NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, the "annoying, mildly retarded smiley spam" approach. Haven't seen this one in a while.
Even though it's near-thoroughly convincing!
:(

Perhaps i should specify that I WASN'T ASKING YOU, thanks.
I know wtf "Anno domini" means. You don't know why i was asking, so learn a little decency perhaps.

Also - BCE isn't "Before Christ" either, which would quantify the "else".wtf are you trying to tell me? i know what the designations mean, i run a history website.

are you visiting straughn and will end up leaving us at some point soon, depressed and abandoned?
That's a good question. S/he always leaves the seat up for some reason.
:mad:

Apparently, a few scholars believe that "the Red Sea" was misread. They feel its "reed sea", wich in Egypt, would mean a lake.but not because red is close to reed in english, but because sea of reeds is what yam suf means, which once formed the natural eastern border of egypt with the crocodile lakes and the bitter lakes some of which have remained until today.

Also, just because one believes in miracles doesn't make them less intelligent. It just means that they admit more possibilities for things they can't explain.It doesn't just mean that if they settle for the "miracle" concept. It means they don't demonstrate due dilligence and are easily set into accepting ... ACCEPTING ... something that makes them feel better without committing to the actual answer.
Indeed, going jumping to the "miracle" really does little for "admitting more possibilities", instead it focuses on "possibility", not "probability", and certainly not "certainty".

wtf are you trying to tell me? i know what the designations mean, i run a history website.
That's the point, i wasn't involving you at all with my question. You assumed i wanted your input on it. Two other posters took note of the inference, you instead opted to chastise me about what you didn't get.
I recall you posting a few times about how you didn't like Grave posting his way, so it seemed that perhaps you should consider your posting persuasion.

And I'm not just saying that because he has Tom Cruise's head on Val Kilmer's torso with Michael Ironside's limbs and Tom Skerrit's bulge. Sigworthy.

This thread just went from annoying to weird to disturbing in under half a page.
Q'apla!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

I shall now pretentiously and irrelevantly state that doubting everything is as foolish as believing everything! Believing in rectally curious aliens does not make a person less intelligent, just more open to the possibilities of things that are beyond our perception but within our anus.

I'm trying to get possessed.

Off to a *good* start.

I had heard of that, now you mention it. The Holy Prepuce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus%27_foreskin).

I still can't believe people bitch about nothing new happening around here ... like there's nothing to learn.

That's a good question. S/he always leaves the seat up for some reason.
:mad:

i have decided to believe that s/he isnt YOU because talking to yourself on an internet forum is creepy.

so that means that s/he is visiting you (or you her/him). leaving the seat up is more a male thing than a female but s/he is crazy enough that it doesnt matter.

so i have decided to believe that he is your brother (as smart as you are but a bit of a boozer)

and i do acknowledge that my belief has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is your brother.

his existing or not existing has led to a large portion of humanity to show humility...and that's where i'll cut you off, because i have a strong, STRONG suspicion that the one of the reasons these threads get so heated with people is that you're quite wrong about that part.

I've often wondered about that: the New Testament has bugger all character development, even the main characters are painfully two-dimensional and the finale is frankly anti-climatic.

*serious* contender for Winner of Thread.

i have decided to believe that s/he isnt YOU because talking to yourself on an internet forum is creepy. Honestly, that almost never happens.

so that means that s/he is visiting you (or you her/him). leaving the seat up is more a male thing than a female but s/he is crazy enough that it doesnt matter. I'm not really sure about all that. Perhaps it's the cost of getting the nation back onto NS. Perhaps it was the pre-and-post-New Years' benders that had either a knock-out or a knock-in, and i haven't got all my bearings just yet.

so i have decided to believe that he is your brother (as smart as you are but a bit of a boozer)Oh, stop. *blush*
http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/professor-hubert-farnsworth-3996.jpg
I'm not sure what to believe about him/her. Their posts could be another case of third-person oral tradition .... or channeling ... or whatever, but i'm not THAT distracted by "Lost" to not know i'm posting as someone else ... but they could have anticipated what text was going to come up and set the responses on some other computer to be entered in when i'm consciously online as Straughn .... or perhaps some part of me is telepathically transferring to another user and they're posting on another computer even though Jhahannam's actually reading through my monitor.
I hesitate to say "miracle", but i'm left with little to go on here.

and i do acknowledge that my belief has no effect whatsoever on whether or not he is your brother.Or half brother?
Or cousin?
...pretty soon i'm gonna have to start a census as to how many people have interacted with Jhahannam irl ...

He existed. It is just so.

Every person has his opinion about this matter. This is mine.

That's where the word "really" comes in, per OP.

*chuckle* all that effort to make a nation, to set up an email for the forums, find this thread, log in, and just to post that little piece of drivel?

Some people have too much free time.Comparable to their imagination, no doubt.

That's the point, i wasn't involving you at all with my question. You assumed i wanted your input on it. Two other posters took note of the inference, you instead opted to chastise me about what you didn't get.
I recall you posting a few times about how you didn't like Grave posting his way, so it seemed that perhaps you should consider your posting persuasion.what inference was there in your answer to the most stupid in this fucking thread?

I know precisely what you mean. Sadly.

Plus I can't count the number of stories I've scrapped because someone came out with something with roughly the same premise.

Heh. A friend of mine and I were working on a project, back in the late 90's, centred around a virtual environment created to keep the populace docile while the government basically used them as a powersource...

im thinking of something in the manga universe. a seperate creation as only a japanese writer with little understanding of the bible can pull off.

Heh. I'd buy it. :) That's my genre, there.

what inference was there in your answer to the most stupid in this fucking thread?Conversely, what purpose was served, exactly, by the obvious response you provided to a question that wasn't asked you?
Here's another hint, btw:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13338477&postcount=1702
And to be fair, you can't single out that post as "the most stupid" :p
So is it advertising in poor taste for you to provide a link to your site?

wtf are you trying to tell me? i know what the designations mean, i run a history website.

Based on some of our little discussions, I think I'll withhold judgement over whether that is an endorsement or a case for the prosecution...

Link?

The bolded part is the answer.

They are 'parroting' the argument incorrectly though. The statement/argument they heard was NOT intended as a historicity of Jesus vs. the historicity of Caesar argument, it is/was supposed to be the historicity of the NT works vs. the historicity of "The Gallic Wars." (multiple Christian sources use that example) And if they used the argument in the correct discussion they would be correct, the NT works en masse are vastly better supported and has thousands of fragments and some fragments from within a hundred years of the original writings, and the Gallic Wars work by Julius Caesar has less than 10 copies and none are closer than eight hundred years of Julius Caesars death (or something like that is the paraphrasing)...

Since you come back to this thread, would you be able to tell me how the historicity of X historical figure has anything to do with the historicity of Jesus Christ? I have yet to figure it out.

I am not a card catalogue and I don't work in your local library.

If you make a claim, you've got to provide evidence. Asking us to do so is just going to make us assume you don't have any.

Okay, first of all, I apologize for the earlier smiley's and am not retarded, thank you very much. It was just an attempt to lighten things up that failed. (by the way, I wasn't aware that the forum was a place of name-calling. I'll keep that one in mind) Second, I never though that when I grew up I'd be asked to be a card catalogue. But, here is a website for those of you who would rather not do the research yourself of going to the library. http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn44/existence.htm Please read the entire page and not just bits and pieces that you agree with, otherwise I have wasted my time.

The James Ossuary's authenticity is far from being deemed authentic, as the Israeli Antiquities Authority (which handles Israel's ancient artifacts) deemed it was a forgery, scholars believing "it's too good to be true" and the person who "discovered it", Oded Golan, on trial for creating forgeries. Look here:

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

Regardless, even if the James Ossuary were indeed authentic, it's not unequivocal proof of Jesus Christ. All it proves is there is a Jesus who has a brother named James with a father named Joseph- it still does not prove the events that happened in the New Testament actually happened historically, since none of those stories have contemporary and independent evidence.

Since you come back to this thread, would you be able to tell me how the historicity of X historical figure has anything to do with the historicity of Jesus Christ? I have yet to figure it out.

The idea isn't that proving one proves the other, the idea is that the skeptic asks questions about the historical Jesus that they don't ask of other historical people. For a carpenter familiy's Son in first century Judea we know an awful lot about the Man named Jesus, dozens if not hundreds of people wrote of him for many decades after he was condemned, that's a known fact. Why even ask if he existed or not? The defense attempts to show an anti-Jesus bias by the side that asks the the question itself.

The James Ossuary's authenticity is far from being deemed authentic, as the Israeli Antiquities Authority (which handles Israel's ancient artifacts) deemed it was a forgery, scholars believing "it's too good to be true" and the person who "discovered it", Oded Golan, on trial for creating forgeries. Look here:

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

Regardless, even if the James Ossuary were indeed authentic, it's not unequivocal proof of Jesus Christ. All it proves is there is a Jesus who has a brother named James with a father named Joseph- it still does not prove the events that happened in the New Testament actually happened historically, since none of those stories have contemporary and independent evidence.

FYI: Your links there are somewhat dated. The James Ossuary discovery and public attention pissed off the director of the IAA (Mr. Shuka Dorfman) because when it was first brought to the public's eye he was stormed by journalists and he didn't know what they were talking about, and he felt publicly humiliated, and then he got pissed off at Hershel Shanks the director of the Biblical Archaeology Society for 'feeding' the frenzy and to this day the director of the IAA will not let any of his employees publish any works, (at all, not just ossuary material) in any publication owned by BAS. The authenticity of the Ossuary box is far from determined one way or another, all we know is that the IAA doesn't like to let anyone look at it because it’s ‘evidence’ in a case (a case that looks like it will never be brought to trial because proving it's a fake is a lot harder than just implying its a fake and leaving it at that).

But Hershel Shanks got all stubborn right back and keeps pushing for ossuary research http://bib-arch.org/forgery/forgeryreport.html

Does it truly matter? Over 2 billion people believe so. Meaning it is pointless to even bother over it.

Yeah, but wiki and IMDB use the Jesus calendar, cause its all true and stuff.

Seriously, if you look on Jesus's's's birth certificate, it says "aaaaanndd.....NOW! April 4th, 0 AD".

And if you look at the expiration date on the condom that God used with Mary, it said "june 4 BC", but in that fucked up granular print that condom expiration dates are done in.

There is a difference between debating and arguing a point and being downright offensive to people who are christians.
I find the fact that you used such vulgarity to describe the divine conception really really offensive. And completely unnecessary. And completely pointless to this discussion.
And to be honest, this whole debate is pointless. Because clearly in this forum there are people who are opposed to Jesus and Christianity, and really just want a place where they can express that....its sad.

<snip>Because clearly in this forum there are people who are opposed to Jesus and Christianity, and really just want a place where they can express that....its sad.

And why would that be sad?

And why would that be sad?

Nothing's wrong with that. Until you start being offensive...and thats whats happened. And yeah, thats sad.

And more importantly, this is a discussion about whether there is evidence that Jesus existed. Not about his divinity, or his ministry, or people's spirituality being based around him. Its just about facts...and I don't see why any of this would need to get personal.

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

Yes.

The faith is required to believe he was the Son of God. To believe Jesus simply existed? That's just plain obvious. There's not been more books written about a single subject that him, let alone none of the history of the Bible has been proven wrong, as a lot of it has been proven true to the contrary.

Nothing's wrong with that. Until you start being offensive...and thats whats happened. And yeah, thats sad.

And more importantly, this is a discussion about whether there is evidence that Jesus existed. Not about his divinity, or his ministry, or people's spirituality being based around him. Its just about facts...and I don't see why any of this would need to get personal.

I've got a piece of advice : If you plan on spending moretime on this forum, you ought to grow a much, much, much, much, MUCH thicker skin.
That post wasn't offensive, and it was most certainly not personal. At worst it was being a bit flippant. You will see really offensive posts here, from both sides, but few of them will be as funny as this one.

There's very little point in debating the existance of Jesus without debating the rest, as well.

Yes.

The faith is required to believe he was the Son of God. To believe Jesus simply existed? That's just plain obvious. There's not been more books written about a single subject that him, let alone none of the history of the Bible has been proven wrong, as a lot of it has been proven true to the contrary.

Well, considering that the more than a little anal Roman burocracy fails to mention him, and further considering that the books you talk about were written decades after his presumed death by his followers, I think a little doubt would be called for.
After all, there are hundreds of books out there about Santa, but that does not exactly prove he exists, does it?

See this movie... and you know and understand the truth about Jesus.

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/



Pope Leo X (1513-1521) said: "It was well known how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us."

I've got a piece of advice : If you plan on spending moretime on this forum, you ought to grow a much, much, much, much, MUCH thicker skin.
That post wasn't offensive, and it was most certainly not personal. At worst it was being a bit flippant. You will see really offensive posts here, from both sides, but few of them will be as funny as this one.

There's very little point in debating the existance of Jesus without debating the rest, as well.

Perhaps it wasn't offensive to you because of your own beliefs.
HOWEVER, I'm sure many christians would agree that talking about God using a condom as a poor attempt at witty argument, OFFENSIVE.
And why should I need to grow a thicker skin?? Why can't you just show some respect???

And you don't need to discuss his ministry or divinity or anything else, when you are proving his existence as a man....just like any other historial figure.

If you would like to take a swipe at christianity, fine. But don't pretend its anything else or do it under the guise of debating something intelligent. And if you would like to debate Jesus' divinity, thats fine too. But you should really find another forum to that...

Very sad Cabra. Can't you argue without getting personal?

Perhaps it wasn't offensive to you because of your own beliefs.
HOWEVER, I'm sure many christians would agree that talking about God using a condom as a poor attempt at witty argument, OFFENSIVE.
And why should I need to grow a thicker skin?? Why can't you just show some respect???

And you don't need to discuss his ministry or divinity or anything else, when you are proving his existence as a man....just like any other historial figure.

If you would like to take a swipe at christianity, fine. But don't pretend its anything else or do it under the guise of debating something intelligent. And if you would like to debate Jesus' divinity, thats fine too. But you should really find another forum to that...

Very sad Cabra. Can't you argue without getting personal?

I was getting personal with that post? Seriously? *roflmao

See, there is a thing called "freedom of speech". If you want to read up on it, you'll find it in the declaration of human rights. Now, this forum is in fact rather heavily modded, so the freedom here only goes so far. But you can still post anything that's not an ad hominem, flaming, trolling or could be regarded as not being PG13. So, in fact, it's a little nicer than real life would be.
If you're still offended, you're very much in need of a thicker skin.

And I don't see how debating the existence of Jesus would make much sense without debating if his existence would even matter to us today were it not for claims of his divinity.

Perhaps it wasn't offensive to you because of your own beliefs.
HOWEVER, I'm sure many christians would agree that talking about God using a condom as a poor attempt at witty argument, OFFENSIVE.
And why should I need to grow a thicker skin?? Why can't you just show some respect???
Respect?

<voice="Scooby Doo">Ruh roh</voice>

Cue the cries of "respect my views!" vs "No, respect MY views, dammit" that we get on every other thread about <insert religion here>.

And you don't need to discuss his ministry or divinity or anything else, when you are proving his existence as a man....just like any other historial figure.

If you would like to take a swipe at christianity, fine. But don't pretend its anything else or do it under the guise of debating something intelligent. And if you would like to debate Jesus' divinity, thats fine too. But you should really find another forum to that...
That looks like a request to stay on topic... in post #1781 in a religiously-themed thread, no less. Good luck with that.

I was getting personal with that post? Seriously? *roflmao

See, there is a thing called "freedom of speech". If you want to read up on it, you'll find it in the declaration of human rights. Now, this forum is in fact rather heavily modded, so the freedom here only goes so far. But you can still post anything that's not an ad hominem, flaming, trolling or could be regarded as not being PG13. So, in fact, it's a little nicer than real life would be.
If you're still offended, you're very much in need of a thicker skin.

And I don't see how debating the existence of Jesus would make much sense without debating if his existence would even matter to us today were it not for claims of his divinity.

Perhaps you should read my posts before responding to it.
Yes, there is such thing as freedom of speech. And there is such thing as freedom of religion too.
It was a message that I was offended by, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT. It was just crude and pointless, and yes offensive. And I was bringing up the point, why can't we discuss things without resorting to that? Or does that impede on your human rights?
Is it so hard for people to say what they believe without that?

Go read what this forum was intended for. And how can you debate his divinity if you don't believe he existed in the first place? Isn't that kinda pointless for you?

And I do have a thick skin...I'm not sitting here bawling my eyes out or anything. Christians cop a lot of slack. I'm used to it. But that doesn't mean I don't have to be a doormat and watch someone be crude. As you said, I have a freedom to do that...So exactly whats your problem?

Respect?

<voice="Scooby Doo">Ruh roh</voice>

Cue the cries of "respect my views!" vs "No, respect MY views, dammit" that we get on every other thread about <insert religion here>.


That looks like a request to stay on topic... in post #1781 in a religiously-themed thread, no less. Good luck with that.

Yeah, I guess respecting each other is a bit too much to hope for.

Perhaps you should read my posts before responding to it.
Yes, there is such thing as freedom of speech. And there is such thing as freedom of religion too.
It was a message that I was offended by, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT. It was just crude and pointless, and yes offensive. And I was bringing up the point, why can't we discuss things without resorting to that? Or does that impede on your human rights?
Is it so hard for people to say what they believe without that?

Go read what this forum was intended for. And how can you debate his divinity if you don't believe he existed in the first place? Isn't that kinda pointless for you?

And I do have a thick skin...I'm not sitting here bawling my eyes out or anything. Christians cop a lot of slack. I'm used to it. But that doesn't mean I don't have to be a doormat and watch someone be crude. As you said, I have a freedom to do that...So exactly whats your problem?

Well, grow a sense of humour, then.
He wasn't being crude, he was being flippant. He was making a joke about something he perceives as funny... care to point out what's wrong with that, exactly?

How do you know what I believe regarding his existence? I haven't stated that anywhere so far.

*checks* I think if you look closely, you're the one with the problem... after all, you're the one complaining.

Yeah, I guess respecting each other is a bit too much to hope for.
Respecting each other is a laudable goal. It's just that any request for respect for Christian views is very likely to be met with a barrage of citations outlining the lack of respect that Christian organisations have for anyone else's views.

You took offence at a throwaway remark that made light of your views. That's understandable, but to then try and get the rest of the forum's readers to move back towards the topic at hand, in a thread that - even with jolt's maximum settings deployed - is already on page 45 and has wandered around all over the place since its birth a couple of weeks back is just pissing in the wind.

Yes.

The faith is required to believe he was the Son of God. To believe Jesus simply existed? That's just plain obvious. There's not been more books written about a single subject that him, let alone none of the history of the Bible has been proven wrong, as a lot of it has been proven true to the contrary.

its not just plain obvious.

if you remove the religious part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

which doesnt mean that he CANT have existed, just that there is no proof of it. nothing that can even count as proof.

its not just plain obvious.

if you remove the religious part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

which doesnt mean that he CANT have existed, just that there is no proof of it. nothing that can even count as proof.

That’s a fun game, lets play!

Qin Shi Huang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang)
if you remove the Chinese part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Leif Ericson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson)
if you remove the Icelandic part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Hor-Aha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hor-Aha)
if you remove the Ancient Egyptian part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Pachacuti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachacuti)
if you remove the Incan part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.


Nah, nevermind, it's not that fun, it's too easy and doesn't even make sense...

Yeah, I guess respecting each other is a bit too much to hope for.

Yep, indeed and why should you respect somebody if they hold ideas which you find abhorant?

Yep, indeed and why should you respect somebody if they hold ideas which you find abhorant?

Because some people believe respect is a hollow phrase we should mock and pee on instead of something that needs to be earned.

That’s a fun game, lets play!

Qin Shi Huang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang)
if you remove the Chinese part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Leif Ericson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson)
if you remove the Icelandic part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Hor-Aha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hor-Aha)
if you remove the Ancient Egyptian part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Pachacuti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachacuti)
if you remove the Incan part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.


Nah, nevermind, it's not that fun, it's too easy and doesn't even make sense...

Yes, because a story that claims he's Icelandic is exactly the same as a story that claims he's a god and was raised from the dead. Yep.

I've seen Icelanders, Chinese, Ancient Egyptians, and there is tons of contemporary evidence for Incans (not to mention remains). How many people have you seen raised from the dead after three days? How many people have you seen turn one fish into many? Blood into wine?

See she didn't ask you to remove parts because of prejudice. She asked you to remove the documents that prove themselves non-credible.

In fact, your claim that removing the religious beliefs from Christ would be like removing everything relating to the origins of particular other historical figures amounts to admitting that Jesus wouldn't exist but for religious origins, like Leif Ericson wouldn't exist without Icelandic origins. That doesn't bode well for your argument.

That’s a fun game, lets play!

Qin Shi Huang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang)
if you remove the Chinese part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Leif Ericson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Ericson)
if you remove the Icelandic part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Hor-Aha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hor-Aha)
if you remove the Ancient Egyptian part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.

Pachacuti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pachacuti)
if you remove the Incan part, you are left with...well...not much of anything, certainly nothing that can be shown to be true.


Nah, nevermind, it's not that fun, it's too easy and doesn't even make sense...

that doesnt make any sense. is religion now a language?

i said it that way because the assumption is (if you arent religious) that jesus was a normal man whose legend got out of hand after he died. that even if he WASNT the messiah and son of god, he still existed in natural coporeal form.

Yes, because a story that claims he's Icelandic is exactly the same as a story that claims he's a god and was raised from the dead. Yep.

I've seen Icelanders, Chinese, Ancient Egyptians, and there is tons of contemporary evidence for Incans (not to mention remains). How many people have you seen raised from the dead after three days? How many people have you seen turn one fish into many? Blood into wine?

See she didn't ask you to remove parts because of prejudice. She asked you to remove the documents that prove themselves non-credible.

In fact, your claim that removing the religious beliefs from Christ would be like removing everything relating to the origins of particular other historical figures amounts to admitting that Jesus wouldn't exist but for religious origins, like Leif Ericson wouldn't exist without Icelandic origins. That doesn't bode well for your argument.

I made all those claims did I? LOL The ONLY part of your post that even addressed what I actually said was this part:

I've seen Icelanders, Chinese, Ancient Egyptians, and there is tons of contemporary evidence for Incans

And that was weak, unless you doubt the veracity of Jewish/Hebrew Males in Judea during the first century.

that doesnt make any sense. is religion now a language?

i said it that way because the assumption is (if you arent religious) that jesus was a normal man whose legend got out of hand after he died. that even if he WASNT the messiah and son of god, he still existed in natural coporeal form.

Who used the word Language? Not you in the post I quoted and not I in my post. So language isn't what I said. If you take away all the evidence from the people that want to preserve the history of something, of course you aren't going to have much left over afterwards...

Who used the word Language? Not you in the post I quoted and not I in my post. So language isn't what I said. If you take away all the evidence from the people that want to preserve the history of something, of course you aren't going to have much left over afterwards...

so you are saying that if he is NOT the messiah and the son of god, he is nothing?

I made all those claims did I? LOL The ONLY part of your post that even addressed what I actually said was this part:

I've seen Icelanders, Chinese, Ancient Egyptians, and there is tons of contemporary evidence for Incans

And that was weak, unless you doubt the veracity of Jewish/Hebrew Males in Judea during the first century.

Strawman. You said if you remove the Icelandic part. She didn't say if you remove the Hebrew part, she said if you remove the religious part (the part designed to support Christian beliefs). She wasn't talking about removing his ethnicity. What part aren't you following?

The comparison would be if you put up Hercules and said if you remove the religious parts. And it would explain why, though we accept the possibility, even likelihood, that Hercules is based on one or several people, we don't accept the historicity of Hercules.

Who used the word Language? Not you in the post I quoted and not I in my post. So language isn't what I said. If you take away all the evidence from the people that want to preserve the history of something, of course you aren't going to have much left over afterwards...

In the case of the individuals you listed they were recorded by historians. Cases where they were written about in fanstastic ways are always regarded with much more skepticism. If you were talking about Leif myths where he fought dragons, yes, those would automatically suspect. What you're listing as evidence is not historical documents but religious documents. They were written to preserve the faithful beliefs of Christians, not to preserve the accurate history of Jesus Christ.

How do we know this? Because we can find tons of innaccuracies that defy any attempt by those who wrote or passed it down to get the history accurate. Inaccuracies you whined were off-topic when I brought them up.

so you are saying that if he is NOT the messiah and the son of god, he is nothing?

Nope, didn't say anything of the kind. I said if you removed the evidence created by the people that want to record the events of someone you won't have much left over.

Nope, didn't say anything of the kind. I said if you removed the evidence created by the people that want to record the events of someone you won't have much left over.

The people you listed were recorded by historians. Why wasn't Jesus? Specifically, if he did all the things you claim, why wasn't the topic of historians?

In the case of the individuals you listed they were recorded by historians. Cases where they were written about in fanstastic ways are always regarded with much more skepticism. If you were talking about Leif myths where he fought dragons, yes, those would automatically suspect. What you're listing as evidence is not historical documents but religious documents. They were written to preserve the faithful beliefs of Christians, not to preserve the accurate history of Jesus Christ.

How do we know this? Because we can find tons of innaccuracies that defy any attempt by those who wrote or passed it down to get the history accurate. Inaccuracies you whined were off-topic when I brought them up.

Really? Interesting. Somehow you know all those four people were recorded by impartial contemporary historians huh. You must be using a shovel instead of a keyboard to dig so deeply :rolleyes:

The people you listed were recorded by historians. Why wasn't Jesus? Specifically, if he did all the things you claim, why wasn't the topic of historians?

Which contemporary historians recorded those people with impartiality?

so you are saying that if he is NOT the messiah and the son of god, he is nothing?

Well, didn't you know? Usually, historians don't record anything of anyone unless they believe they are the son of God. Because while he's not specifically saying what you just said, he is saying that unlike the historical figure Leif who was recorded by historians, there must not have been a historical figure Jesus since he wasn't. In converse, Leif wasn't recorded by religious followers because he wasn't a religious figure, but Jesus was recorded by religious followers because he was.

So we are all in agreement. Leif was a historical figure recorded by historians.

Jesus was not a historical figure which is why he wasn't.

Or, perhaps, he wants to abandon this particular argument?

...
So we are all in agreement. Leif was a historical figure recorded by historians.

...

Source please....

Really? Interesting. Somehow you know all those four people were recorded by impartial contemporary historians huh. You must be using a shovel instead of a keyboard to dig so deeply :rolleyes:

Um, first, you've not shown any contemporary recordings of Jesus at all. None.

Second of all, Leif, which is the one of those people that I've been referring to, since I know quite a bit about him, left behind not only recordings but also a number of other bits of evidence which is where we get most of the information about where he went and when. Contemporary recordings aren't the only things that would make us have evidence of a person existing. We've found historical support for the man.

On the contrary, when we regard the history as written in the NT, we find all kinds of discrepencies. For one, there is no historical veracity to the practice of releasing a prisoner on Passover. We can't find any reference to it ever happening. It doesn't guarantee it didn't, but it's odd.

We also find much reason to speculate that the entire scene has issues with veracity, given the person let go has the same name and his last name is "Son of the Father", a title used for Jesus. Again, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, it suggests it happened and people just mixed up the details.

We have the fact that much of what is described in the NT is physically impossible according to all scientific and historical scholarship.

We have a man that created fish and bread and wine from blood and healed the sick with a touch and raised from the dead and it wasn't even interesting enough for the scholars at the time to write down.

So, yes, absent corroboration the religious evidence is just a little difficult to swallow from a scholarly standpoint. But, I'm sorry, you don't want to discuss why, do you? This is where you start complaining I'm off topic and claiming that you aren't trying to use religious documents as historical documents, right?

Source please....

You provided it. You don't know what a saga is, do you? Sagas were the Norse histories. The information in the saga is supported by scholarship, which cannot be said of Jesus "of Nazareth".

Meanwhile, the lands they claimed to have visited, matched up with actually locations, locations they wouldn't have known about at the time of the writing without someone having gone there. In contrast, the stories of Jesus often mistakingly claim locations that don't exist, like Nazareth. If you'd like to continue to discuss the historicity of Leif Ericson in comparison to Jesus, I'm happy to do so, but this isn't going well for you.

This isn't getting anywhere...

has anyone even changed their opinion on anything?

has anyone even changed their opinion on anything?

Of course. Thousands of times. Why ?

Nope, didn't say anything of the kind. I said if you removed the evidence created by the people that want to record the events of someone you won't have much left over.

wasnt that my point?

for example, if you look at the question of "did lao tzu really exist?" you would have to answer "no". once all the religious speculative crap is removed from his legend you are left with nothing.

Um, first, you've not shown any contemporary recordings of Jesus at all. None.

Second of all, Leif, which is the one of those people that I've been referring to, since I know quite a bit about him, left behind not only recordings but also a number of other bits of evidence which is where we get most of the information about where he went and when. Contemporary recordings aren't the only things that would make us have evidence of a person existing. We've found historical support for the man.
...

Trying hard still, but you're still drowning in the hole you dug yourself. Which contemporary impartial historian source of Leif Ericson do you have?

Perhaps the answer is that you don't have any historian records of Leif until some 300 hundred years after his life and times...and THAT is even worse than the Christian records of Jesus.

Must be bummer and why you are trying to back track a bit huh?

Trying hard still, but you're still drowning in the hole you dug yourself. Which contemporary impartial historian source of Leif Ericson do you have?

Perhaps the answer is that you don't have any historian records of Leif until some 300 hundred years after his life and times...and THAT is even worse than the Christian records of Jesus.

Must be bummer and why you are trying to back track a bit huh?

Um, unlike the historicity of the New Testament, the historicity of the Saga of Eric the Red is well-documented.

It's not a hole. You really wanna play this game? I'll provide a mountain of evidence for the historicity of Leif and you're pile of nothing is going to look even more silly.

Start a thread. This should be fun. I'd love to document the historicity of Leif. You're about to find out the difference between historical figures and religious figures.

I notice you've again avoided the historical problems with the NT to talk about ANYTHING BUT. Now, would you care to address the gaping holes in the "historical" documents you cited?

Of course. Thousands of times. Why ?

Oops, replace "anything" with "this topic".

Oops, replace "anything" with "this topic".

It might if people would stop posting the same thing over and over and over and over again.
If nothing new is provided I see no reason to change.

wasnt that my point?

for example, if you look at the question of "did lao tzu really exist?" you would have to answer "no". once all the religious speculative crap is removed from his legend you are left with nothing.

And that's why your point was meaningless. Historical accounts are written by people that want something remembered. Christians wrote about Christ, Icelanders wrote about Leif, and Chinese Taoists recorded what we know about Lao Tzu.

So taking away the evidence preserved by the people that tried to preserve the story of something is a pointless endeavor.

And that's why your point was meaningless. Historical accounts are written by people that want something remembered. Christians wrote about Christ, Icelanders wrote about Leif, and Chinese Taoists recorded what we know about Lao Tzu.

So taking away the evidence preserved by the people that tried to preserve the story of something is a pointless endeavor.

You've not shown a historical account. You've shown a religious account. You don't recognize the difference, but the difference is obvious.

Now, add in the fact that when the "historical" account, you know the one you whined that you never claimed was historical, is analyzed by scholars, gaping holes are found in the history. I've mentioned several you've refused to address and still refuse to address.

I'm happy to walk through the historical inaccuracies in your "historical" claims. Let's do so. Or are you admitting, that perhaps the NT was never intended to be a historical document, but instead a recording of the teachings of Christ and a context for those teachings.

Um, unlike the historicity of the New Testament, the historicity of the Saga of Eric the Red is well-documented.

It's not a hole. You really wanna play this game? I'll provide a mountain of evidence for the historicity of Leif and you're pile of nothing is going to look even more silly.


Okee dokee then... You might as well start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_the_Greenlanders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eir%C3%ADks_saga_rau%C3%B0a

Okee dokee then... You might as well start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saga_of_the_Greenlanders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eir%C3%ADks_saga_rau%C3%B0a

START A THREAD. You're desperately trying to threadjack because you're losing the debate. You've got no independent evidence that the stories of Jesus the Christ are true. All evidence shows problems in the recordings we have. They show geographical inaccuracies. Biases that make the entire thing speculative. Claims of practices that didn't exist. And an outright denial of practices that did.

And that's why your point was meaningless. Historical accounts are written by people that want something remembered. Christians wrote about Christ, Icelanders wrote about Leif, and Chinese Taoists recorded what we know about Lao Tzu.

So taking away the evidence preserved by the people that tried to preserve the story of something is a pointless endeavor.

is it?

certainly there are quite a few legendary people who either didnt exist or are so changed by the legend as to be irrelevant to their own story.

king arthur springs to mind. (not that i know where the current thinking is on the historicity of the king arthur legend)

at the same time there ARE people from ancient times that we can be pretty sure existed (even if some of the stories about them are obviously false). julius caesar, alexander the great, and cleopatra come to mind.

This isn't getting anywhere...

has anyone even changed their opinion on anything?

Of course. The last time this topic came up on NS (a couple of years ago) I found the arguments of Mythicism persuasive, since then I've read around the subject and I no longer see it as the most plausible scenario (although I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand). If someone was to present convincing arguments then I'd change my opinion again, that's kinda the whole point of evidence and reason.

wasnt that my point?

for example, if you look at the question of "did lao tzu really exist?" you would have to answer "no". once all the religious speculative crap is removed from his legend you are left with nothing.

As you can see he's trying desperately to talk about anything other than the historicity of Jesus the Christ.

You notice if you ask questions about various historical claims of the Gospels (if one were to believe, as he claims, that they are historical), he refuses to address such questions. Instead he wants to talk about the histories of other people who have been corroborated by actual archeological evidence.

START A THREAD. You're desperately trying to threadjack because you're losing the debate. You've got no independent evidence that the stories of Jesus the Christ are true. All evidence shows problems in the recordings we have. They show geographical inaccuracies. Biases that make the entire thing speculative. Claims of practices that didn't exist. And an outright denial of practices that did.

I'm not thread jacking, you are. I made the example that the same thing she said about Jesus could be said about many historical persons. You claimed waht I said was not true, and then you claimed historians recorded the events of leif, and you shot yourself in the foot...

Then I just noticed that even there you said Eric instead of Leif, too funny.

Ten Christian responses to this thread:

1. Complete denial, "More evidence for Jesus exists than for any other person in the period." Must be the stained glass evidence.

2. Bible is true denial, "Of course, he existed, its right there in the bible". News flash, historians don't actually accept the bible as literal truth.

3. Bible is historical denial, same as (2) only believers think that the new testament gospel narratives (though perhaps flawed or extrapolated) are accepted as based in fact by all historians. Nope.

4. "I've read stuff" denial. Josephus, Tacitus, and the other usual suspects are brought out as evidence. Fair, but this evidence is extremely shaky, thus the discussion.

5. "It couldn't have been made up" denial, where did all the other religions come from then?

6. Personality denial. "Paul, Peter, and the other historical disciples couldn't have been liars, they would have been exposed. They wouldn't have died for a lie." How would you know about what anyone was preaching in the first century in the common era and how they died? Are all religions true that have martyred devotees?

7. Argument to authority denial, according to Dr. David Quasitheologian the evidence that Jesus exists is "unimpeachable in every regard, anyone who does not believe that this man existed is in contrast with the vast majority of current near east historians." This guy isn't one of my professors/ministers, I don't care what he says.

8. Psychological bait/switch denial. "You're only questioning his existence because you're afraid of the consequences." Uh, no, as if my motivations affect the evidence.

9. Emotional denial, "I find this whole topic offensive and stupid." or any other dodge.

10. Denial. Ignore topic, ignore forum, go to church, give offering, and pray.

;)
Do you really expect a thread to go over a 100 pages if every single post contributes something new?

No. It would however be nice if there had been slightly more diversity in such a huge topic. How many different points were actually made in here ? 10 ?
Wait 5 pages and the same thing is said.

Okay, let's play a game.

With Cleopatra we were able to peel away the legend to leave behind only that which has evidence. Similarly with Leif and a number of other currently accepted historical figures.

So, let's do that with Jesus. Balder, ignoring anything about Jesus's life that appears to be legend, please describe the life of Jesus.

The birth has to be discarded for almost every reason one can give.

The childhood leaves us with little to salvage. But we'll go with his parents are Mary and Joseph and he had a brother James.

He was Jewish.

He taught and had followers.

He died. We'll even allow that he was martyred. We can't even extract the crucifiction until you address the plethora of issues with the historicity of that event.

Okay, so we have a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus who had a mother Mary, a father Joseph, and a brother James. He was martyred.

Let's say that's the historical Jesus. Anything you want to add?

It might if people would stop posting the same thing over and over and over and over again.
If nothing new is provided I see no reason to change.

;)

Do you really expect a thread to go over a 100 pages if every single post contributes something new?

Of course. The last time this topic came up on NS (a couple of years ago) I found the arguments of Mythicism persuasive, since then I've read around the subject and I no longer see it as the most plausible scenario (although I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand). If someone was to present convincing arguments then I'd change my opinion again, that's kinda the whole point of evidence and reason.

Well, it's good that someone has taken something from this all.

As you can see he's trying desperately to talk about anything other than the historicity of Jesus the Christ.

You notice if you ask questions about various historical claims of the Gospels (if one were to believe, as he claims, that they are historical), he refuses to address such questions. Instead he wants to talk about the histories of other people who have been corroborated by actual archeological evidence.


You are using really poor debate form logic. The debate rules of this thread is that I can't use the gospels as evidence of historicity. So I'm not using them. You want to fight about what the gospels say, start the thread, I'll likely join up. But in the end, if I can't use the gospels as evidence, neither can you use them as counter evidence.

But in the end, if I can't use the gospels as evidence, neither can you use them as counter evidence.

There is something both amusing and highly intellectually dishonest about an argument that goes "if I can't use documents that are not historical, contain numerous errors, and are obviously biased to demonstrate jesus existed, you can't use them to show how the only evidence for jesus is not historical!"

You are using really poor debate form logic. The debate rules of this thread is that I can't use the gospels as evidence of historicity. So I'm not using them. You want to fight about what the gospels say, start the thread, I'll likely join up. But in the end, if I can't use the gospels as evidence, neither can you use them as counter evidence.

You ARE using them. The Gospels is what she was talking about. She is asking for independent information about Christ. That means histories that aren't either directly from the Gospels or haven't been proven false. You've not brought anything to the table. Nothing.

What ARE you using as evidence? The letters of a man who claims to have met the ghost of Christ and whose doesn't speak to the historicity of Jesus Christ at all? What? You don't even have to demonstrate why they are historical, but list, one single clear list of what you claim is the historical evidence of Jesus the Christ.

...

Okay, so we have a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus who had a mother Mary, a father Joseph, and a brother James. He was martyred.

Let's say that's the historical Jesus. Anything you want to add?

If we all agree with that, then then we are pretty much done with this thread.

I'm not thread jacking, you are. I made the example that the same thing she said about Jesus could be said about many historical persons. You claimed waht I said was not true, and then you claimed historians recorded the events of leif, and you shot yourself in the foot...

Then I just noticed that even there you said Eric instead of Leif, too funny.

Yeah, I said Eric accidentally because it's my name.

Meanwhile, you're making a claim that if you remove the recordings that historians of the time made, even if they have some fantastical examples (as did Cleopatra), that you've got nothing.

However, the recordings of Jesus don't claim to be histories. They claim to be recordings of the faith and the proof of Jesus' position as messiah. You keep ignoring this, but not only are not they not a history nor ever tried to be a history, but they also have a purpose that makes them directly contrary to history.

You ARE using them. The Gospels is what she was talking about.

That's NOT what she said. She didn't say if you take away the gospels, she said if you take away the Christian stuff. That's the gospels, the church fathers, the epistles, the historical evidence of the church writings, all things christian en masse.

That's NOT what she said. She didn't say if you take away the gospels, she said if you take away the Christian stuff. That's the gospels, the church fathers, the epistles, the historical evidence of the church writings, all things christian en masse.

She said if you take away the religious stuff. She didn't say Christian, she said religious. She wasn't saying anything written by a Christian. She said the texts that had obvious and intentional religious implications.

If we all agree with that, then then we are pretty much done with this thread.

No, we aren't. Because everything I listed there has no evidence except for the religious beliefs of the public. Everything I listed came from the Gospels which you admit doesn't count as evidence.

So given that you claim that you agree with what I listed and you cannot use the Gospels since you're unwilling to defend their historicity, let's see what your evidence is for that rather simple assertion.

Let me guess, "cuz if that guy didn't exist then why did people believe he did?" Appeal to popularity is a poor excuse for logic.

IF I argue for the historicity of the gospels, what will I be told in this thread? That we are talking about evidence outside of the NT.

No, actually, you'll be shown why the historicity of the Gospels is HIGHLY questionable and actually makes better counter evidence.

That's NOT what she said. She didn't say if you take away the gospels, she said if you take away the Christian stuff. That's the gospels, the church fathers, the epistles, the historical evidence of the church writings, all things christian en masse.

not the christian part the RELIGIOUS part. the part that a non religious person would immediately discount, the part that cant be verified anyway

meaning the miracles, the resurrection, god and the holy spirit showing up at the baptism of jesus, the loaves and fishes, the temptation of jesus in the destert by satan, the casting out of demons from people into pigs, saul being assaulted by god on the road to damascus, the various effects of the pentacost, that sort of thing.

There is something both amusing and highly intellectually dishonest about an argument that goes "if I can't use documents that are not historical, contain numerous errors, and are obviously biased to demonstrate jesus existed, you can't use them to show how the only evidence for jesus is not historical!"

IF I argue for the historicity of the gospels, what will I be told in this thread? That we are talking about evidence outside of the NT.

IF I argue for the historicity of the gospels, what will I be told in this thread? That we are talking about evidence outside of the NT.

Not at all, you are perfectly free to argue for the historicity of the gospels.

however, doing so will require you to demonstrate why they are valid historical records. A herculian task, to be sure, and one already refuted numerous times.

You are free to use HISTORICAL texts in a HISTORY discussion. The gospels, I fear, are a poor choice for such, not because they are in the new testament, but rather because they make poor, and unsubstantiated, historical records.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Its actually obvious that he did, he was in alot of roman records and he was marked down as executed for challenging the throne by claiming he was a king. To say that he didn't flat out exist is foolish and ignorant since it is an established fact he existed. Now I'm a christan, I won't deny that, but the main question about his life is if he really was the savior of man, not if he actually lived. He was prosecuted by pontous pilot who was a regional governor and there are records that survived all the way to the dark ages and were kept in big shiny vaults by the holy roman empire and eventually the vatican. come on people brush up on very vauge history eh? I'm shocked that some people don't think the holocaust ever happened...:(

Its actually obvious that he did, he was in alot of roman records and he was marked down as executed for challenging the throne by claiming he was a king. what? the? fuck?
there is not a single roman record. and even according to the bible he was not challenging any throne and did not ever claim to be king.

Its actually obvious that he did, he was in alot of roman records and he was marked down as executed for challenging the throne by claiming he was a king. To say that he didn't flat out exist is foolish and ignorant since it is an established fact he existed. Now I'm a christan, I won't deny that, but the main question about his life is if he really was the savior of man, not if he actually lived. He was prosecuted by pontous pilot who was a regional governor and there are records that survived all the way to the dark ages and were kept in big shiny vaults by the holy roman empire and eventually the vatican. come on people brush up on very vauge history eh? I'm shocked that some people don't think the holocaust ever happened...:(

We have been talking about you on some of the last few pages.
Well, not you - but your archetype. People that post these statements without checking the thread to see they have been refuted and shown wrong a few dozen times already. People that make 1 post here and then disappear.

Will you break the spell, or will you remain a member of the legion of satan worshipping liars ?

Its actually obvious that he did, he was in alot of roman records and he was marked down as executed for challenging the throne by claiming he was a king. To say that he didn't flat out exist is foolish and ignorant since it is an established fact he existed. Now I'm a christan, I won't deny that, but the main question about his life is if he really was the savior of man, not if he actually lived. He was prosecuted by pontous pilot who was a regional governor and there are records that survived all the way to the dark ages and were kept in big shiny vaults by the holy roman empire and eventually the vatican. come on people brush up on very vauge history eh? I'm shocked that some people don't think the holocaust ever happened...:(

have you read these records yourself? can you provide a like to a translation of them so we can read them too?

Its actually obvious that he did, he was in alot of roman records and he was marked down as executed for challenging the throne by claiming he was a king. To say that he didn't flat out exist is foolish and ignorant since it is an established fact he existed. Now I'm a christan, I won't deny that, but the main question about his life is if he really was the savior of man, not if he actually lived. He was prosecuted by pontous pilot who was a regional governor and there are records that survived all the way to the dark ages and were kept in big shiny vaults by the holy roman empire and eventually the vatican. come on people brush up on very vauge history eh? I'm shocked that some people don't think the holocaust ever happened...:(

Not a wise idea to stick out your neck when people are swinging swords, and comparing this to holocaust denial won't win you many friends either...

We have been talking about you on some of the last few pages.
Well, not you - but your archetype. People that post these statements without checking the thread to see they have been refuted and shown wrong a few dozen times already. People that make 1 post here and then disappear.

Will you break the spell, or will you remain a member of the legion of satan worshipping liars ?

pity, I had hoped that by this point you could have established at least that christians do not worship satan. as a matter of fact I wouldn't, and couldn't, touch the guy with a 10ft pole. If you choose to disregard all historical evidence go ahead, ignorance is bliss. But you have forgotten that any and all evedince pertaining to jesus will be considered holy and thus not a part of this discussion. So if you want to leave out all records that ever existed including the ancient roman records just because they had passed through the vatican at some point (and carbon dating later) then go ahead. I'm not even going to bother with this thread anymore considering that the majority of people on here are nonbelivers and try to spread ill feelings wherever they can and use simple debating techniques to destroy as many valid peices of evidence just so they can continue to live in bliss. don't even bother replying, I won't respond. If you choose to not belive in historical facts I guess thats your choice.

Not at all, you are perfectly free to argue for the historicity of the gospels.

however, doing so will require you to demonstrate why they are valid historical records. A herculian task, to be sure, and one already refuted numerous times.

You are free to use HISTORICAL texts in a HISTORY discussion. The gospels, I fear, are a poor choice for such, not because they are in the new testament, but rather because they make poor, and unsubstantiated, historical records.

if not jesus, who do you say founded christianity?

have you read these records yourself? can you provide a like to a translation of them so we can read them too?

it is easy and has been done already, they mention his name next to two people who were down for murder, it was an execution writ.

pity, I had hoped that by this point you could have established at least that christians do not worship satan. as a matter of fact I wouldn't, and couldn't, touch the guy with a 10ft pole. If you choose to disregard all historical evidence go ahead, ignorance is bliss. But you have forgotten that any and all evedince pertaining to jesus will be considered holy and thus not a part of this discussion. So if you want to leave out all records that ever existed including the ancient roman records just because they had passed through the vatican at some point (and carbon dating later) then go ahead. I'm not even going to bother with this thread anymore considering that the majority of people on here are nonbelivers and try to spread ill feelings wherever they can and use simple debating techniques to destroy as many valid peices of evidence just so they can continue to live in bliss. don't even bother replying, I won't respond. If you choose to not belive in historical facts I guess thats your choice.There is no historical evidence for Jesus. Face it.

it is easy and has been done already, they mention his name next to two people who were down for murder, it was an execution writ.

If it's easy, then provide it. We'll wait. It seems everyone tells how it easy it is and how many times it's been done, but as of yet, no one actually, you know, does it.

it is easy and has been done already, they mention his name next to two people who were down for murder, it was an execution writ.show us.

Liars worship Satan. The Bible is extremely clear on that. Prince of lies and all.

You post lies. That makes you a liar. Therefor you worship Satan. QED.You base your argument on what the bible writes? And accept it as substantial? I am surprised.

pity, I had hoped that by this point you could have established at least that christians do not worship satan.

Liars worship Satan. The Bible is extremely clear on that. Prince of lies and all.

You post lies. That makes you a liar. Therefor you worship Satan. QED.

Its actually obvious that he did, he was in alot of roman records and he was marked down as executed for challenging the throne by claiming he was a king.

This is another interesting claim which pops up nearly as frequently as the Julius Caesar comparison: when I asked the opinion of an intelligent Christian friend of mine on the whole 'Jesus didn't exist' thing, her first reaction was to say that there were extant Roman records which show he was crucified. Most people react in this way, although none of them seem to know where these records are (IIRC it was my initial reaction when I first encountered Mythicism on this forum :p). I wonder whether it's an apocryphal reference to Tacitus, or just one of the Christian urban legends, like the deathbed conversions of Darwin and Paine, which are widely believed but never substantiated.

it is easy and has been done already, they mention his name next to two people who were down for murder, it was an execution writ.

no one has yet posted a link. you can be the first to prove us to be fools.

got for it!

You base your argument on what the bible writes? And accept is as substantial? I am surprised.

Hey - why not. The only way they can disagree is to dismiss the Bible. Which ties nicely to the main topic of this thread.

it is easy and has been done already, they mention his name next to two people who were down for murder, it was an execution writ.

Source? Where can we read these for ourselves?

Kudos for actually responding by the way, the drive-by posting was getting annoying. :)

pity, I had hoped that by this point you could have established at least that christians do not worship satan. as a matter of fact I wouldn't, and couldn't, touch the guy with a 10ft pole. If you choose to disregard all historical evidence go ahead, ignorance is bliss. But you have forgotten that any and all evedince pertaining to jesus will be considered holy and thus not a part of this discussion. So if you want to leave out all records that ever existed including the ancient roman records just because they had passed through the vatican at some point (and carbon dating later) then go ahead. I'm not even going to bother with this thread anymore considering that the majority of people on here are nonbelivers and try to spread ill feelings wherever they can and use simple debating techniques to destroy as many valid peices of evidence just so they can continue to live in bliss. don't even bother replying, I won't respond. If you choose to not belive in historical facts I guess thats your choice.

I'm a believe. I'm also a scholar and don't accept that scholarly acceptance and religious acceptance are equal.

I find your claims to be disgenuine. You claim it would be easy to provide yet refuse to provide it. The roman records if they are compelling would be excellent corroborative evidence.

Which contemporary historians recorded those people with impartiality?

Man what a smoke screen huh. Lets just assume that no historian is impartial, I mean impartiality matters not a jot to this anyway.

The fact remains that apart from the bible there are no accounts of Jesus life.

If he was indeed running around doing all of this miraculous stuff, you would think that there would be somebody who recorded it.

Please cite any sources that you have that document the life of Jesus apart from any biblical source, please I want to be proved wrong here.

If he was indeed running around doing all of this miraculous stuff, you would think that there would be somebody who recorded it.

I'd certainly expect somebody to record the zombie invasion found in the Gospel of Matthew, unless zombies were an everyday hazard in first century Judea.

"Honey, the zombies are at the dustbins again!"

"Dammit! They're worse than the foxes! Where's my shotgun?"

:D

Liars worship Satan. The Bible is extremely clear on that. Prince of lies and all.

You post lies. That makes you a liar. Therefor you worship Satan. QED.

In fairness, lying requires an intention to deceive. If they continue to make their claim after being carefully corrected then it will be reasonable to call them a liar, but until then let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

pity, I had hoped that by this point you could have established at least that christians do not worship satan. as a matter of fact I wouldn't, and couldn't, touch the guy with a 10ft pole. If you choose to disregard all historical evidence go ahead, ignorance is bliss. But you have forgotten that any and all evedince pertaining to jesus will be considered holy and thus not a part of this discussion. So if you want to leave out all records that ever existed including the ancient roman records just because they had passed through the vatican at some point (and carbon dating later) then go ahead. I'm not even going to bother with this thread anymore considering that the majority of people on here are nonbelivers and try to spread ill feelings wherever they can and use simple debating techniques to destroy as many valid peices of evidence just so they can continue to live in bliss. don't even bother replying, I won't respond. If you choose to not belive in historical facts I guess thats your choice.

Lol! He's saying that you're lying if you don't provide proof, and lying is bad in Christianity right?

So you won't bother facing nonbelievers? How will you convince people then, if you can't handle their "simple debating techniques"? Again, we're waiting for your historical facts. We can't check it out if you just claim "Oh it's at the Vatican, but it exists!". In fact, if you could provide some valid historical evidence, I'm sure most of the people arguing against Christ's existence would be on your side. But you need to provide the proof, not simply claim it exists. If you just say "It's at the Vatican", you won't convince anyone. In fact, it doesn't help you at all, ever heard of the "Donation of Constantine"?

Hey - why not. The only way they can disagree is to dismiss the Bible. Which ties nicely to the main topic of this thread.How? What does the bible have to do with Jesus' existence? ;)

Man what a smoke screen huh. Lets just assume that no historian is impartial, I mean impartiality matters not a jot to this anyway.

The fact remains that apart from the bible there are no accounts of Jesus life.

If he was indeed running around doing all of this miraculous stuff, you would think that there would be somebody who recorded it.

Please cite any sources that you have that document the life of Jesus apart from any biblical source, please I want to be proved wrong here.

Sorry i lied I have to respond to this. There are no records apart from the bible because the records are a part of the bible. The actual records were supposedly kept in the vaults along with the shroud of turin but were possibly damaged by a fire a long time ago. That is why this disscussion is so foolish. It can only be resolved by faith or of the lack thereof, that is why it is called faith. If you want a source watch the history channel until the "did jesus exist" episode comes on sometime around 2 in the morning.

Sorry i lied I have to respond to this. There are no records apart from the bible because the records are a part of the bible. The actual records were supposedly kept in the vaults along with the shroud of turin but were possibly damaged by a fire a long time ago. That is why this disscussion is so foolish.what?

It can only be resolved by faith of the lack thereof, that is why it is called faith.so faith is detached from reality? what's it good for then?

Sorry i lied I have to respond to this. There are no records apart from the bible because the records are a part of the bible. The actual records were supposedly kept in the vaults along with the shroud of turin but were possibly damaged by a fire a long time ago. That is why this disscussion is so foolish. It can only be resolved by faith or of the lack thereof, that is why it is called faith. If you want a source watch the history channel until the "did jesus exist" episode comes on sometime around 2 in the morning.

well its a good thing they saved the shroud of turin!


so you agree that there IS no evidence that jesus really existed and that you only believe it because it is a matter of faith?

Sorry i lied I have to respond to this.

I salute you. That was brave.

That is why this disscussion is so foolish. It can only be resolved by faith or of the lack thereof, that is why it is called faith.

In full agreement. If more people now would stop falsely claiming there is abundant historical evidence, but just state they simply have Faith there would be no quarrel with me.

.... and that you only believe it because it is a matter of faith?well, that's called belief for belief's sake.

In full agreement. If more people now would stop falsely claiming there is abundant historical evidence, but just state they simply have Faith there would be no quarrel with me.but faith is irrelevant when it comes to determining historical facts or circumstances, like Jesus' existence or circumstances of his possible existence.

Yeah, I said Eric accidentally because it's my name.

Meanwhile, you're making a claim that if you remove the recordings that historians of the time made, even if they have some fantastical examples (as did Cleopatra), that you've got nothing.

However, the recordings of Jesus don't claim to be histories. They claim to be recordings of the faith and the proof of Jesus' position as messiah. You keep ignoring this, but not only are not they not a history nor ever tried to be a history, but they also have a purpose that makes them directly contrary to history.

You say that Paul (for example), didn't write that Jesus came in the flesh, neither did Peter nor John? What makes you say that? They clearly say he came in the flesh. But this thread says that because they were religious and Christian, we don't accept their testimony. But YOU are saying the testimony they give says Jesus wasn't real? That's a new one, and a badly mistaken one.

not the christian part the RELIGIOUS part. the part that a non religious person would immediately discount, the part that cant be verified anyway

meaning the miracles, the resurrection, god and the holy spirit showing up at the baptism of jesus, the loaves and fishes, the temptation of jesus in the destert by satan, the casting out of demons from people into pigs, saul being assaulted by god on the road to damascus, the various effects of the pentacost, that sort of thing.

It's not like those parts were added to the story later. The very earliest versions of the religious christian works that we have have those stories (specifically those stories you mentioned) in them.

but faith is irrelevant when it comes to determining historical facts or circumstances, like Jesus' existence or circumstances of his possible existence.

Correct. But people that are honest about basing their belief in his existence entirely on Faith (which IMO is not a dirty word) would simply not participate in topics like this. Or even join with the "there is no evidence" side.

Correct. But people that are honest about basing their belief in his existence entirely on Faith (which IMO is not a dirty word) would simply not participate in topics like this. Or even join with the "there is no evidence" side.you phrase this as if faith and belief were different things and that basing faith on faith actually made sense.

Then I'm afraid that given that, the possibility that the Jesus wrote about in the bible actually existing is pretty much nil.

We know that there are contempary records of other historical figures of that time. So it is astounding to assume that this Jesus was a real man.

I know all about faith, I am a religious man myself, but blind faith is no more than an excersie in stupidity.all faith is blind, otherwise it would be knowledge, honey.

Correct. But people that are honest about basing their belief in his existence entirely on Faith (which IMO is not a dirty word) would simply not participate in topics like this. Or even join with the "there is no evidence" side.

That's seems to be contrary to what Jocabia is saying about himself? Was that your intent?

You say that Paul (for example), didn't write that Jesus came in the flesh, neither did Peter nor John? What makes you say that? They clearly say he came in the flesh. But this thread says that because they were religious and Christian, we don't accept their testimony. But YOU are saying the testimony they give says Jesus wasn't real? That's a new one, and a badly mistaken one.

I'm talking about the purposes of the documents. You're attempting to twist things around so your argument doesn't look so silly, and you're failing on both counts.

They do not claim to be histories. Their intent is to document the teachings, explore them and to support them. It's purpose was not historical at all.

I don't care that it said Jesus wore sandals because they weren't trying to validate that he did, in fact, wear sandals, but rather to shed further light on his position as a poor, street preacher. And if it turned out that Jesus actually wore Nike Crosstrainers, it wouldn't make them liars. The footwear of Jesus wasn't the point. The document wasn't historical.

That you cannot seperate actual history from a faithful story that clearly filled in some gaps in order to preach to the faithful only harms your credibility.

Sorry i lied I have to respond to this. There are no records apart from the bible because the records are a part of the bible. The actual records were supposedly kept in the vaults along with the shroud of turin but were possibly damaged by a fire a long time ago. That is why this disscussion is so foolish. It can only be resolved by faith or of the lack thereof, that is why it is called faith. If you want a source watch the history channel until the "did jesus exist" episode comes on sometime around 2 in the morning.

Then I'm afraid that given that, the possibility that the Jesus wrote about in the bible actually existing is pretty much nil.

We know that there are contempary records of other historical figures of that time. So it is astounding to assume that this Jesus was a real man.

I know all about faith, I am a religious man myself, but blind faith is no more than an excersie in stupidity.

That's seems to be contrary to what Jocabia is saying about himself? Was that your intent?

Oh, yeah? What is Jocabia saying about himself?

How? What does the bible have to do with Jesus' existence? ;)

It's the most commonly believed and unprovable book that documents Christ's existence and Godly being.

Sure, there are other accounts, but flaws may exist in them.

Correct. But people that are honest about basing their belief in his existence entirely on Faith (which IMO is not a dirty word) would simply not participate in topics like this. Or even join with the "there is no evidence" side.

Here's the thing: The Bible can't and hasn't been proven wrong. We'll take it from my point of view: I know, from the evidence, that there is a God, he has a Son, he died for our sins, ect. Those can't be proven wrong, and to the contrary, common sense will support them. (Look at evolution, and how it was proved wrong hundreds of years ago, yet is still pretty much the biggest scientific THEORY on earth, and has really become it's own religion.)

God created the world. Yeah. Jesus existed, yeah. Ect.

Here is where, personally, faith is required and put into use for and by me:

I was asked, what if God is just the god of this universe, and there are many more universes with their own gods, (realms, universes, dimensions, whatever you want to call them,) which renders your god as only righteous by the standards he put down?

Well, he hasn't lied about anything else, so it's illogical to say he'd lie only here and nowhere else.


That may seem over-advanced or illogical, but that's how it is.

Here's the thing: The Bible can't and hasn't been proven wrong. We'll take it from my point of view: I know, from the evidence, that there is a God, he has a Son, he died for our sins, ect. Those can't be proven wrong, and to the contrary, common sense will support them. (Look at evolution, and how it was proved wrong hundreds of years ago, yet is still pretty much the biggest scientific THEORY on earth, and has really become it's own religion.)



but

the bible has been proven wrong in many of its historical and scientific aspects

the theory of evolution isnt hundreds of years old so it cant have been proven wrong hundreds of years ago

oh and yeah, evolution hasnt been proven wrong

and it isnt a religion

Oh, yeah? What is Jocabia saying about himself?

Summit about 12" and it swings when he walks?

(Look at evolution,

Yes.

and how it was proved wrong hundreds of years ago,

No.

yet is still pretty much the biggest scientific THEORY on earth,

Educate yourself. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html)

and has really become it's own religion.)

No.

Tune in next week for another edition of Short Answers to Silly Assertions.

Here's the thing: The Bible can't and hasn't been proven wrong.

You do know that there wasn't a flood though yeah?

Summit about 12" and it swings when he walks?

Oh, my arm is much longer, but boy does it swing.

You do know that there wasn't a flood though yeah?

I suppose then you have proof that there isnt. There is proof of water erosion on some extremly old buildings. Also there are many relegions that believe that jesus existed. Some Muslims and Jews beleived he did exist and of course chiristians will say that he did.

I suppose then you have proof that there isnt. There is proof of water erosion on some extremly old buildings.

And you believe that that proves a global flood that destroyed almost all life ?

What proves exodus in your mind, pray tell ? It is after all amazing how the Egyptians and their neighbouring nations did not notice all those plagues and that the brunt of their labour force left.

Oh, yeah? What is Jocabia saying about himself?


Was I mistaken? basing their belief in his existence entirely on Faith (which IMO is not a dirty word) Doesn't that apply to your argument about your own views? And then he said, would simply not participate in topics like this, and I thought, but Jocabia is. If that description of his doesn't apply to you, my apologies then.

...
That you cannot seperate actual history from a faithful story that clearly filled in some gaps in order to preach to the faithful only harms your credibility.

So now you think there is proof of actual Jesus in history via the NT works? Interesting, but that's not the topic here apparently.

Jesus is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that Jesus, my Lord and Savior. Many people will try to say that he does not, they will try to destroy his message and what he stood for but as much as you try you can not. If you want to think that he did not exist and that he is not important that is fine you can think that. I do know that, that is the work of the devil and I am guarded from that I am a firm believer in everything that God says and there is nothing you can do to make me think other wise. But when you are there for yourself at the throne of God when that time the Rapture does come and God looks at you and when you are crying out to him asking for forgiveness and trying to get into Heaven he will say that I do not know you and you will go to Hell. I know that some will not agree with me and I know that I will be mocked, but Jesus was not accepted and I know that I will not either. So think what ever you like, but do not try to get people to think that he did not exist for you can not mess with a child of God.

Was I mistaken? basing their belief in his existence entirely on Faith (which IMO is not a dirty word) Doesn't that apply to your argument about your own views? And then he said, would simply not participate in topics like this, and I thought, but Jocabia is. If that description of his doesn't apply to you, my apologies then.

Actually, he said that they either wouldn't participate or they would on the side that is arguing that the evidence doesn't demonstrate the existence of Jesus. That would be the side I'm arguing on. Incidentally, at the beginning of the thread I was arguing equally vehemently with someone claiming that one can claim Jesus did not exist. Neither claim is compelling. At all.

Jesus is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that Jesus, my Lord and Savior.

That is nice for you. Unfortunately, this topic is about finding evidence that would appeal to nonbelievers and not about your gut feelings.

Feles mala! Cur cista non uteris? Stramentum novum in ea posui.

(Thor) is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that (Thor), my Lord and Savior. Many people will try to say that he does not, they will try to destroy his message and what he stood for but as much as you try you can not. If you want to think that he did not exist and that he is not important that is fine you can think that. I do know that, that is the work of (Loki) and I am guarded from that I am a firm believer in everything that (Odin) says and there is nothing you can do to make me think other wise. But when you are there for yourself at the throne of (Odin) when that time the (Great Battle) does come and (Odin) looks at you and when you are crying out to him asking for forgiveness and trying to get into (Asgaard) he will say that I do not know you and you will go to (Hel). I know that some will not agree with me and I know that I will be mocked, but (Thor) was not accepted and I know that I will not either. So think what ever you like, but do not try to get people to think that he did not exist for you can not mess with a child of (Odin).

:rolleyes:

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

If u want scientific work, read "Heligt blod, Helig gral". (search and find the writers, cant remember them or the english title) The only scientific approach to the bible i know about.

If u want scientific work, read "Heligt blod, Helig gral". (search and find the writers, cant remember them or the english title) The only scientific approach to the bible i know about.

isnt "holy blood holy grail" the book that dan brown stole all his ideas in the da vinci code from?

If u want scientific work, read "Heligt blod, Helig gral". (search and find the writers, cant remember them or the english title) The only scientific approach to the bible i know about.

Holy Blood and the Holy Grail? It's junk-history and the basis for the DaVinci Code. Need I say more?

isnt "holy blood holy grail" the book that dan brown stole all his ideas in the da vinci code from?

Yep.

Holy Blood and the Holy Grail? It's junk-history and the basis for the DaVinci Code. Need I say more?

its probably a good illustration of why the church hasnt encouraged historical studies. give people a chance and they come up with all sorts of heresy that then has to be stamped out.

:rolleyes:

(Krishna) is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that (Krishna), my Lord and Savior. Many people will try to say that he does not, they will try to destroy his message and what he stood for but as much as you try you can not. If you want to think that he did not exist and that he is not important that is fine you can think that. I do know that, that is the work of (...actually Hinduism doesn't really have a central traditional devil/trickster figure, so I can't find an equivalent to this one...) and I am guarded from that I am a firm believer in everything that (Vishnu) says and there is nothing you can do to make me think other wise. But when you are there for yourself at the throne of (Vishnu) when that time the (I'm actually not sure what the Hindu concept of the end of the world is, but given the cyclical nature of Hindu mythology, I doubt one really exists) does come and (Vishnu) looks at you and when you are crying out to him asking for forgiveness and trying to get into (No real Heaven equivalent either. This is actually somewhat more difficult that I realized when I set out to do this) he will say that I do not know you and you will go to (No real Hell, either. Maybe I should just stop, but this post is almost over anyway). I know that some will not agree with me and I know that I will be mocked, but (Krishna) was not accepted and I know that I will not either. So think what ever you like, but do not try to get people to think that he did not exist for you can not mess with a child of (Vishnu).



...that took a whole lot more effort than it may seem to have to those of you reading this.

...that took a whole lot more effort than it may seem to have to those of you reading this.

nice

but almost certainly lost on those it was aimed at.

nice

but almost certainly lost on those it was aimed at.

Not wholly. I've more or less given up hope that people like Pharaoh Yohance is actually going to learn something from his time on NSG. Same with the other one-post-wonders who pop in here and then scurry off to their little holes to cackle at how they've trolled this fair forum.
If I manage to get a chuckle, chortle, or at the very least a full blown smirk from the more intelligent and capable posters on NSG, regardless of which side of the fence they sit on in this debate, then I've hit my target audience.

I suppose then you have proof that there isnt. There is proof of water erosion on some extremly old buildings. Also there are many relegions that believe that jesus existed. Some Muslims and Jews beleived he did exist and of course chiristians will say that he did.you are not so informed, are you?
there are no buildings from the time that The Flood supposedly happened (between 3500 and 3000 BCE).
Muslims do of course believe that Jesus existed as he is the second most important prophet of Islam. And what Jews believe nobody really knows.

Jesus is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that Jesus, my Lord and Savior. Many people will try to say that he does not, they will try to destroy his message and what he stood for but as much as you try you can not. If you want to think that he did not exist and that he is not important that is fine you can think that. I do know that, that is the work of the devil and I am guarded from that I am a firm believer in everything that God says and there is nothing you can do to make me think other wise. But when you are there for yourself at the throne of God when that time the Rapture does come and God looks at you and when you are crying out to him asking for forgiveness and trying to get into Heaven he will say that I do not know you and you will go to Hell. I know that some will not agree with me and I know that I will be mocked, but Jesus was not accepted and I know that I will not either. So think what ever you like, but do not try to get people to think that he did not exist for you can not mess with a child of God.

The old "who feels it knows it" bullshit? You should become a Rastafarian.

The old "who feels it knows it" bullshit? You should become a Rastafarian.

and have every day be a bad hair day?

no thank you

you are not so informed, are you?
there are no buildings from the time that The Flood supposedly happened (between 3500 and 3000 BCE).


Well, duh. The Flood washed them away!
Proof if I ever saw it.

you are not so informed, are you?
there are no buildings from the time that The Flood supposedly happened (between 3500 and 3000 BCE).
Muslims do of course believe that Jesus existed as he is the second most important prophet of Islam. And what Jews believe nobody really knows.

I think you forgot Ġgantija on Malta.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/gantija.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYswsAtXRfY

And that was weak, unless you doubt the veracity of Jewish/Hebrew Males in Judea during the first century.

What if you doubt the veracity of Jeish/Hebrew males in Judea... that got resurrected?

The Jesish/Hebrew bit... that's the equivalent of your 'iclenadic', perhaps... but it is the miracles and the I-am-the-son-of-god stuff that was the 'religion'.

is it?

certainly there are quite a few legendary people who either didnt exist or are so changed by the legend as to be irrelevant to their own story.

king arthur springs to mind. (not that i know where the current thinking is on the historicity of the king arthur legend)

at the same time there ARE people from ancient times that we can be pretty sure existed (even if some of the stories about them are obviously false). julius caesar, alexander the great, and cleopatra come to mind.

I've actually encountered a book that argued Jesus Christ IS Julius Caesar - an attempt to extend the story beyond the mortal death of the all-too-human Julius...

You are using really poor debate form logic. The debate rules of this thread is that I can't use the gospels as evidence of historicity. So I'm not using them. You want to fight about what the gospels say, start the thread, I'll likely join up. But in the end, if I can't use the gospels as evidence, neither can you use them as counter evidence.

The debate rules don't really say that you can't use the gospels as evidence - just that they make pisspoor evidence, because they have an established bias, were written a considerable time after the facts are alleged to have transpired, were written by totally non-independent sources (i.e. they were people who already bought into the story), and cannot be effectively corroborated by any OTHER source.

If you can find another source - even ONE other source - that avoids all those pitfalls, then you've really got something.

For Julius, for example - we have the coins minted suring his reign, bearing his likeness, and those minted by his successor, bearing both the likeness of himself and Julius, and claiming him as his predecessor. Not perfect, but good circumstantial evidence to bolster the claims of his existence.

What have you got for Jesus?

If we all agree with that, then then we are pretty much done with this thread.

We're trying to agree what the 'historical' Jesus would be, not trying to agree that he must have existed if we accept that definition.

Do you accept that as a 'historical' Jesus, with all the 'religion' stripped away - because THAT would be something we could agree on a reasonable burden of proof for.

have you read these records yourself? can you provide a like to a translation of them so we can read them too?

I can probably do okay even sans translation...

I can probably do okay even sans translation...

He later admitted he was claiming it was evidence that is part of the Bible. He was pretty funny.

pity, I had hoped that by this point you could have established at least that christians do not worship satan.

Off topic, perhaps. But, since I don't mind indulging the occassional aside... if you believe in 'god' and 'satan'... why assume that 'god' was the one that inspired the bible? It's not like it's handwritten in god's own writing, or bears a godly fingerprint on the flyleaf...

It's entirely possible that the bible is entirely dictated by 'satan' just to trick people into following the wrong 'god'...

I suppose then you have proof that there isnt. There is proof of water erosion on some extremly old buildings. Also there are many relegions that believe that jesus existed. Some Muslims and Jews beleived he did exist and of course chiristians will say that he did.

Some water erosion on some old buildings - equates to universal flood story?

How do you explain that Abram later 'walked round the flood'?

How do you explain that the Hebrew links the 'flood' clauses with limited geographies like 'as far as the eye can see' (or words to that effect) - which is very different to 'all the world'.

How do you explain that established peoples recording histories existed both before AND after the alleged flood, and seem to have neglected to mention that they all died. Pretty careless omission, really.

And what Jews believe nobody really knows.

Uh-oh, Bel is back on his anti-semitic rampage.

One assumes that 'jews', would know what 'jews' believe.

I think you forgot Ġgantija on Malta.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/gantija.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYswsAtXRfY

How do you know those buildings are that old?

Couldn't resist...

He later admitted he was claiming it was evidence that is part of the Bible. He was pretty funny.

Caught up now. Yes, I see. Still, my hopes weren't high.

(Krishna) is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that (Krishna), my Lord and Savior. Many people will try to say that he does not, they will try to destroy his message and what he stood for but as much as you try you can not. If you want to think that he did not exist and that he is not important that is fine you can think that. I do know that, that is the work of (...actually Hinduism doesn't really have a central traditional devil/trickster figure, so I can't find an equivalent to this one...) and I am guarded from that I am a firm believer in everything that (Vishnu) says and there is nothing you can do to make me think other wise. But when you are there for yourself at the throne of (Vishnu) when that time the (I'm actually not sure what the Hindu concept of the end of the world is, but given the cyclical nature of Hindu mythology, I doubt one really exists) does come and (Vishnu) looks at you and when you are crying out to him asking for forgiveness and trying to get into (No real Heaven equivalent either. This is actually somewhat more difficult that I realized when I set out to do this) he will say that I do not know you and you will go to (No real Hell, either. Maybe I should just stop, but this post is almost over anyway). I know that some will not agree with me and I know that I will be mocked, but (Krishna) was not accepted and I know that I will not either. So think what ever you like, but do not try to get people to think that he did not exist for you can not mess with a child of (Vishnu).



...that took a whole lot more effort than it may seem to have to those of you reading this.

I;)

Over 2 billion people believe so. Meaning it is pointless to even bother over it.

What's that T-shirt say about Australia and flies?
;)

And why would that be sad?

It would be sad if we never opened our hearts to Jeebus. And its so-called followers.
Us not converting. Not them, us.

How about you show some respect to everyone else's imagination the same, hmmm?
Want to know about some of the places my mind wanders? Do you have an hour or two to listen to my musings? Do you want a pamphlet?

Would it be wrong to start knocking on doors and asking people if they've 'discovered the truth of NO god yet'? To hand out pamphlets claiming the infinite wonder of a world WITHOUT god? To stop people in the street so I can witness to them about NO 'salvation'?

Why can't you just show some respect???

How about you show some respect to everyone else's imagination the same, hmmm?
Want to know about some of the places my mind wanders? Do you have an hour or two to listen to my musings? Do you want a pamphlet?

If we all agree with that, then then we are pretty much done with this thread.

Run away! Run AWAY!
*The Corneliu Maneuver*

I think he's a myth, not that that's a bad thing. A lot of the stories in the bible work much better as metaphorical guides on how to live than they do as actual history. It wouldn't surprise me that that was the original intent, either, seeing as how people much closer to the actual time (St. Augustine and Origen spring to mind) seem to have taken it as being metaphor... although that portion of Augustine's thought isn't generally looked at and Origen was excommunicated later when the church got more into the whole literalism thing.

There's a veritable tonne of stories that match those of Christ, though. Lots of saviours (Bacchus, for one) were born on December 25th, lots followed the same general guidelines. Looking at the pertinent details between Siddartha Gautama and Jesus Christ, I could almost think that they were the same person. There are similar myths extending even further back.

The thing is, I don't think that hurts the teaching. The message I take from myths is primarily positive, whereas literalist doctrine seems to teach that none of us can achieve that same state, so what's the point of trying? That might not be the intention, but that's always been how I've felt.

P.S. In further support of the Jesus/Buddha thing I mentioned earlier... reincarnation and karma were part of the known teachings of the early church.

In other areas, many of the books that might help us understand about the similarities between Christianity and *every* other religion on earth were often burned by the church, which makes comparison difficult... but not impossible entirely (with the Buddhist comparison, anyways).

I just hope people take the messages with them, really. I'm constantly perplexed as to how two different people telling two different groups to be nice to people could have caused such a long and bloody series of wars as modern religions have... and of course, we've had more than two people, and more than two groups.

Will you break the spell, or will you remain a member of the legion of satan worshipping liars ?

Sigworthy!

well its a good thing they saved the shroud of turin!

Yeppers!
I recall, for some reason, that whole discussion of god and a condom.

Oh, my arm is much longer, but boy does it swing.
Also sigworthy!
....Eric. :)

First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter Likewise upon ye. Have a dose of your "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth."

:rolleyes:

NSG: What's the matter, honey? you don't feel so good?
Shlarg: Yeah.
NSG: You feel like you wanna throw up?
Shlarg: Ok
[barfs all over NSG, and starts laughing]
:p

(Krishna) is not a myth and he did in fact exist. First I do not really care what anyone else says about this matter because I know in my heart and mind, for a fact that (Krishna), my Lord and Savior. Many people will try to say that he does not, they will try to destroy his message and what he stood for but as much as you try you can not. If you want to think that he did not exist and that he is not important that is fine you can think that. I do know that, that is the work of (...actually Hinduism doesn't really have a central traditional devil/trickster figure, so I can't find an equivalent to this one...) and I am guarded from that I am a firm believer in everything that (Vishnu) says and there is nothing you can do to make me think other wise. But when you are there for yourself at the throne of (Vishnu) when that time the (I'm actually not sure what the Hindu concept of the end of the world is, but given the cyclical nature of Hindu mythology, I doubt one really exists) does come and (Vishnu) looks at you and when you are crying out to him asking for forgiveness and trying to get into (No real Heaven equivalent either. This is actually somewhat more difficult that I realized when I set out to do this) he will say that I do not know you and you will go to (No real Hell, either. Maybe I should just stop, but this post is almost over anyway). I know that some will not agree with me and I know that I will be mocked, but (Krishna) was not accepted and I know that I will not either. So think what ever you like, but do not try to get people to think that he did not exist for you can not mess with a child of (Vishnu).



...that took a whole lot more effort than it may seem to have to those of you reading this.

*bows*
Just thinkin' this while i was driving around earlier.

Would it be wrong to start knocking on doors and asking people if they've 'discovered the truth of NO god yet'? To hand out pamphlets claiming the infinite wonder of a world WITHOUT god? To stop people in the street so I can witness to them about NO 'salvation'?It wouldn't be wrong at all, imnsho.
*but*
It's best to give them the switch (for the better, to be certain), like the pamphlets do for Eris.
Not Eric, Eris.
Although i could see him having a cult. :p

*speaking of which* - noticed a slight augmentation to a certain sig ;)

It wouldn't be wrong at all, imnsho.
*but*
It's best to give them the switch (for the better, to be certain), like the pamphlets do for Eris.
Not Eric, Eris.
Although i could see him having a cult. :p


Eric. Eris. It's a mistake that's made more often than you'd care to imagine. :)

Kinda flies in the face of my wanting to witness for 'fundamentalist atheism' though. :D

*grumble grumble* I just get kind of fed up with this preachy stuff. Like I'm expected to defend why I don't believe in story-x, despite the clear existence of like ten thousand other stories, most with at least as much substantiation... *moan grumble*


*speaking of which* - noticed a slight augmentation to a certain sig ;)

Oh, me? Can't turn your nose up at press like that, right? :D

Of course Jesus exists. All the evidence says so:

http://www.jesustortilla.com/

Also probably the bible. :)

Of course Jesus exists. All the evidence says so:

http://www.jesustortilla.com/

Also probably the bible. :)

The tortilla is curiously compelling actually. Maybe because I'm hungry...

Eric. Eris. It's a mistake that's made more often than you'd care to imagine. :) So long as ONE of you writes about it :p

Kinda flies in the face of my wanting to witness for 'fundamentalist atheism' though. :D For me, that would be one of those things i'd invest a few hours in, but no more unless there were drugs and/or eggnog involved.

*grumble grumble* I just get kind of fed up with this preachy stuff. Like I'm expected to defend why I don't believe in story-x, despite the clear existence of like ten thousand other stories, most with at least as much substantiation... *moan grumble*
Well, you're not allowed to hurt their feelings. I think there was a guy earlier with that approach.

Oh, me? Can't turn your nose up at press like that, right? :DMakes me think that i should sig all the times Ruffy and WYTYG were hitting on me :p

Way off-topic, but yes you did

wow dude. u still dont know wat ur talkin about do you. if you actually read the topic i was talking about a wife. i said im not getin one from pakistan. no offense or anythin to anyone who is pakistani.

The idea isn't that proving one proves the other, the idea is that the skeptic asks questions about the historical Jesus that they don't ask of other historical people. For a carpenter familiy's Son in first century Judea we know an awful lot about the Man named Jesus, dozens if not hundreds of people wrote of him for many decades after he was condemned, that's a known fact. Why even ask if he existed or not? The defense attempts to show an anti-Jesus bias by the side that asks the the question itself.

I thank you for responding. Now, to address what you wrote:

First of all, we do ask if "so-and-so" existed only because we're interested in completing the historical record as best we can and that includes finding whatever proof we have for Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar, Shalmaneser III, Charles V and Adolf Hitler (among others). Discovery and research are vital to supplement our knowledge, and healthy criticism of what we've discovered and held before only enhances it. Therefore, it shouldn't be surprising that even account of the life of Jesus Christ gets reviewed and "updated" from time to time.

Second of all, Jesus Christ is FAR from the only figure in history whose existence is debated- figures such as Odysseus and Gilgamesh are also debated by scholars, and even today there are vaguely-accounted for individuals (see "Anthony Godby Johnson"). So to assert that Jesus Christ is being "unfairly picked on" is wildly off the mark.

Third of all, the "Jesus Christ has more evidence than X historical figure" is provided as evidence in a thread asking for proof of Jesus Christ historically. Hence, it is claimed as evidence, no matter how you spin it.

Finally, the claim does in no way rectify the issues for the sources for Jesus Christ historically- whether or not Julius Caesar exists, Constantine exists, Barbara Streisand exists, etc. doesn't change any of the sources or provide new ones- they still say the exact same thing as before. To use the claim is to dodge the issue since it attempts to talk about a completely unrelated issue- the historicity of another historical figure- and is tantamount to admitting defeat, since if your best argument is to flip it to some other topic then that means your claim isn't as solid as it should be.

Fact of the matter is, if you want to rectify whatever historical problems exist for Jesus Christ in the historical record, the only way is to provide sources- and not turn it into another issue entirely.

FYI: Your links there are somewhat dated. The James Ossuary discovery and public attention pissed off the director of the IAA (Mr. Shuka Dorfman) because when it was first brought to the public's eye he was stormed by journalists and he didn't know what they were talking about, and he felt publicly humiliated, and then he got pissed off at Hershel Shanks the director of the Biblical Archaeology Society for 'feeding' the frenzy and to this day the director of the IAA will not let any of his employees publish any works, (at all, not just ossuary material) in any publication owned by BAS. The authenticity of the Ossuary box is far from determined one way or another, all we know is that the IAA doesn't like to let anyone look at it because it’s ‘evidence’ in a case (a case that looks like it will never be brought to trial because proving it's a fake is a lot harder than just implying its a fake and leaving it at that).

But Hershel Shanks got all stubborn right back and keeps pushing for ossuary research http://bib-arch.org/forgery/forgeryreport.html

I did also read the Wikipedia article on the Ossuary (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/James Ossuary) and you'll find the doubters go well beyond just the IAA. I surmised that since Pickleoo didn't use a Wikipedia source it'd be better to respond with a similar kind of source- hence CNN and Archaeology magazine. Still, no matter how dated my sources may be, Pickleoo's is older still.

My position isn't that the Ossuary is a fake- it's just that its authenticity is sketchy. Furthermore, the man who brought forward the Ossuary- Oded Golan- is on trial for "creating forgeries" so the IAA's evidence is at one point going to come to light.

Regardless, the Ossuary- even if it's true- doesn't add much to the story anyway. All it proves is that there were three interconnected characters- Jesus, Joseph and James- and says nothing of their life stories (which would mean providing corroborative evidence for the New Testament stories). It's really nothing to get excited about.

I've actually encountered a book that argued Jesus Christ IS Julius Caesar - an attempt to extend the story beyond the mortal death of the all-too-human Julius...

Have you read it; and what's it called? I'm curious about *that* argument.

I have yet to encounter anyone who can present a convincing argument that Jesus did not exist. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but so far as I know there are no traditions, sources or writings from the first few centuries that deny the existance of the historical Jesus.

For me, that's where the debate ends: there are many independent traditions that vouch for the existance of a man called Jesus in the New Testament, and there are none whatsoever from the first few centuries that deny his existance.

I have yet to encounter anyone who can present a convincing argument that Jesus did not exist. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but so far as I know there are no traditions, sources or writings from the first few centuries that deny the existance of the historical Jesus.

For me, that's where the debate ends: there are many independent traditions that vouch for the existance of a man called Jesus in the New Testament, and there are none whatsoever from the first few centuries that deny his existance.

This is called shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. The burden is on you to present evidence that he existed, not the other way around. You also can't find contemporary evidence that Thor didn't exist. What good does that do?

I think the real issue lies entirely with the Magical Pink Dildo Fairy.
After all, if you cant prove the Magic Pink Dildo Fairy doesnt exist, then of course, it must.

This is called shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. The burden is on you to present evidence that he existed, not the other way around. You also can't find contemporary evidence that Thor didn't exist. What good does that do?

But my point is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, in the canonical gospels alone I reckon I can pick out at least 5 independent souces, all with unique stories about somebody called Jesus. When 5 different souces come up with different, unique stories about the same person, I reckon you can argue about the stories themselves, but denying the existance of their main charachter is drawing rather a long bow.

People deny the existance of Jesus not because of any merit or lack thereof of sources attesting to his existance, but because of the controversial nature of his charachter.

in ancient rome, as edward gibbon wrote long ago, all gods were considered equally true by the people, equally false by philosophers and equally useful by politicians.
this did not changed with christianism: when emperor constantine realized that he needed - for merely political reasons - a state religion he convoked and chaired the council of nicaea (325 ad, quite a while after the "facts") and he asked the 300 people there to actually create christianism "as we know it".
so, christianism is just a "frozen philosophy", exactly like any other religion or creed (judaism is a series of stories about a little people of nomad shepherds living in a forgotten corner of the world; islam is a careful recipe of judaism, christianism and local beliefs, while buddhism...well, I quote from wikipedia. "she walks until she comes to a tree which magically bends down for her. She grasps the limb, and the Buddha emerges from her right side. The baby takes seven steps in each of the four compass directions, and at each step a lotus springs up". yes. very "historical" and likely).

so was jesus a real person? maybe yes. more likely not. probably he is the result of a series of mythological and real characters. there are too many points in common with other stories which were going around in those centuries to suggest that there was one single person called jesus who did this or that.

does it matter? maybe it does not for the believers, at the end. but it does a lot for those who do not believe, as a defence against the absolutism of religions, which always tried to burn/hang/torture/kill-in-any-possible-way those who did not believe.

in ancient rome, as edward gibbon wrote long ago, all gods were considered equally true by the people, equally false by philosophers and equally useful by politicians.
this did not changed with christianism: when emperor constantine realized that he needed - for merely political reasons - a state religion he convoked and chaired the council of nicaea (325 ad, quite a while after the "facts") and he asked the 300 people there to actually create christianism "as we know it".
so, christianism is just a "frozen philosophy", exactly like any other religion or creed (judaism is a series of stories about a little people of nomad shepherds living in a forgotten corner of the world; islam is a careful recipe of judaism, christianism and local beliefs, while buddhism...well, I quote from wikipedia. "she walks until she comes to a tree which magically bends down for her. She grasps the limb, and the Buddha emerges from her right side. The baby takes seven steps in each of the four compass directions, and at each step a lotus springs up". yes. very "historical" and likely).

so was jesus a real person? maybe yes. more likely not. probably he is the result of a series of mythological and real characters. there are too many points in common with other stories which were going around in those centuries to suggest that there was one single person called jesus who did this or that.

does it matter? maybe it does not for the believers, at the end. but it does a lot for those who do not believe, as a defence against the absolutism of religions, which always tried to burn/hang/torture/kill-in-any-possible-way those who did not believe.

Cynical much?

Cynical much?

I call it realism

Only when about Christianity and on NSG can an 8-word OP create 130 pages...

Only when about Christianity and on NSG can an 8-word OP create 130 pages...

I think it is a very interesting discussion. don't you?

But my point is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, in the canonical gospels alone I reckon I can pick out at least 5 independent souces, all with unique stories about somebody called Jesus. When 5 different souces come up with different, unique stories about the same person, I reckon you can argue about the stories themselves, but denying the existance of their main charachter is drawing rather a long bow.

People deny the existance of Jesus not because of any merit or lack thereof of sources attesting to his existance, but because of the controversial nature of his charachter.

You couldnt be more wrong.

First, off, as has been mentioned many, many times in this very thread, the "bible" is not evidence of anything. They lack credibility. Tell me, who wrote them, and when?
Since we cant even answer THAT simple question concerning the gospels, they cartainly cant be credible sources for the existance of a character WHO APPREARS NOWHERE OUTSIDE religious sources.

Listen carefully, because folks like yourself dont seem to understand.
The bible is not an outside contemporary source. They are, essentially, christian propoganda, meant for the study and flourishment of the Christian faith. As such, they are far too biased to take seriously as actual historical proof of the actual existance of Yeshua of Nazereth.
Even if they were not biased, based on the dubious origin of the books, they cannot be used as reliable proof, as they were written decades and decades AFTER Jesus "lived".
They are not contemporary of him.

So, if we now look for independant, contemporary sources that illustrate and vouch for his identity, we find.........*not one single shred*

Many people named Jesus have obviously existed, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries. Actually, the one who is considered the original Jesus did exist, but his name was not Jesus. Instead, he was called Yeshua ben Joseph. Yeshua is an Aramaic form of the name Joshua. 'Jesus' is a Greek/Roman twist.

Many people named Jesus have obviously existed, especially in the Spanish-speaking countries. Actually, the one who is considered the original Jesus did exist, but his name was not Jesus. Instead, he was called Yeshua ben Joseph. Yeshua is an Aramaic form of the name Joshua. 'Jesus' is a Greek/Roman twist.

Actually it's Yeshua Emo McWhirter ben Joseph, Emo and McWhirter come from the mother's side of the family.

These outright statements are rather amusing given the lack of any contemporary evidence - perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, we sift through clues but for someone to claim outright that goddamnit he did exist is, well it's rather cocky really.

I suppose then you have proof that there isnt. There is proof of water erosion on some extremly old buildings. Also there are many relegions that believe that jesus existed. Some Muslims and Jews beleived he did exist and of course chiristians will say that he did.

Indeed, there are tons, and I mean that quite literally, of geological evidence that the world has never undergone a world wide flood.

But my point is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, in the canonical gospels alone I reckon I can pick out at least 5 independent souces, all with unique stories about somebody called Jesus. When 5 different souces come up with different, unique stories about the same person, I reckon you can argue about the stories themselves, but denying the existance of their main charachter is drawing rather a long bow.

People deny the existance of Jesus not because of any merit or lack thereof of sources attesting to his existance, but because of the controversial nature of his charachter.

Yes, sources that were not meant to spread a faith, not record a history. Meanwhile, some of the sources you list don't claim to have direct evidence of the Christ other than their scholarship.

Also, some of the sources are likely passed down from the same source. So similar are they that they use the same descriptive terms. If you did so of this post, you'd be called on plagerism.

On top of that, the historicity of those gospels is WILDLY questionable. Shall I name a few of the issues with things it referenced? Why wasn't Jesus stoned in accordance with Jewish law? Why are there no records of the Passover tradition that Pilate recognizes? Why does it make obviously eroneous references to the OT? There are glaring issues with it even if we ignore that it claims a man came back from the dead and healed with a touch.

Does that mean He didn't? Nope. But it certainly doesn't provide a good method for determining he was a living person. At all.

You couldnt be more wrong.

First, off, as has been mentioned many, many times in this very thread, the "bible" is not evidence of anything. They lack credibility. Tell me, who wrote them, and when?
Since we cant even answer THAT simple question concerning the gospels, they cartainly cant be credible sources for the existance of a character WHO APPREARS NOWHERE OUTSIDE religious sources.

Listen carefully, because folks like yourself dont seem to understand.
The bible is not an outside contemporary source. They are, essentially, christian propoganda, meant for the study and flourishment of the Christian faith. As such, they are far too biased to take seriously as actual historical proof of the actual existance of Yeshua of Nazereth.
Even if they were not biased, based on the dubious origin of the books, they cannot be used as reliable proof, as they were written decades and decades AFTER Jesus "lived".
They are not contemporary of him.

So, if we now look for independant, contemporary sources that illustrate and vouch for his identity, we find.........*not one single shred*

Actually, as has been pointed out, there have been historical figures whose lives were evidenced by provably biased and non-contemporary sources. However, the difference would be that those sources had other confirming evidence. Leif Ericson was an example. The story that told of his exploits were occasionally fantastic, but it was supported by the fact that the locations in the story could not have been described if at least some parts of the story weren't true.

Actually, as has been pointed out, there have been historical figures whose lives were evidenced by provably biased and non-contemporary sources. However, the difference would be that those sources had other confirming evidence. Leif Ericson was an example. The story that told of his exploits were occasionally fantastic, but it was supported by the fact that the locations in the story could not have been described if at least some parts of the story weren't true.

and this has what to do with the Jesus Mythology being true or false?

Are you saying you give the bible creedence as a reliable source?

and this has what to do with the Jesus Mythology being true or false?

Are you saying you give the bible creedence as a reliable source?

I'm saying your reasoning is faulty. Nothing more. Nothing less. Simply because you're making a bad argument for why it's a bad source doesn't suddenly make it a good one.

And simply because you happen to be arriving at the right conclusion, doesn't mean your reasoning is sound. Your reasoning isn't sound and the Bible is not a good source for history.

Being biased or non-contemporary doesn't make a source useless. A source can be both and have a ton of validity. It just needs corroborating evidence.

Would it be wrong to start knocking on doors and asking people if they've 'discovered the truth of NO god yet'? To hand out pamphlets claiming the infinite wonder of a world WITHOUT god? To stop people in the street so I can witness to them about NO 'salvation'?

Heh not at all, I would love to see that.

there are many independent traditions that vouch for the existance of a man called Jesus in the New Testament, and there are none whatsoever from the first few centuries that deny his existance.

Umm 130 pages of people saying this, and yet no body has yet linked to any one of these 'many independant' sources.

Wil you be the first? I'll not hold my breath.

Being biased or non-contemporary doesn't make a source useless. A source can be both and have a ton of validity. It just needs corroborating evidence.

Yes, of wich the bible has absolutely none. You know that as well as I do.
A biased source cannot be reliable. It can only be used to corraborate a non-biased source. Leif Ericcson didnt claim to perform miracles.

So how exactly am I mistaken?

We can point to any of the four "canon" novels, and no author or date of origin can be attested to any of them. As such, they are useless as historical references of any such person as Jesus.

Yes, of wich the bible has absolutely none. You know that as well as I do.

Um, yes, but that wasn't what you said, which is why I corrected you. What you said was incorrect. This additional information was necessary. You're welcome.


A biased source cannot be reliable. It can only be used to corraborate a non-biased source. Leif Ericcson didnt claim to perform miracles.

Bullshit. You're absolutely incorrect. Some of the claims from the sagas were fantastic. The sources were corroborated by checking their historicity. A biased source can absolutely be reliable if it's claims can be backed up with data. You didn't mention that, which is why you were wrong and I corrected you. Again, you're welcome.


So how exactly am I mistaken?

We can point to any of the four "canon" novels, and no author or date of origin can be attested to any of them. As such, they are useless as historical references of any such person as Jesus.

We don't know the author or the specific date of the sagas and their origin was later. This was actually a good point brought up earlier in the thread but used rather poorly. However, we were able to confirm much of the information in them.

We weren't able to do so with the Bible, which is the problem. Almost none of what you're explaining is correct. The information alone that you're giving is not a reason to dismiss a source. The information must ALSO either be impossible to verify or simply shown to stand up to archeological evidence. The Bible has both problems and if you'd mentioned them, I wouldn't have corrected you.

Just say, "oh, oops, you're right, I didn't explain the issues with the Bible as a source well. Thanks for helping me clarify." And go on with your day. No amount of clarifying now is going to make you less wrong and as the post I'm replying to attests, it's likely to make you more wrong.

Um, yes, but that wasn't what you said, which is why I corrected you. What you said was incorrect. This additional information was necessary. You're welcome.




Bullshit. You're absolutely incorrect. Some of the claims from the sagas were fantastic. The sources were corroborated by checking their historicity. A biased source can absolutely be reliable if it's claims can be backed up with data. You didn't mention that, which is why you were wrong and I corrected you. Again, you're welcome.




We don't know the author or the specific date of the sagas and their origin was later. This was actually a good point brought up earlier in the thread but used rather poorly. However, we were able to confirm much of the information in them.

We weren't able to do so with the Bible, which is the problem. Almost none of what you're explaining is correct. The information alone that you're giving is not a reason to dismiss a source. The information must ALSO either be impossible to verify or simply shown to stand up to archeological evidence. The Bible has both problems and if you'd mentioned them, I wouldn't have corrected you.

Just say, "oh, oops, you're right, I didn't explain the issues with the Bible as a source well. Thanks for helping me clarify." And go on with your day. No amount of clarifying now is going to make you less wrong and as the post I'm replying to attests, it's likely to make you more wrong.

1. Your cleary itching for an arguement, and I just dont have time to oblige you.

If we cannot take the word of a preist for evidence, then neither is the bible acceptable.
Again, it cannot be used, as it makes fantastic claims, and provides nothing else. It has an agenda.

2. I dont know what planet you come from, but here on Earth, we dont use clearly biased texts of unknown origins, and dubious authorship as reliable sources for "proving" anyone existed.

1. Your cleary itching for an arguement, and I just dont have time to oblige you.

If we cannot take the word of a preist for evidence, then neither is the bible acceptable.
Again, it cannot be used, as it makes fantastic claims, and provides nothing else. It has an agenda.

2. I dont know what planet you come from, but here on Earth, we dont use clearly biased texts of unknown origins, and dubious authorship as reliable sources for "proving" anyone existed.

Apparently, you don't know what evidence is. Yes, we absolutely can take the word of a priest as evidence. It's just not very good evidence. As it gains evidenciary support, the word of that priest gains credence, the same way a poster on NSG would.

Um, on Earth, we do. We use the sagas as good evidence of the exploits of Leif. It's clearly biased and of unknown origin and even created much longer after the death of the person it evidences. It has all of the flaws, you're mentioned and is still considered good evidence. The reason is it has support that demonstrates its veracity. The Bible does not.

No matter how many times you make the claim, until you add in the bit about requiring additional evidence of the veracity of the text, you'll always be wrong. And it's no small point. "Itching for an argument" isn't the same as correcting a GLARING error in your statements.

The evidence for the sagas wasn't another written source, but that we could trace the actual story to make it match up with locations and archeolgoical data that the could not have reached the icelandic peoples without the story being true. Independent corroboration of the text itself is why we know Leif exists, but without the text, we couldn't peice together the other evidence. It is the primary source.

That's why your point is wrong. The Bible could be a primary source if archeological and geographic information supported its claims. However, it doesn't. In fact, it does the opposite. These are important parts of the tale of the historicity of the Bible and you're leaving them out. You're making a spurious claim that is provably wrong.

texts which claim to be inspired by a divine revelation are more than biased: they are conceived to be answers so they cannot admit being questioned.
of course they can be helpful to some archaeologists, like Homer's Iliad for Schliemann in discovering Troy. unfortunately, in these cases it is very difficult to stick to the facts, because any urn with a "yehoshua" written on it can be used by a priest or another as a final clue of something.

i see that some people here are turning the discussion towards an argument about logics. good try: jesuits have always been master in talking about something else when things went the bad way.

the thing is that nothing is "proved", neither historically nor scientifically, about the existence of jesus. not talking about its "miracles". then, if one wants to believe, i have nothing to say. but please AT LEAST let's not pretend that the roots of any faith are historical.

"religions are like lanterns: they need the darkness to shine" (A. Schopenhauer)

I think you forgot Ġgantija on Malta.
...But that's not where The Flood happened and those buildings show no sign of any flood.

Would it be wrong to start knocking on doors and asking people if they've 'discovered the truth of NO god yet'? To hand out pamphlets claiming the infinite wonder of a world WITHOUT god? To stop people in the street so I can witness to them about NO 'salvation'?

That has been done in fact. The targets were mormons and they went door to door with a copy of "on the origins of species".

For me, that's where the debate ends: there are many independent traditions that vouch for the existance of a man called Jesus in the New Testament, and there are none whatsoever from the first few centuries that deny his existance.

Actually, considering how much effort and how many centuries it took to persuade "reasonably Christian" organisations as the RC Church and several of the most devoutly Christian countries to use the "Anno Domini" calendar, one could assume they were not so sure as you claim they were.

the debate should end considering that IF only there was a real clue of the existence of jesus, then christians would have spread it as widely and as loudly as possible.
they could not do it, so far.

but this debate is doomed to be neverending, because believers want to believe and no logical reasoning could make them change their minds.

so, the only real answer is freedom: freedom to believe and freedom not to believe. but no freedom for those who want to impose their beliefs (science is NOT a belief, by the way, while creationism is) to the others

What people seem to be forgetting here is that the bible is not one source; it is a collaboration of 66 (or more if you're catholic) different sources. So, just because you can discredit Genesis, that doesn't mean that the entirely independent witness of Isaiah is false too.
Another issue that has come up is about claims of corroborating sources. The Christians say there are some, the non-chirstians ask where they are.
First, given that the Bible is a collection of different sources, specifically 4 separately written gospels agreeing on the main points of the story, as sources i would argue they corroborate each other.
Second, very early on in the debate it was mentioned about contemproary historians mentioning a Jesus chracter. I'm not sure where that went because this discussion has gone on to over 100 pages which, frankly, i don't have time to read, but nonetheless I'll give you a link to some extra biblical sources.
http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm

I've actually encountered a book that argued Jesus Christ IS Julius Caesar - an attempt to extend the story beyond the mortal death of the all-too-human Julius...

i have seen some discussion of that idea on the net.

it had its points even if i didnt find it convincing.

just being able to put the idea out there and have there be "proof" that its true got me to thinking that its not really that hard to manufacture anyone you want to have lived "in the past". especially in non-literate societies.

The more important question is "Did Jesus fuck Andrew?" :p

But that's not where The Flood happened and those buildings show no sign of any flood.

Just for the sake of the evidence alone you are incorrect, those people that built those buildings disappeared suddenly and completely. What makes you think they could never have been submerged? The people disappeared leaving nothing but those huge rocks and some buried artifacts, as if something washed them off the face of the earth ;) :p, the island thereafter uninhabited was populated by different people hundreds of years later....




(I'm not really arguing that the flood wiped them out, I'm just stating the archeaological record happens to meet the requirements.)

(I'm not really arguing that the flood wiped them out, I'm just stating the archeaological record happens to meet the requirements.)

Not yet. A flood is not the same as the Flood after all. People dying in floods is to be expected if they do silly things like building their homes close to water ;)

Just for the sake of the evidence alone you are incorrect, those people that built those buildings disappeared suddenly and completely. What makes you think they could never have been submerged? The people disappeared leaving nothing but those huge rocks and some buried artifacts, as if something washed them off the face of the earth ;) :p, the island thereafter uninhabited was populated by different people hundreds of years later....




(I'm not really arguing that the flood wiped them out, I'm just stating the archeaological record happens to meet the requirements.)how old are those buildings?

The more important question is "Did Jesus fuck Andrew?" :p

No. But now that you mention Andrew, someone else once mentioned in this trhead that none of the Apostles could have seen Jesus baptized, but Andrew is said to have been a follower of John and he would have seen Jesus baptized and then he became an apostle of Jesus sometime thereafter.

how old are those buildings?

fourth millennium BC

fourth millennium BCyeah, i looked it up. nevertheless, where are the traces of a flood? silt deposits, etc?

yeah, i looked it up. nevertheless, where are the traces of a flood? silt deposits, etc?

Did you watch the video of the walk through? You're not really going to say the whole place isn't seriously damaged by water are you? Whether or not it was a flood or just five thousand years of regular rains and storms is a different thing but either way there is water erosion everywhere.

Whether or not it was a flood or just five thousand years of regular rains and storms

Or the influence of that ocean in the background ;)

*bows*
Just thinkin' this while i was driving around earlier.

Hehe, thanks.

I really was sitting there for a while when I got to the end of the world, going "do I really want to go ask around about this? Is it really that important how accurate I am?"

That has been done in fact. The targets were mormons and they went door to door with a copy of "on the origins of species".

*Tries to figure out how many Jehovah's Witnesses there are in the area.*

*Tries to calculate the cost of buying several dozen copies of "On the Origin of Species."

"Begins plotting.*

Or the influence of that ocean in the background ;)

You must really believe in a world wide flood then, can you imagine how hard it would be to flood the entire Mediterranean Sea high enough to flood those ruins, can you imagine how much water that would take?

You must really believe in a world wide flood then, can you imagine how hard it would be to flood the entire Mediterranean Sea high enough to flood those ruins, can you imagine how much water that would take?but where are the hints that the ruins had been flooded in fact?
and how is the mesopotamian flood that the bible narrates connected to malta?

You must really believe in a world wide flood then, can you imagine how hard it would be to flood the entire Mediterranean Sea high enough to flood those ruins, can you imagine how much water that would take?

For a prolonged flood? Quite a bit.

For a single tsunami following one of the many volcanic eruptions in the ancient Mediterranean and Aegean that occurred in that time period? Not really all that much.

Not yet. A flood is not the same as the Flood after all. People dying in floods is to be expected if they do silly things like building their homes close to water ;)Yeah, you tell the folks of Bangladesh.

Yeah, you tell the folks of Bangladesh.

Yep. That was the Biblical global flood as well, obviously.

Only one historian recorded Jesus and he was a fraud? What are you talking about? That is completely wrong. Many historians record Jesus and historical events during his time in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. This is ridiculous. If you don't believe in the supernatural things involved with him being the messiah, I understand completely. It is an amazing thing, but you have to experience a relationship and faith to believe in it. Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.

Only one historian recorded Jesus and he was a fraud? What are you talking about? That is completely wrong. Many historians record Jesus and historical events during his time in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. This is ridiculous. If you don't believe in the supernatural things involved with him being the messiah, I understand completely. It is an amazing thing, but you have to experience a relationship and faith to believe in it. Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.

And again name them, present us with a link to just one of these pieces of numerous evidence that you say we have.

Only one historian recorded Jesus and he was a fraud? What are you talking about? That is completely wrong. Many historians record Jesus and historical events during his time in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. This is ridiculous. If you don't believe in the supernatural things involved with him being the messiah, I understand completely. It is an amazing thing, but you have to experience a relationship and faith to believe in it. Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.

Query: where do you people carbon copy these posts from ? I mean, you are number 12 or so.
And at which forum do you all originate ?

Only one historian recorded Jesus and he was a fraud? What are you talking about? That is completely wrong. Many historians record Jesus and historical events during his time in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. This is ridiculous. If you don't believe in the supernatural things involved with him being the messiah, I understand completely. It is an amazing thing, but you have to experience a relationship and faith to believe in it. Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.As a matter of fact, you should research before you write false and uneducated things. There are no accounts of Jesus that were written while he was still alive.

Only one historian recorded Jesus and he was a fraud? What are you talking about? That is completely wrong. Many historians record Jesus and historical events during his time in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. This is ridiculous. If you don't believe in the supernatural things involved with him being the messiah, I understand completely. It is an amazing thing, but you have to experience a relationship and faith to believe in it. Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.

geez cook, if you have these historical records POST THEM.

if they exist its easy enough to quote them right here isnt it?

go for it.

Sidenote: does the forum still stop new members from posting too often ? That would give some benefit of the doubt to all those "post and run" people.

But my point is that there is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed..... When 5 different souces come up with different, unique stories about the same person, I reckon you can argue about the stories themselves, but denying the existance of their main charachter is drawing rather a long bow.



I suppose you're referring to 5 different sources in the bible. Can you come up with any independent sources from the time that Jesus supposedly existed? Anything other than Josephus who was born after Jesus died and who's writings were edited by the church.

its probably a good illustration of why the church hasnt encouraged historical studies. give people a chance and they come up with all sorts of heresy that then has to be stamped out.

Well, while I agree with your general point I wouldn't call the DaVinci Code a historical study; Brown makes numerous errors which would make even an undergrad theology student wince, like confusing the Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of Philip.

*The Corneliu Maneuver*

I thought the Corneliu manoeuvre was to run round and round in little circles while claiming victory? :p

Well, while I agree with your general point I wouldn't call the DaVinci Code a historical study; Brown makes numerous errors which would make even an undergrad theology student wince, like confusing the Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of Philip.

nooooo i didnt mean the davinci code. that was ficiton and was meant to be read as fiction (i didnt read the book but i saw the movie and i was barely able to restrain myself from shouting at the screen that i was as stupid a plot as i can remember being subjected to).

i didnt read "holy blood holy grail" either but as i understand it it does have some (very sketchy) historical research in it.

but once you open the story of jesus to changes through historical/archaeological research you can end up with an entirely heretical explanation of events. that would be quite troublesome for the church to deal with.

Well, while I agree with your general point I wouldn't call the DaVinci Code a historical study; Brown makes numerous errors which would make even an undergrad theology student wince, like confusing the Gospel of Thomas with the Gospel of Philip.

Heh that's because it's a work of fiction!

Sidenote: does the forum still stop new members from posting too often ? That would give some benefit of the doubt to all those "post and run" people.

To my knowledge, aside from the standard 30-second flood filter, there isn't anything that prevents new posters from posting too often. It simply hides their posts until they can be reviewed for spam, and then shows them. (unless the post is made in Spam)

So technically, if they continued to post, all we'd see is significant delays between when they make their first post, and when they make their next post.

when emperor constantine realized that he needed - for merely political reasons - a state religion he convoked and chaired the council of nicaea (325 ad, quite a while after the "facts") and he asked the 300 people there to actually create christianism "as we know it".

What do you mean by "create christianism (sic)"?

Tell me, who wrote them, and when?
Since we cant even answer THAT simple question concerning the gospels, they cartainly cant be credible sources for the existance of a character WHO APPREARS NOWHERE OUTSIDE religious sources.

I agree with the majority of this post, but I think you're overstating our ignorance as to the origins of the Gospels. For example, we can be reasonably confident in stating that the author of Mark was either a diaspora Jew or a 'god fearing' gentile wannabe (as evidenced by his being very familiar with the Septuagint but ignorant of Judean geography); that they lived in Italy, probably Rome, (as evidenced by the use of Latin idiom and the use of distinctions such as 'Syro-Phoenician' which would be meaningless to anyone else); that they were were part of a group which feted Paul over the Apostles (especially Peter) and that they were probably writing shortly after the destruction of the temple in 70AD (due to the numerous references to the temple's destruction which are absent in earlier writings, and anachronisms like a round stone covering the tomb).

Sure, it doesn't establish them as a reliable source (quite the opposite in fact), but we can make some reasonable guesses as to the origins and authorship of the Gospels.

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

Actually, Jesus never said he was the son of God. Jesus was not even considered to be Divine until Constantine, a pagan no less, gathered all the most powerful leaders of the Catholic movement and told them that under him they could potentially rule the world if their religion was consistent and unified. Before this time Catholicism was a hodgepodge of different interperetations, most of which holding that Jesus was the savior but not necessarily the son of God. In the old testament when the promise of a Messiah is made, it is never stated that the Messiah would be the son of God.

Only one historian recorded Jesus and he was a fraud? What are you talking about? That is completely wrong. Many historians record Jesus and historical events during his time in Jerusalem and in the Roman Empire. There is as much evidence that Jesus existed as there is for Julius Caesar. This is ridiculous. If you don't believe in the supernatural things involved with him being the messiah, I understand completely. It is an amazing thing, but you have to experience a relationship and faith to believe in it. Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.

Please indulge my curiousity: where did you get this claim from? Did you come up with it by yourself, did you find it in a book, or did someone tell you? I'm genuinely interested.

nooooo i didnt mean the davinci code. that was ficiton and was meant to be read as fiction (i didnt read the book but i saw the movie and i was barely able to restrain myself from shouting at the screen that i was as stupid a plot as i can remember being subjected to).

i didnt read "holy blood holy grail" either but as i understand it it does have some (very sketchy) historical research in it.

but once you open the story of jesus to changes through historical/archaeological research you can end up with an entirely heretical explanation of events. that would be quite troublesome for the church to deal with.

Ah, gotcha. :)

Heh that's because it's a work of fiction!

*looks around furtively*

*reaches under bed and retrieves a copy of The DaVinci Code, cunningly hidden under a pile of pornography*

*reads first page*

All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

:eek:

Actually, Jesus never said he was the son of God. Jesus was not even considered to be Divine until Constantine, a pagan no less, gathered all the most powerful leaders of the Catholic movement and told them that under him they could potentially rule the world if their religion was consistent and unified. Before this time Catholicism was a hodgepodge of different interperetations, most of which holding that Jesus was the savior but not necessarily the son of God. In the old testament when the promise of a Messiah is made, it is never stated that the Messiah would be the son of God.

:eek:

*watches for black helicoptors*