NationStates Jolt Archive

Before we even discount the Gospels we must first of all consider their historical accuracy. The books, although they make up the Bible, which is not reason to discount them as historical documents as some people here are doing, do present a significant tool for archaeologists and historians today.

The Old Testament scriptures have been found to be exceptionally accurate in the location of Jericho, Jerusalem, the old temple walls, location of Israel, settlements and other such items. They are considered to be a supportive historical document which aids archaeology and has been consistently proven to be accurate.

The New Testament is no different. Now there is some divergence within the NT canon within the Gospel accounts which is known as the synoptic problem which is itself a question of the origination of the first Gospel, however these problems remain within the narrative and do not really go much further than that.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Matthew was a tax collector who was saved by Christ believed to be an apostle.
Mark was, and is commonly believed to be a close associate of Peter.
Luke was an independent historian who has set out these accounts.
John was an apostle.

Now before we begin criticising the Gospels we must first look to their creation. Matthew was a Gospel that was written and aimed towards the Jewish audience, this is derived from its substance in Jewish teachings and orientation.

Mark was written for the Greeks assumed in the same reasons Matthew was.

Luke for the Gentiles and John for existing believers.

Now we must give careful consideration to the way in which these accounts have been written, at different periods and at different times. Each of the synoptic Gospels has significant convergence in the life, teachings, sayings and acts of Jesus Christ, which in itself is astounding due to them being written in different locations of the old world.

It is a historical fact, that they were written in different places at different times, away from each other.

As for John we point out that he is not in contradiction to the Synoptic Gospels but he does diverge and present different aspects to the character of Christ, but it’s important to note that these are not contradictory.

I would like to make this note and ask the reader to assume for just a moment that there was no historical Jesus, that this man was a figment of the imagination of the apostles. He was nothing.

Then I would like the reader to wonder why the accounts are so similar? The Gospels have been formed over the results of various eye witness testimonies, and in the case of Luke more than one. Luke is perhaps the largest credit to the existence of a historical Jesus whether or not you believe he was the son of God.

He was a historian, he interviewed and dived deeply into the accounts of people who met Jesus Christ. He most likely examined the other Gospels to see if they matched up with testimony, and at the end of it all, he came out with a text that was oddly similar to Matthew and Mark. Though with more narrative in some parts.

The Gospel of Luke in careful consideration to its readership, IE the Roman Theodopilis, would have probably been used as a supportive document in the trial of Paul in Rome, its significance as a neutral document would have been of the upmost importance and despite claims that will probably arise, there is no foundation to assume that Luke was terribly bias in his research, or that he had something to prove.

Now let me deal with the claim that each of the Gospels are built from each other. This is in itself a significant point of the synoptic problem, one which I don’t believe exists. Each Gospel has divergence in order, and narrative, and language structure which makes it inconceivable to believe that they have been worked from other documents, but this is a field and people do believe that there is basis for this theory.

Now, the New Testament scriptures have been proven to be quite accurate in historical narrative. Such as the orientation of Jerusalem, roads, mountains placements, Herods palace, etc etc. Archeology sees the documents to be exceptionally valuable in this regard, and it is important to note has found to support the Gospel accounts through field research.

But what about the actual times? Could the apostles have made up the Gospel account without a historical Jesus?

The religion started in Jerusalem, and developed a significant following. It did start out as a branch of Judaism and attracted a significant following of converts.

Now the main theory against a historical Jesus is that the apostles just told a bunch of lies.

I think the best question to that point is could they have gotten away with it?

The apostles could not have made up the trial of Jesus Christ before the high priests and Pilate due to the large amount of eyewitness testimony. Jews are exceptionally devout, and any lies such as these, with a made up Jesus would have instantly been rejected.

The Gospels feature the Jewish ruling authorities, it is inconceivable to believe that they would have allowed the accusation of a public trial of a man whom they never met to go unchallenged.

And finally, my point in this regard is that synagogues, Jewish synagogues all over the Roman Empire recognised that Jesus himself existed, shown by their admittance of Christians into circles for a time.

Now we must also look to the simple fact that the Jewish authorities fell strongly against Christianity in its early days. Any flaw in testimony, written account, would have been torn apart from limb to limb and denounced as lies.

Therefore it is only reasonable to assume that since there is such a public perception of Jesus Christ, and also therefore such a public chance denouncing Jesus Christ. If he never even existed, then the apostles would have had no basis on which to spread their faith, simply because it would have been denounced by Jews, who would have required independent eye witnesses as was their customs to support the concept that the Messiah has been.

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.

Thank you.

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.

The stories of Jesus were told at least 100 years after he was dead. long after his followers were dead. He was just a fuck lot of hype. Seriously the fact that he lived is 50/50. The fact that he did anythinbg that he is supposed to have done is 100/0 in favor of didn't

The stories of Jesus were told at least 100 years after he was dead. long after his followers were dead. He was just a fuck lot of hype. Seriously the fact that he lived is 50/50. The fact that he did anythinbg that he is supposed to have done is 100/0 in favor of didn't

Actually I think you will find that, that is the later estimates. The earliest is only sixty years after his death. Which for a historical document is very solid ground.

How many documents have been written and accepted as historical evidence over two hundred years since the event?

Finally make sure you take into account the oral tradition of the culture, where it was custom not to write things down like we do, but to memorise it. The fact that they wrote anything down at all is a miracle.

The Old Testament scriptures have been found to be exceptionally accurate in the location of Jericho, Jerusalem, the old temple walls, location of Israel, settlements and other such items. They are considered to be a supportive historical document which aids archaeology and has been consistently proven to be accurate.

Locations? maps from that time are equally reliable. The factr that some things like, physical features are accurate is not ver suprising. Its hard to fuck that up. The part where it talks about Adam and Eve and the Jews leaving Egypt have no solid proof. The bases for the two faiths are just silly little stories. There is no proof that the Jews were in Egypt. The fact that the first 5 parts of the Bible are wrong ruins the credibilitry.

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.


No it doesn't. I'm beginning to wonder if you do this deliberately.

There doesn't have to be any intention to create a myth in the mid thirties... indeed, there already WERE a dozen mesiah myths, in that area, at that time. All it takes is for a story to be successful.


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?


What do you mean? The most likely answer (if we follow Occam) is that people spread the word, like the story says to do. We are talking about a scope of something like 20 years, just there... and that's a lot of time for a story to spread.


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.

So... how are we attributing the Gospels, then? None of them start like that. Indeed, the only 'author' consistently addressing in such a fashion, is Paul - the one 'author' we know for sure never met the living Jesus.

In terms of supporting evidence for a living Jesus, that's not a lot of help.

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.

Again, that's a false dilemma. There is no validity to the claim that it's all true or all false. There is a lot of spectrum in there. A ton.


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.

Um, actually, no. You're again creating a false dilemma. First of all, it didn't have to be intentional. There were tons of myths of a hero going on then. There are a million ways this turns out without it being intentional. You get a bunch of guys together who never met their messiah and they start fleshing out the details they know. As GnI pointed out, it's not very difficult for people to swear things happened that didn't, once they've gone over a story a few times. And, again, because they central figure may not have existed doesn't mean we know nothing. Your issue here seems to be you think your lack of imagination is evidence for Jesus. It's not.


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

Reading is fundamental. I didn't claim there was no evidence. The only thing I've ever said is the evidence isn't compelling. In what you're replying to, I simply said that you're completely invalid claims that we have to buy into the stories because you can't think of a more reasonable way for the stories to have been spread is absurd and not a valid theory.



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.

Um, the torah isn't the only evidence we have for the existence of the Jews. Meanwhile, we're not talking about the existence of Christians (which would the comparison to the Jews). We're talking about the veracity of the stories their faith is based on. You're all ove the place here.


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.

Um, no, that's actually not true. We always doubt evidence, particularly when it goes against other evidence or seems to be missing what we would expect to corroborate it. In this case, the evidence that survived is coincidentallly a lot of Christian sources and no secular sources. That's odd to say the least. Now there are reasonable explanations for that, but to pretend like the evidence for the existence of Jesus is compelling is either lying or ignorance. There are too many reasons to question their veracity.

The reasons for questioning the veracity are so compelling that the only way you can pretend it's not so is to ignore several possibilities for how the religion came about. Basically your argument is "Jesus must have existed or there wouldn't have been Christians". The idea that such a thing qualifies as a scientific argument is laughable.

How many writings, actual contemporary writings of Elvis being alive today are there? I've met people who swear, absolutelly swear they've seen him. That you cannot see past your conclusion to entertain other possibilities is not an argument at all. It, in fact, makes your argument MUCH less compelling.

No it doesn't. I'm beginning to wonder if you do this deliberately.

There doesn't have to be any intention to create a myth in the mid thirties... indeed, there already WERE a dozen mesiah myths, in that area, at that time. All it takes is for a story to be successful.



What do you mean? The most likely answer (if we follow Occam) is that people spread the word, like the story says to do. We are talking about a scope of something like 20 years, just there... and that's a lot of time for a story to spread.



So... how are we attributing the Gospels, then? None of them start like that. Indeed, the only 'author' consistently addressing in such a fashion, is Paul - the one 'author' we know for sure never met the living Jesus.

In terms of supporting evidence for a living Jesus, that's not a lot of help.

You suck.

Jesus didn't write the biblical scripture. There is no parallel between Smith, Hubbard and Jesus.

In fact, it's a pretty good argument against what he's trying to say. No one is arguing the authors didn't exist.

That's the second time I've seen him do that. He also compared the existence of Jesus being supported by the scripture to the existence of the Jews being supported by the scriptures. He doesn't seem to notice that he keeps making invalid comparison to try and support a conclusion he's had in hand the whole time.

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.

Jesus didn't write the biblical scripture. There is no parallel between Smith, Hubbard and Jesus.

Before we even discount the Gospels we must first of all consider their historical accuracy. The books, although they make up the Bible, which is not reason to discount them as historical documents as some people here are doing, do present a significant tool for archaeologists and historians today.


you might also realize that ancient writers didnt have the same standards for "true" that we use today. they had no problem attributing god status to many obviously not divine people--like julius caesar and alexander the great. it was not "wrong" to make up a story that illustrated a greater truth. it was not wrong to put things into the old testament that were "stolen" from other cultures (the flood, the story of moses and the bullrushes come to mind immediately) nor was it wrong to attribute to jesus the trappings of other religions that are obviously literally false.

once you take out the stories of jesus' life that are obviously false, then remove non-original theology, what are you left with? you might have a charismatic local rabbi who realized that the idea of the military messiah who would come to overthrow the romans and create peace on earth was not going to happen so instead preached a personal theology that would lead to personal peace.

maybe.

Locations? maps from that time are equally reliable. The factr that some things like, physical features are accurate is not ver suprising. Its hard to fuck that up. The part where it talks about Adam and Eve and the Jews leaving Egypt have no solid proof. The bases for the two faiths are just silly little stories. There is no proof that the Jews were in Egypt. The fact that the first 5 parts of the Bible are wrong ruins the credibilitry.

Then how do you give evidence to their not being Jewish cities at one moment in the middle east, then their being big Jewish armies going in and taking out the cities they wanted.

The historical narrative is so compelling in the old testament along the routes of the Exodus, that it would be madness to assume, that someone decided to walk the route and conjure up the idea of an entire nation leaving Egypt.

Why would an entire people have accepted that they lived in Egypt when they didn't.

Why would an entire nation suddenly appear in the Middle East?

Remember this is the Jewish OT, why would they accept something that didn't happen?

I think you need to examine what is common sense here, and realise that the people of the old world were not morons, and wouldn't have believed in an Exodus and had the passover tradition which exists today, if you know it didn't happen in Egypt.

Whether or not the death of the first borns was an act of God is up for debate. But the Exodus did happen.

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...

Um, you just said the same thing I said. Seriously, try reading. I said the majority think it's inconclusive. You said the same thing. Why do have to explain what compelling means?

you might also realize that ancient writers didnt have the same standards for "true" that we use today. they had no problem attributing god status to many obviously not divine people--like julius caesar and alexander the great. it was not "wrong" to make up a story that illustrated a greater truth. it was not wrong to put things into the old testament that were "stolen" from other cultures (the flood, the story of moses and the bullrushes come to mind immediately) nor was it wrong to attribute to jesus the trappings of other religions that are obviously literally false.

once you take out the stories of jesus' life that are obviously false, then remove non-original theology, what are you left with? you might have a charismatic local rabbi who realized that the idea of the military messiah who would come to overthrow the romans and create peace on earth was not going to happen so instead preached a personal theology that would lead to personal peace.

maybe.


That is not what we're debating. We're debating on the historical Jesus. First of all we need to agree that the man did in fact exist.

Firstly, that concept of writing is true for almost every culture apart from the Jewsih culture. They were staunchly monotheistic, even more so since the exile to Babylon. To give God status to anything would result in stoning to death, unless there was a very very good basis for it. IE - The Messiah.

You're lumping the Jews in with a culture that they were and are certainly not a part of.

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'm not assuming the least likely. I'm not assuming anything. I'm just not assuming that the only two option are Jesus existed or a miracle occurred.

I'm assuming there are a plethora of scenarios that are equally likely to the existence of a single Jesus figure. Again, you've shown that it requires you to misconstrue the argument to have any kind of useful argument at all. How can you possibly think that helps you.

When there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of a person who started a movement that by your own claim was huge in just a few years while tons of writings from the movement itself managed to survive, the most probable situation is not that the person existed by a long shot. Your circular argument seems to be the only one you have.


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…

Yes, saying that either Jesus existed or a miracle occurred to promote the myth isn't saying it's conclusive. (That's sarcasm, by the way.) Seriously, this argument gets worse by the post.


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

I don't think you're an idiot. I've told my brother-in-law he looked like an idiot and I don't think he's not an idiot either. It's a pretty common reaction to when people do things that are irrational or unreasonable, like make a circular argument that's only evidence is the arguer's lack of imagination.

There is no proof that the Jews were in Egypt.Of course not. However, there is evidence that Hebrews/Israelites were in Egypt.

Of course not. However, there is evidence that Hebrews/Israelites were in Egypt.

But was there an exodus ? Did a few million slaves really leave the country without the country or its neighbours noticing the brunt of their labour force was gone ?

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.


Your argument was something about "if Paul existed, his testimony about Peter must be true" actually. I'll keep track of it, if you can't.

ANyway... the options aren't "it's true" or "liars and conspirators"... no matter how you repeat it.


You minimize too much what the impact of no actual Jesus would mean. It would mean that ALL of the NT authors were lying.


Not at all.


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.


You've read your Old Testament, I assume? Does this sudden surge of Messianism seem out of character?


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.


But we don't know what 'christianity' WAS.


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.


Again, it's not necessary that it be a coonspiracy or a lie... it could be a perfectly well intentioned determination to record current beliefs.


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.


That's funny.

Not allowed to criticise the scripture without 'evidence', but we're expected to support the scripture without any evidence BUT that selfsame scripture?


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..


Not changing my assessment. We do immediately doubt - it's a first reaction.


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.


And? They were told to bide their time till Messiah returned with the sword. That's the kind of message that work for the oppressed - it keeps them hoping, whilst promising them emancipation.


Think about it. IF Jesus didn’t exist at all, then we can’t trust any part of any gospel.


Sounds fair.


If we can’t believe any part of any gospel, then the birth of Christianity is an entirely unexplained event


Not really - there were dozens of 'messiahs'. This 'Jesus' story is just the one that really caught on.


that suddenly pops up in Judea and covers the Mediterranean world with converts in less than one generation with no possible explanation.


Hardly sudden - it was part of an ongoing process of messianism. And - 'covers the Mediterranean world with converts' is a bit of an excessive claim - we know there were a few churches spread out over a fairly large area, but it's not like the whole continent suddenly became Christian overnight.


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).


No - the ACCOUNT of the start of the christian movement starts that way. We don't even really know that Peter was a real person, much less what he might have said.


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.

You missed the point (quelle surprise) - we have independent and contemporary corroboration of the authorship of both Hubbard AND Smith. We have no such corroboration for any of the New Testament texts - most especially, for the Gospels.

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.Not at all. Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) is the second most important prophet in Islam, sharing that position with Moses. He is supposed to return before the world's end and fight the Dajjal.

How very illogical of you.Not at all.

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.

How very illogical of you.

(By the way, how much evidence is there for the existence of Mohammed, anyway?)

A lot. Contrary to Jesus he left a body, a lot of offspring and enough of an impression on people to have them write about him while he was still alive.

In this case, the evidence that survived is coincidentallly a lot of Christian sources and no secular sources. That's odd to say the least.
No it's not, considering that early Christianity was a tiny religion and there was no good reason why major Roman historians should have bothered writing about it.

But your comments underline the fundamental error of all the people who try to deny the existence of Jesus: They stubbornly (and ridiculously) refuse to accept any Christian writings as evidence for the existence of Jesus. No other historical figure is held to this standard. No one goes around saying that a person's friends and followers are an unreliable source for that person's existence - except if the person is Jesus.

How many writings, actual contemporary writings of Elvis being alive today are there? I've met people who swear, absolutelly swear they've seen him.
Wait - are you saying that Elvis did not exist? :rolleyes:

Remember, the existence of a person and the accuracy of various stories about that person are two very different things. I can see why someone might doubt the accuracy of the Bible; indeed, you have to doubt the accuracy of the Bible in order to be anything other than a Christian. But to go from doubting the accuracy of stories about Jesus to doubting the very existence of Jesus is a huge leap.

I may not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but I certainly believe he existed.

(By the way, how much evidence is there for the existence of Mohammed, anyway?)

That is not what we're debating. We're debating on the historical Jesus. First of all we need to agree that the man did in fact exist.

Firstly, that concept of writing is true for almost every culture apart from the Jewsih culture. They were staunchly monotheistic, even more so since the exile to Babylon. To give God status to anything would result in stoning to death, unless there was a very very good basis for it. IE - The Messiah.

You're lumping the Jews in with a culture that they were and are certainly not a part of.

uh

you are the one who suggested that a religious document(s) is an historical one. the new testament was never meant to be history. to use it as proof of the existence of jesus is at best a bit of supporting evidence. its isnt enough to prove his existence on his own.

the OT messiah was NOT supposed to be god so any claim to be god/the son of god on the part of jesus might well have ended in a stoning.

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,

Maybe if he was around all the time, but that's not how the story goes. If the Gospels are to be believed Jesus wasn't around for most of those forty days. John records at least a week between the first and the second visitation to the apostles (it's said to be a week after Thomas was told the news), and judging by Peter's excitement in John's account of his third visit it's implied that some time has elapsed since he was last seen. Matthew recounts a journey to Galilee, which must have taken the best part of a week on foot (the various accounts contradict rather, but they all seem to agree that Jesus was absent for the majority of those 40 days).

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.

That passage seems to be talking about works and wonders performed before he was 'delivered up'. The Greek text seems to confirm this, but my Greek isn't good so I'll have to look up some lexicons and grammars before I can say for sure.

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.

Perhaps, but we're talking about Jesus, and appearing to 500 people after he was supposed to be dead would outstrip any of the earlier miracles attributed to him.

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

You love me really. :D

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.

See, here you go again. "Either it happened the way I say it did or it's entirely unexplained". You keep setting up this false dilemma and then acting like we have to accept that fallacy. Sans evidence for your conclusions you've dismissed all other possible explanations as "miracles" and even went so far as to claim that you're not actually claiming the evidence is conclusive.

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt whether you're serious.

We've given you tons of explanations. The coming of a messiah wasn't a new story. Christ was the name for the messiah. We know that CHRISTianity caught on, not JESUSanity. We don't know that this spread was new worship or conversion of people who already had a messiah myth or some combination. That it was all people who'd never heard or believed very similar stories is improbable to say the least.

We also KNOW that Christianity has often remolded itself in little ways to make it's spread more paletteable to new believers. "Oh, you have a festival on the solstice? So do we." "Oh, February is a time for lovers. We agree." "Resurrection in the spring? Sure." Pretending as if these things are impossible so you can continue to play the "there is no other reasonable way to explain this" tune is tired. Please, please, actually address the arguments instead "but it's impossible".

Why is it impossible for people to believe in a man they never met? Why would it have to be a conspiracy instead of just a bunch of people who really wanted to believe messiah had been among us and would return to save us from oppression? Why are Peter and Paul inerrant?

No it's not, considering that early Christianity was a tiny religion and there was no good reason why major Roman historians should have bothered writing about it.

But your comments underline the fundamental error of all the people who try to deny the existence of Jesus: They stubbornly (and ridiculously) refuse to accept any Christian writings as evidence for the existence of Jesus. No other historical figure is held to this standard. No one goes around saying that a person's friends and followers are an unreliable source for that person's existence - except if the person is Jesus.

Um, assumptions are not a good play on NSG. I'm a Christian and believe Jesus existed. I just don't believe that it's a scientifically valid conclusion. I also don't find the evidence for Socrates compelling. I'm weird like that.



Wait - are you saying that Elvis did not exist? :rolleyes:

Um, no. I'm saying he isn't still alive despite eyewitness testimony. Follow along.


Remember, the existence of a person and the accuracy of various stories about that person are two very different things. I can see why someone might doubt the accuracy of the Bible; indeed, you have to doubt the accuracy of the Bible in order to be anything other than a Christian. But to go from doubting the accuracy of stories about Jesus to doubting the very existence of Jesus is a huge leap.

I may not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but I certainly believe he existed.

(By the way, how much evidence is there for the existence of Mohammed, anyway?)

Start a thread if you wish to discuss the existence of Mohammed. Meanwhile, I'm not claiming the existence of a person and the veracity of the stories about them are the same thing. The person I was replying to claimed that there is no way other than a giant conspiracy for a story like the Gospels to spread because some of the testimony is eyewitness. I was just pointing out that in a fervor people will believe lots of things happened that didn't

The vast majority of people know the difference between real people and fictional characters. I see no reason to believe that the inhabitants of the ancient world had any trouble making this distinction. If they say that Jesus or Socrates were real and lived within their lifetimes, I trust them.

So you also believe in Hercules, Ulysses travels, Zeus impregnating several people, the Egyptian gods and so on ?

the new testament was never meant to be history. to use it as proof of the existence of jesus is at best a bit of supporting evidence.
No, it's not merely "a bit of supporting evidence" for the existence of Jesus, just like Plato's dialogues are not merely "a bit of supporting evidence" for the existence of Socrates. When people start talking about a person (let's call him X) as if that person lived, then we have pretty damn solid evidence that a person by the name of X actually lived.

The vast majority of people know the difference between real people and fictional characters. I see no reason to believe that the inhabitants of the ancient world had any trouble making this distinction. If they say that Jesus or Socrates were real and lived within their lifetimes, I trust them.

No, it's not merely "a bit of supporting evidence" for the existence of Jesus, just like Plato's dialogues are not merely "a bit of supporting evidence" for the existence of Socrates. When people start talking about a person (let's call him X) as if that person lived, then we have pretty damn solid evidence that a person by the name of X actually lived.

The vast majority of people know the difference between real people and fictional characters. I see no reason to believe that the inhabitants of the ancient world had any trouble making this distinction. If they say that Jesus or Socrates were real and lived within their lifetimes, I trust them.

Actually, it isn't. It's a common literary device to tell stories about people like you witnessed the stories, even if the stories are made up. I do it all the time at work to offer up lessons. Many of them are completely bunk and I often tell people they're going to be bunk before I start, but most of the people I work with do no such thing. Stories told in the first-person or as a witness are more compelling and that's a necessary component when you're trying to teach a lesson or more importantly spread a faith.

The Old Testament scriptures have been found to be exceptionally accurate in the location of Jericho, Jerusalem, the old temple walls, location of Israel, settlements and other such items.


And unreliable about things like exodus, the timeline of early history, etc.


Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.


None of which can be realistically traced to an actual author of that name.


It is a historical fact, that they were written in different places at different times, away from each other.


No it isn't. But it is a good speculation.


Then I would like the reader to wonder why the accounts are so similar?


Because they were based either on one another, or on other texts. (Most bible scholars accept at least the 'Q' document as a viable proposition - there is argument for at least one other).


Now, the New Testament scriptures have been proven to be quite accurate in historical narrative. Such as the orientation of Jerusalem, roads, mountains placements, Herods palace, etc etc. Archeology sees the documents to be exceptionally valuable in this regard, and it is important to note has found to support the Gospel accounts through field research.


And again - unreliable on issues such as the location and history of Nazareth. Actual examination of the geography of Nazareth shows that it doesn't match the gospel accounts at all.


The apostles could not have made up the trial of Jesus Christ before the high priests and Pilate due to the large amount of eyewitness testimony. Jews are exceptionally devout, and any lies such as these, with a made up Jesus would have instantly been rejected.


The accounts were rejected by most Jews. Hence, they didn't become Christians.

Worth pointing out, of course - if Jesus really existed, and really did make the alterations to the Law that the scripture claims, the Jews would have stoned him, not crucified him - the correct punishment for a False Prophet, which is what Jesus would have been considered.


The Gospels feature the Jewish ruling authorities, it is inconceivable to believe that they would have allowed the accusation of a public trial of a man whom they never met to go unchallenged.


You seem to forget that the accounts we have are the accounts carried BY believers. They would have been rejected by faithful Jews, but they were accepted by believers in Jesus' messianic truth.


Therefore it is only reasonable to assume that since there is such a public perception of Jesus Christ, and also therefore such a public chance denouncing Jesus Christ.

The Jews STILL denounce Jesus. Your argument kind of falls flat on that.

Here's your thunder. Sorry, I stole it.... :o

You slipped it in just before me and said the same thing. That's okay though, because really the circular argument is tiring "It's true because there is no other explanation I'll accept", and I desperately want to get to the store and purchase PSU.

You suck.

Here's your thunder. Sorry, I stole it.... :o

Yes. Yes he did.:) :)

Why would an entire people have accepted that they lived in Egypt when they didn't.

Why would an entire nation suddenly appear in the Middle East?

I think you need to examine what is common sense here, and realise that the people of the old world were not morons, and wouldn't have believed in an Exodus and had the passover tradition which exists today, if you know it didn't happen in Egypt.

Whether or not the death of the first borns was an act of God is up for debate. But the Exodus did happen.

Show me independent evidence of exodus, and we'll talk.

The biggest argument against exodus, is the simple fact that Egypt failed to notice it.. or any of the alleged miraculous precursors.

The best explanation I see, is that what we call 'Jews' today, were the remnant of the Hyksos - an occupying force in Egypt, driven out eventually by 'rebel princes' - and that the 'exodus' account in the OT is a favourable reinterpretation of the 'driven into exile' account.

(The Hyksos, like our old testament Hebrews, left no graven images by which to identify them... which is a curious enough similarity, especially in a time where it was practically de rigeur to 'make' your gods).

They were staunchly monotheistic,


Or not, depending on the period of history you are discussing.


To give God status to anything would result in stoning to death, unless there was a very very good basis for it. IE - The Messiah.


Messiah isn't a basis for god status - quite the contrary.

No, it's not merely "a bit of supporting evidence" for the existence of Jesus, just like Plato's dialogues are not merely "a bit of supporting evidence" for the existence of Socrates. When people start talking about a person (let's call him X) as if that person lived, then we have pretty damn solid evidence that a person by the name of X actually lived.

The vast majority of people know the difference between real people and fictional characters. I see no reason to believe that the inhabitants of the ancient world had any trouble making this distinction. If they say that Jesus or Socrates were real and lived within their lifetimes, I trust them.

and i prefer some proof.

so we differ on that point.

there is nothing in the new testament that comes close to evidence of anything but that the writers probably believed in what they were writing. unknown writers writing at an unknown time that is at least decades after the incidents they were writing about happened.

Of course not. However, there is evidence that Hebrews/Israelites were in Egypt.

I'm curious....

Show me independent evidence of exodus, and we'll talk.

The bigegst argument against exodus, is the simple fact that Egypt failed to notice it.. or any of the alleged miraculous precursors.

The best explanation I see, is that what we call 'Jews' today, were the remnant of the Hyksos - an occupying force in Egypt, driven out eventually by 'rebel princes' - and that the 'exodus' account in the OT is a favourable reinterpretation of the 'driven into exile' account.

(The Hyksos, like our old testament Hebrews, left no graven images by which to identify them... which is a curious enough similarity, especially in a time where it was practically de rigeur to 'make' your gods).

Well, what I love about his account is it's another, unless it happened this way, everyone must be liars or morons. People seem to forget that widespread myths about the origin of various things that are not in the least connected to reality abounded.

Apparently, Hercules fought a cyclops otherwise an entire people would not have believed it. And clearly his mother was the bride of a god, because there simply is no other explanation. Look at all the writings about it. It MUST have happened, right?

Not at all.

You're kidding, right?

This text has a guy called Jesus... this one does... and this one does... they MUST be talking about the same guy...? For real?

Come on u guys (or girls), can't u believe in a 2000 yr. old Jew? I no I can! HA HA!:):):):):):):):)vB;)

Come on u guys (or girls), can't u believe in a 2000 yr. old Jew? I no I can! HA HA!:):):):):):):):)vB;)

Sure I can. I just do not see why I should.

Well, what I love about his account is it's another, unless it happened this way, everyone must be liars or morons. People seem to forget that widespread myths about the origin of various things that are not in the least connected to reality abounded.

Apparently, Hercules fought a cyclops otherwise an entire people would not have believed it. And clearly his mother was the bride of a god, because there simply is no other explanation. Look at all the writings about it. It MUST have happened, right?

Absolutely. It's amazing how many ways the world was created, too. And how the elephant got it's trunk. The fact that Aesop wasn't burned in the street, means animals can talk, too.

I have problems understanding how other people view textual evidence... the assertion everything is equivalent to 'gospel' truth, unless it is arbitrarily decided it just ain't so.

Ouch, this is a long post so for the sake of brevity I'll snip any parts I'm not addressing.

Before we even discount the Gospels we must first of all consider their historical accuracy. The books, although they make up the Bible, which is not reason to discount them as historical documents as some people here are doing, do present a significant tool for archaeologists and historians today.

Indeed, they're invaluable for historians who want to know what Christian groups at the time believed. Their utility beyond that is rather limited...

The Old Testament scriptures have been found to be exceptionally accurate in the location of Jericho, Jerusalem, the old temple walls, location of Israel, settlements and other such items. They are considered to be a supportive historical document which aids archaeology and has been consistently proven to be accurate.

Firstly, we're talking about the New Testament so the Tanach (calling it the 'Old Testament' smacks of cultural vandalism) is irrelevant when it comes to the historical reliability of Christian scriptures.

Secondly, the Tanach has certainly not been proven to be accurate: for a start, all five books of the Torah have been pretty much dismissed by all non-fundamentalist scientists and historians...

The New Testament is no different. Now there is some divergence within the NT canon within the Gospel accounts which is known as the synoptic problem which is itself a question of the origination of the first Gospel, however these problems remain within the narrative and do not really go much further than that.

Incorrect: the Synoptic Problem is precisely about the convergence of Gospel accounts to the extent that it's clear that passages have been copied practically verbatim from each other. There are major contradictions between the different accounts, the two Nativity Stories for example, which disagree over the time of Jesus' birth by a minimum of ten years!

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Matthew was a tax collector who was saved by Christ believed to be an apostle.
Mark was, and is commonly believed to be a close associate of Peter.
Luke was an independent historian who has set out these accounts.
John was an apostle.

Luke is traditionally portrayed as a doctor, the physician of Paul, not a historian. I'll also take this opportunity to point out that scholars who believe that the Gospels were all written by apostles are in a distinct minority.

Now before we begin criticising the Gospels we must first look to their creation. Matthew was a Gospel that was written and aimed towards the Jewish audience, this is derived from its substance in Jewish teachings and orientation.

This bears no real relevance to your later argument but never mind...

Mark was written for the Greeks assumed in the same reasons Matthew was.

Wrong, Mark was almost certainly written for a Roman audience, as evidenced by the author's use of literally-translated Latin idiom and the making of distinctions which would only be meaningful to a Roman audience (the use of Syro-Phonecian for example).

Now we must give careful consideration to the way in which these accounts have been written, at different periods and at different times. Each of the synoptic Gospels has significant convergence in the life, teachings, sayings and acts of Jesus Christ, which in itself is astounding due to them being written in different locations of the old world.

Luke and Matthew were based on Mark; given this, it'd be astonishing if there wasn't convergence...

It is a historical fact, that they were written in different places at different times, away from each other.

They borrowed from each other...

As for John we point out that he is not in contradiction to the Synoptic Gospels but he does diverge and present different aspects to the character of Christ, but it’s important to note that these are not contradictory.

The Gospels are full of contradictions, and not always between John and the Synoptics, but that's another argument all together.

Then I would like the reader to wonder why the accounts are so similar? The Gospels have been formed over the results of various eye witness testimonies, and in the case of Luke more than one. Luke is perhaps the largest credit to the existence of a historical Jesus whether or not you believe he was the son of God.

How can they be eye-witness testimonies when so many of the events they claim to describe happened when the author wasn't present?

He was a historian, he interviewed and dived deeply into the accounts of people who met Jesus Christ. He most likely examined the other Gospels to see if they matched up with testimony, and at the end of it all, he came out with a text that was oddly similar to Matthew and Mark. Though with more narrative in some parts.

Luke was not a historian, I'm not sure where you got this from. Oh, and earlier on you were claiming that the Gospels were all written independently, inconsistent much?

The Gospel of Luke in careful consideration to its readership, IE the Roman Theodopilis

It's Theophilus, and it could well be a literary device rather than a real dedication (Theophilus is Greek for 'he who loves God/friend of God').

would have probably been used as a supportive document in the trial of Paul in Rome, its significance as a neutral document would have been of the upmost importance and despite claims that will probably arise, there is no foundation to assume that Luke was terribly bias in his research, or that he had something to prove.

Evidence? Apart from his own claims there's no evidence that Luke did any research at all (beyond reading Mark and possibly Q) so I don't know how you're in a position to judge the merits of his methodology...

Now let me deal with the claim that each of the Gospels are built from each other. This is in itself a significant point of the synoptic problem, one which I don’t believe exists. Each Gospel has divergence in order, and narrative, and language structure which makes it inconceivable to believe that they have been worked from other documents, but this is a field and people do believe that there is basis for this theory.

This IS the Synoptic Problem. Nearly all of Matthew and most of Luke can be found in Mark, sometimes the copying is practically verbatim (especially in Matthew).

Now, the New Testament scriptures have been proven to be quite accurate in historical narrative. Such as the orientation of Jerusalem, roads, mountains placements, Herods palace, etc etc. Archeology sees the documents to be exceptionally valuable in this regard, and it is important to note has found to support the Gospel accounts through field research.

Name one modern-day, mainstream, professional archaeologist who finds the New Testament 'exceptionally valuable' in their excavations. I can't think of much, if anything, of any real value which can be found in the Gospels but not in Josephus.

EDIT: Gargh! Grave beat me to it. That'll teach me to procrastinate. :p

I SHALL KILL WHOEVER DUZ NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS!:sniper::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::sniper:

I SHALL KILL WHOEVER DUZ NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS!:sniper::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::sniper:

Um, you probably want to read the rules and recognize that trolling and baiting is a bad idea. If you have something of value, by all means, weigh in, but have more faith in yourself and what you think and don't waste your time with this nonsense.

I SHALL KILL WHOEVER DUZ NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS!:sniper::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::sniper:

You're going to be a busy bunny....

uh

you are the one who suggested that a religious document(s) is an historical one. the new testament was never meant to be history. to use it as proof of the existence of jesus is at best a bit of supporting evidence. its isnt enough to prove his existence on his own.

Bingo! The Gospels are theology first and history second; the authors were more interested in getting across what Jesus meant to them personally rather than actual facts about his life.

Did Jesus exist?
Hmmmm. . . did Julius Caesar exist?

And does it matter?
If what he claims is true and he rose from the dead, then yes. It matters. That's the real question.

I SHALL KILL WHOEVER DUZ NOT BELIEVE IN JESUS!:sniper::mp5::sniper::mp5::mp5::sniper:

Which Jesus ? The Biblical son of God one ?
That would mean you'd have to kill 70% of humanity. Better start now.

See, here you go again. "Either it happened the way I say it did or it's entirely unexplained".
I think what he means is that the New Testament is our only account of early Christianity. If Jesus did not exist, then we can assume the entire New Testament is fake, which means we have no reliable account of early Christianity at all.

Sure, in that situation we could still speculate on the possible origins of Christianity, but it would all be groundless speculation, nothing more. We would have to write in the history books that Christianity sprung up some time in the late 1st century apparently out of nowhere.

Actually, it isn't. It's a common literary device to tell stories about people like you witnessed the stories, even if the stories are made up. I do it all the time at work to offer up lessons.
It is? You do? Well, that's news to me. I mean that in a completely non-sarcastic way. I've never heard of people making up bunk stories and then telling those stories to their friends as if they were real events. I mean, people embellish and exaggerate things, of course, but making up a completely fictional story from scratch and telling it as if it were true strikes me as very weird. It's certainly not something I would ever do, or expect my friends to do.

We also have to consider that important stories about salvation and eternal life are very different from casual anecdotes between friends.

There are two possible ways to deny the existence of Jesus:

1. "One or several messiah figures existed in Palestine around the time of Jesus' supposed preaching, but none of them were called Jesus and their preachings and deeds got distorted and meshed together into the Gospels."

- this basically amounts to the claim that Jesus existed but was not actually named Jesus. Any messiah figure that inspired the Gospels and lived in Palestine around the time of Jesus' supposed preaching qualifies as a "historical Jesus" by definition, regardless of his actual name.

2. "There was never any person that even vaguely resembled the Jesus of the Gospels."

- this is a true denial of the existence of Jesus, but it runs into a problem: If the Gospel Jesus wasn't at least vaguely based on a real person, someone must have made him up. Who and why? Why would anyone intentionally make up a story about hope for salvation, knowing that no such hope really existed?

It is? You do? Well, that's news to me. I mean that in a completely non-sarcastic way. I've never heard of people making up bunk stories and then telling those stories to their friends as if they were real events. I mean, people embellish and exaggerate things, of course, but making up a completely fictional story from scratch and telling it as if it were true strikes me as very weird. It's certainly not something I would ever do, or expect my friends to do.

Dan Brown is a popular current day author that does that. It was however quite common in ancient Greece and Rome. Homer and Ovid are quite good examples.

I think what he means is that the New Testament is our only account of early Christianity. If Jesus did not exist, then we can assume the entire New Testament is fake, which means we have no reliable account of early Christianity at all.

Sure, in that situation we could still speculate on the possible origins of Christianity, but it would all be groundless speculation, nothing more. We would have to write in the history books that Christianity sprung up some time in the late 1st century apparently out of nowhere.

Jesus, no. Quit repeating this stupid mantra. No, if Jesus didn't exist it doesn't mean the entirety of the New Testament is made up. Things don't work that way.


It is? You do? Well, that's news to me. I mean that in a completely non-sarcastic way. I've never heard of people making up bunk stories and then telling those stories to their friends as if they were real events. I mean, people embellish and exaggerate things, of course, but making up a completely fictional story from scratch and telling it as if it were true strikes me as very weird. It's certainly not something I would ever do, or expect my friends to do.

Well, you should. It's called rhetoric and it's a VERY common tool for convincing people. I even warn people I'm about to do it and it still works. It's the same reason why jokes are often told in the first person.


We also have to consider that important stories about salvation and eternal life are very different from casual anecdotes between friends.

There are two possible ways to deny the existence of Jesus:

1. "One or several messiah figures existed in Palestine around the time of Jesus' supposed preaching, but none of them were called Jesus and their preachings and deeds got distorted and meshed together into the Gospels."

- this basically amounts to the claim that Jesus existed but was not actually named Jesus. Any messiah figure that inspired the Gospels and lived in Palestine around the time of Jesus' supposed preaching qualifies as a "historical Jesus" by definition, regardless of his actual name.

2. "There was never any person that even vaguely resembled the Jesus of the Gospels."

- this is a true denial of the existence of Jesus, but it runs into a problem: If the Gospel Jesus wasn't at least vaguely based on a real person, someone must have made him up. Who and why? Why would anyone intentionally make up a story about hope for salvation, knowing that no such hope really existed?

Um, no. Again, a lack of imagination is not an argument. Well, it is an argument but it's a sad and weak argument.

Meanwhile, that salvation was on the line is a better reason for the use of rhetoric, not a worse reason. Paul outright says that lying to spread the word of Jesus is not a sin.

Bingo! The Gospels are theology first and history second; the authors were more interested in getting across what Jesus meant to them personally rather than actual facts about his life.

i looked at that link you gave baldersdash yesterday http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html

it left me with the very strong feeling that the gospels and epistles were never intended for close theological scrutiny. certainly not to the level implied in that article.

i mean sure, they wanted you to believe that jesus is the son of god, that he was crucified and resurrected, that this sacrifice means that we too can be reconciled with god and "go to heaven" (whatever that might mean) but it wasnt meant to be picked into bits and compared bit by bit to each other.

in the end it seems to me that it takes you farther from the message rather than closer to it.

Apparently, Hercules fought a cyclops otherwise an entire people would not have believed it. And clearly his mother was the bride of a god, because there simply is no other explanation. Look at all the writings about it. It MUST have happened, right?
Since the only issue at stake here is the existence of mythical heroes - not the accuracy of stories about their adventures - I'd like to say that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a particularly strong individual by the name of Hercules really did exist.

Dan Brown is a popular current day author that does that. It was however quite common in ancient Greece and Rome. Homer and Ovid are quite good examples.
Dan Brown's works are clearly fiction. I did not know that he ever claimed otherwise. And Homer's works, on the other hand, are the opposite - they are clearly based on a real location, at least, if not real events. So we have either clear fiction or a highly embellished account of a real event, but we do not have a completely fictional event that somehow started being considered real.

I can't speak for Ovid, though.

Meanwhile, that salvation was on the line is a better reason for the use of rhetoric, not a worse reason. Paul outright says that lying to spread the word of Jesus is not a sin.

Another thought.

At one point, I was considering writing a kind of 'how to' book - a kind of 'guide to living', if you will. It was going to discuss a lot of fairly basic issues, like the importance of diet, and cleanliness, that kind of thing. It was going to contain some useful and helpful literary and historical thoughts... and some ideas on issues like theology, morality, psychology... all that kind of stuff.

Sitting there, looking at the list of things I wanted to include, I was left wondering what would be an effective form for communicating ALL this disparate thought... how to assemble all my eclectic influence in one coherent package - and it occured to me that I could write it in the form of a 'personal history'... a sort of semi-fictional biography that used the narrative history as a messenger, but the messenger is only a convenience... a construct to carry my message.

It occured to me that the New Testament figure of Jesus could be an example of just such a 'messenger'.

(note: also, I later found out that Kahlil Gibran had already beaten me to it.)

- this is a true denial of the existence of Jesus, but it runs into a problem: If the Gospel Jesus wasn't at least vaguely based on a real person, someone must have made him up. Who and why? Why would anyone intentionally make up a story about hope for salvation, knowing that no such hope really existed?

the idea of a personal god and a personal salvation was "going around" in the centuries around 1AD (both before and after). there were other religions with simliar ideas that had a certain amount of a following.

so a hellinized jewish version of a personal god (a god that bears no resemblance to the god of the OT) is not unexpected. if they ended up taking the disembodied christ idea and hanging it on what they remembered about a rabbi who preached against the romans and ended badly, well, what of that guy is important? is there anything about him that we can call "real"? if the name is wrong, the details made up, the theology cribbed from other religions, but there was a rabbi, can you really call it historical? would that guy have any importance whatsoever?

Jesus, no. Quit repeating this stupid mantra. No, if Jesus didn't exist it doesn't mean the entirety of the New Testament is made up. Things don't work that way.
Yes they do, since the claim that Jesus did not exist is based on a lack of evidence (outside the NT) about Jesus's life. There is a similar lack of evidence about the lives of Peter, Paul, and everyone else in the NT, so we can conclude by the same logic that they are all made up, no?

You can't apply one standard to Jesus and another standard to everyone else.

Well, you should. It's called rhetoric and it's a VERY common tool for convincing people. I even warn people I'm about to do it and it still works. It's the same reason why jokes are often told in the first person.
But see, rhetoric is meant to convince people to support a certain idea or argument, not to convince them that a certain event happened when in fact it did not. The fact that rhetoric "works" means that a made-up story is just as good as a true one to get your point across, not that people start believing in the literal truth of the made-up story.

Um, no. Again, a lack of imagination is not an argument. Well, it is an argument but it's a sad and weak argument.
It is better than the "I can't explain how it could have happened, but I'm sure it happened somehow" argument which you seem to be upholding.

Meanwhile, that salvation was on the line is a better reason for the use of rhetoric, not a worse reason. Paul outright says that lying to spread the word of Jesus is not a sin.
Except that if Jesus did not exist, whose word was he spreading, exactly? The existence of Jesus is necessary in order for salvation to be on the line in the first place. No Jesus = no salvation = no reason to invent Jesus stories.

Another thought.

At one point, I was considering writing a kind of 'how to' book - a kind of 'guide to living', if you will. It was going to discuss a lot of fairly basic issues, like the importance of diet, and cleanliness, that kind of thing. It was going to contain some useful and helpful literary and historical thoughts... and some ideas on issues like theology, morality, psychology... all that kind of stuff.

Sitting there, looking at the list of things I wanted to include, I was left wondering what would be an effective form for communicating ALL this disparate thought... how to assemble all my eclectic influence in one coherent package - and it occured to me that I could write it in the form of a 'personal history'... a sort of semi-fictional biography that used the narrative history as a messenger, but the messenger is only a convenience... a construct to carry my message.

It occured to me that the New Testament figure of Jesus could be an example of just such a 'messenger'.

(note: also, I later found out that Kahlil Gibran had already beaten me to it.)

Hmm, interesting idea. If only you could actually, you know, finish a book project you start on. :p

We would have to write in the history books that Christianity sprung up some time in the late 1st century apparently out of nowhere.


Hardly 'out of nowhere'. Messianism was zeitgeist.


1. "One or several messiah figures existed in Palestine around the time of Jesus' supposed preaching, but none of them were called Jesus and their preachings and deeds got distorted and meshed together into the Gospels."

- this basically amounts to the claim that Jesus existed but was not actually named Jesus. Any messiah figure that inspired the Gospels and lived in Palestine around the time of Jesus' supposed preaching qualifies as a "historical Jesus" by definition, regardless of his actual name.


You miss the point - there need not be one central figure - the conflation of all those messianic stories (and a healthy dose of input from elsewhere, it appears) ends up with an 'artifact'... a literary device that MAY correspond to one main 'real' person, but can function at least as well without.

Except that if Jesus did not exist, whose word was he spreading, exactly? The existence of Jesus is necessary in order for salvation to be on the line in the first place. No Jesus = no salvation = no reason to invent Jesus stories.

problem

jews dont NEED salvation.

so where did the christian idea of salvation come from? not from first century judaism.

Harsh.

But fair. Bugger.

I've decided my new pet project is going to be guilting you two into writing that book.

Yes they do, since the claim that Jesus did not exist is based on a lack of evidence (outside the NT) about Jesus's life. There is a similar lack of evidence about the lives of Peter, Paul, and everyone else in the NT, so we can conclude by the same logic that they are all made up, no?


Missing the point, I think.

Paul could be a liar. The Gospels could be fiction. The whole text could be made up, and the authors be nothing more than imagined characters...

And yet the message COULD still be true. Even if you remove all the evidence, there COULD still be god, and salvation.

Hmm, interesting idea. If only you could actually, you know, finish a book project you start on. :p

Harsh.

But fair. Bugger.

the idea of a personal god and a personal salvation was "going around" in the centuries around 1AD (both before and after). there were other religions with simliar ideas that had a certain amount of a following.
Really? Such as?

so a hellinized jewish version of a personal god (a god that bears no resemblance to the god of the OT) is not unexpected. if they ended up taking the disembodied christ idea and hanging it on what they remembered about a rabbi who preached against the romans and ended badly, well, what of that guy is important? is there anything about him that we can call "real"? if the name is wrong, the details made up, the theology cribbed from other religions, but there was a rabbi, can you really call it historical? would that guy have any importance whatsoever?
That's an interesting hypothesis, but you just made it up on the spot, so why should I consider it more plausible than the theory that Jesus really did exist as depicted in the Gospels?

Besides, your hypothesis breaks down when you consider the fact that the early Christians attached a lot of importance to the person of Jesus. It wasn't just some rabbi who served as a good example - it was the Son of God sent to pay for mankind's sins. Jesus was worshipped as God mere decades after his death. Frankly the whole thing is much closer to a personality cult built around a very charismatic person than some abstract idea pinned on some random rabbi.

No it doesn't. I'm beginning to wonder if you do this deliberately.

There doesn't have to be any intention to create a myth in the mid thirties... indeed, there already WERE a dozen mesiah myths, in that area, at that time. All it takes is for a story to be successful.....

We are just going around and around, same things back and forth. You think I'm doing it deliberately and I wonder if you are. My contentions is that YOU think a person can accidentally write a book full of lies? I think they can't. Either they think they are telling the truth or they know they are not. The proposition is that there are four gospel writers who either accidentally made up stories about a person that never lived, or they told stories about a person they think lived. Matthew and John are accredited as eye witness accounts, Mark is accredited with relaying Peters account of events and Luke says of itself that the author researched the events to determine what really happened. I find your assertion that maybe all of them were written by people that really believed in a Jesus that existed but that Jesus didn't really exist incredulous and without merit. It has no basis in any facts, any supposition supported outside of your own fantasy.

There HAS to be intent to sit down and write a book, it doesn’t happen by accident. There has to be intent to hand that book to a group for public readings and tell them you think it’s the truth. And as for the non-gospel authors of books in the NT, Luke, Paul, Peter and John (and whomever wrote Hebrews if it wasn't Paul) would ALL have had to intentionally lie if Jesus did not exist as a real person.

Acts 1
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.

4And while staying with them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, "you heard from me; 5for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."
Hebrews 5:7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.
1 Timothy 3:16
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.
1 Peter 4:1
Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same way of thinking, for whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,
1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

They didn't write that stuff by accident. They are claiming Jesus came in the flesh, as a real person. You are saying that they might be wrong but not liars... okay then.

i looked at that link you gave baldersdash yesterday http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html

it left me with the very strong feeling that the gospels and epistles were never intended for close theological scrutiny. certainly not to the level implied in that article.

i mean sure, they wanted you to believe that jesus is the son of god, that he was crucified and resurrected, that this sacrifice means that we too can be reconciled with god and "go to heaven" (whatever that might mean) but it wasnt meant to be picked into bits and compared bit by bit to each other.

in the end it seems to me that it takes you farther from the message rather than closer to it.

The 'spirit of the law' being superior to the 'letter of the law', would certainly be considerable as one of the main tenets of Christianity. To read the scripture as 'spiritually true' rather than 'literally true' is perhaps the one thing we can divine from Jesus' earthly ministry - practically everything he said (except for the Sermon on the Mount) was in that form...

It seems logical to read the whole text as a parable - looking for unified truths that thread through the whole work, not attempting to quibble over the accuracy, historicity and comsistency of individual verses.

u atheist? if so, how did man evolve from ape, y didnt all da other monkeys evolve as well?

Erm, the other monkeys did evolve. We (and the Monkeys) all evolved into different ecological niches. Our continuing evolvement led us to intelligence and to the future......well who knows?

problem

jews dont NEED salvation.

so where did the christian idea of salvation come from? not from first century judaism.

A very good reason to think a Jewish rabbi named Jesus told them.

Really? Such as?

mithraism


That's an interesting hypothesis, but you just made it up on the spot, so why should I consider it more plausible than the theory that Jesus really did exist as depicted in the Gospels?

Besides, your hypothesis breaks down when you consider the fact that the early Christians attached a lot of importance to the person of Jesus. It wasn't just some rabbi who served as a good example - it was the Son of God sent to pay for mankind's sins. Jesus was worshipped as God mere decades after his death. Frankly the whole thing is much closer to a personality cult built around a very charismatic person than some abstract idea pinned on some random rabbi.

well not on the spot and not all by myself but

the details of jesus' life are a fabrication.

the theology isnt original

there is no record of him from contemporary sources.

YOU are the one who said that there had to be some grain of truth. "If the Gospel Jesus wasn't at least vaguely based on a real person, someone must have made him up." my question is how big does the grain have to be in order for it to be true?

A very good reason to think a Jewish rabbi named Jesus told them.

odd that GOD never mentioned it.

My contentions is that YOU think a person can accidentally write a book full of lies? I think they can't. Either they think they are telling the truth or they know they are not. The proposition is that there are four gospel writers who either accidentally made up stories about a person that never lived, or they told stories about a person they think lived. Matthew and John are accredited as eye witness accounts, Mark is accredited with relaying Peters account of events and Luke says of itself that the author researched the events to determine what really happened. I find your assertion that maybe all of them were written by people that really believed in a Jesus that existed but that Jesus didn't really exist incredulous and without merit. It has no basis in any facts, any supposition supported outside of your own fantasy.


Who accredited all those authors? We KNOW they weren't witnesses to all they say, since they discuss things like the means of Jesus' conception.

The texts were probably written honestly enough, based on the available information - but that information needn't be eyewitness testimony, or even true... it's just what was 'known'.

Do I think the Jesus story true? No... highly unlikely. Do I think the Gospel authors 'lied'? No - I think they worked within the accepted guidelines of the day (it was not uncommon to write a text 'in the name of' someone... a prophet, or other reliable witness - it wouldn't be 'dishonest' to do so) and recorded what they heard, what they read, and what they thought - 'John' doing rather more of the latter, and rather less of the former.

The other point you raise... People are still writing books today about the gods of Egypt, for example... some people even still revere those gods. People write about these things believing they are accurately describing the faith of others, or their own faith - but that doesn't make Osiris 'real', does it?


There HAS to be intent to sit down and write a book, it doesn’t happen by accident. There has to be intent to hand that book to a group for public readings and tell them you think it’s the truth. And as for the non-gospel authors of books in the NT, Luke, Paul, Peter and John (and whomever wrote Hebrews if it wasn't Paul) would ALL have had to intentionally lie if Jesus did not exist as a real person.


The books were written when it became obvious that Jesus' promise to return within a generation was not going to be fulfilled. That's the 'reason' for the written texts - the teachings went on before, and after, the written texts.


They didn't write that stuff by accident. They are claiming Jesus came in the flesh, as a real person. You are saying that they might be wrong but not liars... okay then.

If you write what you were TOLD was true... are YOU a liar, or merely accessory to a lie?

mithraism
Actually, I've read some suppositions that the three wise men who are said to have followed the astrological signs to Jesus birth were Mithraism believers. That Mithraism in Babylon worked hand in hand with the Jewish theology and believers since the time of Daniel. That Jesus was their prophesied King, Lord and Prophet/teacher all rolled into one. That Frankincense, Myrrh and Gold were choices not just gifts for Jesus, that whichever gift the Baby Jesus would pick would tell them what kind of spirit he was when he was born under the sign they followed. One was spiritual leader, one was earthly leader like king, one was the most high heavenly spirit, and that Jesus took them all. I am not at all surprised that Mithraism and Christianity share some common beliefs, why wouldn’t they?


YOU are the one who said that there had to be some grain of truth. "If the Gospel Jesus wasn't at least vaguely based on a real person, someone must have made him up." my question is how big does the grain have to be in order for it to be true?

IMO, The minimum would have to be a real person that went around and claimed to be what the NT says he claimed of himself. Namely, the Jesus that claimed to be the Messiah promised.

A very good reason to think a Jewish rabbi named Jesus told them.

No - a very BAD reason to think a Jewish rabbi told them - changing the law makes you a false prophet. A Jewish rabbi would kow that.

The Old Law doesn't allow one sacrifice to be the remission of ALL sin. Preaching that it would, would be changing the law.

IMO, The minimum would have to be a real person that went around and claimed to be what the NT says he claimed of himself. Namely, the Jesus that claimed to be the Messiah promised.

if it could be somehow shown that jesus did exist exactly(ish) as he did in the new testament except that his resurrection was a fraud and he just died like anyone else, are you of the cs lewis school of thought that would have him a madman who should then be ignored making christianity a fool's religion?

IMO, The minimum would have to be a real person that went around and claimed to be what the NT says he claimed of himself. Namely, the Jesus that claimed to be the Messiah promised.

That IS your opinion, and I'm glad you stated as much.

Of course, even that little amount wouldn't really be necessary. All that would be required, would be that someone SAID that had happened.

Who accredited all those authors? We KNOW they weren't witnesses to all they say, since they discuss things like the means of Jesus' conception.

Your momma never ever talked to any of your friends about how you were born? You already know which church fathers I'm going to name, why do you insist on fighting the same verbiage every single time. I know you don't believe them, you want to complain that maybe they don't really exist either... But regardless of that, we have artifacts with their writings and claims on them.


The texts were probably written honestly enough, based on the available information - but that information needn't be eyewitness testimony, or even true... it's just what was 'known'.
Two are accredited as eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. It's clear you don't believe it

Do I think the Jesus story true? No... highly unlikely. Do I think the Gospel authors 'lied'? No - I think they worked within the accepted guidelines of the day (it was not uncommon to write a text 'in the name of' someone... a prophet, or other reliable witness - it wouldn't be 'dishonest' to do so) and recorded what they heard, what they read, and what they thought - 'John' doing rather more of the latter, and rather less of the former.

And your evidence is? (which I know, you will say why do you need evidence to have doubts...) If you want to call all the first fathers fictional characters you will continue to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that we have their writings and no reason to believe they aren't who they claim to be. (ireneaus, polycarp, marcion etc.)

The other point you raise... People are still writing books today about the gods of Egypt, for example... some people even still revere those gods. People write about these things believing they are accurately describing the faith of others, or their own faith - but that doesn't make Osiris 'real', does it?
The difference is, like I said about the book of Acts before and you completely ignore:

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.

Peter was NOT preaching about someone the audience did not already know.

The books were written when it became obvious that Jesus' promise to return within a generation was not going to be fulfilled. That's the 'reason' for the written texts - the teachings went on before, and after, the written texts.

Nice theorycraft. You say that like it's a proven fact that your dates are undisputed data. John A.T. Robinson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson)"Redating the New Testament" concludes that ALL the NT books were written before 64AD. I don't suppose that's what you believe though is it?

If you write what you were TOLD was true... are YOU a liar, or merely accessory to a lie?
The publisher of the books, ie., the Early Christian Church fathers, claim eye-witness accounts.

Since the only issue at stake here is the existence of mythical heroes - not the accuracy of stories about their adventures - I'd like to say that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a particularly strong individual by the name of Hercules really did exist.

You may assume it. It however would not stand up to logical or scientific scrutiny.


Dan Brown's works are clearly fiction. I did not know that he ever claimed otherwise. And Homer's works, on the other hand, are the opposite - they are clearly based on a real location, at least, if not real events. So we have either clear fiction or a highly embellished account of a real event, but we do not have a completely fictional event that somehow started being considered real.

I can't speak for Ovid, though.

No one claimed the events were entirely fictional. It's completely possible these are accounts of people that eventually morphed all into one character. Those characters would not have to be named Jesus or have been Jewish in order for that to have occurred.

"Do you hear about the men who resurrected after being dead for three days?"
"Yeah, Mithras."
"No, Jesus."
"Whatever."

You have a particular need for a savior, you're not going to get caught up on things like names and ethnicities, as long as the oppression ends.

Remember this is the Jewish OT, why would they accept something that didn't happen?

Because it supported their belief that they were 'the chosen'

Yes they do, since the claim that Jesus did not exist is based on a lack of evidence (outside the NT) about Jesus's life. There is a similar lack of evidence about the lives of Peter, Paul, and everyone else in the NT, so we can conclude by the same logic that they are all made up, no?

You can't apply one standard to Jesus and another standard to everyone else.

Um, again, no. It really hurts the credibility of Christians when you cannot manage to view things beyond a simple, distinctly unrealistic way. We are DOUBTING, not claiming they are false. It's normal to doubt all of the information in the NT, but that doesn't mean none of it is true. Some is already proven false. Some is contradictory. That doesn't it's all false.

Some of it is independently supported. Most of it isn't. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


But see, rhetoric is meant to convince people to support a certain idea or argument, not to convince them that a certain event happened when in fact it did not. The fact that rhetoric "works" means that a made-up story is just as good as a true one to get your point across, not that people start believing in the literal truth of the made-up story.

Who said they weren't tring to convince them of a certain idea or argument? People very frequently get caught up in the messenger instead of the message. A sad fact. That doesn't mean that this messenger wasn't made up, intentionally or no. Meanwhile, they may very well have believed the event was true and thought that make it appear as if they were a witness or it was recent would help it be more believable. Again, this is a common rhetorical device. That you now admit you're aware of it, means you're either a liar or simply not giving your argument the attention you want us to give it.



It is better than the "I can't explain how it could have happened, but I'm sure it happened somehow" argument which you seem to be upholding.

Amusing, but no. The point is that there are dozens of ways it could have happened. Without independent corroboration, the evidence isn't compelling. I'm not claiming anything specifically happened. I'm saying the evidence isn't compelling. Keep trying to place the burden on everyone else, but you're making the positive claim. The burden of proof falls to the person making the claim. Quit whining and offer evidence.


Except that if Jesus did not exist, whose word was he spreading, exactly? The existence of Jesus is necessary in order for salvation to be on the line in the first place. No Jesus = no salvation = no reason to invent Jesus stories.

I didn't say those spreading the myths didn't believe them. Once again your lack of imagination becomes your sole argument. I'm quite glad that such things don't pass in scientific circles.

Really? Such as?


That's an interesting hypothesis, but you just made it up on the spot, so why should I consider it more plausible than the theory that Jesus really did exist as depicted in the Gospels?

Besides, your hypothesis breaks down when you consider the fact that the early Christians attached a lot of importance to the person of Jesus. It wasn't just some rabbi who served as a good example - it was the Son of God sent to pay for mankind's sins. Jesus was worshipped as God mere decades after his death. Frankly the whole thing is much closer to a personality cult built around a very charismatic person than some abstract idea pinned on some random rabbi.

You shouldn't consider it more plausible. You should consider any of a number of theories as equally plasuible until evidence that supports one theory over the tohers is found. As of yet, there has been no independent compelling evidence that Jesus existed. He is not necessary for the existence of these books and there are equally plausible alternatives.

And, again, no. Early Christians had a lot of debate over whether Jesus was the son of God or just a rabbi along with a plethora of other alternatives. Christians were not the homogenous group you pretend they were. The divinity of Christ was a point of major contention at the Council of Nicea. Again, you're ignoring evidence in order to make claims. This doesn't help your argument. In fact, it pretty much shoots you in the foot.

Yes. Yes he did.:) :)

I'll ask this again, since every one else who has popped up with that has ignored it:
If, somehow it was proven that there was no historical Jesus, would it harm your faith (once again assuming that you are christian)?

No - a very BAD reason to think a Jewish rabbi told them - changing the law makes you a false prophet. A Jewish rabbi would kow that.

The Old Law doesn't allow one sacrifice to be the remission of ALL sin. Preaching that it would, would be changing the law.

Jesus didn't agree with Jewish rabbi's of his time

John 8:17
In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

Jesus differentiated between their Law and Gods Law...He said it was their law, not our law.

I don't see why people are getting so worked up over this. If you're not a Christian, it shouldn't matter whether or not he existed in the first place. If you are a Christian, then it's just a matter of faith.

You're going to be a busy bunny....

Very, very busy, even if he confines himself to posters on NSG ;)

theres nothing to say that some (or most) of the stories about paul/saul in the book of acts are true. there is no reason they cant be exaggerated or made up.

the epistles of paul were written by SOMEONE. most of them seem to have been written by the same person. not all of them but most.

how much historical proof is there that peter ever ended up in rome? if peter existed. im not sure there is any outside of the bible and the existence of the vatican.

Your momma never ever talked to any of your friends about how you were born? You already know which church fathers I'm going to name, why do you insist on fighting the same verbiage every single time. I know you don't believe them, you want to complain that maybe they don't really exist either... But regardless of that, we have artifacts with their writings and claims on them.

Hmmm... would that be a witnessed event or would it be a retelling? Do thay make it clear they are retelling the story when they hit these parts or is it all told as if they were there, using the witness literary device. This right there shoots your entire theory in the foot.


Two are accredited as eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. It's clear you don't believe it

All evidence we have suggests they were not written by eye witnesses. In fact, it's likely at least one of them came from an earlier source shared by at least two of the canonical gospels. Beyond that, they tell as witness accounts parts of the story they CANNOT have seen. All of this leads one to the conclusion that the person in which they are told is a literary device. It cannot be ignored that given what the gospels say and what we know of their history, that the person is not evidence they were written by actual witnesses. Ignoring evidence does not help your argument. In fact, it makes it seem as if you'll only accept evidence that supports your claim.

It is not a common belief among biblical scholars that any of the gospels are eyewitness accounts.


And your evidence is? (which I know, you will say why do you need evidence to have doubts...) If you want to call all the first fathers fictional characters you will continue to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that we have their writings and no reason to believe they aren't who they claim to be. (ireneaus, polycarp, marcion etc.)

This is called shifting of the burden of proof. It's a logical fallacy. The burden is on you demontrate the truth of your sources. Not the other way around. We already shown a plethora of ways and a plethora of reasons for doubting the inerrancy of the works.

The difference is, like I said about the book of Acts before and you completely ignore:

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.

Peter was NOT preaching about someone the audience did not already know.


Where is this indication that they (the audience) knew Jesus?

Your momma never ever talked to any of your friends about how you were born?


No. Why would she?

She certainly didn't discuss how I was conceived.

We know none of them were eyewitness to other events also - none of them saw Jesus baptised... none of them saw the young Jesus talking to the people in the temple.


You already know which church fathers I'm going to name, why do you insist on fighting the same verbiage every single time.


Because you insist on trotting out the same crap, over and over again. You haven't provided any evidence to support the truth of any claims made, or even proof that those authors actually existed... except the scripture itself, which is hardly independent.


I know you don't believe them, you want to complain that maybe they don't really exist either...


I don't want to complain that maybe they don't exist. It's not a compaint, it's a plain statement of fact - maybe they DON'T exist.


But regardless of that, we have artifacts with their writings and claims on them.


Okay - I suspect your clauses are getting confusing here... who do you think we have artifacts of?


Two are accredited as eye witness accounts, Matthew and John. It's clear you don't believe it


Because their eyewitness testimony contains things they didn't eye-witness.

You shouldn't believe it, either. If you claim to, you either haven't read it, or you apply a different standard of 'truth' than any I've ever encountered.


And your evidence is? (which I know, you will say why do you need evidence to have doubts...) If you want to call all the first fathers fictional characters you will continue to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that we have their writings and no reason to believe they aren't who they claim to be. (ireneaus, polycarp, marcion etc.)


You speak like doubt is bad, and that wanting evidence is a sin.


The difference is, like I said about the book of Acts before and you completely ignore:

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.

Peter was NOT preaching about someone the audience did not already know.


Or it never happened.

You don't seem to see how circular it is to try to prove scripture, with scripture.


Nice theorycraft. You say that like it's a proven fact that your dates are undisputed data. John A.T. Robinson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson)"Redating the New Testament" concludes that ALL the NT books were written before 64AD. I don't suppose that's what you believe though is it?


I've read it, and, you're right - I don't accept it. Not just because I disagree with his opening gambit (not mentioning something is not compelling evidence that your account was written earlier than that something), but because he completely dismissed modern debate over the actual authorship of the texts, and because he argued that even those texts which the best evidence suggests must have been later, should be considered within his earlier dating scheme.

There are earlier and later datings - you seem convinced that earlier is better, but I see no reason to accept the datibng you prefer - especially since there is no material evidence to support.


The publisher of the books, ie., the Early Christian Church fathers, claim eye-witness accounts.

And?

Jesus didn't agree with Jewish rabbi's of his time

John 8:17
In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true.

John 10:34
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

Jesus differentiated between their Law and Gods Law...He said it was their law, not our law.

I'm sure you realise that the reason 'your law' is mentioned there, is to reinforce a point of view about the Covenant law, and to reinforce that the Jews to which it was addressed SHOULD already be aware of what was being stated.

It is not an attempt to divorce Tanakh law from the covenant.

Seriously, if you really think Tanakh law is set aside from Covenant law (which IS god's law - it is part of his covenant), then the 'Old Testament' is a waste of paper in your hands.

Jesus disagreed with rabbis - that's okay. But his attempt to alter the old law, as established in the scripture, brands him a false prophet - the punishment for whichg is stoning. Which is a really good argument against a literal reading of the New Testament scripture of crucifiction, actually...

I'm sure you realise that the reason 'your law' is mentioned there, is to reinforce a point of view about the Covenant law, and to reinforce that the Jews to which it was addressed SHOULD already be aware of what was being stated.

It is not an attempt to divorce Tanakh law from the covenant.

Seriously, if you really think Tanakh law is set aside from Covenant law (which IS god's law - it is part of his covenant), then the 'Old Testament' is a waste of paper in your hands.

Jesus disagreed with rabbis - that's okay. But his attempt to alter the old law, as established in the scripture, brands him a false prophet - the punishment for whichg is stoning. Which is a really good argument against a literal reading of the New Testament scripture of crucifiction, actually...

No, it MUST be true, because otherwise it came out of NOWHERE.

... repeat as necessary until desired effect is achieved.

Arguments are not conditioner, but I'll bet money, that we hear again how it can only be read one way and could only have happened one way or else it was a global consipiracy of epic proportions. You know, cuz those are the only choices and all.

No, it MUST be true, because otherwise it came out of NOWHERE.

... repeat as necessary until desired effect is achieved.

Arguments are not conditioner, but I'll bet money, that we hear again how it can only be read one way and could only have happened one way or else it was a global consipiracy of epic proportions. You know, cuz those are the only choices and all.

lol

You do realize that this is not going to stop Balderdash from continuing in the same vein, right?

lol

You do realize that this is not going to stop Balderdash from continuing in the same vein, right?

What makes me sad is that several times in this topic it's been suggested that he is making a good argument from the Christian side. It saddens me that Christians are viewed as generally so incapable of logic and rational thought that what Balderdash is saying passes for a valid way to argue that Jesus must have existed.

Truly it amounts to little more than stomping your feet and asking people to stop doubting the bible, because NO independent evidence is being provided here that actually supports the claims within the Bible. The closest thing was almost assuredly altered bit of text by Jospephus that merely shows that very early on there were Christians. It says nothing about how homogenous their beliefs were or how many their were or how the religion spread. There is little to no corroborative evidence that would make the text of the Bible a compelling historical artifact other than it's own value in regards to belief. As a Christian, there is no harm in simply admitting some things are a matter of faith. However, it seems some Christian absolutely need for their faith to have more support or they're worried they'll look silly.

Who cares if faith seems silly to some? It would look a hell of lot less silly if people would stop lying or ignoring facts in order to support their faith.

Jesus disagreed with rabbis - that's okay. But his attempt to alter the old law, as established in the scripture, brands him a false prophet - the punishment for whichg is stoning. Which is a really good argument against a literal reading of the New Testament scripture of crucifiction, actually...

yeah its odd to look at the crucifiction accounts in the bible and see jews going to the roman authorites to get jesus crucified. the romans didnt arrest him, the jews did. then instead of stoning him (a punishment that was current if john is to be believed about the woman caught in adultery) they want him given a roman execution.

it doesnt ring very true to me.

yeah its odd to look at the crucifiction accounts in the bible and see jews going to the roman authorites to get jesus crucified. the romans didnt arrest him, the jews did. then instead of stoning him (a punishment that was current if john is to be believed about the woman caught in adultery) they want him given a roman execution.

it doesnt ring very true to me.

There is actually quite a bit of doubt as to whether the John story was included in the earliest versions of John. I happen to like that story and believe it came from the early Christian sources and that's how it ended up in John, but I'm willing to admit there is some doubt as to where it came from.

Who cares if faith seems silly to some? It would look a hell of lot less silly if people would stop lying or ignoring facts in order to support their faith.

Exactly

There is actually quite a bit of doubt as to whether the John story was included in the earliest versions of John. I happen to like that story and believe it came from the early Christian sources and that's how it ended up in John, but I'm willing to admit there is some doubt as to where it came from.

yeah i understand that it doesnt really fit in with the surrounding text of john.

but there is another place where "the jews" threaten to stone jesus for claiming to be the son of god.

so its not like stoning wasnt a possibility.

yeah i understand that it doesnt really fit in with the surrounding text of john.

but there is another place where "the jews" threaten to stone jesus for claiming to be the son of god.

so its not like stoning wasnt a possibility.

You are combining different locations into your thought processes there. You are forgetting the stuff where it is says they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do. Get the Romans to do it and the blame doesn't come back on us...

You are combining different locations into your thought processes there. You are forgetting the stuff where it is says they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do. Get the Romans to do it and the blame doesn't come back on us...

that doesnt ring true either.

You are combining different locations into your thought processes there. You are forgetting the stuff where it is says they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do. Get the Romans to do it and the blame doesn't come back on us...

Why would the Rabbis be afraid of punishing a false prophet?

Why would the Rabbis be afraid of punishing a false prophet?

Particularly one that so many people seemed to support the crucifiction of.

Why would the Rabbis be afraid of punishing a false prophet?

Popular with the people. The rabbis were afraid of punishing leaders of the people, or people popular with the crowds.

Matthew 21
23 And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" 24Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." 27So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Popular with the people. The rabbis were afraid of punishing leaders of the people, or people popular with the crowds.

John 21
23 And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" 24Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." 27So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Ahh, so you are going back to your circular argument.

Particularly one that so many people seemed to support the crucifiction of.

Which people?

John 19
6When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!"

Ahh, so you are going back to your circular argument.

Which circular argument am I going back on? The false one I was accused of by GnI? Where he forgot why I was quoting scripture at his argument that they might have made the claims by mistake so I quoted what they said to show they said they were sure... and then he claimed I can't quote scripture to prove an argument about scripture (showing he forgot what the topic was)? Or a different one?

Which circular argument am I going back on? The false one I was accused of by GnI? Where he forgot why I was quoting scripture at his argument that they might have made the claims by mistake so I quoted what they said to show they said they were sure... and then he claimed I can't quote scripture to prove an argument about scripture (showing he forgot what the topic was)? Or a different one?

Your using scripture to evidence that scripture is correct. "It's true. Just look how it evidences itself."

There are a ton of problems with the story of the crucifiction.

Barrabas just happens to mean "son of the father'. Interesting coincidence, that. It's speculated that there may have been an actually crucifiction of Jesus, but that the story of Barabas is entirely a mistelling of the events.

They priests were willing to order his crucificition but were afraid to stone him? Why?

Why do people pretend it makes sense that they were afraid to follow through with Jewish law against someone they said was a false prophet, but they were perfectly comfortable actively calling for his death by the occupiers? And this fearsome leader of the people gets taunted and tortured in the streets, while virtually no one but his closest followers do anything?

Again, to pretend that the story of the crucifiction is compelling while standing alone is simply to ignore the evidence at hand.

Those people who are happy with the Bible as an absolute arbiter of truth are of course going to be satisfied that Jesus existed exactly as it describes (and also, of course, that the whole human race is descended from just one breeding pair, there were never any dinosaurs, and the entire planet was flooded for forty days and forty nights sometime in recorded human history).

Those who are not happy with appeal to this particular authority are of course going to demand some other evidence of the existence of Jesus (though I suspect a lot of them are quite happy to concede that Jesus the man existed, while rather doubting his divinity).

Arguing back and forth "but is says so in the Bible" "but the Bible is just fairy tales" "but look at this bit of the Bible" is never going to be very productive.

Your using scripture to evidence that scripture is correct. "It's true. Just look how it evidences itself."

I did not, you accuse me of it often enough though. We were talking about if it could have been a mistake or done on purpose.

There are a ton of problems with the story of the crucifiction.

Barrabas just happens to mean "son of the father'. Interesting coincidence, that. It's speculated that there may have been an actually crucifiction of Jesus, but that the story of Barabas is entirely a mistelling of the events.

They priests were willing to order his crucificition but were afraid to stone him? Why? 1

Why do people pretend it makes sense that they were afraid to follow through with Jewish law against someone they said was a false prophet, but they were perfectly comfortable actively calling for his death by the occupiers? And this fearsome leader of the people gets taunted and tortured in the streets, while virtually no one but his closest followers do anything? 2

Again, to pretend that the story of the crucifiction is compelling while standing alone is simply to ignore the evidence at hand.


This bit is off topic, so I'll make it quick.
1. Already said above, they didn't want the people to turn on them. Their entire reason for existence (according to the Romans) was to keep the people in line or the Romans would crush them, and they knew it. IF the people riot, they lose power/influence.
2 The 'people' weren't there. The Chief Priests and leaders were there. Early morning in front of the governor's house, not a place the governor would allow peasant crowds just to hang around.

I did not, you accuse me of it often enough though. We were talking about if it could have been a mistake or done on purpose.

Um, I think you're missing the point. What independent evidence is there for the events you're claiming occurred? Can you show evidence for them without claiming the Bible exists so it must be true?

You make it very difficult to take you seriously when you act like you haven't repeatedly evidence the truth of these events using the same book which is the only place they're described.

This bit is off topic, so I'll make it quick.
1. Already said above, they didn't want the people to turn on them. Their entire reason for existence (according to the Romans) was to keep the people in line or the Romans would crush them, and they knew it. IF the people riot, they lose power/influence.
2 The 'people' weren't there. The Chief Priests and leaders were there. Early morning in front of the governor's house, not a place the governor was allow peasant crowds just to hang around.

Um, how did the story get passed on if no one sympathetic to Jesus heard it? I thought these were eyewitness testimonies? And who was there when Jesus was tortured in the streets? How come 2000 years later we know the priests ordered the killing of Jesus, but they managed to hide it from the people then?

Um, how did the story get passed on if no one sympathetic to Jesus heard it? I thought these were eyewitness testimonies? And who was there when Jesus was tortured in the streets? How come 2000 years later we know the priests ordered the killing of Jesus, but they managed to hide it from the people then?

Making up imaginary reason how Jesus might not exist at all has used up all your imagination entirely?

Which version do you like best then, the one that says some of the chief priest and officers become Christians later (especially after witnessing the events that took place and it also says he had at least one friend among them, he was buried in who’s tomb?) OR that some of the Roman soldiers become Christians later (when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"), OR that after the resurrection Jesus told the disciples himself. (then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures) IF you don't like any of those, I'm sure we can find more possibilities.

Um, I think you're missing the point. What independent evidence is there for the events you're claiming occurred? Can you show evidence for them without claiming the Bible exists so it must be true?
When did I bring up these topics in this thread? I've answered questions about it in this thread, but this thread is about the existence of the man, and that's what I've dealt with. When the accustion was that the scripture might have been telling the truth and been wrong because they were not eye-witnesses, I pointed out what the scripture says about itself and how that is then not an alternative to be taken seriously.

You make it very difficult to take you seriously when you act like you haven't repeatedly evidence the truth of these events using the same book which is the only place they're described.


And you make it very difficult to take you seriously when every other post (or so it seems, I haven't counted them) are allusions to how 'idiotic' your opponents in this debate are...

Making up imaginary reason how Jesus might not exist at all has used up all your imagination entirely?

Which version do you like best then, the one that says some of the chief priest and officers become Christians later (especially after witnessing the events that took place and it also says he had at least one friend among them, he was buried in who’s tomb?) OR that some of the Roman soldiers become Christians later (when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"), OR that after the resurrection Jesus told the disciples himself. (then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures) IF you don't like any of those, I'm sure we can find more possibilities.

So you admit that this is yet ANOTHER part that is not from witnesses. So much for the claim that any of these are eyewitness testimony. Notice how the way it's told doesn't change to indicate it was information passed on from other people. The Bible proves through your admission that the authors are using the literary device I described.

My feigned lack of imagination was just to get you to admit that much of the information told as if it's first-hand knowledge cannot be. See how that works?

When did I bring up these topics in this thread? I've answered questions about it in this thread, but this thread is about the existence of the man, and that's what I've dealt with. When the accustion was that the scripture might have been telling the truth and been wrong because they were not eye-witnesses, I pointed out what the scripture says about itself and how that is then not an alternative to be taken seriously.

Heh. You used quotes from scripture to add credence the same scripture. You don't get how that's circular? Seriously, man, are you doing that on purpose?


And you make it very difficult to take you seriously when every other post (or so it seems, I haven't counted them) are allusions to how 'idiotic' your opponents in this debate are...

Idiotic arguments do not an idiot make. I react to arguments on their merit. If you don't want to have your arguments pointed to as incredible and ridiculous don't make arguments that are so provably flawed. It's not rocket science. All it takes is a little effort on your part and a commitment to truth instead of pretending to be right. You could drive through the holes in your evidence with a truck and you act like it's irrational to accept that these holes are cause for reasonable doubt.

Quit whining about honest assessments of your arguments and shore up those holes, or simply admit you can't. Ignoring evidence or making up evidence just makes you look bad.

Heh. You used quotes from scripture to add credence the same scripture. You don't get how that's circular? Seriously, man, are you doing that on purpose?

You are good at ignoring the debate and making your own discussions aren't you? If there is a question about the scripture, answering it with scripture only makes sense, and I've done so. If the question is about the historicity of Jesus the man, I have not used scripture. Time for you to actually read the thread instead of imagining that you know what I'm saying.



Idiotic arguments do not an idiot make. I react to arguments on their merit. If you don't want to have your arguments pointed to as incredible and ridiculous don't make arguments that are so provably flawed. It's not rocket science. All it takes is a little effort on your part and a commitment to truth instead of pretending to be right. You could drive through the holes in your evidence with a truck and you act like it's irrational to accept that these holes are cause for reasonable doubt.

Quit whining about honest assessments of your arguments and shore up those holes, or simply admit you can't. Ignoring evidence or making up evidence just makes you look bad.

This would have been funny if it wasn't so pathetic first.

So you admit that this is yet ANOTHER part that is not from witnesses. So much for the claim that any of these are eyewitness testimony. Notice how the way it's told doesn't change to indicate it was information passed on from other people. The Bible proves through your admission that the authors are using the literary device I described.

My feigned lack of imagination was just to get you to admit that much of the information told as if it's first-hand knowledge cannot be. See how that works?


Perhaps you will notice that there is scripture quoted in that post of mine that you quoted. :rolleyes: Seriously, are you even trying?

Perhaps you will notice that there is scripture quoted in that post of mine that you quoted. :rolleyes: Seriously, are you even trying?

Um, yeah, that's the point. It's like you're not actually reading. The scripture is not eyewitness accounts. It cannot be. By your own admission the "people" weren't there. Are you claiming the gospels were written by the Roman soldiers and/or Jewish Chief Priests? If not, it's not eyewitness testimony. What aren't you getting?

EDIT: I'll try again. There are events in these "eyewitness accounts" that no one who you claim wrote them could have seen. You've proven this repeatedly by admitting that portions of the events leading up the crucifiction would not have been open to the general public. Yet that part of the story, all parts of the story are told as if they were eyewitness accounts, a point you entered as evidence. This proves that they tell the story as if it's an eyewitness account even when they could not have been there. You're quoting of scripture doesn't negate that they weren't there and that the literary device I described is the only rational explanation.

You are good at ignoring the debate and making your own discussions aren't you? If there is a question about the scripture, answering it with scripture only makes sense, and I've done so. If the question is about the historicity of Jesus the man, I have not used scripture. Time for you to actually read the thread instead of imagining that you know what I'm saying.

Um, no, it doesn't. Using scripture to prove that scripture is accurate is a circular argument. I might as well quote myself to prove that my arguments are accurate. The question is about whether the scripture is what it claims to be. The truth of that cannot be answered by scripture alone, though you're trying desperately to pretend it is.


This would have been funny if it wasn't so pathetic first.

And, once again I call for independent evidence and you fail to provide it. But hey, if you call my request for evidence pathetic that's almost like providing it. Now, how about you prove me wrong and make a decent argument. I'd be ecstatic. So far, I've seen a lot of complaining that people don't accept the scripture as true until proven false.

You are combining different locations into your thought processes there. You are forgetting the stuff where it is says they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do. Get the Romans to do it and the blame doesn't come back on us...

That makes no sense. WHO would be offended? Other Jews? The other Jews knew what stoning 'means', and would have been totally behind the action, if they were strict adherents to covenant law.

Or - were the Jews worried they might upset Romans? If so, why would they even take the matter before Pilate in the first place?

That makes no sense. WHO would be offended? Other Jews? The other Jews knew what stoning 'means', and would have been totally behind the action, if they were strict adherents to covenant law.

Or - were the Jews worried they might upset Romans? If so, why would they even take the matter before Pilate in the first place?

Don't you get it? They were afraid to kill him directly according to their covenent with God, cuz people are usually less afraid of God than someone they believe to be a false prophet. They were so afraid they handed him over the Romans, but only after letting it get out that they ordered his death. And, of course, remember all those people who would have created an uprising and were so fearsome, the romans drove him through the streets giving them ample opportunity for uprising, and ensuring that there were tons of witnesses to the torture and humiliation of their Christ. Then they killed him in a way that would take a very long time and be very torturous while continuing to humiliate him.

Yeah, that is very consistent with a man that people were afraid of killing. Yup. All makes perfect sense provided you don't think about it much. Can you see my eyeball throbbing?

Um, yeah, that's the point. It's like you're not actually reading. The scripture is not eyewitness accounts. It cannot be. By your own admission the "people" weren't there. Are you claiming the gospels were written by the Roman soldiers and/or Jewish Chief Priests? If not, it's not eyewitness testimony. What aren't you getting?

EDIT: I'll try again. There are events in these "eyewitness accounts" that no one who you claim wrote them could have seen. You've proven this repeatedly by admitting that portions of the events leading up the crucifiction would not have been open to the general public. Yet that part of the story, all parts of the story are told as if they were eyewitness accounts, a point you entered as evidence. This proves that they tell the story as if it's an eyewitness account even when they could not have been there. You're quoting of scripture doesn't negate that they weren't there and that the literary device I described is the only rational explanation.

Perhaps you would like read it again, this time not on Wiki, since apparently you didn't want to read it the last time I linked to it for you...

Hearsay exception:
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule807


Hearsay rules do not apply to Historic documents. Any of these people in the area and witnessing it can speak to the author of the document and the author can include it without the document being discarded for the hearsay rule.

I can't figure out if you just aren't very good at this sort of thing, or if you just aren't trying? Maybe you paste your saved commentary from other discussions and they don’t really apply here? Either way, please try to stay focused, you're getting yourself all sidetracked from the point of the thread.

That makes no sense. WHO would be offended? Other Jews? The other Jews knew what stoning 'means', and would have been totally behind the action, if they were strict adherents to covenant law.

Or - were the Jews worried they might upset Romans? If so, why would they even take the matter before Pilate in the first place?

Rioting peasants bring down the Roman law enforcement. Bringing down the Romans means losing their Roman appointed authority if the Romans begin to think they can't keep the peace. If the Romans execute the popular trouble makers the chief priests don't get blamed for any trouble thereafter (by the Romans or peasants).

Don't you get it? They were afraid to kill him directly according to their covenent with God, cuz people are usually less afraid of God than someone they believe to be a false prophet. They were so afraid they handed him over the Romans, but only after letting it get out that they ordered his death. And, of course, remember all those people who would have created an uprising and were so fearsome, the romans drove him through the streets giving them ample opportunity for uprising, and ensuring that there were tons of witnesses to the torture and humiliation of their Christ. Then they killed him in a way that would take a very long time and be very torturous while continuing to humiliate him.

Yeah, that is very consistent with a man that people were afraid of killing. Yup. All makes perfect sense provided you don't think about it much. Can you see my eyeball throbbing?

You haven't read any of the thread have you? Just keep having your own little conversations with yourself...

I'll have to keep that in mind when I see your name on the posts...

Perhaps you would like read it again, this time not on Wiki, since apparently you didn't want to read it the last time I linked to it for you...

Hearsay exception:
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule807


Hearsay rules do not apply to Historic documents. Any of these people in the area and witnessing it can speak to the author of the document and the author can include it without the document being discarded for the hearsay rule.

I can't figure out if you just aren't very good at this sort of thing, or if you just aren't trying? Maybe you paste your saved commentary from other discussions and they don’t really apply here? Either way, please try to stay focused, you're getting yourself all sidetracked from the point of the thread.

What I can't figure out is what hearsay rules have to do with the veracity of the bible. This isn't a court of law.

But since you seem to think it is, present the original gospels and provide evidence of their authenticity.

Perhaps you would like read it again, this time not on Wiki, since apparently you didn't want to read it the last time I linked to it for you...

Hearsay exception:
(8) Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A) is in such condition as to create no suspicion concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule807


Hearsay rules do not apply to Historic documents. Any of these people in the area and witnessing it can speak to the author of the document and the author can include it without the document being discarded for the hearsay rule.

I can't figure out if you just aren't very good at this sort of thing, or if you just aren't trying? Maybe you paste your saved commentary from other discussions and they don’t really apply here? Either way, please try to stay focused, you're getting yourself all sidetracked from the point of the thread.

What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about science, not law, but even in a court of law, historic documents are not hearsay if the document describes events witnessed by the person who wrote them. Here, you're admitting the events were not witnessed by the people you claimed wrote these documents. There is no mention of the source of the stories the author did not witness nor any evidence for how they gathered the information or they made it up. We KNOW they didn't see it happen. We KNOW that. However, since they didn't feel the need to share the source of their information, we have to simply discard it without corroborating evidence.

The author of these documents COULD NOT have witnessed the events. Meanwhile, we aren't talking about whether they would be hearsay in a court of law. Your inability to follow doesn't change that. You claimed two of them were eyewitness testimony. The authors could not have witnessed the events. You've admitted that as fact.

Here is my claim -

There is a literary device that tells a story as if witnessed directly that is used to strengthen the point the literature is making. The Gospels appear to use this device rather than actually be eyewitness testimony.

My evidence for this claim is that there is no one besides Jesus who could have bore witness to all of these events, and no one, no one claims that Jesus wrote the Gospels.

Your attempt to debunk my claim is to admit that the supposed authors of the Gospels did not witness some or many of these events, claim you've never heard of the literary device, claim Jesus's resurrected corpse could have told them about some of the events (still not eyewitness), claim that Jesus' mother could have told them (still not eyewitness), and explain to me that historic documents can be an exemption to hearsay in a court of law (under very specific circumstances that you are valiantly ignoring).

None of your rebuttals address the fact that you've already admitted that these events were not witnessed by the authors you claim for the Gospels. Your words have betrayed your claim.

Rioting peasants bring down the Roman law enforcement. Bringing down the Romans means losing their Roman appointed authority if the Romans begin to think they can't keep the peace. If the Romans execute the popular trouble makers the chief priests don't get blamed for any trouble thereafter (by the Romans or peasants).

And they were so afraid of these peasants that rather than fulfill the law that caused them to turn over Jesus to the Romans, they allowed him to be killed in a way that would necessarily be more public, take longer, be more torturous, and include a TON of mocking of the claimed king of the Jews. Yeah, clearly they were desperately trying to stifle an uprising. Totally makes sense.

Popular with the people. The rabbis were afraid of punishing leaders of the people, or people popular with the crowds.

John 21
23 And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" 24Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet." 27So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And he said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

John 21:23-7?

Are you sure?

I assume you actually mean MATTHEW 21:23?

There are a couple of fairly obvious problems with your assertion - first, Jesus was already teaching when the chief priests came to him.. and reading back justa little we see who he ministered to in the temple: "the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them... But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant..."

So - it's not like Jesus is talked to in isolation - the blind, the lame, his follwoers, children... fairly busy sounding temple.

As to the claim that they would hate them - well, again, your evidence is all internal - where is your source for the belief that John was a prophet (or that Jesus was one - the other excuse listed in John 21?), or that that would have mattered?

According to Matthew 21, they refuse to take Jesus at the festival, because of the repurcussion with the crowd... but they DO take him at Passover?

According to Matthew 26:55, there were 'crowds' present when Jesus was arrested... according to Matthew 26:60, 'many false witnesses' testified against him, Peter was several times approached by servants in regard to Jesus, at the release of Barabbas, the chief priests persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas, "And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!", Matthew 27:47 says there were bystanders at the crucifixion, Matthew 27:55 says there "were many women there".

The text clearly shows that Jesus was not popular with the people. The latter text (about the chief priests 'persuading the crowd') shows that the earlier text is either mistaken, or false (about not wanting to upset the crowds).

The people are present throughout - it is not hidden, it is well observed and well known, and the people do not do as you say.

You have based your entire argument off of one passage, which is shown to be false even within the works of the same author.

So... either you don't know as much as you pretend... or you DO know, and you lie.

Which is it?

This bit is off topic, so I'll make it quick.
1. Already said above, they didn't want the people to turn on them. Their entire reason for existence (according to the Romans) was to keep the people in line or the Romans would crush them, and they knew it. IF the people riot, they lose power/influence.
2 The 'people' weren't there. The Chief Priests and leaders were there. Early morning in front of the governor's house, not a place the governor would allow peasant crowds just to hang around.

Nice attempt to wiggle out: "This bit is off topic, so I'll make it quick"... but, in reality, you are just wrong. I can understand why you'd want this to be ignored as an aside, then.

See your points addressed, in my prior post.

Rioting peasants bring down the Roman law enforcement. Bringing down the Romans means losing their Roman appointed authority if the Romans begin to think they can't keep the peace. If the Romans execute the popular trouble makers the chief priests don't get blamed for any trouble thereafter (by the Romans or peasants).

Irrelevent.

I've explained why in a later post (ealier than this reply).

The situation you like to pretend existed... just didn't.

You haven't read any of the thread have you? Just keep having your own little conversations with yourself...

I'll have to keep that in mind when I see your name on the posts...

I've read every single post of the thread. Every bit of evidence you've provided is wildly speculative and doesn't speak to your current claim that there is no other explanation for the spread of Christianity other than the central figure having existed.

Amusingly, you keep pretending it hasn't been shown the rather huge reasons to doubt the accounts of Jesus from the Bible. It doesn't mean they're false. It means there is not compelling evidence for their veracity.

For example, what was Barabas' first name according to the original accounts? A rather coincidental first name, no? Especially when his last name translates to what? Son of the Father? Hmmm... yeah, that's not reason to doubt. Again, unless you think about it a little.

Then you have this tradition of letting a criminal go during Passover. What is the basis for this tradition and whose tradition was it? Can we find independent evidence of such a tradition?

Why wasn't Jesus stoned? Oh, right, because everyone feared him so much that it was much more safe to torture over days and mock him mercilessly.

Where is the independent contemporary corroboration of this punishment of a man that was so powerful that everyone feared him and passed from authority to authority because no one dared murder him?

Why are parts of the Bible told as if they are eyewitness accounts when no one witnessed some of those events except Jesus?

Why are parts of the Bible in contradiction with other parts while certain stories are so similar that they even use the same descriptive terms and literary devices?

Who authored the Gospels? Despite your claims it's almost universally believed among independent scholars that the assigned names were not evidence of authorship by the apostles. Why isn't there in information as to where they heard the stories or, even assuming it was the apostles, where they heard the things they could not have witnessed themselves?

Pretending these obvious questions don't exist or should be ignored is evidence that you don't actually believe that rationally addressing all of the evidence and being appropriately skeptical will land on the conclusion you'd like us to have. So you look at the mountains of questions, the plethora of reasons for skepticism and act like their is only one conclusions.

Don't worry though, I'm not mocking your argument. I'm turning it over to the atheists to mock your argument because I'm afraid you'll rob me of my power by leading an uprising against me.

And they were so afraid of these peasants that rather than fulfill the law that caused them to turn over Jesus to the Romans, they allowed him to be killed in a way that would necessarily be more public, take longer, be more torturous, and include a TON of mocking of the claimed king of the Jews. Yeah, clearly they were desperately trying to stifle an uprising. Totally makes sense.

And - as I've pointed out to him (him?), it's not true anyway. The whole 'peasant revolt' thing is somewhere between a redherring and wishful thinking. Most likely, from some apologist site explaining why Jesus wasn't given the correct punishment for a false prophet. That would explain how Balders 'accidentally' misattributed the text to John.

John 21:23-7?

Are you sure?

I assume you actually mean MATTHEW 21:23?

There are a couple of fairly obvious problems with your assertion - first, Jesus was already teaching when the chief priests came to him.. and reading back justa little we see who he ministered to in the temple: "the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them... But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant..."

So - it's not like Jesus is talked to in isolation - the blind, the lame, his follwoers, children... fairly busy sounding temple.

As to the claim that they would hate them - well, again, your evidence is all internal - where is your source for the belief that John was a prophet (or that Jesus was one - the other excuse listed in John 21?), or that that would have mattered?

According to Matthew 21, they refuse to take Jesus at the festival, because of the repurcussion with the crowd... but they DO take him at Passover?

According to Matthew 26:55, there were 'crowds' present when Jesus was arrested... according to Matthew 26:60, 'many false witnesses' testified against him, Peter was several times approached by servants in regard to Jesus, at the release of Barabbas, the chief priests persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas, "And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!", Matthew 27:47 says there were bystanders at the crucifixion, Matthew 27:55 says there "were many women there".

The text clearly shows that Jesus was not popular with the people. The latter text (about the chief priests 'persuading the crowd') shows that the earlier text is either mistaken, or false (about not wanting to upset the crowds).

The people are present throughout - it is not hidden, it is well observed and well known, and the people do not do as you say.

You have based your entire argument off of one passage, which is shown to be false even within the works of the same author.

So... either you don't know as much as you pretend... or you DO know, and you lie.

Which is it?

Well in fairness to Balder, I mistook that as well and you're aware I'm fairly well-versed. I was working on the assumption the people weren't there as well.

However, it is obvious the people were there during the punishment of Jesus. Basically every telling that makes him out to be so fearsome makes the lack of independent corroboration more odd. Every telling that they were so afraid of his power suggests that the way they handled it was doubly unbelievable. You have to keep twisting every little bit of this story to make it a sensible outcome. Which, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that there are likely some parts of the story that are wholly or partly inaccurate.

I've read every single post of the thread. Every bit of evidence you've provided is wildly speculative and doesn't speak to your current claim that there is no other explanation for the spread of Christianity other than the central figure having existed.

Amusingly, you keep pretending it hasn't been shown the rather huge reasons to doubt the accounts of Jesus from the Bible. It doesn't mean they're false. It means there is not compelling evidence for their veracity.

For example, what was Barabas' first name according to the original accounts? A rather coincidental first name, no? Especially when his last name translates to what? Son of the Father? Hmmm... yeah, that's not reason to doubt. Again, unless you think about it a little.

Then you have this tradition of letting a criminal go during Passover. What is the basis for this tradition and whose tradition was it? Can we find independent evidence of such a tradition?

Why wasn't Jesus stoned? Oh, right, because everyone feared him so much that it was much more safe to torture over days and mock him mercilessly.

Where is the independent contemporary corroboration of this punishment of a man that was so powerful that everyone feared him and passed from authority to authority because no one dared murder him?

Why are parts of the Bible told as if they are eyewitness accounts when no one witnessed some of those events except Jesus?

Why are parts of the Bible in contradiction with other parts while certain stories are so similar that they even use the same descriptive terms and literary devices?

Who authored the Gospels? Despite your claims it's almost universally believed among independent scholars that the assigned names were not evidence of authorship by the apostles. Why isn't there in information as to where they heard the stories or, even assuming it was the apostles, where they heard the things they could not have witnessed themselves?

Pretending these obvious questions don't exist or should be ignored is evidence that you don't actually believe that rationally addressing all of the evidence and being appropriately skeptical will land on the conclusion you'd like us to have. So you look at the mountains of questions, the plethora of reasons for skepticism and act like their is only one conclusions.

Don't worry though, I'm not mocking your argument. I'm turning it over to the atheists to mock your argument because I'm afraid you'll rob me of my power by leading an uprising against me.

The most telling part - admitting that parts of the testimony he insists is primary, cannot possibly be based on eye witness testimony. If I found myself in that position, I'd be having a major reassessment of my data.

Well in fairness to Balder, I mistook that as well and you're aware I'm fairly well-versed. I was working on the assumption the people weren't there as well.

However, it is obvious the people were there during the punishment of Jesus. Basically every telling that makes him out to be so fearsome makes the lack of independent corroboration more odd. Every telling that they were so afraid of his power suggests that the way they handled it was doubly unbelievable. You have to keep twisting every little bit of this story to make it a sensible outcome. Which, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that there are likely some parts of the story that are wholly or partly inaccurate.

Extra ironic when you consider that Balders and I have also been contesting over the nature of (what I'm calling) the zeitgeist. I say Jesus was a popular story, because of the promised overthrow of Roman oppression, Balders says that there was no militancy, it was not revolutionary - this was a creed of peace and stability.

And yet, when we argue about the intended punishment for a false prophet, Jesus is a rabble-rouser, and the crowds will revolt?

There is something rotten in the state of the gospel.

And - as I've pointed out to him (him?), it's not true anyway. The whole 'peasant revolt' thing is somewhere between a redherring and wishful thinking. Most likely, from some apologist site explaining why Jesus wasn't given the correct punishment for a false prophet. That would explain how Balders 'accidentally' misattributed the text to John.

It's ludicrous anyway. The more you play up the power of Jesus, the less it all makes sense. So we have someone who is so powerful the leaders of the Jews are afraid to execute him according to law, yet, no contemporary mention of him. Josephus spent much more time on the leader of an uprising whose name wasn't worth mentioning, then places a tiny little description of Jesus that just happens to claim his divinity and talk about how he was resurrected from the dead. Interesting that Josephus would have so little to say about such a fantastic story that was about a historical figure that was so powerful that the Roman Empire and the leaders of the Jews feared him.

He doesn't realize that making these arguments highlights why the story of Jesus as told by the canonized Gospels is so difficult to swallow as a scientist or historian.

Irrelevent.

I've explained why in a later post (ealier than this reply).

The situation you like to pretend existed... just didn't.

Really? Perhaps you would like to recall the sequence of events after Jesus? Herod goes bye bye in the 40's Romans bring direct rule over the area va their governor. Temple people still can't keep the peace, bye bye temple 60AD...

I think my account (abbriviated as it may be) was verified by the fact that it came to pass.

Really? Perhaps you would like to recall the sequence of events after Jesus? Herod goes bye bye in the 40's Romans bring direct rule over the area va their governor. Temple people still can't keep the peace, bye bye temple 60AD...

I think my account (abbriviated as it may be) was verified by the fact that it came to pass.

Apparently, you didn't read what he wrote. Catch up and try and make this argument again.

Extra ironic when you consider that Balders and I have also been contesting over the nature of (what I'm calling) the zeitgeist. I say Jesus was a popular story, because of the promised overthrow of Roman oppression, Balders says that there was no militancy, it was not revolutionary - this was a creed of peace and stability.

And yet, when we argue about the intended punishment for a false prophet, Jesus is a rabble-rouser, and the crowds will revolt?

There is something rotten in the state of the gospel.

The priest aren't afraid of the peasants, they're afraid of the Romans. If the peasants protest the Romans take over. Which part of this are you misunderstanding? Jesus isn't the rabble rouser, I never said he was. Jocabia comes along and you want to start pretending I'm saying something I haven't. That's a sad sequence of events... nothing to debate with if you guys don't need me here, you'll just make arguments for me and attack that :rolleyes:

Extra ironic when you consider that Balders and I have also been contesting over the nature of (what I'm calling) the zeitgeist. I say Jesus was a popular story, because of the promised overthrow of Roman oppression, Balders says that there was no militancy, it was not revolutionary - this was a creed of peace and stability.

And yet, when we argue about the intended punishment for a false prophet, Jesus is a rabble-rouser, and the crowds will revolt?

There is something rotten in the state of the gospel.

Yes, the problem is that once you admit why they were at this time there was a danger of a popular leader causing a revolt, you also have to admit that for that same reason the people desperately want to believe that such a popular leader will rise up and save them from occupation. This fact alone highlights a very rational way that Christianity could have began as a series of tiny cults that molded together in a common belief for a common goal, the eventual liberation of the people. It's not unusual that it's mentioned directly in the Gospels that Jesus will return while the people who were alive when he was were still alive. The perception was that this savior in both a spiritual and a physical sense was right around the corner is exactly what made the story so popular. Ignoring that a rebellion was very much the point requires us to rewrite history.

The most telling part - admitting that parts of the testimony he insists is primary, cannot possibly be based on eye witness testimony. If I found myself in that position, I'd be having a major reassessment of my data.

LOL


Funny.


How many people wrote the gospels? How many years did they travel and talk to each other? Biographical stories can include sources the author has spoken to without being present in every event himself. The suggestion that they do need to be is a sign of desperation in your argument.

Really? Perhaps you would like to recall the sequence of events after Jesus? Herod goes bye bye in the 40's Romans bring direct rule over the area va their governor. Temple people still can't keep the peace, bye bye temple 60AD...

I think my account (abbriviated as it may be) was verified by the fact that it came to pass.

Nice evasion.

Can't say I'm surprised. It doesn't look good for you right now, since your whole argument was shown to be rubbish. Still, you could have made an attempt to adress the scripture. It has, after all, been the ONLY source you've relied on so far, pretty much.

But now, it not being useful to you, you ignore it. Convenient. Means you don't have to address my post.

The question is - how do you think this "sequence of events after Jesus" stuff, affects the discussion of your claims about the chief priests, the 'people', and the punishment for false prophecy?

The priest aren't afraid of the peasants, they're afraid of the Romans. If the peasants protest the Romans take over. Which part of this are you misunderstanding? Jesus isn't the rabble rouser, I never said he was. Jocabia comes along and you want to start pretending I'm saying something I haven't. That's a sad sequence of events... nothing to debate with if you guys don't need me here, you'll just make arguments for me and attack that :rolleyes:

Okay, take a step back and try, please try, to read what we're saying.

Why would the peasants revolt if the Jews simply carry out a sentence called for in thier laws for a false prophet? A sentence that would have been a normal process considering the number of crimes such a sentence was called for?

Why would they be less likely to revolt if instead of a rather quick death, they give Jesus a very public and long process of torture and ridicule?

You've still not addressed this point. Instead you just keep whining how no one can understand what you're trying to say.

Well in fairness to Balder, I mistook that as well and you're aware I'm fairly well-versed. I was working on the assumption the people weren't there as well.

However, it is obvious the people were there during the punishment of Jesus. Basically every telling that makes him out to be so fearsome makes the lack of independent corroboration more odd. Every telling that they were so afraid of his power suggests that the way they handled it was doubly unbelievable. You have to keep twisting every little bit of this story to make it a sensible outcome. Which, of course, doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that there are likely some parts of the story that are wholly or partly inaccurate.


He's mixing two locations. The temple priest location where Jesus was tried and the governors house early in the morning.

No crowds inside the jewish court, no crowds in front of the governors house.

But he was correct about me misquoting which gospel I was quoting. Sorry about that.

LOL


Funny.


How many people wrote the gospels? How many years did they travel and talk to each other? Biographical stories can include sources the author has spoken to without being present in every event himself. The suggestion that they do need to be is a sign of desperation in your argument.

Then they aren't eyewitness testimonies, by definition. Worse, their "sources" aren't offered up. And when I suggested that the authors were using a literary device where you tell something as if you were there when you weren't, you pretended to have never heard of such a thing. Come on, man, get it together.

So now you admit that these are not eye witness testimonies. Now, we're getting somewhere.

So given that we have no evidence the authors were eye witnesses to these events, why do you not need independent, contemporary corroboration of the events of the Gospels?

Okay, take a step back and try, please try, to read what we're saying.

Why would the peasants revolt if the Jews simply carry out a sentence called for in thier laws for a false prophet? A sentence that would have been a normal process considering the number of crimes such a sentence was called for?

Because the peasants liked the Jesus fellow. Which part of rioting peasants rising up and throwing stones at the Herod leaders temple priests is making you doubt the possibility?

Why would they be less likely to revolt if instead of a rather quick death, they give Jesus a very public and long process of torture and ridicule?

Because the Roman soldiers were doing it. You want to know what happens to people that throw rocks at roman soldiers? And if they do riot, the priests don't get blamed for losing control, the Roman soldeirs lose control...

You've still not addressed this point. Instead you just keep whining how no one can understand what you're trying to say.


Oh nonsense, grow up some time soon or I'm going to stop responding to you, it's nearly entirely a waste of time if you can't keep the insults to at least a low troll level.

He's mixing two locations. The temple priest location where Jesus was tried and the governors house early in the morning.

No crowds inside the jewish court, no crowds in front of the governors house.

But he was correct about me misquoting which gospel I was quoting. Sorry about that.

Um, what?

15Now it was the governor's custom at the Feast to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16At that time they had a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. 17So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, "Which one do you want me to release to you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 18For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him.

19While Pilate was sitting on the judge's seat, his wife sent him this message: "Don't have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him."

20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

Seriously, you really should at least look this stuff up before you say it? Why did the crowd release Barabbas if there was such popular support for Jesus the Christ?

Then they aren't eyewitness testimonies, by definition. Worse, their "sources" aren't offered up. And when I suggested that the authors were using a literary device where you tell something as if you were there when you weren't, you pretended to have never heard of such a thing. Come on, man, get it together.

So now you admit that these are not eye witness testimonies. Now, we're getting somewhere.

So given that we have no evidence the authors were eye witnesses to these events, why do you not need independent, contemporary corroboration of the events of the Gospels?

By definition? Who's definition? Not Matthew's definition if he's writing down what the eye witness told him...

...
20But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

Seriously, you really should at least look this stuff up before you say it? Why did the crowd release Barabbas if there was such popular support for Jesus the Christ?

You should read yourself instead of spending so much time trying to think up your next implied insult...

John 19
"Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

Because the peasants liked the Jesus fellow. Which part of rioting peasants rising up and throwing stones at the Herod leaders temple priests is making you doubt the possibility?

Um, I didn't doubt the possibility. Again, you're ignoring the arguments being made against you. Yes, the possiblity of a rebellion is exactly why a story of a peasant hero who would overthrow the oppressors would catch on like wildfire. Incidentally, something we argued explains how a story like this could catch on with no actual link to a real figure. In fact, it's historically accepted that there were a number of similar figures at this time.

That doesn't address the point, however. You claimed that there was a danger of an uprising if the Jews killed Jesus, but you've not explained how the sequence of events described in the Bible mitigated this threat.


Because the Roman soldiers were doing it. You want to know what happens to people that throw rocks at roman soldiers? And if they do riot, the priests don't get blamed for losing control, the Roman soldeirs lose control...

You don't know how a stoning works, do you? Meanwhile, the crowd was convinced by people to save Barabbas and not Jesus the Christ. It seems the crowd might not have been so willing to fight to save him. In fact, they were so unwilling that they weren't even willing to shout his name over the urging of the priests. In fact, I'm trying to remember if any of the apostles were so afraid of the power of the priests and the Romans that they pretended not even know Jesus. Who was that guy again?





Oh nonsense, grow up some time soon or I'm going to stop responding to you, it's nearly entirely a waste of time if you can't keep the insults to at least a low troll level.

Amusing, again. If you think I'm trolling, report me. Otherwise, noticing that you keep whining whenever anyone debunks your arguments that we collectively don't understand them is just that. Address the arguments and save the whining for someone who it will actually influence. We can read your posts. We can see how you contradict yourself, the scripture, historical evidence and the rules of logic. No amount of "you don't understand" will help you. The only thing that will save your argument is evidence and you complain every time I ask for it.

You should read yourself instead of spending so much time trying to think up your next implied insult...

John 19
"Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

Um, so you're saying Matthew doesn't say the crowd answered at the behest of the Chief priests? Are you claiming Matthew doesn't exist? That it's wrong? Address the part I quoted or admit you cannot.

The priest aren't afraid of the peasants, they're afraid of the Romans. If the peasants protest the Romans take over. Which part of this are you misunderstanding? Jesus isn't the rabble rouser, I never said he was. Jocabia comes along and you want to start pretending I'm saying something I haven't. That's a sad sequence of events... nothing to debate with if you guys don't need me here, you'll just make arguments for me and attack that :rolleyes:

You said: "they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do. Get the Romans to do it and the blame doesn't come back on us..."

You said: "Rioting peasants bring down the Roman law enforcement"

You said: "The rabbis were afraid of punishing leaders of the people, or people popular with the crowds."

You (mis)quoted Matthew - including your OWN emphasis: "26But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet" (The emphasis here, is yours).

You said: "they didn't want the people to turn on them"

You also said: "The 'people' weren't there. The Chief Priests and leaders were there. Early morning in front of the governor's house, not a place the governor would allow peasant crowds just to hang around" (This shows you don't know your scripture, or your jewsih calender... Pilate allegedly offers to free Jesus as part of his Passover Feast celebration)

You said: "You are forgetting the stuff where it is says they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do".


You've constantly said they feared the people. You've constantly said they feared the people would revolt. And yet, the book of Matthew, which YOU (mis)quoted from, clearly says that the people were led by the priests.

No one is mis-representing your argument, except you - now that I have (at risk of blowing my own horn, so hard I bring Jericho down around our ears) blown it all to shit.

A wise philosopher once wrote: "pwnt, n00b"

By definition? Who's definition? Not Matthew's definition if he's writing down what the eye witness told him...

Then it's not an eyewitness account. You claimed that two of the sources were eyewitnesses. Seriously, are you really going to be this dishonest and claim that it's an eyewitness account if the first person to tell the story saw it first-hand?

How many people wrote the gospels? How many years did they travel and talk to each other? Biographical stories can include sources the author has spoken to without being present in every event himself. The suggestion that they do need to be is a sign of desperation in your argument.

Is it eyewitness testimony or not?

You claim it was, but now you prevaricate about the bush.

If you present it as eye-witness, EVERYTHING has to be eyewitness, except for parts that are described as being obtained from another source.

Who cares? If some people are comforted by the idea that he did and that he died for their sins, that's okay.

BUT if those people want to bug me to death trying to get me to believe it too, then I have a problem with them. A person can believe what they want but they should keep it to themselves.

Is it eyewitness testimony or not?

You claim it was, but now you prevaricate about the bush.

If you present it as eye-witness, EVERYTHING has to be eyewitness, except for parts that are described as being obtained from another source.

Yes, exactly. You can't claim something is an eyewitness account when the author doesn't source the witness. We have to guess at where these stories come from and to pretend that we should treat a story told as if it was witnessed directly when we know it's impossible for that to be true, as if it's true without corroboration or else we're not understanding the argument according to our friend here.

Look, Balder, you claimed two of the Gospels were by eyewitnesses. That means that they must only be telling what they themselves witnessed or your claim fails. You don't get to make up definitions just because you pounded like the new guy in prison for making a ludicrous and false argument.

Um, I didn't doubt the possibility. Again, you're ignoring the arguments being made against you. Yes, the possiblity of a rebellion is exactly why a story of a peasant hero who would overthrow the oppressors would catch on like wildfire. Incidentally, something we argued explains how a story like this could catch on with no actual link to a real figure. In fact, it's historically accepted that there were a number of similar figures at this time.

That doesn't address the point, however. You claimed that there was a danger of an uprising if the Jews killed Jesus, but you've not explained how the sequence of events described in the Bible mitigated this threat.


Yes, I've explained it several times. Priests want Jesus dead. Priest don't want to upset the people at let things get out of control. Priest afraid Jesus might be too popular for them to dispose of him themselves. Priests get the Romans to do it for them, people let the Romans do whatever they want (so to speak). Priest don't get the people pissed at them, only the Romans.

Really, this is basic political spinning and PR here, it's quite simple.

You don't know how a stoning works, do you? Meanwhile, the crowd was convinced by people to save Barabbas and not Jesus the Christ.
Crowd of jew consisting of temple priest and their ilk outside the house of the governor... One group is not the same as every other group.

It seems the crowd might not have been so willing to fight to save him. In fact, they were so unwilling that they weren't even willing to shout his name over the urging of the priests. In fact, I'm trying to remember if any of the apostles were so afraid of the power of the priests and the Romans that they pretended not even know Jesus. Who was that guy again?

Exactly right, Roman soldiers are scary, that's why the priest wanted the Romans to do it.

Amusing, again. If you think I'm trolling, report me. Otherwise, noticing that you keep whining whenever anyone debunks your arguments that we collectively don't understand them is just that. Address the arguments and save the whining for someone who it will actually influence. We can read your posts. We can see how you contradict yourself, the scripture, historical evidence and the rules of logic. No amount of "you don't understand" will help you. The only thing that will save your argument is evidence and you complain every time I ask for it.

You really don't have an argument do you? Nothing, nada, zilch. I've rebutted everything you've said that you did understand and I've tried to help you with the things you just don't seem to catch on to. I can only be held to so much responsibility, your education level in this topic is really not my concern.

He's mixing two locations. The temple priest location where Jesus was tried and the governors house early in the morning.

No crowds inside the jewish court, no crowds in front of the governors house.

But he was correct about me misquoting which gospel I was quoting. Sorry about that.

I mixed nothing - we know there were other people in the temple location, because Jesus was approached WHILE teaching. We know there were other people while he was being questioned by the priests, because 'many dalse witnesses' were presented... not one or two. Also - servants keep approaching Peter about it... there must be quite a few people there. We know there were crowds when the punishment was called for, because Pilate offers a choice to the crowd!

Seriously - have you even read the gospels? What about my posts?

By definition? Who's definition? Not Matthew's definition if he's writing down what the eye witness told him...

So now Matthew is NOT an eyewitness?

By definition? Who's definition? Not Matthew's definition if he's writing down what the eye witness told him...

That would make it a secondary source, not an eyewitness account. It's an account of an eyewitness account, not the eyewitness account itself.

...
Look, Balder, you claimed two of the Gospels were by eyewitnesses. That means that they must only be telling what they themselves witnessed or your claim fails.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted two different sources for you and the hearsay rule and ancient/historic documents. Historic recording of witness are not held to hearsay standards. You trying to pretend that they are is just you losing your argument and trying to take away the evidence that proves you wrong (the hearsay rule exception).

You don't get to make up definitions just because you pounded like the new guy in prison for making a ludicrous and false argument.

Closer to humorous anyway. Not helpful to the discussion at all, but its a start.

You should read yourself instead of spending so much time trying to think up your next implied insult...

John 19
"Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar." 16 So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

was the line of herod gone by by 33 ad? were there no jewish kings anymore?

Yes, I've explained it several times. Priests want Jesus dead. Priest don't want to upset the people at let things get out of control. Priest afraid Jesus might be too popular for them to dispose of him themselves. Priests get the Romans to do it for them, people let the Romans do whatever they want (so to speak). Priest don't get the people pissed at them, only the Romans.

Really, this is basic political spinning and PR here, it's quite simple.

Again, according to Matthew, the Priests were able to get the crowd to save Barabbas instead of Jesus the Christ. According to the Gospels the Priests openly and in front of a crowd made sure Jesus died. Apparently, this threat of uprising just ignores the part where they could save Jesus by simply uttering his name. Hmmm... where was that popular support then? Oh, right, you keep ignoring that Matthew plainly says the crowd was asked. The priests were asked as well, but the crowd was asked and the crowd answered. Just another bit of evidence that you ignored due to its inconvenient contradiction of your claims.



Crowd of jew consisting of temple priest and their ilk outside the house of the governor... One group is not the same as every other group.

Heh. Matthew specifically says the priests are addressing the crowd. What is your source for your claim that the general public was not present? Certainly it's not found in Matthew.


Exactly right, Roman soldier are scary, that's why the priest wanted the Romans to do it.


Apparently, the people wanted him to do it, since Matthew tells of the popular support of the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Meanwhile, this very important political spinning isn't documented anywhere accept the Bible. Interesting that it was important enough to create all this hullabaloo but there was no one that seemed to think it was a story worth capturing.

I've rebutted everything you've said that you did understand and I've tried to help you with the things you just don't seem to catch on to. I can only be held to so much responsibility, your education level in this topic is really not my concern.

Are you kidding me?

It is you that has been constantly rebutted and debunked. It is you that misquoted scripture, and pretended it meant something other than it did. It is you that has been offered alternatives to consider, and it is you that can't "seem to catch on".

At this point, the big difference between you and Jesus is - we're not SURE he was getting crucified!

That would make it a secondary source, not an eyewitness account. It's an account of an eyewitness account, not the eyewitness account itself.

A recording of a eyewitness acount in a historic document is still a witness testimony regardless of the author, provided the author witnesses the testimony.

A recording of a eyewitness acount in a historic document is still a witness testimony regardless of the author, provided the author witnesses the testimony.

But that's just the point. The author is, supposedly Matthew, and yet you just admitted yourself that Matthew wasn't the eyewitness, but rather a recorder of unnamed eyewitnesses.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted two different sources for you and the hearsay rule and ancient/historic documents. Historic recording of witness are not held to hearsay standards. You trying to pretend that they are is just you losing your argument and trying to take away the evidence that proves you wrong (the hearsay rule exception).

The hearsay rule has nothing to do with scholarship, friend. Stop pretending that it does. Meanwhile, the hearsay rule doesn't apply if you don't know who the author is and there is evidence that the author is not sourcing his information. This information by your own admission does not say where it is from.

A historic recording of a witness must show who the witness was. This doesn't, again by your own admission.


Closer to humorous anyway. Not helpful to the discussion at all, but its a start.

So now it's eyewitness testimony if I just say it's eyewitness? Your claim of how it is eyewitness is just blind speculation. You've not one bit demonstrated anything relating this as the factual retelling of an eyewitness account. You've not even shown any evidence for who the witness is. You are getting pounded, and seriously, it's a little sad you don't realize it.

. Are you kidding me?

It is you that has been constantly rebutted and debunked. It is you that misquoted scripture, and pretended it meant something other than it did. It is you that has been offered alternatives to consider, and it is you that can't "seem to catch on".

At this point, the big difference between you and Jesus is - we're not SURE he was getting crucified!

LOL. The only misquote I made was typing John when it was supposed to be Matthew. I didn't misuse that quote though, it was an example for Ashmoria about the Priest saying they were tentative about making moves that pissed off the crowds.

As to the catching on, actual disputes between interpretations, like you and I have, and actual disputes of scenario, like you and I have is one thing. Jocabia on the other hand has entire conversations by himself without my input and then holds me responsible for what he said. Additionally he seems to miss the topic subtleties repeatedly.

A recording of a eyewitness acount in a historic document is still a witness testimony regardless of the author, provided the author witnesses the testimony.

Provided the document sources the witness and the witness is either quoted or summarized in a way that makes it obvious how the witness told the story. Have you ever read a police report?

Meanwhile, you're still talking about a court of law, not a scholarly analysis of data. So you fail on every front.

But that's just the point. The author is, supposedly Matthew, and yet you just admitted yourself that Matthew wasn't the eyewitness, but rather a recorder of unnamed eyewitnesses.

And I showed how that is admissible as evidence of testimony, it is an exception to the hearsay rule because the witness cannot testify any other way.

No part of this proves the testimony is correct, only that it is evidence and it is testimony.

.

LOL. The only misquote I made was typing John when it was supposed to be Matthew. I didn't misuse that quote though, it was an example for Ashmoria about the Priest saying they were tentative about making moves that pissed off the crowds.

As to the catching on, actual disputes between interpretations, like you and I have, and actual disputes of scenario, like you and I have is one thing. Jocabia on the other hand has entire conversations by himself without my input and then holds me responsible for what he said. Additionally he seems to miss the topic subtleties repeatedly.

Interesting. Is anyone else have difficulty following my logic? Deus? Ashmoria? Grave?

Despite your claims, the actually text of Matthew shows a crowd there. You dismissed this away by making up the contents of the crowd. It's not found in the documents provided, so please source your claim that the crowd did not include the general public.

Provided the document sources the witness and the witness is either quoted or summarized in a way that makes it obvious how the witness told the story. Have you ever read a police report?

Meanwhile, you're still talking about a court of law, not a scholarly analysis of data. So you fail on every front.

Really? You really think biblical criticism doesn't allow the use of scripture? LOL :headbang:

And I showed how that is admissible as evidence of testimony, it is an exception to the hearsay rule because the witness cannot testify any other way.

No part of this proves the testimony is correct, only that it is evidence and it is testimony.

Except for the caveat that the true eyewitnesses are unnamed and uncited anywhere in the text.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted two different sources for you and the hearsay rule and ancient/historic documents. Historic recording of witness are not held to hearsay standards. You trying to pretend that they are is just you losing your argument and trying to take away the evidence that proves you wrong (the hearsay rule exception).


The 'hearsay exception' relates only to evidence, as allowable or not, in court procedings in the US legal system:

"These rules govern proceedings in the courts of the United States and before United States bankruptcy judges and United States magistrate judges, to the extent and with the exceptions stated in rule 1101"

The quote you cited earlier explains it fully, if you actually cite the whole thing:

"Rule 807: A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant."

The 'hearsay exception' has absolutely NOTHING to do with scriptural evidence. Unless, of course, it is Jesus that is presenting evidence... then there might be an argument....

And I showed how that is admissible as evidence of testimony, it is an exception to the hearsay rule because the witness cannot testify any other way.

No part of this proves the testimony is correct, only that it is evidence and it is testimony.

No, you haven't. The witness must be sourced. There has to be reason to believe it is a faithful retelling. None of those exist here. Who is the witness? If you cannot answer that question it would not be admissable in a court of law by any standard.

Interesting. Is anyone else have difficulty following my logic? Deus? Ashmoria? Grave?

Despite your claims, the actually text of Matthew shows a crowd there. You dismissed this away by making up the contents of the crowd. It's not found in the documents provided, so please source your claim that the crowd did not include the general public.

I didn't make up the crowds contents, I quoted it for you.

Really? You really think biblical criticism doesn't allow the use of scripture? LOL :headbang:

No, I think that such criticism doesn't rely exclusively on it, as you have. You've simply made up claims. I'm asking you to source them. Where is your evidence that the crowd did not include the general public as you claim?

Who were the eyewitnesses you claim for the Gospels? Name them and where they were during the particular events of the Bible. You brought up a court of law. You bring in a document and go "it's from eye witnesses, I swear. I just don't know who they are." Watch how that turns out?

I didn't make up the crowds contents, I quoted it for you.

No, you didn't. You ignored Matthew altogether. You quoted a different reply by a different group, the same group Matthew describes as influencing the crowd. Two groups. You've addressed one. Address the other.

And I showed how that is admissible as evidence of testimony, it is an exception to the hearsay rule because the witness cannot testify any other way.


You've shown no such thing.

Hearsay is never accepted as eyewitness testimony, even under the exception discussed. It is allowed as circumstantial (and corroborative)evidence.

But all that is irrelevent - since that 'law' is a judicial law, not a record of historical or archeological precedence.

This is not a court of law. Questions of historicity are not implicitly dependent on the US courts. Your 'exception' is not relevent.

I didn't make up the crowds contents, I quoted it for you.

Actually, you said: "Crowd of jew consisting of temple priest and their ilk outside the house of the governor"

Can you support it?

Actually, you said: "Crowd of jew consisting of temple priest and their ilk outside the house of the governor"

Can you support it?

Especially since Matthew specifically describes the temple Priests as influencing the crowd, the multitude, etc., depending on translation. Matthew shows specifically that the Chief priests are not the whole crowd, so the part in John where the Chief Priests answer cannot describe the whole crowd unless we've decided that Matthew is no longer reliable.

Especially since Matthew specifically describes the temple Priests as influencing the crowd, the multitude, etc., depending on translation. Matthew shows specifically that the Chief priests are not the whole crowd, so the part in John where the Chief Priests answer cannot describe the whole crowd unless we've decided that Matthew is no longer reliable.

That'll be any minute now. Already, our 'eyewitness' is no longer actually an EYE-witness... it's only a matter of time before Matthew "isn't a very good witness at all".

No wonder so many 'christians' are so fond of Paul - you get to ignore all that pesky claiming-to-have-been-there stuff.

You said: "they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do. Get the Romans to do it and the blame doesn't come back on us..."

You said: "Rioting peasants bring down the Roman law enforcement"

You said: "The rabbis were afraid of punishing leaders of the people, or people popular with the crowds."

You (mis)quoted Matthew - including your OWN emphasis: "26But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet" (The emphasis here, is yours).

You said: "they didn't want the people to turn on them"

You also said: "The 'people' weren't there. The Chief Priests and leaders were there. Early morning in front of the governor's house, not a place the governor would allow peasant crowds just to hang around" (This shows you don't know your scripture, or your jewsih calender... Pilate allegedly offers to free Jesus as part of his Passover Feast celebration)

You said: "You are forgetting the stuff where it is says they are afraid of punishing him for fear of what the people will think/do".


You've constantly said they feared the people. You've constantly said they feared the people would revolt. And yet, the book of Matthew, which YOU (mis)quoted from, clearly says that the people were led by the priests.

No one is mis-representing your argument, except you - now that I have (at risk of blowing my own horn, so hard I bring Jericho down around our ears) blown it all to shit.

A wise philosopher once wrote: "pwnt, n00b"


this is about the worst I've seen you do GnI. It's sad really. The priest are afraid of the people rioting because of what happens if they do, not what they would do. Go back and re-read your own post of what I said, it's accurate. Now add the line, or the Romans will hold us (the priest) accountable for not maintaining the peace. The brutal police force was so adamant that the priest keep the peace or they'll tear down all the whole city (including the Temple) to keep the peace... Are the priest going to be afraid of causing a public outcry because they fear of the protest or for fear of the brutal Romans repercussions for allowing it to take place?

It seems obvious to me, I'm surprised you're making me explain it to you.

Actually, you said: "Crowd of jew consisting of temple priest and their ilk outside the house of the governor"

Can you support it?

I believe he suggested that the regular folk simply wouldn't have been allowed in front of the govenor's house. Don't believe he had evidence to support that though......

this is about the worst I've seen you do GnI. It's sad really. The priest are afraid of the people rioting because of what happens if they do, not what they would do. Go back and re-read your own post of what I said, it's accurate. Now add the line, or the Romans will hold us (the priest) accountable for not maintaining the peace. The brutal police force was so adamant that the priest keep the peace or they'll tear down all the whole city (including the Temple) to keep the peace... Are the priest going to be afraid of causing a public outcry because they fear of the protest or for fear of the brutal Romans repercussions for allowing it to take place?

It seems obvious to me, I'm surprised you're making me explain it to you.

Yet, according to Matthew's faithful eyewitness telling of the story, according to you, the public "outcry" was in support of crucifiction. I know you keep trying to ignore this, but if you might, you know, address the inconvenient stuff too.

was the line of herod gone by by 33 ad? were there no jewish kings anymore?

oh yeah, i remember, they took jesus to see KING HEROD. so what did they mean by saying they had no king but caesar? they had king herod. he wasnt a great guy but he existed.

this is about the worst I've seen you do GnI. It's sad really. The priest are afraid of the people rioting because of what happens if they do, not what they would do. Go back and re-read your own post of what I said, it's accurate. Now add the line, or the Romans will hold us (the priest) accountable for not maintaining the peace. The brutal police force was so adamant that the priest keep the peace or they'll tear down all the whole city (including the Temple) to keep the peace... Are the priest going to be afraid of causing a public outcry because they fear of the protest or for fear of the brutal Romans repercussions for allowing it to take place?

It seems obvious to me, I'm surprised you're making me explain it to you.

So they were too afraid to kill Jesus themselves, because the peasants would have gone apeshit and the Romans would have fucked them up for not stopping it. So they let the Romans kill Jesus. That way, when the peasants go apeshit they'll blame the Romans.

Except that the Romans would fuck them up for not stopping the peasants from going apeshit......

Oh dear, it seems you've been hoist by your own petard. But I suppose you'll just ignore this post, or pretend it says something else, or just laugh it off and act like you could rebutt it, but you just don't want to.

Actually, you said: "Crowd of jew consisting of temple priest and their ilk outside the house of the governor"

Can you support it?

Already did, but I'm happy to do it again. This time I'll add the bit about who went there, not just who was there...

Servants, officers, people known to the the priests.
John 18
18 Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves.

John 18
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.

Who are they? The people in Caiaphas house, and outside the house. Priests and their ilk made up the 'Jews' who were outside the governors house.

John 19
5So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 6When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them,

this is about the worst I've seen you do GnI. It's sad really. The priest are afraid of the people rioting because of what happens if they do, not what they would do. Go back and re-read your own post of what I said, it's accurate. Now add the line, or the Romans will hold us (the priest) accountable for not maintaining the peace. The brutal police force was so adamant that the priest keep the peace or they'll tear down all the whole city (including the Temple) to keep the peace... Are the priest going to be afraid of causing a public outcry because they fear of the protest or for fear of the brutal Romans repercussions for allowing it to take place?

It seems obvious to me, I'm surprised you're making me explain it to you.

Trying to patronise me? I'm needing your explanation?

I think you're full of shit. I think you got caught in a lie, and are trying to wriggle out of it by pretending you were meaning something else. I could have respected you if you admitted it, but you're losing it.

You've failed to show that the crowds would have rioted. Indeed, you spent several pages pretending there WERE no crowds present. The one time there is mention of the crowd being uppity, is in response to a statement about John the Baptist... and Matthew later provides other testimony that suggests the chief priests had no such fear, really - since they have the crowds firmly in their hands when Barabbas is freed.

If they have the people so cowed at that point - why not do what Pilate wants, and take Jesus away themselves, and execute him as Covenant law demands? Pilate was, after all, only looking for a way to get Jesus' blood off his hands.

So - if the mob are willing to back the priests - why not abandon the Roman route (which is causing strife between Pilate and the priesthood), and have a good ol' fashioned stoning?

That's where we came in - and you claimed that the reason for not stoning Jesus, was to avoid public upheaval. If the 'public' support it, your claim is false.

...So they let the Romans kill Jesus. That way, when the peasants go apeshit they'll blame the Romans.

Except that the Romans would fuck them up for not stopping the peasants from going apeshit...

You're forgetting the part that the people likely can't go apeshit on the Romans, they know they get killed if they riot on the Romans directly.

Trying to patronise me? I'm needing your explanation?

I think you're full of shit. I think you got caught in a lie, and are trying to wriggle out of it by pretending you were meaning something else. I could have respected you if you admitted it, but you're losing it.
...

Meaning something else? You fail. Go back and re-read it yourself. I said what I said and I'm sticking by it.

oh yeah, i remember, they took jesus to see KING HEROD. so what did they mean by saying they had no king but caesar? they had king herod. he wasnt a great guy but he existed.

They didn't like Herod, he was only half Jew.

You're forgetting the part that the people likely can't go apeshit on the Romans, they know they get killed if they riot on the Romans directly.

And if there was a peasant uprising against the priests the Romans would just sit there and scratch their asses, wait for the priests to deal with it, then kill them or otherwise remove their position of power for allowing it to happen in the first place. Man, you can't even make up bullshit evidence to back up your unsourced bullshit.

They didn't like Herod, he was only half Jew.

ya i know but he was still king.

and jesus never claimed to be king.

seems to me they would say "what the fuck are you talking about? this street preacher isnt a king"

And if there was a peasant uprising against the priests the Romans would just sit there and scratch their asses, wait for the priests to deal with it, then kill them or otherwise remove their position of power for allowing it to happen in the first place. Man, you can't even make up bullshit evidence to back up your unsourced bullshit.

I did evidence it, by the fact that it happens. In 44AD they don't replace Herod Agrippa I with another King but bring it under direct Roman rule because the area is turmoil waiting to happen, and still the priest in Jerusalem can't keep the peace so the Romans level it (the city and the Temple) in 70AD. NO more priest, they cease to exist.

Already did, but I'm happy to do it again. This time I'll add the bit about who went there, not just who was there...

Servants, officers, people known to the the priests.
John 18
18 Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves.

John 18
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.

Who are they? The people in Caiaphas house, and outside the house. Priests and their ilk made up the 'Jews' who were outside the governors house.

John 19
5So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 6When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them,

Ah, I get it. Matthew was wrong. We'll let that contradiction go, since it hurts your argument and we all know that if you don't have an argument for something you pretend it doesn't exist.

That still doesn't address why there is contemporary evidence for all of this political maneuvering.

I'll tell you what, let's start small. Can you show contemporary evidence of the existence of the practice of releasing a prisoner on Passover and its origin?

ya i know but he was still king.

and jesus never claimed to be king.

seems to me they would say "what the fuck are you talking about? this street preacher isnt a king"

That's pretty much what they did say. But they wanted to force Pilates hand. Mere suggestion of rebellion against Rome by pronouncing an unauthorized King would have been a capital offense. If rumor got back to Rome that Pilate didn't punish a would be monarch rebellion, Pilate might have to do a little explaining himself.

Already did, but I'm happy to do it again. This time I'll add the bit about who went there, not just who was there...

Servants, officers, people known to the the priests.
John 18
18 Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves.


Okay - so we know that - at the very least "the band and the captain and officers of the Jews", maybe Annas, definitely Caiaphas, Simon Peter, 'another disciple' (who apparently knew the high priest - which suggests Judas, or maybe Nicodemus), 'her that kept the door', "the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus" - all of those people (and maybe more, it doesn't exclude the possibility) were present at the "Palace of the high priest".

It doesn't specify how many of that multitude went on to Pilate's hall of judgement. It doesn't specify how many other people joined them there.

"Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas", is all we know. So - we know Caiaphas did NOT go to Pilate. We also know that the multitude were jews (because they don't want to be defiled for Passover), but we don't know WHICH Jews, or how many. We know Pilate went back out to them: "he went out again unto the Jews"... but we still don't know how many, or who they are - we just know that they are Jewish.


John 18
28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor’s headquarters. It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.

Who are they? The people in Caiaphas house, and outside the house. Priests and their ilk made up the 'Jews' who were outside the governors house.

John 19
5So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, "Behold the man!" 6When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them,

Okay - so now we know that some of the crowd are the chief priests and officers. But - do we ignore Matthew? Matthew says that the chief priest PERSUADED the crowd... why would chief priests have to persuade their OWN people?

We still don't know who was there, or how many - except that they were (probably, there is no continuing commentary) mostly (still) Jews, and some of them were officers or high priests.


I also note that John 18 has the Jews saying they are not allowed to santence a man to death (which isn't true - that IS the punishment for a false prophet), whilst John 19 has them telling Pilate that the punishment for his 'crime' is.. death...?

.
I'll tell you what, let's start small. Can you show contemporary evidence of the existence of the practice of releasing a prisoner on Passover and its origin?

Nope, can you show it didn't occur.

I did evidence it, by the fact that it happens. In 44AD they don't replace Herod Agrippa I with another King but bring it under direct Roman rule because the area is turmoil waiting to happen, and still the priest in Jerusalem can't keep the peace so the Romans level it (the city and the Temple) in 70AD. NO more priest, they cease to exist.

Oh, it was a real fear. It just a load of crap that they were afraid of the Romans. In the Gospels every group reacts with equal fear of Jesus. You pretend as if the priests had a special fear because you read it somewhere and as it supports your argument, it must be true. The problem being, why was EVERYONE afraid of Jesus, but still mocked him and tortured him in the streets?

Meaning something else? You fail. Go back and re-read it yourself. I said what I said and I'm sticking by it.

The choices were that you were wrong, or a liar.

You claim you were never wrong.

Curious choice. I won't argue with your conclusion.

...
Okay - so now we know that some of the crowd are the chief priests and officers. But - do we ignore Matthew? Matthew says that the chief priest PERSUADED the crowd... why would chief priests have to persuade their OWN people?

No one said if it was hard or easy to pursuade them...

...We still don't know who was there, or how many - except that they were (probably, there is no continuing commentary) mostly (still) Jews, and some of them were officers or high priests.

We know which group went there. Why do you assume anyone else was there? Early in the morning?

...
I also note that John 18 has the Jews saying they are not allowed to santence a man to death (which isn't true - that IS the punishment for a false prophet), whilst John 19 has them telling Pilate that the punishment for his 'crime' is.. death...?

The temple officers apparently weren't allowed to sentence death. Then by calling Jesus an unauthorized King, under Roman law he deserves death.

The choices were that you were wrong, or a liar.

You claim you were never wrong.

Curious choice. I won't argue with your conclusion.

Your false premise creates a way for you to call me a liar. Feel better now?

Nope, can you show it didn't occur.

Shifting of the burden of proof, friend. Your source makes the claim that it occurred. It's veracity rests on whether there is any evidence for this supposed practice. Much of the story seems made up.

But since you admit you've got nothing there, we'll move on to the next bit.

How do you explain the coincidence of the man who was released, the person who was most likely a leader of a rebellion, being name Jesus "Son of the Father"?

Oh, it was a real fear. It just a load of crap that they were afraid of the Romans. In the Gospels every group reacts with equal fear of Jesus. You pretend as if the priests had a special fear because you read it somewhere and as it supports your argument, it must be true. The problem being, why was EVERYONE afraid of Jesus, but still mocked him and tortured him in the streets?

I honestly can't even figure out what you are talking about.

Shifting of the burden of proof, friend. Your source makes the claim that it occurred. It's veracity rests on whether there is any evidence for this supposed practice. Much of the story seems made up.

But since you admit you've got nothing there, we'll move on to the next bit.

How do you explain the coincidence of the man who was released, the person who was most likely a leader of a rebellion, being name Jesus "Son of the Father"?

How do you explain your inability to stay anywhere near a real topic instead of trying to direct towards your pre-made copy and paste arguments?

I honestly can't even figure out what you are talking about.

I've noticed.

I'll reword.

According to the Gospels, everyone and their brother tried to avoid actually carrying out the death sentence on Jesus. This indicates a very real fear of him being a populist leader, as you've stated yourself. He is treated as a powerful criminal right up until suddenly it's perfectly safe to parade him through the streets barely alive and mock him. This goes against any indication that they truly feared him. They mocked him according to the Gospels. It is a completely reversal of the reverence required to do so much to avoid murdering him.

It pretty much says, violent or peaceful, we're going to torture the hell out of anyone we feel like. Yep, that's pretty much the opposite of the way to squash a populist rebellion.

Please explain why everyone was so fearful right up until the same people who were accusing Jesus all along, accused one final time and then it's no holds barred.

How do you explain your inability to stay anywhere near a real topic instead of trying to direct towards your pre-made copy and paste arguments?

This is the real argument. That you keep avoiding it, doesn't aid in your claims.

You've claimed that the Gospels are reliable testimony towards their own authenticity as well as the historicity of Christ. Calling the tales of the events of his life into question as relayed by the Gospels is pertinent to the issue.

You were discussing his crucifiction, which is a major point of contention. That you're admitting you've seen these arguments before makes your earlier claims that there is no valid reason to question the validity of these stories seem pretty dishonest, now doesn't it.

Answer the question. How do you explain the problem in this part of the story? You claim it's an eyewitness acount. The conventional wisdom is that it was a third-party account that confused in the telling, until there were two people when only one was there, but that would defy the eyewitness claim. All of this directly addresses whether the Bible is a reliable source for the historicity of Jesus Christ. Unless you're now discarding that claim. Are you?

I've noticed.

I'll reword.

According to the Gospels, everyone and their brother tried to avoid actually carrying out the death sentence on Jesus.
Stop right there. Perhaps you would like to substantiate this claim. The rest of this post of yours is based on a false premise.
John 8:59
So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

You know it's not true, why construct an entire argument around a false premise?

Who says they feared him for his own accord?

This is the real argument. That you keep avoiding it, doesn't aid in your claims.

You've claimed that the Gospels are reliable testimony towards their own authenticity as well as the historicity of Christ. ...

I did NOT use the scripture as an argument of historicity. I argued that IF there was no Christ then we have no knowledge the time period at all. Entirely different. Maybe sooner or later you'll see the difference.

Stop right there. Perhaps you would like to substantiate this claim. The rest of this post of yours is based on a false premise.
John 8:59
So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

You know it's not true, why construct an entire argument around a false premise?

Who says they feared him for his own accord?

You did. According to you the reason they didn't stone him was they were afraid of him. According to you, that's the same reason they passed him around for someone else to do it. Or offer an explanation for all of this refusing to carry out a pretty typical sentence if it wasn't fear?

Seriously, this is just obtuse. Now, no one feared him?

I did NOT use the scripture as an argument of historicity. I argued that IF there was no Christ then we have no knowledge the time period at all. Entirely different. Maybe sooner or later you'll see the difference.

Um, no. You claimed if there was no Christ then the religion popped up out of nowhere and then used the scripture to describe how it popped up and where. You've been using the scripture repeatedly as an explanation for why Christ must have existed.

I'm sorry, but at this point I can't explain you're maneuvering as just a lack of understanding. You've openly and repeatedly contradicted yourself. And I'm pretty good at wrapping a person around the axle in debate, but I simply can't take credit for this anymore. You're simply being plainly dishonest rather than simply admitting the evidenc is NOT compelling.

You did. According to you the reason they didn't stone him was they were afraid of him.

I did not. I said they were afraid of the peoples reaction because they liked Jesus and John.

According to you, that's the same reason they passed him around for someone else to do it. Or offer an explanation for all of this refusing to carry out a pretty typical sentence if it wasn't fear?

Seriously, this is just obtuse. Now, no one feared him?

They didn't fear Jesus, they feared what the people would do if they killed him because they were afraid if the people protest the Romans will get involved. Better to take Jesus straight to the Romans and have them kill him.

I'm off to bed, perhaps you can figure a way to head back towards the thread topic by morning.

I did not. I said they were afraid of the peoples reaction because they liked Jesus and John.

Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Dude, I'll be more careful in the future to carefully explain why they feared him, okay? Otherwise, you pretend like you cannot follow along.

They didn't fear Jesus, they feared what the people would do if they killed him because they were afraid if the people protest the Romans will get involved. Better to take Jesus straight to the Romans and have them kill him.

They feared the power Jesus had. People don't fear Osama Bin Laden will commit a terrorist attack, by that logic, because he won't specifically do it. We fear Bin Laden because of the people who follow him. For the same reason, the government feared MLK. But, hey, I see how you're confused, I'll keep the steps much shorter and slower from here on out.

Um, no. You claimed if there was no Christ then the religion popped up out of nowhere and then used the scripture to describe how it popped up and where.

Your mixing two different things up there. But yes, if there is no Jesus we have NO records of that period and how Christianity really got started at all then. Then I used the scripture to show how many people it said it needed to spread the word and compared that to the conspiracy theory of one or two people (which everyone seems to have back-peddled away from now, nicely enough).

You've been using the scripture repeatedly as an explanation for why Christ must have existed. You keep saying so, doesn't make it true.

I'm sorry, but at this point I can't explain you're maneuvering as just a lack of understanding. You've openly and repeatedly contradicted yourself. And I'm pretty good at wrapping a person around the axle in debate, but I simply can't take credit for this anymore. You're simply being plainly dishonest rather than simply admitting the evidenc is NOT compelling.

Nice. Thanks for calling me a liar again. Off to bed this time for real... you posted just as I pushed submit last time.

Your mixing two different things up there. But yes, if there is no Jesus we have NO records of that period and how Christianity really got started at all then. Then I used the scripture to show how many people it said it needed to spread the word and compared that to the conspiracy theory of one or two people (which everyone seems to have back-peddled away from now, nicely enough).
Um, again, no. We still have the documents. we don't throw out everything because of a single or even multiple flaws. If there a source is questionable, we take what we have reason to believe is reliable and discard the rest. It's a typical scholarly practice. Pretending it isn't won't change it.

Meanwhile, I gave a half dozen or so alternative explanations, none of which was a 'conspiracy theory". Your inability to address my alternate explanations without calling them "conspiracy theories" or making up probabilities is evidence of just how unarmed you are in this "debate". I'm not backpeddling. The onus is on you to discard every other rational theory. Given the number of times throughout history things have been widely believed and shown to be utterly false, you cannot claim popularity makes something true. It's a common fallacy called appeal to popularity.


You keep saying so, doesn't make it true.

And now we have the reason I'm calling you a liar. You've plainly and repeatedly used the scripture's telling of the stories to evidence why Paul and Peter would have to be liars, along with the eyewitnesses you claimed wrote the scripture (before you admitted they didn't actually witness many of the events themselves). That's how we got here. That you're dishonestly claiming that you never brought it up is just the final nail in the coffin of your credibility.


Nice. Thanks for calling me a liar again. Off to bed this time for real... you posted just as I pushed submit last time.

Oh, yes, I'm done pretending like there is any more reasonable explanation for your posts. Every time you've been cornered you've completely and utterly changed your story or just plain acted like words have a different meaning. Yes, I'm quite convinced you're being dishonest. Sorry, but I'm a man of evidence and that's what all the evidence suggests.

No it doesn't. I've already quoted two different sources for you and the hearsay rule and ancient/historic documents. Historic recording of witness are not held to hearsay standards. You trying to pretend that they are is just you losing your argument and trying to take away the evidence that proves you wrong (the hearsay rule exception).

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

Interesting. Is anyone else have difficulty following my logic? Deus? Ashmoria? Grave? .
Nope, no problems

I wonder then, if Danzig's former guitarist, John Christ, is the messiah?GUESS who i skipped out on NS to watch last night! :D
Weird coinky. Seriously.

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.

This is *exactly* what i'm talking about. *bows*

i am not breaking any rules with my opinion, so dont try to report me.

Erm, what?
For what? Isn't that the point of discussion, along with facts?

Before we even discount the Gospels we must first of all consider their historical accuracy. The books, although they make up the Bible, which is not reason to discount them as historical documents as some people here are doing, do present a significant tool for archaeologists and historians today.

The Old Testament scriptures have been found to be exceptionally accurate in the location of Jericho, Jerusalem, the old temple walls, location of Israel, settlements and other such items. They are considered to be a supportive historical document which aids archaeology and has been consistently proven to be accurate.

The New Testament is no different. Now there is some divergence within the NT canon within the Gospel accounts which is known as the synoptic problem which is itself a question of the origination of the first Gospel, however these problems remain within the narrative and do not really go much further than that.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Matthew was a tax collector who was saved by Christ believed to be an apostle.
Mark was, and is commonly believed to be a close associate of Peter.
Luke was an independent historian who has set out these accounts.
John was an apostle.

Now before we begin criticising the Gospels we must first look to their creation. Matthew was a Gospel that was written and aimed towards the Jewish audience, this is derived from its substance in Jewish teachings and orientation.

Mark was written for the Greeks assumed in the same reasons Matthew was.

Luke for the Gentiles and John for existing believers.

Now we must give careful consideration to the way in which these accounts have been written, at different periods and at different times. Each of the synoptic Gospels has significant convergence in the life, teachings, sayings and acts of Jesus Christ, which in itself is astounding due to them being written in different locations of the old world.

It is a historical fact, that they were written in different places at different times, away from each other.

As for John we point out that he is not in contradiction to the Synoptic Gospels but he does diverge and present different aspects to the character of Christ, but it’s important to note that these are not contradictory.

I would like to make this note and ask the reader to assume for just a moment that there was no historical Jesus, that this man was a figment of the imagination of the apostles. He was nothing.

Then I would like the reader to wonder why the accounts are so similar? The Gospels have been formed over the results of various eye witness testimonies, and in the case of Luke more than one. Luke is perhaps the largest credit to the existence of a historical Jesus whether or not you believe he was the son of God.

He was a historian, he interviewed and dived deeply into the accounts of people who met Jesus Christ. He most likely examined the other Gospels to see if they matched up with testimony, and at the end of it all, he came out with a text that was oddly similar to Matthew and Mark. Though with more narrative in some parts.

The Gospel of Luke in careful consideration to its readership, IE the Roman Theodopilis, would have probably been used as a supportive document in the trial of Paul in Rome, its significance as a neutral document would have been of the upmost importance and despite claims that will probably arise, there is no foundation to assume that Luke was terribly bias in his research, or that he had something to prove.

Now let me deal with the claim that each of the Gospels are built from each other. This is in itself a significant point of the synoptic problem, one which I don’t believe exists. Each Gospel has divergence in order, and narrative, and language structure which makes it inconceivable to believe that they have been worked from other documents, but this is a field and people do believe that there is basis for this theory.

Now, the New Testament scriptures have been proven to be quite accurate in historical narrative. Such as the orientation of Jerusalem, roads, mountains placements, Herods palace, etc etc. Archeology sees the documents to be exceptionally valuable in this regard, and it is important to note has found to support the Gospel accounts through field research.

But what about the actual times? Could the apostles have made up the Gospel account without a historical Jesus?

The religion started in Jerusalem, and developed a significant following. It did start out as a branch of Judaism and attracted a significant following of converts.

Now the main theory against a historical Jesus is that the apostles just told a bunch of lies.

I think the best question to that point is could they have gotten away with it?

The apostles could not have made up the trial of Jesus Christ before the high priests and Pilate due to the large amount of eyewitness testimony. Jews are exceptionally devout, and any lies such as these, with a made up Jesus would have instantly been rejected.

The Gospels feature the Jewish ruling authorities, it is inconceivable to believe that they would have allowed the accusation of a public trial of a man whom they never met to go unchallenged.

And finally, my point in this regard is that synagogues, Jewish synagogues all over the Roman Empire recognised that Jesus himself existed, shown by their admittance of Christians into circles for a time.

Now we must also look to the simple fact that the Jewish authorities fell strongly against Christianity in its early days. Any flaw in testimony, written account, would have been torn apart from limb to limb and denounced as lies.

Therefore it is only reasonable to assume that since there is such a public perception of Jesus Christ, and also therefore such a public chance denouncing Jesus Christ. If he never even existed, then the apostles would have had no basis on which to spread their faith, simply because it would have been denounced by Jews, who would have required independent eye witnesses as was their customs to support the concept that the Messiah has been.

*incidental* Curious that your name involves Sith. *shakes head*

Did Jesus exist?
Hmmmm. . . did Julius Caesar exist?

And does it matter?
If what he claims is true and he rose from the dead, then yes. It matters. That's the real question.

Yay, yet ANOTHER "redefinition" of what's at stake and issue in this behemoth thread. Excelsior. :rolleyes:

It's called rhetoric and it's a VERY common tool for convincing people. I even warn people I'm about to do it and it still works. It's the same reason why jokes are often told in the first person.


This far into the thread, can i proclaim this as
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg
?

odd that GOD never mentioned it.
Confabulation on their part ...
ergo, phail ... ergo, concession.

"Do you hear about the men who resurrected after being dead for three days?"
"Yeah, Mithras."
"No, Jesus."
"Whatever."

You have a particular need for a savior, you're not going to get caught up on things like names and ethnicities, as long as the oppression ends.
Very sigworthy. I'm starting to think that i should make amicable consort with a mod or two about this.

Um, again, no. We still have the documents. we don't throw out everything because of a single or even multiple flaws. If there a source is questionable, we take what we have reason to believe is reliable and discard the rest. It's a typical scholarly practice. Pretending it isn't won't change it.

Meanwhile, I gave a half dozen or so alternative explanations, none of which was a 'conspiracy theory". Your inability to address my alternate explanations without calling them "conspiracy theories" or making up probabilities is evidence of just how unarmed you are in this "debate". I'm not backpeddling. The onus is on you to discard every other rational theory. Given the number of times throughout history things have been widely believed and shown to be utterly false, you cannot claim popularity makes something true. It's a common fallacy called appeal to popularity.




And now we have the reason I'm calling you a liar. You've plainly and repeatedly used the scripture's telling of the stories to evidence why Paul and Peter would have to be liars, along with the eyewitnesses you claimed wrote the scripture (before you admitted they didn't actually witness many of the events themselves). That's how we got here. That you're dishonestly claiming that you never brought it up is just the final nail in the coffin of your credibility.




Oh, yes, I'm done pretending like there is any more reasonable explanation for your posts. Every time you've been cornered you've completely and utterly changed your story or just plain acted like words have a different meaning. Yes, I'm quite convinced you're being dishonest. Sorry, but I'm a man of evidence and that's what all the evidence suggests.

I'm going to backpedal on this one. Someone just acted shocked that was honest enough to mention that I thought I was being overpaid by a dollar when getting change for my burrito. It means a lot to me to be honest, and I'm sure it means a lot to Balder, so I'm going to give him a chance to correct some things.

First, do you claim that the spread of Christianity as described in the Bible is evidence for Jesus Christ, particularly the parts that describe the earliest Church and their beliefs?

Let's just get that clear first. Because from many of the people in this thread's perspective you did and then when cornered claimed you never said that.

What makes me sad is that several times in this topic it's been suggested that he is making a good argument from the Christian side. It saddens me that Christians are viewed as generally so incapable of logic and rational thought that what Balderdash is saying passes for a valid way to argue that Jesus must have existed.

Truly it amounts to little more than stomping your feet and asking people to stop doubting the bible, because NO independent evidence is being provided here that actually supports the claims within the Bible. The closest thing was almost assuredly altered bit of text by Jospephus that merely shows that very early on there were Christians. It says nothing about how homogenous their beliefs were or how many their were or how the religion spread. There is little to no corroborative evidence that would make the text of the Bible a compelling historical artifact other than it's own value in regards to belief. As a Christian, there is no harm in simply admitting some things are a matter of faith. However, it seems some Christian absolutely need for their faith to have more support or they're worried they'll look silly.

Who cares if faith seems silly to some? It would look a hell of lot less silly if people would stop lying or ignoring facts in order to support their faith.

Again, nicely done. *bows*

There is something rotten in the state of the gospel.

Sigworthy again. Only sigworthier if it were in Klingon.
:p

No one said if it was hard or easy to pursuade them...


No one has said that the crowd entirely consisted of the chief priests and their pets, either... well, except you. Without any evidence to back it up.

You don't have to convince people who already agree with you.


We know which group went there. Why do you assume anyone else was there? Early in the morning?


We don't know which group went there - I pointed that out. We don't know how many of the people that were at the palace went on to the hall of judgement, we don't know who else was at the palace, we don't know how many more arrived at the hall of judgement.

Someone is making assumptions here, but it ain't me.

Oh - and how early in the morning was it? Based on what? And what does that have to do with anything?

If Jesus was as popular as you claim, I'm sure a few people would have been willing to drag themselves out of bed to see what the latest developments were.

And... where were the riots in the wake of the crucifixion? Were there any? Or - is the whole revolting rabble thing just a red herring?


The temple officers apparently weren't allowed to sentence death. Then by calling Jesus an unauthorized King, under Roman law he deserves death.

God dictates that the punishment for false prophecy is stoning. If Jesus was a false prophet (which, if the NT is true, he was) then there is no need to 'sentence' death, the sentence is already given, by a much higher power than temple officers, or even Caesar.

As an aside - Jesus wasn't saying he was king, was he? Why would someone else's claims of his 'king-ness' be a crime worthy of punishing him?

Your false premise creates a way for you to call me a liar. Feel better now?

No false premise - I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

You started a chain of logic that depended on a false assertion. The error in your assertion was immediately pointed out to you - which is when you could have 'stood corrected'. Instead, you pretended you had meant something else all along - which, transparently, you hadn't - since if you had, all your arguments about 'the people not even being there' would be nonsensical.

So - you were eitehr wrong in your original claim, or you lied when you modified what you were saying you meant by it.

You claim you were not wrong.

I'm not calling you a liar. You are.

How do you explain your inability to stay anywhere near a real topic instead of trying to direct towards your pre-made copy and paste arguments?

Another evasion.

Why not answer the question?

I did not. I said they were afraid of the peoples reaction because they liked Jesus and John.


You didn't say that. And the scripture doesn't say that.

The scripture says that people thought John a prophet - which is not the same as 'liking him'.


They didn't fear Jesus, they feared what the people would do if they killed him because they were afraid if the people protest the Romans will get involved. Better to take Jesus straight to the Romans and have them kill him.


Because people wouldn't protest if Rome executed him?

Your entire argument is based on a false premise - that Rome would clamp down on Jerusalem if the priests punished Jesus and the peasants revolted... but not if Romans did it.

Of course, no matter the cause of the revolt, Rome would get involved, and it wouldn't go well for the chief priests. The best scenario for the chief priests would have been to do as their scripture dictated, and execute the false prophet. If it caused a revolt (which is your speculation) then they would have already dealt with the instigation, and would be shown to have been proactive. As it is - Roman investigation of the situation would have placed blame with the chief priests ANYWAY, whether they or Pilate sanctioned the execution, so your 'logic' fails.

And, of course... where was the promised revolt? Did the peasants rise up?

Your mixing two different things up there.


By saying what you said?

Then the 'problem' of 'mixing' perhaps started closer to home?


But yes, if there is no Jesus we have NO records of that period and how Christianity really got started at all then.


We only have one 'record' as it is, and not a very reliable one.


Then I used the scripture to show how many people it said it needed to spread the word


Which, of course, matters so much.


and compared that to the conspiracy theory of one or two people (which everyone seems to have back-peddled away from now, nicely enough).


That was always your strawman. No one is backpeddling away from your imagined argument.

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

Dead on.

Surgical, even. Very concise.

Sigworthy again. Only sigworthier if it were in Klingon.
:p

Tu'lu vay'non ngaS yoS 'gospel'

?

Tu'lu vay'non ngaS yoS 'gospel'

?

That is so awesome. *bows*

Where's Smunk?

That is so awesome. *bows*

Where's Smunk?

Smunking around somewhere. :) She tends to avoid these kinds of threads, I think - she's not one for the dramatics they spawn. And, while I thrive on the predatory nature it brings out in some people, Smunk's just a nicer person than me. :)

Smunking around somewhere. :) She tends to avoid these kinds of threads, I think - she's not one for the dramatics they spawn. And, while I thrive on the predatory nature it brings out in some people, Smunk's just a nicer person than me. :)

She would've loved the Klingon, methinks. :)

Smunking around somewhere. :) She tends to avoid these kinds of threads, I think - she's not one for the dramatics they spawn. And, while I thrive on the predatory nature it brings out in some people, Smunk's just a nicer person than me. :)

Predatory, hmmmm... I need to leave NSG.

She would've loved the Klingon, methinks. :)

Or her Klingon is much better than mine, and she'd get all school-marmy on me and correct my grammar...

Gosh...

Predatory, hmmmm... I need to leave NSG.

Making you hungry? :)

Or her Klingon is much better than mine, and she'd get all school-marmy on me and correct my grammar...

Gosh...
Actually, it's like any number of different threads are just really learning experiences anyway, so i don't think that'd be too much out of the ordinary, nor humiliating ... :)

Making you hungry? :)

I don't want to be a predator. I was wondering what was happening to me. You fools turned me into a predator. Sadly, predators tend to choose the weakest in the pack and attack there. I'd prefer to debate with the best, not the weakest. And let's face it, predator would describe far to many of us. It always amazes me how many people are replying to posts that merit no response as if pointing out their flaws are a victory. Is this really worth our time?

I don't want to be a predator. I was wondering what was happening to me. You fools turned me into a predator. Whom? Be honest, you want/ed answers from people for their stances as much as anyone else would. And you didn't portray yourself as a predator, just consistent and focused. There's no particular fault in that, other than perhaps a lack of mercy as your resolve was further steeled. Even moreso, with your later posts regarding burritos. ;)
Sadly, predators tend to choose the weakest in the pack and attack there.Not if the series is to be believed. They relish the battle. :)
http://www.product-reviews.net/wp-content/userimages/2007/10/photo-of-predalien-from-aliens-vs-predator.jpg
I'd prefer to debate with the best, not the weakest. And let's face it, predator would describe far to many of us. It always amazes me how many people are replying to posts that merit no response as if pointing out their flaws are a victory. Is this really worth our time?
Depends on the intent of "argument" in the thread, doesn't it?
To be fair, the fella doesn't think s/he's the weakest, which is why they kept coming back for more. Ultimately, you know of course, no one has to be here, and no one has to have their mind changed.
We're here for the commerce, we're here because perhaps we'll get a new angle on something, we're here to flirt, we're here for answers we might get only here, we're here because others have the same interests/problems/concerns/titillations ...
this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. :p

I don't want to be a predator. I was wondering what was happening to me. You fools turned me into a predator. Sadly, predators tend to choose the weakest in the pack and attack there. I'd prefer to debate with the best, not the weakest. And let's face it, predator would describe far to many of us. It always amazes me how many people are replying to posts that merit no response as if pointing out their flaws are a victory. Is this really worth our time?

Ah... I see where you are headed.

I wasn't envisioning you as one of the predators, actually. Not to say you can't get in there and cut 'em up.

I imagine the 'kill' is the prize for some. Scoring the last word, or fighting to the death to try to support an argument that should have died on it's own merits.

It's not why I debate - I consider myself to be somewhere between a librarian, an iconoclast and an evangelist, trying to fight against misinformation - presenting alternatives.... trying to stop the darkness from winning. Fighting against preconception, and broken tradition. Spreading the word.

I walk out of a lot more threads than I used to - I consider the threat compromised, and I just don't want to growl back any more at the dogs.

And some topics - like this one - are still big learning experiences for me. Worth getting dirty for.

I'm a soldier on a battlefield of knowledge. Sometimes I'm fighting for something important, sometimes I'm covering someone else against attacks from entrenched evil, and sometimes I'm wading kneedeep in crap - just trying to find a way.

Not if the series is to be believed. They relish the battle. :)
http://www.product-reviews.net/wp-content/userimages/2007/10/photo-of-predalien-from-aliens-vs-predator.jpg


*wants*

*wants*I'll warn you, there's one extremely unsettling part that is a major plot development.

Ah... I see where you are headed.

I wasn't envisioning you as one of the predators, actually. Not to say you can't get in there and cut 'em up.

I imagine the 'kill' is the prize for some. Scoring the last word, or fighting to the death to try to support an argument that should have died on it's own merits.

It's not why I debate - I consider myself to be somewhere between a librarian, an iconoclast and an evangelist, trying to fight against misinformation - presenting alternatives.... trying to stop the darkness from winning. Fighting against preconception, and broken tradition. Spreading the word.

I walk out of a lot more threads than I used to - I consider the threat compromised, and I just don't want to growl back any more at the dogs.

And some topics - like this one - are still big learning experiences for me. Worth getting dirty for.

I'm a soldier on a battlefield of knowledge. Sometimes I'm fighting for something important, sometimes I'm covering someone else against attacks from entrenched evil, and sometimes I'm wading kneedeep in crap - just trying to find a way.

I like the thrill of the battle, but I'd like to think I'm choosing worthy opponents. I used to always say that being argued with by me is a compliment, but I think it's less so these days. I'm not talking about this specific thread, or insulting anyone.

For me it's equally thrilling winnig or losing provided it was honest.

I used to love debating you, but that hardly happens anymore. I'll give this to Balder, he was committed and strong. I liked his earlier arguments. It was the later arguments where he simply refused to admit he was bested when it got old. Seriously, there is pletny of honor in being defeated in an argument where you did your best and fought for what you believe.

It seems like people are nearly entirely to simply admit when they're caught out. For my money, that's much less interesting than it used to be. And yes, lots of people have nailed me to the wall with big iron spikes. Some among those interacting in this thread now. I'm fairly certain I was willing to accept it.

I'll give this to Balder, he was committed and strong. I liked his earlier arguments. It was the later arguments where he simply refused to admit he was bested when it got old.Agreed.
Seriously, there is pletny of honor in being defeated in an argument where you did your best and fought for what you believe. Exactly. That's what makes these threads so worthy of involvement ... and, as i think you're intimating, it also tends to bring out a predatory nature in a few of us.
The tooth & nail ones are fairly awesome so long as the nature of the debate isn't about personal attacks - since it's not likely that very many of us truly know each other personally. At least, i like to think so. To further emphasize that point, it's been pointed out that i'm a fan of trolls. :p

I like the thrill of the battle,


I like those moments, too - but most of my war is just trenches. Fighting the good fight because someone should.

I like to think I've put some thoughts in some minds, that weren't there before - whether I'm right or wrong, or such titles even apply. That makes it worthwhile, for me.

Of course, but for the flu... I'd have barely touched this forum this week, probably. :)


I used to love debating you, but that hardly happens anymore.


I changed.

It is true that people can hold entirely conflicting thoughts - I have (at least) two entirely different sections within my brain, and one section holds compelling arguments that I don't agree with, but that can't just be kicked to the kerb. We debate less often, because your best arguments took up residence in me.

We could restart the old 'Is Chritianity a Myth' debate, though. :D

We debate less often, because your best arguments took up residence in me..