NationStates Jolt Archive

*looks around furtively*

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

*reads first page*



:eek:

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

thats the stuff he stole from "holy blood holy grail" isnt it?

As a Christian, I do believe that Jesus was real and that He is the Son of God

As the son of a minister, I can safely say that The Da Vinci Code is very innacurate. That's why it's found in the FICTION section of your local public library

With any luck, the bible is next to it on the same shelf under fiction as well.

As a Christian, I do believe that Jesus was real and that He is the Son of God

As the son of a minister, I can safely say that The Da Vinci Code is very innacurate. That's why it's found in the FICTION section of your local public library

Jesus accepted worship, forgave sins and talked about being One w/the Father.

Oh couse Jesus was real! His life and death are cronicled by both Christians and non-Chrisitans.

Anyone who says he wasn't a real person is lying

since the internet is a place where anyone can express any sort of their retarded unfounded opinion.. might as well quote wikipedia...


"The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] However, a very small minority[2][3] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[4]"

As a Christian, I do believe that Jesus was real and that He is the Son of God

As the son of a minister, I can safely say that The Da Vinci Code is very innacurate. That's why it's found in the FICTION section of your local public library

Jesus accepted worship, forgave sins and talked about being One w/the Father.

Oh couse Jesus was real! His life and death are cronicled by both Christians and non-Chrisitans.

Anyone who says he wasn't a real person is lying

what non christian chronicled his life?

and if you get that far...

where did this non christian get his information?

Oh couse Jesus was real! His life and death are cronicled by both Christians and non-Chrisitans.

Assume I am a nonbeliever. Show me those chronicles and convince me.
Do take note of the texts already discredited in this topic. And be prepared to admit it is you that is telling lies if you cannot find a single convincing document.

Chronicled where, exactly? The simple fact that there is still a strong debate about whether or not he lived makes me wonder if that could *possibly* be true.

I'm a Christian, but I don't believe that Christ necessarily lived, nor do I believe that he was the Son of God any more than we must all be Children of God (having all been created by him, if one follows the bible).

Really, the thing we all have to remember, too, is that after about the third century, when Constantine came around and all the forced conversion and book burning came along, we can't trust anything for sure about that period. The Church has revised the bible numerous times, it was written long after Christ's alleged death, and any local documents about Pagan rituals that bore similarity to Christian ones (which include rituals on pretty much every Christian holy day) were destroyed or made heresy.

I'd also like to add that in the Bible, Christ calls himself the Son of Man, implying that he's as human as the rest of us, and not divine. Even if he did exist, I have this strange feeling that he'd be the one to know.

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.

Just cause I can't help myself, I have to respond to this (it's come up a couple of times now), for those of you that know this is off topic in this thread, I apologize and remind you that you are free to skip to the next post immediately without reading any more of this. ;)

But to JesusChrysler, I have to differ with your conclusions. By the end, after keeping it secret, the gospels tell us that Jesus made if very clear who he was and where he comes from...

Demons claim Jesus is the Son of God.
Matthew 8:29
And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

And when asked straight up during trial if he is guilty of calling himself the Christ, the Son of God, he says, you say I am. And if this does not mean yes, it is as you say, why did they get so angry? The people in the room sure seem to think it as an affirmative answer meaning, yes I am…

Matthew 26:63-68
And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

And who is this Son of Man anyway? Why did the priests get mad when Jesus called himself the son of man?

Daniel 7:13-14
"I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Additionally, Only God can forgive Sins…
Mark 2:7-11
"Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home."

God is Lord of the Sabbath…
Leviticus 19:30
You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Jesus said he is Lord of the Sabbath Matthew 12:8
For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."
Luke 6:5
And he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

God is in charge of the Angels in Heaven…
Psalm 91:11
For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.
Psalm 103:20
Bless the LORD, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, obeying the voice of his word!
Jesus said HE is in charge of the angels…
Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

The scripture makes it clear that Jesus is appointed authority reserved for God. I don't think Constantine created the divinity theology, NT scripture did.

what non christian chronicled his life?

and if you get that far...

where did this non christian get his information?

So the cycle repeats...

NT was largely edited and completed in the time of Constantine, though, wasn't it?

Christ says that that is the title they have given him. He doesn't say "Yes, you're right", and I've never understood how it could be taken that way. He's basically saying that they're calling him that. I take it to mean that he disagrees in part, and agrees in part.

The biggest issue you've got here, though, is that all this was recored AFTER THE FACT. By people that would BENEFIT IF CHRIST WAS THE SON OF GOD. The Church consolidated its power early.

since the internet is a place where anyone can express any sort of their retarded unfounded opinion.. might as well quote wikipedia...


"The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars often draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition. The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1] However, a very small minority[2][3] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure, but was a purely symbolic or mythical figure syncretized from various non-Abrahamic deities and heroes.[4]"

that certainly sums it up.

except for discussing the historical sources for the existence of jesus and whether or not they are sufficient proof.

Just cause I can't help myself, I have to respond to this (it's come up a couple of times now), for those of you that know this is off topic in this thread, I apologize and remind you that you are free to skip to the next post immediately without reading any more of this. ;)

But to JesusChrysler, I have to differ with your conclusions. By the end, after keeping it secret, the gospels tell us that Jesus made if very clear who he was and where he comes from...

Demons claim Jesus is the Son of God.
Matthew 8:29
And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

And when asked straight up during trial if he is guilty of calling himself the Christ, the Son of God, he says, you say I am. And if this does not mean yes, it is as you say, why did they get so angry? The people in the room sure seem to think it as an affirmative answer meaning, yes I am…

Matthew 26:63-68
And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?"

And who is this Son of Man anyway? Why did the priests get mad when Jesus called himself the son of man?

Daniel 7:13-14
"I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

Additionally, Only God can forgive Sins…
Mark 2:7-11
"Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home."

God is Lord of the Sabbath…
Leviticus 19:30
You shall keep my Sabbaths and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

Jesus said he is Lord of the Sabbath Matthew 12:8
For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."
Luke 6:5
And he said to them, "The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."

God is in charge of the Angels in Heaven…
Psalm 91:11
For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways.
Psalm 103:20
Bless the LORD, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, obeying the voice of his word!
Jesus said HE is in charge of the angels…
Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

The scripture makes it clear that Jesus is appointed authority reserved for God. I don't think Constantine created the divinity theology, NT scripture did.

Quoting myth to substantiate myth.

that certainly sums it up.

Though I dare say the thread will continue, regardless.

Quoting myth to substantiate myth.

What? You think you've waited long enough since you refused to back up your arguments that you can come back to the same thread and start making them again. If you've got time to reply, you've got time to try and back up your ludicrous claims from earlier in the thread or admit that you cannot.

Though I dare say the thread will continue, regardless.

the fun is in the details.

What? You think you've waited long enough since you refused to back up your arguments that you can come back to the same thread and start making them again. If you've got time to reply, you've got time to try and back up your ludicrous claims from earlier in the thread or admit that you cannot.

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

You argue to the absurd. You have nothing to offer the equation.

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

You argue to the absurd. You have nothing to offer the equation.

Do I? So arguing that claiming a failure to provide evidence proves the opposite to be true isn't absurd? You actually said that 2*2=4 is not an accurate conclusion. Want me to quote it?

what non christian chronicled his life?

and if you get that far...

where did this non christian get his information?

Josephus, 3. (63) "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,b those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day,c as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Josephus, Flavius ; Whiston, William: The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1987, S. Ant 18.62-64

Josephus, 3. (63) "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,b those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day,c as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Josephus, Flavius ; Whiston, William: The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1987, S. Ant 18.62-64

there ya go.

now.

do you really count that as a chronicle of his life?

and

when did josephus write that? where did he get his information?

Do I? So arguing that claiming a failure to provide evidence proves the opposite to be true isn't absurd? You actually said that 2*2=4 is not an accurate conclusion. Want me to quote it?

You are hilarious.

there ya go.

now.

do you really count that as a chronicle of his life?

and

when did josephus write that? where did he get his information?

Just read the footnotes. The date was between 62 and 64 A.D. Josephus was a historian and no credible historian denies his basic reporting. Josephus was likely alive at the time of Jesus' minstry. At the very latest shortly after his death.

No... I don't call this a chronology. It is a summary. However, he does not dispute the record of any of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Due to the political climate and his position as a Jewish traitor in Rome, he assuredly would have done so if it were possible.

Just read the footnotes. The date was between 62 and 64 A.D. Josephus was a historian and no credible historian denies his basic reporting. Josephus was likely alive at the time of Jesus' minstry. At the very latest shortly after his death.

No... I don't call this a chronology. It is a summary. However, he does not dispute the record of any of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Due to the political climate and his position as a Jewish traitor in Rome, he assuredly would have done so if it were possible.

no, that cant be what that footnote means

josephus was born in 37AD and died in 101. his history of the jews which contains the quote you posted was published somewhere around 93AD.

if we grant the authenticity of the passage, it was written 60 years after the death of jesus.

so where did he get his information?

no, that cant be what that footnote means

josephus was born in 37AD and died in 101. his history of the jews which contains the quote you posted was published somewhere around 93AD.

if we grant the authenticity of the passage, it was written 60 years after the death of jesus.

so where did he get his information?

How do we know Plato and Socrates existed? There is less written evidence of their lives than there is of Jesus. The oldest manuscripts of their work date to around 400 A.D., long after their deaths. We have fragmentary evidence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that dates to within 50 years!

Josephus doesn't tell us where his information came from. However, his research was done at a time when there were still eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' life. There were 10s of thousands of Jewish believers in Jesus in Israel at the time Josephus was alive. Many of these eyewitnesses gave their lives as martyrs for what they testified to as the truth about Him. Josephus knew this.

Here is a question for you. If you knew the stories about Jesus concerned someone that never really existed, would you allow yourself, your spouse, your children to also be martyred for something you knew to be a lie?

There are many evidences for the life of Jesus. Whether or not you believe His claims about Himself is another issue altogether. What you do about that is up to you.

You are hilarious.

A lot of people think so. But I enjoy the fact that you're not willing to support your argument anymore or even repeat your claim. I'll take it you finally did enough research on that fallacy to realize how stupid it is to claim anything not proven true is false. Good to hear. Bodes well for your future.

A lot of people think so. But I enjoy the fact that you're not willing to support your argument anymore or even repeat your claim. I'll take it you finally did enough research on that fallacy to realize how stupid it is to claim anything not proven true is false. Good to hear. Bodes well for your future.

By your own argument, nothing is provable either way. So why do you even care to engage in a discussion if everything is unknowable to you?

You are a paradox. Go play with someone else, I am tired of your absurdity, twisting of context, and childish vocabulary.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

Indeed, there are tons, and I mean that quite literally, of geological evidence that the world has never undergone a world wide flood.what evidence when the bible says otherwise?? :eek:

By your own argument, nothing is provable either way. So why do you even care to engage in a discussion if everything is unknowable to you?

You are a paradox. Go play with someone else, I am tired of your absurdity, twisting of context, and childish vocabulary.

Don't go away mad, just go away.

You've yet to add anything to the discussion since I completely annihilated your claim. So if you're upset that I'm trying to get you to simiply admit it, then perhaps it's not I that needs to go away.

Meanwhile, your little strawman is laughable. You don't "prove" things in science. It doesn't preclude knowledge however. When evidence is compelling it's followed and this is knowledge. That you want to jump to conclusions without knowledge is your issue, not mine.

As a Christian, I do believe that Jesus was real and that He is the Son of GodSee? That's your failure.

Btw, if you claim that Jesus was the son of God, would you mind to show some evidence for that claim?

You've yet to add anything to the discussion since I completely annihilated your claim. So if you're upset that I'm trying to get you to simiply admit it, then perhaps it's not I that needs to go away.

Meanwhile, your little strawman is laughable. You don't "prove" things in science. It doesn't preclude knowledge however. When evidence is compelling it's followed and this is knowledge. That you want to jump to conclusions without knowledge is your issue, not mine.

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

How do we know Plato and Socrates existed? There is less written evidence of their lives than there is of Jesus. The oldest manuscripts of their work date to around 400 A.D., long after their deaths. We have fragmentary evidence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that dates to within 50 years!

Josephus doesn't tell us where his information came from. However, his research was done at a time when there were still eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' life. There were 10s of thousands of Jewish believers in Jesus in Israel at the time Josephus was alive. Many of these eyewitnesses gave their lives as martyrs for what they testified to as the truth about Him. Josephus knew this.

Here is a question for you. If you knew the stories about Jesus concerned someone that never really existed, would you allow yourself, your spouse, your children to also be martyred for something you knew to be a lie?

There are many evidences for the life of Jesus. Whether or not you believe His claims about Himself is another issue altogether. What you do about that is up to you.


Here's a question back. Josephus was an Jewish ex-general living in Rome. He was not a Christian, was he? So please explain why he wrote glowing reviews of someone that he must have considered a false messiah. Or was he just the first modern protestant? Christian AND living high on the hog in Rome, no preaching or martyrdom for me please. Explain Josephus' story to me in light of this very Christian passage.

And who was martyred for something they believed was a lie? You have proof of how someone died and what they believed?

Here's a question back. Josephus was an Jewish ex-general living in Rome. He was not a Christian, was he? So please explain why he wrote glowing reviews of someone that he must have considered a false messiah. Or was he just the first modern protestant? Christian AND living high on the hog in Rome, no preaching or martyrdom for me please. Explain Josephus' story to me in light of this very Christian passage.

And who was martyred for something they believed was a lie? You have proof of how someone died and what they believed?Many Jews in the early days were impressed by Jesus, and until the Talmud was written and became known Christians were still basically Jews (as far as the theology goes, but nut as far as the adherence to Jewish rules and rituals goes).

How do we know Plato and Socrates existed? There is less written evidence of their lives than there is of Jesus. The oldest manuscripts of their work date to around 400 A.D., long after their deaths. We have fragmentary evidence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that dates to within 50 years!

plato and socrates are irrelevant to this discussion


Josephus doesn't tell us where his information came from. However, his research was done at a time when there were still eyewitnesses of the events of Jesus' life. There were 10s of thousands of Jewish believers in Jesus in Israel at the time Josephus was alive. Many of these eyewitnesses gave their lives as martyrs for what they testified to as the truth about Him. Josephus knew this.

so he got his information second hand (or more) at least a generation after the fact (granting tht he had to know it before he wrote about it)

Here is a question for you. If you knew the stories about Jesus concerned someone that never really existed, would you allow yourself, your spouse, your children to also be martyred for something you knew to be a lie?

their dying for their belief doesnt make that belief true.

people were martyred due to believing in joseph smith. people were martyred due to believing in david koresh. people were freaking martyred due to thinking that a mothership was hiding in the tail of a comet.


There are many evidences for the life of Jesus. Whether or not you believe His claims about Himself is another issue altogether. What you do about that is up to you.

there are NOT many evidences. why that should bother YOU, a believer, so much that you wont acknowledge that its true, i dont know.

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

How does this help your credibility, really? You refuse to support your claims after crying about people believing things without support and then just spam the topic when you get called on it. How does complaining and weak insults in latin help you, the topic or accomplish anything?

Are you less wrong? Nope. Does it change that your appeal to ignorance fallacy is a poor argument? Nope.

How does this help your credibility, really? You refuse to support your claims after crying about people believing things without support and then just spam the topic when you get called on it. How does complaining and weak insults in latin help you, the topic or accomplish anything?

Are you less wrong? Nope. Does it change that your appeal to ignorance fallacy is a poor argument? Nope.

I am beginning to question your maturity and intelligence levels.

I am beginning to question your maturity and intelligence levels.

The fact that this is the entirety of your post brings your own maturity levels into question. What do you hope to achieve by questioning Jocabia's maturity and intelligence?

I am beginning to question your maturity and intelligence levels.

You really think that more flames are going to help.

I challenged you to support you assertions. Why that would be upsetting in a debate forum is beyond me, but your response has been to complain and to flame in latin. Flaming is never a good idea even on forums where it isn't against the rules, but on this forum it's frowned upon. Ultimately whether it is a flame is for moderators to decide, but it's generally bad practice to toe that line.

I am beginning to question your maturity and intelligence levels.
C’mon...

Debate, don’t make trouble.

The fact that this is the entirety of your post brings your own maturity levels into question. What do you hope to achieve by questioning Jocabia's maturity and intelligence?

Clearly jacobia does not understand english. I suggest you read all the interactions before making a judgement call.

C’mon...

Debate, don’t make trouble.

I will, just clearing out the garbage. I am tired of the lies and context switching, asked them to go away, they continue.

Clearly jacobia does not understand english. I suggest you read all the interactions before making a judgement call.

Yes, another flame. You know if you have such an issue with, the forum has an ignore function.

However, as long as your participating in this thread, and making claims, I will demonstrate their flaws. It's called debate and it does not require flaming.

Clearly jacobia does not understand english. I suggest you read all the interactions before making a judgement call.

Given the number of latin phrases you've been throwing around instead of actually presenting an argument, one would have to wonder if his understanding of english is really vital to this discussion.

Many Jews in the early days were impressed by Jesus, and until the Talmud was written and became known Christians were still basically Jews (as far as the theology goes, but nut as far as the adherence to Jewish rules and rituals goes).

However it is not clear which 'jesus' they were 'impressed by' since there is no accurate account in the historical records.

Given the number of latin phrases you've been throwing around instead of actually presenting an argument, one would have to wonder if his understanding of english is really vital to this discussion.

Are you intending to continue this line or shall we get back to the debate topic.

I will, just clearing out the garbage. I am tired of the lies and context switching, asked them to go away, they continue.

Context switching? Lies? More claims. Please support them. I called you out on an appeal to ignorance, something you initially took as an insult, though it's a common name for a fallacy. You made claim after claim and they were rebutted by myself and others. At which point, you checked out of the thread and you return only to spam and flame.

I'm simply calling you back to your claims to support them or admit you cannot. Flames and spam are both unnecessary.

Are you intending to continue this line or shall we get back to the debate topic.

Given your need to throw around phrases likely ripped from http://warriorlibrarian.com/HUMOUR/latin.html I find the implication that I'm the one taking this further off topic a little laughable. You haven't tried to debate in three pages.

Given the number of latin phrases you've been throwing around instead of actually presenting an argument, one would have to wonder if his understanding of english is really vital to this discussion.

I suspect you she didn't expect me to find the site from which she's getting her cut and paste latin phrases. Or perhaps it's coincidence that every one of them she used can be found on one single site. Probably coincidence.

Deus, you know what an appeal to ignorance is.

What would you say that if I told you that your claim is false until proven true?

However it is not clear which 'jesus' they were 'impressed by' since there is no accurate account in the historical records.Accuracy is not required to make somebody impressed.

Context switching? Lies? More claims. Please support them. I called you out on an appeal to ignorance, something you initially took as an insult, though it's a common name for a fallacy. You made claim after claim and they were rebutted by myself and others. At which point, you checked out of the thread and you return only to spam and flame.

I'm simply calling you back to your claims to support them or admit you cannot. Flames and spam are both unnecessary.

Do you have anything to add to the debate discussion?

I will, just clearing out the garbage. I am tired of the lies and context switching, asked them to go away, they continue.
It’s not your place on this forum to ‘ask them to go away’, it’s your place to debate without flaming; something you seem to have some trouble with.

Jocabia has made some valid points which you refuse to debate. Why?

Clearly jacobia does not understand english. I suggest you read all the interactions before making a judgement call.

This justifies your thinly veiled insult how exactly?

Accuracy is not required to make somebody impressed.

True, I am just trying to make a determination of whom we were actually attributing this impressiveness to.

Do you have anything to add to the debate discussion?Of course not, it's Jocabia. :rolleyes: :p

Do you have anything to add to the debate discussion?

The dabe is whether Jesus existed. You claimed you could prove he didn't. I'm asking you to support that claim. You've replied by first avoiding it for several days and then coming back and flaming when again asked for support.

That is the topic. Feel free to drop the flames and return to the subject at hand or simply admit there is no support for your assertions and we'll accept that your assertions fail.

I suspect you she didn't expect me to find the site from which she's getting her cut and paste latin phrases. Or perhaps it's coincidence that every one of them she used can be found on one single site. Probably coincidence.

Deus, you know what an appeal to ignorance is.

What would you say that if I told you that your claim is false until proven true?

That you don't understand the concept of the default position.

In fact, "I don't fucking know at this point in time" is sort of the default position in any scientific inquiry. One can't merely discard something because there is no evidence. It's not until a counterexample to a theory is presented that it's either reevaluated or removed.

Of course not, it's Jocabia. :rolleyes: :p

Do you think flaming me somehow helps your credibility? You've demonstrated that you're not willing to debate the topic with me. You've repeatedly referenced me directly, including claiming I held a position, then when called to support that I'd EVER offered that position, you declined.

That you're not willing to debate has nothing to do with me. If you'd like to debate rather than cast insults over your shoulder at someone you're unwilling to address directly, please do. I welcome your attempts at debate. In this topic, I've found your claims (excluding those where you're just slingind silliness) quite useful. You're clearly capable of decent debate when you're not claiming that you can prove God doesn't exist or expressing your admitted hatred for Jews.

The dabe is whether Jesus existed. You claimed you could prove he didn't. I'm asking you to support that claim. You've replied by first avoiding it for several days and then coming back and flaming when again asked for support.

That is the topic. Feel free to drop the flames and return to the subject at hand or simply admit there is no support for your assertions and we'll accept that your assertions fail.

Facts not in evidence. I stated that there was no proof this individual existed. I never claimed to prove he did not. I did however state I did not believe he existed, and that is not something requiring substantiation.

Further I stated that the chances of his existence were so minute, it was not really worth considering.

However your position is that everything must be considered, which is absurd, so you can box yourself into a corner by opening the logic card that nothing is proveable, therefore nothing is real or known.

Due to the lack of evidence, it is clear that the chances of the existence of this individual are impossible to calculate and the conclusion he did exist cannot be justified.

One can't merely discard something because there is no evidence.After a quite a while of intensive search for such evidence you in fact can.

That you don't understand the concept of the default position.

In fact, "I don't fucking know at this point in time" is sort of the default position in any scientific inquiry. One can't merely discard something because there is no evidence. It's not until a counterexample to a theory is presented that it's either reevaluated or removed.

Well, to be technical, you can discard something if there is no evidence and no way to gather evidence, you just can't claim it's false OR true until one or the other has compelling evidence to support it.

The point she refuses to address is that if one allows argument from ignorance, then I simply have to reverse my claim and let people demonstrate I've not evidenced it in order to hold a particular unevidenced thing true. Saying something is true and saying something is false are both claims that require evidence. Until they have compelling evidence, they are simply treated as statements devoid an specific useful scholarly knowledge.

After a quite a while of intensive search for such evidence you in fact can.

I agree.

After a quite a while of intensive search for such evidence you in fact can.

Only if you demonstrate that such evidence would necessarily exist. That you would be able expect a particular outcome and it doesn't occur IS evidence. That outcome could be a manuscript of a type, or archeological evidence or whathaveyou. However, any positive claim requires evidence. ANY.

Without showing what evidence would exist and that it would necessarily exist, you're arguing from ignorance by the very definition of the fallacy.

After a quite a while of intensive search for such evidence you in fact can.

Not really. You can sideline it, put it on the backburner, and work with what you've got already, but you can never discard it outright. It's the case with most scientific enquiries. We've got no way of even testing string theory, despite how good it looks on paper, and yet people are still hammering away at it.

Not really. You can sideline it, put it on the backburner, and work with what you've got already, but you can never discard it outright. It's the case with most scientific enquiries. We've got no way of even testing string theory, despite how good it looks on paper, and yet people are still hammering away at it.

Perhaps, but scientists abandon theories every day due to lack of any evidence. Wanting something to have evidence does not equate to there being any.

I agree.

And it remains wrong.

What if I claim that if dinosaurs existed I would find copies of their handwriting? Then after not finding it for centuries, could I claim dinosaurs don't exist? Nope. I'd have to show why I would necessarily find such evidence or how it's relevant. Of course, my example is absurd, but the point remains, that a call for evidence and a claim that the lack of that particular evidence demonstrates your claim must be supported. That's what I asked you for and asked UB for when he claimed he could prove there was no God.

Rather than provide evidence, instead he just wrote it big and bold in his signature and pretended that passes for an argument.

Perhaps, but scientists abandon theories every day due to lack of any evidence. Wanting something to have evidence does not equate to there being any.

Abandoing theories is not the same as claiming they are false. They are simply unsupported. Not finding evidence is not the same as there not being any, either.

Not really. You can sideline it, put it on the backburner, and work with what you've got already, but you can never discard it outright. It's the case with most scientific enquiries. We've got no way of even testing string theory, despite how good it looks on paper, and yet people are still hammering away at it.

I see. You're meaning of discard is to view it as false.

Abandoing theories is not the same as claiming they are false. They are simply unsupported. Not finding evidence is not the same as there not being any, either.

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, no one would ever make any decisions because no one can prove anything. Your argument is not realistic.

Not really. You can sideline it, put it on the backburner, and work with what you've got already, but you can never discard it outright. It's the case with most scientific enquiries. We've got no way of even testing string theory, despite how good it looks on paper, and yet people are still hammering away at it.I disagree when it comes to theories about historical events, persons, or circumstances. If no evidence can be presented for something that supposedly happened in the past you can be sure that the respective story had simply been made up. Just look at Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, it's all just fabricated shit.

I disagree when it comes to theories about historical events, persons, or circumstances.

Especially when the claim is absurd.

Facts not in evidence. I stated that there was no proof this individual existed. I never claimed to prove he did not. I did however state I did not believe he existed, and that is not something requiring substantiation.

Further I stated that the chances of his existence were so minute, it was not really worth considering.

However your position is that everything must be considered, which is absurd, so you can box yourself into a corner by opening the logic card that nothing is proveable, therefore nothing is real or known.

Due to the lack of evidence, it is clear that the chances of the existence of this individual are impossible to calculate and the conclusion he did exist cannot be justified.

You never claimed that it was fact he didn't exist. Let's see if that's true. The forum has a search function. To the batcave.

Meanwhile, the "chances" thing is completely made up by your own admission. What exactly is the probability of Jesus existing and on what do you base your calculations of said probability?

My position is that everything is considered as neither true nor false until one or the other is supported with compelling evidence. That's a fact.

No one claimed the conclusion he existed could be justified. Feel free to search for me EVER saying that. I said explicitly the evidence for existence is not compelling. The opposite. You claimed that absent evidence it could be regarded as false. That is argument from ignorance, by definition.

Perhaps, but scientists abandon theories every day due to lack of any evidence. Wanting something to have evidence does not equate to there being any.

Abandonment does not equate to it being incorrect.
The perfect example of this is early-to-mid-1900s research in cosmogony. Right up until the discovery of the CMBR, the theory of a universe that had come into existence, rather than an infinite steady-state universe had more or less been shelved. It wasn't until an almost literally accidental discovery was made that the field of enquiry was reopened and advances were made, with the steady-state theory ultimately being discarded by mounting evidence.

If you take this to it's logical conclusion, no one would ever make any decisions because no one can prove anything. Your argument is not realistic.

Who is asking for things to be proved? We're talking about making a compelling argument. Science requires a compelling argument for us to treat things as true OR false. Absent that argument, it simply ignore those things, or searches for evidence one way or the other.

It's entirely realistic when you address what I said rather than what you want it to say.

Abandonment does not equate to it being incorrect.
The perfect example of this is early-to-mid-1900s research in cosmogony. Right up until the discovery of the CMBR, the theory of a universe that had come into existence, rather than an infinite steady-state universe had more or less been shelved. It wasn't until an almost literally accidental discovery was made that the field of enquiry was reopened and advances were made, with the steady-state theory ultimately being discarded by mounting evidence.

Yes but that is a scientific exploration, not a claim of existence to deification of a person.

Given your need to throw around phrases likely ripped from http://warriorlibrarian.com/HUMOUR/latin.html I find the implication that I'm the one taking this further off topic a little laughable. You haven't tried to debate in three pages.

Call me crazy, but I thought some of the stuff on the site is pretty funny.

At least for me, that link makes this thread worth something!

Call me crazy, but I thought some of the stuff on the site is pretty funny.
At least for me, that link makes this thread worth something!but is a pretty crude latin.

I disagree when it comes to theories about historical events, persons, or circumstances. If no evidence can be presented for something that supposedly happened in the past you can be sure that the respective story had simply been made up. Just look at Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, it's all just fabricated shit.

Um, the study of history is as scholarly as any discipline. You don't get to regard things as false without evidence. A claim that something was made-up requires evidence. Otherwise, you're talking out of your behind. It's like claiming something is a miracle. It ends the discussion. "I've already declared that X is a miracle, no need to consider any evidence." and "I've already declared that x is false. No need to consider any evidence." The only correct position is "due to a lack of evidence for this claim, I'll set aside until there is something worth considering." Scholars do the latter. Fanatics do the former.

Abandonment does not equate to it being incorrect.
The perfect example of this is early-to-mid-1900s research in cosmogony. Right up until the discovery of the CMBR, the theory of a universe that had come into existence, rather than an infinite steady-state universe had more or less been shelved. It wasn't until an almost literally accidental discovery was made that the field of enquiry was reopened and advances were made, with the steady-state theory ultimately being discarded by mounting evidence.

Don't know. sounds like it was abandonded for being considered incorrect until some evidence popped up and people went back and looked again...

Especially when the claim is absurd.
What’s so ‘absurd’ about Jocabia’s claim, assuming this is what you’re unsubtly referencing?

IIRC, he claims that there may have been a historical personage upon which much of the biblical character of Jesus was based upon.

This is neither an absurd claim, nor a claim that should be abandoned due to no positive proof of such a man.

Yes but that is a scientific exploration, not a claim of existence [to deification] of a person.

We aren't talking about deification, my friend. We're talking about existence and only existence. And we're talking about the exploration of the physical existence of a man. That's all.

What's the matter, you can't support your point without adding in the deity part? Try making the same claiming removing the part I parsed.

What’s so ‘absurd’ about Jocabia’s claim, assuming this is what you’re unsubtly referencing?

IIRC, he claims that there may have been a historical personage upon which much of the biblical character of Jesus was based upon.

This is neither an absurd claim, nor a claim that should be abandoned due to no positive proof of such a man.

The absurd claim is the existence of a godman.

I would appreciate you not involving yourself in trying to enable jacobia for comments clearly not directed towards them.

Yes but that is a scientific exploration, not a claim of existence to deification of a person.

And?

Don't know. sounds like it was abandonded for being considered incorrect until some evidence popped up and people went back and looked again...

Not incorrect. Just not evidenced. The correctness or incorrectness of a theory doesn't change, just what we know about it does. Once we have compelling evidence something is correct or incorrect we deem it so. Until then, we simply reserve judgement and either search out more evidence or ignore it until something comes up that makes it worth further analysis.

Um, the study of history is as scholarly as any discipline. You don't get to regard things as false without evidence. A claim that something was made-up requires evidence. Otherwise, you're talking out of your behind. It's like claiming something is a miracle. It ends the discussion. "I've already declared that X is a miracle, no need to consider any evidence." and "I've already declared that x is false. No need to consider any evidence." The only correct position is "due to a lack of evidence for this claim, I'll set aside until there is something worth considering." Scholars do the latter. Fanatics do the former.

Does that mean no one can be found innocent or guilty, it is just set aside?


or is this the type of thing that only applies to religion and the like?

We aren't talking about deification, my friend. We're talking about existence and only existence. And we're talking about the exploration of the physical existence of a man. That's all.

I have seen no physical evidence.

[Flame bait removed]

The absurd claim is the existence of a godman.

I would appreciate you not involving yourself in trying to enable jacobia for comments clearly not directed towards them.

*chuckle* Right, because Chumbly's going to give a flying fuck about what you would and wouldn't appreciate.

The absurd claim is the existence of a godman.

I would appreciate you not involving yourself in trying to enable jacobia for comments clearly not directed towards them.

Where did I claim that a godman existed? Please quote me. We are talking about the claim of the existence of a man. It's clear that not all early Christians believed he was a godman. I've corrected this claim that we're talking about the godman several times and so has the OP and several others. We are talking about the man only. Whether he was a deity is another subject entirely, and not likely one science will ever even attempt to address.

I have seen no physical evidence.

[Flame bait removed]

And that's a good reason not to conclude he existed. It is not a good reason to conclude he didn't. Making a conclusion either way would be argument from ignorance.

Does that mean no one can be found innocent or guilty, it is just set aside?


or is this the type of thing that only applies to religion and the like?

It's a scholastic issue, rather than a legal one. Though to be fair, in any criminal proceeding it should be noted that a lack of evidence doesn't have someone declared innocent, but instead "not guilty."

And that's a good reason not to conclude he existed. It is not a good reason to conclude he didn't. Making a conclusion either way would be argument from ignorance.

So everyone we can possibly imagine existed with or without evidence.

So everyone we can possibly imagine existed with or without evidence.

Wrong. We simply know nothing about the existence or lack of existence of any given person until conclusive evidence for either side can be presented.

It's a scholastic issue, rather than a legal one. Though to be fair, in any criminal proceeding it should be noted that a lack of evidence doesn't have someone declared innocent, but instead "not guilty."

so in one aspect you allow for conclusions based on avalible evidence, in another you don't.

Wrong. We simply know nothing about the existence or lack of existence of any given person until conclusive evidence for either side can be presented.

However it could never be discounted, by this 'logic'

which is why this discussion is so utterly tedious

you refuse to accept that jocabia is NOT making a claim for the absolute existence of jesus as a real man and jocabia is stuck on some claim of logic that has been done to death.

so do you just like the attention or what?

I was wondering that about jocabia myself.

Time to go home. I bid you adieu for now.

The absurd claim is the existence of a godman.
Which Jocabia has never claimed in this thread, and in fact isn’t the purpose of this thread in the first place.

Read it straight from the horses mouth (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13344849&postcount=2085).

I would appreciate you not involving yourself in trying to enable jacobia for comments clearly not directed towards them.
Huh? I am confuzzled by your tense.

Jocabia’s been unfairly jumped upon while making a decent point; there’s no harm in backing him up.

The absurd claim is the existence of a godman.

I would appreciate you not involving yourself in trying to enable jacobia for comments clearly not directed towards them.

which is why this discussion is so utterly tedious

you refuse to accept that jocabia is NOT making a claim for the absolute existence of jesus as a real man and jocabia is stuck on some claim of logic that has been done to death.

so do you just like the attention or what?

However it could never be discounted, by this 'logic'

Not true. A lack of existence can be proven, inasmuch as it can be proven that the entity in question was fabricated, etc.

We know Bugs Bunny doesn't exist, because we have proof that he was fabricated by some folks at Warner Brothers.

We know that Julius Caesar existed because of contemporary, independent sources writing about him, as well as archaeological data in the form of busts and currency.

Not true. A lack of existence can be proven, inasmuch as it can be proven that the entity in question was fabricated, etc.

We know Bugs Bunny doesn't exist, because we have proof that he was fabricated by some folks at Warner Brothers.

We know that Julius Caesar existed because of contemporary, independent sources writing about him, as well as archaeological data in the form of busts and currency.

I guess you hold off judgment about a certain man from nantuckit(sp?) as there is no evidence either way about the poem being true or false?

Wrong. We simply know nothing about the existence or lack of existence of any given person until conclusive evidence for either side can be presented.But why make the assumption of existence in the first place?

I guess you hold off judgment about a certain man from nantuckit(sp?) as there is no evidence either way about the poem being true or false?

Well, given that there are men living on Nantucket, it's entirely possible one of them did the things mentioned in the limerick :p

But why make the assumption of existence in the first place?

We don't, we make the assumption that it neither exists nor doesn't exist until we find proof.

We don't, we make the assumption that it neither exists nor doesn't exist until we find proof.

the debate about something's existance starts when someone says something exists....even if it never did.

the assumtion was made so the debate began. 2000+ years and we still can't make an statment for or against?

But why make the assumption of existence in the first place?

the ripple effect.

you see ripples in the lake, you assume that either something was dropped in or a fish jumped.

christianity came from somewhere. its not stupid to assume that it started with a single man.

the debate about something's existance starts when someone says something exists....even if it never did.

the assumtion was made so the debate began. 2000+ years and we still can't make an statment for or against?

You're that surprised?

There's equally a dearth of historical evidence for the existence of Krishna, who would have lived several thousan years before Christ was a twinkle in God's eye.

I don't see what the time involved has to do with it.

So everyone we can possibly imagine existed with or without evidence.

Nope. So everything we can possibly imagine's existence cannot be concluded upon without evidence.

The option are existence or non-existence. But we are not required to conclude either one. Both require evidence. ALWAYS.

However it could never be discounted, by this 'logic'

Correct. It could never be counted or discounted scientifically. It's ignored without evidence or evidence is sought. No conclusion is every given scientifically without compelling evidence. Period.

You're that surprised?

There's equally a dearth of historical evidence for the existence of Krishna, who would have lived several thousan years before Christ was a twinkle in God's eye.

I don't see what the time involved has to do with it.

I read a good bit of the thread before it got away from me and the only non-biblical evidence given was a writer that was after jesus' time and even then there is debate about the church messing with his writtings and such....


to me 2000+ plus years of search and getting basicly nothing is enough to lean towards false.

We don't, we make the assumption that it neither exists nor doesn't exist until we find proof.

Well, actually we make make the assumption that we don't know if it exists or doesn't exist. We don't assume it neither exists or doesn't. That would be silly. It's existence doesn't depend on our knowledge and we don't assume it does.

We don't, we make the assumption that it neither exists nor doesn't exist until we find proof.If the assumption is not made in the first place then no evidence would be sought at all.

I read a good bit of the thread before it got away from me and the only non-biblical evidence given was a writer that was after jesus' time and even then there is debate about the church messing with his writtings and such....


to me 2000+ plus years of search and getting basicly nothing is enough to lean towards false.

Your welcome to lean however you like, but it's not scientific. Science requires that you should what you'd expect to find and that you couldn't find it. That creates evidence for non-existence. Or it requires that you show evidence it was fabricated, made-up. And even then, in some cases the fabrication of evidence doesn't prove the actually entity doesn't exist. Many times the evidence is fabricated because someone already believes the entity exists. See Christianity, Judaism or almost any other major religion.

If the assumption is not made in the first place then no evidence would be sought at all.

Bullshit. Only the possibility of existence must be assumed before an enquiry is usually made.

If the assumption is not made in the first place then no evidence would be sought at all.

We theorize and then seek evidence, but we don't conclude. You're equivocating at this point, because Deus was referring to an assumption as a conclusion, and you're referring to an assumption as an initial claim that you seek to support.

I read a good bit of the thread before it got away from me and the only non-biblical evidence given was a writer that was after jesus' time and even then there is debate about the church messing with his writtings and such....


to me 2000+ plus years of search and getting basicly nothing is enough to lean towards false.

nooo melphi you misunderstand

there has specifically NOT been 2000 years of searching. no one bothered to question the existence of jesus until .... well until after the reformation anyway. i dont think it was done seriously until the 1800s.

we are only NOW looking back through a destroyed historical record to glean what is left of proof one way or the other.

nooo melphi you misunderstand

there has specifically NOT been 2000 years of searching. no one bothered to question the existence of jesus until .... well until after the reformation anyway. i dont think it was done seriously until the 1800s.

we are only NOW looking back through a destroyed historical record to glean what is left of proof one way or the other.

there has always been searching. even at the start of christianity (ie after the supposed death of christ) there were different versions popping up.

<SNIP> I'm shocked that some people don't think the holocaust ever happened...:(

Where the hell did this come from?

yes but that isnt the same as "did jesus really exist"

those were questions of the nature of jesus (or the christ) and his message.

if, for example, one group believed that there was no physical jesus but only a spiritual jesus, they didnt set about proving that the physical jesus didnt exist. they made the assumption and ran with it.

right they made an assumtion that the phsyical did not exists, could they have done that if the evidence for one was smacking them in the face?

not to metion all the other non-christians.

there has always been searching. even at the start of christianity (ie after the supposed death of christ) there were different versions popping up.

yes but that isnt the same as "did jesus really exist"

those were questions of the nature of jesus (or the christ) and his message.

if, for example, one group believed that there was no physical jesus but only a spiritual jesus, they didnt set about proving that the physical jesus didnt exist. they made the assumption and ran with it.

there has always been searching. even at the start of christianity (ie after the supposed death of christ) there were different versions popping up.

PLUS

after the standardization of christianity in the council of nicaea the church went about brutally and totally supressing the other christian beliefs, their books and any prooofs they may have had.

PLUS

after the standardization of christianity in the council of nicaea the church went about brutally and totally supressing the other christian beliefs, their books and any prooofs they may have had.

do you really think they would destroy evidence of jesus? ideas sure its what the church is known for, but actual evidence of jesus?

do you really think they would destroy evidence of jesus? ideas sure its what the church is known for, but actual evidence of jesus?

well no i dont. i dont think they would have destroyed anything that would tend to have shown jesus to be the man depicted in the gospels

but if there were...... just as an example you understand.... the diary of a rich jewish official that talked about a rabbi named jesus scamming the public into believing that he brought one of his friends back from the dead (and spelled out how he did it) i think that would have been destroyed.

do you really think they would destroy evidence of jesus? ideas sure its what the church is known for, but actual evidence of jesus?

Certainly. They had a specific message. If it was contrary to their message it's perfectly logical that it would be destroyed. In fact, we have evidence that they did so.

do you really think they would destroy evidence of jesus? ideas sure its what the church is known for, but actual evidence of jesus?

but they DID destroy as many of the copies of other gospels, epistles, apocalypses, etc as they could find.

well no i dont. i dont think they would have destroyed anything that would tend to have shown jesus to be the man depicted in the gospels

but if there were...... just as an example you understand.... the diary of a rich jewish official that talked about a rabbi named jesus scamming the public into believing that he brought one of his friends back from the dead (and spelled out how he did it) i think that would have been destroyed.

Yea, but would it have be destroyed because it was considered true or because it was blasphimic(sp?)?

Certainly. They had a specific message. If it was contrary to their message it's perfectly logical that it would be destroyed. In fact, we have evidence that they did so.

there is also evidence of things that normally would have been destroyed as heretical being saved in places like the vatican library (yes it showed up latter but it still points that not everything is destoryed)

but they DID destroy as many of the copies of other gospels, epistles, apocalypses, etc as they could find.

Ideas. I already agreed that they were more than willing to destroy ideas. Not to mention that, as stated above, not eveything was always detroyed.

Yea, but would it have be destroyed because it was considered true or because it was blasphimic(sp?)?



because anything that might tend to lead the reader away from correct belief is better destroyed.

whether that would be blasphemy or heresy or both.

because anything that might tend to lead the reader away from correct belief is better destroyed.

whether that would be blasphemy or heresy or both.

Even historic information that might have made him seem more "real" might have been considered dangerous. In the abstract, it's much easier to buy a "godman", than if you were sitting and having a beer with him.

Even historic information that might have made him seem more "real" might have been considered dangerous. In the abstract, it's much easier to buy a "godman", than if you were sitting and having a beer with him.

yeah

depending on what it might have been of course

they werent interested in historical truths they were interested in religious truths that would get themselves and their believers into heaven. nothing could be more important than that.

Even historic information that might have made him seem more "real" might have been considered dangerous. In the abstract, it's much easier to buy a "godman", than if you were sitting and having a beer with him.

but even the ideas of a more human jesus have survived. ie the books were jesus is growing up and such. Kid falls off a roof jesus is blamed, and so he raises the kid from the dead so he can prove he didn't kill the kid.

but even the ideas of a more human jesus have survived. ie the books were jesus is growing up and such. Kid falls off a roof jesus is blamed, and so he raises the kid from the dead so he can prove he didn't kill the kid.

do you remember the name of that book? i saw it on the history channel the other week but i didnt catch the name of it.

do you remember the name of that book? i saw it on the history channel the other week but i didnt catch the name of it.

Gospel of Thomas?

Gospel of Thomas?

nooo the gospel of thomas is all sayings without a plot

isnt it?

nooo the gospel of thomas is all sayings without a plot

isnt it?

Not sure. I think I've seen the same show, and that was the first one that popped into my head.

do you remember the name of that book? i saw it on the history channel the other week but i didnt catch the name of it.

sadly no I don't.

I will look around to see if I can find it though.

Not sure. I think I've seen the same show, and that was the first one that popped into my head.

oohhh you were right

i went to www.earlychristianwritings.com and its the INFANCY gospel of thomas

oohhh you were right

i went to www.earlychristianwritings.com and its the INFANCY gospel of thomas

*does the happy dance*

but even the ideas of a more human jesus have survived. ie the books were jesus is growing up and such. Kid falls off a roof jesus is blamed, and so he raises the kid from the dead so he can prove he didn't kill the kid.

now that we have THAT settled...

im my rather brief search of the net i dont see anyone claiming that it was supressed.

maybe the church fathers found the idea of a spoiled bratty jesus charming?

it does have a certain amount of charm. he is rather like any kid would be if he had super powers.

its all BS of course as it probably dates from the middle 100s

I agree with the majority of this post, but I think you're overstating our ignorance as to the origins of the Gospels...snip...

Yes. I was overstating.
It was to prove a point. We do know quite a bit about them, but not the important details. Who, when, and where. As you point out, some good ideas, but no concrete proof. As such, in my own opinion, and Im sure many others, it cannot be relied upon to accurately document anything, except the early development of the christian religion. It cannot provide reliable testimony as to the existance of its "main character".



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.

Reasonable, but not accurate. There is even today, much debate about the origins of even the earliest of the "Canon" novels, as Ive mentioned many times. We can guess.
But for the purposes of proving whether or not Jesus existed, and rely upon any such book as evidence, "guessing" isnt good enough.

Jesus Did Exist There is No Dout no Question at All if you said NO or Probably
are a threat to The Supreme Dictator and History Land

Makes me think that i should sig all the times Ruffy and WYTYG were hitting on me :p

WYTYG maybe, she's a hotty. I'm not sure getting hit on by Ruffy is much of a claim to fame though... :D

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

Not read it, unfortunately. I saw it, and added it to 'the list'... I've just never gotten around to going back and picking it up. (And I pick up some weird books... one little secondhand gem I happened across explains how the Bible and the Pyramids are evidence of a millenia-old, globe spanning Irish church...)

The Julius book: http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

(The Irish one - look on this page: http://www.kessinger.net/searchresults-orderthebook.php?Author=MacDari,+Conor#2, for a book called "Irish Wisdom Preserved in Bible and Pyramids")

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.

So - we believe everything until it can be categorically proved NOT to exist?

I assume, given the centuries of evidence, and the complete failure to disprove, that you believe in fairies?

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.


Rather depends on your approach. If person X claims that 'the bible is a complete and inerrant work of god', then person Y showing a single flaw in the scripture (collectively) would invalidate Isaiah.

Fortunately, that is becoming an increasingly rare argument, well - amongst those debating here, at least.


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


Most bible scholars agree that the gospels were not 'seperately written'... they were based upon one another, and upon (at least) one other, earlier(??) source (the 'q' document... one of a couple of argued texts).


...agreeing on the main points of the story, as sources i would argue they corroborate each other.


Unless the latter texts are just copying from the former?


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

None of which is contemporary. Add to which, there are strong suggestions of later 'editorial' work, in the Josephus, if no others...

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.)

No evidence for a flood.

You seem to be arguing that - because you can't prove a flood DIDN'T happen, it's not unreasonable to assume it as historical fact?

Most bible scholars agree that the gospels were not 'seperately written'... they were based upon one another, and upon (at least) one other, earlier(??) source (the 'q' document... one of a couple of argued texts).

Sorry, brother, have to correct you there. Mark, Luke and Matthew likely have the same or relateed sources. They are certainly not independent. Luke and Matthew seem to be Mark with Q added, if I recall correctly.

HOWEVER, John is not in that mix. It's fair to to call them two independent sources, but I've not heard them called only one.

Edit: and get over to the poverty thread.

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.

Didn't everyone know that already? :confused:
Especially with a few of your helpful links. :D

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.
Nice!
I like you. Good post.

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

Heh not at all, I would love to see that.Yes ... but would you donate? That's the key here.
*nods emphatically*

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

Again, nice choice.

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.

None of the four gospel accounts can be eyewitness testimony of 'the baptism'. Since - well, none of the four gospel 'writers' were there.

It is me that you are misquoting.

From what I recall, there are four texts linked directly to Andrew... one that pairs him with Matthew, another that pairs him with Peter, one that describes his martyrdom, and one that just describes his 'acts'. It's a while since I've really reviewed them - but I'm pretty sure that none of them even mentions the 'baptism'. And, of course, you'd probably not accept them anyway, since they are apocrypha.

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?

How much water it would take to flood a small island? Rather depends on how big the waves are, and how often they come, no?

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 othersThat's what Grave_n_idle was shooting at yesterday, methinks.

Freedom of Choice ...
In ancient Rome there was a pawn
Who followed along and watched it fall
He cast a stone
He felt secure
He felt that he would never be heard

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice!

You've been given a voice- you don't want it
It seems to be the rule of thumb
Don’t be tricked by what you see
You've got two ways to go

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.

Even the bible texts weren't actually written during the (alleged) earthly ministry of Jesus.

The idea that there is evidence that DOES date from Jesus' own lifetime, is seemingly wishful thinking, at this point.

*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.*
See, for all the critics and naysayers out in the audience tonight ... this is what it's all about, this is the difference it makes to get on and argue for some ungodly amount of time about ungodly things. :p

Why would you deny history though? Research before you write false and uneducated things.AGAIN with the fucking one liners. Worse yet, telling people HERE to "research" without reviewing the thread itself. Garsh.

I thought the Corneliu manoeuvre was to run round and round in little circles while claiming victory? :pPerhaps Baldy has a different take on the same maneuver, but you're probably right.
I just remember it being along the same lines ... a WHILE ago, before Corny had a life :p

*snip*Good poster name. You'll be popular if you have some staying power. :)

Anyone who says he wasn't a real person is lying

YAY! FINALLY!

In contrast, of course, to the people who bear false witness about his existence and his evidence.

Though I dare say the thread will continue, regardless.

I'm The Juggernaut, bitch!
.

.

Dude, you drink don't you, Straughn? You get on every night and cheerlead.

And tonight, I'm jealous. Didn't I say anythingn profound at all?

Josephus, 3. (63) "Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,b those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day,c as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Josephus, Flavius ; Whiston, William: The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged. Peabody : Hendrickson, 1996, c1987, S. Ant 18.62-64

The text - as scholars largely agree it evolved:

""About this time, appeared Jesus, a wise man if indeed it is right to call Him a man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men an receive the truth with joy, and He drew to Himself many Jews and many also of the Greeks. This was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. For He appeared to them alive on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him. The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day."


The bolded elements are the parts scholars largely argue were added later - which leaves Josephus' comments (if genuine, at all) as reading:


"About this time, appeared Jesus, a wise man, and He drew to Himself many Jews. And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him. The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day."


Origen, quoting Josephus:

"“I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew accepting John somehow as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple [said that it was ‘to avenge James the Just'], whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.” (Origen, Contra Celsum, I, xlvii; ANF. iv, 416.)"


You may note, when Origen quotes Josephus, he says that Josephus did NOT believe Jesus to be 'the christ' - which he would surely have noticed if the hotly debated 'third passage' had originally contained the contested elements.

You may also note, Origen discusses John, based on Jospehus' testimony, as being just a baptist and teacher... not as Elijah reborn, or the baptist of Jesus, or the author of a miraculous baptism. You may also note - Origen's complaint about Jospehus' testimony is that it is about James, NOT Jesus.

Bearing in mind, Origen was trying to use Jospehus as an argument FOR Christianity. If Josephus really DID write the contested third passage (in it's entirety), why does Origen not capitalise on it, fail to quote it all, and complain about what is missing in the Josephus testimony?

I seem to recall John is often argued as being a kind of retelling of either the synoptic gospels (as though from memory, hence the timing discrepancies), or of earlier texts ('q' or... I think the other is 'm'?) - but with the goal of asserting the spiritual element of Jesus, rather than recounting the human element.

That would make it still basically one source (or the possibly two earlier sources), with some groovy hoodoo stuff thrown in, and crammed with sizzling gypsies. Okay. maybe not the gypsies.

Look up the lack of similarities. For example, Thomas, believed to have overlapped with Q, has many things in common with Mark, Matthew and Luke, but NOTHING with John.

Sorry, brother, have to correct you there. Mark, Luke and Matthew likely have the same or relateed sources. They are certainly not independent. Luke and Matthew seem to be Mark with Q added, if I recall correctly.

HOWEVER, John is not in that mix. It's fair to to call them two independent sources, but I've not heard them called only one.

Edit: and get over to the poverty thread.

I seem to recall John is often argued as being a kind of retelling of either the synoptic gospels (as though from memory, hence the timing discrepancies), or of earlier texts ('q' or... I think the other is 'm'?) - but with the goal of asserting the spiritual element of Jesus, rather than recounting the human element.

That would make it still basically one source (or the possibly two earlier sources), with some groovy hoodoo stuff thrown in, and crammed with sizzling gypsies. Okay. maybe not the gypsies.

That's what Grave_n_idle was shooting at yesterday, methinks.

Freedom of Choice ...

Yay. Perfect Circle ftw.

I seem to recall John is often argued as being a kind of retelling of either the synoptic gospels (as though from memory, hence the timing discrepancies), or of earlier texts ('q' or... I think the other is 'm'?) - but with the goal of asserting the spiritual element of Jesus, rather than recounting the human element.

That would make it still basically one source (or the possibly two earlier sources), with some groovy hoodoo stuff thrown in, and crammed with sizzling gypsies. Okay. maybe not the gypsies.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I have never encountered a hypothesis that has John in a tradition connected to the synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke), or to Q. John is so different in it's style, content and presentation of Jesus, that it is a simpler explanation that the Johannine tradition seperated from the Synoptic tradition very early, and remained seperated.

The problem with using John as a historical resource is that of the 4 canonical gospels, it was written the longest time after the life of Jesus, and unlike the Synoptics, it is effectively impossible to trace it's sources.

Schliemann in discovering Troy

I'd be careful. The historicity of many figures of the Trojan War- including Troy- is still a hot topic among scholars. The reason why the historicity argument still holds some sway is the fact Homer got so many of the details right regarding the period of the War- the Bronze Age- that he couldn't be writing complete fiction, since otherwise he wouldn't bother trying to "get the details right". However, the figures and events themselves are sparsely (if ever) corroborated, so historicity in those cases is far from a done deal.

If you ask me, Heinrich Schliemann- a known fan of The Illiad and The Odyssey- made his discoveries "wanting them to be true", instead of looking at what he's discovered and seeing what it really adds to the historical record. It's the same thing many Biblical archaeologists do- they make a discovery that seems to tie into a Biblical story and insist it's got something to do with said Biblical story instead of examining all the other possibilities (the case of "Azriya'u of Ya'udi" is a golden example- many scholars initially jumped to the conclusion it was the Biblical Uzziah until discoveries showed "Ya'udi" is a district in northern Syria and too far from Palestine to have been Judah, not to mention "Ya'udi" is *not* how the Assyrians render "Judah"). You can't research history "expecting" to find something- you've got to research it open to "whatever you can find"- that way, you don't read into a source detailing what isn't there.

In short, yeah, The Odyssey, Epic of Gilgamesh, The Old Testament, etc. are great stories- but just because they're great stories doesn't make them true- corroborative sources does.

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.

I agree that the Bible is more correctly viewed as an anthology of books instead of as a single book, but you've got to remember the purpose of this anthology- it's meant as a religious text meant to deliver a specific message. It's not meant to be "a collection of sources", and even if it was, you can't use another source within the Book to prove what's in the Book- you do that by providing an independent, external source. Otherwise, it's just a convoluted way of saying "I'm right because I'm right".

<snip>

I don't see anywhere where Jesus specifically says "I am the Son of God" or even "I am the Son of Man". In fact, Jesus never really says anything directly, speaking always in parables, analogies and rhetoric. Hence, there's a lot of interpretation

there ya go.

now.

do you really count that as a chronicle of his life?

Not to mention the fact that if you take out that text from Josephus' work, the text "flows" better, indicating it was inserted later hence undermining its authenticity.

We have fragmentary evidence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke that dates to within 50 years!

50 years is still too long a time away from the supposed transpirings of the New Testament for them to be compelling evidence of the NT's truthfulness.

plato and socrates are irrelevant to this discussion

I see my objection finally caught on. Nice. :cool:

and the conclusion he did exist cannot be justified.

I disagree when it comes to theories about historical events, persons, or circumstances. If no evidence can be presented for something that supposedly happened in the past you can be sure that the respective story had simply been made up. Just look at Mormonism, Scientology, Judaism, it's all just fabricated shit.

Well, until we get a source that says (for example) "one day, Peter and Paul went to the local pub and, in a drunken stupor, concoted the story of this man they called 'Jesus Christ'", there's no reason to even suggest that "Jesus Christ did not exist". We just "don't know".

The only correct position is "due to a lack of evidence for this claim, I'll set aside until there is something worth considering." Scholars do the latter. Fanatics do the former.

*claps* Very well said.

Does that mean no one can be found innocent or guilty, it is just set aside? or is this the type of thing that only applies to religion and the like?

The difference is that in a court of law, the idea is that someone has made a claim (i.e., "you are guilty of X crime!" or "you broke my water bottle!") and it's up to the claimant to provide evidence that the accused did such action. In scholarly circles, the goal is to simply understand "what happened and how it happened"- and any claims that are made there need to have evidence in the first place for it to be considered. Otherwise, no one's going to bother paying attention to it.

Regardless though, as Deus Malum already pointed out, when the accused is cleared, the judge just rules the accuser failed to provide sufficient evidence- not that "the accused never did it".

the debate about something's existance starts when someone says something exists....even if it never did.

the assumtion was made so the debate began. 2000+ years and we still can't make an statment for or against?

I think what's happened is that for 1800 years we simply "believed" the Bible was historically accurate and forgot to "fact check"- and now we're doing it. Perhaps we're doing it a little too late (since, by now, a lot of the ancient source material is either lost or arduous to recover) but at least we're doing it.

there has always been searching. even at the start of christianity (ie after the supposed death of christ) there were different versions popping up.

None of those were outside of the Church- it's only recently that non-Church members have been allowed to "critique" and "examine" the Bible. Therein lies the difference.

Yea, but would it have be destroyed because it was considered true or because it was blasphimic(sp?)?

Probably the latter- I don't think the early Church cared for "having as many sources for Jesus as we can" because that question never popped up (they operated in a world where one couldn't *be* secular and thus no one dared questioned the validity of Jesus Christ in history as we do now). The Church, however, wanted to ensure that the story of Jesus Christ is one that is favourable- I'm pretty sure that if it found a document from AD 28 that painted Jesus as a thug who terrorized the streets of Bethlehem with random acts of violence the Church wouldn't keep it as it is unfavourable, even though now- where we don't care about such value judgements as "favourable" or "unfavourable"- such a source would be vital to our query.

In the abstract, it's much easier to buy a "godman", than if you were sitting and having a beer with him.

You'd have to wonder what'd that be like. Imagine the stories He'd tell. :eek:

Not read it, unfortunately. I saw it, and added it to 'the list'... I've just never gotten around to going back and picking it up. (And I pick up some weird books... one little secondhand gem I happened across explains how the Bible and the Pyramids are evidence of a millenia-old, globe spanning Irish church...)

The Julius book: http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

(The Irish one - look on this page: http://www.kessinger.net/searchresults-orderthebook.php?Author=MacDari,+Conor#2, for a book called "Irish Wisdom Preserved in Bible and Pyramids")

Thanks. Francesco Carotta does make an interesting case, albeit he proves nothing other than "Mark 'touched up' the story of Julius Caesar and turned it into the story of Jesus Christ", since there are no sources proving the Romans wanted to create Jesus (at least I don't think- I just read the summary), and several other things don't add up- Caesar was arrogant, egotistical and power-hungry, Jesus was humble, selfless and uninterested in "worldly goals"; he says Caesar's career began in Gaul, it really began in Cilicia; and finally why would the Romans go through the trouble of "manufacturing Jesus" if Emperors would later persecute His followers? Carotta may draw the eyes of the casual observer, but I think the scholar will be unimpressed.

As for the Irish book, the link doesn't provide anything except a "table of contents", but I did find the book online at Google Books- just reading the section on the Egyptians made me double back in bafflement. "Egypt is a pristine society. Ireland also is a pristine society. Hence why the Irish founded Egypt". Right. :rolleyes:

*sigh* I guess I should figure we'd get crazy theories- after all, there *are* six billion of us: who knows what someone else has thought up. Maybe the fact Barry Bonds has too uncanny a resemblance to Oscar the Grouch for the two to be dissimilar? Just spinning my wheels here...

All right, how about this:

To those who deny the existance of Jesus, I put this question: If Jesus did not exist, what is the genesis of the stories about him? From where did the authors of the earlier books of the New Testament, as well as the authors of the early non-canonical gospels, get the idea for the charachter of Jesus?

All right, how about this:

To those who deny the existance of Jesus, I put this question: If Jesus did not exist, what is the genesis of the stories about him? From where did the authors of the earlier books of the New Testament, as well as the authors of the early non-canonical gospels, get the idea for the charachter of Jesus?

The dozens of similar stories about others that were already around plus a healthy dose of imagination ?
The whole idea of resurrections, monotheism, halfgods, miracles and so on as well as the moral lessons were hardly original. I would even go as far as suggesting you could read the the Bible as an anthology.

And telling fantastic stories was the favourite passtime of many writers - there was no Bold and the beautiful on the telly then after all.
Unless you believe the Cyclopes, three headed dogs, pantheon of Greco-Romanic gods and so on also need a basis in reality ?

All right, how about this:

To those who deny the existance of Jesus, I put this question: If Jesus did not exist, what is the genesis of the stories about him? From where did the authors of the earlier books of the New Testament, as well as the authors of the early non-canonical gospels, get the idea for the charachter of Jesus?

A vision, another historical or mythic figure twisted or confused into a seperate entity, a cavalcade of individuals grouped together by mistake through hearsay or even a deliberate fabrication. Really, it's not hard to come up with this kind of story.

The dozens of similar stories about others that were already around plus a healthy dose of imagination ?

So you believe that one person took these similar stories, collected them and invented the person Jesus, and then everyone else either got sucked in or followed along because it was in their intrest.

So you believe that one person took these similar stories, collected them and invented the person Jesus, and then everyone else either got sucked in or followed along because it was in their intrest.

Not what he said. There are tons of explanations many of which don't require intentional fabrication.

I suppose my point is this: Instead of passing of the stories about Jesus as mistakes, or results of an intentional fabrication, isn't it a better hypothesis?

There was a guy who lived arround the turn of the millenium, who, in the mould of people like John the Baptist, walked arround preaching about something like the "Kingdom of Heaven". This guy died, and his followers, who believed he was the messiah, went out preaching his message. As these stories spread, different ideas about him developed, and this evolved into early Christianity.

Isn't it a better hypothesis that Jesus was a real historical figure whose followers made him into more than he ever actually was?

Not what he said. There are tons of explanations many of which don't require intentional fabrication.

But my problem with those explanations is that it is difficult to explain the relatively coherent image of Jesus found in the earliest Christian writings (The gospel of Thomas, The Synoptic Gospels and Q), without the story of Jesus having a single genesis.

But my problem with those explanations is that it is difficult to explain the relatively coherent image of Jesus found in the earliest Christian writings (The gospel of Thomas, The Synoptic Gospels and Q), without the story of Jesus having a single genesis.

Yes, there is a very simple explanation. That they had a common source or borrowed from each other, something that is pretty obvious. Meanwhile, it's very easy to get a consistant message when you destroy or deny everything inconsistent.

Isn't it a better hypothesis that Jesus was a real historical figure whose followers made him into more than he ever actually was?

I agree with that in principle. However, I've got nothing to go on that other than gut reactions and interpretation since I possess no solid evidence. Hence, there's no reason to suggest at this stage any real historical figure.

Yes, there is a very simple explanation. That they had a common source or borrowed from each other, something that is pretty obvious. Meanwhile, it's very easy to get a consistant message when you destroy or deny everything inconsistent.

Yeah, but my point is, what is the common source? Is that source genuine stories about the man, or is it a single oral tradition or written source. If it is either an oral tradition or written source, who came up with it?

Yeah, but my point is, what is the common source? Is that source genuine stories about the man, or is it a single oral tradition or written source. If it is either an oral tradition or written source, who came up with it?

The common source was what you named. Luke and Matthew likely used Q and Mark. Q and Thomas likely borrowed from one another and Mark.

Meanwhile, some of the stories could have originally come from other sources that when people heard them sounded like it should be a Jesus story.

The "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" story is thought to have been added later. It's not all that weird that once they started forming a religion that those who decided to write it down collaborated.

We KNOW that happened when they chose the books of the Bible. Were THEY fabricating Jesus or they just chosing the stories and faith that was consistent with what they wanted to believe?

I agree with that in principle. However, I've got nothing to go on that other than gut reactions and interpretation since I possess no solid evidence. Hence, there's no reason to suggest at this stage any real historical figure.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus was made into more than he was that it is therefore better to deny he ever existed?

Yeah, but my point is, what is the common source? Is that source genuine stories about the man, or is it a single oral tradition or written source. If it is either an oral tradition or written source, who came up with it?

We don't know who came up with what we have. THere could have been a single person that is at the core of everything, or several, or none. People get mixed up all the time. Have you ever seen how messed up eye witness tellings can be. People will swear they saw people there they didn't or didn't see what they did, or simply change the whole thing around. Witnesses are wildly unreliable, if there were any.

And it's easy to change things.

"Hey did you hear the resurrection story?"
"Yeah, Mithras, right?"
"No, you mean Jesus."
"Sure, whatever."

The common source was what you named. Luke and Matthew likely used Q and Mark. Q and Thomas likely borrowed from one another and Mark.

Meanwhile, some of the stories could have originally come from other sources that when people heard them sounded like it should be a Jesus story.

The "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" story is thought to have been added later. It's not all that weird that once they started forming a religion that those who decided to write it down collaborated.

We KNOW that happened when they chose the books of the Bible. Were THEY fabricating Jesus or they just chosing the stories and faith that was consistent with what they wanted to believe?

You can't use the four source hypothesis, because that does not have one source at the top of the tree, it has four just in the Synoptic tradition:
http://catholic-resources.org/Images/Synoptic4.jpg
If you want to use the four source hypothesis, you need to find a common link between Q, M, L and Mark. Do that, and you will have made the largest contribution to biblical criticism ever.

And when chosing the books of the Bible, "THEY" chose the best, earliest books. Of the five earliest gospels, four are in the canon, and the other (Thomas) contains no information about the life of Jesus, its just a collection of sayings.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus was made into more than he was that it is therefore better to deny he ever existed?

No. I said that there's nothing to base the idea of "Jesus was real but exaggerated" since the "Jesus was real" part is still not historically proven. I'm not denying anything.

Regardless- perhaps I didn't answer your query as directly as I should have- the "best hypothesis" for me is to assume that in the first century AD a story surrounding a Christ figure caught fire among the local populace and spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. The *source* of this story, however, is unknown.

Where the hell did this come from?
A dark, twisted, and often smelly recess of the soul.

it's much easier to buy a "godman", than if you were sitting and having a beer with him....instead of voting for the guy with the actual experience. :(

Jesus Did Exist There is No Dout no Question at All if you said NO or Probably
are a threat to The Supreme Dictator and History Land

Uhm, curious that you capitalised "L" in "History Land" in your quote, but your nation name is lacking same characteristic.

WYTYG maybe, she's a hotty. You're tellin' me!
It's just about impossible to get hit on by her, though. It's like she has standards, or something .... *grumbles*
... but at least she'd be deserted on an island with The Brevious, for whatever worth there is in that. Something about "Snu-snu" ...

I'm not sure getting hit on by Ruffy is much of a claim to fame though... :DWell, that's all about style. Does some amazing things with coffee, hybrids and piroshkis. :eek:

Dude, you drink don't you, Straughn? You get on every night and cheerlead.I do that when i feel there's a few entrenched ;) posters that are their own benders ;)
And, though i'm no teetotaler, i'm pretty much not imbibing unless there's a VERY good reason. My hormones aren't handling it well at all anymore to have any real instabilities with my endorphines ... so if i drink/get high, the crashes are fucking miserable, and i was already too depressed earlier in life to want to get anywhere near that again.

And tonight, I'm jealous. Didn't I say anything profound at all?You always do. I just reflect now on the fact that you didn't respond at all to (i think) my last two replies to you, which weren't really in jest at the time, so i figured you probably didn't need my input on anything unless you wanted to make me feel as though i was applauding some of your less-than-noble assaults on Baldy. Not "less-than-noble" on my account, so much as how you intimated.

You don't need to look at historical evidence in order to say whether Jesus really existed.

There are phenomena which are beyond logical explanation - miracles, appearances and such are occurring this very day. Testimonies are everywhere and numerous. This gives further evidence of the existence of Jesus.

This gives further evidence of the existence of Jesus.
No it doesn't.
It actually gives further evidence that we don't have enough answers to satisfy a sincere identification of the situation, certainly something this thread will attest to on the part of the old "fill in the blank with bullshit" crowd.
Don't equate your lack of knowledge and understanding with Jesus, unless that's exactly how you want it to be identified as (and your persuasion with it)- a lack of knowledge and understanding.

...instead of voting for the guy with the actual experience. :(who?

You don't need to look at historical evidence in order to say whether Jesus really existed.

There are phenomena which are beyond logical explanation - miracles, appearances and such are occurring this very day. Testimonies are everywhere and numerous. This gives further evidence of the existence of Jesus.Go ahead and produce, then.
...
...
...
Give some examples, and hope ... er, pray ... they don't expose you as the buffoon for not demonstrating an iota of scientific rigmarole.

You don't need to look at historical evidence in order to say whether Jesus really existed.
There are phenomena which are beyond logical explanation - miracles, appearances and such are occurring this very day. Testimonies are everywhere and numerous. This gives further evidence of the existence of Jesus.No, it gives hints at miracles, appearances and such. Has nothing to do with Jesus though.

who?
It's a reference you might not get but i suspect Jocabia does. The current asshole U.S. president has had it said (from supposedly numerous and mostly nebulous sources) as the kind of guy you'd go have a beer with.
It made mention a few times on the "likability" thread.

Go ahead and produce, then.
...
...
...
Give some examples, and hope ... er, pray ... they don't expose you as the buffoon for not demonstrating an iota of scientific rigmarole.

Almost all the saints. Most saints are saints because of miracles that have taken place. Now honestly, don't you ask me what miracles are they, because the Church has investigated each thoroughly. There would be thousands of reports, and most are shortlisted. I can give you that of San George Preca. The miracle performed on one man was seen in public. What model have the saints followed? My model or the model of Jesus?

Padre Pio. You didn't see what he carried?

Exorcism. Who do the exorcists call and pray to in order to perform exorcism? Me?

Appearances. To begin with, the appearances of the Virgin Mary are numerous. Just look them up in Google. Hundreds of witnesses. What does the Virgin Mary preach? The belief in me?

Almost all the saints. Most saints are saints because of miracles that have taken place. Now honestly, don't you ask me what miracles are they, because the Church has investigated each thoroughly. There would be thousands of reports, and most are shortlisted. I can give you that of San George Preca. The miracle performed on one man was seen in public. What model have the saints followed? My model or the model of Jesus?

Padre Pio. You didn't see what he carried?

Exorcism. Who do the exorcists call and pray to in order to perform exorcism? Me?

Appearances. To begin with, the appearances of the Virgin Mary are numerous. Just look them up in Google. Hundreds of witnesses. What does the Virgin Mary preach? The belief in me?

WTF??

WTF??

Any problem?

Any problem?What point are you trying to make?

What point are you trying to make?

I have just demonstrated heaps of evidence to the existence of Jesus.

Piccus I agree that Jesus does exist, and one day soon he will return and that will be all the proof any of us need. But some of these folks are trying to use this thread to prove he didn't exist. Thats why regardless of what any of us post here they still refuge to even consider our evidence.

I have just demonstrated heaps of evidence to the existence of Jesus.Oh, you did? Mind to elaborate on that?

See what I mean

Thats why regardless of what any of us post here they still refuge to even consider our evidence.

Fun when that happens, isn't it ?
Now you know how we feel when we debate with young earth creationists ;)

That aside - hollow rhetoric with no basis in fact is not convincing evidence.

Now, could someone sum up the evidence for Jesus' existence, please? ;)

AGAIN with the fucking one liners. Worse yet, telling people HERE to "research" without reviewing the thread itself. Garsh.

It is rather amusing for him to have posted an argument that we've already debunked, and telling us to do research :rolleyes:

So you believe that one person took these similar stories, collected them and invented the person Jesus, and then everyone else either got sucked in or followed along because it was in their intrest.

That is one possible explanation

I suppose my point is this: Instead of passing of the stories about Jesus as mistakes, or results of an intentional fabrication, isn't it a better hypothesis?

There was a guy who lived arround the turn of the millenium, who, in the mould of people like John the Baptist, walked arround preaching about something like the "Kingdom of Heaven". This guy died, and his followers, who believed he was the messiah, went out preaching his message. As these stories spread, different ideas about him developed, and this evolved into early Christianity.

Isn't it a better hypothesis that Jesus was a real historical figure whose followers made him into more than he ever actually was?

And that is another possible explanation

That is one possible explanation

And that is another possible explanation

And where is the evidence to substantiate any of these explanations/speculations ?

And where is the evidence to substantiate any of these explanations/speculations ?

There isn't any, I was just acknowledging the possibility that they could be true, we don't have any evidence against them either

There isn't any, I was just acknowledging the possibility that they could be true, we don't have any evidence against them eitherso if there is no evidence for or against it, which is probable?

so if there is no evidence for or against it, which is probable?

Did I say probable?
No, I didn't, I merely said it was possible.

Did I say probable?
No, I didn't, I merely said it was possible.possible is everything and has no value in examining historical circumstances. probability is at least taking into account some facts.

How much water it would take to flood a small island? Rather depends on how big the waves are, and how often they come, no?

i think it also depend on the geography that would allow flooding to the top of mt ararat. surely the drainage in the area is such that the water would flow into the surrounding seas before it would ever go 10,000 feet high.

not that id know for sure but that would be one hell of a basin if it didnt drain to the sea before it covered the mountains.

OTHER floods are irrelevant eh? if an island flooded due to a tsunami that is no evidence of the biblical flood.

Origen, quoting Josephus:

"“I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew accepting John somehow as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple [said that it was ‘to avenge James the Just'], whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.” (Origen, Contra Celsum, I, xlvii; ANF. iv, 416.)"


was there some judge called "james the just"?

None of the four gospel accounts can be eyewitness testimony of 'the baptism'. Since - well, none of the four gospel 'writers' were there.

It is me that you are misquoting.

From what I recall, there are four texts linked directly to Andrew... one that pairs him with Matthew, another that pairs him with Peter, one that describes his martyrdom, and one that just describes his 'acts'. It's a while since I've really reviewed them - but I'm pretty sure that none of them even mentions the 'baptism'. And, of course, you'd probably not accept them anyway, since they are apocrypha.

Each gospel is the testimony of only one witness? Why would that be, especially as none of the gospels make that claim of themselves? I don’t see why that would be true at all nor why we should assume it needs to be true to be an accurate recording of the eye witness testimony described in the gospels.

People keep presenting that assumption as if it’s the only one we can have when we examine the books for historicity and yet that claim flies in the face of the fact that we all recognize that a scribe can write the testimony of someone else and the testimony is the witness of the speaker, not the scribe. So why then, when the scribe is a witness of certain events themselves they suddenly are incapable of being the scribe for other witnesses testimony of events they haven’t seen themselves? They would not be disqualified from recording such testimony for any reason that I can think of.

If there was a 10 event narrative with 5 witnesses (for example) I don’t see why an entire story of the 10 events can’t be written by a singular scribe and the entire account told from eyewitness testimony but no one singular person saw all ten events. For example:

Person A witnesses events 1, 5, 7, 8, 10
Person B witnesses events 3, 4, 5, 7, 10
Person C witnesses events 3, 6, 8, 9, 10
Person D witnesses events 1, 2, 3, 9, 10
Person E witnesses events 2, 4, 5, 6, 10

All ten events would be witnessed by at least 2 persons, and all persons could witness certain other events and nobody has to witness to more than half of the events themselves, including the author/scribe (lets say person A transcribed the narrative for posterities sake).

But that’s just an example, when considering the gospel narrative, there would have been 11 apostles and dozens if not hundreds of other witnesses who gathered and shared their testimonies with each other in the years following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as was told to us to of happened in the book of Acts. With literally hundreds witnesses, both Jew and Gentile, men and women, adults and children, there would be an almost unlimited supply of eye witness testimony for a gospel scribe/author to draw upon to complete his/her book and not have to be present for all the events in the book and yet the entire book would be an eyewitness testimony of all events described. I see no reason to say Andrew (for example) can’t be a testifier of the Baptism of Jesus by John in all four gospels.

Even the bible texts weren't actually written during the (alleged) earthly ministry of Jesus.

The idea that there is evidence that DOES date from Jesus' own lifetime, is seemingly wishful thinking, at this point.

Winesses don't have to write during the sequence of events themselves.

Winesses don't have to write during the sequence of events themselves.

Eye witness accounts about anything, that have been written years after the occurrence, are dubious at best

Eye witness accounts about anything, that have been written years after the occurrence, are dubious at best

That's fine, I didn't say they have to be believed. But they are still eye-witness testimony all the same.

Winesses don't have to write during the sequence of events themselves.

yeah they kinda do.

if you tell me about something you saw some time in the past and 30 years later *I* write it down, its hearsay.

yeah they kinda do.

if you tell me about something you saw some time in the past and 30 years later *I* write it down, its hearsay.

Then there are no eye-witness testimonies of battles during WW2, except for the journalists who wrote while with the troops in the battles? Nonsense.

If I never told a story for thirty years and then tried to remember it and put it in sequence, I agree, I would mess it up too. If I told the story of what happened the week after it occurred, then I told it again a month later and every week for months and years thereafter, I'd know the story by heart and tell it error free with thirty years practice. Like an old actor knows all the words of his Shakespearean play without even trying anymore and he would never need to reference the book.

Then there are no eye-witness testimonies of battles during WW2, except for the journalists who wrote while with the troops in the battles? Nonsense.

If I never told a story for thirty years and then tried to remember it and put it in sequence, I agree, I would mess it up too. If I told the story of what happened the week after it occurred, then I told it again a month later and every week for months and years thereafter, I'd know the story by heart and tell it error free with thirty years practice. Like an old actor knows all the words of his Shakespearean play without even trying anymore and he would never need to reference the book.

there are lots of eye witness testimonies to battles of ww2 but not everything written about ww2 is eyewitness testimony.

it doesnt matter how many times you repeat a story, you arent an eye witness unless you were there.

the authors of the gospels werent there and dont claim to be giving the testimony of anyone else.

there are lots of eye witness testimonies to battles of ww2 but not everything written about ww2 is eyewitness testimony.

it doesnt matter how many times you repeat a story, you arent an eye witness unless you were there.

the authors of the gospels werent there and dont claim to be giving the testimony of anyone else.


The authros don't claim to be giving the testimony of only themselves either. A scribe can certainly transcribe an account for someone else and the account is an eye witness testimony.

The authros don't claim to be giving the testimony of only themselves either. A scribe can certainly transcribe an account for someone else and the account is an eye witness testimony.

a scribe certainly can.

if you look at the first epistle of peter, it was written by a scribe but that does nt make it the work of that scribe.

but unless a writer is making the active claim that he is writing down the testimony of someone else, he isnt. he is writing his understanding of events. that makes it hearsay.

a scribe certainly can.

if you look at the first epistle of peter, it was written by a scribe but that does nt make it the work of that scribe.

but unless a writer is making the active claim that he is writing down the testimony of someone else, he isnt. he is writing his understanding of events. that makes it hearsay.

The author(s) of the gospels, except for Luke, do not tell us who they are or how they wrote it. How can you make such a blanket statment that they must make a claim at all. The scribe doesn't need to 'sign' his work, the author apparently had no desire to identify themselves at all. To say that they wrote only their own understanding (ignoring 'how' they have any understanding at all) of the events and that is then hearsay is no more valid than saying all scribes everywhere were writing hearsay because they recorded someone elses words. The scribe recording the testimony does not need to identify those others when he doesn't even bother to identify himself.

Winesses don't have to write during the sequence of events themselves.

It is not eyewitness testimony unless you know who the witness is. Otherwise, it's just a story. That's how this works. You don't get to assume it's from eyewitnesses just because we can't prove it isn't.

You are REQUIRED to demonstrate that this is the written accounts from eyewitnesses or we are perfectly free to disregard that assertion.

The author(s) of the gospels, except for Luke, do not tell us who they are or how they wrote it. How can you make such a blanket statment that they must make a claim at all. The scribe doesn't need to 'sign' his work, the author apparently had no desire to identify themselves at all. To say that they wrote only their own understanding (ignoring 'how' they have any understanding at all) of the events and that is then hearsay is no more valid than saying all scribes everywhere were writing hearsay because they recorded someone elses words. The scribe recording the testimony does not need to identify those others when he doesn't even bother to identify himself.

its not written as testimony. the various stories are not said to be the recollection of this guy or that guy.

nothing written a generation or more after the fact by a person who wasnt there who is not claiming to be transcribing the recollections of a specific person about specific events can possibly be seen anything more than hearsay.

saying it again will not change that.

The author(s) of the gospels, except for Luke, do not tell us who they are or how they wrote it. How can you make such a blanket statment that they must make a claim at all. The scribe doesn't need to 'sign' his work, the author apparently had no desire to identify themselves at all. To say that they wrote only their own understanding (ignoring 'how' they have any understanding at all) of the events and that is then hearsay is no more valid than saying all scribes everywhere were writing hearsay because they recorded someone elses words. The scribe recording the testimony does not need to identify those others when he doesn't even bother to identify himself.

You don't get it. If the scribe is going to put a claim that it's eyewitness testimony, they must identify the witness. As she said, otherwise it's just the person writing's understanding of events.

You're throwing this big IF out there and acting as if we must accept it. NO evidence shows they witnessed these events. NONE. So either you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim or we can continue to ignore your claim.

It is not eyewitness testimony unless you know who the witness is. Otherwise, it's just a story. That's how this works. You don't get to assume it's from eyewitnesses just because we can't prove it isn't.

You are REQUIRED to demonstrate that this is the written accounts from eyewitnesses or we are perfectly free to disregard that assertion.

You are perfectly free to disregard the assertion even if the gospels came with names and addresses of the witnesses on them.

You don't get it. If the scribe is going to put a claim that it's eyewitness testimony, they must identify the witness. As she said, otherwise it's just the person writing's understanding of events.

You're throwing this big IF out there and acting as if we must accept it. NO evidence shows they witnessed these events. NONE. So either you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim or we can continue to ignore your claim.

wait...I thought your whole line of logic was that unless there is evidence either way you cannot make judgement.

So why can you claim that the books are not from an eyewittness, but then turn around and say that you cannot claim that the man they are about did or did not exist?

You are perfectly free to disregard the assertion even if the gospels came with names and addresses of the witnesses on them.

really?

You don't get it. If the scribe is going to put a claim that it's eyewitness testimony, they must identify the witness. As she said, otherwise it's just the person writing's understanding of events.

I do 'get it.' You think the authors needed to identify themselves, when and where they wrote and why and with which sources, the authors though seem to disagree with you, as they did none of that. They transcribed the stories they knew, unless you are arguing that they wrote stories new to them, then the narative they recorded was a well known narrative.

You're throwing this big IF out there and acting as if we must accept it. NO evidence shows they witnessed these events. NONE. So either you can demonstrate the veracity of your claim or we can continue to ignore your claim.


I'm not saying that you have to accept it at all. I'm saying that IF the gospels had names and addresses of the witnesses they record, it would make no difference to us today. The claim that they were all made up could continue unabated. Why pretend that they (the gospels) would be better testimonials today if only they had ‘signed’ their names. It’s a red herring argument to ask for signatures and names of the people when we know we have no way of validating those names and addresses even if we did have them.

Almost all the saints. Most saints are saints because of miracles that have taken place. Now honestly, don't you ask me what miracles are they, because the Church has investigated each thoroughly. There would be thousands of reports, and most are shortlisted. I can give you that of San George Preca. The miracle performed on one man was seen in public. What model have the saints followed? My model or the model of Jesus?

Padre Pio. You didn't see what he carried?

Exorcism. Who do the exorcists call and pray to in order to perform exorcism? Me?

Appearances. To begin with, the appearances of the Virgin Mary are numerous. Just look them up in Google. Hundreds of witnesses. What does the Virgin Mary preach? The belief in me?

Miracles are evidence of something inexplicable - if they can be verified - but not necessarily of 'Jesus'. After all, (we are told) miracles were happening long before the Jesus story was written... even the Egyptians in the Exodus story perform miracles... and the Old Testament warns us that even FALSE prophets can perform 'signs' and 'wonders'.

It looks like your 'gods' aren't the only explanation, right?

wait...I thought your whole line of logic was that unless there is evidence either way you cannot make judgement.

So why can you claim that the books are not from an eyewittness, but then turn around and say that you cannot claim that the man they are about did or did not exist?

I didn't say we can assume they're not from eyewitnesses. I said we can't regard them as if they are. You cannot use an assumption in an argument without supporting it. That they are from eyewitnesses is not supported.

I can't start an argument with "since God exists..." nor can I start it with "since God doesn't exist..."

...
really?

Yes, I think a person can completely disregard the writings and testimony of a witness, just because they know the person's name and address doesn’t mean the reader has to think they are telling the truth.

Piccus I agree that Jesus does exist, and one day soon he will return and that will be all the proof any of us need. But some of these folks are trying to use this thread to prove he didn't exist. Thats why regardless of what any of us post here they still refuge to even consider our evidence.

I don't have to "prove he didn't exist". There's no good evidence, so I see no reason to accept it as fact. There's better evidence for fairies, but I'd bet you don't believe in them, right?

I do 'get it.' You think the authors needed to identify themselves, when and where they wrote and why and with which sources, the authors though seem to disagree with you, as they did none of that. They transcribed the stories they knew, unless you are arguing that they wrote stories new to them, then the narative they recorded was a well known narrative.

No, I don't. I THINK that unless you identify the eyewitness, then it's hearsay. You kept bringing up law. That's a fact.

That they were a well-known narrative doesn't make them the work of eyewitnesses. You're starting with conclusion in hand, since the only way they could be eyewitness is if they are true. The narrative has a point of view that is common in narrative. It does not demonstrate the veracity of the claim. At all.




I'm not saying that you have to accept it at all. I'm saying that IF the gospels had names and addresses of the witnesses they record, it would make no difference to us today. The claim that they were all made up could continue unabated. Why pretend that they (the gospels) would be better testimonials today if only that had ‘signed’ their names. It’s a red herring argument to ask for signatures and names of the people when we know we have no way of validating those names and addresses even if we did have them.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm not even speaking to whether or not they are true. I'm speaking to whether or not you can ASSUME they are eyewitness testimony and you cannot. You've got no evidence they are. None.

You are perfectly free to disregard the assertion even if the gospels came with names and addresses of the witnesses on them.

I'm free to disregard the assertion that they are the work of eyewitnesses, particularly since some of the events in the Bible were not witnessed by anyone but Jesus who wrote nothing. At least SOME of the stories must have been passed down.

You can keep lying and calling them eyewitness testimony, but it really isn't going to help your claim or the credibility of future claims.

I do 'get it.' You think the authors needed to identify themselves, when and where they wrote and why and with which sources, the authors though seem to disagree with you, as they did none of that. They transcribed the stories they knew, unless you are arguing that they wrote stories new to them, then the narative they recorded was a well known narrative.


exactly

they wrote down a well known narrative. that means it is NOT eyewitness testimony but their best version of the events.

why make the eyewitness claim when neither the authors nor the biblical experts make the claim?

Each gospel is the testimony of only one witness? Why would that be, especially as none of the gospels make that claim of themselves? I don’t see why that would be true at all nor why we should assume it needs to be true to be an accurate recording of the eye witness testimony described in the gospels.

People keep presenting that assumption as if it’s the only one we can have when we examine the books for historicity and yet that claim flies in the face of the fact that we all recognize that a scribe can write the testimony of someone else and the testimony is the witness of the speaker, not the scribe. So why then, when the scribe is a witness of certain events themselves they suddenly are incapable of being the scribe for other witnesses testimony of events they haven’t seen themselves? They would not be disqualified from recording such testimony for any reason that I can think of.

If there was a 10 event narrative with 5 witnesses (for example) I don’t see why an entire story of the 10 events can’t be written by a singular scribe and the entire account told from eyewitness testimony but no one singular person saw all ten events. For example:

Person A witnesses events 1, 5, 7, 8, 10
Person B witnesses events 3, 4, 5, 7, 10
Person C witnesses events 3, 6, 8, 9, 10
Person D witnesses events 1, 2, 3, 9, 10
Person E witnesses events 2, 4, 5, 6, 10

All ten events would be witnessed by at least 2 persons, and all persons could witness certain other events and nobody has to witness to more than half of the events themselves, including the author/scribe (lets say person A transcribed the narrative for posterities sake).

But that’s just an example, when considering the gospel narrative, there would have been 11 apostles and dozens if not hundreds of other witnesses who gathered and shared their testimonies with each other in the years following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as was told to us to of happened in the book of Acts. With literally hundreds witnesses, both Jew and Gentile, men and women, adults and children, there would be an almost unlimited supply of eye witness testimony for a gospel scribe/author to draw upon to complete his/her book and not have to be present for all the events in the book and yet the entire book would be an eyewitness testimony of all events described. I see no reason to say Andrew (for example) can’t be a testifier of the Baptism of Jesus by John in all four gospels.

If the Gospel of Matthew isn't what Matthew (or the author claiming to be Matthew) saw, then it is hearsay - not witness testimony.

Yes, sure - you can claim that 'Matthew' wrote down hat others saw, and thus it is recording their witness testimony... but then, it never cites a single other source, and presents it's claims as directly verified.

I guess you basically have to choose - is the Gospel of Matthew really the Gospel of Matthew, or just a collection of 'stuff some scribe might have heard'?

Either it's an uncredited accumulation of other people's stories, presented as witness testimony - in which case it's an unreliable source, and definitely NOT a primary source... or it contains elements accounted, but NOT witnessed by the author... in which case it is STILL unreliable.

Winesses don't have to write during the sequence of events themselves.

Try to keep up.

I was responding to a poster claiming there is evidence from within Jesus' own lifetime. Now, stop and think about what you just said in that context....

...
I'm not pretending anything. I'm not even speaking to whether or not they are true. I'm speaking to whether or not you can ASSUME they are eyewitness testimony and you cannot. You've got no evidence they are. None.

I'm not assuming that they must be eyewitness testimony, I'm arguing against GnI and Ashmoria that say they ARE hearsay and not eye-witness accounts because we know so-and-so wasn’t at such-and-such event and yet that event is recorded in so-and-so's book. Thus, it's NOT eye-witness testimony. I'm showing how that statement is erroneous, thaey can't know that. The gospel's authenticity, presented to us by the recordings of the 'publishers' (if you will, the people that accepted them as coming from apostle authority and kept these books and put names on them etc, and recorded for us how and who wrote them for our posterity) asserted that these few gospels ARE eye-witness testimonies and their claim has NOT been disproved by hypothesis of how it must all be hearsay because it does not meet modern day trial authority.


(p.s., as to the law assertion you made, I already linked at least twice to how ancient documents have exceptions to the hearsay rules in modern day courtrooms and THEN I was told that this forum isn’t a courtroom so law rules don’t apply here and yet here we are again, with you saying ‘hearsay’ is a disqualifying accusation according to law)

I'm not assuming that they must be eyewitness testimony, I'm arguing against GnI and Ashmoria that say they ARE hearsay and not eye-witness accounts because we know so-and-so wasn’t at such-and-such event and yet that event is recorded in so-and-so's book. Thus, it's NOT eye-witness testimony. I'm showing how that statement is erroneous, thaey can't know that. The gospel's authenticity, presented to us by the recordings of the 'publishers' (if you will, the people that accepted them as coming from apostle authority and kept these books and put names on them etc, and recorded for us how and who wrote them for our posterity) asserted that these few gospels ARE eye-witness testimonies and their claim has NOT been disproved by hypothesis of how it must all be hearsay because it does not meet modern day trial authority.


(p.s., as to the law assertion you made, I already linked at least twice to how ancient documents have exceptions to the hearsay rules in modern day courtrooms and THEN I was told that this forum isn’t a courtroom so law rules don’t apply here and yet here we are again, with you saying ‘hearsay’ is a disqualifying accusation according to law)

They are HEARSAY. If I say, this guy told me once... that's hearsay. If I say, I heard... that's hearsay. In order for it to be eyewitness testimony, in order for it to be regarded as the work of an eyewitness, it has to be demonstrated. It HAS to be.

You are perfectly free to disregard the assertion even if the gospels came with names and addresses of the witnesses on them.

That's true.

However, what we're really talking about is the values of sources.

If the Gospels DID say they were eyewitness testimony, we could ignore them quite easily, because they would be poor sources, since the authors could be shown to be liars.

If the Gospels DID cite the witness, every time they draw testimony from someone else, the source would be much better... although it still falls down a little if we can't independently verify that any of the witnesses are real.

The actual Gospel texts, however... fall somewhere between those options... they are presented with the kind of perspective and authority that speaks of first-hand eyewitness testimony... but we KNOW they aren't. They speak of things that the authors can't have witnessed... but they give no sources.

Which of the apostles do we rely on for our 'witness testimony' of what did (or didn't) pass through Mary's vagina? Which witness describes what he saw foetus-the soon-to-be-Baptist do in the womb? Which apostle saw The Word creating the world?

I'm not assuming that they must be eyewitness testimony, I'm arguing against GnI and Ashmoria that say they ARE hearsay and not eye-witness accounts because we know so-and-so wasn’t at such-and-such event and yet that event is recorded in so-and-so's book. Thus, it's NOT eye-witness testimony. I'm showing how that statement is erroneous, thaey can't know that. The gospel's authenticity, presented to us by the recordings of the 'publishers' (if you will, the people that accepted them as coming from apostle authority and kept these books and put names on them etc, and recorded for us how and who wrote them for our posterity) asserted that these few gospels ARE eye-witness testimonies and their claim has NOT been disproved by hypothesis of how it must all be hearsay because it does not meet modern day trial authority.


You are, quite simply, wrong. Simply because people accepted the scriptures, doesn't make the eye-witness accounts.

I'm free to disregard the assertion that they are the work of eyewitnesses, particularly since some of the events in the Bible were not witnessed by anyone but Jesus who wrote nothing. At least SOME of the stories must have been passed down.

You can keep lying and calling them eyewitness testimony, but it really isn't going to help your claim or the credibility of future claims.

Perhaps Balders is now willing to recant the claim that the gospels are witness testimony?

Which of the apostles do we rely on for our 'witness testimony' of what did (or didn't) pass through Mary's vagina? Which witness describes what he saw foetus-the soon-to-be-Baptist do in the womb? Which apostle saw The Word creating the world?

And most importantly, who witnessed Matthew's zombie invasion? ;)

EDIT: Now I think about it, it would explain quite a bit if the author of Matthew had had his brains pulled out and devoured by a wandering zombie.

If the Gospel of Matthew isn't what Matthew (or the author claiming to be Matthew) saw, then it is hearsay - not witness testimony.

Show me where the Gospel of Matthew makes any claims about it at all.

Yes, sure - you can claim that 'Matthew' wrote down hat others saw, and thus it is recording their witness testimony... but then, it never cites a single other source, and presents it's claims as directly verified.

I didn't verify any claims. The gospel according to Matthew doesn't identify its author as a source.

I guess you basically have to choose - is the Gospel of Matthew really the Gospel of Matthew, or just a collection of 'stuff some scribe might have heard'?
"heard' Heard from who? What they have from their own experiences and from what they heard from other eyewitnesses perhaps? As the church fathers claim? Perhaps.

Either it's an uncredited accumulation of other people's stories, presented as witness testimony - in which case it's an unreliable source, and definitely NOT a primary source... or it contains elements accounted, but NOT witnessed by the author... in which case it is STILL unreliable.
Unaccredited is irrelevant to us, we couldn't validate names and address even if we had a list of them. We can't say which events the author witnessed in most cases as the author doesn't identify themselves (in most cases). The collection of testimonies is not disqualified just because we aren't given their names.

If we have a narrative of two people talking, we can 'assume' the author is telling us that they have the testimony of one of those two people OR they are one of those two people. IF we choose to call them a liar, we can do that even if they did give us names and addresses. Having names and addresses would change nothing.

Perhaps Balders is now willing to recant the claim that the gospels are witness testimony?

Nope, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Jesus said nothing to his apostles that is outside of the gospels during the three years before he was crucified (and for Christians, no reason to assume he didn't talk to them and make his own testimony after the crucifixion either).

They are HEARSAY. If I say, this guy told me once... that's hearsay. If I say, I heard... that's hearsay. In order for it to be eyewitness testimony, in order for it to be regarded as the work of an eyewitness, it has to be demonstrated. It HAS to be.

Then you are saying a scribe can't record the testimony of another person. Nonsense.

That's true.

However, what we're really talking about is the values of sources.

If the Gospels DID say they were eyewitness testimony, we could ignore them quite easily, because they would be poor sources, since the authors could be shown to be liars.

If the Gospels DID cite the witness, every time they draw testimony from someone else, the source would be much better... although it still falls down a little if we can't independently verify that any of the witnesses are real.

The actual Gospel texts, however... fall somewhere between those options... they are presented with the kind of perspective and authority that speaks of first-hand eyewitness testimony...
Very good, I have no real beef with any of that... only exception would be the remark that pretends for even a second that they would be 'better' if they had it. I disagree, they would not be improved or harmed one wit either way.

but we KNOW they aren't. They speak of things that the authors can't have witnessed... but they give no sources. They CAN know. They CAN have spent time with the people that were there that told them what happened. And thus, they become scribes of other people's testimony.

Which of the apostles do we rely on for our 'witness testimony' of what did (or didn't) pass through Mary's vagina? Which witness describes what he saw foetus-the soon-to-be-Baptist do in the womb? Which apostle saw The Word creating the world?

Mary's testimony would be a good choice. Why do you assume she never talked to them?

And most importantly, who witnessed Matthew's zombie invasion? ;)

EDIT: Now I think about it, it would explain quite a bit if the author of Matthew had had his brains pulled out and devoured by a wandering zombie.

It has to be said, the zombie invasion is probably my favourite part of the whole story... it's kind of a shame no one else thought it worth mentioning... neither 'real' historians, nor the other Gospel-ists.

(Is it worth questioning why the dead are able to walk at all, given the Christian and Jewish assertion that the dead flesh is dead? (Example: Job 7:9 "so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more".) After all - wasn't that supposed to be Jesus' big trick?)

Then you are saying a scribe can't record the testimony of another person. Nonsense.

That's not what he said:

In order for it to be eyewitness testimony, in order for it to be regarded as the work of an eyewitness, it has to be demonstrated. It HAS to be.

So a scribe can record the eye-witness testimony of another, but Jocabia's saying its origin has to be demonstrated before it is treated as an eye-witness account.

It has to be said, the zombie invasion is probably my favourite part of the whole story... it's kind of a shame no one else thought it worth mentioning... neither 'real' historians, nor the other Gospel-ists.

Which real historians writings did you have in mind? Got any links, any place I can get these writings and read them for myself?


(Is it worth questioning why the dead are able to walk at all, given the Christian and Jewish assertion that the dead flesh is dead? (Example: Job 7:9 "so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more".) After all - wasn't that supposed to be Jesus' big trick?)

John 11:25
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

Nope, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Jesus said nothing to his apostles that is outside of the gospels during the three years before he was crucified (and for Christians, no reason to assume he didn't talk to them and make his own testimony after the crucifixion either).

You don't know what witness testimony is, do you? Even if he told them, it's not witness testimony. It's stories passed down. No amount of wriggling changes that. It HAS to be a collection of stories from a collection of sources. We don't know who those sources are and expecting people to simply assume those sources were direct is absurd.

Claiming this is eyewitness testimony is a lie or ignorant. There are no other choices. You've not got the information to claim it is witness testimony.

It has to be said, the zombie invasion is probably my favourite part of the whole story... it's kind of a shame no one else thought it worth mentioning... neither 'real' historians, nor the other Gospel-ists.

Same here. I like the sheer bizarreness, but what really amuses me is how many Christians don't seem to be aware of the passage. For such a momentus event it gets very little mention.

(Is it worth questioning why the dead are able to walk at all, given the Christian and Jewish assertion that the dead flesh is dead? (Example: Job 7:9 "so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more".) After all - wasn't that supposed to be Jesus' big trick?)

I'm sure there's a loophole to wriggle out of: maybe that only applies to people who are buried in the ground rather than being placed in rock tombs, or maybe the people who are getting up have been transformed and are no longer the same ones who 'went down'.