the reason why racism and such similar thoughts exist (not that I'm saying they cropped up here)- because of a lack of understanding of the historical method. When all one knows about history is that it's a random collection of facts, they think they can "cherry-pick" from it and form their own history to fit whatever agenda they have when they're really just being intellectually dishonest. When people understand that it's not important "what happened" but "why things happened and how it all fits in" misunderstandings don't get to proliferate because then everyone understands its context.

Ahhh, the three - 'S's of religion, self-pity, self-hatred and self-righteousness, the three things which at the same lack of respect for human dignity and at the same time moral superiority, talk about encouraging the most traits in humanity. Seriously, do we really want to be teaching children that they are nothing, and the only thing that makes their life even remotely worthy is some mysterious (and none the less capricious) 'judge' God?

I oppose religion because it takes everything humanity has done, evolved to become the dominant species of this planet, built cities, invented modern technology, got into space etc, it takes all this dignity and accomplishment away and says 'we only did it because of God'.

Heheh. I'm starting to see the same tactic now myself. I said to him "all the fancy reasoning about why we don't have sources doesn't make up for the fact we don't have them" and he responds with "you posted the Gospel verses and took them to be true" when I did no such thing.

I know you've been very polite, but at some point, it's germaine to the argument to point out that he's doing it. Sometimes I do the same thing to people because I'm fooling around or because I'm trying to force someone to realize they're being unclear, but I admit it. Here it serves no purpose. It's not entertaining and it's absolutely clear that we're not claiming that Jesus the Christ carried the surname Barabbas. It is absolutely clear we're talking about Jesus the Christ calling himself by "the Son of the Father" which is the meaning of Barabbas.

As I said, hand waving isn't an argument.

"Eh, webbed feet. It doesn't have to be a duck because it has webbed feet."
"Uh, what about that it has feathers and webbed feet?"
"I already dealt with the webbed feet. And my pillow has feathers."
"And the quacking?"
"Look, quack, quack. What does that prove? This could be an animal that learned to imitate a duck."

And so on.

It's part of the reason why I contemplated teaching history- since so many people just don't understand the historical method. We get far too many people thinking history is just "names and dates" that the whole process- including why it's pertinent to study history- is either poorly understood or ignored. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's the reason why racism and such similar thoughts exist (not that I'm saying they cropped up here)- because of a lack of understanding of the historical method. When all one knows about history is that it's a random collection of facts, they think they can "cherry-pick" from it and form their own history to fit whatever agenda they have when they're really just being intellectually dishonest. When people understand that it's not important "what happened" but "why things happened and how it all fits in" misunderstandings don't get to proliferate because then everyone understands its context.

I used to hate history. Hate it. Because it is taught like that in early schooling. But in college I had a course that had a different lecturer every day. From all over the country. And they talked about the 20th century, but they talked about whatever they loved about the history of the 20th century.

Suddenly history becomes a story. You realize that the events of history are beautiful and impossibly rich. It's amazing to hear it from someone who truly loves it. I've loved history ever since. It was a bit like "assume the position". The funny part is that if you repeated many of the demonstrable claims from that show to most of the US, people would react like this thread. Unfortunately a lot of people have a lot of information but don't understand that history uses the scientific method and guessing and wildly extrapolating when a simpler explanation exists simply isn't science.

Ahhh, the three - 'S's of religion, self-pity, self-hatred and self-righteousness, the three things which at the same lack of respect for human dignity and at the same time moral superiority, talk about encouraging the most traits in humanity. Seriously, do we really want to be teaching children that they are nothing, and the only thing that makes their life even remotely worthy is some mysterious (and none the less capricious) 'judge' God?

I oppose religion because it takes everything humanity has done, evolved to become the dominant species of this planet, built cities, invented modern technology, got into space etc, it takes all this dignity and accomplishment away and says 'we only did it because of God'.

Oh, the irony of accusing religion of self-righteousness in this post

You consider evolving an accomplishment? Wow, just wow. Are you also proud of being able to touch your pinky to your thumb? What a strange person. "Hey, Johnny watch this." *walks upright* "Neat, huh? My parents are going to be so proud!"

We know the book existed, we just don't have a copy of it.

Bad logic.

We know someone SAID the book existed....

*palmtoface*

Harder! :p

The better reason is that the first critics of the gospels, those most familiar with them in their most original and authentic forms


Conjecture. We don't really know what they saw, or how it pertains to what we see... We certainly have no reason to believe they had any BETTER evidence than we have.


concluded that the canonized gospels were the testimony of eyewitnesses


They concluded whatever was convenient.


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.


Of course, that's what they were told.


That tips the scales from no evidence, to enough evidence to not call them lies without reason.


There is reason. No external corroboration.

I didn't say anything was lies... that's a strawman... but people aren't omniscient. What I tell you as truth, if I ONLY tell you because someone told me... isn't necessarily truth, get it?


It IS evidence that multiple people claiming them to be testimony, not fiction, from very early.


Testimony and fiction aren't mutually exclusive.


As to the extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, the multiple gospels give you more than common evidence.


The multiple gospels that may well all originate from one text - and, for all the evidence we have, could all have been written by one person...


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.


Multiple evidences that we cannot prove were independent of one another, that we have every reason to believe were written by people engaged in a common group, and that are written with apparent reference to one another. You find that evidence sufficient because you want to.


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.


Obviously. Because randomly collecting stories is the best way to ensure truth.


Of course I think author/scribes did have their own works though.


Whoever they were. We don't know. We don't even know who they were.


I disagree entirely. The attempt to removed yourself from the work is evidence of its authenticity.


Rubbish. It's evidence of you not being in the text, nothing more.


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.


Rubbish. It could be any of a hundred reasons.. from feeling the message was important, to being ashamed of what you'd written.


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.


Buried in plain sight... in one source. Not verifiable at all, with external, impartial corroboration.


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.


Say what you like. The US courts are not the final arbiters of the truth of scripture. Your constant attempts to pretend that US law court rules about evidence have ANY significance in this issue are nothing but a desperate attempt to try to find SOME way to excuse hearsay as witness testimony.


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.


And the description of Nazareth completely fails to match the geographical details of the same name.


The text DOES present itself as records of eyewitness testimony of another. Again, Luke 1.


So - maybe Luke 1 is a record of eyewitness testimony. Where are the same allowances in the other gospels?


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.


That's not the most simplistic explanation at all - it's just the one you like.

It's also irrelevent... whether or not the name 'Jesus' is maintained, the honorific 'son of the father' is still common to both the protagonists, in some form.


Good thing there is more than one gospel narrative then huh, none of them are in a vacuum alone that way.


I suspect they were all written based on one common source. They certainly read like they were.

Prove me wrong?


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.


Rubbish. When a text cannot be discerned as to where the testimony stops and the preaching begins, there is little capacity to argue for authenticity. You don't even know WHICH parts are supposed to be the testimony.


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.

And they'd be wrong.

If you think we know ANY better than what someone SAYS the oral traditions say, then you are kidding yourself.

At least in the case of the Hebrew scripture, we still have a written form of what (it is supposed) their oral traditions maintained.

Jesus called God "Abba"

:eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFpMb0sOaw
Actually, i could(/did) see that.
They certainly were.

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.

Like the idea that all the gospels are witness testimony?

well, only the god had to die to undo the original sin. :)
Hallelujah!
http://ebomania.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/51040_raised_hands_2.jpg

the god part lived on in triumph.Reminds me of "The Score".

I wonder why one would need to modify an argument in order to avoid it?

Here? On NSG?!?

Ahhh, the three - 'S's of religion, self-pity, self-hatred and self-righteousness, the three things which at the same lack of respect for human dignity and at the same time moral superiorityThree 'S'-s of republicanism, too :p

I know you've been very polite, but at some point, it's germaine to the argument to point out that he's doing it. Sometimes I do the same thing to people because I'm fooling around or because I'm trying to force someone to realize they're being unclear, but I admit it. Here it serves no purpose. It's not entertaining and it's absolutely clear that we're not claiming that Jesus the Christ carried the surname Barabbas. It is absolutely clear we're talking about Jesus the Christ calling himself by "the Son of the Father" which is the meaning of Barabbas.

As I said, hand waving isn't an argument.

"Eh, webbed feet. It doesn't have to be a duck because it has webbed feet."
"Uh, what about that it has feathers and webbed feet?"
"I already dealt with the webbed feet. And my pillow has feathers."
"And the quacking?"
"Look, quack, quack. What does that prove? This could be an animal that learned to imitate a duck."

And so on.

I noticed. I'll agree that individually, yeah, maybe each seperate point might not hold up, but together? It's a pretty convincing case. You can't take one section of the argument, refute it, and claim the rest of it is also refuted- you've got to consider the whole thing before you can say it's refuted.

(You know, that's kind of like how the Creationists do it come to think of it...)

What gets me is that he's ignoring the biggest part- no sources. You can't make a claim without sources. Otherwise, it's all just speculation (and I openly admit when I'm speculating- he, on the other hand, seemingly thinks "speculation" (automatically) = "truth").

I used to hate history. Hate it. Because it is taught like that in early schooling. But in college I had a course that had a different lecturer every day. From all over the country. And they talked about the 20th century, but they talked about whatever they loved about the history of the 20th century.

Suddenly history becomes a story. You realize that the events of history are beautiful and impossibly rich. It's amazing to hear it from someone who truly loves it. I've loved history ever since. It was a bit like "assume the position". The funny part is that if you repeated many of the demonstrable claims from that show to most of the US, people would react like this thread. Unfortunately a lot of people have a lot of information but don't understand that history uses the scientific method and guessing and wildly extrapolating when a simpler explanation exists simply isn't science.

I had a love for it even in high school but that was predicated on the fact that when I read it I read all kinds of cool stories about wars and stuff. However, I never learned the historical method until I got to University, at which point I realized that a lot of people probably know a lot of past events but they don't know "history", since they don't know how to tie it all together. Once you understand how we look at and understand the past you get a greater appreciation (and understanding) of just what happened in the past- otherwise, you end up with wild claims because those claimants end up seeing "the past" without its meaning.

It might be surprising to say it but it's the historical method that really made me love history more. Yeah, it's pretty dry learning about "primary sources", "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources" as well as theories such as "the past is a different country- they did things differently back then" but only then do you understand the expansiveness of the study of history. Really, it's the only discipline I can think of where you've got to have a panorama of knowledge of other fields to truly understand- you have to know something about economic theory if you want to know why, say, an Empire is successful (or unsuccessful) in its financial situation, you have to know geography to know how big the Empire was (and why it had its limits), you have to know political theory to know how Imperial politics ran, you have to know social theory to know why segments of the Imperial population acted as they did, you have to know philosophy to understand the Imperial people's thought processes and you have to know science to understand any plague outbreaks and the like that may have happened in the Empire's history. It's an expansive subject but I don't think people understand- or appreciate- just how expansive it truly is.

there was much proof that a man named jesus may have existed and even things that prove that jesus from the bible existed

One line wonder! Come back, oh prodigal son/daughter!

there was much proof that a man named jesus may have existed and even things that prove that jesus from the bible existed

there was much proof that a man named jesus may have existed and even things that prove that jesus from the bible existed

Curious. The past tense.... so - there was, but there isn't now?

[I]I oppose religion because it takes everything humanity has done, evolved to become the dominant species of this planet, built cities, invented modern technology, got into space etc, it takes all this dignity and accomplishment away and says 'we only did it because of God'.

wow, God makes those accomplishments so much bigger. if God wasnt there to create us in the first place then all these accomplishments are nothing, there just the natural progression of beings that came into existence by shear luck and are there to facilitate the needs of the community. but with God they become God given talented artists designing things of enormity and passion. it is only when God exists that one can truly appreciate the wonders of this world

I oppose religion because it takes everything humanity has done, evolved to become the dominant species of this planet, built cities, invented modern technology, got into space etc, it takes all this dignity and accomplishment away and says 'we only did it because of God'.

+
wow, God makes those accomplishments so much bigger. if God wasnt there to create us in the first place then all these accomplishments are nothing, there just the natural progression of beings that came into existence by shear luck and are there to facilitate the needs of the community. but with God they become God given talented artists designing things of enormity and passion. it is only when God exists that one can truly appreciate the wonders of this world
Chez what?

Didn't see that one coming...but in truth, "ABBA" is an acronym- thus, Jesus couldn't be referring to them. :P

Ah, got me.
Sure God didn't see that coming ahead of time and posited the term retroactively?
Kind of like the whole "JHVH" (-1) thing?

:eek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFpMb0sOaw
Actually, i could(/did) see that.
They certainly were.

Didn't see that one coming...but in truth, "ABBA" is an acronym- thus, Jesus couldn't be referring to them. :P

Wow...it's unfortunate that more people in our society didn't participate in their high school or college debate teams and learn the art of argument. Folks, there's a vast difference between CLAIMING evidence exists and actually SUPPLYING that evidence. There have been tons of claims here that we have irrefutable evidence for the existence of Yeshua son of Joseph from Nazareth...yet no one has yet managed to produce that evidence. Why is that? Because there is none! The Bible is a book of mythology, not history. It no more PROVES the existence of Jesus than Homer's "The Illiad" PROVES the existence of Apollo.

There HAVE been several writings by early church fathers that allude to the "Christos" (Christ), but "Christ" is not a name...it is a title meaning "The Anointed One." This title was bestowed upon every ruler of Israel since the crowning of King Saul - as well as many of the prophets - and was also used throughout the pagan world to denote ANY person of of power. Therefore, any writings that cite "the Christ" without a proper name to clarify WHICH "Anointed One" is being referenced cannot be considered irrefutable evidence for Jesus or anyone else in particular. It is almost as vague as the title "Mister."

Wow...it's unfortunate that more people in our society didn't participate in their high school or college debate teams and learn the art of argument. Folks, there's a vast difference between CLAIMING evidence exists and actually SUPPLYING that evidence. There have been tons of claims here that we have irrefutable evidence for the existence of Yeshua son of Joseph from Nazareth...yet no one has yet managed to produce that evidence. Why is that? Because there is none! The Bible is a book of mythology, not history. It no more PROVES the existence of Jesus than Homer's "The Illiad" PROVES the existence of Apollo.

There HAVE been several writings by early church fathers that allude to the "Christos" (Christ), but "Christ" is not a name...it is a title meaning "The Anointed One." This title was bestowed upon every ruler of Israel since the crowning of King Saul - as well as many of the prophets - and was also used throughout the pagan world to denote ANY person of of power. Therefore, any writings that cite "the Christ" without a proper name to clarify WHICH "Anointed One" is being referenced cannot be considered irrefutable evidence for Jesus or anyone else in particular. It is almost as vague as the title "Mister."

Where were you 2700+ posts ago?

Luke is not claimed to be an eye witness himself. Luke is said to have been a follower of Paul in Rome. I've never read anything about anyone claiming Luke was an eye witness himself. As to his gospel work though, Luke is the scribe who records the testimony of others, the eye witnesses are not Luke but the testimony of those he got the accounts from. A recorder of the events does not have to be an eyewitness himself.

You provided Luke as answer to my question "where do the Gospel authors cite their sources?" as if it applies also to the others. In any case, you've at least admitted that Luke is a secondary source because he's writing the testimony of others.

FYI: the church fathers wrote that Luke and Mark were not eyewitnesses, Matthew and John were.

So, where are Matthew and John's sources; and how did Matthew "see" Jesus' birth (not to mention provide a completely different account than Luke does)?

When was Jesus accused of rebellion like Barabbas including murder and robbery? He is not, and that was my point and the point still stands.

Jesus was accused of being "King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) and of openly defying the Roman Empire and the Emperor's orders (Luke 23:1). That, by definition is "being accused of insurrection", as the Jews already had a king (Herod).

Also, it's a not a major point, but where was Barabbas accused of robbery? I think you have him confused with Nicodemus (one of the other two people crucified with Jesus) who was.

I see no point in long rebuttals, you have every opportunity to read what I've said already, I simply say I disagree with your conclusion. Pilate is not acting out of character to gain oaths of loyalty from the priest (when they say, we have no king but Caesar) and the charges against the two men are not the same.

I'll just leave this be then, as I've already addressed what you've said and thus see no point in discussing this further.

I find your argument here incredulous. After your quoting of the four gospels above, all four of them you take at face value for the charges against Barabbas, and in the VERY SAME PARAGRAPHS, you now doubt the veracity of other words you don’t like because they are about a holiday custom?

You accept that Barabbas is charged with those identifying crimes, and you trust what Pilates mood and opinion is of those various crimes, and so far as they agree with your desired outcome you are willing to accept the verses at face value and as telling you the truth, but the very second a word in the same paragraphs run counter to your debate position, suddenly ALL the gospels agreeing with each other yet they fail to prove their case and they need corroborating evidences from non biblical sources in order for you to find it convincing that it might be a thing that could have occured?

IMO that's bad form. Either use the paragraphs as evidence of what occurred or don't, but to pick the individual words you want to dismiss out of the very same paragraphs you use as proof for other things elsewhere goes beyond the pale. How can anyone debate with the handicap that YOU get to approve which individual words are believable and which ones are not, even when they come from the very same author and the very same source and even from the same paragraphs? I'm finding it incredulous that you didn't catch this double standard of yours before you posted it...

I posted the Gospels verses for two reasons:

-One, textual analysis. As we've been trying to tell you all along, if you want to find that kernel of truth in the Bible, it's important to know what's in it and see what you can draw from it. I bolded the sections of the verses I wished to analyze (so they might not be lost) but quoted the whole paragraph so you understood the context surrounding them.

-Two, I didn't wish to make any misrepresentations regarding what the Gospels said about Barabbas. Hence, it's useful to repost them "as-is" so they're not "misquoted".

I wished to use the verses to further the "allegory" argument- thus, you have to know how the story goes. That by no means says I am "taking them at face value and calling them truth".

I fail to see how your rant here somehow invalidates my point of "without evidence you can't make a claim".

I truly enjoy arguing with you, I like reading your posts, but you do realize that this last bit here earns you a great big tinfoil theology hat yes? :p You could write pure fantasy fiction with this stuff, I have NO idea what you are basing any of this on outside of you own imagination.

I didn't make that post as a claim of truth- it's just speculation. Frankly you would do well to recognize when I'm making such a distinction.

You do realize that the 'Bible' with the NT didn't exist yet, from the sources I've been using as references (early Christian fathers), to them the gospels Mark, Matthew, Luke and John had to be gathered from different authors and different places and the originated as different sources. The fact that these four are the ones that passed the canonization process as authentic apostolic sources is why they became the gospels in the Bible we know today. They weren't written together, if they would have been I'm sure they would agree with less descriptive differences.

I didn't say they were written together- I said the Bible is composed with the singular purpose of being a religious text. Therefore, anything that's in the Bible has to be linked together because they're grouped together (and thus are not meant to be wholly independent of each other). Regardless, though, if you wish to prove something in the Bible you've got to go outside of it. It's like using the account of four friends who sat in the same section of the stadium to describe a football game- yeah, they're all technically different people but they're linked to each other so their interpretation of the events will be the same (and, most likely, see it roughly the same way). If you want to corroborate what happened you need to find (at the very least) a fan who went to the same game who's not linked to those four fans because that seperate fan isn't going to be influenced in their storymaking by the four fans. Thus, no matter how good a source the Bible may be, you always need to go outside of it to corroborate it- that way you can be sure of what happened as those who "see it differently" still see it roughly the same way.

Of course I assume he had a reason to repeat them on a regular basis. Evangelizing and weekly meetings with other Christians. How do you think the Christian beliefs spread during the first century? The beliefs covered the entire Mediterranean and East before the end of the century, they didn't accomplish that by NOT telling the gospel stories everywhere they went...

All right- but still, are you going to tell me that each of those times the speakers will say- word for word- EXACTLY the same thing each time? Stories change depending on the crowd, the circumstances and how the speaker feels like telling it- meaning, at the end of the day, what was written down thirty years later is likely NOT the same thing as the story as they first saw or told it.

Contemporary test? Which test, what are the rules?

Having contemporary evidence. A document that's from the time of Jesus' life. Something that's *not* fifty years after His death (as, at best, the Gospels and early writings are).

You're NOT going to twist the evidence just to believe what you believe? Have you read what you wrote above? How is all of your speculations of how the gospels must be not telling the real story NOT twisting the evidence? You've done nothing but twist the evidence in your far spanning speculations.

There's a difference in seeing what is written, analyzing it and seeing what it means; and "twisting" it. I'm merely seeing what the text says and attempt to draw whatever I can from it, as well as balance it out with other sources as per the rules of history. If I see that the Gospels are 100% historically accurate, I'll make note of that. If I see they're only 49% accurate, I'll also say that. I'm not going to make more of them than what they actually are.

You, on the other hand, seem to assume the Gospels are 100% historically accurate and then try to come up with explanations whenever the text poses a problem ("there's a reason why we don't have sources", "the Church Fathers said they're eyewitness accounts so they must be", "there's a reason why Pilate would step out of character this one time", etc.). IMO, your form is the one that needs work, not mine.

I did come up with a couple of speculations to guess the mood of the man in the narrative. I did not change the narrative to meet my mood. I suggest it is the side that wants to change the narrative that has the most explaining to do in this regard, not I.

No, you didn't (and neither did I- go check "BibleGateway.com" if you don't believe me; and no, me noticing odd similarities in different texts is not "me changing the narrative")- but you did have to provide speculation as to why this story flies in the face of what we know about Pilate.

I don't mean it as an appeal to authority. The records they had that we don't I mention because they quote sections of them in their works. For example, Papias, preserved for us by Eusebius (III, xxix):

I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.
Link (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)

We know the book existed, we just don't have a copy of it.

No, it *might* have existed. It is not definitive- without the book itself. For all we know, the concept of "Papias' book" may just be a figment of Eusebius' imagination.

Regardless, that quote just tells me that he knows what is written by the Disciples- it is not definitive proof of their existence (or that they actually saw what they wrote).

I don't want to rain on your parade, I love the gospel of Luke, I really wish we had the first copies of it for the professionalism and authenticity that I think Luke brings to the gospel writing profession. However, the oldest versions of Luke don't seem to have the Barabbas event in it. It IS possible that Luke corrected the oversight himself, but it is also possible that someone else but the Barabbas event into Luke to bring it in line with the other synoptic gospels. On the other hand, there is no way for us to know at this time IF despite that the Luke version is the most accurate. But these sorts of things often end up badly for those that try to use Luke in arguments about the Barabbas incident.

Still doesn't go against my claim (which is what you were responding to here) that said that, at best, the Barabbas story is "second-hand", especially if Luke's account diverges from a central part of the other stories (the Jewish custom as justification for Pilate wanting to release Jesus).

I haven't read those books, I have no real opinion about them, but from that little tidbit, it sounds like that little bit is based on bad theology to me.

I don't understand what you mean here- I was responding to Ashmoria and she made no mention of books. Clarify please.

This title was bestowed upon every ruler of Israel since the crowning of King Saul - as well as many of the prophets - and was also used throughout the pagan world to denote ANY person of of power.

I agree with you in principle but I'd have to see a source for that- my understanding is that guys like David, Solomon, Saul, Jeroboam, etc. never bore that title at all, especially considering (according to the Biblical account, anyway) that they are religious Jews who'd consider it blasphemy for someone to make a bold claim at being the Messiah.

I agree with you in principle but I'd have to see a source for that- my understanding is that guys like David, Solomon, Saul, Jeroboam, etc. never bore that title at all, especially considering (according to the Biblical account, anyway) that they are religious Jews who'd consider it blasphemy for someone to make a bold claim at being the Messiah.David, Solomon, Saul, Jeroboam, etc were Jews? I thought they were Israelites...

"Jews" and "Israelites" were basically synonymous in the Bible, though not necessarily any more. "Israelite" literally referred to the Nation...the descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. "Jew" referred to the religious aspect....followers of Judaism.

I found it particularly interesting that Luke (one of the Synoptic Gospels) changes a central part of the Crucifixtion story- instead of Pilate saying he wanted to release Jesus because of a Jewish custom, he wants to release Jesus because he conferred with Herod- while the others keep the story (essentially) as we know it, yet it's pretty consistent that Barabbas is in each story and, at the very least, is a serious criminal. Sounds like the Gospel writers, at the very least, heard the story second-hand, since what Pilate's reasoning (at the very least) is not agreed upon.



How so? I want to add this to the "Barabbas is an allegory" argument.

let me type out this passage from "lost christianites" by bart ehrman:

"in the second and third centuries there were christians who believed that jesus was both divine and human, god and man. there were other christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (for them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: god can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) their were others who insisted that jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by god to be his son but not himself divine. there were yet other christians who claimed that jesus christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, jesus, and a fully divine being, christ, who had temporarily inhabited jesus' body during his ministry and left him prioer to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath."

ill give a look around to see what that sect was called.

You provided Luke as answer to my question "where do the Gospel authors cite their sources?" as if it applies also to the others. In any case, you've at least admitted that Luke is a secondary source because he's writing the testimony of others.
A scribe recording the testimony of an eyewitness means the testimony transcribed is eyewitness testimony, not secondary source.

So, where are Matthew and John's sources; and how did Matthew "see" Jesus' birth (not to mention provide a completely different account than Luke does)?
through the testimony of others, Matthew and John can record eyewtiness testimony of events they didn't see themselves.

Jesus was accused of being "King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) and of openly defying the Roman Empire and the Emperor's orders (Luke 23:1). That, by definition is "being accused of insurrection", as the Jews already had a king (Herod).

Also, it's a not a major point, but where was Barabbas accused of robbery? I think you have him confused with Nicodemus (one of the other two people crucified with Jesus) who was.
Its the version of the narrative that you are reading. Are you reading NIV? I assumed so before, but I didn't look it up to compare your scripture quotes before so I'm not sure. But I can tell that your version is a non-literal translation, like the NIV is not a literal translation.

Here is an example of John in different translations.

John 18:40
(Literal Translations)
ESV
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a robber.
NASB
So they cried out again, saying, "Not this Man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a robber.
NKJV
Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.
Young’s Literal Translation
therefore they all cried out again, saying, `Not this one -- but Barabbas;' and Barabbas was a robber.

(non Literal Translations)
NIV
They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
CEV
They shouted, "No, not him! We want Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a terrorist.

I posted the Gospels verses for two reasons:

-One, textual analysis. As we've been trying to tell you all along, if you want to find that kernel of truth in the Bible, it's important to know what's in it and see what you can draw from it. I bolded the sections of the verses I wished to analyze (so they might not be lost) but quoted the whole paragraph so you understood the context surrounding them.

-Two, I didn't wish to make any misrepresentations regarding what the Gospels said about Barabbas. Hence, it's useful to repost them "as-is" so they're not "misquoted".

I wished to use the verses to further the "allegory" argument- thus, you have to know how the story goes. That by no means says I am "taking them at face value and calling them truth".

I fail to see how your rant here somehow invalidates my point of "without evidence you can't make a claim".

You used the quotes to establish the conditions you accepted.
1. Charges against the accused
2. Pilates resistance to a guilty verdict
3. the Priests desire to see Jesus killed
4. The crowd

You then deny the same quotes the ability to say there was a holiday custom. I pointed out the flaw with that argument because you cherry pick the conditions you agree with out of the paragraph to set the parameters of your speculation, and without reason, you cherry pick the words you decide are not trustworthy. No one can debate under those conditions. If you use the paragraph to discern Pilates mood and the charges themselves and the existence of a chanting crowd, why then is it illogical for me to agree with your use AND assert that the rest of the passage is just as accurate? I recognize that you didn’t take the entire gospel to be truth at face value, but you ARE using it to set the conditions you start your hypothesis with.

I didn't make that post as a claim of truth- it's just speculation. Frankly you would do well to recognize when I'm making such a distinction. I recognize it’s speculations, I find it funny that your side gets to ‘speculate’ entire sequences, events and places and motives and rationales, but if I speculate someone’s motive for doing what is described, all of a sudden I’m adding to the narrative or I’m ‘inventing’ reasons to argue my position. The epitome of irony that.

I didn't say they were written together- I said the Bible is composed with the singular purpose of being a religious text. Therefore, anything that's in the Bible has to be linked together because they're grouped together (and thus are not meant to be wholly independent of each other). Regardless, though, if you wish to prove something in the Bible you've got to go outside of it. It's like using the account of four friends who sat in the same section of the stadium to describe a football game- yeah, they're all technically different people but they're linked to each other so their interpretation of the events will be the same (and, most likely, see it roughly the same way). If you want to corroborate what happened you need to find (at the very least) a fan who went to the same game who's not linked to those four fans because that seperate fan isn't going to be influenced in their storymaking by the four fans. Thus, no matter how good a source the Bible may be, you always need to go outside of it to corroborate it- that way you can be sure of what happened as those who "see it differently" still see it roughly the same way.
That is NOT the definition of corroborating evidence. There is no reason that witnesses must not know each other for their testimonies to be separate from each other. It can impact your evaluation of their testimony, but two people are two people, they have different testimonies.

All right- but still, are you going to tell me that each of those times the speakers will say- word for word- EXACTLY the same thing each time? Stories change depending on the crowd, the circumstances and how the speaker feels like telling it- meaning, at the end of the day, what was written down thirty years later is likely NOT the same thing as the story as they first saw or told it.
I never made the claim that eyewitness testimony is a flawless recording methodology, it is not a verbatim recalling of words and sequences. And recording eyewitness testimony is not perfect either, if it is scribes through dictation, hand script of the witness, or mechanical recording… That is the essence of eyewitness testimony though, it’s never perfect, two people having a conversation with each other can’t recount the conversation perfectly the next day. But it doesn’t make their testimony false, nor unbelievable, as long as both are trying to be honest their testimony will be as accurate as human standards can expect.

Having contemporary evidence. A document that's from the time of Jesus' life. Something that's *not* fifty years after His death (as, at best, the Gospels and early writings are).
I don’t concede the fifty years. I’ve been holding the position that all of the gospels in the recorded forms are as early as 70AD or before, and reason to believe that their origins like Matthew in Hebrew or “Q” predate Paul, from the 40’s. I’m arguing that the eyewitnesses are contemporary sources, you’re trying to force the date of the recording to a date equivalent to the occurrences. I’m not conceding that to be a requirement either.

There's a difference in seeing what is written, analyzing it and seeing what it means; and "twisting" it. I'm merely seeing what the text says and attempt to draw whatever I can from it, as well as balance it out with other sources as per the rules of history. If I see that the Gospels are 100% historically accurate, I'll make note of that. If I see they're only 49% accurate, I'll also say that. I'm not going to make more of them than what they actually are.

You, on the other hand, seem to assume the Gospels are 100% historically accurate and then try to come up with explanations whenever the text poses a problem ("there's a reason why we don't have sources", "the Church Fathers said they're eyewitness accounts so they must be", "there's a reason why Pilate would step out of character this one time", etc.). IMO, your form is the one that needs work, not mine.
I support the simplest solutions first, if they don’t work, then move on to more complicated scenarios. The solution/hypothesis that requires multiple changes are the least likely to be correct solutions, there is more opportunity for error in them, by their very nature.

No, you didn't (and neither did I- go check "BibleGateway.com" if you don't believe me; and no, me noticing odd similarities in different texts is not "me changing the narrative")- but you did have to provide speculation as to why this story flies in the face of what we know about Pilate.
I wasn’t accusing you of changing the quotes, I was accusing you of needing to change the narrative story to end up with your conclusions (e.g., Pilate lets Jesus go and the Priest kill him in secret), that’s what I meant by “changing” the narrative, I wasn’t accusing you of being dishonest. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

No, it *might* have existed. It is not definitive- without the book itself. For all we know, the concept of "Papias' book" may just be a figment of Eusebius' imagination.

Regardless, that quote just tells me that he knows what is written by the Disciples- it is not definitive proof of their existence (or that they actually saw what they wrote).
I cannot prove that the gospels are not lies. That is correct. The claim that they have always been presented as eye witness testimony is validated via these sorts of references.

Still doesn't go against my claim (which is what you were responding to here) that said that, at best, the Barabbas story is "second-hand", especially if Luke's account diverges from a central part of the other stories (the Jewish custom as justification for Pilate wanting to release Jesus).

“Second hand” means nothing here (even if I accepted the argument that they are second hand, which I don't) but even then Luke is "second hand" but John would not be. So the real point is to discern what they said and when they said it and see if there was any time for accidental changes to occur or intentional lies to be made by the authors. Intentional lies are possible, but then you need four people and all of their witness to propagate those lies, thus it constitutes a conspiracy. And there is not enough time for accidental misunderstandings to have changed the narrative so drastically and yet be old enough to be included in all the different sources.

The book of Acts is the last place that mentions the Barabbas event in the scripture and we haven’t discussed how it would affect any narrative interpretation changes you guys want to make to the basic story yet, so I’ll bring it up now instead of waiting further.

Acts 3
12And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

There’s not much else to be said about the Barabbas episode. I don’t see a problem with Jesus the King of the Jews and Jesus bar Abbas both being placed together, after examining the evidence vis dissection and reassembling the pieces the way they were, I find that they aren’t broken and they don’t need to be ‘fixed’ with extracurricular speculation. Everyone can read my arguments, if they are not convinced then they are not convinced, neither am I convinced by the arguments that there is more to the story than what the narratives say of themselves.

I don't understand what you mean here- I was responding to Ashmoria and she made no mention of books. Clarify please.
I thought she was talking about the “Left Behind” book series and what they said in them. My bad if she was not.

You used the quotes to establish the conditions you accepted.
1. Charges against the accused
2. Pilates resistance to a guilty verdict
3. the Priests desire to see Jesus killed
4. The crowd

You then deny the same quotes the ability to say there was a holiday custom.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but he used quotes to show WHAT THE TEXT CLAIMS. He didn't say it makes it true. He was just pointing out elements of the story as told in the NT. YOU are claiming that because the text says it, we should treat it as true. Are you seriously saying you don't see the difference?

You can't see the difference between quoting Huckleberry Finn to show some specifics of what Mark Twain wrote and quoting Huckleberry Finn to demonstrate the custom of little white boys helping slaves escape on the river? One is using quotes to talk about what the text has in it, and the other is using quotes to claim that the text represents a historically accurate story.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but he used quotes to show WHAT THE TEXT CLAIMS. He didn't say it makes it true. He was just pointing out elements of the story as told in the NT. YOU are claiming that because the text says it, we should treat it as true. Are you seriously saying you don't see the difference?

You can't see the difference between quoting Huckleberry Finn to show some specifics of what Mark Twain wrote and quoting Huckleberry Finn to demonstrate the custom of little white boys helping slaves escape on the river? One is using quotes to talk about what the text has in it, and the other is using quotes to claim that the text represents a historically accurate story.

His hypothesis USES those four things. The speculation begins with items he got from the quotes, no where else. Of course he doesn't need to believe it to be truth, that’s not the problem, no one said he has to believe it to quote it. But his hypotheses presupposes it’s parameters from those quotes. I'm simply stating that it's not good debate form to say, “the parts of this paragraph that agree with me are good, the parts that agree with you are bad, so I can use the paragraph to describe my hypothesis but you can’t use the other parts for your "rebuttal," its an invalid position to take, it’s not debate.

let me type out this passage from "lost christianites" by bart ehrman:

"in the second and third centuries there were christians who believed that jesus was both divine and human, god and man. there were other christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (for them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: god can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) their were others who insisted that jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by god to be his son but not himself divine. there were yet other christians who claimed that jesus christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, jesus, and a fully divine being, christ, who had temporarily inhabited jesus' body during his ministry and left him prioer to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath."

ill give a look around to see what that sect was called.

It's a pretty common Baptist belief that the Anti-Christ will be imbued with Satan at some point. The idea of the Christ having the same happen makes sense. It's also consistent with one of the most enigmatic parts of the story.

Matthew 27 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What I find interesting about this whole thing is that we're supposed to believe we have 4 independent sources that are all primary, and they just happen to have IDENTICAL wording of quotes, and often the exact same descriptive words, 30 to 60 years later. Apparently followers of Jesus have miracle memories.

I'll tell you this. I sat in with military intelligence for a bit when I couldn't attend an excercise with the rest of my unit because of school. One of the things you look for when you're questioning witnesses is when their stories are too identical. If you question for people and they tell a story where everyone of them notices a flowerbed in front of the house, or everyone of them says the room smelled like vanilla, or everyone of them describes the events as loud (when you have a TON of synonyms), then they're lying to you. Those kinds of things don't happen in real life. Those are the marks of a rehearsed story.

So here we have all of those marks. So one would either conclude that these "witnesses" rehearsed a story until they all had the same identical story, which makes them unreliable witnesses or liars. OR, as is the scholarly concensus, they all came from the same source.

Personally, I accept that they all had the same source, particularly for specific parts. But, hey, if Baldy wants to argue that they are all seperate sources that describe Jesus calling out in the same ways, making the same movements, saying the exact same words, touching the same things in the same ways, that is pretty destructive evidence agaisnt these texts. They even chose to highlight the same parts of the story in many of the stories. If they were talking to interrigators they be considered lying from about the second identical story. And for good reason.

His hypothesis USES those four things. The speculation begins with items he got from the quotes, no where else. Of course he doesn't need to believe it to be truth, that’s not the problem, no one said he has to believe it to quote it. But his hypotheses presupposes it’s parameters from those quotes. I'm simply stating that it's not good debate form to say, “the parts of this paragraph that agree with me are good, the parts that agree with you are bad, so I can use the paragraph to describe my hypothesis but you can’t use the other parts for your "rebuttal," its an invalid position to take, it’s not debate.

Um, you're claiming that the text supports a historical acceptance of the practice. Is he arguing for historical acceptance of his claims on the text ALONE? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, I think you should probably not attempt to analyze what is and isn't debate. You've been shown to be unreliable in that regard.

...Personally, I accept that they all had the same source, particularly for specific parts. But, hey, if Baldy wants to argue that they are all seperate sources that describe Jesus calling out in the same ways, making the same movements, saying the exact same words, touching the same things in the same ways, that is pretty destructive evidence agaisnt these texts. They even chose to highlight the same parts of the story in many of the stories. If they were talking to interrigators they be considered lying from about the second identical story. And for good reason.

That's just the funniest thing. I'm usually pressed to explain why all the gospels are different, why they quote Jesus differently, why they put events in different sequences, why some have some events and others don't have them at all. But hey, if you want to argue that the gospels are too perfect to be believed, I want to use you in the debates with the people that say they are too different to be believed.

Um, you're claiming that the text supports a historical acceptance of the practice. Is he arguing for historical acceptance of his claims on the text ALONE? I don't think so.

Meanwhile, I think you should probably not attempt to analyze what is and isn't debate. You've been shown to be unreliable in that regard.

You should try reading it before posting you opinion it would seem...

It's a pretty common Baptist belief that the Anti-Christ will be imbued with Satan at some point. The idea of the Christ having the same happen makes sense. It's also consistent with one of the most enigmatic parts of the story.

Matthew 27 46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

What I find interesting about this whole thing is that we're supposed to believe we have 4 independent sources that are all primary, and they just happen to have IDENTICAL wording of quotes, and often the exact same descriptive words, 30 to 60 years later. Apparently followers of Jesus have miracle memories.

I'll tell you this. I sat in with military intelligence for a bit when I couldn't attend an excercise with the rest of my unit because of school. One of the things you look for when you're questioning witnesses is when their stories are too identical. If you question for people and they tell a story where everyone of them notices a flowerbed in front of the house, or everyone of them says the room smelled like vanilla, or everyone of them describes the events as loud (when you have a TON of synonyms), then they're lying to you. Those kinds of things don't happen in real life. Those are the marks of a rehearsed story.

So here we have all of those marks. So one would either conclude that these "witnesses" rehearsed a story until they all had the same identical story, which makes them unreliable witnesses or liars. OR, as is the scholarly concensus, they all came from the same source.

Personally, I accept that they all had the same source, particularly for specific parts. But, hey, if Baldy wants to argue that they are all seperate sources that describe Jesus calling out in the same ways, making the same movements, saying the exact same words, touching the same things in the same ways, that is pretty destructive evidence agaisnt these texts. They even chose to highlight the same parts of the story in many of the stories. If they were talking to interrigators they be considered lying from about the second identical story. And for good reason.

the similarities in the gospels is why scholars suggest that there must exist a lost text called "Q".

but the barabbas story is even in john which (as i understand it) is not a Q gospel. all the gospels use the name when there are so few other names that occur in all 4 gospels. especially when barabbas is neither a disciple, a prominent jew nor a roman.

thats a pretty powerful reference, isnt it?

the similarities in the gospels is why scholars suggest that there must exist a lost text called "Q".

but the barabbas story is even in john which (as i understand it) is not a Q gospel. all the gospels use the name when there are so few other names that occur in all 4 gospels. especially when barabbas is neither a disciple, a prominent jew nor a roman.

thats a pretty powerful reference, isnt it?

One does call him notorious, why do assume he was a nobody?

Matthew 27:16
And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.

You should try reading it before posting you opinion it would seem...

I did. I'm telling you what he's trying to tell you. You think because you keep changing what you're saying that we don't treat this like one continuous argument? Being obtuse never changed anything about an argument. It doesn't change what we meant in questions about Barabbas. It doesn't change what he's trying to tell you and ask you. And it doesn't change what you're saying. If you can't communicate your arguments in a way that even most people in the thread read them as you wish them to be read, grab a dictionary and a thesaurus and do some work.

One does call him notorious, why do assume he was a nobody?

Matthew 27:16
And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.

So notorious that no other evidence of him exists?

That's just the funniest thing. I'm usually pressed to explain why all the gospels are different, why they quote Jesus differently, why they put events in different sequences, why some have some events and others don't have them at all. But hey, if you want to argue that the gospels are too perfect to be believed, I want to use you in the debates with the people that say they are too different to be believed.

Then you haven't been in many scholarly debates. All evidence points to at MOST 2 sources. Slight changes in order and such are editing. They don't change the stories or the point at all.

And if you get someone who says they are too different to be believed I'd be happy to have that debate and have. Are you telling me that you're not aware that three of the Gospels are considered to have a common source?

Then you haven't been in many scholarly debates. All evidence points to at MOST 2 sources. Slight changes in order and such are editing. They don't change the stories or the point at all.

And if you get someone who says they are too different to be believed I'd be happy to have that debate and have. Are you telling me that you're not aware that three of the Gospels are considered to have a common source?

I've never used the word synoptic gospel before, I don't have a clue what it means... :rolleyes: Perhaps you could explain it for us?

Your moving into non sequiturs here, you know that right?

One does call him notorious, why do assume he was a nobody?

Matthew 27:16
And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.

you dont find that intriguing?

there is this notorious guy who is so important that each gospel author mentions him but we know nothing else about him.

the gospels each have their own unique stories and focus. they look back on the life of jesus from a considerable distance--somewhere between 30 and 100 years. only john mentions that he raised lazarus from the dead, for example. the other writers found THAT part not worth putting down (or maybe they forgot it happened) but they all still remember the name of BARABBAS?

it feels to me like there is something left out of this story that makes barabbas so very rememberable.

you dont find that intriguing?

there is this notorious guy who is so important that each gospel author mentions him but we know nothing else about him.

the gospels each have their own unique stories and focus. they look back on the life of jesus from a considerable distance--somewhere between 30 and 100 years. only john mentions that he raised lazarus from the dead, for example. the other writers found THAT part not worth putting down (or maybe they forgot it happened) but they all still remember the name of BARABBAS?

it feels to me like there is something left out of this story that makes barabbas so very rememberable.

As others have argued, and I'm not against the idea, Barabbas is said to have been an insurrectionist, ties to rebels, a murderer in insurrections, a general 'bad' guy (to the Romans?), but those exact same attributes could make him a folk hero type figure for malcontents or those that want to over throw the Roman rule. A local hero could be known to the citizens but not renown elsewhere. I don't see that it has to be anything other than that. Mark doesn't even bother to allude to the Sermon on the Mount, but I'm not arguing that the sermon on the mount was not a big deal...

I've never used the word synoptic gospel before, I don't have a clue what it means... :rolleyes: Perhaps you could explain it for us?

Your moving into non sequiturs here, you know that right?

No. I'm not. I'm pointing out the many, many flaws is suggesting you've got four sources when all evidence suggest they are related.

So I take it from your sarcasm to mean you realize that claiming these are four distinct sources is ignorant, at best, and downright dishonest at worst.

Good. We won't here you utter that argument again.

As others have argued, and I'm not against the idea, Barabbas is said to have been an insurrectionist, ties to rebels, a murderer in insurrections, a general 'bad' guy (to the Romans?), but those exact same attributes could make him a folk hero type figure for malcontents or those that want to over throw the Roman rule. A local hero could be known to the citizens but not renown elsewhere. I don't see that it has to be anything other than that. Mark doesn't even bother to allude to the Sermon on the Mount, but I'm not arguing that the sermon on the mount was not a big deal...

Ah, yes, the good old made-up reason. Yay. This is clear and unrevokable proof these are eyewitness events. I mean, it's normal to have to constantly make up explanations for how something came to be, absent ANY evidence at all. Yep, very scientific.

You realize the minute you have to insert this much detail to make your theory make a lick of sense, you're not talking about science, right?

No. I'm not. I'm pointing out the many, many flaws is suggesting you've got four sources when all evidence suggest they are related.

So I take it from your sarcasm to mean you realize that claiming these are four distinct sources is ignorant, at best, and downright dishonest at worst.

Good. We won't here you utter that argument again.

You're funny. You think you can eliminate which gospel and not lose anything because everything in it is in another gospel? You think all the synoptic gospels agree with no distinctive differences on anything, nor tell different stories or accounts from each other?

Silly.

Perhaps you should go back and reread what the two source theories really are huh.

It's a pity I'll be gone all weekend, I'd love to see how you think we can cut four gospels down to 3 witnesses without losing anything, not to even speak of cutting four down to two.

You're funny. You think you can eliminate which gospel and not lose anything because everything in it is in another gospel? You think all the synoptic gospels agree with no distinctive differences on anything, nor tell different stories or accounts from each other?

Silly.

Um, strawmen don't help you. If they all came from the same original source, then you can suggest they are four seperate eyewitness sources. Dude, honestly, and no making fun or messing with you, you really don't seem to understand how scientific analysis is done. I mean you really don't.

You make good arguments from the standpoint of someone who doesn't. You really do. You have a lot of knowledge. But understanding science is a core part of making the argument you're making and you're pretty much constantly demonstrating you don't realize the rules.

So let me see if I've got it straight, what you're saying. When you say that we have four seperate sources for the Barabbas story, you actually think that scientifically, these count as four seperate peices of evidence even if the stories are all just selections from the same original text? You really think that. I'm serious. No jokes. No poking fun. Can you honestly put into text that you think we have four seperate sources for the Barabbas story?

Why not claim each version of the Bible as a seperate source? Often times there are some differences in the editing. Why is it that the Bible is more than one source, but three Gospels picking stories from a common Gospel and reprinting them with a little editing are only one source each. Let's seperate each story into a seperate source for Jesus. It doesn't matter if they all came from the same place or different places. We have 100s of sources. You see why there might be some rules on how we consider sources. The same story coming from the same source with just a little editing, is one source. Not four. So, now, do you have an corroboration?

Perhaps you should go back and reread what the two source theories really are huh.

It's a pity I'll be gone all weekend, I'd love to see how you think we can cut four gospels down to 3 witnesses without losing anything, not to even speak of cutting four down to two.

Amusing. I'm not cutting them down to any witnesses. It's not been demonstrated they were witnessed. What I can say is that we can not say we have four sources when they are just the accounts from one. It's like saying I have a huge number of sources for demonstrating that a boy helped a slave escape on the Mississippi just because people have written about that story or borrowed from it.

So if you and I both retell a story told to by Jim who wrote the story down after hearing from Johnny who was there, we're all giving seperate eyewitness testimonies? You cannot really be serious.

I'm really done teasing you. You just don't seem to understand the rules of evidence when it comes to science.

A scribe recording the testimony of an eyewitness means the testimony transcribed is eyewitness testimony, not secondary source.

No, a writer basing their account on the accounts of others is writing a secondary source. There's no way around that.

through the testimony of others, Matthew and John can record eyewtiness testimony of events they didn't see themselves.

Which others are you speaking of? Matthew and John aren't forthcoming with them.

Its the version of the narrative that you are reading. Are you reading NIV? I assumed so before, but I didn't look it up to compare your scripture quotes before so I'm not sure. But I can tell that your version is a non-literal translation, like the NIV is not a literal translation.

Here is an example of John in different translations.

John 18:40
(Literal Translations)
ESV
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a robber.
NASB
So they cried out again, saying, "Not this Man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a robber.
NKJV
Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.
Young’s Literal Translation
therefore they all cried out again, saying, `Not this one -- but Barabbas;' and Barabbas was a robber.

(non Literal Translations)
NIV
They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
CEV
They shouted, "No, not him! We want Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a terrorist.

"And there was one named Barabbas, who was chained with his fellow rebels; they had committed murder in the rebellion." (Mark 15:7, NKJV)

"And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas." (Mark 15:7, ESV)

"The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection." (Mark 15:7, NASB)

"and there was [one] named Barabbas, bound with those making insurrection with him, who had in the insurrection committed murder." (Mark 15:7, Young's Literal Translation)

"And they all cried out at once, saying, 'Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas'— who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder." (Luke 23:18-19, NKJV)

"But they all cried out together, 'Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas'— a man who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection started in the city and for murder." (Luke 23:18-19, ESV)

"But they cried out all together, saying, 'Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!' (He was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.)" (Luke 23:18-19, NASB)

"and they cried out -- the whole multitude -- saying, `Away with this one, and release to us Barabbas,' who had been, because of a certain sedition made in the city, and murder, cast into prison." (Luke 23:18-19, Young's Literal Translation)

They're pretty clear that Barabbas was a rebel, meaning that- from a literal standpoint- one or the other has the Barabbas account wrong. However, as to why John uses "robber":

It is interesting that John does not say that Barabbas was released. Pilate offered to release Jesus, but the Jews asked for Barabbas to be released. John then commented that Barabbas was a robber. The word used for robber was commonly used in first century Palestine for roving brigands who were involved in terrorist activity against the Roman government. Unfortunately, many of these brigands pillaged, robbed, and raped Jews as well as Romans. They became outlaws under the guise of being freedom fighters. The perversion of the Jews was so great in John's mind that they chose a Barabbas instead of Jesus.

(From: http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbjohn20.html)

You used the quotes to establish the conditions you accepted.
1. Charges against the accused
2. Pilates resistance to a guilty verdict
3. the Priests desire to see Jesus killed
4. The crowd

You then deny the same quotes the ability to say there was a holiday custom. I pointed out the flaw with that argument because you cherry pick the conditions you agree with out of the paragraph to set the parameters of your speculation, and without reason, you cherry pick the words you decide are not trustworthy. No one can debate under those conditions. If you use the paragraph to discern Pilates mood and the charges themselves and the existence of a chanting crowd, why then is it illogical for me to agree with your use AND assert that the rest of the passage is just as accurate? I recognize that you didn’t take the entire gospel to be truth at face value, but you ARE using it to set the conditions you start your hypothesis with.

Well, of course I'm setting parameters before I accept something- I set the parameter that the Gospels need to be historically verified to enter the historical record, since we are talking about a historical debate. I'm not going to accept the Gospels as historically accurate without proof.

Now, I don't see how me quoting Scripture, noting what it says, and drawing conclusions from it means that I'm "cherry-picking which words I find to be trustworthy" and "setting the pre-conditions for which I'll accept an argument". I haven't changed the words. I haven't taken them out of context. I said "look at what it says". I then had a look at what it said, used what other information I know (such as Pilate's charaterization provided by Josephus) and speculated on its origin but in no way did I suggest my speculation was "historically accurate" (you did notice that I said, within that speculation "if it happened". That doesn't mean "I take my speculation to be historically accurate"). Again, as I said, you're using the Bible as a historical document- thus, it's pertinent to know exactly what the Bible is saying.

Allow me to reiterate my understanding of how this argument got to this point, since it appears we're losing focus:

1. You claimed the Gospels are historically accurate because they're eyewitness accounts. That means we've got to take a look at what is written and see if it holds up to scrutiny.

2. Jocabia picks the Barabbas story as just one part of the Gospel narrative to see if it holds up as an eyewitness account. He quotes the scholarly debate surroudning Barabbas, and makes the claim- as several scholars do- that Barabbas is better read as an allegory than a 100% accurate reading of the events. He then provides proof- similarities of the name and of how Jesus Himself is described, the fact that the Passover tradition is recorded nowhere else at the time, and the fact that it's rather odd that Pilate would even uphold such a custom given how he is characterized.

3. You respond by focusing on Barabbas' name, contending that Jocabia is insisting that Barabbas is "Jesus Barabbas" and that this isn't actually the case, and by saying that the existence of traditions surrounding Barabbas well after his appearance in history is proof that he existed.

4. Jocabia (and by now myself) tell you that, no we're not basing our arguments that "Jesus=Barabbas" because we think Barabbas' name is "Jesus Barabbas" but because "Barabbas" means "Son of the Father", which is what Jesus Himself is referred to. We also tell you that the existence of traditions is not proof of historicity, since even fake characters can have traditions surrounding them. We both repeat our insistence that contemporary evidence be provided.

5. You respond by saying that Barabbas and Jesus cannot be the same character since they have different names and that other people are also named "Bar Abbas" (a claim that doesn't hold up to scrutiny). You also respond by saying that the evidence is contemporary based on the eyewitness claim, by holding that the original sources are "lost" and asserting that Pilate had reservations about Crucifying Jesus (which bolsters the Jesus-was-initially-released claim).

6. At this point, I figure you're not considering the whole "Barabbas is allegory" argument because it's not important who else is named "Barabbas" or what Barabbas' first name was. So I decided to post, in its entirety, the Scriptural account of Barabbas so everyone following the discussion can see exactly what the Bible says of him and so I'm not taking things out of context. I highlight certain parts of the text to make a point about what it says (like how Matthew says "do you want me to release 'Jesus who is called Christ'", as if the other figure is also named Jesus). I also remind you that a source thirty years after the fact isn't a contemporary source since it's too far removed from the event in question. I then also tell you that all the fancy explanations about why there's no sources doesn't make up for the fact there aren't any.

7. You respond by saying that by me posting Scripture I'm cherry-picking which parts of the text I'm choosing to believe and telling you which parts you can't believe, as if I'm selectively believing the Bible without any basis for doing so.

8. Jocabia comes to my defence in saying that the reason why I posted Scriputure is because I wanted to simply present what it said and make a point about what it says. Here, I do the same, reminding you that nowhere in my posting of the Scriptural Passages do I say that "these parts are 100% historically accurate".

In the end, though, I'm going to again ask you to provide contemporary and independent evidence that such a custom existed. If you're going to again retort with rhetoric and some attack that I'm somehow "flouting the rules" (which I'm not- history has its own standards and I'm adhering to them) I'm just going to assume you have none and I'm just going to move on.

I recognize it’s speculations, I find it funny that your side gets to ‘speculate’ entire sequences, events and places and motives and rationales, but if I speculate someone’s motive for doing what is described, all of a sudden I’m adding to the narrative or I’m ‘inventing’ reasons to argue my position. The epitome of irony that.

You claim your speculations as reason to believe it's history. I'm just speculating and not asserting in any way that it's history. There's the difference.

That is NOT the definition of corroborating evidence. There is no reason that witnesses must not know each other for their testimonies to be separate from each other. It can impact your evaluation of their testimony, but two people are two people, they have different testimonies.

So are four fans of the same football team going to offer substantially different perspectives on a questionable call or are they going to offer somewhat the same perspective? Face it, the only way you're going to be assured that the event in question happened as it is told is if someone independent of those four fans provides roughly the same account of what happened. Otherwise, you're just left with a wildly biased interpretation of questionable veracity.

I never made the claim that eyewitness testimony is a flawless recording methodology, it is not a verbatim recalling of words and sequences. And recording eyewitness testimony is not perfect either, if it is scribes through dictation, hand script of the witness, or mechanical recording… That is the essence of eyewitness testimony though, it’s never perfect, two people having a conversation with each other can’t recount the conversation perfectly the next day.

Given this, again, why must the account of Barabbas be 100% accurate? If you admit that eyewitness testimony isn't perfect, then there's also a high probability the Barabbas account as it is told isn't perfect in the historical record.

But it doesn’t make their testimony false, nor unbelievable, as long as both are trying to be honest their testimony will be as accurate as human standards can expect.

Which is something I never said. I'm just not going to assert it's historically accurate until I get veracity of the account. All I wanted was a source that indicates the veracity of the Barabbas account; and how do you check the veracity of the Barabbas account? Independent sources. If a non-Christian (and thus doesn't have an agenda for spreading the Faith) confirms the Barabbas account (and is writing close enough to the event that they most likely experienced it) then I'll believe it happened (as per the rules of history). Bottom line.

I don’t concede the fifty years. I’ve been holding the position that all of the gospels in the recorded forms are as early as 70AD or before, and reason to believe that their origins like Matthew in Hebrew or “Q” predate Paul, from the 40’s. I’m arguing that the eyewitnesses are contemporary sources, you’re trying to force the date of the recording to a date equivalent to the occurrences. I’m not conceding that to be a requirement either.

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (at least as a first century manuscript) and "Q" are theoretical documents- until they've actually been found you cannot claim they existed. As far as the authorship of the Gospels are concerned, again, you've been told time and again that none of them can be dated to the life of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they're not contemporary. Unless you can provide a Gospel (or Gospels) or any other kind of writing that describes Jesus Christ that derives from the time of His life, then you can't claim there's contemporary evidence (again, as per the rules of history). Plain and simple.

I support the simplest solutions first, if they don’t work, then move on to more complicated scenarios. The solution/hypothesis that requires multiple changes are the least likely to be correct solutions, there is more opportunity for error in them, by their very nature.

...and William of Occam would categorically tell you that you are wrong. If you've got to come up with a complicated scenario to prove historicity then you are very likely to be proven wrong.

I wasn’t accusing you of changing the quotes, I was accusing you of needing to change the narrative story to end up with your conclusions (e.g., Pilate lets Jesus go and the Priest kill him in secret), that’s what I meant by “changing” the narrative, I wasn’t accusing you of being dishonest. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

That's okay. However, I didn't change the narrative- I took the narrative, examined it, and speculated about it's origins while not claiming that my speculation is true.

I cannot prove that the gospels are not lies. That is correct. The claim that they have always been presented as eye witness testimony is validated via these sorts of references.

...and those references (if they can be shown to exist, which, without the physical books themselves, cannot be proven) aren't contemporary to the life of Jesus Christ. Therefore, they're no more an eyewitness as you or I.

“Second hand” means nothing here (even if I accepted the argument that they are second hand, which I don't) but even then Luke is "second hand" but John would not be. So the real point is to discern what they said and when they said it and see if there was any time for accidental changes to occur or intentional lies to be made by the authors. Intentional lies are possible, but then you need four people and all of their witness to propagate those lies, thus it constitutes a conspiracy. And there is not enough time for accidental misunderstandings to have changed the narrative so drastically and yet be old enough to be included in all the different sources.

The book of Acts is the last place that mentions the Barabbas event in the scripture and we haven’t discussed how it would affect any narrative interpretation changes you guys want to make to the basic story yet, so I’ll bring it up now instead of waiting further.

Acts 3
12And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.

There’s not much else to be said about the Barabbas episode. I don’t see a problem with Jesus the King of the Jews and Jesus bar Abbas both being placed together, after examining the evidence vis dissection and reassembling the pieces the way they were, I find that they aren’t broken and they don’t need to be ‘fixed’ with extracurricular speculation. Everyone can read my arguments, if they are not convinced then they are not convinced, neither am I convinced by the arguments that there is more to the story than what the narratives say of themselves.

I never said they were "lies"- I said they were, at best, "garbled", meaning somewhere along the way the memory recall confused the actual events. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. The Acts story also shows that Peter knew about the story- it doesn't mean that he actually saw it.

Regardless- and bottom, bottom line- unless you provide a contemporary and non-Christian source for the Barabbas story you won't convince me regarding its historicity. Bottom line.

let me type out this passage from "lost christianites" by bart ehrman:

"in the second and third centuries there were christians who believed that jesus was both divine and human, god and man. there were other christians who argued that he was completely divine and not human at all. (for them, divinity and humanity were incommensurate entities: god can no more be a man than a man can be a rock.) their were others who insisted that jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, adopted by god to be his son but not himself divine. there were yet other christians who claimed that jesus christ was two things: a full flesh-and-blood human, jesus, and a fully divine being, christ, who had temporarily inhabited jesus' body during his ministry and left him prioer to his death, inspiring his teachings and miracles but avoiding the suffering in its aftermath."

ill give a look around to see what that sect was called.

Hmmmnnn...so, maybe (although I'm not positing it as historical proof) the whole Barabbas account was concocted to show that Jesus was both God and man, since Jesus suffered and only man can suffer. Food for thought.

Hmmmnnn...so, maybe (although I'm not positing it as historical proof) the whole Barabbas account was concocted to show that Jesus was both God and man, since Jesus suffered and only man can suffer. Food for thought.

it doesnt really work on that level. jesus barabbas the man gets freed and jesus christ spiritual son of god gets executed. (and this theology is specifically denied in acts where jesus is resurrected with the exact body that died on the cross)

but it FEELS like its related some how and we are missing some piece that was either obvious to everyone reading it in the 100's or left out (or removed) for some reason at a later time.

it doesnt really work on that level. jesus barabbas the man gets freed and jesus christ spiritual son of god gets executed. (and this theology is specifically denied in acts where jesus is resurrected with the exact body that died on the cross)

but it FEELS like its related some how and we are missing some piece that was either obvious to everyone reading it in the 100's or left out (or removed) for some reason at a later time.

I admit, I hurried that response since I was writing a significantly large post, but I still hold my device is a possibility as there's no reason why a deity should suffer- unless that deity also assumed human form.

So you're saying that there was something about the Barabbas story was known to the listeners of the day but got lost somehow today. I agree with that- the text suggests a parable-like narrative (at least in the eyes of the reader) and thus the listeners clued in to something when "Barabbas" and "Jesus" were mentioned in the same breath. Perhaps it's a reflection on how the Jews had rejected God, since they condemned the deity to death but allowed the man to live.

I admit, I hurried that response since I was writing a significantly large post, but I still hold my device is a possibility as there's no reason why a deity should suffer- unless that deity also assumed human form.

So you're saying that there was something about the Barabbas story was known to the listeners of the day but got lost somehow today. I agree with that- the text suggests a parable-like narrative (at least in the eyes of the reader) and thus the listeners clued in to something when "Barabbas" and "Jesus" were mentioned in the same breath. Perhaps it's a reflection on how the Jews had rejected God, since they condemned the deity to death but allowed the man to live.

hmmmm i was looking at earlychristianwriting.com just now and found this paragraph

"Although the author of the Gospel of Mark is suffering through tribulations and his traditions betray resentment of Roman power, he wants to distance himself from the Jews who are at the cause of the revolt. At the same time he wants to present Christianity as something that is politically innocuous to the Roman authorities. For this reason there is a tendency to exonerate Pilate and blame the Jews in Mark (cf. 15:9-15), a tendency that becomes even more exaggerated in later times. In reality the anti-semitic prefect would probably not have given Jesus the time of day, especially if he represented a threat to order during the Passover festival. There is no other tradition of a custom to release prisoners during a festival, and such open amnesty goes against administrative wisdom. J.D. Crossan sees in the story of Barabbas a condemnation of the Jews who chose insurrection (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 143): "In Greek the technical term for such a rebel bandit is lestes, and that is exactly what Barabbas is called. He was a bandit, a rebel, an insurgent, a freedom fighter - depending always, of course, on your point of view. But Mark was written soon after the terrible consummation of the First Roman-Jewish War in 70 C.E., when Jerusalem and its Temple were totally destroyed. We already saw how the Zealots, a loose coalition of bandit groups and peasant rebels forced into Jerusalem by the tightening Roman encirclement, fought within the city for overall control of the rebellion in 68 C.E. There, says Mark, was Jerusalem's choice: it chose Barabbas over Jesus, an armed rebel over an unarmed savior. His narrative about Barabbas was, in other words, a symbolic dramatization of Jerusalem's fate, as he saw it."

so that the barabbas story is simple another way of condemning "the jews". the whole crucifiction story is over-the-top anti-jewish in every gospel.

the stupid jews pick the wrong messiah and get destroyed for it.

Here is an example of John in different translations.

John 18:40
(Literal Translations)
ESV
They cried out again, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" Now Barabbas was a robber.
NASB
So they cried out again, saying, "Not this Man, but Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a robber.
NKJV
Then they all cried again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber.
Young’s Literal Translation
therefore they all cried out again, saying, `Not this one -- but Barabbas;' and Barabbas was a robber.

(non Literal Translations)
NIV
They shouted back, "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!" Now Barabbas had taken part in a rebellion.
CEV
They shouted, "No, not him! We want Barabbas." Now Barabbas was a terrorist.


The direct translation of 'lēstēs' is a robber - with a clear distinction that it is NOT a crime of stealth, but of violence. A better translation might be 'plunderer' or 'brigand'.

The question remains, of course, whether a 'literal' translation is actually the most appropriate. I tend to favour literal where it makes sense, and look for other meanings where they are more logical.

Worth noting - I was looking through sources, and it appears that the 'Jesus' pre-name for Barabbas actually might well be the first occuring version, and later versions dropped the 'Jesus' name - and there are obvious reasons why that might be so.

A quick online search illustrates the source I was considering:

Sinaitic Palimpsest:

"Both manuscripts contain similar version of the Syriac gospels, which have been "conformed" to the four Greek gospels. In this sense of the word, the text has been corrected and re-edited to be made to conform to the Greek New Testament, though it is the older text. Even so, the Sinaitic Palimpsest retains some readings from even earlier lost Syriac gospels and from the 2nd century Diatessaron, which brought the four gospels into harmony with one another through selective readings and emendations."

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

Edit: Ah - and I notice our friend Rome has already jumped all over the 'robber' issue anyway.

What I find interesting is that you have a scientist, historian and engineer explaining how evidence works and the reply is "no, this counts as eyewitness, even if it's based on earlier testimonty, what it's based of off cannot be read, the source isn't named and we can't explain how some of the stories appeared or why they seem to go against ever source outside the Bible. It must be." And then he argues like we simply just don't understand how evidence works.

I'll tell you what, Baldy, name any scientific publication that will accept a rewriting of a rewriting of a story as eyewitness. I'll wait.

You've admitted to the editing. I believed you called it "highlighting" and compared it to a preacher, but it's the same thing. You admitted to allegorical elements. You caled it representative, but it's the same thing. You admitted that you're aware of reasons for believing there is a common source to the Bible and that it's the accepted theory. Yet you keep just waving your hands in the air and pretending all of these things disappear.

without reading the entire 180 or so pages of this thread.... and to respond to the original question of "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?"

Was your next door neighbor a real person? Does it matter to me?

Now however you decide to answer the first question, I'll not be convinced because I've never met your neighbor and I can easily doubt your evidence because I don't know you nor do I trust you, so why bother asking the question if I'm already setting up the fact that I won't really listen to anything you say about the existence of your neighbor? Well that's the kind of question you've set up for the thread, if you even have to ask, you'll never believe what anyone says about it because you've stacked the deck in your favor and invited people to your card game so you can win your game.

For the second question, I'm revealing that as far as I'm concerned about your neighbor, it is completely irrelevant to my day to day life because I've already convinced myself that this neighbor of yours doesn't exist anyway, so I'm leading any potential person who wishes to answer my first question which was stacked to begin with and bringing him down a pre-made path of the topic of which there is no escape. No matter how a person answers to "prove" that your neighbor exists, I can just deny it and whoever agrees with my assessment will also answer that it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Now if you want to ask an honest question and are willing to seek out the Truth no matter how inconvenient for you, then you should review your pseudo-exploration and restart your exploration of knowledge. Otherwise, continue in your assumptions that everything is fine in the matrix and that Neo is just a deluded drug freak who took a colored pill and dreamed up many wacky things.

without reading the entire 180 or so pages of this thread.... and to respond to the original question of "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?"

Was your next door neighbor a real person? Does it matter to me?

Now however you decide to answer the first question, I'll not be convinced because I've never met your neighbor and I can easily doubt your evidence because I don't know you nor do I trust you, so why bother asking the question if I'm already setting up the fact that I won't really listen to anything you say about the existence of your neighbor? Well that's the kind of question you've set up for the thread, if you even have to ask, you'll never believe what anyone says about it because you've stacked the deck in your favor and invited people to your card game so you can win your game.

For the second question, I'm revealing that as far as I'm concerned about your neighbor, it is completely irrelevant to my day to day life because I've already convinced myself that this neighbor of yours doesn't exist anyway, so I'm leading any potential person who wishes to answer my first question which was stacked to begin with and bringing him down a pre-made path of the topic of which there is no escape. No matter how a person answers to "prove" that your neighbor exists, I can just deny it and whoever agrees with my assessment will also answer that it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Now if you want to ask an honest question and are willing to seek out the Truth no matter how inconvenient for you, then you should review your pseudo-exploration and restart your exploration of knowledge. Otherwise, continue in your assumptions that everything is fine in the matrix and that Neo is just a deluded drug freak who took a colored pill and dreamed up many wacky things.

You are in the wrong thread. Maybe even in the wrong forum.

the Truth
What intent does a person express by capitalising the term "truth", as in to possess the noun or something?
You have to come terms with it, not usurp/malign/misrepresent/dishonour it. No caps.

without reading the entire 180 or so pages of this thread.... and to respond to the original question of "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?"

Was your next door neighbor a real person? Does it matter to me?

Now however you decide to answer the first question, I'll not be convinced because I've never met your neighbor and I can easily doubt your evidence because I don't know you nor do I trust you, so why bother asking the question if I'm already setting up the fact that I won't really listen to anything you say about the existence of your neighbor? Well that's the kind of question you've set up for the thread, if you even have to ask, you'll never believe what anyone says about it because you've stacked the deck in your favor and invited people to your card game so you can win your game.

For the second question, I'm revealing that as far as I'm concerned about your neighbor, it is completely irrelevant to my day to day life because I've already convinced myself that this neighbor of yours doesn't exist anyway, so I'm leading any potential person who wishes to answer my first question which was stacked to begin with and bringing him down a pre-made path of the topic of which there is no escape. No matter how a person answers to "prove" that your neighbor exists, I can just deny it and whoever agrees with my assessment will also answer that it doesn't matter in the slightest.

Now if you want to ask an honest question and are willing to seek out the Truth no matter how inconvenient for you, then you should review your pseudo-exploration and restart your exploration of knowledge. Otherwise, continue in your assumptions that everything is fine in the matrix and that Neo is just a deluded drug freak who took a colored pill and dreamed up many wacky things.

It's got nothing to do with belief or "the cards being stacked before the question is asked". Maybe these feelings are born out of frustration that the historicity debate isn't tilted strongly in Jesus Christ's favour but by no means does it mean that those (like myself) who ask for historical proof before accepting the historicity of Jesus Christ are on some campaign to get Jesus Christ out of the history books. As I've said it many times before, show me compelling (i.e. independent and contemporary) evidence for Jesus Christ's existence and I'll believe it.

Let me remind you (and everyone else that makes this statement) that we're involved in a historical debate, and for the debate to be resolved in any side's favour (let's not forget Jesus Christ hasn't also been proven not to exist- I'll paraphrase Jocabia in saying "lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence"), all that we ask is that you provide proof that follows the rules of history (which are not ones I made up). No amount of "well, you won't believe me anyway" cries is going to make up for the fact you've been unable to provide it.

What intent does a person express by capitalising the term "truth", as in to possess the noun or something?
You have to come terms with it, not usurp/malign/misrepresent/dishonour it. No caps.

I usually capitalize things like "Truth" and "Message" as they refer to Christianity because they denote specific concepts and I want to differentiate those concepts from the general terms. That's all.

I usually capitalize things like "Truth" and "Message" as they refer to Christianity because they denote specific concepts and I want to differentiate those concepts from the general terms. That's all.
If i understand you correctly, from your posting history, you're one of the people with sincere intent to make that distinction. :)
The critique is of people who intend to be disingenuous, obviously not yourself. *bows*

You are in the wrong thread. Maybe even in the wrong forum.

Wow, you read even less than me, at least I read the first post of this thread. Seems you haven't bothered reading my post in its entirety huh?

What intent does a person express by capitalising the term "truth", as in to possess the noun or something?
You have to come terms with it, not usurp/malign/misrepresent/dishonour it. No caps.

Capitalizing the word "truth" is done on a specific purpose to have a precise definition. You are distracting the entire point of my argument by turning this into a debate of Relativism vs Absolutism. For the Relativist, 'truth' is subjective; for the Absolutist, 'Truth' is unmodifiable by human intervention but potentially knowable. Your demand to limit my vocabulary to one that is more suitable for arguing a position contrary to what I am presenting is a distraction away from the initial comment.

It's got nothing to do with belief or "the cards being stacked before the question is asked". Maybe these feelings are born out of frustration that the historicity debate isn't tilted strongly in Jesus Christ's favour but by no means does it mean that those (like myself) who ask for historical proof before accepting the historicity of Jesus Christ are on some campaign to get Jesus Christ out of the history books. As I've said it many times before, show me compelling (i.e. independent and contemporary) evidence for Jesus Christ's existence and I'll believe it.

Let me remind you (and everyone else that makes this statement) that we're involved in a historical debate, and for the debate to be resolved in any side's favour (let's not forget Jesus Christ hasn't also been proven not to exist- I'll paraphrase Jocabia in saying "lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence"), all that we ask is that you provide proof that follows the rules of history (which are not ones I made up). No amount of "well, you won't believe me anyway" cries is going to make up for the fact you've been unable to provide it.

Then I suggest you take history as a discipline to see that the evidence has already been established by those much more knowledgeable than us in historical methods. Debating historical issues in a forum such as this with such a poorly formed question which presumes that there is no evidence does not fulfill your goal of a historical debate. The answer is already insinuated by the choice of words used, and this is not a proper beginning for any honest inquiry.

Your question style is similar to this kind: "Was the United States even attacked in Pearl Harbor making them participants in the Second World War? And does it matter to any of us today?" Anyone with a minimum background in history would see this form of question as an attack on all previously held assumptions of news gathering and historical record keeping. You may as well have asked if we can trust the honesty and integrity of our ancestors in providing us with proper records? On that basis you may as well follow your path of logic and ask, "can history even be known?" followed by "how can we know anything at all if every form of knowledge is suspect?". Of course this can be done ad absurdium and become another basis of promoting relativism, where we dictate reality at the strongman's(or charismatic) whim. But if relativism were true, how could you even understand this sentence or even use electricity or any of the other devices which rely upon consistent and 'unmodified by humans' laws of the universe as 'discovered' by science?

Capitalizing the word "truth" is done on a specific purpose to have a precise definition. You are distracting the entire point of my argument by turning this into a debate of Relativism vs Absolutism. For the Relativist, 'truth' is subjective; for the Absolutist, 'Truth' is unmodifiable by human intervention but potentially knowable. Your demand to limit my vocabulary to one that is more suitable for arguing a position contrary to what I am presenting is a distraction away from the initial comment. You're the one who capitalised it. Read what my response was to RomeW, and you might understand. Unless, of course, you're doing exactly what i was talking about. Don't cry about having "distractions" - what precisely did you say about reading how many pages there are in this thread?
without reading the entire 180 or so pages of this threadYou would be the distraction, at this point.
Deal with it.

Then I suggest you take history as a discipline to see that the evidence has already been established by those much more knowledgeable than us in historical methods.Now if the evidence has been established already, then it should be easy for you to provide right here right now.

Wow, you read even less than me, at least I read the first post of this thread. Seems you haven't bothered reading my post in its entirety huh?I have been here before the thread and a gazillion of other threads like it. And folks making any references to the matrix and neo should be shot right away.

Now if the evidence has been established already, then it should be easy for you to provide right here right now.They'll be THE ONE DIFFERENCE! :p
I should hope they'd put on a good show, and not cower from the occasion. Post evidence notwithstanding.

Then I suggest you take history as a discipline to see that the evidence has already been established by those much more knowledgeable than us in historical methods. Debating historical issues in a forum such as this with such a poorly formed question which presumes that there is no evidence does not fulfill your goal of a historical debate. The answer is already insinuated by the choice of words used, and this is not a proper beginning for any honest inquiry.

even a non historian should have no problem finding this evidence you speak of. its not a freaking secret that only historians get to know (after they give the secret handshake)

if there is evidence, point us to it.


Your question style is similar to this kind: "Was the United States even attacked in Pearl Harbor making them participants in the Second World War? And does it matter to any of us today?" Anyone with a minimum background in history would see this form of question as an attack on all previously held assumptions of news gathering and historical record keeping. You may as well have asked if we can trust the honesty and integrity of our ancestors in providing us with proper records? On that basis you may as well follow your path of logic and ask, "can history even be known?" followed by "how can we know anything at all if every form of knowledge is suspect?". Of course this can be done ad absurdium and become another basis of promoting relativism, where we dictate reality at the strongman's(or charismatic) whim. But if relativism were true, how could you even understand this sentence or even use electricity or any of the other devices which rely upon consistent and 'unmodified by humans' laws of the universe as 'discovered' by science?

we arent discussing the relativity of truth, just the relative strength of historical evidence.

even a non historian should have no problem finding this evidence you speak of. its not a freaking secret that only historians get to know (after they give the secret handshake)

if there is evidence, point us to it.Will they be back, or will they put on the same debonair as their "saviour" ... no show for ... what is it now, centuries?

we arent discussing the relativity of truth, just the relative strength of historical evidence.They might've caught that if they'd bothered reading the thread, but how did they put it ... ?
without reading the entire 180 or so pages of this thread
Oh, not so much. They're apparently happily, professedly ignorant in said regard.
Actually, it's probably already a lost hope, what with their intent to willfully misrepresent things.

Will they be back, or will they put on the same debonair as their "saviour" ... no show for ... what is it now, centuries?
They might've caught that if they'd bothered reading the thread, but how did they put it ... ?

Oh, not so much. They're apparently happily, professedly ignorant in said regard.
Actually, it's probably already a lost hope, what with their intent to willfully misrepresent things.

you never know. he could come back with a more serious post. i guess its hard to believe that after a few thousand posts its pretty much understood that there is no actual proof.

you never know. he could come back with a more serious post.I would so welcome it. They obviously fancy themselves as the type who can represent themselves strongly. If so, we're all better for their endurance. :)
i guess its hard to believe that after a few thousand posts its pretty much understood that there is no actual proof.

Faith, FTL!
Was the deck already stacked from the get-go, requiring proof? :p

Hmmm, even if we were to find something in favour of religion it'd probably just be discarded as illusion, hoax or coincidence.

If I saw Jesus doing the moonwalk on my kitchen table they'd probably tell me my brains were bending the light of that lamp and creating a figure looking like a bearded long haired guy and that I should take *insert random medicine here* every wednesday evening and if he comes back I should go to *insert random drug rehabilitation center here* only to die in isolation from an OD of medication.


... What's that sound... It's coming from my kitchen..
You know that actually sounds quite coherent.

I would so welcome it. They obviously fancy themselves as the type who can represent themselves strongly. If so, we're all better for their endurance. :)


Faith, FTL!
Was the deck already stacked from the get-go, requiring proof? :p

I don't agree with either assessment. First, threads have required evidence for evolution, went on for 1000 posts and still had people requiring evidence. That we're in that position, doesn't evidence who is right. That in all this time the same evidence that isn't compelling has been trortted out while ignoring basically every credible scholar and rule of evidence known to man is the best they could come up is evidence, however. You can't expect someone to read all 1000 posts. Honestly, it's not a rational request. It's not their fault we had a 10 page argument about whether or not you can assume things are true OR false wtihout evidence. Or a 10 page argument about whether or not I'm a liar.

Meanwhile, many, many theists require proof for historical and scientific assertions. As much as you're joking, your disdain for such things really isn't going to convince any of these one hit wonders that a rational discussion is available.

Hmmm, even if we were to find something in favour of religion it'd probably just be discarded as illusion, hoax or coincidence.

If I saw Jesus doing the moonwalk on my kitchen table they'd probably tell me my brains were bending the light of that lamp and creating a figure looking like a bearded long haired guy and that I should take *insert random medicine here* every wednesday evening and if he comes back I should go to *insert random drug rehabilitation center here* only to die in isolation from an OD of medication.


... What's that sound... It's coming from my kitchen..

I don't agree with either assessment. First, threads have required evidence for evolution, went on for 1000 posts and still had people requiring evidence. That we're in that position, doesn't evidence who is right. That in all this time the same evidence that isn't compelling has been trortted out while ignoring basically every credible scholar and rule of evidence known to man is the best they could come up is evidence, however. You can't expect someone to read all 1000 posts. Honestly, it's not a rational request. It's not their fault we had a 10 page argument about whether or not you can assume things are true OR false wtihout evidence. Or a 10 page argument about whether or not I'm a liar.

Meanwhile, many, many theists require proof for historical and scientific assertions. As much as you're joking, your disdain for such things really isn't going to convince any of these one hit wonders that a rational discussion is available.

its not the lack of reading. its the smug assumption that we are discussing something we arent.

Hmmm, even if we were to find something in favour of religion it'd probably just be discarded as illusion, hoax or coincidence.

If I saw Jesus doing the moonwalk on my kitchen table they'd probably tell me my brains were bending the light of that lamp and creating a figure looking like a bearded long haired guy and that I should take *insert random medicine here* every wednesday evening and if he comes back I should go to *insert random drug rehabilitation center here* only to die in isolation from an OD of medication.


... What's that sound... It's coming from my kitchen..

lol

at least you could start your own new christian sect with michael jackson as a key figure.

it worked for l ron hubbard and tom cruise, why not you?

That we're in that position, doesn't evidence who is right.Realistically, there's not likely to ever be an end to these types of threads, and you know it too. :p
That in all this time the same evidence that isn't compelling has been trortted out while ignoring basically every credible scholar and rule of evidence known to man is the best they could come up is evidence, however.That's why my intent is, when i think it's applicable, to apply new evidence in said light.
You can't expect someone to read all 1000 posts.I can if they expect to be right about what they think without reviewing the concept and evidence here, especially with that kind of attitude. :p
Honestly, it's not a rational request.To expect one to order poison in a bar ... is not logical. :p
It's not their fault we had a 10 page argument about whether or not you can assume things are true OR false wtihout evidence.I think that attitude was addressed with their whole capitalising approach. *nods*
Or a 10 page argument about whether or not I'm a liar. I didn't have much to do with those 10 pages, i don't think. :p
As much as you're joking, your disdain for such things really isn't going to convince any of these one hit wonders that a rational discussion is available.I think it's more that i'm interested in their mettle. As i'd said, they asserted themselves in a way that appeared, to untrained eye, to be experienced and capable of rational debate. As i'd said to Ashmoria, they'd be welcome, even happily anticipated if that were the case.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13366417&postcount=2829

Then I suggest you take history as a discipline to see that the evidence has already been established by those much more knowledgeable than us in historical methods.

Provide such evidence then. By the way, I *did* take history as a disciple- I have a History Degree. So I know exactly what the historical method requires.

Debating historical issues in a forum such as this with such a poorly formed question which presumes that there is no evidence does not fulfill your goal of a historical debate. The answer is already insinuated by the choice of words used, and this is not a proper beginning for any honest inquiry.

The original question (and, by extension, the original post) was "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" Taken literally, it is nothing more than an inquisitive query on His historical existence and whether or not that should actually matter to the Faith. That you've taken such a question as an affront for whatever reason still doesn't change the fact the question just literally asks if Jesus can be corroborated in the historical account. The question was not "Would you believe in Jesus Christ considering it hasn't been shown that He exists?", which actually *is* a loaded, biased question- the question was simply inquiring about His historical existence. Nothing to get worked up about.

That said, if you feel like your views have been affronted then by all means go out and defend them. Waving your hands and saying "well, you're just not going to believe me anyway" isn't going to give you a free pass from providing proof- in fact, it's just going to tell me that you have none so I won't have to pay attention to you.

Your question style is similar to this kind: "Was the United States even attacked in Pearl Harbor making them participants in the Second World War? And does it matter to any of us today?" Anyone with a minimum background in history would see this form of question as an attack on all previously held assumptions of news gathering and historical record keeping.

History, like every other discipline is never "finished"- it is updated constantly. Therefore, previously held views and assumptions *are* challenged all the time. For example, no scholars had actually believed the ancient Assyrians had actually conquered Cyprus since the Assyrians left us no record of them having a navy- until we found a victory stele by Sargon II, who claimed to have annexed Cyrpus, in the Cypriot town of Larnaca. Thus, the previously held view that the Assyrians never took over Cyprus was challenged and overturned, with the new view- considering the new evidence- that Cyrpus was indeed annexed by Sargon.

Therefore, it should be no surprise to you that scholars reviewed the historical evidence for Jesus Christ, causing some to even question His historical existence, considering that there isn't a single shred of sources contemporary to His time and none outside of Christian sources for at least two centuries (unless you have evidence to the contrary). However, I should note that it's not just the historicity of Jesus who has been subjected to this kind of review- other ancient legends once previously held to be true (such as the Trojan War) are also being questioned. The fact that the historicity of Jesus Christ is a sensitive topic has slowed the process somewhat, but it doesn't change the fact the debate is still real.

You may as well have asked if we can trust the honesty and integrity of our ancestors in providing us with proper records? On that basis you may as well follow your path of logic and ask, "can history even be known?" followed by "how can we know anything at all if every form of knowledge is suspect?". Of course this can be done ad absurdium and become another basis of promoting relativism, where we dictate reality at the strongman's(or charismatic) whim. But if relativism were true, how could you even understand this sentence or even use electricity or any of the other devices which rely upon consistent and 'unmodified by humans' laws of the universe as 'discovered' by science?

Honestly, such a query represents a poor understanding of the historical method. History- much like science- operates on "the best of what we have" dichotomy- it is the historian's job to take the sources as they are, dissect any biases and obvious non-truths in them and discern whatever truth we can out of the document. Some events and people have better documentation than others- thus, it *is* possible to "know" them. Others...it is not so sure. However, since the collection of sources and documents is never finished, it is never out of the realm of possibility that something that is very well known to have existed be stricken out of the books, provided the new evidence is that compelling. Without it, no proofs can be reasonably challenged.

Regardless, though, saying "nothing can ever be known" isn't going to go very far in a historical debate, as this one is. One can only go far if they follow the rules of the historical method and provide evidence that adheres to those rules. Like I said earlier, waving your hand and saying "nothing can be ever be done, what good is evidence" is just going to tell me you're not worth arguing in a historical debate that asks for evidence.

Hmmm, even if we were to find something in favour of religion it'd probably just be discarded as illusion, hoax or coincidence.

If I saw Jesus doing the moonwalk on my kitchen table they'd probably tell me my brains were bending the light of that lamp and creating a figure looking like a bearded long haired guy and that I should take *insert random medicine here* every wednesday evening and if he comes back I should go to *insert random drug rehabilitation center here* only to die in isolation from an OD of medication.


... What's that sound... It's coming from my kitchen..

Provide some compelling evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and I'll believe you.

Seriously, all these "well you won't believe me anyway" arguments are getting ridiculous. Either you have some evidence or something of substance for us to debate or you don't, at which point, frankly, you shouldn't even enter the debate. Saying it'll all be just a waste of time is, frankly, a waste of our time.

Capitalizing the word "truth" is done on a specific purpose to have a precise definition. You are distracting the entire point of my argument by turning this into a debate of Relativism vs Absolutism. For the Relativist, 'truth' is subjective; for the Absolutist, 'Truth' is unmodifiable by human intervention but potentially knowable. Your demand to limit my vocabulary to one that is more suitable for arguing a position contrary to what I am presenting is a distraction away from the initial comment.


You have asserted no reason, certainly none that you can support, for why we should accept your 'absolutist Truth'. You seem to have decided that absolutism suits you better than relativism, but your own bias does not necessarily influence those with whom you might debate.

A more universal approach might serve you better, such as discussing 'truth', rather than 'Truth'.


Then I suggest you take history as a discipline to see that the evidence has already been established by those much more knowledgeable than us in historical methods.


Some of us here are or have been historians, and are not entirely unfamiliar with the realities of assessing source material.

You might not want to assume that your own level of expertise (or lack of?) is representative.


Debating historical issues in a forum such as this with such a poorly formed question which presumes that there is no evidence does not fulfill your goal of a historical debate. The answer is already insinuated by the choice of words used, and this is not a proper beginning for any honest inquiry.


The question doesn't presume there is, implicitly, no evidence - but it does question the existence and veracity. Which isn't unreasonable.


Your question style is similar to this kind: "Was the United States even attacked in Pearl Harbor making them participants in the Second World War? And does it matter to any of us today?"


Not really - the question would have been more like "Did the United States exist"...


Anyone with a minimum background in history would see this form of question as an attack on all previously held assumptions of news gathering and historical record keeping.


You say this like it's a bad thing. A certain amount of iconoclasm keeps sciences honest.


You may as well have asked if we can trust the honesty and integrity of our ancestors in providing us with proper records? On that basis you may as well follow your path of logic and ask, "can history even be known?" followed by "how can we know anything at all if every form of knowledge is suspect?".


Good questions. Again - you speak of these things as though they were bad...


But if relativism were true, how could you even understand this sentence or even use electricity or any of the other devices which rely upon consistent and 'unmodified by humans' laws of the universe as 'discovered' by science?

I believe the idea is that electricity goes about it's business regardless of whether or not we consider it... I'm not sure what your point is actually supposed to be.

Don't you mean "If relativism were True'?

You are sadly deluded.:( There was many historians living around that time in and around that area, but not one of them has any writings of Jesus actually existing, except one that has been proved to be a fraud.

NOW I KNOW SOME OF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THAT IM DELUDED OR CRAZY . IF HE DOESENT EXIST, SO WHAT BUT IF HE DOES THEN WHAT?THINK ABOUT IT HE SAYS HE WILL PROVE IT . SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND KNOCK AND THE DOOR WILL BE AWSERED , FOR IM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME AND NO ONE COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER SENDS THEM. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS SON TO BE CRUCIFID TO PAY FOR OUR GUILT.BUT WE OUR SO HEARTLESS AND WICKED THAT WE SPIT ON HIS LOVE FOR US AND SAY HAHA THAT WASNT TRUE HES A FAIRY TAIL READ HEBREWS 10:26 IF WE DELIBERATELY KEEP ON SINNING (BY SAYING JESUS DOES NOT EXIST)NO SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS IS LEFT(BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY SACRIFICE)THE ONLY THING THAT IS LEFT IS A FEARFUL EXPECTATION OF JUDGMENT AND OF A RAGING FIRE THAT WILL CONSUME THE ENEMIES OF GOD. ANYONE WHO REJECTED THE LAW OF MOSES DIED WITH OUT MERCY. HOW MUCH MORE SEVERELY DO YOU THINK A MAN DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED WHO HAS TRAMPLED THE SON OF GOD UNDER FOOT,WHO HAS TREATED HIS BLOOD THAT SANCTIFIED YOU AS NOTHING, AND HAS INSULTED THE SPIRIT OF GRACE

NOW I KNOW SOME OF YOU ARE GOING TO SAY THAT IM DELUDED OR CRAZY . IF HE DOESENT EXIST, SO WHAT BUT IF HE DOES THEN WHAT?THINK ABOUT IT HE SAYS HE WILL PROVE IT . SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND KNOCK AND THE DOOR WILL BE AWSERED , FOR IM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME AND NO ONE COME TO ME UNLESS THE FATHER SENDS THEM. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS SON TO BE CRUCIFID TO PAY FOR OUR GUILT.BUT WE OUR SO HEARTLESS AND WICKED THAT WE SPIT ON HIS LOVE FOR US AND SAY HAHA THAT WASNT TRUE HES A FAIRY TAIL READ HEBREWS 10:26 IF WE DELIBERATELY KEEP ON SINNING (BY SAYING JESUS DOES NOT EXIST)NO SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS IS LEFT(BECAUSE HE IS THE ONLY SACRIFICE)THE ONLY THING THAT IS LEFT IS A FEARFUL EXPECTATION OF JUDGMENT AND OF A RAGING FIRE THAT WILL CONSUME THE ENEMIES OF GOD. ANYONE WHO REJECTED THE LAW OF MOSES DIED WITH OUT MERCY. HOW MUCH MORE SEVERELY DO YOU THINK A MAN DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED WHO HAS TRAMPLED THE SON OF GOD UNDER FOOT,WHO HAS TREATED HIS BLOOD THAT SANCTIFIED YOU AS NOTHING, AND HAS INSULTED THE SPIRIT OF GRACE

Holy shit! Capital letters ALL THE WAY! It must be true!

So - no evidence, then?

Thanks for playing.

(Oh, by the way, read your 'Old Testament'... even in absence of Jesus, there can be remission of sin through the spiling of blood - sorry, but your whole scenario is based on a false premise).

now i know some of you are going to say that im deluded or crazy . if he doesent exist, so what but if he does then what?think about it he says he will prove it . seek and you shall find knock and the door will be awsered , for im the way the truth and the life no one comes to the father but by me and no one come to me unless the father sends them. for god so loved the world that he gave his son to be crucifid to pay for our guilt.but we our so heartless and wicked that we spit on his love for us and say haha that wasnt true hes a fairy tail read hebrews 10:26 if we deliberately keep on sinning (by saying jesus does not exist)no sacrifice for our sins is left(because he is the only sacrifice)the only thing that is left is a fearful expectation of judgment and of a raging fire that will consume the enemies of god. anyone who rejected the law of moses died with out mercy. how much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the son of god under foot,who has treated his blood that sanctified you as nothing, and has insulted the spirit of grace

at least you amuse us.
since the jewish god is a fabrication, there is no way that jesus is that god's son. people who adhere to that faith are only wasting their lives.
as to the existence of a historical jesus and the circumstances of his life, that's a different story (although an irrelevant one because of his non-divinity, and people preaching inexpensive shit aren't rare enough in history to make one of them special)

Provide some compelling evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and I'll believe you.

Seriously, all these "well you won't believe me anyway" arguments are getting ridiculous. Either you have some evidence or something of substance for us to debate or you don't, at which point, frankly, you shouldn't even enter the debate. Saying it'll all be just a waste of time is, frankly, a waste of our time.

They found an ossuary bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus Christ, with the inscription: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

Must be a coincidence. Or a fraud.

They found an ossuary bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus Christ, with the inscription: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

Must be a coincidence. Or a fraud.

Could be both. Could also refer to the Jesus worshipped by Christians.
Any indication which it is ?

IF WE DELIBERATELY KEEP ON SINNING (BY SAYING JESUS DOES NOT EXIST)

You may want to take Caps Lock off...makes your posts much easier to read.

Anyway, there are very few people who say "Jesus does not exist"- most simply say "the historical record hasn't yet confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure", which is the truth (doesn't mean that Jesus Christ doesn't exist, it's just that we haven't found evidence confirming such, although evidence may appear later that confirms it). Regardless, I don't see how searching for Jesus Christ historically "is a sin" since the concept of historicity is completely different from the religious aspect of it- history is just out to see what really happened in the past and who really was present (and thus does not make value judgements on any past events) and the Words still exist in the form they had always been and the Message still valid even without the central character needing to be present. I mean, do Aesop's Fables lose their meaning because none of Aesop's characters exist?

You may want to take Caps Lock off...makes your posts much easier to read.

Anyway, there are very few people who say "Jesus does not exist"- most simply say "the historical record hasn't yet confirmed the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure", which is the truth (doesn't mean that Jesus Christ doesn't exist, it's just that we haven't found evidence confirming such, although evidence may appear later that confirms it). Regardless, I don't see how searching for Jesus Christ historically "is a sin" since the concept of historicity is completely different from the religious aspect of it- history is just out to see what really happened in the past and who really was present (and thus does not make value judgements on any past events) and the Words still exist in the form they had always been and the Message still valid even without the central character needing to be present. I mean, do Aesop's Fables lose their meaning because none of Aesop's characters exist?

will you please stop taking such obvious one-post-nutjobs seriously??

They found an ossuary bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus Christ, with the inscription: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

Must be a coincidence. Or a fraud.

There are a lot of people who genuinely see it that way, given that it "seems too good to be true" and that the man who submitted it to scholars, Oded Golan, is on trial for creating forgeries in Israel:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oded_Golan
http://www.archaeology.org/ossuary/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

Secondly, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" provides us nothing about the life stories of any of them- it just shows us that people using those names existed and they were connected in that way. So even if the Ossuary were true, it is *not* indisputable proof of the New Testament narrative since the Ossuary covers none of it.

There are a lot of people who genuinely see it that way, given that it "seems too good to be true" and that the man who submitted it to scholars, Oded Golan, is on trial for creating forgeries in Israel:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oden_Golan
http://www.archaeology.org/ossuary/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/

Secondly, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" provides us nothing about the life stories of any of them- it just shows us that people using those names existed and they were connected in that way. So even if the Ossuary were true, it is *not* indisputable proof of the New Testament narrative since the Ossuary covers none of it.Exactly. There was no Paul or Peter on the ossuary :p :rolleyes:

They found an ossuary bearing the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Jesus Christ, with the inscription: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

Must be a coincidence. Or a fraud.

if this item were shown to be from the right time and place, how much proof would YOU consider it to be of the existence of the jesus of the bible?

think about it, be honest, answer the question and give your reasoning.

at least you amuse us.
since the jewish god is a fabrication, there is no way that jesus is that god's son. people who adhere to that faith are only wasting their lives.
as to the existence of a historical jesus and the circumstances of his life, that's a different story (although an irrelevant one because of his non-divinity, and people preaching inexpensive shit aren't rare enough in history to make one of them special)

At least you amuse me.

Since your statement is a logical fallacy, there is no way you can follow it with assertions about Jesus. People who read your fallacies are only wasting their lives. ...

if this item were shown to be from the right time and place...well, that has been shown, only the inscription seems to be of a considerably lower age ;)

If this item were shown to be from the right time and place, how much proof would YOU consider it to be of the existence of the Jesus of the bible?

I would definately be additional support for Jesus being a historical person, however, it has been covered several times that those are all common names for the time/area; the combination of the three in that specific way makes it a bit more likely that it is the Jesus

I would definately be additional support for Jesus being a historical person, however, it has been covered several times that those are all common names for the time/area; the combination of the three in that specific way makes it a bit more likely that it is the Jesus

i dont know. it seems to me that you dont put your brother on your "tombstone".

especially not the brother who was executed.

unless he is the messiah which you WOULD have added to his name on the ossuary.

as in "james son of jospeh brother of jesus christ.

i dont know. it seems to me that you dont put your brother on your "tombstone".

especially not the brother who was executed.

unless he is the messiah which you WOULD have added to his name on the ossuary.

as in "james son of jospeh brother of jesus christ.Χριστός "christ" surely is not a word that would have appeared in an aramaic inscription so early after yeshua's execution.

...
I'm really done teasing you. You just don't seem to understand the rules of evidence when it comes to science.

:rolleyes:

As IF I'm the only one making this argument. As hard as it is to believe, you've sheltered yourself to only looking at knowledge that agrees with your preconceived conclusions or stuff you've already known for too long, you should get out more often.
You could start with Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

A review:
As in all of his works, Bauckham has ransacked obscure secondary literature for little-known but immensely helpful information. He has thought creatively about time-worn problems and uncovered possible interpretations of subtle features of ancient testimony--both in the Gospels and about them--with the shrewdness of a good detective. Almost none of his proposals prove implausible, even if some seem more probable than others. The cumulative effect of the volume is to suggest that there still remain more avenues to explore that support the historical reliability of the Gospels and the eyewitness testimony on which it is based. I am particularly grateful that the book appeared six weeks before the revised edition of my Historical Reliability of the Gospels was due at the publisher, so I could incorporate some of Bauckham's material into my revisions. This is a volume to be commended most warmly to anyone interested in the topic and especially to any tempted to be led astray by alternate, more skeptical models of the formation of the Gospels and the truthfulness of their contents.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony

You try an ad hominem on my position by trying to attack my ability to understand historical methodology and you try to pull rank by reviewing who holds what degrees and agree with you? Utter wank. It's NOT like that is an argument, in fact, it simply shows you haven’t been exposed to scholarship on both sides of the issue.

Χριστός "christ" surely is not a word that would have appeared in an aramaic inscription so early after yeshua's execution.

certainly not but since we were using all the english names i went with the english word that would have been used.

The direct translation of 'lēstēs' is a robber - with a clear distinction that it is NOT a crime of stealth, but of violence. A better translation might be 'plunderer' or 'brigand'.

The question remains, of course, whether a 'literal' translation is actually the most appropriate. I tend to favour literal where it makes sense, and look for other meanings where they are more logical.

Worth noting - I was looking through sources, and it appears that the 'Jesus' pre-name for Barabbas actually might well be the first occuring version, and later versions dropped the 'Jesus' name - and there are obvious reasons why that might be so.

A quick online search illustrates the source I was considering:

Sinaitic Palimpsest:

"Both manuscripts contain similar version of the Syriac gospels, which have been "conformed" to the four Greek gospels. In this sense of the word, the text has been corrected and re-edited to be made to conform to the Greek New Testament, though it is the older text. Even so, the Sinaitic Palimpsest retains some readings from even earlier lost Syriac gospels and from the 2nd century Diatessaron, which brought the four gospels into harmony with one another through selective readings and emendations."

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

Edit: Ah - and I notice our friend Rome has already jumped all over the 'robber' issue anyway.


I already made my closing statements on the Barabbas argument, so I won't respond to Rome's final post on it (some one has to have the last word, neither of us were convinced by the other position, that's a given) But here it seems as if you are assuming I ever doubted the veracity of the first name of Jesus for Barabbas, I assure you, I never took that position.

See:
I'm claiming no such thing, I've told you twice, now you are lying. But fine, whatever, it never ends with you and you seem to think you are ‘onto something’ when it’s entirely misdirection on your own part.

Barabbas in greek. Bible Societies’ textual apparatus, Matthew 27:17 reads: “...whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas [Greek: Iesoun ton Barabban] or Jesus who is called Christ [Greek: Iesoun ton legomenon Christon]”?

Syriac manuscripts of Matthew present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

The Caesarean group of texts, which have been identified as possibly being the origin of many parts of the New Testament present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas.

The Sinaitic Palimpsest [ a late 4th century manuscript of the four canonical gospels of the New Testament.], present Barabbas' name as Jesus bar Abbas...

Wow, I point out how the question is pre-disposed to a worldview and a dishonest quest for Truth; the response is commenting on my spelling of the word "truth" and a denial of asking a badly formulated question. I then ask not to distract from the topic at hand and I further explain how the question is badly formulated..... suddenly a dozen or so posts nitpicking every little sentence to the point of ridiculousness.

I guess that's how you deal with what I write, you interpret my individual statements as a strawman and knock them down one by one. And then you still think that you're not promoting one worldview over another. Incredible! Oh, by the way, it is not up to me to seek the historical record to prove to you anything. You want to know, you go find it for yourself. I am just pointing out that if you ask a dishonest question, you will not find the answer you claim you are looking for. Now we both know that you will not go look because you are already convinced of the answer which is why you asked the question the way you asked. And that is why I haven't even attempted to answer the question even though there are many that are trying to get me into a debate that I can't win because the deck of cards are already stacked against the new player.... you ask me to prove that your deck of cards is stacked and at the same time you refuse to let me even touch your deck.

And if some of you are really history students as you claim, then you have ignored your own research methods by trying to ask an obviously loaded and flawed question in a public forum. That would be like a martial arts student who has taken 3 years worth of lessons and goes down to the local bar and beats up untrained people and then thinks that he's a black belt in that bar. I show up to tell you that this does not make you a black belt and you challenge me to fight you in the bar. (Whether or not I fight doesn't change the truthfulness of my statement). You want to see if you are a black belt, go to the local dojo and deal with the local teacher there and then you can compare yourself to other dojos.

Metaphor explained: you want to seek the historical record, find it at the right place, not some public forum.

And some of your responses on my comments show how little of the historical methods that some of you claim to know. Since this thread is not about justifying one historical method over another, and since this thread is also not about how knowledge is gained or acquired, why are you trying to distract the issue of this being a badly formulated question which relies upon the assumptions of one specific methodology of knowledge gathering and of one specific type of historical re-assessments?

I repeat, the question can not be answered honestly in any other way than: "Well, I guess I don't see any evidence of Jesus having ever lived because my knowledge of history is limited so I guess its just easier to assume that he did not exist and as such, it does not matter to me personally." Answering any other way becomes the spotlight of irrational thinking. Hence the question is not posed in any honest reflection but it becomes a question of leading an individual to think in a very specific way.

And since others have alternate views and alternate experiences and alternate ways of rationality, their answers become paralyzed because they are not arguing under the same "assumptions". Any attempt at answering your question by those who believe that Jesus is real and exists only strengthens your faulty thinking, your faulty assumption.

Ask an honest question and then seek out the answer rationally with an open yet critical mind and you will be surprised at the results. Ask a loaded question while already assuming the answer and you will only stay blinded to the Truth.

You claim to be intelligent? Find your own historical proof, its out there. Don't believe me? Why should I care about whether or not you believe me, I know its there and I know you'll find it if you bother to look honestly, not my job to lead you by the hand, my job is to tell you what's available for you. You make the decision, and you pay the consequences of whatever that decision is. Not my responsibility in your decision, only in informing you of the decision to be made. Calling me stupid for not "leading you by the hand" or "showing you" does not make your decision to find out for yourself any less real, and if you are convinced that you are fine, then why are you threatened by views? If you are threatened then perhaps you are not as fine as you thought you were. If you are not threatened, then enjoy your existence such as it is and allow others to enjoy their existence as they see fit.

Wow, I point out how the question is pre-disposed to a worldview and a dishonest quest for Truth; the response is commenting on my spelling of the word "truth" and a denial of asking a badly formulated question. I then ask not to distract from the topic at hand and I further explain how the question is badly formulated..... suddenly a dozen or so posts nitpicking every little sentence to the point of ridiculousness.


its an honest, simple question that you havent answered.

if you dont want to answer it, or talk about it, why post at all?

I would definately be additional support for Jesus being a historical person, however, it has been covered several times that those are all common names for the time/area; the combination of the three in that specific way makes it a bit more likely that it is the Jesus

Yeah, it increases the likelihood from one in a million to one in a thousand, but not much more. Really, what does the Ossuary say about Jesus' life? His miracles? Who His Disciples were? How He died? The parables He told? His dealings with the Sanhedrin? How (and where) He was born? The fact of the matter is that it's just a statement that- if the inscription is indeed true- shows that people with those names existed and were connected in that way. Nothing more.

Most critical to this question is the fact we don't even know where it originated- let's not forget, Oded Golan (who presented the Ossuary to scholars) said he bought it from an antiquities dealer and (assuming Golan is being truthful) where this dealer found the Ossuary is a mystery. If it was found at a tomb, we can narrow the field down to who's bones are in the ossuary, since the tomb might also contain an epitaph or some other kind of inscription describing who is buried. If we had found a document saying "I have seen the bones of James the Just and they are buried at X" (or some facsimile thereof) and we found the Ossuary at X, then we can confirm that the inscription really does describe James the Just. Otherwise, it's just a statement connecting three very common names together and that's it- we can discern nothing about the characters' lives except their names, meaning it's not indisputable proof of James the Just, Joseph of Nazareth and Jesus Christ. Just because it's a recognizable pairing doesn't necessarily mean that it's historical proof of the pairing's existence.

:rolleyes:

As IF I'm the only one making this argument. As hard as it is to believe, you've sheltered yourself to only looking at knowledge that agrees with your preconceived conclusions or stuff you've already known for too long, you should get out more often.
You could start with Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

A review:
As in all of his works, Bauckham has ransacked obscure secondary literature for little-known but immensely helpful information. He has thought creatively about time-worn problems and uncovered possible interpretations of subtle features of ancient testimony--both in the Gospels and about them--with the shrewdness of a good detective. Almost none of his proposals prove implausible, even if some seem more probable than others. The cumulative effect of the volume is to suggest that there still remain more avenues to explore that support the historical reliability of the Gospels and the eyewitness testimony on which it is based. I am particularly grateful that the book appeared six weeks before the revised edition of my Historical Reliability of the Gospels was due at the publisher, so I could incorporate some of Bauckham's material into my revisions. This is a volume to be commended most warmly to anyone interested in the topic and especially to any tempted to be led astray by alternate, more skeptical models of the formation of the Gospels and the truthfulness of their contents.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony

You try an ad hominem on my position by trying to attack my ability to understand historical methodology and you try to pull rank by reviewing who holds what degrees and agree with you? Utter wank. It's NOT like that is an argument, in fact, it simply shows you haven’t been exposed to scholarship on both sides of the issue.

Seems to me that after reading the link provided Richard Bauckham simply argues that Jesus was not deliberately fabricated- which is also not a very well-supported position. Otherwise, it's just a fancy explanation for how the Gospels are eyewitness testimony that doesn't rectify the problem that there's just no contemporary or independent evidence for any of what is written in them- and that's what truly needs to be addressed.

<snip>

First of all, my position has never been "Jesus Christ does not exist". Making such a statement reflects how poorly you understand the comments raised in this discussion, since you haven't even bothered to read the posts of those you are replying to.

Second of all, taking shots at the credibility of those you are replying to isn't going to endear your comments to your fellow debaters, plus if the best you can do is attack the person and not the position, then it can be reasonably surmised you don't have a position at all- otherwise, you'd address the position you are countering.

Third of all, your misinformed rant (since, again, if you actually knew how the historical method works you wouldn't even ask a silly question like "how do we know what we know") does nothing to address specifically what was asked of you. You didn't address specifically any of the points of yours with which we addressed- you just re-stated your original post in other words, of which we won't bother addressing for a second time. You also clearly made the case for the historicity of Jesus. Since quite a bit of the evidence has been discussed in this thread already (and summarily dismissed), all we did is challenge you to provide some evidence we haven't discussed yet. You didn't do so. In fact, you tell us it's our job to look it up for ourselves, as if we're supposed to do your work for you. You make the claim, you provide the proof- it doesn't work in any other way. The failure to do so just tells me you have nothing, and all your fancy rhetoric changes none of that.

Finally, I also echo Ashmoria's post- it's a simple question and if you don't want to answer it, why post at all?

Again, wow! Now we can add that some seem to be deaf as well.

its an honest, simple question that you havent answered.

ummm, no it is not an honest or simple question.


if you dont want to answer it, or talk about it, why post at all?

First, several paragraphs go on to explain just that very point as to why I do not answer it. Second, how do you know that I don't want to talk about a subject when I am in fact talking about the very same subject you claim I am not talking about? Third, I am posting to denounce the pseudo-truth-seeking for what it is: pure sophistry.

If a math professor walks in a classroom and speaks algebra and the smartest student in the classroom laughs and says that arithmetic is about numbers and not letters, how do you respond? When the professor tells the class to open their new textbooks and read what it says and the students call the professor a quack because the math book he has introduced is about letters and not numbers, how do you respond? Well in this illustration, I'm the student sitting next to you and I've looked into the algebra book and see that it makes sense, I invite you to do the same and you ask me why I ignore the arithmetic book. You want to learn math or keep the knowledge of arithmetic intact?

ummm, no it is not an honest or simple question.


what is NOT honest or simple about "did jesus really exist?"

its a simple question that most people have never considered. it makes for a very interesting discussion.



First, several paragraphs go on to explain just that very point as to why I do not answer it. Second, how do you know that I don't want to talk about a subject when I am in fact talking about the very same subject you claim I am not talking about? Third, I am posting to denounce the pseudo-truth-seeking for what it is: pure sophistry.

If a math professor walks in a classroom and speaks algebra and the smartest student in the classroom laughs and says that arithmetic is about numbers and not letters, how do you respond? When the professor tells the class to open their new textbooks and read what it says and the students call the professor a quack because the math book he has introduced is about letters and not numbers, how do you respond? Well in this illustration, I'm the student sitting next to you and I've looked into the algebra book and see that it makes sense, I invite you to do the same and you ask me why I ignore the arithmetic book. You want to learn math or keep the knowledge of arithmetic intact?

you sure do know how to put a paragraph together without actually saying anything.

its quite a skill.

so do you or do you not want to talk about whether or not jesus really existed?

what is NOT honest or simple about "did jesus really exist?"

I also wish to know how that is "loaded", as he's been claiming all along.

I also wish to know how that is "loaded", as he's been claiming all along.

its provocative but thats mostly due to the subject matter. it does imply that there might be some doubt.

but surely "loaded" would be "you dont think jesus really existed do you?"

First of all, my position has never been "Jesus Christ does not exist". Making such a statement reflects how poorly you understand the comments raised in this discussion, since you haven't even bothered to read the posts of those you are replying to.

Irrelevant of your personal statement, the question's formulation insinuates a world view whether you deliberately intended as such or not has never been at issue.

Second of all, taking shots at the credibility of those you are replying to isn't going to endear your comments to your fellow debaters, plus if the best you can do is attack the person and not the position, then it can be reasonably surmised you don't have a position at all- otherwise, you'd address the position you are countering.

Assuming that your accusation is even remotely factual, how are you doing any different towards me in this specific post? You are claiming that I am irrelevant because I do not have a position that you comprehend therefore any further comments from me are to be ignored. That sounds like you are the one who is in fact attacking my person.

Third of all, your misinformed rant (since, again, if you actually knew how the historical method works you wouldn't even ask a silly question like "how do we know what we know") does nothing to address specifically what was asked of you. You didn't address specifically any of the points of yours with which we addressed- you just re-stated your original post in other words, of which we won't bother addressing for a second time. You also clearly made the case for the historicity of Jesus. Since quite a bit of the evidence has been discussed in this thread already (and summarily dismissed), all we did is challenge you to provide some evidence we haven't discussed yet. You didn't do so. In fact, you tell us it's our job to look it up for ourselves, as if we're supposed to do your work for you. You make the claim, you provide the proof- it doesn't work in any other way. The failure to do so just tells me you have nothing, and all your fancy rhetoric changes none of that.

Misinformed rant? sounds like an attack upon my person and not the actual topic. How is this "rant" misinformed? You are assuming many things in my statements and assuming my foolishness based upon your mis comprehension of my actual discourse. I explained why I refuse to answer specifics of a flawed question and you keep assuming that I am attempting to answer a question that I clearly state is flawed. Then on a complete reversal you admit that I am not answering the question and ask me to shut up about it. You can't have it both ways, you either accuse me of refusing to answer or you accuse me of answering foolishly; which is it that you are accusing me of? Of what claim am I to prove? That the question is flawed and dishonest? If you refuse to even comprehend the posts I am writing, how will providing one more piece of evidence convince you in any way? And in no way am I asking you to do my work for me, on the contrary, if you read what has been stated, I am asking others to stop expecting me to lead them by the hand and to seek the historical proofs where they are to be found, which is not in a forum posting area.

Finally, I also echo Ashmoria's post- it's a simple question and if you don't want to answer it, why post at all?

You make a claim that you are a fair and impartial trial and I am pointing out that you are more of a kangaroo court and I provide explanations to demonstrate the validity of my statements.

You do not refute my statement and try to invalidate my statement by attacking its form as an attempt to discredit its substance.

You do not refute my statement, you claim I speak out of order to somehow silence my integrity.

You do not refute my statement, you interpret my statement as an argument that the court is set up to deliberate and then proceed to destroy this inaccurate interpretation as a way to discredit my statement.

You do not refute my statement and you don't realize that the tactics you have used in rapid succession are contradictory to each other and further strengthen my statement.

Hint, to even attempt to refute my statement, you must first begin to understand it.

Hint, to even attempt to refute my statement, you must first begin to understand it.

i believe i have come to understand you quite well.

you have no interest in the topic. you love to put together well written paragraphs that say nothing. you expect your well written posts to garner a thoughtful response that would not be forthcoming with a lesser written post that makes the same (non) points.

you are a more literate form of an otherwise well known type of person who frequents this forum.

its provocative but thats mostly due to the subject matter. it does imply that there might be some doubt.

but surely "loaded" would be "you dont think jesus really existed do you?"

post #2813 in this thread.

An honest exploration would be closer to this: "What precipitated this Jesus phenomena to capture the hearts of people who had never physically met this figure who may or may not have been real? And does this phenomena have the same force to capture the hearts of people today?"

This is more neutral and does not imply an answer of his existence yet does accept the possibility of non-existence. Just like if you show me a photograph of your uncle and tell me that he really existed, I may still accept the possibility that you may have used photoshop to invent him, under the form of this question.

The question as stated in the beginning of the forum implies before you even show me your photograph that I will doubt any and all evidence you bring to me and I'll automatically assume that you are deliberately lying to me about your uncle because I know that I have never met him. And as such, I can find alternative explanations for everything you may say to try to convince me otherwise. My imagination is great and I know some people would lie to me because they are con artists and seek to take advantage of me and since I do not know you very well I can only wonder why you find it necessary to prove to me that your uncle is real, so all evidence you bring is automatically suspect. And with my imagination, I can assume techniques you may have used to con me.

i believe i have come to understand you quite well.

you have no interest in the topic. you love to put together well written paragraphs that say nothing. you expect your well written posts to garner a thoughtful response that would not be forthcoming with a lesser written post that makes the same (non) points.

you are a more literate form of an otherwise well known type of person who frequents this forum.

wow is that a compliment? I'm not just a regular idiot, I'm a literate idiot! Do I get a crown for being the king of idiots?

seriously, though, communication is based upon you, the reader asking me the writer: "are you saying so and so?" and I respond either with a "yes, that's what I'm saying" or a "no, let me try another way of saying it". Once you have understood the statement then you can comment upon it. So far, many have stated things that I supposedly said or meant and I have constantly expressed the claim that I had not been understood and then I reiterated what I was saying in other words.

as of yet, you may claim that you understand what I have said but you have not used your own words to express what you have understood. You just insist that my position is nonsensical and not saying anything worthwhile. Easy position to take, not necessarily honest though. "Ignore what buddy says because it makes no sense (nevermind that I am only paying attention to every second sentence) its easier to ignore someone that we've baptized as 'fool', so lets all ignore this buddy."

Holy shit! Capital letters ALL THE WAY! It must be true!
Damn right, that was good n'convincing.
sorry, but your whole scenario is based on a false premiseI don't think they'll understand unless you mention blood, or at least, TYPE IN ALL CAPS!

will you please stop taking such obvious one-post-nutjobs seriously??
True, that. You should only take obvious nut-jobs seriously if they are serial posters.
<.<
>.>
o.o
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

the point of ridiculousness.
+
you refuse to let me even touch your deck. You know of course, the bolded part is going to be popular. :p
You want to see if you are a black belt, go to the local dojo and deal with the local teacher there and then you can compare yourself to other dojos. Wow, sage. I wonder how many people have personal experience with dojos here ...
other than that, sounds like someone got a black eye.

Metaphor explained: you want to seek the historical record, find it at the right place, not some public forum. Well fucking duh. That's what people already did.

And since others have alternate views and alternate experiences and alternate ways of rationality, their answers become paralyzed because they are not arguing under the same "assumptions". Any attempt at answering your question by those who believe that Jesus is real and exists only strengthens your faulty thinking, your faulty assumption. So you don't understand what "really" means. Got it. You spent too long saying it, you know.

Ask a loaded question while already assuming the answer and you will only stay blinded to the Truth. Or, post as such, capitilising the words you know put you in a delusional advantage.

Why should I care about whether or not you believe meYou care enough to blather on, so ...

why are you threatened by views?Ah, you should've capitilised "views" there, to emphasize your point :p

If you are threatened then perhaps you are not as fine as you thought you were.Yay for delusional bigotry! Stick around, every religious thread needs someone with that point of view.

I also wish to know how that is "loaded", as he's been claiming all along.
It's in his/her name. They consider themselves not only to be "Debaters", but "UN" at that. We should be reveling in their wisdom and brilliance.

you are the one who is in fact attacking my person.
+
an attack upon my person
+
assuming my foolishness
+
ask me to shut up about it
+
accuse me of answering foolishly
+
invalidate my statement by attacking its form as an attempt to discredit its substance.
+
proceed to destroy
Run away, then, or grow a pair.

I'm not just a regular idiot, I'm a literate idiot! Do I get a crown for being the king of idiots? You might get a reiteration out of it. :)

You want more than that, i'd recommend less flowery bullshit. But, whatever. :rolleyes:

Irrelevant of your personal statement, the question's formulation insinuates a world view whether you deliberately intended as such or not has never been at issue.

You made a sweeping generalization about how all your efforts are going to be in vain and then also respond with this:

I repeat, the question can not be answered honestly in any other way than: "Well, I guess I don't see any evidence of Jesus having ever lived because my knowledge of history is limited so I guess its just easier to assume that he did not exist and as such, it does not matter to me personally." Answering any other way becomes the spotlight of irrational thinking. Hence the question is not posed in any honest reflection but it becomes a question of leading an individual to think in a very specific way.

I have responded to the question in this thread and have not made such a statement. Therefore, your assumptions are not based in any fact.

Assuming that your accusation is even remotely factual, how are you doing any different towards me in this specific post? You are claiming that I am irrelevant because I do not have a position that you comprehend therefore any further comments from me are to be ignored. That sounds like you are the one who is in fact attacking my person.

I was among the chorus of people who responded to you who asked for proof. You respond with no actual hard proof but lines such as these:

And some of your responses on my comments show how little of the historical methods that some of you claim to know.

That *is* "simply responding with a personal attack", since your post never provide any evidence at all. All I did was call you out on it, reminding you that if you're here to debate you might as well provide some substance to it.

Misinformed rant? sounds like an attack upon my person and not the actual topic. How is this "rant" misinformed?

I admit, your last post didn't specifically say it, but you did say this to me once:

Your question style is similar to this kind: "Was the United States even attacked in Pearl Harbor making them participants in the Second World War? And does it matter to any of us today?" Anyone with a minimum background in history would see this form of question as an attack on all previously held assumptions of news gathering and historical record keeping. You may as well have asked if we can trust the honesty and integrity of our ancestors in providing us with proper records? On that basis you may as well follow your path of logic and ask, "can history even be known?" followed by "how can we know anything at all if every form of knowledge is suspect?". Of course this can be done ad absurdium and become another basis of promoting relativism, where we dictate reality at the strongman's(or charismatic) whim. But if relativism were true, how could you even understand this sentence or even use electricity or any of the other devices which rely upon consistent and 'unmodified by humans' laws of the universe as 'discovered' by science?

Which is *not* what someone who actually knows the historical method would say because then you'd know "how we know what we know".

However, since you assert to be an expert in the historical method (at least, since you have asserted we're all wrong in our understanding of it), would you be able to tell me how it's supposed to operate?

You are assuming many things in my statements and assuming my foolishness based upon your mis comprehension of my actual discourse. I explained why I refuse to answer specifics of a flawed question and you keep assuming that I am attempting to answer a question that I clearly state is flawed. Then on a complete reversal you admit that I am not answering the question and ask me to shut up about it. You can't have it both ways, you either accuse me of refusing to answer or you accuse me of answering foolishly; which is it that you are accusing me of? Of what claim am I to prove? That the question is flawed and dishonest? If you refuse to even comprehend the posts I am writing, how will providing one more piece of evidence convince you in any way? And in no way am I asking you to do my work for me, on the contrary, if you read what has been stated, I am asking others to stop expecting me to lead them by the hand and to seek the historical proofs where they are to be found, which is not in a forum posting area.

Your original post assumed the defeatist position "there's no use trying to convince you as you've already made up your minds". I told you "provide me evidence and I'll be convinced", recognizing that maybe you've got something new to provide that I may be convinced about. I recognize I'm not easy to convince here, but I am open to the idea that I can be swayed if the argument is good enough. It seems to me that you've just (wrongly) assumed that I just won't listen, which is not what I've indicated I would do.

Regardless, you didn't respond to my query for evidence with evidence- you responded by saying "why should I provide it?". You're the one making an argument- it's not out of line to ask you to back it up.

You make a claim that you are a fair and impartial trial and I am pointing out that you are more of a kangaroo court and I provide explanations to demonstrate the validity of my statements.

You do not refute my statement and try to invalidate my statement by attacking its form as an attempt to discredit its substance.

You do not refute my statement, you claim I speak out of order to somehow silence my integrity.

You do not refute my statement, you interpret my statement as an argument that the court is set up to deliberate and then proceed to destroy this inaccurate interpretation as a way to discredit my statement.

You do not refute my statement and you don't realize that the tactics you have used in rapid succession are contradictory to each other and further strengthen my statement.

Hint, to even attempt to refute my statement, you must first begin to understand it.

Your original post was- and I'm paraphrasing- "why should I bother answering this question as the cards are already stacked against me". I recognized it as a statement where you are saying you actually have evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ but you're convinced that it won't work. I tell you to provide such evidence since if it's good enough, I'll be convinced. You respond by saying that there's no point in answering this question since it is loaded. I ask you why you think the OP, as it is phrased, is loaded. At that stage, you provide another general post that I'm responding to now.

So I think I'm understanding your position- that you see no point in answering since you're convinced no one will listen, but I will if you provide evidence. If not, would you please tell me where I am wrong?

:rolleyes:

As IF I'm the only one making this argument. As hard as it is to believe, you've sheltered yourself to only looking at knowledge that agrees with your preconceived conclusions or stuff you've already known for too long, you should get out more often.
You could start with Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

A review:
As in all of his works, Bauckham has ransacked obscure secondary literature for little-known but immensely helpful information. He has thought creatively about time-worn problems and uncovered possible interpretations of subtle features of ancient testimony--both in the Gospels and about them--with the shrewdness of a good detective. Almost none of his proposals prove implausible, even if some seem more probable than others. The cumulative effect of the volume is to suggest that there still remain more avenues to explore that support the historical reliability of the Gospels and the eyewitness testimony on which it is based. I am particularly grateful that the book appeared six weeks before the revised edition of my Historical Reliability of the Gospels was due at the publisher, so I could incorporate some of Bauckham's material into my revisions. This is a volume to be commended most warmly to anyone interested in the topic and especially to any tempted to be led astray by alternate, more skeptical models of the formation of the Gospels and the truthfulness of their contents.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony

You try an ad hominem on my position by trying to attack my ability to understand historical methodology and you try to pull rank by reviewing who holds what degrees and agree with you? Utter wank. It's NOT like that is an argument, in fact, it simply shows you haven’t been exposed to scholarship on both sides of the issue.

It's not an ad hominem to say that you appear to fail to grasp how historicity 'works', when it's true.

The fact that you found a 'professional' equally clueless (although, having researched about him, it could be somewhere between dishonesty and bias, possibly) doesn't do much to strengthen your case.

The simple fact that he attempts the same mis-quotation of Luke that you attempted alerts me to possible problems on the horizon. He does little to allay my worries with his assertion (unsupportable) that Mark is based on firsthand testimony from Peter...

I don't think that Jocabia was 'pulling rank' on you - more that he was responding to the constant implications throughout the thread that no one here is 'qualified' to argue against the assertion of a historical Jesus... or the constant suggestion that, somehow, the Christian apologists have a better idea what counts as historical evidence.

You know of course, the bolded part is going to be popular. :p
Wow, sage. I wonder how many people have personal experience with dojos here ...
other than that, sounds like someone got a black eye.
Well fucking duh. That's what people already did.
So you don't understand what "really" means. Got it. You spent too long saying it, you know.
Or, post as such, capitilising the words you know put you in a delusional advantage.
You care enough to blather on, so ...
Ah, you should've capitilised "views" there, to emphasize your point :p
Yay for delusional bigotry! Stick around, every religious thread needs someone with that point of view.

Ninja shit! *bows*

somehow, the Christian apologists have a better idea what counts as historical evidence.
:eek:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHAHAHA*snort*HAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHO!!!!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/516.gif

Ninja shit! *bows**returns bow*
Touche!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13369347&postcount=2873

...now, to catch flying insects with chopsticks!

post #2813 in this thread.

An honest exploration would be closer to this: "What precipitated this Jesus phenomena to capture the hearts of people who had never physically met this figure who may or may not have been real? And does this phenomena have the same force to capture the hearts of people today?"

This is more neutral and does not imply an answer of his existence yet does accept the possibility of non-existence.

And, coincidentally, it's NOT the question we are debating.

We aren't directly assessing the whys and wherefores of the popularity of the religion, or the mechanisms by which it came to fruition - we are examining whether or not it is based on a real figure.

You claim you find the question loaded... but I fai to see how. If the question set out to claim that Jesus was NOT real, you might have a point. But it's just a question. Would "Was Jesus a fake?" or "Was Jesus an imaginary character?" suit you better? All I can assume is you are finding confrontation in the fact that the question is asked of a positive assertion. I don;t see that as loaded, I see that as perhaps confrontational... maybe iconoclastic... but that's not a bad thing.

I already made my closing statements on the Barabbas argument, so I won't respond to Rome's final post on it (some one has to have the last word, neither of us were convinced by the other position, that's a given)


You can chose not to respond - that is completely up to you. You should probably be aware, though, that just because you feel you have made your 'closing statements', doesn't actually mean the debate is done.

Indeed, in the presence of continuing evidence, your case is looking weaker and weaker, and your 'choice' to stop defending it seems more and more like saving face.

Still - I've followed up, as has Rome, and our evidences shall stand until someone (even if not you) contests them, I guess.

I'll badger you no further on the subject, if you have chosen to surrender.


But here it seems as if you are assuming I ever doubted the veracity of the first name of Jesus for Barabbas, I assure you, I never took that position.

See:

I have something of a problem with this assertion, to whit - when you and I discussed it, you 'explained away' the existence of the name 'Jesus' in the Syriac texts, as follows:

"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."

Now, maybe it's just very confusing - but it LOOKS like your position originally completely contrasted what you are now claiming it has been.

I took Ashormia's lead in hoping by giving them the time of day they may come back with a response...besides, The Williamsons actually had something for me to respond to that hadn't been covered earlier in this thread.

Personally, I don't care if it's a drive-by, or a long-term poster. If a post comes up that I feel can be refuted in a useful way to the debate, I'll attack it.

I'm not quite sure WHY we should abstain from responding... unless one instantly assumes that other people reading the thread ignore any post but one with their name in it....

will you please stop taking such obvious one-post-nutjobs seriously??

I took Ashormia's lead in hoping by giving them the time of day they may come back with a response...besides, The Williamsons actually had something for me to respond to that hadn't been covered earlier in this thread.

I'm curious if we should do it in this thread or in another, but I'm thinking it may be worth deconstructing what a historical Jesus Christ would look like. Might help in the evidence provision department.

I'm curious if we should do it in this thread or in another, but I'm thinking it may be worth deconstructing what a historical Jesus Christ would look like. Might help in the evidence provision department.
You mean ... he's *NOT* caucasian-complected, blonde-haired, and blue-eyed?
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/jesus_jeezus.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/devin_futurama/00%20zoidberg%20jesus.jpg
The second?

Still - I've followed up, as has Rome, and our evidences shall stand until someone (even if not you) contests them, I guess.

I'll badger you no further on the subject, if you have chosen to surrender.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a47/DarkSideOfTheSpoon/Bible-mythbusters.jpg

certainly not but since we were using all the english names i went with the english word that would have been used.was jesus already styled "christ" when james died or his bones were collected?

was jesus already styled "christ" when james died or his bones were collected?

Reputedly, yes.

James is wrote of later by either Tacitus, or Joesephus, one of the two (can never keep em straight).

"and James, brother of Jesus, who was called Christ".
Implying a later date, after J's execution.

:rolleyes:

As IF I'm the only one making this argument. As hard as it is to believe, you've sheltered yourself to only looking at knowledge that agrees with your preconceived conclusions or stuff you've already known for too long, you should get out more often.
You could start with Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

A review:
As in all of his works, Bauckham has ransacked obscure secondary literature for little-known but immensely helpful information. He has thought creatively about time-worn problems and uncovered possible interpretations of subtle features of ancient testimony--both in the Gospels and about them--with the shrewdness of a good detective. Almost none of his proposals prove implausible, even if some seem more probable than others. The cumulative effect of the volume is to suggest that there still remain more avenues to explore that support the historical reliability of the Gospels and the eyewitness testimony on which it is based. I am particularly grateful that the book appeared six weeks before the revised edition of my Historical Reliability of the Gospels was due at the publisher, so I could incorporate some of Bauckham's material into my revisions. This is a volume to be commended most warmly to anyone interested in the topic and especially to any tempted to be led astray by alternate, more skeptical models of the formation of the Gospels and the truthfulness of their contents.
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-the-gospels-as-eyewitness-testimony

You try an ad hominem on my position by trying to attack my ability to understand historical methodology and you try to pull rank by reviewing who holds what degrees and agree with you? Utter wank. It's NOT like that is an argument, in fact, it simply shows you haven’t been exposed to scholarship on both sides of the issue.

It's not an ad hominem to address that as a part of your argument you keep suggesting we're cheating but making the rules unfair. After being explained exactly how evidence works, you continue to act as if we don't understand.

Since my view of evidence has helped many, many people get published in science and engineering, I'm relatively certain I'm right. I've seen GnI's resume in real life. I've interviewed for employment in my industry. RomeW may not be who he says he is, but his understanding of evidence shows that he at the very least knows more about it than you do. Evidence isn't something we read about on the internet. It's an important part of our chosen careers. It's not an attack on you to notice that you're applying the rules of evidence incorrectly and when told about it, act like we're insulting you.

Here's what's funny. GnI and Rome and I don't agree on whether Jesus the Christ existed, but we agree on whether or not it can be demonstrated. In fact when it comes to theology we all pretty much disagree and even disagree on many scientific claims, yet we all agree on what the rules of evidence are. You think that's coincidence?

It's not an ad hominem to say that you appear to fail to grasp how historicity 'works', when it's true.

The fact that you found a 'professional' equally clueless (although, having researched about him, it could be somewhere between dishonesty and bias, possibly) doesn't do much to strengthen your case.

The simple fact that he attempts the same mis-quotation of Luke that you attempted alerts me to possible problems on the horizon. He does little to allay my worries with his assertion (unsupportable) that Mark is based on firsthand testimony from Peter...

I don't think that Jocabia was 'pulling rank' on you - more that he was responding to the constant implications throughout the thread that no one here is 'qualified' to argue against the assertion of a historical Jesus... or the constant suggestion that, somehow, the Christian apologists have a better idea what counts as historical evidence.

LOL

I'm the one quoting scholars and expert opinion, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?

Jocabia thinks the two source theory means there are only two sources for the gospel authors, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!

You're the one that doesn't accept any evidence as evidence, even archaeological artifacts, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?!

Funny stuff.

was jesus already styled "christ" when james died or his bones were collected?

as soon as jesus rose from the dead he went from executed criminal to verifiable son of god/messiah/christ.

there is NO other reason to put the name of a long dead executed brother on the equivalent of your tombstone.

im not saying that "christ" is the word that would have been used but there would be some identifier besides his rather common first name.

...
Indeed, in the presence of continuing evidence, your case is looking weaker and weaker, and your 'choice' to stop defending it seems more and more like saving face.

Still - I've followed up, as has Rome, and our evidences shall stand until someone (even if not you) contests them, I guess.

I'll badger you no further on the subject, if you have chosen to surrender.

you've brought new evidence huh? :rolleyes:

...
I have something of a problem with this assertion, to whit - when you and I discussed it, you 'explained away' the existence of the name 'Jesus' in the Syriac texts, as follows:

"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."

Now, maybe it's just very confusing - but it LOOKS like your position originally completely contrasted what you are now claiming it has been.

And the simplistic explanation is STILL that the syriac translators made a problem where there was none before. It LOOKS like you don't understand the field of study you are discussing here.

LOL

I'm the one quoting scholars and expert opinion, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?

Jocabia thinks the two source theory means there are only two sources for the gospel authors, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!

You're the one that doesn't accept any evidence as evidence, even archaeological artifacts, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?!

Funny stuff.

You're quoting scholars and expert opinion, that does not match the concensus or in many cases doesn't lead one to the conclusion you're claiming.

No, Jocabia doesn't think there are only two sources. Jocabia thinks that your claim that the four Gospels are four distinct sources is provably invalid.

And, yes, you're the one who doesn't understand historicity. Your evidence is being put into the proper context. That's part of scientific analysis. You don't seem to recognize that it's not optional; it's required.

you've brought new evidence huh? :rolleyes:



And the simplistic explanation is STILL that the syriac translators made a problem where there was none before. It LOOKS like you don't understand the field of study you are discussing here.

And once again your argument is that ALL of the posters in the thread just don't understand how one analyzes data. Probably true. It's not that we recognize the flaws in your assertions, that you violate Occam's Razor, that you ignore data or make up data to make it work, that you simply don't recognize the obvious reasons for doubt. It's obviously that the data is compelling and we, along with the bulk of historical scholars, simply don't recognize how compelling it is.

I recommend you write up a paper. You could be famous. The guy who finally proved Jesus existed.

(snip)
I gave you all that time to adjust the appeal to my own authority argument. You simply fail to appreciate how out of your field you are don’t you? I don’t think Richard Bauckham needs your approval to get published.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/bauck1.html
• he Gospel of John and Christian Theology, ed. with Carl Mosser (Eerdmans, 2007)
• The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Baker Academic, 2007)
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel As Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006)
• Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Baker Academic, 2004)
• God and the Crisis of Freedom: Biblical and Contemporary Perspectives (Westminster John Knox, 2002)
• God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann (Fortress, 2001)
• The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (T&T Clark, 1999)
• God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1999)
• The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Eerdmans, 1997)
• The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann (T&T Clark, 1995)
• The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (Eerdmans, 1995)
• The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge, 1993)
• 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1983)

To sit there and say that my arguments are rubbish because you don’t agree with them is one thing, to sit there and say that my position is rubbish because it wouldn’t be accepted in the field of study we are talking about but would be laughed at by real scholars can be challenged and proven wrong. I show you scholars in the field holding the same positions I am and STILL you pretend I don’t understand historicity AND you claim authority of yourself… utter wank still.

I gave you all that time to adjust the appeal to my own authority argument. You simply fail to appreciate how out of your field you are don’t you? I don’t think Richard Bauckham needs your approval to get published.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/bauck1.html
• he Gospel of John and Christian Theology, ed. with Carl Mosser (Eerdmans, 2007)
• The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Baker Academic, 2007)
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel As Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006)
• Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Baker Academic, 2004)
• God and the Crisis of Freedom: Biblical and Contemporary Perspectives (Westminster John Knox, 2002)
• God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann (Fortress, 2001)
• The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (T&T Clark, 1999)
• God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1999)
• The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Eerdmans, 1997)
• The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann (T&T Clark, 1995)
• The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (Eerdmans, 1995)
• The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge, 1993)
• 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1983)

To sit there and say that my arguments are rubbish because you don’t agree with them is one thing, to sit there and say that my position is rubbish because it wouldn’t be accepted in the field of study we are talking about but would be laughed at by real scholars can be challenged and proven wrong. I show you scholars in the field holding the same positions I am and STILL you pretend I don’t understand historicity AND you claim authority of yourself… utter wank still.

Again, you fail to recognize what we're all saying. Your position is rubbish because it requires you to do non-scientific things to support it. The scholars in your field that are holding the same position you are, aren't makinng the same arguments, or if they are, they are also being laughed at.

Several of the scholars you've presented are making obvious scientific errors. Errors that have been pointed out to you and that you've been unable to address. Instead, you make absurd claims about how we're not being fair.

Seriously, you honestly claimed that when discussing what a text says quoting it is the same as when you quote the text while claiming it's a first-hand source. That you would claim that it's a first-hand source while admitting to knowing about texts it was based off of is laughable. That you would claim that it's a first-hand source while admitting that the writer isn't the eye-witness AND is taking liberties with the story in order to highlight a particular message is laughable. It is this specific problem we're addressing.

It's not that your position is untenable simply by the nature of holding that position. It's a scholarly debate that has raged for 2000 years. The issue is that your position is untenable because you're using unscientific means to support your assertions, some of which are wildly disagreed with in the scholarly community. Then when we disagree with them, for obvious scientific flaws, you claim we don't understand science and scholarship, while the bulk of the scholarly community disagrees with you.

If you want to play the "if I can find a source, then I must know what I'm talking about" game, then who do you thinks going to win when we're on the side of the bulk of the scholarly community. Are you actually denying that the current concensus is that Jesus cannot be definitively demonstrated to have existed? Perhaps, like EVERYONE in this thread, they all just don't understand science and scholarship like you do, huh? We're not saying all scholars who believe what you believe are wrong. We're saying you're making arguments that demonstrate your ignorance of the subject matter. You don't care to educate yourself on the requirements, which makes this, as you say, just a wank.

I can show you examples of you speaking out of your behind on matters that aren't debateable if you like, so I can demonstrate adequately that you simply aren't willing to admit when you simply don't know what you're talking about. Wanna play that game? I'm up for it. First, let's discuss what flaming is. Then let's discuss what a lie is. Then let's discuss the rule of logic. Then Occam's razor. We'll work our way back to historical analysis showing time after time after time in this thread when you've demonstrated that your bias simply won't allow you to budge when you're provably and overwhelming in over your head.

By the way, he is a theologian. That's philosophical and abides by different rules. Philosophy does not require evidence and theology is permitted to discuss God, the traits of God, the traits of various other beliefs, all of which exist without evidence. You'd do well to choose historians that don't preface it with theological. And you're doing much worse when you're talking about historical theology. It's like talking about historical philosopher. He'd be a terrible resource for the rules of science when he is part of a discipline that is not required to adhere to such rules. Thank you for demonstrating exactly how out of sync with what is and isn't science you are.

In a short post, for those who are less patient, the liink takes us to a page that discusses this scholar as a theologian. While that does make him a scholar, it doesn't qualify him as a historian, since theology allows one to address unevidenced claims. No evidence is required in theology, except the religious texts for the religion you are analyzing. It explains why our friend, Baldy, thinks it's perfectly acceptable to keep citing invalid sources for history, that would be perfectly valid for theology.

...(snipped great big non issue related, why Balderdash must be wrong cause he don't understand history me thinks rooster crowing by Jocabia post)...

By the way, he is a theologian. That's philosophical and abides by different rules. Philosophy does not require evidence and theology is permitted to discuss God, the traits of God, the traits of various other beliefs, all of which exist without evidence. You'd do well to choose historians that don't preface it with theological. And you're doing much worse when you're talking about historical theology. It's like talking about historical philosopher. He'd be a terrible resource for the rules of science when he is part of a discipline that is not required to adhere to such rules. Thank you for demonstrating exactly how out of sync with what is and isn't science you are.

Thank you for the definition of Theology for us Jocabia, I'm sure I've never heard what theology was before, I appreciate you eddumicating me. :rolleyes:

I be sure to write myster Pofessor Bauckham a letter and let hims know that he's aint qualified to writes no historical books anymores cause'm you says so.

LOL

I'm the one quoting scholars and expert opinion, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?

Jocabia thinks the two source theory means there are only two sources for the gospel authors, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!

You're the one that doesn't accept any evidence as evidence, even archaeological artifacts, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?!

Funny stuff.

Expert opinion? Would that be the theology teacher at St Andrews college?

Here's the thing about expert opinion... it's still not infallible. And, where there is clear and present bias, it's not even necessarily all that reliable.

Take, for example, the atheist who BECOMES a Christian, and then writes a book about whether or not there is compelling evidence for Christianity.

I'm not even sure what you are saying about me... I don't accept any evidence as evidence? That doesn't even sound like my position. I don't accept any of the evidence thus far presented as PROOF, but that's quite different.

And... which archeological artifacts am I ignoring as evidence, I wonder? The James Ossuary (which evidence shows to have been unlikely to actually connect to the matter at hand, and which wouldn't prove either the historical existence of THE Jesus, or the miraculous nature of a biblical Jesus, anyway)... or the Turin Shroud (which, again, the strongest evidence suggests has nothing to do with the time of our discussed events)?

If you mean I find none of the current evidence compelling, you're right. It's not that compelling. That's hardly a flaw in my approach.

I suspect you'd be a lot less convinced by the evidence, if you weren't already SURE it fits the events.

And the simplistic explanation is STILL that the syriac translators made a problem where there was none before. It LOOKS like you don't understand the field of study you are discussing here.

How does that work?

You just said that you hadn't made an assertion, I just showed that you do, indeed, appear to have made that assertion...

And your response is that I don't understand the evidence?

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain that - it sounds like gibberish to me.

In a short post, for those who are less patient, the liink takes us to a page that discusses this scholar as a theologian. While that does make him a scholar, it doesn't qualify him as a historian, since theology allows one to address unevidenced claims. No evidence is required in theology, except the religious texts for the religion you are analyzing. It explains why our friend, Baldy, thinks it's perfectly acceptable to keep citing invalid sources for history, that would be perfectly valid for theology.

Jocabia must be right... You don't needs no educmicating to teach New Testament theology and history at the University of St Andrews, no siree
LOL :p

Um i noticed how many posts people have made here, and it seems to be the majority of people make 1 post while about 10 hog the thread with over 100 posts each. the greatest poster in this thread is Jocabia with 383 posts, now that deserves some sort of award for persistance, but you don't think you've already made your point? if the other 300 posts haven't managed it?

I gave you all that time to adjust the appeal to my own authority argument. You simply fail to appreciate how out of your field you are don’t you? I don’t think Richard Bauckham needs your approval to get published.

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/bauck1.html
• he Gospel of John and Christian Theology, ed. with Carl Mosser (Eerdmans, 2007)
• The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Baker Academic, 2007)
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospel As Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006)
• Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Baker Academic, 2004)
• God and the Crisis of Freedom: Biblical and Contemporary Perspectives (Westminster John Knox, 2002)
• God Will Be All in All: The Eschatology of Jürgen Moltmann (Fortress, 2001)
• The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (T&T Clark, 1999)
• God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1999)
• The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Eerdmans, 1997)
• The Theology of Jürgen Moltmann (T&T Clark, 1995)
• The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (Eerdmans, 1995)
• The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge, 1993)
• 2 Peter, Jude. Word Biblical Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1983)

To sit there and say that my arguments are rubbish because you don’t agree with them is one thing, to sit there and say that my position is rubbish because it wouldn’t be accepted in the field of study we are talking about but would be laughed at by real scholars can be challenged and proven wrong. I show you scholars in the field holding the same positions I am and STILL you pretend I don’t understand historicity AND you claim authority of yourself… utter wank still.

He's also published quite prominently in peer-reviewed journals, and the like. The problem is - with the exception of one article (in which he discussed religious aspects) that appeared in a scientific periodical, ALL of his peer-reviewed work has been 'peer-reviewed' only by religious experts.

Why would you claim that makes him an expert on historicity? Almost everything he writes is suited to his actual specialisation - he writes hermeneutic and exigetical materials centring around the meaning of biblical text, and with a fundamental assumption that the 'source material' is both pre-established as reliable, and verifiable as true.

To claim him as a 'scholar in the field' is to apply to him qualification you haven't shown he merits - he's certainly no more qualified than at least one of us debating with you here... maybe less because of his admitted bias.

...
To claim him as a 'scholar in the field' is to apply to him qualification you haven't shown he merits - he's certainly no more qualified than at least one of us debating with you here... maybe less because of his admitted bias.


Okee dokey then. Perhaps you could give us a list of pre-approved scholars that meet the GnI standard so that I can make sure this sort of thing never happens again... :headbang: LOL

Jocabia must be right... You don't needs no educmicating to teach New Testament theology and history at the University of St Andrews, no siree
LOL :p

Do you know what a theologian is? As GnI points out, the discipline allows for the assumption that the source of the religion is accurate. It's a study of what they believe, not what can be demonstrated with evidence. He's a religious scholar. He openly admits to being a religious scholar. And his peers for peer review are other religious experts.

You're making a perfectly decent theological argument where you are permitted to openly speculate without all that nasty evidence. However, we're discussing history and archeology, which requires you to meet a much larger burden.

He's not teaching history. He's teaching historical theology. You don't recognize the difference? I didn't suggest he's not a scholar. I suggested his field isn't the one we're discussing and that you can't see the difference is precisely why you don't have the background to touch this subject.

Okee dokey then. Perhaps you could give us a list of pre-approved scholars that meet the GnI standard so that I can make sure this sort of thing never happens again... :headbang: LOL

See what I mean? He's a theologian. Not a historian. Theology is a philosophy. Theology can treat the existance of God as if its true. Science and history cannot. See the difference?

The list of pre-approved scholars for a historical and archeological discussion are scholars that actually claim to be historians and archeologists and their papers that are peer-reviewed by historians and archeologists. One would think that would be obvious, but given your objection, it apparently isn't.

<snip>

Oh you already made it clear, the Professor of New Testament history and theology at the University of St Andrews is not qualified to have a better opinion than you and GnI... I get it. :rolleyes:

You're the one that doesn't accept any evidence as evidence, even archaeological artifacts, and I'M the one that doesn't understand historicity?!?!?!


As a matter of interest...

Textual evidence (including 'witness' testimony), literally hundreds of years of reference to the original events... even archeological evidence (both in the form of referential materials, AND verifiable locational data). A questioned central figure who may or may not have been what was claimed, a central location that definitely exists, and which has a number of substantial claims relating directly to an assumption that the story is 'true', and later testimony by apparently reliable assessors, even religious men

Is it enough to rely on the historicity of the events, and of the central characters?



Who am I discussing?

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

As a matter of interest...

Textual evidence (including 'witness' testimony), literally hundreds of years of reference to the original events... even archeological evidence (both in the form of referential materials, AND verifiable locational data). A questioned central figure who may or may not have been what was claimed, a central location that definitely exists, and which has a number of substantial claims relating directly to an assumption that the story is 'true', and later testimony by apparently reliable assessors, even religious men

Is it enough to rely on the historicity of the events, and of the central characters?



Who am I discussing?

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

Actually, I was referring waaay back to the P52 fragment. When you revealed that you don't care about established accepted artifacts nor theoretical ones. I pointed to P52 and it being from the first half of the second century and you asked 'how do I know' how old it is and I told you to go take it up with Oxford if you have a problem with it's dating... remember?

Okee dokey then. Perhaps you could give us a list of pre-approved scholars that meet the GnI standard so that I can make sure this sort of thing never happens again... :headbang: LOL

There are none - but that doesn't mean that every non-me-approved author is equal.

There is no one that I would take as gospel, because it's conjecture on every front - hence why I stick to the skeptical position, rather than buying into any one of the possible 'theories' about the 'real' Jesus, if there was one.

The point is - we have several fairly well qualified people here. Myself, my work every day is related directly to 'evidentiary support'... at least one of our party is a qualified historian. To try to imply a religious educator is a source of authority we can't contest? Somewhere between hubris and surrealism.

Actually, I was referring waaay back to the P52 fragment. When you revealed that you don't care about established accepted artifacts nor theoretical ones. I pointed to P52 and it being from the first half of the second century and you asked 'how do I know' how old it is and I told you to go take it up with Oxford if you have a problem with it's dating... remember?

Way to avoid the issue I just raised about 'evidence'...

I recall the fragment - I didn't 'reject' it, I just questioned why you would accept the dating of THAT evidence to that specific date, whilst apparently rejecting what science says about other sources.

Not that that fragment proves Jesus existed.... or anything, except that a certain piece of scripture existed 1800-ish years ago, or something.

How is an old fragment of religious text evidence of the historicity of Jesus?

See what I mean? He's a theologian. Not a historian. Theology is a philosophy. Theology can treat the existance of God as if its true. Science and history cannot. See the difference?

The list of pre-approved scholars for a historical and archeological discussion are scholars that actually claim to be historians and archeologists and their papers that are peer-reviewed by historians and archeologists. One would think that would be obvious, but given your objection, it apparently isn't.

I'll certainly give more credence to someone actually qualified to assess data... but I think Balders is looking for a source I would listen to without reservations... in which case, there's no one.

I'll certainly give more credence to someone actually qualified to assess data... but I think Balders is looking for a source I would listen to without reservations... in which case, there's no one.

Actually, I was asking for your pre-approved list because I knew you had none, and that too tells us something; exactly what I said earlier, you don't accept any evidence.

Jocabia must be right... You don't needs no educmicating to teach New Testament theology and history at the University of St Andrews, no siree
LOL :p

St Andrews is an especially reliable, scholarly and erudite source as they offered me a place a few days ago. :)

[/shamelessthreadjack]

St Andrews is an especially reliable, scholarly and erudite source as they offered me a place a few days ago. :)

[/shamelessthreadjack]

If you are serious, congratulations, not jokes or pun. Excellent job, well done.

:)

Did you take the position? What position?

St Andrews is an especially reliable, scholarly and erudite source as they offered me a place a few days ago. :)

[/shamelessthreadjack]

Actually, I also got offered a place there. I very much like the institution, and have nothing but respect for their academic credentials.

But, that doesn't make their 'RE teachers' infallible historians. :)

Actually, I also got offered a place there. I very much like the institution, and have nothing but respect for their academic credentials.

But, that doesn't make their 'RE teachers' infallible historians. :)

I didn't use him as a source, I used him of an example of others who hold the position I am defending. The fact that you question his conclusions I never doubted.

I didn't use him as a source, I used him of an example of others who hold the position I am defending. The fact that you question his conclusions I never doubted.

Actually, you cited him as an authority that verified your position... and then you quoted a source about him. I'm not sure why you are quibbling the samantics over whether that makes him a 'source' or not. Your appeal to authority is massive fail.

If you are serious, congratulations, not jokes or pun. Excellent job, well done.

:)

Did you take the position? What position?

Thanks. Yeah, I'm serious. :p

It's a place to read for a degree in Maths and Philosophy (four year course I think) but I've already got an offer to do an MSci in Natural Science with a strong emphasis on Maths at Durham so I'll probably take that (don't ask why Maths and Philosophy are classed as natural sciences, I don't know either). In a few years I'll no longer be an uneducated lout: I'll be an educated one. :D

Actually, I also got offered a place there. I very much like the institution, and have nothing but respect for their academic credentials.

But, that doesn't make their 'RE teachers' infallible historians. :)

Indeed. :D You're a chemist aren't you? Where did you study (if you don't mind me asking)?

Actually, you cited him as an authority that verified your position... and then you quoted a source about him. I'm not sure why you are quibbling the samantics over whether that makes him a 'source' or not. Your appeal to authority is massive fail.

I verified my postion in the face of the accusation that my postions would be laughed at by scholars (not verbatim, look for Jocabias posts, one of his I'm sure), so I suggested a scholar that holds my position...

I verified my postion in the face of the accusation that my postions would be laughed at by scholars (not verbatim, look for Jocabias posts, one of his I'm sure), so I suggested a scholar that holds my position...

He doesn't claim it's a historical position, but a theological position. I know you don't recognize the difference but it's like claiming that Huckleberry Finn is accepted as real because it's discussed by literaterary scholars.

Oh you already made it clear, the Professor of New Testament history and theology at the University of St Andrews is not qualified to have a better opinion than you and GnI... I get it. :rolleyes:

First of all, since the sources you cited were all peer-reviewed by other theologians, I contest whether or not even he is claiming his argument is historical. Second of all, it wouldn't matter if he did, his focus according to the site you cited, is theology and historical theology. It does say he also teaches history, but calling him an expert on history when even his resume doesn't and all of his articles are not peer-reviewed by historians, I'd have to say is more than a stretch.

But, hey, since you don't recognize the difference between theological papers and historical papers, maybe you shouldn't be so smug.

As said, your appeal to authority is EPIC phail.

RomeW may not be who he says he is, but his understanding of evidence shows that he at the very least knows more about it than you do.

Well, I recognize I've never shown you proof that I've got a History Degree, but since you've seen Grave_n_idle's resume I can show you such proof. Not that I think it matters much anyway, since what's important are the arguments, not the qualification.

Actually, I was asking for your pre-approved list because I knew you had none, and that too tells us something; exactly what I said earlier, you don't accept any evidence.

Providing such a list is pointless. We're not supposed to hold positions because "X says so"- we're supposed to hold positions because "X said this and I agree with what they said".

He doesn't claim it's a historical position, but a theological position. I know you don't recognize the difference but it's like claiming that Huckleberry Finn is accepted as real because it's discussed by literaterary scholars.



OMGosh...

Book Description
This new book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. Noted New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as "anonymous community traditions," asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the original eyewitnesses. To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, study of personal names in the first century, and recent developments in the understanding of oral traditions.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory and cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith," proposing instead the "Jesus of testimony." Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621

But, hey, since you don't recognize the difference between theological papers and historical papers, maybe you shouldn't be so smug.

As said, your appeal to authority is EPIC phail.


thanks be to God, we've got Jocabia and GnI to set us on the straight course... ;)

OMGosh...

Book Description
This new book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on eyewitness testimony of those who knew Jesus. Noted New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as "anonymous community traditions," asserting instead that they were transmitted in the name of the original eyewitnesses. To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, study of personal names in the first century, and recent developments in the understanding of oral traditions.

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory and cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith," proposing instead the "Jesus of testimony." Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621




thanks be to God, we've got Jocabia and GnI to set us on the straight course... ;)

Um, do you know what "based on" means? That would mean it's not a direct source.

Watch the difference.

This is a true story.
This is based on a true story.

The difference being the second permits us to elaborate and extrapolate, and the first is a direct account. So, even your source claims that these are not eyewitness testimony. I take you're admitting they aren't then?

Meanwhile, do you really think the publishers summary of the book is a good source for it's scientific basis? Really? Want me to show you the publisher's summary of the Left Behind series?

You know what journals accepted this book? All theology. You know why? Because only theologians will accept his conclusion. It's not an insult to him. He's a theologian and he's doing what they do.

It's like the philosophy of Physics discipline. Are they idiots? Nope. They're scholars. However, they are not required to abide by the same rules that a disciplined science requires. History has the same requirements. As does, of course, archeology. However, the philosophy of Physics and theology are permitted to openly speculate, even wildly speculate, without violating any rules of evidence. Occam's razor doesn't apply to theology or the philosophy of physics. However, it does apply to historical evidence.

All that is required for philosophical disciplines is that your conclusion be possible. Your conclusion is possible. Dr. Baukman's is possible. It's even plausible. But it's not conclusive which is where it deviates from acceptable history. Particularly when you're asking us to forego reasonable doubt, and you are. As soon as you have to speculate to make your theory make sense, it's reasonable doubt. Dr. Baukman shows a way it COULD have happened that doesn't ignore the evidence, but he also adds evidence that isn't there and speculates, however reasonably, but speculates.

"Well, it could have happened like this, and then the text would be right."
To which a proper historian answers: "Absolutely. Come back when you show evidence that it happened like that, and you'll have a great argument."

..

Meanwhile, do you really think the publishers summary of the book is a good source for it's scientific basis? Really? Want me to show you the publisher's summary of the Left Behind series?

That's why I didn't post it first off. I posted a good long review of the book that shared my opinion (since I can't post directly from the book itself it was as good as I could do online). THEN I posted about who the author was because you attacked his credentials, THEN I posted a description of the book because you attacked what I said the topic of the book was actually about.

You have no argument, you haven't made one in several pages, just attacking me and you attempt to poison the well.

That's why I didn't post it first off. I posted a good long review of the book that shared my opinion (since I can't post directly from the book itself it was as good as I could do online). THEN I posted about who the author was because you attacked his credentials, THEN I posted a description of the book because you attacked what I said the topic of the book was actually about.

You have no argument, you haven't made one in several pages, just attacking me and you attempt to poison the well.

I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out that you're ignoring the requirements of science and then blaming us for not doing so. That's by nature a cornerstone of your argument. If I was constantly making an argument that kept mixing Jesus the Christ with Daffy Duck, would it be poisoning the well for you to notice that I'm obviously confusing the two. Here you are conflating theology and history and you're admitting to it by including a book that is theological in nature as a source for historicity.

I'll tell you what. You retract your claim that you can make speculative claims about the origins of these documents and unless we prove them false then they stand and I'll retract my claim that you don't understand science. See, falsifying doesn't work the way you think it does. The way it works is that you put together a theory, one that adheres to the available evidence and Occam's Razor (meaning you can't add anything to the theory that isn't put there by the evidence). THEN we're required to falsify, also using evidence. Speculation, particularly of the type you're engaging in, is in violation of Occam's. Now, if your speculation is reasonable, it would be a valid reason to reject another theory as conclusive, but not a reason to accept the conclusion requiring speculation with no evidence.

The big thing you don't seem to get is that when making a positive claim, you bear the burden. It is a burden, thus the name. Your claim must refute all reasonable speculation, all reasonable evidence, etc. in order to be conclusive. It must address and incorporate all evidence and address and refute every rebuttal. This is required for any scientific discipline. If all available evidence supports your theory and there are no reasonable rebuttals to that claim, then it's treated as "fact", scientific and historical fact being subject to change as new evidence comes up.

For example, a reasonable rebuttal to the claim that if Jesus existed then there would be contemporary evidence is to simply offer of up reasonable and speculative arguments explaining why such things wouldn't necessarily exist and particularly wouldn't still exist. One reasonable rebuttal and a claim remains inconclusive. Similarly with a claim of historicity.

Unfortunately, there are many reasonable rebuttals to the historicity of Christ. Unfortunately, you don't seem to think this is fair. Unfortunately, you seem to think a theological argument somehow supports your claim of historicity. And, unfortunately, I have to explain how science and history works, and that theology is neither and, yet, you continue to claim we're attacking you when you bitch and moan about the nature of science and history.

I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out that you're ignoring the requirements of science and then blaming us for not doing so. That's by nature a cornerstone of your argument. If I was constantly making an argument that kept mixing Jesus the Christ with Daffy Duck, would it be poisoning the well for you to notice that I'm obviously confusing the two. Here you are conflating theology and history and you're admitting to it by including a book that is theological in nature as a source for historicity.

Yes you are attacking. And you do it with a false argument. You may want to go back and check but I have not been making the claim about the historicity of Jesus via the scriptures. I've been defending the scriptures as eyewitness accounts and I've used them in other side issues, but not directly to the historicity of Jesus. You keep accusing me of it but it doesn't make it true.


I'll tell you what. You retract your claim that you can make speculative claims about the origins of these documents and unless we prove them false then they stand and I'll retract my claim that you don't understand science.
Funny. You believing I understand Science or not has no impact on if I do or not. Of course, you failed to mention that.

See, falsifying doesn't work the way you think it does. The way it works is that you put together a theory, one that adheres to the available evidence and Occam's Razor (meaning you can't add anything to the theory that isn't put there by the evidence). THEN we're required to falsify, also using evidence. Speculation, particularly of the type you're engaging in, is in violation of Occam's. Now, if your speculation is reasonable, it would be a valid reason to reject another theory as conclusive, but not a reason to accept the conclusion requiring speculation with no evidence.
Speculation with no evidence is being done by which side of this debate? Why, it's your side, not mine.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Yes. Yes.

Yes you are attacking. And you do it with a false argument. You may want to go back and check but I have not been making the claim about the historicity of Jesus via the scriptures. I've been defending the scriptures as eyewitness accounts and I've used them in other side issues, but not directly to the historicity of Jesus. You keep accusing me of it but it doesn't make it true.

They cannot be eyewitness accounts unless the historicity of Jesus is already accepted. What is complicated about that? In a thread discussing the historicity of Jesus, you're using documents you claim are eyewitness and getting upset that we're challenging such an assertion. "I'm not claiming he's real using these documents, I'm just saying they're written by people who saw and met him." You don't see the problem with that claim?


Funny. You believing I understand Science or not has no impact on if I do or not. Of course, you failed to mention that.

You're correct it doesn't. That you complain when people apply the boundaries of science to your post however does.


Speculation with no evidence is being done by which side of this debate? Why, it's your side, not mine.

Both sides. However, reasonable speculation is a valid rebuttal. Otherwise, arguments from ignorance would work. It's not a valid way to make a scientific or historical claim. That's the error on your part.

I'll explain. Let's say you say that, since we've found no poop in the house they must not have a dog. I say there are a million explanations for that, all speculative. As long as my explanations are reasonable, then your claim fails to be conclusive without further evidence. That's why non-existence is so hard to demonstrate, because you've got to show the trail you'd expect to see and show there is no reasonable explanation for their not being one.

As an aside, at first it was believable that you just didn't realize you've speculated quite frequently in this argument, but at some point it becomes dishonest. After as many times as you've made that claim WHILE speculating, it's wildly so. For example, tell us again who the eyewitness was to the Barabbas account, all of it?

For the record, not all speculation is disallowed on the path to a compelling conclusion. If all reasonable paths lead to your conclusion, then your conclusion is compelling, even if some or all of those paths are speculative. The problem is that there are equally or more reasonable speculations that don't lead to the conclusion you're trying to reach. And in some cases, your speculation is at best possible, but it requires us to circumvent the evidence using your reasons, not follow it. That's a big no-no when trying to make a positive claim.

Baldy: "I'm not saying Huckleberry Finn is real. Stop saying that. I'm just saying the books The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are eyewitness accounts."
Jocabia rubs his palm into his eye, attempting to prevent his eyeball from popping out, "Um, you do realize that in order for someone to claim that an event was witnessed, it must have first happened, yes?"
Baldy: "Strawman. I never said that."
Jocabia, breathes slowly, "Yes, I know. I said it. Because it's a truism. And I don't think you know what a strawman is."
Baldy: "Ad hominem. Stop attacking me. I never said that he was real. Just that the events centered around him occurred, that he was there, and that eyewitnesses recorded those events. What does that have to do with claiming he's real?"
Jocabia, again takes a deep breath, "Okay, well, then let's discuss whether or not these are actually eyewitness accounts."
Baldy: "Why do you keep changing the subject? We're discussing historicity of Huckleberry Finn, not the book by his scribe, Mark Twain."
Jocabia tries again, "Because if it's an eyewitness account then you've demonstrated that Huckleberry Finn existed."
Baldy: "Okay here is a literature and history professor who wrote a peice evaluating the books, published in literature journals.

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/86.2/br_148.html

I suppose you know more than history professors, too."
Jocabia scratches his head, "Do you know what literature means? It's published in a non-historical journal because it's not history."
Baldy: "Stop attacking me. You guys just keep appealing to your facts and your demonstrable understanding of the requirements of evidence. Knock it off."

This has been another edition of Jocabia sums up another thread by showing how he worships Mark Twain.

(For the record, the above is a fallacy. It's called reduction to the absurd, but if you really look at the argument and replace the books of the Bible with Mark Twains book, theology with literature, and Jesus with Huckleberry Finn, I challenge you to show this isn't accurate. Also, unfortunately, it was easier to find historical arguments in historical publications for Huck Finn, than for Jesus the Christ. Oops.)

Yes.

Provide evidence then.

Yes.

Why?

After yet another three repetitive and uninformative and uninsightful attacks by Jocabia... One wonders why someone needs to be overtly combative and flood their posts with pejorative critiques and attack the intelligence, honesty or education of other posters when disagreeing with them. Public discourse is far better with this is not done. But alas, I'm afraid that this is a lesson that I doubt I can teach Jocabia. Though I find his endless attacks to me nothing more than twaddle rehashed over and over… I leave this thread, my arguments are here for those that care. As to the OP, my final post…

Graham Stanton (http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/faculty/stanton.html)
Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. source (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html)

Rudolf Bultmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann)
Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community. source (http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=426&C=277)

Will Durant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant)
The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.
Ceasar and Christ, volume 3 of Story of Civilization (http://www.amazon.com/Caesar-Christ-Civilization-Christianity-D/dp/1567310141)

Michael Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(author))
This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.
Grant, Michael (1995). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Historians-Gospels-Michael-Grant/dp/0684818671/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1). Scribner,

Robert E. Van Voorst (http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/faculty/vanvoorst)
Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question.
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689)

After yet another three repetative and uninformative and uninsightful attacks by Jocabia... One wonders why someone needs to be overtly combatative and flood their posts with pejorative critiques and attack the intelligence, honesty or education of other posters when disagreeing with them. Public discourse is far better with this is not done. But alas, I'm afraid that this is a lesson that I doubt I can teach Jocabia.

You realize this is every bit as much an attack as what I said. Moreso, yours serves no purpose in relation to the actual debate being brought forth. You cannot, absolutely cannot, seperate your debate about historicity from your absurd claim that a theological argument is a historical one. I've never commented on your intelligence. I've commented on your understanding of the subject at hand, which, when we're discussing that topic, is fairly necessary. But, hey, why continue to focus on the topic when you complain, once again, about how the reason your failing is because we're just so unfair.

Graham Stanton (http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/faculty/stanton.html)
Hmmm... your source is a professor of divinity? You don't notice the problem there?



Rudolf Bultmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann)
Another theologian. One wonders why it's necessary for you to keep quoting theologians when, assuming you have the understanding you claim, you'd know that they are not historians and don't bear the same burden as historians.



Will Durant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Durant)
A relatively famous philosopher. What part of this are you not getting. Philosophers aren't required to remain objective.



Michael Grant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(author))
Finally, a historian. At least this is a person held to the same standards that must be applied to history. The problem here being, he's provably dishonest. No serious scholars deny the historicity of Christ? In what world. Not this one. In the REAL world, the majority of scholars doubt the historicity. Not the most consciencious of objectors.


Robert E. Van Voorst (http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/faculty/vanvoorst)
Dude, seriously. What would make you think presenting ridiculous opinions would help your case? Seriously, in what world would that statement be accurate? The modern view on the historicity of Jesus Christ ends with a question mark. Pretending it doesn't is ignorant or dishonest. You realy want to quote people that ignore the question? I'm not saying they can't land at their conclusion. I'm saying their conclusion seems to rely on ignoring the LARGE number of detractors from their opinion. This is generally a sign of poor scholarship.

You take your sources from a Christian apologists' website without hesitation and, of course, without sourcing the origin of your quotations. How sad.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

That's called plagiarism. Is this how you demonstrate the honesty of your argument? I'll point out that these quotes, each of them even parts of them, appear on ONLY one site. One. One wonders why a scholarly analysis would only be available on an apologist website.

For those who aren't sure where these quotes are selectively from. Here is the author of the site - "I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time." In other words, here is a person that despite the vast majority of scholars believe there is reason for doubt flutters his hands and claims there's nothing to see here.

This is the saddest swansong I've ever seen. "Hey, look I cut and pasted from an apologist website. See, how could anyone doubt my scholarship?" Not only is it dishonest, it's lazy. Worse than that, this source is so wildly incredible that one has to doubt whether you actually hope to be taken seriously. If this the quality of post you're relegated to when challenged then perhaps it is best you take your leave.

In the REAL world, the majority of scholars doubt the historicity. Not the most consciencious of objectors.

From what I've read, it does appear that most scholars do not doubt Jesus Christ's historicity, but I think that's got more to do with the fact such research is a sensitive subject and thus they don't really want to seriously consider it. I once asked my Roman History professor what he thought and he didn't want to answer the question, maybe because he was worried I'd be offended or something.

Out of the scholars who *have* seriously studied the question, though, you are right in saying most of these have raised their doubts; and this number is growing. The Jesus Myth Theory has started to gain some ground in the works of the likes of Earl Doherty (who actually has a Degree in Ancient History) and Robert M. Price (who argues that those arguing for Jesus Christ's historicity have to bear the burden of providing proof, and you'd be hard-pressed to disagree) and while the Myth Theory hasn't also been proven, it is showing that scholars have now started to seriously question the matter. It's a sign of the times, since only now have other parts of the Bible are now up for debate, as well as other "classic" stories (such as The Illiad and The Epic of Gilgamesh).

From what I've read, it does appear that most scholars do not doubt Jesus Christ's historicity, but I think that's got more to do with the fact such research is a sensitive subject and thus they don't really want to seriously consider it. I once asked my Roman History professor what he thought and he didn't want to answer the question, maybe because he was worried I'd be offended or something.

Out of the scholars who *have* seriously studied the question, though, you are right in saying most of these have raised their doubts; and this number is growing. The Jesus Myth Theory has started to gain some ground in the works of the likes of Earl Doherty (who actually has a Degree in Ancient History) and Robert M. Price (who argues that those arguing for Jesus Christ's historicity have to bear the burden of providing proof, and you'd be hard-pressed to disagree) and while the Myth Theory hasn't also been proven, it is showing that scholars have now started to seriously question the matter. It's a sign of the times, since only now have other parts of the Bible are now up for debate, as well as other "classic" stories (such as The Illiad and The Epic of Gilgamesh).

few scholars are brave enough to risk their spots in academia for the thankless task of pointing out that there is no real proof of jesus' existence.

if they cant PROVE he didnt exist, there is no upside to suggesting that he may not have.

all that does is make you a bitter member of some other sect or a freaking atheist.

and we all know what they think of atheists.

From what I've read, it does appear that most scholars do not doubt Jesus Christ's historicity, but I think that's got more to do with the fact such research is a sensitive subject and thus they don't really want to seriously consider it. I once asked my Roman History professor what he thought and he didn't want to answer the question, maybe because he was worried I'd be offended or something.

Out of the scholars who *have* seriously studied the question, though, you are right in saying most of these have raised their doubts; and this number is growing. The Jesus Myth Theory has started to gain some ground in the works of the likes of Earl Doherty (who actually has a Degree in Ancient History) and Robert M. Price (who argues that those arguing for Jesus Christ's historicity have to bear the burden of providing proof, and you'd be hard-pressed to disagree) and while the Myth Theory hasn't also been proven, it is showing that scholars have now started to seriously question the matter. It's a sign of the times, since only now have other parts of the Bible are now up for debate, as well as other "classic" stories (such as The Illiad and The Epic of Gilgamesh).

Of course, when I say scholars, I mean those that have seriously studied the question. Among those who would be considered experts in the area, you will find many more doubters than not. In fact, I have yet to see a current serious paper that actually concludes that Jesus did exist that appears in peer-reviewed journals. Lots of theological papers, but as we all know, that's philosophical, not historical. The myth theory doesn't have to proven in order to have debunked the idea that his historicity is not in question. The vast majority of scholars in this area find there to much reason for debate, thus there is no conclusion either way.

I just find it funny that his swansong is to copy and paste an apologist website without citing it. If that's not irony, I don't know what is.

Out of curiosity, what do historians (or anyone here) use to as criteria for deciding whether or not someone existed? Is there a certain number of sources you need? Physical evidence? Photograph? I know the existence of Jesus is in doubt, but there's a lot more stuff out there about him than my great-grandfather, whom I'm pretty sure existed. Where does one draw the line?

few scholars are brave enough to risk their spots in academia for the thankless task of pointing out that there is no real proof of jesus' existence.

if they cant PROVE he didnt exist, there is no upside to suggesting that he may not have.

all that does is make you a bitter member of some other sect or a freaking atheist.

and we all know what they think of atheists.

Not only that, but there's not much of an article there if all you'll say is "there's no proof Jesus existed" because that is, well, a whole lot of writing about nothing really. Scholars are expected to say "something" if they want to receive the time of day- hence why there's the Jesus Myth Theory, since something's got to counter the Historical Jesus Theory if one wants to use the lack of source material for Jesus Christ.

Of course, when I say scholars, I mean those that have seriously studied the question. Among those who would be considered experts in the area, you will find many more doubters than not. In fact, I have yet to see a current serious paper that actually concludes that Jesus did exist that appears in peer-reviewed journals. Lots of theological papers, but as we all know, that's philosophical, not historical. The myth theory doesn't have to proven in order to have debunked the idea that his historicity is not in question. The vast majority of scholars in this area find there to much reason for debate, thus there is no conclusion either way.

I just find it funny that his swansong is to copy and paste an apologist website without citing it. If that's not irony, I don't know what is.

The Wikipedia article for the historicity of Jesus contains all sorts of apologetic one-liners that I decided to reword or remove. Leads me to believe that this "overwhelming refutation" is simply the creation of apologetics and isn't actually based in fact. In fact, I keep seeing Robert Van Voorst's name come up time and again as if he's some major historical figure and I've never even heard of this guy (nor does Van Voorst even have a Wikipedia entry). All the people I've seen actually refuting Jesus' ahistoricity are theologians or apologetics of some kind (in fact, Michael Grant was a Professor of Humanity, not of History...says something about his background). The rest of the scholars haven't seemed to have actually studied the question.

I am a bit disappointed he's leaving though...he provided a worthwhile debate for a while. Oh well, it's up to us to keep the discussion going then.

Out of curiosity, what do historians (or anyone here) use to as criteria for deciding whether or not someone existed? Is there a certain number of sources you need? Physical evidence? Photograph? I know the existence of Jesus is in doubt, but there's a lot more stuff out there about him than my great-grandfather, whom I'm pretty sure existed. Where does one draw the line?

well christianity developed like a rock dropping into the water with christianity as the ripple and jesus as the rock.

all we see are the ripples pretty far from what would seem to be the rock drop.

but as you get close to where the rock would be, there is nothing. no ripple, no rock.

and yet there are the ripples farther out.

so, if im going to believe that the rock was a rock and not a fish jumping i need to see the rock, the impression of the rock or maybe even the first ripple or 2.

so i guess there would have to be some new item found that was written at or near the time that at least discusses something about a guy named jesus who preached a greek/jewish blend of theology and came to a bad end. perferably by someone who wasnt involved in jesus' ministry.

well christianity developed like a rock dropping into the water with christianity as the ripple and jesus as the rock.

all we see are the ripples pretty far from what would seem to be the rock drop.

but as you get close to where the rock would be, there is nothing. no ripple, no rock.

and yet there are the ripples farther out.

so, if im going to believe that the rock was a rock and not a fish jumping i need to see the rock, the impression of the rock or maybe even the first ripple or 2.
This is almost as confusing as the Bible itself. :)

so i guess there would have to be some new item found that was written at or near the time that at least discusses something about a guy named jesus who preached a greek/jewish blend of theology and came to a bad end. perferably by someone who wasnt involved in jesus' ministry.
That's clearer. But what about people who weren't Jesus? How do you verify the existence of, say, Socrates?

Not only that, but there's not much of an article there if all you'll say is "there's no proof Jesus existed" because that is, well, a whole lot of writing about nothing really. Scholars are expected to say "something" if they want to receive the time of day- hence why there's the Jesus Myth Theory, since something's got to counter the Historical Jesus Theory if one wants to use the lack of source material for Jesus Christ.


in the end its all conjecture on both sides. fine to spin theories about but the lack of proof is annoying.

but i still dont see many academics willing to give voice to the idea that there really is no proof and no reason to assume the jesus really existed.

Not only that, but there's not much of an article there if all you'll say is "there's no proof Jesus existed" because that is, well, a whole lot of writing about nothing really. Scholars are expected to say "something" if they want to receive the time of day- hence why there's the Jesus Myth Theory, since something's got to counter the Historical Jesus Theory if one wants to use the lack of source material for Jesus Christ.



The Wikipedia article for the historicity of Jesus contains all sorts of apologetic one-liners that I decided to reword or remove. Leads me to believe that this "overwhelming refutation" is simply the creation of apologetics and isn't actually based in fact. In fact, I keep seeing Robert Van Voorst's name come up time and again as if he's some major historical figure and I've never even heard of this guy (nor does Van Voorst even have a Wikipedia entry). All the people I've seen actually refuting Jesus' ahistoricity are theologians or apologetics of some kind (in fact, Michael Grant was a Professor of Humanity, not of History...says something about his background). The rest of the scholars haven't seemed to have actually studied the question.

I am a bit disappointed he's leaving though...he provided a worthwhile debate for a while. Oh well, it's up to us to keep the discussion going then.

Well, I think it's funny that he's claiming the Bible is a first-hand source though it's been shown to be based on an earlier source (at least compellingly so) and then he essentially gives the impression his post is first-hand, but it turns out it's also just a slight edit on an "earlier" source. You gotta laugh.

And yes, I notice that much like the ID debate, they have to outside of the appropriate type of academia in order to find people to support their theories. There's a reason why physics periodicals aren't generally publishing biochemists. And vice versa. Why is it that when it comes to the stuff related to the God question, all of the sudden we have to accept articles that are sketchy at best from people who didn't give enough of a crap to study the area they are writing about.

but i still dont see many academics willing to give voice to the idea that there really is no proof and no reason to assume the jesus really existed.

Using your analogy, I'd see the "ripples" as evidence there was a rock. I may know nothing about the shape of the rock, or its color, but it makes sense it exists.
That being said, what "makes sense" is very often the opposite of what actually happens.

This is almost as confusing as the Bible itself. :)


That's clearer. But what about people who weren't Jesus? How do you verify the existence of, say, Socrates?

the same way. jesus shouldnt get more or less of a break than anyone else.

but there is less emotion over the question of the existence of socrates.

This is almost as confusing as the Bible itself. :)


That's clearer. But what about people who weren't Jesus? How do you verify the existence of, say, Socrates?

That's a good example. I'd say that his existence is also questionable.

Using your analogy, I'd see the "ripples" as evidence there was a rock. I may know nothing about the shape of the rock, or its color, but it makes sense it exists.
That being said, what "makes sense" is very often the opposite of what actually happens.

Well, that's the funny thing about reality. It doesn't really care if you believe it.

However, so you're saying only a rock could make those ripples? Not a fish or a frog? Maybe a bubble?

Using your analogy, I'd see the "ripples" as evidence there was a rock. I may know nothing about the shape of the rock, or its color, but it makes sense it exists.
That being said, what "makes sense" is very often the opposite of what actually happens.

yeah. and it does make sense that jesus (or same man with another name) should have existed.

but making sense isnt the same as proof eh?

However, so you're saying only a rock could make those ripples? Not a fish or a frog? Maybe a bubble?

I know it was debated whether or not Jesus was divine. It was also debated whether or not Jesus had always existed, whether or not he was always the son of God...many things.
But whether or not he was a frog? That's a new one.

Actually, you're right, it doesn't have to be a rock. But there is a something. I'm making this something a black box and calling it Jesus. Not necessarily a single man whose life is found in the Gospels, but something.

I know it was debated whether or not Jesus was divine. It was also debated whether or not Jesus had always existed, whether or not he was always the son of God...many things.
But whether or not he was a frog? That's a new one.

Actually, you're right, it doesn't have to be a rock. But there is a something. I'm making this something a black box and calling it Jesus. Not necessarily a single man whose life is found in the Gospels, but something.

Organized as such, I'll agree with that. The black box could be many things, but I would say it's likely it was something at the heart of it. In fact, I'd say there is compelling evidence that it didn't spring from nowhere.

That's a good example. I'd say that his existence is also questionable.

It is but there are some differences - his direct students are quite provable whereas none of the disciples are provable.

There's no claim of miracles - I think the debate about whether Jesus existed would not be so contestable if it wasn't for what it's claimed he did.

It's very hard to believe that there's no one on which he's based but I find that the best comparison is Robin Hood - we can suggest who he's based on but the story has become so much more.

It is but there are some differences - his direct students are quite provable whereas none of the disciples are provable.

There's no claim of miracles - I think the debate about whether Jesus existed would not be so contestable if it wasn't for what it's claimed he did.

It's very hard to believe that there's no one on which he's based but I find that the best comparison is Robin Hood - we can suggest who he's based on but the story has become so much more.

Well, though the stories of Socrates are not incredible, there is certainly much reason to believe they've been embellished or even some of them made up. I would say it's quite comparable. On the other hand you have people like Leif whose stories are also incredible, but have enough supporting evidence to make the kernal at the center apparent. There is no reasonable explanation for the accuracy of the Leif stories without an actual man exploring the places he was said to have gone.

Well, I would like to see King Arthur, and his REAL exsistence

Also, I believe Jesus was real... And I believe he is the savior, son of god.

Well, I would like to see King Arthur, and his REAL exsistence

Also, I believe Jesus was real... And I believe he is the savior, son of god.

Um, that's an amusing example. King Arthur was a legend based on a real man, but not "King Arthur". King Arthur didn't exist.

Well, though the stories of Socrates are not incredible, there is certainly much reason to believe they've been embellished or even some of them made up. I would say it's quite comparable. On the other hand you have people like Leif whose stories are also incredible, but have enough supporting evidence to make the kernal at the center apparent. There is no reasonable explanation for the accuracy of the Leif stories without an actual man exploring the places he was said to have gone.

Indeed.

I know it was debated whether or not Jesus was divine. It was also debated whether or not Jesus had always existed, whether or not he was always the son of God...many things.
But whether or not he was a frog? That's a new one.

Actually, you're right, it doesn't have to be a rock. But there is a something. I'm making this something a black box and calling it Jesus. Not necessarily a single man whose life is found in the Gospels, but something.

the suggestion is that it began with an IDEA rather than a man.

the judification so to speak of the mystery religions. the exciting idea that there is a spiritual life after death and that it is available not just to the big boys of the world but the little boys also. that you wont end up as a shadow in hades furtively watching sysiphus pushing a rock up a hill (or watching the heros feast in the elysian fields) but that in the next world you will be the equal of anyone and that all the things wrong with THIS world will be fixed in the next.

and that over the course of a hundred years or so the feeling that it should have a human face and a human life came about. so stories were made up about a man who was the son of a god and a virgin (not a new story) that he should preach this idea (that is in no way a jewish idea) of a personal god and a personal salvation, and that he should have died a gruesome death and rise again in defiance of death itself. each element has a meaning that was understood in the ancient world.

it makes more sense to me that way than the usual way its supposed.

coming from a non believers perspective of course...

there was this jewish man who was exposed to the ideas of the pagan mysteries and was struck with their essential truths. he wandered around galilee preaching this new idea and it caught on to some extent. in the course of time he attracted so many folllowers that it threatened the jewish powers-that-be who arranged for him to be exectued.

how do you get from THERE to a religion spanning the entire mediterranean? without the pentacost how do the dweebs who followed him going to become great evangelists? they were freaking fishermen. they knew nothing about preaching.

without the resurrection and the miracles, he just wasnt important enough and in an important enough area to have made the leap to major religion.

the suggestion is that it began with an IDEA rather than a man.

the judification so to speak of the mystery religions. the exciting idea that there is a spiritual life after death and that it is available not just to the big boys of the world but the little boys also. that you wont end up as a shadow in hades furtively watching sysiphus pushing a rock up a hill (or watching the heros feast in the elysian fields) but that in the next world you will be the equal of anyone and that all the things wrong with THIS world will be fixed in the next.

and that over the course of a hundred years or so the feeling that it should have a human face and a human life came about.

I think this makes real sense although - (while aware you're not stating as fact) - I'd say an additional aspect to the new idea was along the lines of 'turn the other cheek...', and 'treat your neighbour...' - the idea that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not the best way forward.

So it may be that Jesus is an amalgamation of traders who returned from the east with new stories and philosophies, rather than existing old stories already in the region, and - even though this is extraordinarily speculative - that would account for the allegorical missing years for Jesus.

It's not hard to imagine that a new philosophy swept the Roman Empire - a time where many cultures lay under one, stable empire and were therefore receptive to such a cohesive philosophy.

Yet it's also not hard to imagine that one person was extraordinarily coherent in translating this philosophy so people of the Roman empire could understand and then transmit that information on easily.

how do you get from THERE to a religion spanning the entire mediterranean? without the pentacost how do the dweebs who followed him going to become great evangelists? they were freaking fishermen. they knew nothing about preaching.

I think the point is that this new philosophy was so powerful that it could be transmitted by freaking fishermen :)

In a short post, for those who are less patient, the liink takes us to a page that discusses this scholar as a theologian.

Thank you. :) *bows*

As a matter of interest...

Textual evidence (including 'witness' testimony), literally hundreds of years of reference to the original events... even archeological evidence (both in the form of referential materials, AND verifiable locational data). A questioned central figure who may or may not have been what was claimed, a central location that definitely exists, and which has a number of substantial claims relating directly to an assumption that the story is 'true', and later testimony by apparently reliable assessors, even religious men

Is it enough to rely on the historicity of the events, and of the central characters?



Who am I discussing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper
+
Do you know what a theologian is? As GnI points out, the discipline allows for the assumption that the source of the religion is accurate. It's a study of what they believe, not what can be demonstrated with evidence. He's a religious scholar. He openly admits to being a religious scholar. And his peers for peer review are other religious experts.

You're making a perfectly decent theological argument where you are permitted to openly speculate without all that nasty evidence. However, we're discussing history and archeology, which requires you to meet a much larger burden.

Now that's some ninja shit, right there. *bows*

A Theologian is a person with a degree in Fiction.

thanks be to God, we've got Jocabia and GnI to set us on the straight course...

You're more right now than you have been in a while.

For the record, not all speculation is disallowed on the path to a compelling conclusion. If all reasonable paths lead to your conclusion, then your conclusion is compelling, even if some or all of those paths are speculative. The problem is that there are equally or more reasonable speculations that don't lead to the conclusion you're trying to reach. And in some cases, your speculation is at best possible, but it requires us to circumvent the evidence using your reasons, not follow it. That's a big no-no when trying to make a positive claim.That is also well put. :)

all that does is make you a bitter member of some other sect or a freaking atheist.

Or a fervent NSG frequenter :p

However, so you're saying only a rock could make those ripples? Not a fish or a frog? Maybe a bubble?Maybe even a Predator landing pod?
<.<
>.>

Indeed. :D You're a chemist aren't you? Where did you study (if you don't mind me asking)?

I ended up studying at DeMontfort, actually - mainly because I had been pursuing Engineering right up until the last minute, when I jumped ship to Chemistry. I paired it with Business and learned two important lessons... first - the DMU business school is awesome, and second - the DMU sciences school isn't.

But I got them to tailormake a third year course for me, so no complaints.

Out of curiosity, what do historians (or anyone here) use to as criteria for deciding whether or not someone existed? Is there a certain number of sources you need? Physical evidence? Photograph? I know the existence of Jesus is in doubt, but there's a lot more stuff out there about him than my great-grandfather, whom I'm pretty sure existed. Where does one draw the line?

To be sure of a person's existence, one has to have two kinds of sources- contemporary and independent sources, the more of both the better. These kinds of reconstructions are easier to do the later you go in history since we lose less sources the more recent in time we go but the rules of evidence stay the same regardless of the time period.

The first step is contemporary sources. Contemporary sources can come from a whole range of artifacts, including (but not limited to) artwork depicting events in that person's life from that person's time, birth/death records, court documents, letters depicting the person exchanged between friends/family, graffitti, monuments dedicated to the person while they were alive (or even shortly after their death), and things the person wrote while they were alive. A critical eye is still needed to dissect the bias and the legend from the truth (if that at all can be done) so you know precisely what happened, but stuff from that person's time depicting events in that person's life makes one pretty safe in concluding that the person is real, with the more evidence in this regard, the better.

After finding all those sources, what's needed is to ensure how independent they are from each other and you do that by ensuring that there's no common bias between the sources. For example, let's say one collects many different sources documenting a thief being loose in a town, where in a week's span many different shopowners and homeowners report at various times in that week the same kind of thief struck them. If, say, all those sources just agree on the fact that a thief struck and used the same methods in each theft (indicating it's one person doing the deeds) then it's reasonable to deduce that thief existed, since there's no indication in any of the sources that the thief was made up. However, if all those sources also say "I know of this 'John' who has been held to be a good man but he robbed me on January 27 and this is how" it does sound like a character assassination and thus the thief might not actually exist since each source is trying to paint a picture of how one man became bad. Granted, there may be more to the thief's story that might still make it true, but if the vast majority of the sources simply talk about "how evil John is" then it just might be too biased to be believeable.

This doesn't mean that one need both contemporary and independent sources to deduce actual history (although having both would be great), because history can still be constructed with just one of those two kinds of sources. A bunch of contemporary sources all telling the story of how one person is an evil ruffian can be considered history if that story is believeable enough; and if all the evidence we have for a particular person is recounted by two (or more) independent historians who lived at the same time but well after the death of the person in question you can be pretty sure that person lived since the historians recording that person are not connected in any way. In the absence of a lot of sources (which is, sadly, the truth about ancient history), the only way to go is critically examine what little we do have and see if the story is believeable enough and go from there, knowing that probably more work needs to be done in the future to ensure what we've concluded really is correct.

Now, the New Testament stories fail on both counts- there *are* no contemporary sources for any of the stories (nothing from the traditionally-held time of the life of Jesus (from around 4 B.C. to AD 33) actually documents someone resembling the figure we know as Jesus Christ, and all of the Gospels (as well as the Acts of the Apostles) were written several decades after the traditional death of Jesus Christ, with the Gospels' source material being only hypothetical, never found) and there are no independent sources for the New Testament stories, with all of the account's stories and traditions clearly being recounted and recited by Christians, who have an inherent reason for doing so since it is *their* story. The New Testament is also rife with contradictions making it dodgy in terms of reliability (for example, Matthew and Luke record two completely different birth narratives, and Mark and John don't record one at all). It doesn't necessarily mean that the New Testament couldn't actually be recording history, but it does present quite a few problems to rectify first before it can be considered history.

It was claimed for a time that Josephus (usually used by the apologist camp) mentioned Jesus Christ explicitly, but both instances where he does mention Jesus are contested. The first one is the Testimonium Flavianum which has proven to be a forgery. This has many reasons: the text is out of character for Josephus (a pious Jew) the text does not flow well with the rest of the text, the earliest reference to the passage is in 324 (by Eusebius) and two Christian writers before Eusebius fail to mention it when they should have- Origen (240) wrote that Josephus "doesn't call Jesus 'the Christ' when the Testimonium clearly says so and Justin the Philosopher never quotes the Testimonium when he writes a pretend dialogue with a Jewish Rabbi to convince him to convert to Christianity. The other Josephus passage (which does not ruin the flow of the passage) is less conspicious as it simply reads "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ". At best, the passage can't be used as confirmation of the New Testament stories since it makes no mention of them, but the passage has other problems as well, considering Origen said that Josephus never called Jesus "the Christ". Other independent sources used to corroborate the New Testament stories- such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius- write simply of "Christians" and not of Jesus specifically, while the Talmud writes of many people named "Yeshua", none of which can be specifically applied to Jesus.

Hope that helps. :)

Out of curiosity, what do historians (or anyone here) use to as criteria for deciding whether or not someone existed? Is there a certain number of sources you need? Physical evidence? Photograph? I know the existence of Jesus is in doubt, but there's a lot more stuff out there about him than my great-grandfather, whom I'm pretty sure existed. Where does one draw the line?

I've actually cited another example within this thread - specifically it was aimed at Balders, but he blissfully ignored it.

The Pied Piper of Hamelin is remarkably well accounted in terms of supporting evidence... but there's very little that can actually be known about 'him' (or, if he even existed) aside from stories.

There is archeological evidence - stained-glass windows that discuss the story of the piper, and there is other evidence of a genertion of missing young people (and, some evidence of where they might have relocated to, as a matter of interest). There is an abundance of narrative evidence about the figure.

There is even a site which is identified as the Pied-Piper's house.

All of which is about the same burden of evidence that can be provided for Jesus.

The thing is, though, while many people have recorded the literal existence of the Piper (and he has been attributed a number of causes, from child-murderer, to Children's Rebellion recruiter, to leader of a migrant population to found a new community), he has also been discussed as being allegorical (as the embodiment of the Danse Macabre, as the incarnation of the Devil, as a metaphorical descriptor of the Plague).

It seems that, even with much more recent evidence than we have for Jesus, there still exists doubt.


As an aside - it isn't unreasonable to ask for corroboration from independent, contemporary sources. And that's where the 'historical' Jesus really takes it in the neck.

Using your analogy, I'd see the "ripples" as evidence there was a rock. I may know nothing about the shape of the rock, or its color, but it makes sense it exists.
That being said, what "makes sense" is very often the opposite of what actually happens.

The ripples could reflect nothing more than the floor of the pool... or the tides of the moon...

To be sure of a person's existence, one has to have two kinds of sources- contemporary and independent sources, the more of both the better. These kinds of reconstructions are easier to do the later you go in history since we lose less sources the more recent in time we go but the rules of evidence stay the same regardless of the time period.

The first step is contemporary sources. Contemporary sources can come from a whole range of artifacts, including (but not limited to) artwork depicting events in that person's life from that person's time, birth/death records, court documents, letters depicting the person exchanged between friends/family, graffitti, monuments dedicated to the person while they were alive (or even shortly after their death), and things the person wrote while they were alive. A critical eye is still needed to dissect the bias and the legend from the truth (if that at all can be done) so you know precisely what happened, but stuff from that person's time depicting events in that person's life makes one pretty safe in concluding that the person is real, with the more evidence in this regard, the better.

After finding all those sources, what's needed is to ensure how independent they are from each other and you do that by ensuring that there's no common bias between the sources. For example, let's say one collects many different sources documenting a thief being loose in a town, where in a week's span many different shopowners and homeowners report at various times in that week the same kind of thief struck them. If, say, all those sources just agree on the fact that a thief struck and used the same methods in each theft (indicating it's one person doing the deeds) then it's reasonable to deduce that thief existed, since there's no indication in any of the sources that the thief was made up. However, if all those sources also say "I know of this 'John' who has been held to be a good man but he robbed me on January 27 and this is how" it does sound like a character assassination and thus the thief might not actually exist since each source is trying to paint a picture of how one man became bad. Granted, there may be more to the thief's story that might still make it true, but if the vast majority of the sources simply talk about "how evil John is" then it just might be too biased to be believeable.

This doesn't mean that one need both contemporary and independent sources to deduce actual history (although having both would be great), because history can still be constructed with just one of those two kinds of sources. A bunch of contemporary sources all telling the story of how one person is an evil ruffian can be considered history if that story is believeable enough; and if all the evidence we have for a particular person is recounted by two (or more) independent historians who lived at the same time but well after the death of the person in question you can be pretty sure that person lived since the historians recording that person are not connected in any way. In the absence of a lot of sources (which is, sadly, the truth about ancient history), the only way to go is critically examine what little we do have and see if the story is believeable enough and go from there, knowing that probably more work needs to be done in the future to ensure what we've concluded really is correct.

Now, the New Testament stories fail on both counts- there *are* no contemporary sources for any of the stories (nothing from the traditionally-held time of the life of Jesus (from around 4 B.C. to AD 33) actually documents someone resembling the figure we know as Jesus Christ, and all of the Gospels (as well as the Acts of the Apostles) were written several decades after the traditional death of Jesus Christ, with the Gospels' source material being only hypothetical, never found) and there are no independent sources for the New Testament stories, with all of the account's stories and traditions clearly being recounted and recited by Christians, who have an inherent reason for doing so since it is *their* story. The New Testament is also rife with contradictions making it dodgy in terms of reliability (for example, Matthew and Luke record two completely different birth narratives, and Mark and John don't record one at all). It doesn't necessarily mean that the New Testament couldn't actually be recording history, but it does present quite a few problems to rectify first before it can be considered history.

It was claimed for a time that Josephus (usually used by the apologist camp) mentioned Jesus Christ explicitly, but both instances where he does mention Jesus are contested. The first one is the Testimonium Flavianum which has proven to be a forgery. This has many reasons: the text is out of character for Josephus (a pious Jew) the text does not flow well with the rest of the text, the earliest reference to the passage is in 324 (by Eusebius) and two Christian writers before Eusebius fail to mention it when they should have- Origen (240) wrote that Josephus "doesn't call Jesus 'the Christ' when the Testimonium clearly says so and Justin the Philosopher never quotes the Testimonium when he writes a pretend dialogue with a Jewish Rabbi to convince him to convert to Christianity. The other Josephus passage (which does not ruin the flow of the passage) is less conspicious as it simply reads "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ". At best, the passage can't be used as confirmation of the New Testament stories since it makes no mention of them, but the passage has other problems as well, considering Origen said that Josephus never called Jesus "the Christ". Other independent sources used to corroborate the New Testament stories- such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius- write simply of "Christians" and not of Jesus specifically, while the Talmud writes of many people named "Yeshua", none of which can be specifically applied to Jesus.

Hope that helps. :)

Kudos.

+


Now that's some ninja shit, right there. *bows*

My thanks, sirrah.

Shame my work received absolutely no response to it's content. Can't say I'm surprised - some people don't like to be shown that they are pleading special exception.

My thanks, sirrah.*bows*

Shame my work received absolutely no response to it's content. Can't say I'm surprised - some people don't like to be shown that they are pleading special exception.I'm not surprised about that following my own posts, either, probably due marked incoherence on my part or their "Ignore" option being facilitated. :)

I'm not surprised about that following my own posts, either, probably due marked incoherence on my part or their "Ignore" option being facilitated. :)

Sorry, what did you say?

:D

Sorry, what did you say?

:D
Ayup. I'll just go back to my alien porn and ferrets now, thankyekindly. :p

but i still dont see many academics willing to give voice to the idea that there really is no proof and no reason to assume the jesus really existed.

It's probably mostly out of fear of jangling sensitive nerves- declare Jesus might not exist and you'll have a hundred groups banging on your door (if not burning it down) since they say the mere idea contravenes their religion (I don't think so, but that's a seperate debate). J.D. Salinger...that's okay, since he's not a figure of anyone's religion and thus won't hurt anyone's sensibilities, even though "sensitivity" is never a reason not to study a person historically.

As for the ability to get published...Jocabia, since you know more than I do about this, is it all possible to get a paper published that simply says "it is not provable that Jesus existed"? I don't think so since I don't think such a paper would say anything, but I'm looking for a second opinion.

Well, I think it's funny that he's claiming the Bible is a first-hand source though it's been shown to be based on an earlier source (at least compellingly so) and then he essentially gives the impression his post is first-hand, but it turns out it's also just a slight edit on an "earlier" source. You gotta laugh.

That I do...just makes me want to teach history even more just so we don't get people like Balderdash71964 mishandling and misunderstanding evidence. The gulf of knowledge couldn't be more apparent there.

And yes, I notice that much like the ID debate, they have to outside of the appropriate type of academia in order to find people to support their theories. There's a reason why physics periodicals aren't generally publishing biochemists. And vice versa. Why is it that when it comes to the stuff related to the God question, all of the sudden we have to accept articles that are sketchy at best from people who didn't give enough of a crap to study the area they are writing about.

Probably because people outside of academia are impressionable because their own knowledge of the methods and reasonings is limited, for whatever reason. Plus the academics are far from the majority in the population, so even if academics don't find your work credible, you can at least win the battle of public opinion. Kind of a scary thought if you think about it.

Actually, you're right, it doesn't have to be a rock. But there is a something. I'm making this something a black box and calling it Jesus. Not necessarily a single man whose life is found in the Gospels, but something.

Organized as such, I'll agree with that. The black box could be many things, but I would say it's likely it was something at the heart of it. In fact, I'd say there is compelling evidence that it didn't spring from nowhere.

It's close to how I think about the subject- I think there *was* someone (probably named Jesus) to whom all these stories were attributed to (either because he did them (in some variant) or his admirers later attributed them to him (as is the case with a lot of ancient figures, like David and the Psalms)) because I doubt a religion could proliferate on a willful fabrication, but I'm also not going to violate the rules of history to find Jesus Christ- if He did exist, I'm going to let the record reveal it and not manipulate the record so that it does.

Kudos.

Thank you. :)

It's probably mostly out of fear of jangling sensitive nerves- declare Jesus might not exist and you'll have a hundred groups banging on your door (if not burning it down) since they say the mere idea contravenes their religion (I don't think so, but that's a seperate debate). J.D. Salinger...that's okay, since he's not a figure of anyone's religion and thus won't hurt anyone's sensibilities, even though "sensitivity" is never a reason not to study a person historically.

If there must be a war between religious fanatics and academia, it's time has come. I hope the fanatics on both sides have their ideas laid open in a bloody mess. Then perhaps we can move on and both faith and science can continue on in their own respective realms with a mutual respect for each other's place in society.

As for the ability to get published...Jocabia, since you know more than I do about this, is it all possible to get a paper published that simply says "it is not provable that Jesus existed"? I don't think so since I don't think such a paper would say anything, but I'm looking for a second opinion.

You can publish a paper contesting a held theory. First, you'd have demonstrate you're actually addressing a theory someone holds to be true. So, of course such a paper can be published once you've established someone has published the alternative, which I don't think would be difficult.




That I do...just makes me want to teach history even more just so we don't get people like Balderdash71964 mishandling and misunderstanding evidence. The gulf of knowledge couldn't be more apparent there.

Honestly, it's hard not to be shocked by someone so sure he's being mistreated when he's simply being informed of that complete lack of understanding demonstrated by what he claims makes for evidence. He makes his understanding so germaine to the argument that one can't ignore it without throwing the argument entirely.

What actually made it funny again is that as his parting shot he puts up the worst collection of evidence for his point one could find. Information intentionally collected from an apologist's point of view, plagiarized no less. I can't imagine a more sure way to demonstrate a chasm in understanding.



Probably because people outside of academia are impressionable because their own knowledge of the methods and reasonings is limited, for whatever reason. Plus the academics are far from the majority in the population, so even if academics don't find your work credible, you can at least win the battle of public opinion. Kind of a scary thought if you think about it.

Which is why there is a plethora of conspiracy theories that do quite well. There truly are tons of people out there who think ID is just getting a bad rap.




It's close to how I think about the subject- I think there *was* someone (probably named Jesus) to whom all these stories were attributed to (either because he did them (in some variant) or his admirers later attributed them to him (as is the case with a lot of ancient figures, like David and the Psalms)) because I doubt a religion could proliferate on a willful fabrication, but I'm also not going to violate the rules of history to find Jesus Christ- if He did exist, I'm going to let the record reveal it and not manipulate the record so that it does.

I believe that Jesus Christ existed. However, I think as we've seen throughout the tenure of the Christian religion, it's likely absorbed some of the themes of other religions in an effort to be more palettable. I don't think it was entirely intentional anymore than all that absorption was. I think it just made sense at the time.

I believe the message is an honest and very real message of Jesus. I believe somewhere along the way, though, as it so often is, people needed more than a good message from a man with divine inspiration. He had to be better than all those that had come before him.

Frankly, I care not what Jesus did as far as miracles or even dying. I'd die for you and I've never met you. It's no great feat, particularly when you know you're going to be sitting on the throne. I'd rot in hell for you if it were required for me. Should I be worshipped for doing so? Or is it possible that there are more important things to get from Jesus?

Thank you. :)

Consider the kudos seconded. *bows*

If there must be a war between religious fanatics and academia, it's time has come. I hope the fanatics on both sides have their ideas laid open in a bloody mess. Then perhaps we can move on and both faith and science can continue on in their own respective realms with a mutual respect for each other's place in society.

Win.
Exactly.

I believe the message is an honest and very real message of Jesus. I believe somewhere along the way, though, as it so often is, people needed more than a good message from a man with divine inspiration. He had to be better than all those that had come before him.


I believe I can explain that one, too... there's a line from a song by Flyleaf, that says "You can only move as fast as who's in front of you"...

If the messenger is only human, no matter how good you are, you can only ever be human. No matter how divine your path, you can never be godlike. It's not hard to reconcile with the Hebrew tradition - where we are basically ultimately condemned by our human nature - but it's not comfortable.

On the other hand - if your message makes you savable... well, your prospects are a lot more welcoming - even better if you can come close to god in the process - but that means you have to be following in footsteps left by someone walking on an apotheotic path.

I believe I can explain that one, too... there's a line from a song by Flyleaf, that says "You can only move as fast as who's in front of you"...

If the messenger is only human, no matter how good you are, you can only ever be human. No matter how divine your path, you can never be godlike. It's not hard to reconcile with the Hebrew tradition - where we are basically ultimately condemned by our human nature - but it's not comfortable.

On the other hand - if your message makes you savable... well, your prospects are a lot more welcoming - even better if you can come close to god in the process - but that means you have to be following in footsteps left by someone walking on an apotheotic path.

You listen to Flyleaf?!

You listen to Flyleaf?!

I surely do. Quite a big fan, actually.

I like their music, I like their lyrics, and I find them a source of insight... I'm not sure what more you can ask. And the singer is adorable.

What actually made it funny again is that as his parting shot he puts up the worst collection of evidence for his point one could find. Information intentionally collected from an apologist's point of view, plagiarized no less. I can't imagine a more sure way to demonstrate a chasm in understanding.


The real shame is - the 'parting shot' was basically an appeal to authority. As though, presenting us some 'established names' that have no questions about the historicity, is actually, somehow, a measure of it's veracity.

"These people are cool, and they believe Jesus was real... you want to be cool, don't you?"

The real shame is - the 'parting shot' was basically an appeal to authority. As though, presenting us some 'established names' that have no questions about the historicity, is actually, somehow, a measure of it's veracity.

"These people are cool, and they believe Jesus was real... you want to be cool, don't you?"

But he plagiarized the information, for one thing (one would guess that it was because linking that site would have been an argument killer) and, for another, linked to quotes that are provably false. It was basically a bunch of handwaving and quotes claiming the debate is over, without actually presenting any actual arguments. "Jesus existed and if you don't agree you're an idiot or a lunatic. End of argument." On a site, that scoffs at the scientific method. By people who are outside of their area. Making opinion statements....

I can keep pointing out problems there, but considering he actually made some good arguments, closing with that was pretty anti-climactic.

But he plagiarized the information, for one thing (one would guess that it was because linking that site would have been an argument killer) and, for another, linked to quotes that are provably false. It was basically a bunch of handwaving and quotes claiming the debate is over, without actually presenting any actual arguments. "Jesus existed and if you don't agree you're an idiot or a lunatic. End of argument." On a site, that scoffs at the scientific method. By people who are outside of their area. Making opinion statements....

I can keep pointing out problems there, but considering he actually made some good arguments, closing with that was pretty anti-climactic.

I don't care so much about the source... or even about the plagarism. Yes, both are 'bad', for their own reasons... the problem, as you say, is the anticlimatic nature. When all else 'failed' (i.e. when some people were obviously 'not willing' to listen to the 'truth'), the final gesture that's supposed to... I don't know... shut us up? show us the error of our ways? convert us? is just an appeal to authority.

We had those '2 billion people believe it, why don't you' arguments presented almost 200 pages ago, and they weren't 'evidence' of anything then. I was disappointed, I admit it.

I was disappointed, I admit it.

Exactly. It wasn't like it actually made an argument. I enjoy winning an argument, but, come on, the standard practice is to lay down your king when you're beat, not flip the board and declare yourself the winner.

It was like the liar, liar, liar effort. It's clearly meant to hide the argument, not highlight it. If he truly believed he'd made a good argument, why not highlight the strong points of it, instead of going a completely different way and just quoting a really bad apologetic website without sourcing.

There is pretty much nothing right with that post. He had the whole depth and bredth of the internet at his disposal, all of his past arguments, all of ours. He could have made a swansong that made his argument as strong as he could make it.

Instead, he basically showed that like every other poster that's come in and out of this thread with his claim, that he's more interested in agreement with his conclusion than actually showing it to be true. And that's bad methodology regardless of whether your conclusion is right or wrong. He might as well have just made a fly-by that said, "Jesus existed and there is a ton of evidence. I'm not gonna do your work for you. Hit the library." Or any number of other fly-by's. Your closing is often what people remember. If you'd made his argument, would that be your closing?

I surely do. Quite a big fan, actually.

I like their music, I like their lyrics, and I find them a source of insight... I'm not sure what more you can ask. And the singer is adorable.

All too true. I'm just frequently amused at our similarities in music taste.

Have you ever heard of Eisley?

All too true. I'm just frequently amused at our similarities in music taste.

Have you ever heard of Eisley?

Have you ever heard of spam?

Have you ever heard of spam?

This wouldn't be the first time this thread was taken on a tangent. Besides, we're wrapping up here anyway.

If there must be a war between religious fanatics and academia, it's time has come. I hope the fanatics on both sides have their ideas laid open in a bloody mess. Then perhaps we can move on and both faith and science can continue on in their own respective realms with a mutual respect for each other's place in society.

I believe such a war is only beginning, as "Biblical archaeology" as a concept is beginning to be rejected outright. It's true that quite a bit of the quashing of Biblical historicity is politically-motivated, but hopefully these divergent views lead to discussions eventually leading to where it should be- the truth.

You can publish a paper contesting a held theory. First, you'd have demonstrate you're actually addressing a theory someone holds to be true. So, of course such a paper can be published once you've established someone has published the alternative, which I don't think would be difficult.

That is true. Thanks.

Honestly, it's hard not to be shocked by someone so sure he's being mistreated when he's simply being informed of that complete lack of understanding demonstrated by what he claims makes for evidence. He makes his understanding so germaine to the argument that one can't ignore it without throwing the argument entirely.

What actually made it funny again is that as his parting shot he puts up the worst collection of evidence for his point one could find. Information intentionally collected from an apologist's point of view, plagiarized no less. I can't imagine a more sure way to demonstrate a chasm in understanding.

Or just a last-gasp move in desperation. That's how I read it.

Which is why there is a plethora of conspiracy theories that do quite well. There truly are tons of people out there who think ID is just getting a bad rap.

As well as those who argue that we've got to "teach creationism" since we've got to "display both sides of the argument", conveniently forgetting it's the fundamentalist community that's the only one who is creating this fuss in the first place and science class should be about science, not explanations posing as science. Alas, the more people there are the easier it is to appeal to emotion because it's easier to do even though reason always produces the better results.

I believe that Jesus Christ existed. However, I think as we've seen throughout the tenure of the Christian religion, it's likely absorbed some of the themes of other religions in an effort to be more palettable. I don't think it was entirely intentional anymore than all that absorption was. I think it just made sense at the time.

I believe the message is an honest and very real message of Jesus. I believe somewhere along the way, though, as it so often is, people needed more than a good message from a man with divine inspiration. He had to be better than all those that had come before him.

Frankly, I care not what Jesus did as far as miracles or even dying. I'd die for you and I've never met you. It's no great feat, particularly when you know you're going to be sitting on the throne. I'd rot in hell for you if it were required for me. Should I be worshipped for doing so? Or is it possible that there are more important things to get from Jesus?

Which is why the only way Christianity could ever be discredited is if it's shown to be a categorical and willful forgery- and that's about as Herculean a task as you could have. At best, we have an inspiring figure who's helped shaped the lives of many and at worst we have an inspiring story that's also helped shape the lives of many. What's wrong with that?

As well as those who argue that we've got to "teach creationism" since we've got to "display both sides of the argument", conveniently forgetting it's the fundamentalist community that's the only one who is creating this fuss in the first place and science class should be about science, not explanations posing as science. Alas, the more people there are the easier it is to appeal to emotion because it's easier to do even though reason always produces the better results.


I've occassionally suggested to Christians I'm talking to, that they might ask their church (for me) if they would mind dedicating half of each service to fundamentals of physics... no positive responses yet.


Which is why the only way Christianity could ever be discredited is if it's shown to be a categorical and willful forgery- and that's about as Herculean a task as you could have. At best, we have an inspiring figure who's helped shaped the lives of many and at worst we have an inspiring story that's also helped shape the lives of many. What's wrong with that?

There have been one or two rather sticky moments, too... although I think most people would agree that those incidents probably don't represent the most faithful reading of Jesus' words.

If someone could prove there was only one god, and it was a different one to the Abrahamic one, that might be another way to discredit Christianty.

All too true. I'm just frequently amused at our similarities in music taste.

Have you ever heard of Eisley?

Yeah... somewhere between The Breeders, The Cardigans and... I don't know... Tower of Strength era Mission.

Pretty good, and I like their lyrics. :)

I've occassionally suggested to Christians I'm talking to, that they might ask their church (for me) if they would mind dedicating half of each service to fundamentals of physics... no positive responses yet.

"Oh silly, don't you know- even though it all makes sense, it's because science is wrong!" :rolleyes:

There have been one or two rather sticky moments, too... although I think most people would agree that those incidents probably don't represent the most faithful reading of Jesus' words.

If someone could prove there was only one god, and it was a different one to the Abrahamic one, that might be another way to discredit Christianty.

Probably- but only if the proven god is so radically different that it is unrecognizable next to the Abrahamic one. Otherwise, it'd just be fundamentalists who'd be quivering- Christianity, given how easily it can morph its Faith in recent years, would find some way to fit this new version of God into their own Faith.

As well as those who argue that we've got to "teach creationism" since we've got to "display both sides of the argument", conveniently forgetting it's the fundamentalist community that's the only one who is creating this fuss in the first place and science class should be about science, not explanations posing as science.

And of course that (here we go again ;)) that it simply *isn't* a matter of either the Theory of Evolution through natural selection OR Genesis. Multiple scientific alternatives to natural/"Darwinian" selection are in fact already taught in classes. And indeed many are not, including many different non-scientific ones.

But of course, saying "it is unfair that our pet idea, which is number 250.173 on the ranking list of collected most scientific explanations, gets no time when compared to the top 5 !" does not sound as well.

I surely do. Quite a big fan, actually.

I like their music, I like their lyrics, and I find them a source of insight... I'm not sure what more you can ask. And the singer is adorable.

And don't leave out that they put on one hell of a show :D

Wow, I point out how the question is pre-disposed to a worldview and a dishonest quest for Truth; <SNIP>

For me, the most amusing thing about this is that I actually think it is quite likely that Jesus was a real person, so UN D's basis for attack is ridiculous.

For me, the most amusing thing about this is that I actually think it is quite likely that Jesus was a real person, so UN D's basis for attack is ridiculous.

it was ridiculous to have such a large post complaining about such a short, to-the-point OP.

it was ridiculous to have such a large post complaining about such a short, to-the-point OP.

There's that too :p

it was ridiculous to have such a large post complaining about such a short, to-the-point OP.

Not to mention I fail to see where one could view "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" as a "loaded question", at least literally. It's not like the question was "why believe in Jesus if it hasn't been shown he exists?", or "where's the evidence for the existence of Jesus, and does it matter if that existence is questionable?"- those are loaded questions. "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" isn't.

EDIT- 27 more replies to this thread and it becomes the 10th-most replied to topic on NSG. Not bad for a topic that's only been around for a little over three weeks.

Can you show this evidence ? I mean, historians and archeologists have been sofar unable to find it so it could make you very famous.
I totally agree. I watched this show that scientists believe that they have found the tomb of Jesus, but who really cares? I'm an aethiest :)

Not to mention I fail to see where one could view "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" as a "loaded question", at least literally. It's not like the question was "why believe in Jesus if it hasn't been shown he exists?", or "where's the evidence for the existence of Jesus, and does it matter if that existence is questionable?"- those are loaded questions. "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" isn't.

EDIT- 27 more replies to this thread and it becomes the 10th-most replied to topic on NSG. Not bad for a topic that's only been around for a little over three weeks.

Yay me! ;)

Not to mention I fail to see where one could view "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" as a "loaded question", at least literally. It's not like the question was "why believe in Jesus if it hasn't been shown he exists?", or "where's the evidence for the existence of Jesus, and does it matter if that existence is questionable?"- those are loaded questions. "Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?" isn't.

EDIT- 27 more replies to this thread and it becomes the 10th-most replied to topic on NSG. Not bad for a topic that's only been around for a little over three weeks.

geeez how can we sqeeze in 26 more posts? is there some part of this topic that we have left out?

so....

if we grant some credence to the existence of jesus, as most of us seem to, just what can we say about him with any confidence?

geeez how can we sqeeze in 26 more posts? is there some part of this topic that we have left out?

so....

if we grant some credence to the existence of jesus, as most of us seem to, just what can we say about him with any confidence?

That he's long dead.