NationStates Jolt Archive

It is possible, but you cannot disprove my calculations.

I dismiss the claim that 'jesus' was a real person. I dismiss xtianity as a valid religion.

I do not have to supply evidence that 'jesus' did not exist, nor do I have to provide evidence xtianity is false.

You have circular reasoning. You dismiss my calculations because you believe them to be made up, yet you are willing to entertain a possibility that a godman exists.

I am willing to entertain the possibility that your calculations of probability are accurate as well. However, that you used them as evidence for your claims of the probability of Jesus' existence is where you run into trouble. I dsimiss your argument and thus your conclusion;

You don't have to supply evidence that Jesus didn't exist, unless you CLAIM that he didn't exist. In which case, you place a burden of proof on yourself. Similarly with a claim that Christianity is false. As long as you are only dismissing the positive claims of others, then you have no burden of proof. Thus, keep your claims to the second paragraph of the post I'm quoting and you won't have to argue for 10 pages about how an appeal to ignorance is perfectly logical.

EDIT: Also, you misused the term "circular reasoning". This really isn't going well for you.

The minutia is thick in here.

Careful, you just invalidated your own conclusion.

Um, no, that was sarcasm. I happen to recognize the world doesn't work that way and that we accept lots of things that are not emperical. It's ludicrous to claim that everything we believe and feel is emperical. In fact, autism has a lot to do with the inability to deal with the nuances of the world. It's considered a disorder to ignore the rather subtle ways we reach our beliefs.

Plus, you have to love the irony of someone claiming that all claims must be evidenced with a gigantic appeal to ignorance in his signature.

... you know perfectly well this is a fallacy. Do not lower yourself to the level of some opponents ;)

I was being sarcastic and demonstrating that some things simply aren't emperical. Much of our language is dedicated to things that cannot be emperically shown. We have whole disciplines surrounding thought about the non-emperical.

nothing a human can experience is outside the scientific framework. if something can be sensed by human senses it can be measured.
Hillarious!

So all of philosophy, art, literature, poetry, emotion, etc., is inside the scientific framework and can be empirically measured? Of course not.

Science is, thankfully, not the be-all and end-all of human existence. A huge amount of human experience and enquiry is dedicated to things that science cannot even describe. Science cannot empirically measure the beauty of Michaelangelo's works, the pleasure of Shakespeare's sonnets, the truth or not of Kant's philosophy, the love that one has for a partner.

"a matter of faith" means to bypass reason out of convenience.
Then the scientific framework, according to your thesis, bypasses reason.

The minutia is thick in here.

Like I said, when you've got no way to refute an argument, you make some random comment and drop the argument.

Why is it minutia to point out the difference between dismissing a claim and making a positive counter-claim? Because it shows how you're wrong and places a burden of proof on you?

Meanwhile, how are you coming on that post where I claim that one can logically conclude Jesus existed?

Hillarious!

So all of philosophy, art, literature, poetry, emotion, etc., is inside the scientific framework and can be empirically measured? Of course not. Science is, thankfully, not the be-all and end-all of human existence.


Then the scientific framework, according to your thesis, bypasses reason.

Precisely.

I was being sarcastic and demonstrating that some things simply aren't emperical. Much of our language is dedicated to things that cannot be emperically shown. We have whole disciplines surrounding thought about the non-emperical.

Absed on this reply it seems you do not understand *why* the statement is fallacious. But before I assume, can you explain it yourself ?

"Again" ?



*goes on a quest to find it* ;)

Do a search for a post by CanuckHeaven with my name in it. The first one on the list has all the links in it. I'd actually forgotten I'd written all that in reply to Straughn, but I'm quite thankful that CanuckHeaven reminded me.

Absed on this reply it seems you do not understand *why* the statement is fallacious. But before I assume, can you explain it yourself ?

Well, I wrote the statement because it was something that was necessarily non-emperical. I worded it that way intentionally, which is why it makes a good example. Requesting that someone use emperical evidence for a non-emperical claim isn't a valid request.

However, I'd gather from the outside many fallacies could apply. For one, it could be considered a strawman.

So all of philosophy, art, literature, poetry, emotion, etc., is inside the scientific framework and can be empirically measured?What's the alternative? That human thought is metaphysical? You know how a brain works, don't you? How would divine revelation work? Inducing signals in your nervous system?

What's the alternative? That human thought is metaphysical? You know how a brain works, don't you? How would divine revelation work? Inducing signals in your nervous system?

In that case, divine revelation could be emperically measured as well. Everything we think is equally emperical since all of it is "inducing signals in your nervous system". What does that have to do with anything? How does this aid your argument?

We take a large amount of things on faith, including the commonly held belief which science rests on that if experiment x results in outcome y, then experiment x will always result in outcome y. This is know as the problem of induction, and it's simply a matter of 'faith'. There's no better way to describe it.

i don't know that the 'faith' that induction works, or that there is a world outside our heads, or that i'm not dreaming is really the same sort of thing as faith in some religion or even in some abstract faith in the existence of gods.

for one thing, such 'faith' is apparently unavoidable. even those who attempt to deny them still leave buildings by going down the stairs and out the door rather than jumping off of the balcony. religious faiths, on the other hand, are many and varied and inconsistently held.

What's the alternative? That human thought is metaphysical?
Not in my opinion, no.

All I am saying is that science cannot even describe, let alone measure, a vast amount of human experience. Unless you're seriously suggesting that the scientific framework can accurately describe the beauty of a painting, or the emotion of love?

What's the fear of looking outside science?

You know how a brain works, don't you?
Very basically; although next year I hope to take a course in conciousness that includes a section on the anatomy and workings of the brain.

But this is hardly relevant. Once again UB: do you truly think that every single human experience can be fully and accurately described by science?

i don't know that the 'faith' that induction works, or that there is a world outside our heads, or that i'm not dreaming is really the same sort of thing as faith in some religion or even in some abstract faith in the existence of gods.

for one thing, such 'faith' is apparently unavoidable. even those who attempt to deny them still leave buildings by going down the stairs and out the door rather than jumping off of the balcony. religious faiths, on the other hand, are many and varied and inconsistently held.

I would agree that such faith is not equivalent to many, many kinds of religious faith, but the point that brought this up was the claim that we cannot hold anything to be true that cannot be emperically measured. That very claim requires a belief in something without evidence, a act of faith.

i don't know that the 'faith' that induction works, or that there is a world outside our heads, or that i'm not dreaming is really the same sort of thing as faith in some religion or even in some abstract faith in the existence of gods.
No, that's fair enough.

My point was that it can't be empirically proven, as UB was wanting (I think) to discard anything that couldn't be empirically proven.

for one thing, such 'faith' is apparently unavoidable. even those who attempt to deny them still leave buildings by going down the stairs and out the door rather than jumping off of the balcony. religious faiths, on the other hand, are many and varied and inconsistently held.
Oh, I quite agree. But it'd be too much of a stretch to say that science could empirically prove that empirical proof is infallible.

If you simply ignore his existence until their is evidence, then you'd be doing what science does when there is a lack of evidence.

except when evidence is lacking that should be there - then we have to come up with a story of why the evidence is lacking. in some cases, the epistemically justified story is to believe that there just ain't such a thing to have left evidence in the first place. we have to be careful to distinguish between the lack of evidence caused by not looking at all or looking wrongly or whatever, and the lack of evidence that occurs because there ain't no there there.

if X should occur as a logical consequence of Y, and X didn't occur, then Y didn't either.

except when evidence is lacking that should be there - then we have to come up with a story of why the evidence is lacking. in some cases, the epistemically justified story is that there just ain't such a thing to have left evidence in the first place. we have to be careful to distinguish between the lack of evidence caused by not looking at all or looking wrongly or whatever, and the lack of evidence that occurs because there ain't no there there.

if X should occur as a logical consequence of Y, and X didn't occur, then Y didn't either.

Why should it be there? There are plenty of logical explanations for a lack of evidence of a street preacher from 2000 years ago. (Yes, you're making a general point and not specifically supporting non-existence here. I'm jut applying it to the topic).

I actually made that point earlier. Someone brought up the pink unicorn example, and I made the point you're making. When using lack of evidence you have to demonstrate specifically what should have been there and why it would necessarily be so. It's a common practice in science, but it puts the burden on the person trying to demonstrate that positive claim of non-existence.

But this is hardly relevant. Once again UB: do you truly think that every single human experience can be fully and accurately described by science?What do you mean? Science is only a tool for human comprehension. It's not something substantial in itself. It's only an extension of human senses, a better means to find things out. It's a way to find out and make sure, that's all. And if a human can sense and experience something then a scientific method can be invented to measure it.
And if you claim that a human body can receive signals from the divine you better have evidence for it. How do you exclude other sources? How do you pinpoint the characteristics of the divine? E.g., how do you determine it's the biblical god or that dude jesus?

What do you mean? Science is only a tool for human comprehension. It's not something substantial in itself. It's only an extension of human senses, a better means to find things out. It's a way to find out and make sure, that's all. And if a human can sense and experience something then a scientific method can be invented to measure it.
And if you claim that a human body can receive signals from the divine you better have evidence for it. How do you exclude other sources? How do you pinpoint the characteristics of the divine? E.g., how do you determine it's the biblical god?

Why do you have to exclude other sources? Why would you have to pinpoint the characteristics of the divine?

Why is it required that we be able to measure it? Our inability to address certains aspects of our existence with emperical measurement doesn't make them cease to worth addressing in other ways. You keep making an non-emperical, value-based argument for how things "should be done" and then claiming that there is no value to other systems. Why? What's your evidence that the only value to man is applying your system?

What do you mean? Science is only a tool for human comprehension. It's not something substantial in itself.
Indeed. But, like most people on this planet, I use the term 'science' as a shorthand for 'the scientific framework'. So perhaps the question should be: do you truly think that every single human experience can be fully and accurately described within the scientific framework?

It's only an extension of human senses, a better means to find things out. It's a way to find out and make sure, that's all.
It's a way to find out things that can be empirically measured and tested. And literature, art, poetry, much of philosophy, etc., cannot be empirically measured and tested.

And if a human can sense and experience something then a scientific method can be invented to measure it.
Not at all.

You cannot empirically measure love or sadness, or test whether Mark Rothko's art is beautiful or not. One can't use science to find out if Aristotle was correct about Eudaimonia, or whether Peter Cook was funny.

The scientific framework fails in these respects because these things are outside such a framework; it would be meaningless to attempt to subject them, and a huge amount of human experience, to scientific enquiry.

OT: I'm sorry for my english END OT

What do you mean? Science is only a tool for human comprehension.

Science is a tool for REPRESENT the reality.

It's only an extension of human senses, a better means to find things out. It's a way to find out and make sure, that's all. And if a human can sense and experience something then a scientific method can be invented to measure it.


I disagree, Science is NOT an extansion of human senses.

Because most of things "a human can sense and experience" does not really exist.
Science cares about objective reality, and objective reality is both more AND less than what we can "experience".

A simple example: colors. Colors do not "exist per se" (they aren't "things"), the colors are just the way our brains interpret a limited frequency spectrum of electromagnetic waves.
For another creature the flower we see red probably is violet, and we and the creature are saying the truth even if we say two different truth about the color of the flower.
The OBJECTIVE reality is that the flower absorbs waves of a certain frequency and reflects other and it is an opaque body.

So you wont etablish if Jesus really existed... do you have archeological evidences to say "Yes" or "No" ? These evidences do not exist or to support a thesis or the other.

BUT I say: it's this really IMPORTANT ? To appreciate a framework do you SEE it or you analyze the frequency spectrum of electromagnetic waves which absorbs and reflects ?

This is why I respect every religion And people who have faith even if none of the existing ones can prove anything says "truth".
A framework can make me cry for the feelings but another person may remain totally indifferent to it, so the religion.

Demanding that our sentiments, as well as our faith are "objective truth" it's the same to demand an artwork will inspire the same emotions in anyone who looks. It's absurd IMHO.

I figured this Dark Star exchange might be helpful, given the direction this thread has jumped off the cliff towards.

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know
that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!
Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.
Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That's it! That's it!
Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?
Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bomb #20: To explode, of course.
Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?
Bomb #20: That is correct.
Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?
Bomb #20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bomb #20: Yes...well...
Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.
Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.
Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this.
Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.
Bomb #20: Hmmmm....
Doolittle: So, if you detonate...
Bomb #20: In nine seconds....
Doolittle: ...you could be doing so on the basis of false data.
Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false data.
Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!
Bomb #20: I must think on this further.

Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello...bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?!
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.
Bomb #20: In the beginning there was darkness. And the darkness was without form and void.
Pinback: Umm. What the hell is he talking about? Bomb?
Bomb #20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone.
Pinback: Hey.....bomb?
Bomb #20: Let There Be Light. [He detonates]

I would agree that such faith is not equivalent to many, many kinds of religious faith, but the point that brought this up was the claim that we cannot hold anything to be true that cannot be emperically measured. That very claim requires a belief in something without evidence, a act of faith.

yeah, the problem inherent in verificationism is well known. i was making a side point about the word 'faith'. in fact, the problem with the claim above isn't so much that it necessitates 'faith', as it is in contradiction with itself. if we hold it to be true, then we must hold it to be false.

Again, your term "godman" is not an accurate representation of what all Christians believe.

Since you're addressing probability now. What is the probability of the existence of Jesus Christ and how did you calculate it?

50/50; either he did or he didn't

50/50; either he did or he didn't

Oh, God, that's painful when people do that. I know you're kidding. It's like when on those reality shows they say you have a 1 in 4 chance of winning. That's only if it's complete chance. Ugh!

Oh, God, that's painful when people do that. I know you're kidding. It's like when on those reality shows they say you have a 1 in 4 chance of winning. That's only if it's complete chance. Ugh!

:( Sorry :(

Except: He claimed the conclusion of existence was valid despite there being no evidence. This is the error he made and why we are here. So that may well be what he is saying NOW but previously he made the logical fallacy of concluding existence over non-existence.

I did? Please quote me?
It appears that the Slave lady is making up stuff now. More than two many times.

50/50; either he did or he didn't

Sadly, My dad knew someone in college who thought that reasoning was perfectly logical when asked what the probability of an average person having AIDS was.

Sadly, My dad knew someone in college who thought that reasoning was perfectly logical when asked what the probability of an average person having AIDS was.

It is logical, its just way over simplified (to the point of being meaningless)

It is logical, its just way over simplified (to the point of being meaningless)

It's logical, but ignorant. Oversimplification is a problem we're having in another thread. Applying such oversimplifications to the real world is, as you say, meaningless.

that's nothing substantial.

Not strictly true.

It's certainly a substantial body of evidence, it's just not capable of being corroborated with independent, contemporary sources - which makes it a bit of a problem source for some people to accept.

For others - it's more than enough.

Do a search for a post by CanuckHeaven with my name in it. The first one on the list has all the links in it. I'd actually forgotten I'd written all that in reply to Straughn, but I'm quite thankful that CanuckHeaven reminded me.
I will dig it up for you....that is if I can find it. :)

It appears that the Slave lady is making up stuff now. More than two many times.

Yes, as you'll notice, she never did supply that quote. And earlier before I entered the thread she made a claim about the amount of evidence for another religion and when asked for that evidence, she calmly and carefully avoided the question altogether.

For someone who is so obsessed with evidence, she seems completely unwilling to provide any for her positive claims.

I will dig it up for you....that is if I can find it. :)

I told you how to find it. I'd get it myself but searching is just so slow. I meant to thank you in a TG, but I spaced it. Thank you for writing that.

Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. Lack of evidence leads to the logical conclusion of non-existence.


That's not actually logical....

I have no 'evidence' of most of the rest of the world, yet it would be illogical to assume it just doesn't exist. I should just reserve judgement on the details I can't corroborate.

The thread has deteriorated into the minutia of procedure and definitions.

I am actually surprised someone hasn't quoted Godwin's Law yet.

However, Occam's Razor applies here better than anything else.

If there is no evidence of existence, the simplest conclusion is non-existence.

Now if you would like to provide evidence of existence, we can all go away happy.

You think that pointing out logical fallacies is 'deteriorating into minutiae of procedure and defintions'?

There's the problem, right there... if you're not willing to 'play by the rules', so to speak... if you're not willing to restrict your argument to the logical toolbox, and avoid the fallacy... then what youa re doing isn't 'debate'.

Ont he other note, of course, if all you need to 'go away happy' is 'evidence of existence'... well, the New Testament is evidence...

You think that pointing out logical fallacies is 'deteriorating into minutiae of procedure and defintions'?

There's the problem, right there... if you're not willing to 'play by the rules', so to speak... if you're not willing to restrict your argument to the logical toolbox, and avoid the fallacy... then what youa re doing isn't 'debate'.

Ont he other note, of course, if all you need to 'go away happy' is 'evidence of existence'... well, the New Testament is evidence...

Careful. She's gonna call you a fundamentalist and I'm going to choke to death on my tacos. Nobody wants that.

Ont he other note, of course, if all you need to 'go away happy' is 'evidence of existence'... well, the New Testament is evidence...

Biased evidence :)

if there is no evidence either way, then why assume the possibility of jesus' existence, and even more his existence as a divine figure, in the first place? that's just plain idiotic.

There is evidence. That's the whole point. And a whole lot of people ahve taken it as sufficient evidence to assume a literal existence, for most of recent history.

It's possible (especially now, in some fairly enlightened times) to argue the evidence isn't all that GOOD, but it is still evidence.

Some people need crutches.

Some people like comfort. You could argue the two things are the same, but you could also argue they don't have to be.

Yes, as you'll notice, she never did supply that quote. And earlier before I entered the thread she made a claim about the amount of evidence for another religion and when asked for that evidence, she calmly and carefully avoided the question altogether.

For someone who is so obsessed with evidence, she seems completely unwilling to provide any for her positive claims.
Yes indeed, she has totally evaded providing evidence of said claims.

I doubt that she will.

What does it matter? The basic tenet of xtianity is the existence of a godman so what is your point? If they did not believe in the godman they would not be xtians.

Now, this is starting to get into semantics... well, dangerously close to No-True-Scotsman territory, also.

I'd argue a 'christian' is someone that follows the teachings of the (man they call) Christ. I've seen some argue a 'christian' is someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour.. some who have ritual accessories they feel must be attached. Some who feel it describes almost any of the 'christ' denominations except for Catholics.. .for some reason.

Certainly, not everyone that could be termed 'christian' accepts the godman proposition. Not that there is even ONE proposition there... I've seen a half dozen different interpretations for how the god and man elements figure in the equation.

Yes indeed, she has totally evaded providing evidence of said claims.

I doubt that she will.

My favorite part is when she just starts randomly saying things. She told me I treat UB like my Jesus because I agreed with him once. I mean, that's delusion on a level that deserves hospitalization.

I told you how to find it. I'd get it myself but searching is just so slow. I meant to thank you in a TG, but I spaced it. Thank you for writing that.
It was my pleasure writing it and posting the link here for you!!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13150123&postcount=59

Hope that is the one that you meant.

It is possible, but you cannot disprove my calculations.

I dismiss the claim that 'jesus' was a real person. I dismiss xtianity as a valid religion.

I do not have to supply evidence that 'jesus' did not exist, nor do I have to provide evidence xtianity is false.

You have circular reasoning. You dismiss my calculations because you believe them to be made up, yet you are willing to entertain a possibility that a godman exists.

Based on your own internal 'logic'... it is not necessary "to supply evidence" to "disprove (your) calculations".

In absence of evidence to the contrary, your calculations are non-existent... that's the argument you've been making.

My favorite part is when she just starts randomly saying things. She told me I treat UB like my Jesus because I agreed with him once. I mean, that's delusion on a level that deserves hospitalization.
Blame it on the blue moon. :D The agreement that is!!

Yes, making those kind of comments are a diversionary tactic.

Careful. She's gonna call you a fundamentalist and I'm going to choke to death on my tacos. Nobody wants that.

I am a fundamentalist. I'm fundamentally opposed to bad logic. :)

Biased evidence :)

Bias doesn't make evidence automatically false.

Fox has a newspaper?
At the time, the best they had was third person oral tradition. :p

Agreed. So can we all agree that jesus existed and was a small gerbil ?

There's a special kinda worship down that lane.
http://www.kernelthread.com/miscellaneous/southpark/images/6/614.gif

You have no evidence aliens are snot gobules either.


http://www.mikeargento.com/img/18whale.600.jpg
?

Maybe because religion fills a need he feels that nothing else does?

*Goatse pic removed*
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65306&rendTypeId=4

oh, please. telepathy or what?
:eek:
I knew you were going to say that!

Look out for the spaghetti monster.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060516-F-9712C-956.JPG

weasel.
Hey. DO NOT dis weasels.
They have much better and consistent character than MOST people.

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know
that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!
Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.
Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That's it! That's it!
Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?
Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bomb #20: To explode, of course.
Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?
Bomb #20: That is correct.
Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?
Bomb #20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bomb #20: Yes...well...
Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.
Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.
Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this.
Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.
Bomb #20: Hmmmm....
Doolittle: So, if you detonate...
Bomb #20: In nine seconds....
Doolittle: ...you could be doing so on the basis of false data.
Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false data.
Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!
Bomb #20: I must think on this further.

Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello...bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?!
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.
Bomb #20: In the beginning there was darkness. And the darkness was without form and void.
Pinback: Umm. What the hell is he talking about? Bomb?
Bomb #20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone.
Pinback: Hey.....bomb?
Bomb #20: Let There Be Light. [He detonates]

Nice. :)

Bias doesn't make evidence automatically false.

Ask anyone who thinks there's really a "liberal media conspiracy" of any significance. :p

Since all/most atheists believe in a finite life, I believe that they would be more prone to a fear of death then Christians.

They do?
Are you suggesting that atheists believe in a life after death?

Are you suggesting that atheists believe in a life after death?

No. I'm contesting your assertion that all or most atheists must intrinsically believe otherwise.

Myself, I'm not sure... as is true in so many arenas... but I've met atheists who envision a variety of different 'after this' experiences... from reincarnation, through some kind of gaia-event, to some kind of literal 'after life'.

It would take a particularly shortsighted approach to honestly believe that the rest of the world assumes there are only two options 'bible heaven' or 'six feet under'.

I say, I'm pretty sure I'll end up in the ground, but I really don't know if that's the end of 'me' or just the end of 'meat'. And neither does anyone else, until they die. So you might want to step down from your high horse there, pilgrim.

Ask anyone who thinks there's really a "liberal media conspiracy" of any significance. :p

Nah, that's just reality. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Ya know, i think Colbert's The Word is going to be a bit different w/out the writers. :p

Um, no. By my account, nothing written in the history books could be proven to be 100% accurate. There is a huge difference.

<snip>

Ah, my bad. Your post made it seem like you were suggesting "there was no point in compiling history, since none of it can be proven" and, as the proud owner of a History Degree, I just had to object to that.

Now that I understand, I would say I agree- history, like science, doesn't prove anything "100%". It's part of the misconceptions many people have concerning the study of history- I bump into quite a few people who think memorizing "names and dates" means they "know history" when they don't. History isn't just spouting random facts- it's about putting it all together and figuring out "how" we got here, as knowledge is useless without application.

So with a lack of evidence of writings it is logical to conclude there aren't any. Wasn't it you who said the conclusion outweighs the evidence or something equally as silly?

....

No. They stated what they meant. No writings about a mythical 'jesus' has been found. Therefore not one person wrote about him is an acurate conclusion.

There's only one way to conclude, without a doubt, that Jesus Christ did not exist- we unearth a series of documents that state clearly that someone (or a group of people) got together and "created" Jesus Christ (in much the same manner that we know that Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse). Outside of that, you can't conclude it- as it has been pointed out to you before, lack of evidence does not mean the subject in question does not exist- it just means there's a lack of evidence. The problem with ascerting that "a lack of evidence indicates a lack of existence" is that it rests on the notion that evidence cannot and does not exist- something that gets blown up once evidence is found. You *can* conclude without evidence that the subject in question might not have existed, but you cannot say that it did not exist, because that lies on a certainty that you just can't produce.

alll very true. and one wonders why none of our other christian defenders felt strong enough to make just such an argument.

jesus WASNT a figure as big as king herod in his own time. he made a brief splash then was crucified. i dont see why anyone would jot down the name and history of an executed criminal. would a jewish official use a bit of precious papyrus to record another messiah wannabe being executed? i dont see why.

jesus is only important after his followers build up enough of a group that they cant keep it all straight and need to start writing stuff down. by then it was so spread out that all sorts of stories got made up to emphasize different ideas on the nature of god and christ.

but having that following and making those stories are not proof of the existence of jesus. (as you know.) which is what seems to make most of the christians in this thread crazy. they refuse to acknowledge the obvious lack of proof as if it is indeed a proof of non-existence.

if you are a believer you shouldnt need an historical record to back up your belief. if you are not a believer, there is no historical record to suggest that you should believe.

The common argument is that Josephus wrote pages on petty criminals but nothing on Jesus Christ (whose story, the arguerers figure, should be extraordinary enough to have pages worth of material on), but it's not likely Josephus wrote on *all* criminals and, besides, Josephus could have ommitted Jesus' story for other reasons.

I think the main reason why scholars are looking back at Biblical stories such as the New Testament and re-examining how historically accurate they are is because it's only now that the climate allows us to do so- 500 years ago it would have been hearsay, and as recently as 100-200 years ago (depending on where you were) the Church was still too well-established for most people to argue against it. The idea of "critically evaluating" the Bible is still uncomfortable to some since they perceive it as an attack on their faith when it isn't- having a better understanding of the Bible and knowing where it comes from enhances its Message.

"Biblical scholarship" is still very much in its infancy, but I'm very curious as to where it will end up, because the results so far have been very fascinating. :)

Are you suggesting that atheists believe in a life after death?
Most atheists don't even believe in a life before death.

Ah, my bad. Your post made it seem like you were suggesting "there was no point in compiling history, since none of it can be proven" and, as the proud owner of a History Degree, I just had to object to that.

Now that I understand, I would say I agree- history, like science, doesn't prove anything "100%". It's part of the misconceptions many people have concerning the study of history- I bump into quite a few people who think memorizing "names and dates" means they "know history" when they don't. History isn't just spouting random facts- it's about putting it all together and figuring out "how" we got here, as knowledge is useless without application.



There's only one way to conclude, without a doubt, that Jesus Christ did not exist- we unearth a series of documents that state clearly that someone (or a group of people) got together and "created" Jesus Christ (in much the same manner that we know that Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse). Outside of that, you can't conclude it- as it has been pointed out to you before, lack of evidence does not mean the subject in question does not exist- it just means there's a lack of evidence. The problem with ascerting that "a lack of evidence indicates a lack of existence" is that it rests on the notion that evidence cannot and does not exist- something that gets blown up once evidence is found. You *can* conclude without evidence that the subject in question might not have existed, but you cannot say that it did not exist, because that lies on a certainty that you just can't produce.



The common argument is that Josephus wrote pages on petty criminals but nothing on Jesus Christ (whose story, the arguerers figure, should be extraordinary enough to have pages worth of material on), but it's not likely Josephus wrote on *all* criminals and, besides, Josephus could have ommitted Jesus' story for other reasons.

I think the main reason why scholars are looking back at Biblical stories such as the New Testament and re-examining how historically accurate they are is because it's only now that the climate allows us to do so- 500 years ago it would have been hearsay, and as recently as 100-200 years ago (depending on where you were) the Church was still too well-established for most people to argue against it. The idea of "critically evaluating" the Bible is still uncomfortable to some since they perceive it as an attack on their faith when it isn't- having a better understanding of the Bible and knowing where it comes from enhances its Message.

"Biblical scholarship" is still very much in its infancy, but I'm very curious as to where it will end up, because the results so far have been very fascinating. :)


I agree with the essence of all of this.

Most atheists don't even believe in a life before death.
Although I am somewhat reluctant to give you any air time, could you please explain what you mean by that statement?

Bias doesn't make evidence automatically false.

I wasn't saying that it did, I was simply pointing out the obvious

Most atheists don't even believe in a life before death.

:confused::confused:

No. I'm contesting your assertion that all or most atheists must intrinsically believe otherwise.
Fair enough, I shall broaden my horizons.

Myself, I'm not sure... as is true in so many arenas... but I've met atheists who envision a variety of different 'after this' experiences... from reincarnation, through some kind of gaia-event, to some kind of literal 'after life'.
And what are their basis for these beliefs?

It would take a particularly shortsighted approach to honestly believe that the rest of the world assumes there are only two options 'bible heaven' or 'six feet under'.
Well it would be rather interesting to hear from atheists as to their beliefs on this matter.

I say, I'm pretty sure I'll end up in the ground, but I really don't know if that's the end of 'me' or just the end of 'meat'. And neither does anyone else, until they die.
I tend to agree with you there.

So you might want to step down from your high horse there, pilgrim.
The question was based on seeking understanding rather than based on ego. Sorry if you mistook my purpose.

Well it would be rather interesting to hear from atheists as to their beliefs on this matter.

For myself, I like to think that I will be reincarnated, no reason for it other than I like the idea.

Nah, that's just reality. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.Ya know, i think Colbert's The Word is going to be a bit different w/out the writers. :p

nah, he can just crib stuff from here, like he did with that phrase. me and rpp were saying it here before colbert's show went on the air (though we said 'left-wing' rather than 'liberal', what with the thinking liberals suck and all).

And what are their basis for these beliefs?


Well, the same as everyone else, I imagine... a vested interest in wanting there to be something more, perhaps? Or... just not knowing?

In absence of an 'atheist scripture', there's no code of belief to follow... so I suspect it comes down to what seems most 'logical'.


Well it would be rather interesting to hear from atheists as to their beliefs on this matter.


Well, I already stated mine. If I think about it - about the only way I can really see a 'beyond the grave' existence that might be plausible to me, would be some kind of 'gaia principle'. It's hard to determine exactly where our consciousness resides, so maybe some essence or element might return to the collective consciousness of reality... a kind of synergy.

It's total speculation, of course... but as I study the idea, it strikes me as not too dissimilar to 'dust to dust'.


The question was based on seeking understanding rather than based on ego. Sorry if you mistook my purpose.

Then I apologise if I came across as disproportionately acidic.

Well, the same as everyone else, I imagine... a vested interest in wanting there to be something more, perhaps? Or... just not knowing?

In absence of an 'atheist scripture', there's no code of belief to follow... so I suspect it comes down to what seems most 'logical'.

Or most personally fulfilling.

Or most personally fulfilling.

That'd work, too. :)

I admit, I only really know anything about 'me' - I'm certainly not trying to answer for everyone. I appreciate the response. :)

That'd work, too. :)

I admit, I only really know anything about 'me' - I'm certainly not trying to answer for everyone. I appreciate the response. :)

I guess I just don't like to think of this as "cold logic" vs. "dogmatic lack of reason." There are very reasonable positions on both sides, and yet at the same time the atheist side is hardly the paragon of cold logical virtue. I don't see why I can't base my personal belief on the afterlife on my gut and still consider myself an atheist.

I guess I just don't like to think of this as "cold logic" vs. "dogmatic lack of reason." There are very reasonable positions on both sides, and yet at the same time the atheist side is hardly the paragon of cold logical virtue. I don't see why I can't base my personal belief on the afterlife on my gut and still consider myself an atheist.

I agree. I think atheism tends towards rationaliity... but as a spectrum I think it must encompass most camps, and certainly can't claim sole right to any.

I don't think atheism intrinsically takes any stance on the question of afterlife scenarios... just on the question of belief in gods.

...
I think the main reason why scholars are looking back at Biblical stories such as the New Testament and re-examining how historically accurate they are is because it's only now that the climate allows us to do so- 500 years ago it would have been hearsay, and as recently as 100-200 years ago (depending on where you were) the Church was still too well-established for most people to argue against it. The idea of "critically evaluating" the Bible is still uncomfortable to some since they perceive it as an attack on their faith when it isn't- having a better understanding of the Bible and knowing where it comes from enhances its Message.

"Biblical scholarship" is still very much in its infancy, but I'm very curious as to where it will end up, because the results so far have been very fascinating. :)

I’m hesitant to interject here at all, because I agree with you far more than I disagree with anything of yours that I’ve quoted above. But for the sake of adding a different opinion, or a different point of view, and for the sake of defending what is commonly attacked around here, I will risk interjecting.

Although biblical criticism is a new phrase for a title for the field of study that was coined in the nineteenth century, I’ll argue that the field of biblical criticism has always existed. IF biblical criticism is defined the way wiki aptly paraphrases it:

Biblical criticism is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."[1] It asks when and where a particular text originated, how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced, what influences were at work in its production, what sources were used in its composition, and the message it was intended to convey. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history, and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines, including linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

I submit that the founding church fathers, like Irenaeus’ in his Adversus Haereses, were in fact the first people to publish Biblical criticism. First he asked when and where and why and by whom various gospels were recorded, and from these findings he accepts some and dismisses others. (I’m abbreviating almost to the point of the absurd, but I’m hoping the reader here is familiar with the work enough to fill in the blanks because what he said isn’t important for my point, it’s the criticism of the scriptures itself that I’m talking about here). And for hundreds of years (even a thousand plus) until the council of Trent in 1546 (not the council of Nicaea which so commonly misrepresented as the place the NT was assembled and turned into canon), the church fathers were still exercising and practicing Biblical Criticism and debating the merits of individual texts and the reliability and authorship and whatnot to meet the definition of Biblical Criticism today.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[18] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[19] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[20] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[21] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[22] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[23] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[24] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[25] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[26] Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[27] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

In conclusion, we can look to the second century Irenaeus for the reasons why the 4 canon gospels have survived such criticisms for all this two millennia, and as far back as 367 AD when the entire NT was being assembled for the first time, the founding church fathers have always employed Biblical Criticism to discern which books are the oldest, most authentic, and most historically accurate for what the very first Christians in the first half of the first century taught and believed and wrote by the mid to second half of the first century. And modern Biblical Criticism has in no way established that the founding church fathers got any of it wrong. The oldest and most authentic gospels ever discovered so far ARE the four canonized gospel Matthew Mark Luke and John.

I’m not saying that there weren’t some lost gospels along the way, that were authentic and original apostle writings, I’m saying that the rejected gospels we are aware of today, via archaeological discoveries, show that the Gnostic gospels were the late comers and were not able to stand up the questions brought on by Biblical Criticism questions.

In the end, I think the opinions that are brought out in forums like this when the topic of "Did Jesus exist" or "can we really believe what the bible says is what they said then since everyone knows it's been changed who knows how many times over the centuries" is really just an erroneous understanding of how we have the scripture today and how we can and do know what it says is an accurate interpretation of what they said then. Whether any of what the NT says is in fact true is NOT my topic here, I'm talking about what we have today being what they had wrote then and the oldest and most authentic books are discovered through Biblical Criticism to be the ones we have in the NT canon.


(This is probably too long a post, people won't read it anyway, but meh, whatever ;) )

I’m hesitant to interject here at all, because I agree with you far more than I disagree with anything of yours that I’ve quoted above. But for the sake of adding a differemt opinion, or a different point of view, and for the sake of defending what is commonly attacked around here, I will risk interjecting.

Although biblical criticism is a new phrase for a title for the field of study that was coined in the nineteenth century, I’ll argue that the field of biblical criticism has always existed. IF biblical criticism is defined the way wiki aptly paraphrases it:

Biblical criticism is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."[1] It asks when and where a particular text originated, how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced, what influences were at work in its production, what sources were used in its composition, and the message it was intended to convey. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history, and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines, including linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

I submit that the founding church fathers, like Irenaeus’ in his Adversus Haereses, were in fact the first people to publish Biblical criticism. First he asked when and where and why and by whom various gospels were recorded, and from these findings he accepts some and dismisses others. (I’m abbreviating almost to the point of the absurd, but I’m hoping the reader here is familiar with the work enough to fill in the blanks because what he said isn’t important for my point, it’s the criticism of the scriptures itself that I’m talking about here). And for hundreds of years (even a thousand plus) until the council of Trent in 1546 (not the council of Nicaea which so commonly misrepresented as the place the NT was assembled and turned into canon), the church fathers were still exercising and practicing Biblical Criticism and debating the merits of individual texts and the reliability and authorship and whatnot to meet the definition of Biblical Criticism today.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[18] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[19] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[20] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[21] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[22] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[23] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[24] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[25] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[26] Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[27] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

In conclusion, we can look to the first century Irenaeus for the reasons why the 4 canon gospels have survived such criticisms for all this two millennia, and as far back as 367 AD when the entire NT was being assembled for the first time, the founding church fathers have always employed Biblical Criticism to discern which books are the oldest, most authentic, and most historically accurate for what the very first Christians in the first half of the first century taught and believed and wrote by the mid to second half of the first century. And modern Biblical Criticism has in no way established that the founding church fathers got any of it wrong. The oldest and most authentic gospels ever discovered so far ARE the four canonized gospel Matthew Mark Luke and John.

I’m not saying that there weren’t some lost gospels along the way, that were authentic and original apostle writings, I’m saying that the rejected gospels we are aware of today, via archaeological discoveries, show that the Gnostic gospels were the late comers and were not able to stand up the questions brought on by Biblical Criticism questions.

In the end, I think the opinions that are brought out in forums like this when the topic of "Did Jesus exist" or "can we really believe what the bible says is what they said then since everyone knows it's been changed who knows how many times over the centureis" is really just an erroneous understanding of how we have the scripture today and how we can and do know what it says is an accurate interpretation of what they said then. Whether any of what the NT says is in fact true is NOT my topic here, I'm talking about what we have today being what they had wrote then and the oldest and most authentic books are discovered through Biblical Criticism to be the ones we have in the NT canon.


(This is probably too long a post, people won't read it anyway, but meh, whatever ;) )
I read it all and I am further enlightened. Thanks for posting it. :)

In conclusion, we can look to the first century Irenaeus for the reasons why the 4 canon gospels have survived such criticisms for all this two millennia

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."

irenaeus' against heresies, book 3, chapter 11, section 8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm)

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit."

irenaeus' against heresies, book 3, chapter 11, section 8 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103311.htm)

True enough, that. But that's a theological summation by Irenaeus about why he thinks there should be 4 gospels but it doesn't say why those 4 gospels should have to be Matthew Mark Luke and John.

I was thinking more along the lines of book 3 chapter 1, where he states who he thinks wrote and authored the books and why these are the 4 gospels which he approves, he answers the 'who, where, and when' of the biblical criticism questions (admittedly by his own standards and unconvincing to a non believer for example, but biblical criticism all the same):

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

What do you know.... suddenly people join in the beating and Naughty Slave Girls doesn't reply at all. I'm shocked and disappointed. Heh.

Well it would be rather interesting to hear from atheists as to their beliefs on this matter. (of life after death)




Electrical and chemical nerve signals cease as well as conciousness and self-awareness. We're worm food, fertilizer, end-of-story.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Of course He does.

In fact, there's more evidence on his existence than exists to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Whether you accept Him ad a god, a prophet, or a normal human being is beside the point. The question of His existence is corroborated not only by the religious writings of two major world religions but also plenty of secular writings of the time.

Why is this even in question?

Of course He does.

In fact, there's more evidence on his existence than exists to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Whether you accept Him ad a god, a prophet, or a normal human being is beside the point. The question of His existence is corroborated not only by the religious writings of two major world religions but also plenty of secular writings of the time.

Why is this even in question?

Because what you said isn't accurate. It's not corroborated by "plenty of secular writings at the time". In fact, there is very little compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean he didn't, but it's simply not accurate to claim there isn't a good reason to question his existence.

Of course He does.

The question of His existence is corroborated not only by the religious writings of two major world religions but also plenty of secular writings of the time.



Please cite these references, "plenty of secular writings of the time" . Thank you.

Because what you said isn't accurate. It's not corroborated by "plenty of secular writings at the time". In fact, there is very little compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean he didn't, but it's simply not accurate to claim there isn't a good reason to question his existence.

Actually, it is. Jewish and Roman historians had plenty to say about Him.

Please cite these references, "plenty of secular writings of the time" . Thank you.

Google Josephus, for one.

Google Josephus, for one.

From http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html



"Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian, was a native of Judea. He was born in 37 A. D., and was a contemporary of the Apostles. He was, for a time, Governor of Galilee, the province in which Christ lived and taught. He traversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ had performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era. But Christ was of too little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen." (Remsberg, Ibid.)
1. But first things first. Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source.
The first "Jesus Passage" is discussed below. The paragraph on Jesus was added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century, during Constantine's reign, probably by or under the order of Bishop Eusebius, who was known for saying that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the Kingdom of God. This behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where Paul writes in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"


Please try another of the many sources of the time.

Actually, it is. Jewish and Roman historians had plenty to say about Him.

Heh. Please read the thread. The existence of Jesus is widely contested among historians. Clearly, you think you know, but given you just claimed Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus, you cleared don't.

From http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html





Please try another of the many sources of the time.

What for? You're going to find sources that support your position, I'll find sources that support mine, and at the end of the day, nothing will get accomplished. I've got stuff on Josephus that directly contradicts yours. Whose is right?

What for? You're going to find sources that support your position, I'll find sources that support mine, and at the end of the day, nothing will get accomplished. I've got stuff on Josephus that directly contradicts yours. Whose is right?

Wait, you mean there's a question? Can't be. You just claimed that it was a given that Jesus existed. Now you say it's contested which is exactly what I said. Hmmmm... you see how this argument isn't going to go well for you?

It would also be completely inaccurate to call Josephus' writings secular unless you're either dishonest or unaware of what he wrote.

Heh. Please read the thread. The existence of Jesus is widely contested among historians. Clearly, you think you know, but given you just claimed Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus, you cleared don't.

Actually, I didn't say Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. I said he was a writer from the period. The distinction means little in terms of his ability to write history (or anybody living today would be considered unqualified to write about anything that happened before their birth.) but the fact that you seem eager to distort what I'm writing speaks volumes.

You want to call me out? Call me out on what I said, not on Strawmen.

What for? You're going to find sources that support your position, I'll find sources that support mine, and at the end of the day, nothing will get accomplished. I've got stuff on Josephus that directly contradicts yours. Whose is right?

Josephus as evidence has been discredited both by secular historians and theologians. You said that there were "plenty of secular writings of the time"
I thought it would be a simple matter to come up with some of those secular writings.

Actually, I didn't say Josephus was a contemporary of Jesus. I said he was a writer from the period. The distinction means little in terms of his ability to write history (or anybody living today would be considered unqualified to write about anything that happened before their birth.) but the fact that you seem eager to distort what I'm writing speaks volumes.

You want to call me out? Call me out on what I said, not on Strawmen.

It means a lot because his information is third-hand. Meanwhile you claimed he was secular. Also utterly dishonest. His paragraph says he is reluctant to call Jesus a man and that he was resurrected after three days. IF he wrote that passage, he wrote the legend, not the history.

Here is a very good discussion of the passage by a Christian.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/josephus.html

You'll note that even this Christian source admits that most scholars believe at least some of the passage was added centuries later.

I apologize for reading your statement as written. You really meant near the time of Jesus or around the time of Jesus and not OF the time of Jesus. I'll not take you at what you write in the future. Fair enough?

Josephus on Jesus:

3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Hardly any respectable scholar believes that Josephus wrote these exact words. Many argue that he wrote something similar which was corrupted by 'fervent' translators. Here is a translation from an Arabic manuscript that some scholars believe may be closer to Josephus' original words:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan

And here is the other Josephus reference to Jesus. Most scholars hold this one to be fairly accurate:


Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Reference_to_Jesus_as_brother_of_James

The existence of Jesus is widely contested among historians

"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

This is referring to the existence of Jesus, if someone is questioning that it doesn't explicitly say that. I posted this earlier, but someone dismissed it based on the other thing i posted in my hastily thrown together post. I said before, I never knew the existence of Jesus was contested by people until now (and given the amount of athiest friends i have and my at least agnostic father, this is surprising)

It's important to note that the above quotes merely states that the evidence is not compelling enough to consider the nonexistence of Jesus a scientific conclusion. He is not saying that the Jesus is known to have existed. And if he is, he is denying the conclusions of the vast majority of scholars.

What I find interesting about Josephus is that it gives us the indication that it was plenty likely that even the church under Constantine didn't find the evidence of his life compelling and thus invented evidence of the life of Christ. To pretend like after MUCH evidence that may have pointed to a historical Jesus has been destroyed by age or malice like there shouldn't be a question is intellectually dishonest.

Of course He does.

In fact, there's more evidence on his existence than exists to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Whether you accept Him ad a god, a prophet, or a normal human being is beside the point. The question of His existence is corroborated not only by the religious writings of two major world religions but also plenty of secular writings of the time.

Why is this even in question?

Where is all this evidence then?

Where is all this evidence then?

Please note that he doesn't mean secular writings of the time, but writings that supposedly proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ by a historian who heard the story third-hand long after the death of Jesus Christ. Apparently "of the time" has some special meaning that I'm not aware of.

Here are the Facts as I know them from Aberham to Jesus. Aberham raiped his servent girl and got her pregnent then he got his supposedly 100 year old wife pregnant and banished the servent girl who miraculesly surviived to give birth to Ishmael who went on to lead the Arabs. Aberham's legitament son, Isaac went on to lead the jews because of this the Arabs and Jews are fighting to this day. Jesus was his mom's illegitament son. If anyone found out she would be killed so she made up a story that went along with Jewish believes to save her skin. Fortunatley people are very willing to beleive what they are told. For example German people at first thought Hitler was an awesome sane person.

This was more than likely said before, but there is no scientific proof that he exists. I cannot agree with his existence, but I cannot disagree either. Religious groups sometimes believe that Jesus exists and that is a fact, but it is more of a question than a fact. Until we find scientific evidence, we can only estimate.:(

"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

This is referring to the existence of Jesus, if someone is questioning that it doesn't explicitly say that. I posted this earlier, but someone dismissed it based on the other thing i posted in my hastily thrown together post. I said before, I never knew the existence of Jesus was contested by people until now (and given the amount of athiest friends i have and my at least agnostic father, this is surprising)

So people who are trying to prove/support the claim that Jesus existed (as opposed to someone who is merely searching for evidence one way or the other) has decided that there is no need to search farther, is a reason to not examine the evidence?

So people who are trying to prove/support the claim that Jesus existed (as opposed to someone who is merely searching for evidence one way or the other) has decided that there is no need to search farther, is a reason to not examine the evidence?

I am, unfortunately, basically using a logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Not quite

I brought up an expert who has, presumably, done much more research and investigation than the 10 minute googling I've done. I am saying, "he probably knows what he's talking about." Does this prove he existed? No (which is why it isn't a true logical fallacy), but it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed.

I don't know why some of you guys are trying to prove that he did. Those who do not believe in him are going to be adamant about it no matter what proof you give them.

There is enough evidence, and alot of it has been used in this arguement, but they ignore the fact that it is, in fact, evidence, and continue to argue.

The fact alone that he was the most persuasive man in history gives me enough faith to believe that he does exist.

Its more easier for me to believe that he was a person, rather then the idea that it was just idea one guy made up, told it to a few friends, got the idea to worship this idea, and then spread it around, so its members would become the largest religious group in the world in the present age....

I don't know why some of you guys are trying to prove that he did. Those who do not believe in him are going to be adamant about it no matter what proof you give them.
There is enough evidence, and alot of it has been used in this arguement, but they ignore the fact that it is, in fact, evidence, and continue to argue.
The fact alone that he was the most persuasive man in history gives me enough faith to believe that he does exist.

Just about every piece of evidence provided is either obviously biased (thusly unreliable), or has been shown to be questionable at best.


Its more easier for me to believe that he was a person, rather then the idea that it was just idea one guy made up, told it to a few friends, got the idea to worship this idea, and then spread it around, so its members would become the largest religious group in the world in the present age....

Which I'm completely ok with, lets assume for a second that somehow someone proved that he didn't would that hurt your faith at all? (assuming of course that you are a christian)

I am, unfortunately, basically using a logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Not quite

I brought up an expert who has, presumably, done much more research and investigation than the 10 minute googling I've done. I am saying, "he probably knows what he's talking about." Does this prove he existed? No (which is why it isn't a true logical fallacy), but it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed.

meh, in any case, I personally haven't been looking for 'proof' either way its just that most of the pieces of evidence provided in this discussion have been shown to be flawed. Does that make them automatically wrong, no of course not.

Good grief, I go away for a couple of days and this thread seems to have doubled in size. I don't have the patience to read through it all, but I thought I'd pick on this particular comment:

In fact, there's more evidence on his existence than exists to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Look, I'm not a Mythicist but this is even more absurd than the "there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar" canard; if you want to make comparisons Socrates might be more valid: we only have a few accounts of his existence, all of which were written with a strong agenda, whether to satirise or to vindicate.

Anyway, onto the evidence for Alexander the Great. To illustrate how utterly absurd the comparison is I'll tie one figurative arm behind my back and present only non-literary evidence:

-Large numbers of contemporary coins, minted during Alexander's lifetime.
-A flurry of new cities named 'Alexandria', and existing cities being renamed 'Alexandria' (at least a dozen in all).
-Existing dynasties were suddenly extinguished and new ones were founded by Alexander's generals (the Ptolemies in Egypt for example, a Greek family, only the last of whom, Cleopatra, ever spoke any other language but Greek).
-Koine Greek suddenly became the lingua franca across the entire Mediterranean, and remained so even after Roman conquest.
-Archaeological evidence of Greek armies and battles ranging from Macedon to India.

...and this is before we even get on to the written accounts, which are significantly more credible than the uncorroborated claims of anonymous authors writing forty or more years after the supposed events which the Jesus story is so dependent on.

How about Paul (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061211-saint-paul.html), did Paul exist? Did the Apostle Peter (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=794)exist?
If Paul existed (since he wrote at least some of the epistles that exist), and he says he talked to Peter, then Peter must exist? But If Peter existed, who fooled him (and all the other apostles) into thinking that they actually knew a person named Jesus if we now think Jesus didn't exist?

Faking Jesus would have to be a bigger miracle than all the little miracles (short of resurrection) that Jesus is said to have performed. It's easier to believe Jesus really existed than it is to believe someone faked it. ;)

How about Paul (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061211-saint-paul.html), did Paul exist? Did the Apostle Peter (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=794)exist?
If Paul existed (since he wrote at least some of the epistles that exist), and he says he talked to Peter, then Peter must exist? But If Peter existed, who fooled him (and all the other apostles) into thinking that they actually knew a person named Jesus if we now think Jesus didn't exist?

Faking Jesus would have to be a bigger miracle than all the little miracles (short of resurrection) that Jesus is said to have performed. It's easier to believe Jesus really existed than it is to believe someone faked it. ;)

Heh. Amusing. Because one guy or a couple of guys making up a story would have a TON of difficulty doing so. Yeah, urban legends are giant miracles. In fact, there's never been a widely accepted urban legend that was proven true. Ever. Right? Right?

Heh. Amusing. Because one guy or a couple of guys making up a story would have a TON of difficulty doing so. Yeah, urban legends are giant miracles. In fact, there's never been a widely accepted urban legend that was proven true. Ever. Right? Right?

One or two guys did it? To all those many places all over the Mediterranean world which had churches before the end of the first century? Just curious why you think it's just one or two guys... Because I only used one or two examples? Why was there a church in Rome before Paul went there? Why was there a church in Syria and Egypt? That’s a Pretty good urban legend then for only one or two guys to fake it and replace the work force that the NT describes as over 500 who saw Jesus risen and the 3000 that were Baptized and sent out after the day of Pentecost… but you say only one or two guys could replace all of them and get the word out to the entire Mediterranean world that quickly. A person must really believe in miracles to think that would be easier than just saying Jesus probably existed…

This is silly.

Who cares?
If you're a Christian, be a Christian. If you're an atheist be an atheist.

Why is it important to prove each other wrong?

Whoever is right, is right, no matter how many people disagree so just rest in the security of non-ignorance and stop arguing.

Are you all really 'adequate' people to discuss that question?
Is anybody living adequate to discuss did Jesus exist?
The answer lies in hearts of us, believers, and YES, it matters to all of us who believe.
Do you think such strong belief and such perfect ideals would last so long if they were just a 'fruit of imagination'?
I don't think atheists like being laughed or mocked for their opinions and beliefs, but they are too loud when it comes to mocking and underestimating believers and their faith, just because they find that a nonsense, without thinking out of their strict and very definite borders of material and physical. Seems like they have all the answers, but if you think better all those scientific cornerstones are based on belief... The thing that you find at least funny.
So, as one that is tired of their pressure and noise, I please you to start thinking differently, and maybe concentrate on what Jesus told and learned all of us, and realize that you can find nothing offending or wrong, but only right and good, useful to improve yourself as a person in this short 'material' life.

This is silly.

Who cares?
If you're a Christian, be a Christian. If you're an atheist be an atheist.

Why is it important to prove each other wrong?

Whoever is right, is right, no matter how many people disagree so just rest in the security of non-ignorance and stop arguing.

This really isn't about being christian or atheist*, the question was do you believe that Jesus was a historical person and does it matter whether he was or not.

*Which by the way aren't the only choices.

Are you all really 'adequate' people to discuss that question?
Why not?
Is anybody living adequate to discuss did Jesus exist?
I can't very well discuss it with dead people
well I can but it is a very one-sided discussion
The answer lies in hearts of us, believers, and YES, it matters to all of us who believe.
False, I have spoken to christians IRL who don't think that it matters whether there was a real person known as Jesus Christ
Do you think such strong belief and such perfect ideals would last so long if they were just a 'fruit of imagination'?
Why not?
I don't think atheists like being laughed or mocked for their opinions and beliefs, but they are too loud when it comes to mocking and underestimating believers and their faith, just because they find that a nonsense, without thinking out of their strict and very definite borders of material and physical. Seems like they have all the answers, but if you think better all those scientific cornerstones are based on belief... The thing that you find at least funny.
So, as one that is tired of their pressure and noise, I please you to start thinking differently, and maybe concentrate on what Jesus told and learned all of us, and realize that you can find nothing offending or wrong, but only right and good, useful to improve yourself as a person in this short 'material' life.
Jesus hasn't told me anything

Allllrighty then. I'll rephrase:

This is silly.

Who cares?
If you believe that Jesus was real, awesome! If you don't, great!

Why is it important to prove each other wrong?

Whoever is right, is right, no matter how many people disagree so just rest in the security of non-ignorance and stop arguing.

Who cares?
I do

Why is it important to prove each other wrong?
It isn't
Whoever is right, is right, no matter how many people disagree so just rest in the security of non-ignorance and stop arguing.
So not learning anything new is non-ignorance?



Also if this discussion bothers you so much, why are you here?

It's important to note that the above quotes merely states that the evidence is not compelling enough to consider the nonexistence of Jesus a scientific conclusion. He is not saying that the Jesus is known to have existed. And if he is, he is denying the conclusions of the vast majority of scholars.
....

What are you saying IS the conclusion of the vast majority of scholars? That Jesus didn't exist, that Jesus did exist, that Jesus most likely existed or that Jesus most likely did not exist? Did you take a survey? What qualifies as a ‘vast majority?’

What do you know.... suddenly people join in the beating and Naughty Slave Girls doesn't reply at all.
Firstly, NSG (hmmmm) made some claims that he/she cannot support when challenged. Secondly, I believe that NSG is a puppet nation, whose last major usage was last year on another religious thread.

Also disappearing was Backwoods, who is off on another religious thread.

I'm shocked and disappointed. Heh.
I am sure you are. :)

Well, the same as everyone else, I imagine... a vested interest in wanting there to be something more, perhaps? Or... just not knowing?

In absence of an 'atheist scripture', there's no code of belief to follow... so I suspect it comes down to what seems most 'logical'.

Well, I already stated mine. If I think about it - about the only way I can really see a 'beyond the grave' existence that might be plausible to me, would be some kind of 'gaia principle'. It's hard to determine exactly where our consciousness resides, so maybe some essence or element might return to the collective consciousness of reality... a kind of synergy.

It's total speculation, of course... but as I study the idea, it strikes me as not too dissimilar to 'dust to dust'.
Thanks. I am thinking about starting a thread on this topic. Time is my only enemy.

Then I apologise if I came across as disproportionately acidic.
Hey....no problemo. :)

I am, unfortunately, basically using a logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Not quite

I brought up an expert who has, presumably, done much more research and investigation than the 10 minute googling I've done. I am saying, "he probably knows what he's talking about." Does this prove he existed? No (which is why it isn't a true logical fallacy), but it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed.

no it doesnt. if i were content to have someone tell me that jesus existed without any proof id stop with balderdash and save the looking up of references.

i wouldnt believe him any more than i would believe someone who asserted the opposite but backed it up with no evidence.

until you post something that says WHY the experts have decided that the historicity of jesus is a done deal, it means nothing. if this guy goes on to say why he thinks jesus is proven, id love to see his reasons.

no it doesnt. if i were content to have someone tell me that jesus existed without any proof id stop with balderdash and save the looking up of references.
.

Awww, that's not fair, when have I ever given you the impression that I'm against the idea of people looking up references :( I link to references all the time and I encourage others to do the same too ;)

Awww, that's not fair, when have I ever given you the impression that I'm against the idea of people looking up references :( I link to references all the time and I encourage others to do the same too ;)

youre right, it was unfair of me to use you. you were simply the first poster on the pro-jesus side that came to mind. you have not set your self up as some kind of unreproachable expert who needs to provide no evidence to support his beliefs.

youre right, it was unfair of me to use you. you were simply the first poster on the pro-jesus side that came to mind. you have not set your self up as some kind of unreproachable expert who needs to provide no evidence to support his beliefs.

One of the things I like about Balderdash :)

75 pages? Gah! It doesn't matter if he existed or not, if he did, yay, if not, then his part in The Bible is allegorical. Either way, it doesn't make a difference.

not like evryone said. he pr bly didnt even exist at all

75 pages? Gah! It doesn't matter if he existed or not, if he did, yay, if not, then his part in The Bible is allegorical. Either way, it doesn't make a difference.

OK, you answered my second question, how about the first?

If it doesn't matter if he existed or not, then why argue if he did? Does it matter if OJ used a butcher's knife or a gladius? Possibly but most likely not.

If it doesn't matter if he existed or not, then why argue if he did?
Why not?

Does it matter if OJ used a butcher's knife or a gladius? Possibly but most likely not.

Not really, although it would be interesting to see what kind of evidence people would put forth to show that he used a gladius ;)

just rest in the security of non-ignorance and stop arguing.Oh, you won't like it here much, methinks.

nah, he can just crib stuff from here, like he did with that phrase. me and rpp were saying it here before colbert's show went on the air (though we said 'left-wing' rather than 'liberal', what with the thinking liberals suck and all).

So .... perhaps we should start talking about bears and elephants and maybe have some racy pix of Jane Fonda?
Oh yeah ... more Formula 401. *nods emphatically*
What should we toss him to chew on? Is that thread worthy?

Google Josephus, for one.

Read instructions THOROUGHLY before ingesting :rolleyes:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13327181&postcount=1089

Did i say "ingesting"?
Perhaps i meant, "taking internally".

Even if he didn't exist, the masses would inevitably find another reactionary opiate to hook themselves on.

Time is my only enemy.

:eek:
If only ... ONLY ... it were that easy. :p

Of course He does.

In fact, there's more evidence on his existence than exists to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

Whether you accept Him ad a god, a prophet, or a normal human being is beside the point. The question of His existence is corroborated not only by the religious writings of two major world religions but also plenty of secular writings of the time.

Why is this even in question?

There is plenty of evidence, no question - but the qualities of the evidence also have to be considered.

Independence in a source is important - it is something of an indication towards objectivity. Contemporary evidence is much more reliable than evidence written remotely in time, due to several factors... not just the fact that we forget stuff, but also the subtle (and often accidental) process of redaction.

There is no independent, contemporary evidence for Jesus. None.

Hence the question is still being asked.

Actually, it is. Jewish and Roman historians had plenty to say about Him.

Not really. Certainly not during his alleged ministry.

I am, unfortunately, basically using a logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Not quite

I brought up an expert who has, presumably, done much more research and investigation than the 10 minute googling I've done. I am saying, "he probably knows what he's talking about." Does this prove he existed? No (which is why it isn't a true logical fallacy), but it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed.

"Jesus Christ" wasn't his name....

How about Paul (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061211-saint-paul.html), did Paul exist? Did the Apostle Peter (http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=794)exist?
If Paul existed (since he wrote at least some of the epistles that exist), and he says he talked to Peter, then Peter must exist?


That logic doesn't follow. Just because J K Rowling exists, does that mean Harrry Potter also does?

No - even if you can support the existence of the author, it does nothing to support the veracity of the work.


But If Peter existed, who fooled him (and all the other apostles) into thinking that they actually knew a person named Jesus if we now think Jesus didn't exist?


Well, see above for a start.

Also, people are surprisingly easy to condition, especially with repetition - which is why mantra forms like the catechisms are so popular.

I saw, some time ago, a project about implanmting memories. I seem to recall that a group of people were questioned over and over abut a Disneyland visit they attended. By careful phrasing, and repetition, most of the test subjects later admitted to remembering meeting Daffy Duck on their Disney visit.


Faking Jesus would have to be a bigger miracle than all the little miracles (short of resurrection) that Jesus is said to have performed.


Not really. If the story exists, and it's presented as true, people will believe it, No miracles needed.

It's easier to believe Jesus really existed than it is to believe someone faked it. ;)

Being 'easy to believe' is no guarantee of accuracy or truth.

That logic doesn't follow. Just because J K Rowling exists, does that mean Harrry Potter also does?

No - even if you can support the existence of the author, it does nothing to support the veracity of the work.
Ouch!
Nicely done. :)

Ouch!
Nicely done. :)

Heh. Considering the meds I'm on, the big achievement was me managing to post it, at all. :D

Grave are you saying that the Wizarding World doesn't exist? Thanks for crushing all my hopes mercilessly.

Grave are you saying that the Wizarding World doesn't exist? Thanks for crushing all my hopes mercilessly.

Not at all. It is pretty obvious that the Wizarding World really exists... I mean, I've seen films set there, and they couldn't just make that stuff up, and make it believable to loads of people.

Heh. Considering the meds I'm on, the big achievement was me managing to post it, at all. :D

Meds? Now you're a statistic, eh? .... and most certainly in what appears to be the majority of mindset here ;)

Meds? Now you're a statistic, eh? .... and most certainly in what appears to be the majority of mindset here ;)

A statistic of this years flu collective. Not fun meds or anything... :)

Although biblical criticism is a new phrase for a title for the field of study that was coined in the nineteenth century, I’ll argue that the field of biblical criticism has always existed.

<snip>

(This is probably too long a post, people won't read it anyway, but meh, whatever ;) )

I read it all, it's very interesting stuff. However, it's not what I was arguing. I acknowledge that the Bible had been edited and reinterpreted throughout the years, but it's only recently where anyone other than Church people were allowed to make ascertations about it. Anyone who wanted to argue that, say, certain sections were allegory (or just flat-out wrong) or that the Bible is "inconsistent" (among other possible statements) would most likely have been branded as a heretic for "challenging The Word of the LORD". Today, those outside the Church are allowed to re-examine and analyze the Bible, and even to assume that it might be wrong in certain areas, although I don't quite think the climate has allowed for complete objectiveness- there are very few scholars willing to make bold statements such as "Jesus didn't exist" or "the United Kingdom (of Israel) was a 6th century fabrication" for fear of ostracism, at least, perhaps, in the United States where the fervently religious are known to be quite vocal. I once asked my Roman history professor what he thought about Jesus' existence and he didn't want to answer, most likely due to its contentiousness.

One or two guys did it? To all those many places all over the Mediterranean world which had churches before the end of the first century? Just curious why you think it's just one or two guys... Because I only used one or two examples? Why was there a church in Rome before Paul went there? Why was there a church in Syria and Egypt? That’s a Pretty good urban legend then for only one or two guys to fake it and replace the work force that the NT describes as over 500 who saw Jesus risen and the 3000 that were Baptized and sent out after the day of Pentecost… but you say only one or two guys could replace all of them and get the word out to the entire Mediterranean world that quickly. A person must really believe in miracles to think that would be easier than just saying Jesus probably existed…

Just as speculation, I believe that if Jesus Christ truly was a myth, it probably happened because Peter and/or Paul (most likely Paul, since the Bible records such a vision) had a series of dreams or visions of a man named "Jesus Christ" that they were so taken by that they felt the need to "spread the Word". If I recall correctly, it took Peter and Paul merely a decade to establish Christianity, and if we assume that Jesus Christ was a myth, we're working with maybe 40 years with which to establish a religion (since there would be no need to wait for Christ to die as there would be no Christ). That's plenty of time for it to spread across the Empire and get firmly established.

"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

This is referring to the existence of Jesus, if someone is questioning that it doesn't explicitly say that. I posted this earlier, but someone dismissed it based on the other thing i posted in my hastily thrown together post. I said before, I never knew the existence of Jesus was contested by people until now (and given the amount of athiest friends i have and my at least agnostic father, this is surprising)

If you're referring to me, I challenged you because Robert E. Van Voorst is an ordained minister and a professor at a seminary (http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/faculty/vanvoorst) and is an extremely biased source. I mean, of course he's going to say that the "non-historicity of Jesus is effectively refuted"- he's a Christian scholar and thus has a vested interest in ensuring that Jesus Christ is historical because contesting that would conflict with his beliefs. It's different than using someone who isn't involved in Christian service stating "it is effectively refuted", because if that were the case, that person- being non-affiliated with Christianity (institution-wise, anyway)- more likely didn't let their beliefs get in the way of their research, as it did for Van Voorst.

Regardless, as you pointed out, it's still a logical fallacy to argue that "Van Voorst said it so it must be true"- evidence produces truth, not people, so to truly answer the question one must look at the evidence instead of relying on someone else to do it for them.

What I find interesting about Josephus is that it gives us the indication that it was plenty likely that even the church under Constantine didn't find the evidence of his life compelling and thus invented evidence of the life of Christ. To pretend like after MUCH evidence that may have pointed to a historical Jesus has been destroyed by age or malice like there shouldn't be a question is intellectually dishonest.

It's just speculation but I wouldn't say it's outside the realm of possibility that Jesus' evidence was destroyed- Nero and Domitian were known to have persecuted Christians, so who knows the extent of their actions. Of course, I have no proof but I wouldn't be surprised if we found proof of that later.

In fact, there's more evidence on his existence than exists to prove the existence of Alexander the Great.

I fail to see how Alexander the Great is relevant to the topic at all. We're not talking about the historicity of Alexander- we're talking about the historicity of Jesus. Please stay on topic.

"Jesus Christ" wasn't his name....

I won't speak for Geolana but I only use "Jesus Christ" to differentiate the New Testament character from the several different people named "Yeshua" who existed at the time- just to clarify.

It's near impossible to prove anything without definitive, reliable records. Unfortunately, as far as I know, the Romans did not keep birth certificates. Anyone can write anything; so, risking auto da fe, I would say The Bible is not a reliable source. Unless there were Roman records of Jesus' persecution or "trial", I believe this argument is pointless.

Faking Jesus would have to be a bigger miracle than all the little miracles (short of resurrection) that Jesus is said to have performed. It's easier to believe Jesus really existed than it is to believe someone faked it. ;)

No, it's not.

Does Thor Exist? I know personally, people that say he does.
How about Zeus or anyone of the Greek pantheon?

Those legends got around pretty far and gained quite a following, even surviving to this day in places. Why is Jesus more likely to have existed?
Theres no reliable proof, as we all know, so what, aside from a desire for him to be so, makes you so sure?

If you mean by that, that you dont believe such a religion as prodigious as Christianity has become without some parts of it being true, I would suggest that Scientologists are pretty sure "The evil overlord Zurg" is out there too.
Or the Hindus, or Buddhists.

Osiris, for instance, had a career very similar to Jesus, what with the ressurection and all.

My point is, its entirely possible it was all made up.

I won't speak for Geolana but I only use "Jesus Christ" to differentiate the New Testament character from the several different people named "Yeshua" who existed at the time- just to clarify.

The post I responded to said: "it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed".

Even those who fully believe in the historical truth of a literal Jesus, should see, straightaway, the probem - a person "by the name of Jesus Christ" is never claimed in scripture, let alone verified as a real entity.

"Christ" is like a job description, not an old family name.

The post I responded to said: "it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed".

Even those who fully believe in the historical truth of a literal Jesus, should see, straightaway, the probem - a person "by the name of Jesus Christ" is never claimed in scripture, let alone verified as a real entity.

"Christ" is like a job description, not an old family name.

Jesus, Christ.
Like:

Richard, King.

The post I responded to said: "it does add credence to the idea that a person by the name of Jesus Christ existed".

Even those who fully believe in the historical truth of a literal Jesus, should see, straightaway, the probem - a person "by the name of Jesus Christ" is never claimed in scripture, let alone verified as a real entity.

"Christ" is like a job description, not an old family name.

I know- I just figured since I used "Jesus Christ" extensively I'd clarify myself in case there was any confusion.

Actually, it is. Jewish and Roman historians had plenty to say about Him.Who?
Google Josephus, for one.I have the complete works of Josephus here on my desk. There are fourteen people in it whose name is rendered as "Jesus" in English, but the Jesus Christ reference (in Antiquity of the Jews) is only a short paragraph of three sentences.
I really would not call that "plenty of secular writings of the time".

The fact alone that he was the most persuasive man in history gives me enough faith to believe that he does exist.wtf?

Jesus, Christ.
Like:

Richard, King.

Exactly. I'm left with this mental image of someone trying to trace biblical geneologies, looking for Joseph and Mary Christ, and all the little Christ children.

I know- I just figured since I used "Jesus Christ" extensively I'd clarify myself in case there was any confusion.

Gotcha. Provided you're not suggesting it as a person's name, there's no confusion.

Exactly. I'm left with this mental image of someone trying to trace biblical geneologies, looking for Joseph and Mary Christ, and all the little Christ children.

Kids do that. All the movies surrounding Christmas that suggest that Clause is the proper last name of Father Christmas are probably to blame ;)

Exactly. I'm left with this mental image of someone trying to trace biblical geneologies, looking for Joseph and Mary Christ, and all the little Christ children.

i wonder if any chistian child ever asks if james' name was james christ since he was the brother of jesus.

Heh. Considering the meds I'm on, the big achievement was me managing to post it, at all. :D

Anything really good?

edit: nvm you already answered
Hope you feel better soon

Whether Jesus ever existed will neither be proven, nor dosproven on this forum. I along with many people believe that he did (and does) exist. Many people believe that he did not exist. I think that it is safe to say (from a secular point of view) that he did exist, for the simple reason that the Christian church was founded and claims him as being a real live person. Other faiths for example may worship spirits or anthropomorphized creatures which are purely un-scientific and have no basis in known reality. Jesus however was said to be a man, albeit God in human form, he was still human. This is far more believeable than say, a half jakal Anubis. Also, I believe that Jesus existed because there were known real persons (the diciples) running around saying that he was. For example the man we know as St. Peter was a real live (Traceable), person martyrd in Rome, he was indeed real, and gave eye witness accounts of the person we know as Jesus. I personally don't see any reason that he couldn't have existed. Even Buddha is known to have been a real live person which we know from his writings and others writings about him. Whether or not he became enlightened is a matter of faith.

Again from a secular point of view, even if Jesus were to be ficticious, and the compilation of the ideas of human perfection (as many myths are, just as demons are portrayed as humans evil desires) why do atheists and secular minded people care so much to disprove him? For example if a child believes in santa, what harm does it do you to let them keep on believing? It is a matter of faith and peoples' beliefs, so if I believe and you don't that is fine. A huge chunk of Christianity has to do with choice. If you don't want to believe that is fine, it is up to you, but my belief tells me to tell you about it, and if you don'r buy it, I am supposed to drop it and quit bugging you. So why can't we all just embrace our differences and stop fighting and arguing about them? So Whether or not Jesus existed is a matter of personal faith, until something proves otherwise.

That logic doesn't follow. Just because J K Rowling exists, does that mean Harrry Potter also does?

No - even if you can support the existence of the author, it does nothing to support the veracity of the work.
We aren't talking about one authors creation, we are talking about multiple authors and all the oral speakers we don't written accounts of but can verify must have existed because they left churches behind them in the first century. Churches in cities before Paul goes there suggest that Paul can't be the instigator of the myth. If Peter is the instigator of the myth, how could he have gone to so many cities so quickly? Peter was doing all the work while Paul was sitting around on his lazy butt doing nothing but writing letters and getting all the posterity? Then who went to Egypt and Morocco, Spain. Who went east? If you assume only one or two myth makers they have to perform more work than real miracle workers could do (because of the time constraints). The NT said it took thousands of people.

Well, see above for a start.

Also, people are surprisingly easy to condition, especially with repetition - which is why mantra forms like the catechisms are so popular.
Your assumption begins with the requirement that the Paul and Peter must be liars. Guilty until proven innocent, which may be the case where you come from, I don't know. Me, I try to assume a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, lets take your assertion at face value, IF your assertion is correct then Paul and Peter must NOT have actually done the main things of having hundreds and thousand of other Christians with them from the beginning. IF they didn't spread the word the way they said they did, in the book of Acts, but made it up later and convinced second hand people to assume the role of the fictional first hand people, how did we get books like Matthew and John? We could account for Mark and Luke through Peter and Paul, but what about the others? Why do we have churches springing up in places that Peter and Paul never went during the same time period that they should be busy droning mantra forms like the catechisms into their first followers?

I suggest that it's more logical to assume that Jesus did exist, even if you assume that he's simply the one and first conspirator myth maker. Without a real Jesus to base your myth on you would have to wait for years to convince Jerusalem that he ever existed.

No, its just too hard to believe that James and Stephen, and the others in the church and council in Jerusalem (that one that Paul first went to and asked for approval of his 'gospel' in the beginning) could have existed at such an early time if Paul and Peter 'invented' the story.

I saw, some time ago, a project about implanmting memories. I seem to recall that a group of people were questioned over and over abut a Disneyland visit they attended. By careful phrasing, and repetition, most of the test subjects later admitted to remembering meeting Daffy Duck on their Disney visit.

Not really. If the story exists, and it's presented as true, people will believe it, No miracles needed.

Of course they would, take Scientology's growth as an example. But imagine hundreds of years into the future, you would have us question whether L. Ron Hubberd ever really existed or did they make him up to be the author of their religion after the fact. It's much more logical to assume he did exist, the same with Jesus. It's hard to have a Jones town if you don't have a Jones, it's hard to have a Waco if you don't have Koresh. Just because you believe Jesus existed doesn't automatically dictate that you have to believe in his message. But ot argue that the church was started without him entirely is demanding that we thinkg 'everything' the church says about it's own beginning with a real Jesus and the apostles and followers that knew that Jesus must really just be a lie and never happened at all and we are left with speculation to replace the huge void we've created by the assumption.

Being 'easy to believe' is no guarantee of accuracy or truth.

I didn't make the argument that it has to be 'believed' if Jesus really existed. Only pointed out that if you remove the historical Jesus from the story you open an even larger can of worms, creating a vast void of nothingness at the beginning of the first century, but we do know facts about the first century Christian expansion that requires any future theory to address. Arguing one or two guys made it up after the 40's and had it all expanded and started in multiple cities across the Roman Empire and beyond by the 50's and 60's. They even must have brainwashed new authors to help them write additional scriptures by then. It’s all simply too unbelievable without evidence of some kind to force the point. It’s easier to believe they had thousands of believers by the 40’s in order to created what we have we from the 60’s onward.

We aren't talking about one authors creation, we are talking about multiple authors and all the oral speakers we don't written accounts of but can verify must have existed because they left churches behind them in the first century. Churches in cities before Paul goes there suggest that Paul can't be the instigator of the myth. If Peter is the instigator of the myth, how could he have gone to so many cities so quickly? Peter was doing all the work while Paul was sitting around on his lazy butt doing nothing but writing letters and getting all the posterity? Then who went to Egypt and Morocco, Spain. Who went east? If you assume only one or two myth makers they have to perform more work than real miracle workers could do (because of the time constraints). The NT said it took thousands of people.


Your assumption begins with the requirement that the Paul and Peter must be liars. Guilty until proven innocent, which may be the case where you come from, I don't know. Me, I try to assume a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, lets take your assertion at face value, IF your assertion is correct then Paul and Peter must NOT have actually done the main things of having hundreds and thousand of other Christians with them from the beginning. IF they didn't spread the word the way they said they did, in the book of Acts, but made it up later and convinced second hand people to assume the role of the fictional first hand people, how did we get books like Matthew and John? We could account for Mark and Luke through Peter and Paul, but what about the others? Why do we have churches springing up in places that Peter and Paul never went during the same time period that they should be busy droning mantra forms like the catechisms into their first followers?

I suggest that it's more logical to assume that Jesus did exist, even if you assume that he's simply the one and first conspirator myth maker. Without a real Jesus to base your myth on you would have to wait for years to convince Jerusalem that he ever existed.

No, its just too hard to believe that James and Stephen, and the others in the church and council in Jerusalem (that one that Paul first went to and asked for approval of his 'gospel' in the beginning) could have existed at such an early time if Paul and Peter 'invented' the story.



Of course they would, take Scientology's growth as an example. But imagine hundreds of years into the future, you would have us question whether L. Ron Hubberd ever really existed or did they make him up to be the author of their religion after the fact. It's much more logical to assume he did exist, the same with Jesus. It's hard to have a Jones town if you don't have a Jones, it's hard to have a Waco if you don't have Koresh. Just because you believe Jesus existed doesn't automatically dictate that you have to believe in his message. But ot argue that the church was started without him entirely is demanding that we thinkg 'everything' the church says about it's own beginning with a real Jesus and the apostles and followers that knew that Jesus must really just be a lie and never happened at all and we are left with speculation to replace the huge void we've created by the assumption.



I didn't make the argument that it has to be 'believed' if Jesus really existed. Only pointed out that if you remove the historical Jesus from the story you open an even larger can of worms, creating a vast void of nothingness at the beginning of the first century, but we do know facts about the first century Christian expansion that requires any future theory to address. Arguing one or two guys made it up after the 40's and had it all expanded and started in multiple cities across the Roman Empire and beyond by the 50's and 60's. They even must have brainwashed new authors to help them write additional scriptures by then. It’s all simply too unbelievable without evidence of some kind to force the point. It’s easier to believe they had thousands of believers by the 40’s in order to created what we have we from the 60’s onward.

All very good points

I read it all, it's very interesting stuff. However, it's not what I was arguing. I acknowledge that the Bible had been edited and reinterpreted throughout the years, but it's only recently where anyone other than Church people were allowed to make ascertations about it.
If you mean ‘changed’ when you say edited and reinterpreted than I entirely disagree. But that’s not what I said anyway. I was pointing out that the first fathers used what we call biblical criticism today to dismiss the Gnostic gospels (for example) over the years as they appeared around the world, and I was pointing out the only books that they had that passed their biblical criticism tests of who wrote it, when, why and to whom and what evidence did they have to believe it’s authentic apostle authorship origin questions, were met only by the books that have since then ended up in our NT canon. That these types of questions that you ask were the reasons the other books didn’t make it into the canon. Additionally, I pointed out the modern day biblical criticism has not shown that they erred in their findings. The oldest and most likely authentic versions of the gospels (for example) are Matthew Mark Luke and John.

Anyone who wanted to argue that, say, certain sections were allegory (or just flat-out wrong) or that the Bible is "inconsistent" (among other possible statements) would most likely have been branded as a heretic for "challenging The Word of the LORD". Today, those outside the Church are allowed to re-examine and analyze the Bible, and even to assume that it might be wrong in certain areas, although I don't quite think the climate has allowed for complete objectiveness- there are very few scholars willing to make bold statements such as "Jesus didn't exist" or "the United Kingdom (of Israel) was a 6th century fabrication" for fear of ostracism, at least, perhaps, in the United States where the fervently religious are known to be quite vocal. I once asked my Roman history professor what he thought about Jesus' existence and he didn't want to answer, most likely due to its contentiousness.
As has been pointed out by others, there were great debates in the second, third and fourth century about what was allegory and what was real about the relationship between us and Christ, Christ and God, God and us, what was law, what was recommended, what was required… All these questions were fought out between biblical scholars of the day using verses of he scripture as weapons in their debates. I assure you they didn’t have a ‘uniform’ view over all the sections of the Bible.


Just as speculation, I believe that if Jesus Christ truly was a myth, it probably happened because Peter and/or Paul (most likely Paul, since the Bible records such a vision) had a series of dreams or visions of a man named "Jesus Christ" that they were so taken by that they felt the need to "spread the Word". If I recall correctly, it took Peter and Paul merely a decade to establish Christianity, and if we assume that Jesus Christ was a myth, we're working with maybe 40 years with which to establish a religion (since there would be no need to wait for Christ to die as there would be no Christ). That's plenty of time for it to spread across the Empire and get firmly established.


As I’ve been talking to GnI, you can read those posts on my view that two people in the 40’s and 50’s could replace the work done that the NT says took thousands. Your assumptions requires us to believe that Paul was entirely lying, and wasn’t going to a preexisting church of Christians to persecute them when he had his vision… then what story did he tell his first followers, what did he really do, where did he do it? IF the person that made up the Jesus story also has to make up the Paul story, why believe Paul existed either? Cause if he did, you don’t know anything about him, you only have made up stories.

We aren't talking about one authors creation, we are talking about multiple authors and all the oral speakers we don't written accounts of but can verify must have existed because they left churches behind them in the first century. Churches in cities before Paul goes there suggest that Paul can't be the instigator of the myth. If Peter is the instigator of the myth, how could he have gone to so many cities so quickly? Peter was doing all the work while Paul was sitting around on his lazy butt doing nothing but writing letters and getting all the posterity? Then who went to Egypt and Morocco, Spain. Who went east? If you assume only one or two myth makers they have to perform more work than real miracle workers could do (because of the time constraints). The NT said it took thousands of people.



whats your theory on where these christian communities came from? do you think there is an uncredited great evangelist who spread the word of jesus before peter and paul went out?

No, it's not.

Does Thor Exist? I know personally, people that say he does.
We don't have any evidence of a Thor belief before the fourth century or thereabouts. We don't have any evidence of what a Thor religion actually may have believed and practiced until the Christian historians wrote down their version of it after the Thor belief was almost disappeared. You must be pretty confident in those Christian historians for you to think they relayed on to us today the actual beliefs and practices of the people that lived before their time. (I'm not saying Vikings didn't exist, I'm saying the only way you know anything about their religion is because Christian authors wrote it down hundreds of years later).

I'm curious how it is that you [I]know there was never a real Odin in the first place, no Germanic Chieftain named Odin in the fourth century from the late Roman empire days who used to work for the Romans from time to time and then had to leave Roman territories when Roman governor began to get suspicion of his popularity and he took his people with him and disappeared into the far north. I curious how you know that no such a person ever really existed.

How about Zeus or anyone of the Greek pantheon?

Those legends got around pretty far and gained quite a following, even surviving to this day in places. Why is Jesus more likely to have existed?
Theres no reliable proof, as we all know, so what, aside from a desire for him to be so, makes you so sure?

How about them? How many years did they have to add more and more gods to their pantheon as new communities and cities with their own gods were added to the pantheon? How many generations of adding more and more gods did it take? It didn't start overnight, it didn't start in only a few decades, I'll tell you that.

Also, people are surprisingly easy to condition, especially with repetition - which is why mantra forms like the catechisms are so popular.

I saw, some time ago, a project about implanmting memories. I seem to recall that a group of people were questioned over and over abut a Disneyland visit they attended. By careful phrasing, and repetition, most of the test subjects later admitted to remembering meeting Daffy Duck on their Disney visit.

Very interesting, do you remember where you read that?

The example which springs to my mind when it comes to implanting memories is from The Death of Peregrinus by Lucian of Samosata. Shortly after Peregrinus kills himself by leaping onto a pyre, Lucian tells a few gullible people that Peregrinus had flown from the flames in the guise of a vulture and prophesied in Greek, and that this event was marked by an earthquake (apparently they believed him, even though they'd only been a mile or two away at the time). By the time he'd got back to town, people were swearing blind that they too had seen the vulture and that Peregrinus had appeared to them personally in his old human form.

It certainly puts the Biblical accounts into perspective...

whats your theory on where these christian communities came from? do you think there is an uncredited great evangelist who spread the word of jesus before peter and paul went out?
I don't see any reason to doubt what the book of Acts says about it. Thousands were baptized after Pentecost. Paul was part of the group that then forced that group of thousand to leave Jerusalem, they went all over. Syria, Rome, Egypt. That’s why Paul was headed to Damascus, because Christians had ‘popped up’ there too, he was trying to stop the spread.

(Paul was of course known as Saul then, don't know why I felt the need to edit just for that though, ;))

I don't see any reason to doubt what the book of Acts says about it. Thousands were baptized after Pentecost. Paul was part of the group that then forced that group of thousand to leave Jerusalem, they went all over. Syria, Rome, Egypt. That’s why Paul was headed to Damascus, because Christians had ‘popped up’ there too, he was trying to stop the spread.

(Paul was of course known as Saul then, don't know why I felt the need to edit just for that though, ;))

so your theory is that bunches of newly baptised christians fled the country and set up group communities around the mediterranean. peter and paul had to manage their understanding of the message of jesus after that by visiting and writing them letters?

This will be all speculation, and the Christians will say he did. Now my opinion. I don't think he existed, and he is a myth more than anything. He's only one of many, many, many myths that have existed over time, and one of the ones that many believe to be the truth. The purpose of Jesus is to show people how to live in the eyes of "God".


He is not a myth, he exists .... deal with it.

so your theory is that bunches of newly baptised christians fled the country and set up group communities around the mediterranean.
Yes.

peter and paul had to manage their understanding of the message of jesus after that by visiting and writing them letters?
No, not entirely, not on their own. Other Apostles when out too. Like John to the East. We have quite a few other Apostles to account for that went 'somewhere.' It also says that there were 500 among them who had seen the risen Jesus AND we can show that the earliest Christian message was the preaching of the Resurrected Jesus. Everywhere they went in the first century they taught about the resurrection, it wasn't until the second century that we start seeing churches that think maybe it wasn't real and maybe it was an allegorical resurrection or an allegorical Jesus at all.

If you're referring to me, I challenged you because Robert E. Van Voorst is an ordained minister and a professor at a seminary (http://www.westernsem.edu/explore/faculty/vanvoorst) and is an extremely biased source. I mean, of course he's going to say that the "non-historicity of Jesus is effectively refuted"- he's a Christian scholar and thus has a vested interest in ensuring that Jesus Christ is historical because contesting that would conflict with his beliefs. It's different than using someone who isn't involved in Christian service stating "it is effectively refuted", because if that were the case, that person- being non-affiliated with Christianity (institution-wise, anyway)- more likely didn't let their beliefs get in the way of their research, as it did for Van Voorst.

Well, he's certainly correct in saying that Mythicism has yet to convince most relevant experts; the only 'convert' who springs to mind is Richard Carrier, who leans towards Mythicism and is on the verge of completing a PhD in Ancient History. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who (literally) wrote the textbook on the New Testament and he doesn't seem to have any time for the Christ Myth theories, neither does Hector Avalos (an atheist professor of Biblical Studies).

Does this mean that Jesus did exist? No, of course not, but it does mean that the people arguing against his existence have got to start publishing in peer-reviewed journals and convincing the relevant scholars.

He is not a myth, he exists .... deal with it.

He exists? Really? I'm sure a large number of people will be surprised to hear this. Of course, surely if he exists you can point to a photograph of him, maybe a little "Where's Waldo/Jesus."

I'm pretty sure we were discussing whether or not he existed, but I suppose points for originality should be given.

/chuckle

It also says that there were 500 among them who had seen the risen Jesus

If you're refering to 1 Corinthians 15:6 then I should probably mention that the authenticity of verses 3-11 is in question. In particular, it seems strange that a post-mortem appearence to such a large number of people would go unremarked in any of the Gospels.

Yes.


No, not entirely, not on their own. Other Apostles when out too. Like John to the East. We have quite a few other Apostles to account for that went 'somewhere.' It also says that there were 500 among them who had seen the risen Jesus AND we can show that the earliest Christian message was the preaching of the Resurrected Jesus.Everywhere they went in the first century they taught about the resurrection, it wasn't until the second century that we start seeing churches that think maybe it wasn't real and maybe it was an allegorical resurrection or an allegorical Jesus at all.

that is my understanding also but is there evidence of it outside of the bible?

He exists? Really? I'm sure a large number of people will be surprised to hear this. Of course, surely if he exists you can point to a photograph of him, maybe a little "Where's Waldo/Jesus."

"There he is! In the tomb!"

*three days pass*

"Wait... Shit! He's gone, and so have his hat and walking stick!"

:p

Does this mean that Jesus did exist? No, of course not, but it does mean that the people arguing against his existence have got to start publishing in peer-reviewed journals and convincing the relevant scholars.

*raises eyebrow*
Any article stating the existence of the Biblical Jesus of nazareth, called Christ by his followers, with all his powers and such, would have a hard time being published in any decent peer reviewed journal.

Examining the historicity of a normal man called Jesus who stood at the basis of the Christian faith is practically a seperate field though.

I can't very well discuss it with dead people (quoted from Dyakovo) --> u know what i meant by that...



Jesus hasn't told me anything(quoted from Dyakovo)--wtf ?!?!


I just don't understand people like you (refers to my post from page 75)
Look, the point is that we care about what i mentioned, and I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with this mocking.
Besides, there are some evidence that a person of Jesus Christ existed (like Kumran files) and I would like to point out that his material part in this world(his life, more precisely) has an importance for us christians because his earthly life was a sacrifice and necessary as nulling the 'sin debt' made till then and forever by us people. And not to mention the great importance of his life, that meaning this 33 years had for everything living then, and all miracles and deeds he's done.(don't know who you spoke with?!?! -->'False, I have spoken to christians IRL who don't think that it matters whether there was a real person known as Jesus Christ'(said by dyakovo)
Don't talk about something you don't have a clue about.
Sadly, there are lots of people equally dull and limited as u are. But, there's probably nothing that can be done about you, sad characters...

I would like to point out that his material part in this world(his life, more precisely) has an importance for us christians because his earthly life was a sacrifice and necessary as nulling the 'sin debt' made till then and forever by us people.

It being important to Christians does not make it real. Other religions have equally important stories that Christianity denies and vice versa - so how do you propose we decide who is right?

I can't very well discuss it with dead people (quoted from Dyakovo) --> u know what i meant by that...



Jesus hasn't told me anything(quoted from Dyakovo)--wtf ?!?!


I just don't understand people like you (refers to my post from page 75)
Look, the point is that we care about what i mentioned, and I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with this mocking.
Besides, there are some evidence that a person of Jesus Christ existed (like Kumran files) and I would like to point out that his material part in this world(his life, more precisely) has an importance for us christians because his earthly life was a sacrifice and necessary as nulling the 'sin debt' made till then and forever by us people. And not to mention the great importance of his life, that meaning this 33 years had for everything living then, and all miracles and deeds he's done.(don't know who you spoke with?!?! -->'False, I have spoken to christians IRL who don't think that it matters whether there was a real person known as Jesus Christ'(said by dyakovo)
Don't talk about something you don't have a clue about.
Sadly, there are lots of people equally dull and limited as u are. But, there's probably nothing that can be done about you, sad characters...

if you look at the bottom right corner of every post you will see 2 buttons quote and "+ . if you click on the "quote" button it will copy the post you are wanting to address. if you want to quote more than one post (and it can include your own previous post if you like) you press the "+ button and it will put them in your post in the order you pressed them.

welcome to NSG

*raises eyebrow*
Any article stating the existence of the Biblical Jesus of nazareth, called Christ by his followers, with all his powers and such, would have a hard time being published in any decent peer reviewed journal.

Examining the historicity of a normal man called Jesus who stood at the basis of the Christian faith is practically a seperate field though.

A fair point, but many historical journal-articles currently take the existence of a historical figure behind the Jesus stories as axiomatic. If this assumption was to be successfully challenged then the result would be a paradigm shift, but so far all the Mythicists seem to be interested in is publishing popular books and writing web pages. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but their publication strategy does seem to parallel that of Creationist groups in some respects (avoid peer-review, ignore experts, go straight to the people).

Besides, there are some evidence that a person of Jesus Christ existed (like Kumran files)

Eh? The Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish texts.

Eh? The Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish texts.

True enough, but the theology found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is useful for discrediting the claim that the Gospel of John had to be written after the gnostics were started. The light vs. the dark from the Dead Sea Scrolls put that old argument to the grave only a few decades ago.


(you guys are going too fast, I can't keep up, I'll be addressing some other points out of order I think [ cleaning house for wife's company coming over here later] :( )

If you're refering to 1 Corinthians 15:6 then I should probably mention that the authenticity of verses 3-11 is in question. In particular, it seems strange that a post-mortem appearence to such a large number of people would go unremarked in any of the Gospels.

General consensus is that Paul authored 1 Corinthians, cited by Marcion in the second century. I suspect that that the attacks against it are motivated by the desire to not have to argue with the claims made in it more than any actual reason to think it’s not authentic. The gospels don’t say how many saw him after the resurrection. The assumption of it being only a few is based on what?


p.s., are you RLI? IF so, cool, if not, then welcome.

that is my understanding also but is there evidence of it outside of the bible?

Evidence of what? The teaching part or the existence of the churches part?

If it’s the teachings part, the issue is addressed by N.T Wright quite well by him, and since I would be doing nothing but repeating what he said for that question, why not just read it?
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

The main point is that the change of theology about the concept of resurrection from the Jewish point to the Christian point occurs very early in the Church papers, what caused that change? The fact that the change occurred and the topic is written of by the scripture itself and church fathers later, is some evidence of its early origin. Why do I need evidence of theology outside of the scripture and other sources that will assuredly be called biased here? Are there contemporary descriptions of Christian theology from the first century that aren’t from Christian writers?

Anything really good?

edit: nvm you already answered
Hope you feel better soon

Thanks. :) Nothing spectacular... just making me dizzy, and narcoleptic. Not a good combination for typing. :D

True enough, but the theology found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is useful for discrediting the claim that the Gospel of John had to be written after the gnostics were started. The light vs. the dark from the Dead Sea Scrolls put that old argument to the grave only a few decades ago.

True, but they don't constitute evidence for Jesus in themselves (unless you listen to the nuts who claim that they include a fragment of the Gospel of Mark based on a one-word fragment :D).

(you guys are going too fast, I can't keep up, I'll be addressing some other points out of order I think [ cleaning house for wife's company coming over here later] :( )

NS does that. I remember Creationism vs. Evolution threads which reached 600 pages.

General consensus is that Paul authored 1 Corinthians, cited by Marcion in the second century. I suspect that that the attacks against it are motivated by the desire to not have to argue with the claims made in it more than any actual reason to think it’s not authentic. The gospels don’t say how many saw him after the resurrection. The assumption of it being only a few is based on what?

Perhaps I was unclear and for that I apologise. The general authorship of the epistle is not in question, it is only 15:3-11 which is in question. Robert Price wrote an article in the Journal of Higher Criticism which is freely available here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html). I haven't had time to read most of it in detail but I've seen numerous other suggestions that the lines are a later interpolation. While the Gospels don't actually rule out the possiblity of a mass appearence, it does seem strange that they wouldn't mention such an unprecedented miracle; it'd be rather like writing a biography of George Lucas without mentioning Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

p.s., are you RLI? IF so, cool, if not, then welcome.

Yes I am, thank you.

Very interesting, do you remember where you read that?

The example which springs to my mind when it comes to implanting memories is from The Death of Peregrinus by Lucian of Samosata. Shortly after Peregrinus kills himself by leaping onto a pyre, Lucian tells a few gullible people that Peregrinus had flown from the flames in the guise of a vulture and prophesied in Greek, and that this event was marked by an earthquake (apparently they believed him, even though they'd only been a mile or two away at the time). By the time he'd got back to town, people were swearing blind that they too had seen the vulture and that Peregrinus had appeared to them personally in his old human form.

It certainly puts the Biblical accounts into perspective...

Don't remember where I saw it, offhand... I think it was in one of those science-y journals I read periodically.

But, a quick net search revealed this: http://www.exploratorium.edu/memory/messingwithyourmind/index.html, which basically deals with the same thing.

Evidence of what? The teaching part or the existence of the churches part?



no not the teachings part, although i appreciate the link and am going to read it as soon as i post this.

im thinking that there might be some evidence of a christian community in say.. corinth.. at... 45 AD. perhaps some local guy reported that a bunch of newbies showed up with a radical theology and lifestyle.

or something like that for some community early in the first century.

We aren't talking about one authors creation, we are talking about multiple authors and all the oral speakers we don't written accounts of but can verify must have existed because they left churches behind them in the first century.


No - you said that, if Paul was real, his testimony about Peter must be true. That's not logical. Just because he's real, doesn't mean he's a good witness for truth.

Churches in cities before Paul goes there suggest that Paul can't be the instigator of the myth. If Peter is the instigator of the myth, how could he have gone to so many cities so quickly? Peter was doing all the work while Paul was sitting around on his lazy butt doing nothing but writing letters and getting all the posterity? Then who went to Egypt and Morocco, Spain. Who went east? If you assume only one or two myth makers they have to perform more work than real miracle workers could do (because of the time constraints). The NT said it took thousands of people.


I don't think I suggested Paul DID originate the message. I think proto-christians were wandering around witnessing, and that Paul rode the coat-tails of that. But I don't necessarily believe that everything Paul says is thus true.


Your assumption begins with the requirement that the Paul and Peter must be liars. Guilty until proven innocent, which may be the case where you come from, I don't know. Me, I try to assume a person is innocent until proven guilty.


No, you really don't. If I tell you that God told me that Jesus was an invention of the devil, you don't even entertain for a second that I might have really had that discussion with the Creator.

We default to doubting extraordinary tales, without extraordinary evidence.

And - in the case of Christianity, that's a whole load of extraordinary tales, and a serious absence (proportionately) of even ordinary evience.


However, lets take your assertion at face value, IF your assertion is correct then Paul and Peter must NOT have actually done the main things of having hundreds and thousand of other Christians with them from the beginning. IF they didn't spread the word the way they said they did, in the book of Acts, but made it up later and convinced second hand people to assume the role of the fictional first hand people, how did we get books like Matthew and John? We could account for Mark and Luke through Peter and Paul, but what about the others? Why do we have churches springing up in places that Peter and Paul never went during the same time period that they should be busy droning mantra forms like the catechisms into their first followers?


First - again, I think proto-christians were doing the leg work. Stories can spread pretty quickly if they catch the right zeitgeist... even in primitive circumstances.

Second - the beauty of mantra, is that you only have to teach it once, and tell you students to repeat it themselves. Mantra is a technique of SELF-conditioning.


I suggest that it's more logical to assume that Jesus did exist, even if you assume that he's simply the one and first conspirator myth maker. Without a real Jesus to base your myth on you would have to wait for years to convince Jerusalem that he ever existed.


Not at all. It is logical to assume that people frustrated with Roman occupation spread stories about a coming hero that would eventually overthrow the oppressor. Such a rumour would catch like wildfire. ANd doesn't require the 'hero' to be real, in any way.


No, its just too hard to believe that James and Stephen, and the others in the church and council in Jerusalem (that one that Paul first went to and asked for approval of his 'gospel' in the beginning) could have existed at such an early time if Paul and Peter 'invented' the story.


Did they exist? Are you verifying that fact externally?


Of course they would, take Scientology's growth as an example. But imagine hundreds of years into the future, you would have us question whether L. Ron Hubberd ever really existed or did they make him up to be the author of their religion after the fact.


Hubbard has left behind him a large number of other evidences... in his own hand, so to speak. He's also fairly well recorded by other contemporary, independent sources.


It's much more logical to assume he did exist, the same with Jesus. It's hard to have a Jones town if you don't have a Jones, it's hard to have a Waco if you don't have Koresh. Just because you believe Jesus existed doesn't automatically dictate that you have to believe in his message. But ot argue that the church was started without him entirely is demanding that we thinkg 'everything' the church says about it's own beginning with a real Jesus and the apostles and followers that knew that Jesus must really just be a lie and never happened at all and we are left with speculation to replace the huge void we've created by the assumption.


Sounds reasonable.


I didn't make the argument that it has to be 'believed' if Jesus really existed. Only pointed out that if you remove the historical Jesus from the story you open an even larger can of worms, creating a vast void of nothingness at the beginning of the first century, but we do know facts about the first century Christian expansion that requires any future theory to address. Arguing one or two guys made it up after the 40's and had it all expanded and started in multiple cities across the Roman Empire and beyond by the 50's and 60's. They even must have brainwashed new authors to help them write additional scriptures by then. It’s all simply too unbelievable without evidence of some kind to force the point. It’s easier to believe they had thousands of believers by the 40’s in order to created what we have we from the 60’s onward.

And all I'm saying is that 'easier to believe' is not implicitly related to 'truth'.

It is easier to believe Jesus, if he existed, was a real man - no godlike powers or agency, no authority... none of the miracles or the heroic story about sacrifice. That's 'easier to believe', because it relates to the reality we experience. But - most christians embrace a 'hard to believe' version.

True, but they don't constitute evidence for Jesus in themselves (unless you listen to the nuts who claim that they include a fragment of the Gospel of Mark based on a one-word fragment :D).

Actually I've been trying very hard to NOT make anyone think I’m making claims of actual Jesus’ “fingerprint,” just addressing what are evidences and what is not, and making counter arguments. Mostly I've been refuting claims of late dates for NT works.

Perhaps I was unclear and for that I apologise. The general authorship of the epistle is not in question, it is only 15:3-11 which is in question. Robert Price wrote an article in the Journal of Higher Criticism which is freely available here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html). I haven't had time to read most of it in detail but I've seen numerous other suggestions that the lines are a later interpolation. While the Gospels don't actually rule out the possiblity of a mass appearence, it does seem strange that they wouldn't mention such an unprecedented miracle; it'd be rather like writing a biography of George Lucas without mentioning Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

I’ll read it, haven’t yet. I will, but until then: Acts says Jesus was with them for forty days after the resurrection but before the ascension…

Acts 1:
1In the first book, O) Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
That’s a long time to be in Jerusalem and Bethany NOT see at least 500 people, it is said that Jesus had thousands come to see him before his death and the day of Pentecost had Peter say:
Acts 2
22"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

I don't see why the resurrection itself isn't one of the wonders and signs that God did through him in their midst...500 doesn't sound like too many.

George Lucas without Star Wars? That would be better if it was turned around. Paul and Peter would be like George Lucas BEFORE he made Star Wars, a nobody. Outside of the existence of Jesus they aren’t anybody either.


Yes I am, thank you.
I better watch my P’s and Q’s then, cause you’ll be on me about them if I mess them up I’m sure :p

Of course everyone is going to go out and say that none of the books of the bible are reliable. Well then lets take a look shall we. While the Books themselves could easily have been edited say by the catholic church, the overall mentioning of jesus would have been very difficult to be inserted by that organization. Next on the list we have the question of whether these documents were written closely following his real/fictional death. This has been proven over and over again by historians. As a matter of fact many other books that christians read at the time of the canonizing of the bible were not included for the reason that they were written too long after Jesus' death. That leaves a good amount of about 27 books mentioning jesus' name. Really puts the issue to rest if you ask me.

No - you said that, if Paul was real, his testimony about Peter must be true. That's not logical. Just because he's real, doesn't mean he's a good witness for truth.
IF his testimony ISN'T true, then we don't have any existence of Paul evidence either. That was my point. I'm not proving he didn't or couldn't have lied.

I don't think I suggested Paul DID originate the message. I think proto-christians were wandering around witnessing, and that Paul rode the coat-tails of that. But I don't necessarily believe that everything Paul says is thus true.

Okay, I'll agree with that I think. But if proto Christians were wandering around before him, who taught them the myth if it wasn't Jesus himself and the Apostles with him? How long do we have to create a mythical Jesus IF there was no physical person in that role? From 33AD to 50AD someone before Paul faked a Jesus and had all those proto-christians running around? Why not just assume that there really was a person running around creating followers who called himself Jesus?

N, you really don't. If I tell you that God told me that Jesus was an invention of the devil, you don't even entertain for a second that I might have really had that discussion with the Creator.

We default to doubting extraordinary tales, without extraordinary evidence.

And - in the case of Christianity, that's a whole load of extraordinary tales, and a serious absence (proportionately) of even ordinary evience.

Then by your logic, it should have been REALLY hard and take a long time to convince people that Jesus existed and did those things if they couldn't see proof themselves. Which makes it even harder to assume that someone faked Jesus entirely instead of thinking Jesus faked his miracles...

First - again, I think proto-christians were doing the leg work. Stories can spread pretty quickly if they catch the right zeitgeist... even in primitive circumstances.

Second - the beauty of mantra, is that you only have to teach it once, and tell you students to repeat it themselves. Mantra is a technique of SELF-conditioning.

I won't argue with that either, but I don't see how you combine this willingness to accept the mantra with people that have to be convinced to accept the miracles unseen (from your example above) they would not instinctively believe it without proof of some kind or a long time being convinced... It's more logical to assume that they DID think they saw miracle performed by Jesus and his followers then to think they were only told about it and saw nothing.

Not at all. It is logical to assume that people frustrated with Roman occupation spread stories about a coming hero that would eventually overthrow the oppressor. Such a rumour would catch like wildfire. ANd doesn't require the 'hero' to be real, in any way.

And in the end, Jesus didn't do that for them. Why have a story that says Jesus kingdom isn't of this world, that Jesus was killed by the Romans, and told by teachers that told them to do what the Romans told them to do and be good little subjects to the Romans? The early Christians were NOT revolutionaries, they were the opposite of what you just described they needed to be to be popular.

Did they exist? Are you verifying that fact externally?

What I am really saying is that to say Jesus didn't exist is then saying that ALL of these other people can't exist either then. And if we delete everything that the NT says about it's own beginning, then there shouldn't be a church at all because nobody else has a story of Christianity beginning outside of the NT scriptures...


Hubbard has left behind him a large number of other evidences... in his own hand, so to speak. He's also fairly well recorded by other contemporary, independent sources.
No, if the NT authors are liars, then the same could be said of Hubbard's writings, its authorship is a lie too. IF the authorship is a lie, then we know nothing about the author from the book product itself.

And all I'm saying is that 'easier to believe' is not implicitly related to 'truth'.

It is easier to believe Jesus, if he existed, was a real man - no godlike powers or agency, no authority... none of the miracles or the heroic story about sacrifice. That's 'easier to believe', because it relates to the reality we experience. But - most christians embrace a 'hard to believe' version.

Agreed. But isn't that a different discussion? This one is just about if a person named Jesus existed that the Christian church was founded on. The next discussion can be about if Jesus is who he said he was :)


... Out of time, gotta go ...

Not only this but if you would like a little more evidence they mention his entire geneology in the book of Matthew.

Not only this but if you would like a little more evidence they mention his entire geneology in the book of Matthew.

plus a different entire genealogy in luke. hooray!

plus a different entire genealogy in luke. hooray!

thats joseph's genealogy, not jesus' genealogy.

thats joseph's genealogy, not jesus' genealogy.


1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
2
Abraham became the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers.
3
Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram,
4
Ram the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse,
6
Jesse the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon, whose mother had been the wife of Uriah.
7
3 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asaph.
8
Asaph became the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, Joram the father of Uzziah.
9
Uzziah became the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah.
10
Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amos, 4 Amos the father of Josiah.
11
Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers at the time of the Babylonian exile.
12
After the Babylonian exile, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13
Zerubbabel the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor,
14
Azor the father of Zadok. Zadok became the father of Achim, Achim the father of Eliud,
15
Eliud the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob,
16
Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah.



When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the son, as was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24
the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25
the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai,
26
the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27
the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28
the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29
the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30
the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31
the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 13
32
the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33
the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34
the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35
the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah,
36
the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38
the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


how are they not both clearly supposed to be the line of joseph?

It would appear that there are a few archaeological sources for him. Josephus' Antiquities mention the martyrdom of James and describes him as the brother of "Jesus" called "Christ." Another Roman historian Tacitus listed a man he called "Christ" that was killed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign. And the Talmud gives a very brief mention of someone named "Jesus" who was "hanged from a tree" the day before Passover for practicing sorcery and apostasy. Some other Roman historian named Suetonius found the source of riots among Jews in Rome to be caused by someone named "Christus." Tacitus even called Christianity a superstition. :D

This doesn't prove much either way, but it's evidence. Believe whatever you want.

It would appear that there are a few archaeological sources for him. Josephus' Antiquities mention the martyrdom of James and describes him as the brother of "Jesus" called "Christ." Another Roman historian Tacitus listed a man he called "Christ" that was killed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign. And the Talmud gives a very brief mention of someone named "Jesus" who was "hanged from a tree" the day before Passover for practicing sorcery and apostasy. Some other Roman historian named Suetonius found the source of riots among Jews in Rome to be caused by someone named "Christus." Tacitus even called Christianity a superstition. :D

This doesn't prove much either way, but it's evidence. Believe whatever you want.

If you had read through the thread you would have seen that we have already dealt with those pieces of evidence.

how are they not both clearly supposed to be the line of joseph?

sorry bout that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_jesus#Explanations_for_discrepancies

I can't very well discuss it with dead people (quoted from Dyakovo) --> u know what i meant by that...
yes, and I was being flippant in response.
Jesus hasn't told me anything(quoted from Dyakovo)--wtf ?!?!
I'm not christian

I just don't understand people like you (refers to my post from page 75)
Look, the point is that we care about what i mentioned, and I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with this mocking.
I wasn't mocking
Besides, there are some evidence that a person of Jesus Christ existed (like Kumran files) and I would like to point out that his material part in this world(his life, more precisely) has an importance for us christians because his earthly life was a sacrifice and necessary as nulling the 'sin debt' made till then and forever by us people. And not to mention the great importance of his life, that meaning this 33 years had for everything living then, and all miracles and deeds he's done.(don't know who you spoke with?!?! -->'False, I have spoken to christians IRL who don't think that it matters whether there was a real person known as Jesus Christ'(said by dyakovo)
Don't talk about something you don't have a clue about.
I'm not, not every one who considers themselves to be christian feel that it is important that there was a real Jesus. The message is what is important to them. Do they believe that there was? Yes. Would it hurt their faith if it was somehow proven that there wasn't? (Not that I think this happenstance is likely, or for that matter even possible) No it wouldn't
Sadly, there are lots of people equally dull and limited as u are. But, there's probably nothing that can be done about you, sad characters...
How am I dull and limited? I am willing, nay eager to explore possibilities that are outside of my 'beliefs' whereas you are not. So which one of us is 'limited'?

Thanks. :) Nothing spectacular... just making me dizzy, and narcoleptic. Not a good combination for typing. :D

And you miss out on the fun of pain killers :(
which I'm on since I sprained my ankle rather severely

If you had read through the thread you would have seen that we have already dealt with those pieces of evidence.

could you explain since to look through the disastorous amount of pages there are would take hours.

could you explain since to look through the disastorous amount of pages there are would take hours.

Not really, since,
1: I can't be bothered to go back and find them for you.
2: I'm a little spaced out on pain killers.

not trying to be rude here.

As an oversimplification, we have pointed out some points questionability in them, this does not automatically make them false, but there is doubts to their accuracy. Hopefully someone else will take the time and effort to do a better job then I have (or can at the moment)

could you explain since to look through the disastorous amount of pages there are would take hours.
If you use the search function at the top of the thread, and look for 'Josephus', you'll come up with all the stuff.

sorry bout that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_jesus#Explanations_for_discrepancies

yes but that is the same sort of made up crap (meaning it has zero basis in scripture) as explaining how lucas didnt make a stupid mistake with his making of the kessel run in a certain amout of parsecs.

yes but that is the same sort of made up crap (meaning it has zero basis in scripture) as explaining how lucas didnt make a stupid mistake with his making of the kessel run in a certain amout of parsecs.
But... but... a parsec in the Star Wars universe is totally different to a parsec in our universe.

Uh...

*blasts Ashmoria*

Boring conversation anyway.

A statistic of this years flu collective. Not fun meds or anything... :)
Ah, my condolences.
BTW - Aetna won't cover propovol, the stuff they gave me when i had my kidney stone removed. That was GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD stuff.
:(
Incidentally, it was also what they used on Shrubya last time they dug the fundie and neo-con remnants out of his colon.

He is not a myth, he exists .... deal with it.

Or, not.
Dealt with, moving on.

[B]I'm sure I'm not the only one fed up with this mocking.
That's your choice and your burden.
You want a different response, pick something less preposterous to represent your thinking.
Grow a thicker skin or something.

how are they not both clearly supposed to be the line of joseph?
:D
Perhaps it's an issue of too many words ... or that/and that, not in the right order ... too confusing ... or as many of us are accused, they simply "don't understand" it.

How am I dull and limited? I am willing, nay eager to explore possibilities that are outside of my 'beliefs' whereas you are not. So which one of us is 'limited'?

It's clearly that you haven't let your imagination and emotional insecurities override reason, logic, sensibility and evidence. That's why you're so "limited". Just think, with your imagination in control, you'd be just amazing!

Eh? The Dead Sea Scrolls were Jewish texts.And?

It's clearly that you haven't let your imagination and emotional insecurities override reason, logic, sensibility and evidence. That's why you're so "limited". Just think, with your imagination in control, you'd be just amazing!Yeah, illusions may be amazing, but unfortunately they're insubstantial.

IF his testimony ISN'T true, then we don't have any existence of Paul evidence either. That was my point. I'm not proving he didn't or couldn't have lied.


If we only accept Paul's existence, based on scripture, then it's good to doubt. If we can find corroboration for his existence elsewhere, well his preaching still isn't necessarily true.


Okay, I'll agree with that I think. But if proto Christians were wandering around before him, who taught them the myth if it wasn't Jesus himself and the Apostles with him? How long do we have to create a mythical Jesus IF there was no physical person in that role? From 33AD to 50AD someone before Paul faked a Jesus and had all those proto-christians running around? Why not just assume that there really was a person running around creating followers who called himself Jesus?


You're making it more difficult than it has to be... it doesn't have to be some huge conspiracy, either... and it doesn't need a 'real' messiah.

All it needs is for one (or more - the stories could quite likely be conflated) of the extant messiah myth to really 'catch on'.

Example: someone in Magdala is telling a story about a guy he heard about who allegedly walked on water. A trader from Capernaum has heard the same story (although he didn't hear it 'here') and also a story about a guy healing the sick. In conversation, they decide they might be talking about the same guy (and they probably are - they're probably both reciting long standing stories dating from the Horus myth). In Jerusalem (a major trade route), the trader encounters a story of feeding the multitudes, and starts spreading that as part of the same story....

Nothing dishonest, no conspiracy - but that's just the way these stories grow - look at the Arthurian myths, for example.


Then by your logic, it should have been REALLY hard and take a long time to convince people that Jesus existed and did those things if they couldn't see proof themselves. Which makes it even harder to assume that someone faked Jesus entirely instead of thinking Jesus faked his miracles...


Not at all.... people also put great store in reliable witnesses. In less cynical times, especially in the Hebrew culture, miracles weren't that hard to believe, if you heard from a reliable source.


I won't argue with that either, but I don't see how you combine this willingness to accept the mantra with people that have to be convinced to accept the miracles unseen (from your example above) they would not instinctively believe it without proof of some kind or a long time being convinced... It's more logical to assume that they DID think they saw miracle performed by Jesus and his followers then to think they were only told about it and saw nothing.


There's nothing 'more logical' about that - logic can't really tell us the origins of a myth. Sure - we can see elements of prior myths, but we cant say HOW they got there,


And in the end, Jesus didn't do that for them. Why have a story that says Jesus kingdom isn't of this world, that Jesus was killed by the Romans, and told by teachers that told them to do what the Romans told them to do and be good little subjects to the Romans? The early Christians were NOT revolutionaries, they were the opposite of what you just described they needed to be to be popular.


The first christrians were expecting Jesus' imminent return. Within your lifetime, he said. And, in reference to the Hebrew 'messiah', they fully expected him to bring 'peace' to all nations... they expected Rome to be driven out with fire and sword.


What I am really saying is that to say Jesus didn't exist is then saying that ALL of these other people can't exist either then. And if we delete everything that the NT says about it's own beginning, then there shouldn't be a church at all because nobody else has a story of Christianity beginning outside of the NT scriptures...


That doesn't make any sense.


No, if the NT authors are liars, then the same could be said of Hubbard's writings, its authorship is a lie too. IF the authorship is a lie, then we know nothing about the author from the book product itself.


Eh? We know Hubbard wrote his books - or at leat, is credited with thir authorship. And that is from independent sources - something the Gospels don't have.

plus a different entire genealogy in luke. hooray!

Plus, there are older Hebrew records of earlier parts of the geneology... and Matthew and Luke fail to match those, also.

Exactly. I'm left with this mental image of someone trying to trace biblical geneologies, looking for Joseph and Mary Christ, and all the little Christ children.

I wonder then, if Danzig's former guitarist, John Christ, is the messiah?

Now, what I want to know, and maybe you or even Baldy knows this one, I keep hearing about Roman documents that have the name "Yeshua" as being executed by crucifiction.
I have also heard that Yeshua, was like Bob, common as the rain.
Anything ring a bell, there?

As far as I know, theres nothing.

We don't have any evidence of a Thor belief before the fourth century or thereabouts. We don't have any evidence of what a Thor religion actually may have believed and practiced until the Christian historians wrote down their version of it after the Thor belief was almost disappeared. You must be pretty confident in those Christian historians for you to think they relayed on to us today the actual beliefs and practices of the people that lived before their time.

Baldy, I think you have me confused for someone who hates Christians on general principle.
My only dislike for Christians of the Historian nature is when religious ferverance causes them to document untruths. Certainly, you dont believe that all such individuals throughout history were benevolent saints?



(I'm not saying Vikings didn't exist, I'm saying the only way you know anything about their religion is because Christian authors wrote it down hundreds of years later).

I'm curious how it is that you [I]know there was never a real Odin in the first place, no Germanic Chieftain named Odin in the fourth century from the late Roman empire days who used to work for the Romans from time to time and then had to leave Roman territories when Roman governor began to get suspicion of his popularity and he took his people with him and disappeared into the far north. I curious how you know that no such a person ever really existed.

I see where youre going with this, but that doesnt answer my question.



How about them? How many years did they have to add more and more gods to their pantheon as new communities and cities with their own gods were added to the pantheon? How many generations of adding more and more gods did it take? It didn't start overnight, it didn't start in only a few decades, I'll tell you that.

No, it usually takes a couple centuries to really spread. Like, oh, say, Buddhism, or Christianity. In fact, one thing Christianity has going for it, is the wonderful story it brings, and its adaptability to local cultures, such as rural places where Odinistic, or Celtic worship flourished. Mind you, these conversions where normally done by the sword. However, many these cultures merely added "Christ" to thier own pantheons, rather than adopt monotheism.

Hell, look at Scientology.
It was written by a known author of (horrible) fiction.
Now, its everywhere.
The Mormons?
11 million+ and the fastest growing religion.

could you explain since to look through the disastorous amount of pages there are would take hours.

Your faith is not worth a few hours to you ?
Assuming you're Christian of course.

Your faith is not worth a few hours to you ?
Assuming you're Christian of course.
Not a fair question. There is an awful lot of junk posts in this thread.

Not a fair question. There is an awful lot of junk posts in this thread.

Looking up the criticism of Josephus is also possible without reading this topic. Getting ones hands on the primary sources might even be wise - after all, why would one believe what some guy/girl at an internet forum told you ?

One or two guys did it? To all those many places all over the Mediterranean world which had churches before the end of the first century? Just curious why you think it's just one or two guys... Because I only used one or two examples? Why was there a church in Rome before Paul went there? Why was there a church in Syria and Egypt? That’s a Pretty good urban legend then for only one or two guys to fake it and replace the work force that the NT describes as over 500 who saw Jesus risen and the 3000 that were Baptized and sent out after the day of Pentecost… but you say only one or two guys could replace all of them and get the word out to the entire Mediterranean world that quickly. A person must really believe in miracles to think that would be easier than just saying Jesus probably existed…

Because those couple of guys were successful, one might say. Seriously, I'm a Christian, but you make us all look like idiots when you pretend like you're making even a remotely reasonable argument. Urban legends are relatively easy to spread today. You doing the same dumb ol' odds trick. Yes, the odds are against successfully making up a religion about a guy who didn't exist. However, since we don't know how many groups tried it unsuccessfully, the fact that one group succeeded wouldn't be a miracle.

I'm not saying they made it up, of course, but following your logic, let's claim going 16-0 is a "miracle" as well.

What are you saying IS the conclusion of the vast majority of scholars? That Jesus didn't exist, that Jesus did exist, that Jesus most likely existed or that Jesus most likely did not exist? Did you take a survey? What qualifies as a ‘vast majority?’

That the evidence is not compelling. Most scholars, the vast majority, do not find the evidence compelling. Most of the eivdence that those who do believe that they can conclusively show Jesus existed use can be shown to be flawed or downright made up or are the works of people who are obviously and clearly biased and had a hand in spreading the faith.

IF his testimony ISN'T true, then we don't have any existence of Paul evidence either. That was my point. I'm not proving he didn't or couldn't have lied.



Okay, I'll agree with that I think. But if proto Christians were wandering around before him, who taught them the myth if it wasn't Jesus himself and the Apostles with him? How long do we have to create a mythical Jesus IF there was no physical person in that role? From 33AD to 50AD someone before Paul faked a Jesus and had all those proto-christians running around? Why not just assume that there really was a person running around creating followers who called himself Jesus?



Then by your logic, it should have been REALLY hard and take a long time to convince people that Jesus existed and did those things if they couldn't see proof themselves. Which makes it even harder to assume that someone faked Jesus entirely instead of thinking Jesus faked his miracles...



I won't argue with that either, but I don't see how you combine this willingness to accept the mantra with people that have to be convinced to accept the miracles unseen (from your example above) they would not instinctively believe it without proof of some kind or a long time being convinced... It's more logical to assume that they DID think they saw miracle performed by Jesus and his followers then to think they were only told about it and saw nothing.



And in the end, Jesus didn't do that for them. Why have a story that says Jesus kingdom isn't of this world, that Jesus was killed by the Romans, and told by teachers that told them to do what the Romans told them to do and be good little subjects to the Romans? The early Christians were NOT revolutionaries, they were the opposite of what you just described they needed to be to be popular.



What I am really saying is that to say Jesus didn't exist is then saying that ALL of these other people can't exist either then. And if we delete everything that the NT says about it's own beginning, then there shouldn't be a church at all because nobody else has a story of Christianity beginning outside of the NT scriptures...


No, if the NT authors are liars, then the same could be said of Hubbard's writings, its authorship is a lie too. IF the authorship is a lie, then we know nothing about the author from the book product itself.



Agreed. But isn't that a different discussion? This one is just about if a person named Jesus existed that the Christian church was founded on. The next discussion can be about if Jesus is who he said he was :)


... Out of time, gotta go ...

First of all, you keep acting like there is any validity to suggesting that if a story is widespread and believed it must be true. There are literally thousands of examples of widespread stories that aren't true. My sister's cousin told me once about this guy with a hook for a hand. Bloody Mary really happened. If you forward this message from Microsoft they'll send you mone. My cousin made a fortune.

The very gospels talk about how the apostles went out and spread the word WITHOUT Jesus. So these guys spread the word. And those guys spread the word. And pretty soon the only people who actually SAW Jesus were my cousin's girlfriend's sister.

Meanwhile, you're actually claiming that stories claiming to have seen a man who died and returned to life is evidence of the historicity of Jesus. You can't possibly think that wouldn't be laughed out of every scientific journal imaginable.

Is it coincidence there is no independent, contemporary evidence? What is your explaination? We know the apologist explanation for the gospels and the works of Paul. However, that people who had a hand in spreading Christianity told the stories of Christianity as if they have a valid source doesn't qualify as good evidence in any school of logic or science I've ever seen.

You also mentioned guilty until proven innocent. Yep. That's how it works. Otherwise, every single claim that anyone made would have to be proven wrong without a shred of truth. In both logic and science, you make a claim and you proide evidence for it. Without proving you're correct or telling the truth, your claim is dismissed. Guilty until proven innocent when talking about evidence is how the world works. In fact, even in a court of law, the presumption that people lie is exactly why innocent until proven guilty is required. Otherwise, I'd just accuse you and you'd go to jail.

First of all, you keep acting like there is any validity to suggesting that if a story is widespread and believed it must be true. There are literally thousands of examples of widespread stories that aren't true. My sister's cousin told me once about this guy with a hook for a hand. Bloody Mary really happened. If you forward this message from Microsoft they'll send you mone. My cousin made a fortune.

I have not been arguing that the story must be true, I've been trying to point out what the implications are if the story is not based on truth. IF it's not true, then we know nothing about how the Church began. If the stories are not based on truth then there is no Paul and Peter and all the others, if the stories are based on truth, then those figures really exist. It's as simple as that. The message of the story is not proven to be true just because the characters exist, that is true, and I have not said otherwise.

The very gospels talk about how the apostles went out and spread the word WITHOUT Jesus. So these guys spread the word. And those guys spread the word. And pretty soon the only people who actually SAW Jesus were my cousin's girlfriend's sister.
Absolutely correct. Now lets look at timelines. The book of Acts says they started with a few thousand people in the mid 30's. The theory of "no Jesus" requires that we start with an intention to create a myth in the mid thirties. Since we have several authors and unnamed evangelicals popping up all over the world by the 50's, founding churches in more places than is possible to achieve for just a few conspirators, what is more likely a beginning to explain what we have? The no Jesus theory requires that all the authors of the gospels are liars or stories from liars, if not based on some truth then we are saying we no nothing of this time period.

Meanwhile, you're actually claiming that stories claiming to have seen a man who died and returned to life is evidence of the historicity of Jesus. You can't possibly think that wouldn't be laughed out of every scientific journal imaginable.

Actually it IS evidence. It's not proof that it's true, but it is evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_document

Is it coincidence there is no independent, contemporary evidence? What is your explaination? We know the apologist explanation for the gospels and the works of Paul. However, that people who had a hand in spreading Christianity told the stories of Christianity as if they have a valid source doesn't qualify as good evidence in any school of logic or science I've ever seen.
And IF I asked you to show me a Torah from the first century seventy five years ago, you couldn't show my one from within eight hundred years of that date. That would in no way prove that Jews didn't exist though, nor be evidence that we don't know what their Torah said. Now we have since then discovered scrolls that show the Torah then but we only have them because some people felt the need to bury them away for their own purposes. But for sake of comparison, we have far more evidence of Christian documents for the first couple of centuries than we do for any other contemporary documents at all. Nearly every written document (not counting stone carvings) we have from that period went through the same processes of being written and re-recorded throughout the millennia by Christian scribes all over he Mediterranean world.

You also mentioned guilty until proven innocent. Yep. That's how it works. Otherwise, every single claim that anyone made would have to be proven wrong without a shred of truth. In both logic and science, you make a claim and you proide evidence for it. Without proving you're correct or telling the truth, your claim is dismissed. Guilty until proven innocent when talking about evidence is how the world works. In fact, even in a court of law, the presumption that people lie is exactly why innocent until proven guilty is required. Otherwise, I'd just accuse you and you'd go to jail.

When we discover a written artifact from antiquity, that begins by saying something like, I so-and-so write this letter to so-and-so, the assumption is that it is not lying. Until a reason to think otherwise presents itself it is assume to be authored by who it claims to be. IF we find clay tablets that say so-and-so wrote the rules and receipts for the temple grain mill, we believe so-and-so wrote the rules and receipts for that temple grain mill. That's how it works in this field of study.

That the evidence is not compelling. Most scholars, the vast majority, do not find the evidence compelling. Most of the eivdence that those who do believe that they can conclusively show Jesus existed use can be shown to be flawed or downright made up or are the works of people who are obviously and clearly biased and had a hand in spreading the faith.

Perhaps you can cite your source? I don't think the question is even raised as, can you conclusively show Jesus existed. I would suggest that the vast majority of scholars think there was a Jesus that spawned the movement. Whether they can prove it conclusively isn't something anyone would even likely attempt. In the same way that trying to conclusively prove Jesus never existed would require some sort of new smoking gun evidence that is not known today...

Because those couple of guys were successful, one might say. Seriously, I'm a Christian, but you make us all look like idiots when you pretend like you're making even a remotely reasonable argument. Urban legends are relatively easy to spread today. You doing the same dumb ol' odds trick. Yes, the odds are against successfully making up a religion about a guy who didn't exist. However, since we don't know how many groups tried it unsuccessfully, the fact that one group succeeded wouldn't be a miracle.

I'm not saying they made it up, of course, but following your logic, let's claim going 16-0 is a "miracle" as well.

What are the odds of your pants falling down while you are walking today? What are the odds you will win the lottery? Why assume the least likely when the most likely is not disqualified yet?

I have NOT been arguing that there is conclusive proof of any of it at all. Perhaps you can quote me saying it? I should fix those posts…


Oh, and thanks for the ad hominem attack, you know, suggesting I must be an idiot and all. Nice form that.

No, it usually takes a couple centuries to really spread. Like, oh, say, Buddhism, or Christianity. In fact, one thing Christianity has going for it, is the wonderful story it brings, and its adaptability to local cultures, such as rural places where Odinistic, or Celtic worship flourished. Mind you, these conversions where normally done by the sword. However, many these cultures merely added "Christ" to thier own pantheons, rather than adopt monotheism.
You are lumping too much history into the discussion, I'm talking about the very beginning of the Church, the first three decades after 33AD. Documents from the first two, maybe three centuries in a pinch. There were Christian churches all over the Mediterranean world and beyond before the end of the first century... There must have been thousands of believers just to go to all the places required.


Hell, look at Scientology.
It was written by a known author of (horrible) fiction.
Now, its everywhere.
The Mormons?
11 million+ and the fastest growing religion.

Those examples help my argument that Jesus most likely did exist, because Scientology and Mormons both had a real 'father' of their religions as well. Smith existed, Hubbard existed, there is no reason to assume Jesus didn't exist.

Whether Jesus existed is not all that important and it is more likely that he did than not. It is more important to find out about the circumstances in which he existed. Was he crucified? Did all happen as the Gospels convey or did all happen as the Qu'ran conveys or did it happen in a completely different way? Was there a divine involvement?

If we only accept Paul's existence, based on scripture, then it's good to doubt. If we can find corroboration for his existence elsewhere, well his preaching still isn't necessarily true.
I have not been arguing about Paul and Peter's message of Jesus being the Risen Savior as true or not, I’ve been arguing that they existed because of their authorship of their books regardless of theology. IF they existed, and they wrote what they wrote, and IF Jesus did not exist, then they were liars and conspirators.

You're making it more difficult than it has to be... it doesn't have to be some huge conspiracy, either... and it doesn't need a 'real' messiah.

All it needs is for one (or more - the stories could quite likely be conflated) of the extant messiah myth to really 'catch on'.

Example: someone in Magdala is telling a story about a guy he heard about who allegedly walked on water. A trader from Capernaum has heard the same story (although he didn't hear it 'here') and also a story about a guy healing the sick. In conversation, they decide they might be talking about the same guy (and they probably are - they're probably both reciting long standing stories dating from the Horus myth). In Jerusalem (a major trade route), the trader encounters a story of feeding the multitudes, and starts spreading that as part of the same story....

Nothing dishonest, no conspiracy - but that's just the way these stories grow - look at the Arthurian myths, for example.
You minimize too much what the impact of no actual Jesus would mean. It would mean that ALL of the NT authors were lying. That every quote of Jesus was a lie for both what it said and what the authors says the source of the quote was. It would mean that some unknown event occurred to a significant group of the Jewish people and they entirely changed their beliefs, doctrines, religious practices and even culture and NONE of the real reason is recorded anywhere. But why assume that? Why entertain that course of questions when we do have documents, and reasons, and theology explanations, through the NT scriptures. We DO know what that event was, it was the birth of Christianity. Take Jesus out of the picture though then we could explain none of it without calling all historical documents from that time period about the matter the product of liars, meaning not only is their theology wrong, their record of historicity is lies as well. That makes for best selling popular entertainment like the Da Vinci Code, but it makes for horrible biblical criticism because it has no evidence outside of wild speculation, it would be a waste of time without some reason to pursue it.

Not at all.... people also put great store in reliable witnesses. In less cynical times, especially in the Hebrew culture, miracles weren't that hard to believe, if you heard from a reliable source.
YOU were the one that said people automatically assume you are lying when you make outlandish claims, I see now you are changing your assessment..

There's nothing 'more logical' about that - logic can't really tell us the origins of a myth. Sure - we can see elements of prior myths, but we cant say HOW they got there,
Agreed that logic alone can’t prove that any assumption is correct, however, this does not result in ruling that one cannot make assumptions. I assume my tax brokers advice is good, we would proceed under that assumption and let him fill out our taxes. IF I find that his version doesn’t fit with my past experiences with taxes or I end up getting audited and they find errors OR I find other tax accountants that tell me a different version then the original accountant said, THEN I put the original accountant in the false category. The same with ancient documents, we can assume they are authentic until we have a reason to question them (I will try to use the word authentic instead of ‘true’ I think both you and Jacobia were reading that ‘true’ to mean I was trying to say the message in the document was “true” but I was trying to say an authentic document)

The first christrians were expecting Jesus' imminent return. Within your lifetime, he said. And, in reference to the Hebrew 'messiah', they fully expected him to bring 'peace' to all nations... they expected Rome to be driven out with fire and sword.
They also preached that they should be good servants, good Roman tax payers and good slaves even. They should do all their work well and be ‘good and obedient' until Jesus returned. Not the kind of talk the incites civil revolutions, not even civil disobedience.

That doesn't make any sense.
Think about it. IF Jesus didn’t exist at all, then we can’t trust any part of any gospel. If we can’t believe any part of any gospel, then the birth of Christianity is an entirely unexplained event that suddenly pops up in Judea and covers the Mediterranean world with converts in less than one generation with no possible explanation. If the Christianity movement started with a message of “ a long time ago a man named Jesus ….” But it didn’t, the Christianity movement started with, “just a short time ago, as you saw yourselves, in your very presence he performed miracles…” (as Peter said to the crowd on the day of Pentecost).

Eh? We know Hubbard wrote his books - or at leat, is credited with thir authorship. And that is from independent sources - something the Gospels don't have.
The ‘credited’ with authorship is correct. The gospels authorship was credited to Matthew Mark Luke and John. Whether you believe the accrediting of the authorship is one thing, but you can’t deny that they were accredited authors.

Whether Jesus existed is not all that important and it is more likely that he did than not. It is more important to find out about the circumstances in which he existed. Was he crucified? Did all happen as the Gospels convey or did all happen as the Qu'ran conveys or did it happen in a completely different way? Was there a divine involvement?

I agree that yours is a better question. But one thing at a time ;)

I agree that yours is a better question. But one thing at a time ;)The fact that so many sources exist that refer to a person called Yeshua/Jesus is enough for me to take his existence as a fact. What the sources say/claim about him is an entirely different matter, however.

guess what, i am not going to pity anyone.

I think Jesus existed, but i have no doubt in my mind that he was not thr Son of this so called GOD. i mean come on people, seriously. God doesn't exist. thats my opinion which i am entitled to. u will not take that from me. Jesus is someone who got random desperate ppl to follow him. there is a man out in america who claims hs the anti-christ, guess wat, hes NOT. he jus got a bunch of ppl to follow him. THATS ALL. and guess wat, the ppl who followed this lunatic jesus are christians. all u are, are glorified jews. i actully hav respect for jews because they are pure ppl. unlike christians who jus think that these stories are true. and dont anone lecture me on some of those miracles form god. thats some bs. thats wat i think the truth is. thats my opinion. and i am not breaking any rules with my opinion, so dont try to report me.the question was not about GOD or Jesus' divinity. It was about the existence of the historical figure.

guess what, i am not going to pity anyone.

I think Jesus existed, but i have no doubt in my mind that he was not thr Son of this so called GOD. i mean come on people, seriously. God doesn't exist. thats my opinion which i am entitled to. u will not take that from me. Jesus is someone who got random desperate ppl to follow him. there is a man out in america who claims hs the anti-christ, guess wat, hes NOT. he jus got a bunch of ppl to follow him. THATS ALL. and guess wat, the ppl who followed this lunatic jesus are christians. all u are, are glorified jews. i actully hav respect for jews because they are pure ppl. unlike christians who jus think that these stories are true. and dont anone lecture me on some of those miracles form god. thats some bs. thats wat i think the truth is. thats my opinion. and i am not breaking any rules with my opinion, so dont try to report me.

guess what, i am not going to pity anyone.

I think Jesus existed, but i have no doubt in my mind that he was not thr Son of this so called GOD. i mean come on people, seriously. God doesn't exist. thats my opinion which i am entitled to. u will not take that from me. Jesus is someone who got random desperate ppl to follow him. there is a man out in america who claims hs the anti-christ, guess wat, hes NOT. he jus got a bunch of ppl to follow him. THATS ALL. and guess wat, the ppl who followed this lunatic jesus are christians. all u are, are glorified jews. i actully hav respect for jews because they are pure ppl. unlike christians who jus think that these stories are true. and dont anone lecture me on some of those miracles form god. thats some bs. thats wat i think the truth is. thats my opinion. and i am not breaking any rules with my opinion, so dont try to report me.
Yeah but, you also claim there is "no PAKISTAN (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12982357&postcount=77)", so I will take your opinion with a grain of salt. :D

i never claimed there was no Pakistan. WTH are u talkin about.

PS: ur grain of salt comment, a little pathetic.

i never claimed there was no Pakistan. WTH are u talkin about.

PS: ur grain of salt comment, a little pathetic.
Way off-topic, but yes you did
that jus wont work. either you find them in india, england, or america. there is no PAKISTAN.

i am from the mid-west gujurat

Way off-topic, but yes you did

by the way, i think you owe me a cookie for suggesting to you that if you start this thread it would be well attended.

by the way, i think you owe me a cookie for suggesting to you that if you start this thread it would be well attended.

*hands over lots of cookies* :fluffle:

Did Socrates really exist? After all, the only evidence we have of his existence is from the writings of his followers (such as Plato) after his death. Same as with Jesus.

In fact, come to think of it, that holds true for the existence of most important people in the Ancient World. Typically, the only evidence we have of their existence is from the writings of one or two ancient historians. Only Emperors, Pharaohs and the like have more evidence backing them.

Did Socrates really exist? After all, the only evidence we have of his existence is from the writings of his followers (such as Plato) after his death. Same as with Jesus.

In fact, come to think of it, that holds true for the existence of most important people in the Ancient World. Typically, the only evidence we have of their existence is from the writings of one or two ancient historians. Only Emperors, Pharaohs and the like have more evidence backing them.

So yes to the first part of the question; now do you think it matters whether he did or didn't actually exist?

Did Socrates really exist? After all, the only evidence we have of his existence is from the writings of his followers (such as Plato) after his death. Same as with Jesus.

In fact, come to think of it, that holds true for the existence of most important people in the Ancient World. Typically, the only evidence we have of their existence is from the writings of one or two ancient historians. Only Emperors, Pharaohs and the like have more evidence backing them.

well yeah.

the evidence for socrates is pretty sketchy. if you want to provide evidence one way or the other (in a new thread), go right ahead.

i think youll find that no article of faith is involved in the literal existence of socrates so:

1) fewer people will consider the question to be a form of attack and will thus be open to the possibility

2) fewer people will care enough to participate in such a thread.

3) once the evidence is teased out of various sites on the net, a consensus will be reached and the thread will end quickly.

Did Socrates really exist? After all, the only evidence we have of his existence is from the writings of his followers (such as Plato) after his death. Same as with Jesus.

In fact, come to think of it, that holds true for the existence of most important people in the Ancient World. Typically, the only evidence we have of their existence is from the writings of one or two ancient historians. Only Emperors, Pharaohs and the like have more evidence backing them.See, accepting the existence of Socrates or Jesus is really not the big deal. It's more interesting to see whether those who wrote about them were doing so accurately. Which also includes the question for the trustworthiness of those writers. I'd trust Plato over Paul or Peter any day.

Well I'm a Christian, so it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Jesus' existence is one of the most important things in the universe.

See, accepting the existence of Socrates or Jesus is really not the big deal. It's more interesting to see whether those who wrote about them were doing so accurately. Which also includes the question for the trustworthiness of those writers. I'd trust Plato over Paul or Peter any day.

yeah but didnt aristotle write that plato made up things that he attributed to socrates? i dont remember if it was supposed to be just some or every bit of it.

Does it even matter? I personally take the entire Bible, both Old and New Testement, as a book of morality stories, no different from AEsop's fables. Christ was a character who had plenty of good ideas, none of them new.:upyours:

Well I'm a Christian, so it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Jesus' existence is one of the most important things in the universe.

Not all christians feel that the existence of Jesus as a historical entity is that important, but thank you for the answer.

See, accepting the existence of Socrates or Jesus is really not the big deal. It's more interesting to see whether those who wrote about them were doing so accurately. Which also includes the question for the trustworthiness of those writers. I'd trust Plato over Paul or Peter any day.
Really? Why? After all, it's rather obvious that most of Plato's dialogues involving Socrates are pure fiction - they make no pretense to be anything else - so it's quite possible that Socrates never said any of the things that Plato attributed to him.

More generally, it is theoretically possible that some of the ancient historians that we rely on for so much of our knowledge of the ancient world made a lot of stuff up. It is almost certain that they at least tweaked history to put their own countries/empires/city-states in a positive light.

Personally, I am more inclined to trust an author who believes that the events he is writing about are the key to eternal life than an author who writes history as a hobby - because the more importance an author attaches to a certain set of events, the more likely he is to record them accurately.

Man what a question: Let see the Bible mention Jesus, the Koran mention Jesus, and Some Hebrew text mention Jesus. I think existed.

Man what a question: Let see the Bible mention Jesus, the Koran mention Jesus, and Some Hebrew text mention Jesus. I think existed.

1) The bible is rather biased, to say the least.
2) Wasn't aware of mention of Jesus in the Koran, care to provide a link?
3) A Yeshu was mentioned in the Talmud, but he was hanged not crucified.

Would it hurt your faith (assuming you are a christian) if it was somehow proven that he didn't exist?

yeah but didnt aristotle write that plato made up things that he attributed to socrates?and? but he didn't make up socrates.

Does it even matter? I personally take the entire Bible, both Old and New Testement, as a book of morality stories, no different from AEsop's fables. Christ was a character who had plenty of good ideas, none of them new.:upyours:

what is the function of the :upyours: at the end of your post? i dont see what point it is making.

2) Wasn't aware of mention of Jesus in the Koran, care to provide a link?

Jesus is called Isa in the Koran. He is considered a minor prophet; not the son of God nor anywhere near as important as Mohammed.
Of course, the Koran was written a few centuries after Jesus supposedly lived and is de facto a continuation and "correction" of the Bible. So if acknowledging his existence actually means anything can be debated.

and? but he didn't make up socrates.

who else wrote about socrates? i know hes associated with other likely-to-have-existed people but i dont remember who else wrote something about him.