There is no proof that Jesus existed. . . . sorry

[DRMIZER]

There is no proof that Jesus existed. It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence. Although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable.

The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated. Even if they could they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the auspices of the Church. (Not all of the gospels were approved). Eventually they were translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more attenuated, being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James Version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to argue the question.

For the same reason, it is debatable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later writer. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia. He would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53.

The proof (or disproof) of an asserted fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be prone to proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere.

The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the numerous texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth.

[billygardener]

are there any roman records of it? I know the Jewish Talmud speaks of him, but I don't know if it is from Jesus' time or after.

[Slipped Mickey]

Dr.,

My belief doesn't depend on the existance of Jesus. Actually, it doesn't depend on the existance of anyone. Christians believe in Jesus, it is a tenet of their faith. I don't have a problem with that. If I believed in Jesus in total I'd be a Christian, no? At the same time I don't have a problem at all with other people (my wife, my family, my friends) believing in Jesus. In my belief I don't need Jesus not to have existed to validate my faith.

What does it matter to the rest of us? I am inclined to give Christians the respect and the acceptance that I would in turn expect from them. I don't see it as an issue.

Mick

[FlyingGuineapig]

/shrug - on the Internet, there's no proof you, DRMIZER, exist. Or I, FlyingGuineapig, exist.

Yet here we are.

[DRMIZER]

Dr.,

My belief doesn't depend on the existance of Jesus. Actually, it doesn't depend on the existance of anyone. Christians believe in Jesus, it is a tenet of their faith. I don't have a problem with that. If I believed in Jesus in total I'd be a Christian, no? At the same time I don't have a problem at all with other people (my wife, my family, my friends) believing in Jesus. In my belief I don't need Jesus not to have existed to validate my faith.

What does it matter to the rest of us? I am inclined to give Christians the respect and the acceptance that I would in turn expect from them. I don't see it as an issue.

MickIt really doesn't matter to me what others believe either. This is simply a brief, factual statement to those who so desperately want to deny the idea of facts. There appears to be a movement in this country against facts and toward the facts of beliefs. Just a stark reminder that other areas of thought exist when it comes to removing icons from public places, etc. If one believes, it doesn't matter if icons are in public places if they are removed or banned. . .they will continue to believe.,

You state your faith does not depend on the existance of anyone, I'm curious what your faith might be? This is NOT a trick question. . . .

[DRMIZER]

/shrug - on the Internet, there's no proof you, DRMIZER, exist. Or I, FlyingGuineapig, exist.

Yet here we are.Which, I might add has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement in this thread. But, ince you mentioned it, we have pictures of us, we have s.s. no. and a multitude of other areas of proof that we are here. Unfortunately, these things weren't around 2000 years ago.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Which, I might add has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement in this thread. But, ince you mentioned it, we have pictures of us, we have s.s. no. and a multitude of other areas of proof that we are here. Unfortunately, these things weren't around 2000 years ago.
Sure, but pictures can be faked (Photoshop makes it easy), social security numbers are frequently stolen (you have heard of identity theft, right?). None of these are absolute proof.

What would you accept as absolute, unargueable proof that someone exists?

[JoeR]

I don't doubt that he existed, there is just so much written about him that it seems doubtful that it is just a figment of someones imagination. I don't know if what is written is accurate, but thats a different story.

[neo of the mind]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3176347,00.html
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2005-1227-seal_with_image_of_jesus.htm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051219/jesus_his.html

[JoeR]

How is a sixth century seal evidence of Jesus's existence any more than the portrayal of him in The Passion of the Christ?

[neo of the mind]

How is a sixth century seal evidence of Jesus's existence any more than the portrayal of him in The Passion of the Christ?

It's the 6th century and the Passion of the Christ is the 21st.

[Democritus]

Apply Occam's Razor DRMIZER. Either Jesus existed or he did not. Now which is more likely.

a) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same fictional person over the course of hundreds of years.

b) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same real person over the course of hundreds of years.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Pragmatically, if one assumes that the "Roman Empire" existed (rather than assuming that all of history prior to, say, 1940 is an elaborate hoax), there's relatively well-documented accounts of early Christians around 60 AD - IIRC, Nero blaming them for the fire in Rome (assuming you believe in Nero, Rome, et al).

If you've got Christians around that time period, in an era with no printing press or mass communications, there's some very inspiration story being passed word of mouth in order to get the message from Jerusalem to Rome, and it's got to be inspirational enough that folks are willing to die for it.

[sub_zer0]

There is no proof that Jesus existed. It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence. Although there are references in the Scriptures of persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records, it is hard to credit the story of Jesus in the gospels as anything more than fable.

This is the same old tired argument, I find it easy to give credit to the Bible or in other words the benefit of the doubt which so many are unwilling to do. This is obserd, do you honestly want to quarrel over, "the story of Jesus in the gospels," when you clearly state, "... persons, places and events whose existence can be corroborated by other historical records"?

The blatent denial of anything Jesus is obvious in those statements, that is why it is easy for me to credit the Bible, since I have faith in Christ. That is a major difference where I think in this particular post, a lot of the argument falls.

Having said all that and in support of my next resopnse, why don't you apply the same reasoning to other ancient literature? In that the authorship, "cannot be authenticated"?

The fact is that if ancient records, the NT being one, point to reality correctly in accordance to what the text actually states, which you plainly state they do in the quote I selected, then it points to their being written by eyewitnesses, or having eyewitnesses as their source.

The four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) cannot be authenticated. Even if they could they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection. They were most likely popular stories handed down by verbal tradition and miscellaneous writings of the early Christian sects, which were later collected and revised under the auspices of the Church. (Not all of the gospels were approved). Eventually they were translated into Latin by St. Jerome in the 4th Century A.D. The English Bible, as stated supra, is even more attenuated, being translated by William Tyndale, who used the Hebrew and Greek texts and not the Latin Vulgate; which translation was later revised (and edited) as the King James Version. To argue over which version of the Scriptures is correct is merely to argue the question.

If it is objected that the Gospel authors nowhere name themselves in their texts (specifically) as I think that is where you are getting at, then this applies equally to numerous other ancient documents, such as Tacitus' Annals. Most often than not authorial attributions are found not in the text proper, but in titles, just like the Gospels.

Now, having said that and as you state, "Even if they could they cannot be proved to be contemporary accounts as witnesses to the events described or even recorded recollection."

I do not believe this is a true statement, in that the NT isn't a "contemporary" account. In 70 AD the Jewish Temple was destroyed, certainly the NT being the acnient document written around that time should of included this historical event in Jewish history. They did not mention it because the NT was written and complete before 70 AD, thus making them contemporary records of Jesus life which was from around 4 BC - 35 AD.

For the same reason, it is debatable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius. The historical references to Jesus, on the other hand, are sketchy at best. Philo of Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, does not mention Christ or the Christians; and the brief account of Flavius Josephus in the Testamonium Flavianum (C.E. 93) appears to have been added by a later writer. Even the reference by Tacitus is second-hand hearsay (probably from his friend and correspondent Pliny the Younger, who was Governor of Bithynia. He would have had access to the historical records and reports of the region). See Annals, 15.53.

This is of course if you deny the NT as historical, I do not and you have done nothing to challenge that directly.

The proof (or disproof) of an asserted fact is determined by evidence of which there are many kinds, e.g., physical evidence, testimonial evidence, opinion evidence, demonstrative evidence, scientific evidence, etc.; and what is required to prove an asserted fact depends on the matter in question, and the probative value of the relevant evidence of it. In this respect, the Bible is no more relevant than other ancient literary works such as Homer. Questions of this sort require one to assume as true what may not be prone to proof; which presumptions invariably result in irrational arguments that get nowhere.

The truth is that the Scriptures are just not intended to be subject to such critical examination; and to argue the validity of the numerous texts, again, merely begs the question. You can argue it forever, but it will bring you no closer to the truth.

That is why I believe they are fact, and you do not.

[DRMIZER]

Sub,

You like everyone, may "believe" anything you wish. Of course there is still a flat world society too.

It is not my mission to change the world. I do like providing a larger, different look at subjects using facts which many are not aware of. Afterall, most people are indoctrinated into religion from birth. Religion is as natural as breathing to those who grew up in it so why question it? It really isn't a matter of belief based on facts, it's a matter of belief based on family tradition whether real or imagined, using a conglomeration of books selected by human beings, not by a deity.

Of course, when anyone challenges these beliefs, believers become defensive and attempt to defend the traditions in which they were born. The Japanese do precisely the same thing with Budha and Shinto or the thousands of other religious traditions who believe in their roots.

So, those who believe will believe without respect to any other information available. . .those who question the beliefs are on the outside of the circle and are declared heritics. But, to redeem myself, I am not an atheist. I simply don't believe in a book filled with inconsistencies, fables, blatant misconceptions and fear.

[sub_zer0]

Sub,

You like everyone, may "believe" anything you wish. Of course there is still a flat world society too.

It is not my mission to change the world. I do like providing a larger, different look at subjects using facts which many are not aware of. Afterall, most people are indoctrinated into religion from birth. Religion is as natural as breathing to those who grew up in it so why question it? It really isn't a matter of belief based on facts, it's a matter of belief based on family tradition whether real or imagined, using a conglomeration of books selected by human beings, not by a deity.

Of course, when anyone challenges these beliefs, believers become defensive and attempt to defend the traditions in which they were born. The Japanese do precisely the same thing with Budha and Shinto or the thousands of other religious traditions who believe in their roots.

So, those who believe will believe without respect to any other information available. . .those who question the beliefs are on the outside of the circle and are declared heritics. But, to redeem myself, I am not an atheist. I simply don't believe in a book filled with inconsistencies, fables, blatant misconceptions and fear.

Again, you have done nothing to challenge the belief that the NT is factual history. Until you make an arguemnt actually proving the, "inconsistencies, fables, blatant misconceptions," you claim it has, you have nothing!

It is interesting that at first you stated the NT can be backed up by other historical records, then all of a sudden it is just fables... Which is it?

Apply Occam's Razor DRMIZER. Either Jesus existed or he did not. Now which is more likely.

a) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same fictional person over the course of hundreds of years.

b) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same real person over the course of hundreds of years.

Neither a or b are correct.

[neo of the mind]

Your not an atheist...right. Then what are you, because it is apparent that your beliefs involve trying to teardown other's beliefs.

You and others bring out the stupid comparison of the flat earth society in order to discredit people that believe in the Bible.

Should we bring out all the ufo nuts to the Saganites in this forum?

[Dangerrmouse]

Again, you have done nothing to challenge the belief that the NT is factual history. Until you make an arguemnt actually proving the, "inconsistencies, fables, blatant misconceptions," you claim it has, you have nothing!

It is interesting that at first you stated the NT can be backed up by other historical records, then all of a sudden it is just fables... Which is it?



Neither a or b are correct.

You make the claim it is factual, so the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence for your assertion.

How do you know that neither a nor b is correct with such certainty? Did you read about it?

[Craig]

Apply Occam's Razor DRMIZER. Either Jesus existed or he did not. Now which is more likely.

a) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same fictional person over the course of hundreds of years.

b) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same real person over the course of hundreds of years.

If we go by this particular example, we must conclude that King Arthur and Robin Hood are real people. Since the evidence out there for both of them are sketchy, and since they most certainly did not do the things attributed to them in the story, I don't think this is necessarily a good line of reasoning.

Besides, though it's not on the same time scale, we've got nearly 70 some years of different writers writing about a character like Superman, who is unquestionably fictional. I see no reason why a fictional character could not last as long as a real one.

[sub_zer0]

You make the claim it is factual, so the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence for your assertion.

How do you know that neither a nor b is correct with such certainty? Did you read about it?

Actually the question you ask is already answered in my first post in this thread.

[lord tammerlain]

/shrug - on the Internet, there's no proof you, DRMIZER, exist. Or I, FlyingGuineapig, exist.

Yet here we are.


That is actually wrong, someone, or something typed out the words that are here on WS, meaning that the thing that typed the words attributed to DRIMZER existed at some point in time, proving the existance of that thing.

[FlyingGuineapig]

That is actually wrong, someone, or something typed out the words that are here on WS, meaning that the thing that typed the words attributed to DRIMZER existed at some point in time, proving the existance of that thing.
Not really. I could have created an alternative account (in which case DRMIZER is just my troll) (granted, this is against the rules, so I wouldn't have done it, but someone else could have).

Or it could be a software bot, scanning forums and either dumping pre-written text files or piecing together sentences based on pattern matching to other's responses (although DRMIZER's responses are probably good enough to pass a Turing test).

So, while there's an account called DRMIZER, whether or not there's an actual human being using that account can not be proven.

[sub_zer0]

Not really. I could have created an alternative account (in which case DRMIZER is just my troll) (granted, this is against the rules, so I wouldn't have done it, but someone else could have).

Or it could be a software bot, scanning forums and either dumping pre-written text files or piecing together sentences based on pattern matching to other's responses (although DRMIZER's responses are probably good enough to pass a Turing test).

So, while there's an account called DRMIZER, whether or not there's an actual human being using that account can not be proven.

This is true, but also displays the lack on your end to take somebody's word for it.

Not only that, but if it was a bot, or an alternative account, a human was behind it.

[FlyingGuineapig]

This is true, but also displays the lack on your end to take somebody's word for it.

Not only that, but if it was a bot, or an alternative account, a human was behind it.
Well, there was a human involved at some point in the process (even if it was software) - but doesn't necessarily mean that there was a human writing the original post, or even in generating the responses to it.

There is no physical evidence that DRMIZER, as a human exists. No testimonial evidence either (although someone could create an account and claim to know him in real life). There's certainly no scientific evidence. We don't know his name, his social security number (hopefully), or even have 2 major credit cards.

Instead, we're taking it on faith that he's real rather than an automatron or simply me posting under another name.

[lord tammerlain]

Not really. I could have created an alternative account (in which case DRMIZER is just my troll) (granted, this is against the rules, so I wouldn't have done it, but someone else could have).

Or it could be a software bot, scanning forums and either dumping pre-written text files or piecing together sentences based on pattern matching to other's responses (although DRMIZER's responses are probably good enough to pass a Turing test).

So, while there's an account called DRMIZER, whether or not there's an actual human being using that account can not be proven.


Notice how I said something,

At some point in time something called DRIMIZER existed long enough to type words that are now posted at WS. It prooves that at some point in time something calling that called itself DRIMIZER existed, if only for a short period of time.

It does not prove who, what or for how long Drimizer existed

[neo of the mind]

Notice how I said something,

At some point in time something called DRIMIZER existed long enough to type words that are now posted at WS. It prooves that at some point in time something calling that called itself DRIMIZER existed, if only for a short period of time.

It does not prove who, what or for how long Drimizer existed

I thought DRIMIZER with an artifical intelligence computer program?

[DRMIZER]

I am!!!

[neo of the mind]

I am!!!

Cool, I knew it! Hey, can we start a thread to just ask you questions to see what your A.I. responses would be?

[Alvin T. Grey]

Aren't you already doing that?

[DRMIZER]

Cool, I knew it! Hey, can we start a thread to just ask you questions to see what your A.I. responses would be? Hummm. . . . .Don't overload my database, please. :D

[Craig]

Not really. I could have created an alternative account (in which case DRMIZER is just my troll) (granted, this is against the rules, so I wouldn't have done it, but someone else could have).

Or it could be a software bot, scanning forums and either dumping pre-written text files or piecing together sentences based on pattern matching to other's responses (although DRMIZER's responses are probably good enough to pass a Turing test).

So, while there's an account called DRMIZER, whether or not there's an actual human being using that account can not be proven.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Dr Mizer's IP address rule out that possibility?

[Democritus]

If we go by this particular example, we must conclude that King Arthur and Robin Hood are real people. Since the evidence out there for both of them are sketchy, and since they most certainly did not do the things attributed to them in the story, I don't think this is necessarily a good line of reasoning.

Besides, though it's not on the same time scale, we've got nearly 70 some years of different writers writing about a character like Superman, who is unquestionably fictional. I see no reason why a fictional character could not last as long as a real one.

Actually I would make the same argument for the existence of King Arthur and Robin Hood. You'll note that I didn't say anything about the accuracy of the stories, just that it's unlikely for them to be all based on a fictional person. And yes a fictional character COULD last as long as a real one, it's just much much much less likely.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Dr Mizer's IP address rule out that possibility?
Nah, I could post under DRMIZER from an internet cafe, or while remotely logged into a machine elsewhere in the world, while posting to my FlyingGuineapig account from my home and work PCs.

[DRMIZER]

Nah, I could post under DRMIZER from an internet cafe, or while remotely logged into a machine elsewhere in the world, while posting to my FlyingGuineapig account from my home and work PCs.
Soooo, you're the one!!:confused:

[Craig]

Nah, I could post under DRMIZER from an internet cafe, or while remotely logged into a machine elsewhere in the world, while posting to my FlyingGuineapig account from my home and work PCs.

True enough, but then does not the fact that both of you are online at the same time rule that out?

[neo of the mind]

Aren't you already doing that?

Well, I was thinking about other questions not related to this thread so that it doesn't get sidetracked..oops, it already has.

[Craig]

Pulling this thread back more on track, what are the non-Biblical sources about Jesus' existence, besides Flavius Josephus? I know we've gone over them before, and as I seem to recall, they're few and far between. Why did so few non Christians write so little about a man who was clearly so unusual? You'd think we would stumble across a whole bunch of evidence in written material about Jesus outside of Biblical scriptures one of these days.

[AgentM]

Pulling this thread back more on track, what are the non-Biblical sources about Jesus' existence, besides Flavius Josephus? I know we've gone over them before, and as I seem to recall, they're few and far between. Why did so few non Christians write so little about a man who was clearly so unusual? You'd think we would stumble across a whole bunch of evidence in written material about Jesus outside of Biblical scriptures one of these days.

My guess would be that he didnt have that much of an impact during his life. As others here have stated. He was basically just a Jewish cult leader who worried the Romans just enough so that they executed him. That might make the second or third page of a newspaper today.

[neo of the mind]

Pulling this thread back more on track, what are the non-Biblical sources about Jesus' existence, besides Flavius Josephus? I know we've gone over them before, and as I seem to recall, they're few and far between. Why did so few non Christians write so little about a man who was clearly so unusual? You'd think we would stumble across a whole bunch of evidence in written material about Jesus outside of Biblical scriptures one of these days.

Would the fact that there are Christians, especially those that were killed in large numbers, be enough proof that they followed the teachings of a person who in fact existed? My experience tells me that is the case. What other historical person have people followed that indeed did not exist? Anyone have an example? Now there will be some, no doubt that will discredit this line of reasoning, but I am curious if an example can be given, becasue I can't think of one.

[neo of the mind]

My guess would be that he didnt have that much of an impact during his life. As others here have stated. He was basically just a Jewish cult leader who worried the Romans just enough so that they executed him. That might make the second or third page of a newspaper today.


Speaking from the biblical perspective, it wasn't the Romans that wanted him dead. Pilate was going to let him go, wanted to let him go, but ordered the crucification to take place BECAUSE of his perceived reaction by some of the jews at that time.

[steveksux]

Were crucifixions so commonplace back then that they didn't bother to keep records of who was executed and why? Seems there should be some records available, although would not be so likely to find the records with Jesus, given the number or crucifixions, would be expected to not find a complete set of records, and would require some luck to get Jesus records. We can't even find George Bush's national guard records....

I would think though, if early Christians were a big enough pain in the Romans side that there are records of Christian persecution, it seems incomprehensible that you could build enough of a following from scratch without Jesus existing in the first place. Certainly you've got a lot more work on your hands to prove he's really the Son of God, divine, and the rest. But I would think its pretty unlikely that he never existed.

Where did all the ancient Christians come from if there was no Christ?

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Were crucifixions so commonplace back then that they didn't bother to keep records of who was executed and why? Seems there should be some records available, although would not be so likely to find the records with Jesus, given the number or crucifixions, would be expected to not find a complete set of records, and would require some luck to get Jesus records. We can't even find George Bush's national guard records....

This of course only somewhat applies if you negelect the NT as a document at all.

I would think though, if early Christians were a big enough pain in the Romans side that there are records of Christian persecution, it seems incomprehensible that you could build enough of a following from scratch without Jesus existing in the first place. Certainly you've got a lot more work on your hands to prove he's really the Son of God, divine, and the rest. But I would think its pretty unlikely that he never existed.

Where did all the ancient Christians come from if there was no Christ?

Randy

There was a Christ, that is where they came from.

[steveksux]

This of course only somewhat applies if you negelect the NT as a document at all.Obviously you ignore the NT, that's the whole point. The idea is to find corroborating documentation for Jesus, and the NT is presumably biased in favor of the question you're trying to resolve, i.e. the existence of Jesus. Presumably you would not accept the Book of Mormon as proof that something Mormons believe is historically accurate but disputed by non-Mormons.

There was a Christ, that is where they came from.That's what I'm saying.

Randy

[Craig]

Would the fact that there are Christians, especially those that were killed in large numbers, be enough proof that they followed the teachings of a person who in fact existed? My experience tells me that is the case. What other historical person have people followed that indeed did not exist? Anyone have an example? Now there will be some, no doubt that will discredit this line of reasoning, but I am curious if an example can be given, becasue I can't think of one.

Offhand, I cannot think of people who died for a supposed historical figure who never existed. However, before writing off the possibility of it occurring, we need to consider a couple of things. First, it is clear that people have died for beliefs that were erroneous. I don't think I need to cite specific examples to support this assertion, since it should be fairly evident. Assuming that only one of the world's religions is correct and that all others are false, anyone who has died for their faith that is not a member of the true religion, whatever it may be, has died for erroneous beliefs. It's plausible then that if people were lead to believe that Jesus existed without ever having encountered him in person, at least some of them would be willing to die for him.

Second, we need to consider what is meant by "Jesus did not exist". Do we mean to say that he did not ever exist at all? This particular claim is more difficult to support, and indeed is open to questions such as the one you've raised Neo. On the other hand, this statement, if qualified, could also be taken to mean that the Jesus described in the Bible did not exist, even if there was a historical figure who did exist. In that case, we're talking about discrepancies between a written account and historical fact. Certainly, it's possible that both Robin Hood and King Arthur fit into this category, as people who may have existed but whose stories do not reflect historical fact. If people believe that the historical Jesus was the Son of God, or even if the stories changed over time so that he became the Son of God, then it becomes far more plausible to suggest that people may have died for a figure who "didn't really exist".

[neo of the mind]

Well, as you and Craig seem to be doing is changing the tone of the thread from did Jesus exist at all to did Jesus exist in the way the Bible records his existence, which unless the thread is going to head in that direction, should be a seperate topic from the original poster in my opinion.

[Craig]

Well, as you and Craig seem to be doing is changing the tone of the thread from did Jesus exist at all to did Jesus exist in the way the Bible records his existence, which unless the thread is going to head in that direction, should be a seperate topic from the original poster in my opinion.

Yes, it's a fair enough point. I don't think we have a strong argument for people being willing to die for a supposed historical figure who never actually existed at all in any shape or form, but if someone else has a point I haven't thought of, they can step in and comment.

[sub_zer0]

Obviously you ignore the NT, that's the whole point. The idea is to find corroborating documentation for Jesus, and the NT is presumably biased in favor of the question you're trying to resolve, i.e. the existence of Jesus. Presumably you would not accept the Book of Mormon as proof that something Mormons believe is historically accurate but disputed by non-Mormons.

That's what I'm saying.

Randy

The NT speaks of Jesus, that is all that is needed, that is my point. And yes the Book of Mormon is proof of something Mormons believe, but put to the test it is not historically accurate nor was the prophet who claimed to write it.

That is what I am saying.

[steveksux]

The NT speaks of Jesus, that is all that is needed, that is my point. And yes the Book of Mormon is proof of something Mormons believe, but put to the test it is not historically accurate nor was the prophet who claimed to write it.

That is what I am saying.The NT has no more claim to historical accuracy without outside corroboration than the book of Mormon. They are both accepted on faith alone.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

The NT has no more claim to historical accuracy without outside corroboration than the book of Mormon. They are both accepted on faith alone.

Randy

Sorry but you are wrong, Jesus' life, death and resurrection is accepted by faith alone, not the NT however.

[DRMIZER]

The NT has no more claim to historical accuracy without outside corroboration than the book of Mormon. They are both accepted on faith alone.

RandyUnless more evidence is available, I think you are correct. What would make the NT more historically accurate than the Book of Mormon? (I did write historically.) As the NT, the Mormon Book of Faith is also based on visions, etc. And, since it is a more recent document, perhaps it is more authentic.

[steveksux]

Sorry but you are wrong, Jesus' life, death and resurrection is accepted by faith alone, not the NT however.You're not even in the ballpark.

We're not talking about those religious tenets and aspects of Christian beliefs here, we're discussing the historical aspect of whether Jesus even existed. It would be helpful to stay on topic rather than wander around aimlessly. The various miracles, divine nature of Jesus are a seperate subject, and not going to have any corroboration. Those must be accepted on faith. That is true enough, but is not the topic discussed here. Here we are discussing whether the man, Jesus, was a real person or a myth/legend. And assuming there is historical proof Jesus existed, that is a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove the supernatural/spiritual aspects and tenets of Christianity. That will continue to require faith, even if Jesus did in fact exist as a real person.

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

For the same reason, it is debatable that these texts can even be relied upon as an historical record. For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus. Pilate was a Roman aristocrat, a knight of the equestrian class, and Procurator of Judea as representative of the Emperor Tiberius
It's believed Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator - that while Tacitus (writing several decades after Pilate - since Tacitus wasn't even born until 56 AD - and even that date isn't certain, because historians don't have very good records on Tacitus's early life) refers to him as procurator, inscriptions found refer to him as prefect.

But interestingly, Tacitus's 50+ year old account is good enough for DRMIZER.

This brings up an interesting point - how much is really known about 30-35 AD in Jeruselum, outside of religous writings? It's somewhat presumed in this thread that there's a great deal of archeological evidence about everyone but Jesus.

So, who are 5 well-known folks in Jerusalem (not Rome) from 30-35 AD which aren't mentioned in Scriptures or religous writings?

[Strel]

Would the fact that there are Christians, especially those that were killed in large numbers, be enough proof that they followed the teachings of a person who in fact existed?



When are you going to finally realize that this is a logical fallacy?

[sub_zer0]

You're not even in the ballpark.

We're not talking about those religious tenets and aspects of Christian beliefs here, we're discussing the historical aspect of whether Jesus even existed.

Which the NT shows that He did. But then, His life, death and resurrection are taken by faith alone, that is all I am saying.

[julierep]

Pulling this thread back more on track, what are the non-Biblical sources about Jesus' existence, besides Flavius Josephus? I know we've gone over them before, and as I seem to recall, they're few and far between. Why did so few non Christians write so little about a man who was clearly so unusual? You'd think we would stumble across a whole bunch of evidence in written material about Jesus outside of Biblical scriptures one of these days.

A good explanation for that would be because doing so could mean harm to the person writing about it. Many followers were killed because they believed. Freedom of religion was unheard of during the time and anything that defied what the Jews believed was commiting suicide.

[cpwill]

There is no proof that Jesus existed. It would be difficult to credit the Bible generally (and the gospels in particular) as proof of anything. It is, at best, anecdotal evidence, viz. stories whose authorship cannot be authenticated and which cannot be corroborated except by other hearsay evidence.

so you're basic point is that if you just don't count written evidence, there's no proof Jesus existed.....


....you do realize this standard could be used to prove that ANYBODY in the ancient world did not exist, do you not?

[lord tammerlain]

so you're basic point is that if you just don't count written evidence, there's no proof Jesus existed.....


....you do realize this standard could be used to prove that ANYBODY in the ancient world did not exist, do you not?

I think the issue is independant written evidence. Ie not from the NT, but from Roman administration records, mentionings in non Christian documents from the time.

That sort of thing

[FlyingGuineapig]

I think the issue is independant written evidence. Ie not from the NT, but from Roman administration records, mentionings in non Christian documents from the time.

That sort of thing
So, are there Roman administration records to clear up if Pilate was a prefect or a procurator? After all, he's running the place for the Romans, right?

[neo of the mind]

When are you going to finally realize that this is a logical fallacy?

oh, ok. Thanks.

[Strel]

oh, ok. Thanks.



Really. Your time here would be better spent if you actually learned from your mistakes.

That a bunch of people died for a belief in something does not logically establish that this something existed. It only establishes that they believed it did.

Lord Tammerlain has hit the nail on the head. There is ONE rather biased source of information describing Jesus. It is uncorroborated hearsay. By itself, it cannot be counted on as proof of anything. Now the NT along with some Roman census records...that would be something.

The fact is that there is no way to be sure. You can choose to believe what you want, I can choose to believe that Jesus was a mortal rabbi with some crazy unorthodox ideas that got himself killed for it, and his followers capitalized on his "martrdom" and exaggerated his deeds to give a supernatural aspect to it (the only way the masses would accept the teachings) to establish the longest running going concern in the history of the world - 10% of whatever you have and do what we say or you will go to Hell.

But this is opinion, not fact. The difference between you and I is that I recognize the difference.

[neo of the mind]

So, are there Roman administration records to clear up if Pilate was a prefect or a procurator? After all, he's running the place for the Romans, right?


Luke 3:1-2
3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,

2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
KJV




The famous Pilate Inscription found at Caesarea Palaestina refers to Pilate as prefect, while Tacitus speaks of him as procurator of the province. The explanation of the differences in title is fairly straightforward.

In the first historical period in which the setting of the New Testament became the Roman Iudaea Province (a compound of Samaria, Judea and Idumea), from 6 to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt in 66, officials of the equestrian order (the lower rank of governors) governed. They held the Roman title of prefect until Herod Agrippa I was named King of the Jews by Claudius. After his death in 44, when Iudaea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governor held the title procurator. When applied to governors, this term procurator, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title known as prefect. Contemporary archeological finds and documents such as the Pilate Inscription from Caesarea attest to the governor's more accurate official title only for the period 6 thru 44: prefect. The logical conclusion is that texts that identify Pilate as procurator are more likely following Tacitus or are unaware of the pre-44 practice.

[neo of the mind]

****************

[neo of the mind]

Really. Your time here would be better spent if you actually learned from your mistakes.

That a bunch of people died for a belief in something does not logically establish that this something existed. It only establishes that they believed it did.

Lord Tammerlain has hit the nail on the head. There is ONE rather biased source of information describing Jesus. It is uncorroborated hearsay. By itself, it cannot be counted on as proof of anything. Now the NT along with some Roman census records...that would be something.

The fact is that there is no way to be sure. You can choose to believe what you want, I can choose to believe that Jesus was a mortal rabbi with some crazy unorthodox ideas that got himself killed for it, and his followers capitalized on his "martrdom" and exaggerated his deeds to give a supernatural aspect to it (the only way the masses would accept the teachings) to establish the longest running going concern in the history of the world - 10% of whatever you have and do what we say or you will go to Hell.

But this is opinion, not fact. The difference between you and I is that I recognize the difference.

oh, ok. Thanks.

[DRMIZER]

It's believed Pilate was a prefect, not a procurator - that while Tacitus (writing several decades after Pilate - since Tacitus wasn't even born until 56 AD - and even that date isn't certain, because historians don't have very good records on Tacitus's early life) refers to him as procurator, inscriptions found refer to him as prefect.

But interestingly, Tacitus's 50+ year old account is good enough for DRMIZER.

This brings up an interesting point - how much is really known about 30-35 AD in Jeruselum, outside of religous writings? It's somewhat presumed in this thread that there's a great deal of archeological evidence about everyone but Jesus.

So, who are 5 well-known folks in Jerusalem (not Rome) from 30-35 AD which aren't mentioned in Scriptures or religous writings?*Ahem* Not that this thread has anything to do with prefect OR procurator but let's do it for the FlyingGuineapig. "Appointed Procurator of Judea in the year 26 C.E., Pontius Pilot ruled in the name of the Roman Emperor over modern day Israel." Only one measly spot on the net. http://www.rateitall.com/i-44287-pontius-pilot.aspx The primary difference in prefect and procurator is size. . . .but I ramble.

Yes, Tacitus' 50+ year old account is good enough since there are other works substanciating his works. Not so for the testiment works.

[sub_zer0]

Yes, Tacitus' 50+ year old account is good enough since there are other works substanciating his works. Not so for the testiment works.

Do you have anything to back your claim up that the NT is false, thus shouldn't be taken as truth in what it is written on?

Cause if you do, you would be contradicting your original point.

[DRMIZER]

so you're basic point is that if you just don't count written evidence, there's no proof Jesus existed.....


....you do realize this standard could be used to prove that ANYBODY in the ancient world did not exist, do you not?Not really. Fortunately historical writers were backed up by many other writers. However, this is not the case with NT or OT recollections. With so much other evidence on so many levels and so many historical figures, it is simply strange that there are no other written accounts about the life and miracles of Jesus.

[FlyingGuineapig]

*Ahem* Not that this thread has anything to do with prefect OR procurator but let's do it for the FlyingGuineapig. "Appointed Procurator of Judea in the year 26 C.E., Pontius Pilot ruled in the name of the Roman Emperor over modern day Israel." Only one measly spot on the net. http://www.rateitall.com/i-44287-pontius-pilot.aspx The primary difference in prefect and procurator is size. . . .but I ramble.

Yes, Tacitus' 50+ year old account is good enough since there are other works substanciating his works. Not so for the testiment works.
Err, you're missing those official Roman administration records....please link to Pilot's mention in those - after all, he was their head rep. Thanks!

[DRMIZER]

Do you have anything to back your claim up that the NT is false, thus shouldn't be taken as truth in what it is written on?

Cause if you do, you would be contradicting your original point.No, I don't state the NT is false. I state that history does not back it up.

[DRMIZER]

Err, you're missing those official Roman administration records....please link to Pilot's mention in those - after all, he was their head rep. Thanks!As I've already stated, the thread has nothing to do with this. See above.

[FlyingGuineapig]

As I've already stated, the thread has nothing to do with this. See above.
Actually, it has everything to do with it.

If there's little remaining historical evidence for anyone who lived in Jerusalem from 30-35 AD (outside of Scriptures or religous writings), well, then the conclusion is that there's little remaning historical evidence.

Pointing out that Jesus isn't in official Roman administration records doesn't mean much when there are no such remaining records.

[DRMIZER]

Actually, it has everything to do with it.

If there's little remaining historical evidence for anyone who lived in Jerusalem from 30-35 AD (outside of Scriptures or religous writings), well, then the conclusion is that there's little remaning historical evidence.

Pointing out that Jesus isn't in official Roman administration records doesn't mean much when there are no such remaining records.Exactly my point. However, there are various historical accounts during the time of which you mention. . . .many.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Exactly my point. However, there are various historical accounts during the time of which you mention. . . .many.
Well, of Rome, not of Jerusalem. For Jerusalem, there's not even a contempeneous historical account of Pilate - so the initial post on this thread saying about how there's so much more known (from historical accounts) about Pilate is false. This provides a useful callibration point.

[sub_zer0]

No, I don't state the NT is false. I state that history does not back it up.

Well you can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. In what way does history not back it up?

Exactly my point. However, there are various historical accounts during the time of which you mention. . . .many.

The NT being one of those historical accounts.

[DRMIZER]

The bible is NOT an historical document. If it is, then the book of Mohammad must also be considerd an historical document. At the same time, the far eastern continent was developing its own source of faith-history. Then, whose history is accurate? None! All are scattered with ancedotal incidences, some of which certainly are true. However, with the faith-based miracles, plagues attributed to one or more gods, credibility detoriates rapidly and cannot be recognized as a part of actual history.

Theological seminaries do not consider the bible a source of history. As a matter of fact, seminary teachings and history classes are taught separately and do not contain the same material. History classes instructed in a Christian school will interject periods of the bible to relate to historical information; not the other way around.

[neo of the mind]

The bible is NOT an historical document. If it is, then the book of Mohammad must also be considerd an historical document. At the same time, the far eastern continent was developing its own source of faith-history. Then, whose history is accurate? None! All are scattered with ancedotal incidences, some of which certainly are true. However, with the faith-based miracles, plagues attributed to one or more gods, credibility detoriates rapidly and cannot be recognized as a part of actual history.

Theological seminaries do not consider the bible a source of history. As a matter of fact, seminary teachings and history classes are taught separately and do not contain the same material. History classes instructed in a Christian school will interject periods of the bible to relate to historical information; not the other way around.

Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated with the Bible thus far. I have not read enough of the Koran to know if it has details of events, but if it does and they can be corroborated, then at least the parts of the Koran, like the Bible, that describe events, would be considered historical. If not, then what would make any other document descibing an event in history, a historical document?


It can be seen where this is going...
1.The Bible is not revelation from God, there is no God.
2.The Bible is not a historical document. The events described our all historically false.
3.The Bible isn't accurate mythology.
4. The Bible isn't even good literature.

Why don't you just create a thread titled, the Bible is crap and procede to prove it.

[DRMIZER]

Archeological evidence and chronologies of neighboring countries have corroborated with the Bible thus far. I have not read enough of the Koran to know if it has details of events, but if it does and they can be corroborated, then at least the parts of the Koran, like the Bible, that describe events, would be considered historical. If not, then what would make any other document descibing an event in history, a historical document?All I can say again is, "Theological seminaries do not consider the bible a source of history. As a matter of fact, seminary teachings and history classes are taught separately and do not contain the same material. History classes instructed in a Christian school will interject periods of the bible to relate to historical information; not the other way around."

It would appear that if what you write is correct, schools would be the first to combine biblical and historical facts, from high school through grad school. There must be a reason don't you think? There is a reason. . .the 2 cannot be correlated or rationally justified. Therefore history remains history and the bible remains the bible.

[Democritus]

Exactly my point. However, there are various historical accounts during the time of which you mention. . . .many.

Not really. There are a few scattered here and there, but none are particularly thurough or complete. Can you name anyone in Jerusalem at that time who was crucified? If the historical accounts are so prevalent you must know of at least one or two.

[DRMIZER]

Not really. There are a few scattered here and there, but none are particularly thurough or complete. Can you name anyone in Jerusalem at that time who was crucified? If the historical accounts are so prevalent you must know of at least one or two.Of course there is evidence present that you wish. But, many moons ago on WS I decided not to do the research or homework any longer.

[DRMIZER]

It can be seen where this is going...
1.The Bible is not revelation from God, there is no God.The bible is not a revelation from God. There are too many problems in the text for me to consider it the word of God. God is NOT that confusing. However, that, to me, does not equate to no God.
2.The Bible is not a historical document. The events described our all historically false.I do not believe the bible is an historical document. I've already explained my reasons for this. But, that does not mean that EVERYTHING in the bible is historically false. I don't believe that either.
3.The Bible isn't accurate mythology.I don't know what this means.
4. The Bible isn't even good literature.The bible, particularly certain passages, are beautiful pieces of literature and poetry. And there are many positive lessons in the bible for all of mankind, not only for Christians. (I don't throw the baby out the with the bath water. ;))

[neo of the mind]

and this is your opinion to hold if you so choose. Thanks for explaining though.

[DRMIZER]

You're welcome. :)

[Democritus]

Of course there is evidence present that you wish. But, many moons ago on WS I decided not to do the research or homework any longer.

So basically... you're just making **** up and hoping we'll take you at your word?

[FlyingGuineapig]

So basically... you're just making **** up and hoping we'll take you at your word?

Yep - I think he's hoping to declare himself a religion and get tax-free status. It's a little tougher than it looks, buddy. :D

[steveksux]

Err, you're missing those official Roman administration records....please link to Pilot's mention in those - after all, he was their head rep. Thanks!That goes to show Pilate was real. Not Jesus.

No one is claiming every word or every event in the Bible is false. It is being said that everything in the Bible cannot be considered historically accurate without corroboration from the standpoint of a historian. Historians do not accept any single document without corroboration. THat goes double for religious documents written by people with an agenda, promoting their religion, rather than for the purpose of recordkeeping, simply recording historical events.

Parts are evaluated on their own. Its not all or nothing. Proving Pilate existed does not prove every miracle in the Bible has therefore been substantiated as well. Even the people who assembled the "books of the bible" accepted some texts and discarded others. The more external corroboration, the more likely that aspect or section is historically accurate. The more miraculous and uncorroborated, the more likely it is mythology, symbolism, etc.

Its sort of interesting to see people desperately twisting around what is posted to create this false sense of attacking christianity. This has been specifically pointed out to be analyzing the Bible from a historical, not a theological perspective.

Randy

[DRMIZER]

That goes to show Pilate was real. Not Jesus.

No one is claiming every word or every event in the Bible is false. It is being said that everything in the Bible cannot be considered historically accurate without corroboration from the standpoint of a historian. Historians do not accept any single document without corroboration. THat goes double for religious documents written by people with an agenda, promoting their religion, rather than for the purpose of recordkeeping, simply recording historical events.

Parts are evaluated on their own. Its not all or nothing. Proving Pilate existed does not prove every miracle in the Bible has therefore been substantiated as well. Even the people who assembled the "books of the bible" accepted some texts and discarded others. The more external corroboration, the more likely that aspect or section is historically accurate. The more miraculous and uncorroborated, the more likely it is mythology, symbolism, etc.

Its sort of interesting to see people desperately twisting around what is posted to create this false sense of attacking christianity. This has been specifically pointed out to be analyzing the Bible from a historical, not a theological perspective.

RandyOh God, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Of all the posts, blathering back and forth, hither to and fro, somebody gets it. Praise be to Allah!

[DRMIZER]

Yep - I think he's hoping to declare himself a religion and get tax-free status. It's a little tougher than it looks, buddy. :DI thought you could be my choir director!!:cool:

[FlyingGuineapig]

That goes to show Pilate was real. Not Jesus.

No one is claiming every word or every event in the Bible is false. It is being said that everything in the Bible cannot be considered historically accurate without corroboration from the standpoint of a historian. Historians do not accept any single document without corroboration. THat goes double for religious documents written by people with an agenda, promoting their religion, rather than for the purpose of recordkeeping, simply recording historical events.

Parts are evaluated on their own. Its not all or nothing. Proving Pilate existed does not prove every miracle in the Bible has therefore been substantiated as well. Even the people who assembled the "books of the bible" accepted some texts and discarded others. The more external corroboration, the more likely that aspect or section is historically accurate. The more miraculous and uncorroborated, the more likely it is mythology, symbolism, etc.

Its sort of interesting to see people desperately twisting around what is posted to create this false sense of attacking christianity. This has been specifically pointed out to be analyzing the Bible from a historical, not a theological perspective.

Randy
Randy, I think you missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll repeat.

If there's little remaining historical evidence for anyone who lived in Jerusalem from 30-35 AD (outside of Scriptures or religous writings), well, then the conclusion is that there's little remaning historical evidence from that time/place.

The Jewish war around 70 AD is probably a likely reason for the loss of the records. Not just records of Jesus, but for everyone in Jerusalem.

The statement "For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus" is most likely false. We don't know very much about Pontius Pilate because outside of religous writings, there's not a lot about him (although there is some). For example (another point which I made which seems to be going over most people's heads), is that whether he was a prefect or a procurator was largely a matter of guesswork (until an inscription was recently found). There aren't contempory historical accounts of Pilate either. They were written 30+ years after.

Now, arguing whether Pilate exists doesn't prove whether Jesus existed or not. It's not intended to. It's intended to give a callibration point as to how good the records & historical are from that time/place.

I don't intend to present the Bible as being the absolute word on history. However, it is a source, and most scholars believe that at least three of the Gospels were independently written. So there's a minimum of 3 sources. They aren't widely believe to be contempenous (although some folks like neo or sub0 might argue that), however, I believe Mark's is believed to have been written by Peter's secretary, and Luke was also written by someone who's believed to have been a secretary of one of the other apostles (or maybe Paul, I'm going off memory on that one). So while they're not first hand accounts, but based on their accounts (again, the early Apostles, being drawn from fisherman, probably aren't the most literate of scholars, unless they had great public schools in Judea).

Also, arguing whether or not Jesus existed is very different from arguing whether every miracle in the Bible is true.

Frankly, I expected a little bit better from you.

[DRMIZER]

So basically... you're just making **** up and hoping we'll take you at your word?
Oh no, I'm caught red handed.:o

[neo of the mind]

Randy, I think you missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll repeat.

If there's little remaining historical evidence for anyone who lived in Jerusalem from 30-35 AD (outside of Scriptures or religous writings), well, then the conclusion is that there's little remaning historical evidence from that time/place.

The Jewish war around 70 AD is probably a likely reason for the loss of the records. Not just records of Jesus, but for everyone in Jerusalem.

The statement "For example, we know a great deal more about Pontius Pilate than we do about Jesus" is most likely false. We don't know very much about Pontius Pilate because outside of religous writings, there's not a lot about him (although there is some). For example (another point which I made which seems to be going over most people's heads), is that whether he was a prefect or a procurator was largely a matter of guesswork (until an inscription was recently found). There aren't contempory historical accounts of Pilate either. They were written 30+ years after.

Now, arguing whether Pilate exists doesn't prove whether Jesus existed or not. It's not intended to. It's intended to give a callibration point as to how good the records & historical are from that time/place.

I don't intend to present the Bible as being the absolute word on history. However, it is a source, and most scholars believe that at least three of the Gospels were independently written. So there's a minimum of 3 sources. They aren't widely believe to be contempenous (although some folks like neo or sub0 might argue that), however, I believe Mark's is believed to have been written by Peter's secretary, and Luke was also written by someone who's believed to have been a secretary of one of the other apostles (or maybe Paul, I'm going off memory on that one). So while they're not first hand accounts, but based on their accounts (again, the early Apostles, being drawn from fisherman, probably aren't the most literate of scholars, unless they had great public schools in Judea).

Also, arguing whether or not Jesus existed is very different from arguing whether every miracle in the Bible is true.

Frankly, I expected a little bit better from you.


Good points in your response, hopefully the reiteration will make it more clear to those that didn't get it the first time.

[steveksux]

Randy, I think you missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll repeat.No, I think you read more into what I was saying. The first line about That goes to show Pilate was real. Not Jesus.
referred to your post.

The rest is intended as a general note, not directed at you.

If there's little remaining historical evidence for anyone who lived in Jerusalem from 30-35 AD (outside of Scriptures or religous writings), well, then the conclusion is that there's little remaning historical evidence from that time/place.

The Jewish war around 70 AD is probably a likely reason for the loss of the records. Not just records of Jesus, but for everyone in Jerusalem.But there is some for Pilate, and not for Jesus, thus we can say Pilate is more likely proven to be a historical figure than Jesus. Can't rely on lack of evidence to prove Jesus's historical existance, even if there are good reasons for the lack of evidence. The thread is about (as far as I can tell) about whether the historical record proves Jesus exists. Certainly inability to prove Jesus DID exist does not prove Jesus did NOT exist. But that isn't what I see being implied here.

Now, arguing whether Pilate exists doesn't prove whether Jesus existed or not. It's not intended to. It's intended to give a callibration point as to how good the records & historical are from that time/place.I can find passages in Nostradamus work that proved true, that doesn't mean he can predict the future. I can find stories in the Weekly World News that are true. Doesn't mean you can trust that paper on everything. As you say, the more corroboration there is, the better the track record, the more you rely on a source. We don't disagree here.

The Bible wasn't intended as a history book or a science textbook. Certainly things are historically accurate in there, other things are not. Knowing that you cannot take it as "gospel" so to speak, a priori. Anything not corroborated cannot be assumed to be correct until proven false. The difference is in approach, as a historian, you believe what you can corroborate. As a Christian you want to belive the Bible is accurate where corroboration does not exist. I'm merely pointing out that this thread is intended to look at the question from a historians perspective.

Also, arguing whether or not Jesus existed is very different from arguing whether every miracle in the Bible is true.

Frankly, I expected a little bit better from you.I think you misinterpreted this. I'm merely trying to seperate the historical aspects of the Bible from the religious baggage to avoid derailing the thread unnecessarily. I'm not suggesting anyone is trying to use independent corroboration of Pilate existing to justify claiming the various miracles in the Bible are also true. Let me know if you're still disappointed after these clarifications, I'll see what I can do... ;) :D

Randy

[neo of the mind]

A quote from C.S. Lewis seems appropriate:

"Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood, (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question." To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge-to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or you behavior-this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to Our Father (Satan) and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are...little nourished by the past..."

[Atticus]

A quote from C.S. Lewis seems appropriate:

"Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood, (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question." To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge-to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or you behavior-this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to Our Father (Satan) and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are...little nourished by the past..."Ah...yes...The Screwtape Letters?

Of course, what he says there isn't true--well, it can be true. Scholars of the past (and Lewis was one) are obligated to take a distanced, critical view of their texts. It's a professional requirement. On the other hand, I can wear both my distanced-critical hat and my that's-a-wonderous-and-wise-thing-I-must-adopt-into-my-life hat at different times. Lewis is being cynical about his colleagues--not uncommon in his profession.

[Craig]

A quote from C.S. Lewis seems appropriate:

"Only the learned read old books and we have now so dealt with the learned that they are of all men the least likely to acquire wisdom by doing so. We have done this by inculcating the Historical Point of View. The Historical Point of View, put briefly, means that when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood, (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question." To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge-to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or you behavior-this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. And since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another. But thanks be to Our Father (Satan) and the Historical Point of View, great scholars are...little nourished by the past..."

I see little evidence that C.S. Lewis' quote here holds true for history books and historians from the latter part of the 20th century.

[Democritus]

Oh no, I'm caught red handed.:o

I asked for evidence for your case. You asserted that it exists but refused to present it. I am thus forced to assume you are either guessing or lying.

[cpwill]

Not really. Fortunately historical writers were backed up by many other writers. However, this is not the case with NT or OT recollections. With so much other evidence on so many levels and so many historical figures, it is simply strange that there are no other written accounts about the life and miracles of Jesus.
:rolleyes:
1. the disciples were eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus; so they knew the truth of the events here on earth. now the charge that they may have distorted that truth is one you can certainly make; but it has some pretty big problems for it. number one is that with the exception of John (who was exiled to the island of Patmos), every one of these guys was killed for preaching his beliefs; when all they would have had to do to save their lives was recant. rare indeed is someone who is willing to lay down their life to preach what they know to be true; but this theory would require us to believe that these men deliberately had themselves repeatedly beaten, arrested, tortured, thrown into prison, and killed in order to preach what they knew to be false. furthermore, if you were a 1st century Jew attempting to make up a story about a great teacher; it's unlikely you'd give a suffering Jesus the role of Messiah (Jesus distinctly failed to be the great military commander that many of the jewish communities at that time were hoping would come to kick out the Romans); and it's even more unlikely that you'd give yourself the roles that the disciples did. the disciples depict themselves as faithless fools; who constantly Dont Get It. they also depict themselves as cowards; they run away when Jesus is arrested, Peter is unlikely to sign off on a copy that has him denying he even knew Jesus out of fear; and none of them would have made up a story that had women demonstrating more courage than they did (as happens in the New Testament narrative).

2. the second problem is that it's not just the disciples and the apostolic church who claimed that Jesus claimed to be God. on the contrary; the Jews certainly believed it, which is why they originally agitated for Jesus' execution and then began a general persecution against that which they saw as the ultimate heresey. even the Talmud (hardly a pro-christian source) does not deny that Jesus performed miracles and claimed to be the messiah (God). Altogether, Jesus life and claims are recorded by 10 non-christian sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and (again) the jewish Talmud. to bring this perhaps further into note: we only have 9 mentions of the ruling emperor, Tiberius Caesar, at that time.

3. the new testament is incredibly detailed and accurate. there are over 84 historically and archaelogically verified details in the second half of Acts alone; ranging from local slang, to the correct lines of trade routes, to officials names, to harbor depths, and there are over 30 historical characters presented in the New Testament who have been confirmed archaelogically and historically by non-Christian sources. Jesus' words are recorded in the same, matter of fact, detailed manner. furthermore, as there were several new testament writers; the ability to alter such a detailed text would require a 40 year long conspiracy; which has it's own problems, as the testament writers constantly refer to facts which "everyone knows", or common places, names, events, etc.. as the test of whether or not a theory is valid is whether or not it is falsifiable; the New Testament is extraordinarily so; had they reffered to large events that "everyone knows about" when their audience knew for a fact that they were not true, they would have been rejected out of hand as lunatics; yet, somehow, the early church experienced an explosion in membership; with even members of the priestly class becoming believers. thus, it is evident that they recorded their history as accurately as at least everyone else believed it to have happened. as historians; men like Luke stick out as particularly accurate among the ancient writer.

4. The events were written down shortly after Jesus' death; mostly by the first generation; no less. to give you perhaps an idea of what this means; let's take a look at how this compares to other ancient documents. firstly, the time gap. obviously, the longer the time between the surviving copies that we have and the originals'; the less sure we can be that errors have not crept into the manuscript over time; thus, the versions closest to the original are most likely to be the purest copies.
Time Gap Between Original and First Surviving Copies That We Have
Homer: 500 years.
Demosthenes: 1400 years
Herodotus: 1400 years.
Plato: 1200 years.
Tacitus: 1000 years
Caesar: 1000 years.
Pliny: 700 years.
New Testament: 40 years

there is also the issue of the number of surviving manuscript copies; the fewer the number of copies available, the higher the possibility that errors that are existant in a couple of accounts will not be corrected or contradicted by the others. the number of copies we have?
Number of Manuscript Copies That Have Survived
Homer: 643
Demosthenes: 200
Herodotus: 8
Plato: 7
Tacitus: 20
Caesar: 10
Pliny: 7
New Testament: 5,686

the funny thing is; even if these two tables above turned out more poorly for the new testament than they do; we'd still have accurate portrayals of the original manuscripts. how? because the early church fathers, from Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and others quote the New Testament books so extensively (36,289 times in the copies of their letters that we have found) that we can instruct the entire new testament from their writings, and only miss 11 verses, none of which are crucial.

[neo of the mind]

cpwill: Have you posted this information before? If not, I must know you from a different forum, because it looks very familiar. Nice post, even though it's dejavue to me.

[cpwill]

yes, i've posted it several times on this forum. i keep having to bring it up because people keep making the same wrong assumptions about the NT texts.

[neo of the mind]

yes, i've posted it several times on this forum. i keep having to bring it up because people keep making the same wrong assumptions about the NT texts.

ok, dang, for a moment I thought I could see into the future or you were somebody I knew. No worries.

[steveksux]

and it's even more unlikely that you'd give yourself the roles that the disciples did. the disciples depict themselves as faithless fools; who constantly Dont Get It. they also depict themselves as cowards; they run away when Jesus is arrested, Peter is unlikely to sign off on a copy that has him denying he even knew Jesus out of fear; and none of them would have made up a story that had women demonstrating more courage than they did (as happens in the New Testament narrative).Small point, but the gospels were written later, by others. Perhaps soon afterwards as you point out. But they were not there to sign off on the copy, they were already dead when it was written. It also seems unlikely that the disciples would refer to themselves in the third person if they wrote it.

Other than that comparatively small detail, good post, good food for thought. Best one from "that" side of the aisle on the issue so far, by a long shot. :flowers: Nicely done.

Randy

[Strel]

cpwill knows how to make an argument without quibbling over semantics.

Some others would do well to learn from his example.

[DRMIZER]

1. the disciples were eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus; so they knew the truth of the events here on earth. now the charge that they may have distorted that truth is one you can certainly make; but it has some pretty big problems for it. number one is that with the exception of John (who was exiled to the island of Patmos), every one of these guys was killed for preaching his beliefs; when all they would have had to do to save their lives was recant. rare indeed is someone who is willing to lay down their life to preach what they know to be true; but this theory would require us to believe that these men deliberately had themselves repeatedly beaten, arrested, tortured, thrown into prison, and killed in order to preach what they knew to be false. furthermore, if you were a 1st century Jew attempting to make up a story about a great teacher; it's unlikely you'd give a suffering Jesus the role of Messiah (Jesus distinctly failed to be the great military commander that many of the jewish communities at that time were hoping would come to kick out the Romans); and it's even more unlikely that you'd give yourself the roles that the disciples did. the disciples depict themselves as faithless fools; who constantly Dont Get It. they also depict themselves as cowards; they run away when Jesus is arrested, Peter is unlikely to sign off on a copy that has him denying he even knew Jesus out of fear; and none of them would have made up a story that had women demonstrating more courage than they did (as happens in the New Testament narrative).This is mostly correct. Aren't the muslem terrorists not doing precisely the same thing today? I'm not sure their suicides give me the belief that they are right in their convictions.

2. the second problem is that it's not just the disciples and the apostolic church who claimed that Jesus claimed to be God. on the contrary; the Jews certainly believed it, which is why they originally agitated for Jesus' execution and then began a general persecution against that which they saw as the ultimate heresey. meven the Talmud (hardly a pro-christian source) does not deny that Jesus performed miracles and claimed to be the messiah (God). Altogether, Jesus life and claims are recorded by 10 non-christian sources: Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonius, Lucian, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, and (again) the jewish Talmud. to bring this perhaps further into note: we only have 9 mentions of the ruling emperor, Tiberius Caesar, at that time.This info is straight out of biblical apologetics. Requires a great deal of conviction to stretch the points this far.

3. the new testament is incredibly detailed and accurate. there are over 84 historically and archaelogically verified details in the second half of Acts alone; ranging from local slang, to the correct lines of trade routes, to officials names, to harbor depths, and there are over 30 historical characters presented in the New Testament who have been confirmed archaelogically and historically by non-Christian sources. Jesus' words are recorded in the same, matter of fact, detailed manner. furthermore, as there were several new testament writers; the ability to alter such a detailed text would require a 40 year long conspiracy; which has it's own problems, as the testament writers constantly refer to facts which "everyone knows", or common places, names, events, etc.. as the test of whether or not a theory is valid is whether or not it is falsifiable; the New Testament is extraordinarily so; had they reffered to large events that "everyone knows about" when their audience knew for a fact that they were not true, they would have been rejected out of hand as lunatics; . . . ditto
4. The events were written down shortly after Jesus' death; mostly by the first generation; no less. Most definitely incorrect. Most gospels were recorded some 70 years past the events. I think that after a first person experience, all "facts" become heresay. to give you perhaps an idea of what this means; let's take a look at how this compares to other ancient documents. firstly, the time gap. obviously, . . . .Time Gap Between Original and First Surviving Copies That We Have.Again seminary apologetics.
Homer: 500 years
Demosthenes: 1400 years[/QUOTE]Herodotus: 1400 years.
Plato: 1200 years.
Tacitus: 1000 years
Caesar: 1000 years.
Pliny: 700 years.
New Testament: 40 years

there is also the issue of the number of surviving manuscript copies; the fewer the number of copies available, the higher the possibility that errors that are existant in a couple of accounts will not be corrected or contradicted by the others. the number of copies we have?
Number of Manuscript Copies That Have Survived
Homer: 643
Demosthenes: 200
Herodotus: 8
Plato: 7
Tacitus: 20
Caesar: 10
Pliny: 7
New Testament: 5,686

the funny thing is; even if these two tables above turned out more poorly for the new testament than they do; we'd still have accurate portrayals of the original manuscripts. how? because the early church fathers, from Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and others quote the New Testament books so extensively (36,289 times in the copies of their letters that we have found) that we can instruct the entire new testament from their writings, and only miss 11 verses, none of which are crucial.[/The original post is accurate. The bible is an inspirational book filled with many, many "tales" and does not accurately represent history. Shortened due to length.

[DRMIZER]

I asked for evidence for your case. You asserted that it exists but refused to present it. I am thus forced to assume you are either guessing or lying.Let's not go down stream to insinuate a person is a liar, especially when you have been given a reason for the answer. I believe it is your responsibility to collect information to the contrary of the thread. I don't think anyone is forcing you believe anything.

[Democritus]

Let's not go down stream to insinuate a person is a liar, especially when you have been given a reason for the answer. I believe it is your responsibility to collect information to the contrary of the thread. I don't think anyone is forcing you believe anything.

But I'm not looking for information contrary to the thread. I'm looking for information that supports the thread. You're just coming in here and saying "This is fact, prove me wrong." You havn't given evidence for some of YOUR assertions. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you have no evidence.

[cpwill]

Small point, but the gospels were written later, by others.

three of the gospels were dictated, coming to us from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and a fourth (luke) was written as part of a two-section letter to a roman official (the second half is the book of acts)

Perhaps soon afterwards as you point out. But they were not there to sign off on the copy, they were already dead when it was written. It also seems unlikely that the disciples would refer to themselves in the third person if they wrote it.

well, A) as the writer was typically taking notes from the disciples themselves (for example John Mark), not really and B) when in reference to two of the gospels, you will note that self-recognition does in fact occur. in the gospel of john the source refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and in Luke-Acts you will note the appearence of such terms as "we", which replaces the "they" that was used prior to Luke's chronological appearance in the narrative.

Other than that comparatively small detail, good post, good food for thought. Best one from "that" side of the aisle on the issue so far, by a long shot. :flowers: Nicely done.

:sweeps off tophat and bows: well thank you sir. :)

[cpwill]

This is mostly correct. Aren't the muslem terrorists not doing precisely the same thing today? I'm not sure their suicides give me the belief that they are right in their convictions.

no, because what they are demonstrating is a willingness to die for faith; what the disciples demonstrated was a willingness to die for knowledge. it is possible to have faith in a falsity (indeed, as the fact that the major religions clash would make self-evident), but when we talk about the disciples, we are dealing with people who, for good or ill, would have known the truth about the accuracy of their claims. i can tell you i am 6 foot 4 inches (i am not) and get you perhaps to believe me, and perhaps even be willing to die for this belief, but I am extremely unlikely to die for this belief, because i know that it is a false one.

This info is straight out of biblical apologetics.

which i guess is a round-about way of saying "and i don't have any counterpoints to them?

Most definitely incorrect. Most gospels were recorded some 70 years past the events.

no... copies of the texts that we have don't really start in full swing until 70 years afterwords. the texts themselves were written down several decades ealier than that.

I think that after a first person experience, all "facts" become heresay.

which is why we are fortunate to have first person experience.

Again seminary apologetics.
Homer: 500 years
Demosthenes: 1400 years
Herodotus: 1400 years.
Plato: 1200 years.
Tacitus: 1000 years
Caesar: 1000 years.
Pliny: 700 years.
New Testament: 40 years

there is also the issue of the number of surviving manuscript copies; the fewer the number of copies available, the higher the possibility that errors that are existant in a couple of accounts will not be corrected or contradicted by the others. the number of copies we have?
Number of Manuscript Copies That Have Survived
Homer: 643
Demosthenes: 200
Herodotus: 8
Plato: 7
Tacitus: 20
Caesar: 10
Pliny: 7
New Testament: 5,686

and pretty solid, at that :)

The original post is accurate. The bible is an inspirational book filled with many, many "tales" and does not accurately represent history. Shortened due to length.

:) your claim so notwithstanding, you have failed to provide not only a single piece of evidence that it is so, but to provide an iota of counterevidence to refute the facts i have laid out before you here. your claim that history can be waved away under the title "apologetics" is interesting (sort of if i were to claim that claims that the church tortured people in the Inquisition can be ignored because they are merely 'things that actually occured' :p)

[JoeR]

we are dealing with people who, for good or ill, would have known the truth about the accuracy of their claims.

People can't be fooled?

[steveksux]

three of the gospels were dictated, coming to us from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and a fourth (luke) was written as part of a two-section letter to a roman official (the second half is the book of acts)

well, A) as the writer was typically taking notes from the disciples themselves (for example John Mark), not really and B) when in reference to two of the gospels, you will note that self-recognition does in fact occur. in the gospel of john the source refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" and in Luke-Acts you will note the appearence of such terms as "we", which replaces the "they" that was used prior to Luke's chronological appearance in the narrative.I was going on my impressions/understanding/recollection, but I'd have to do some research to confirm/deny/refute this stuff, I could certainly be wrong on it. For these points I remain agnostic until I get a chance to do some research.


:sweeps off tophat and bows: well thank you sir. :)Quite refreshing, well written, factually based, not relying on acceptance of dogma as "factish", very persuasive. Wish there was more of that here. :flowers:

Randy

[cpwill]

People can't be fooled?

it's hard to rig a "coming back from the dead" sleight-of-hand for people who saw you get tortured to death.

[Nuke the Oil]

I don't see how numerous copies of Biblical texts (the numbers are skewed of course) prove the factuality of the Bible. If you copy out a lie a million times it doesn't suddenly become true.

Christianity was the first evangelical "book" religion (based on Judaism the first "book" religion, and perhaps overlooking Zoroastrianism) and thus needed to make many copies of it's sacred texts to propagate the faith. Reports from even 40 years in the past are not necessarily credible even in the modern world i.e. Roswell, which first came into the public eye a few decades after it supposedly happened.

Jesus belongs in the shadowland of semimythical semihistorical figures ranging from King Arthur and Merlin(Myrddin) to more accepted figures with spurious attributions and life stories such as Homer and Pythagoras.

Claims of miracles in that time period are found in other works besides the Bible. Aristotle's texts on natural science are filled with miracles, myths and folklore as facts. These are not accepted nowadays. Why accept the Bible's?

[cpwill]

I don't see how numerous copies of Biblical texts (the numbers are skewed of course) prove the factuality of the Bible. If you copy out a lie a million times it doesn't suddenly become true.

multiplicity of copies serves as evidence of authenticity of originality. it's a counter-argument to the claim that the texts we have now are somehow altered from the texts that the disciples originally wrote.

Christianity was the first evangelical "book" religion

actually religious books predated christianity by hundreds if not thousands of years. as long as there has been recorded religion, it was recorded somewhere.

Jesus belongs in the shadowland of semimythical semihistorical figures ranging from King Arthur and Merlin(Myrddin) to more accepted figures with spurious attributions and life stories such as Homer and Pythagoras.

dont forget alexander, caesar, saladin, wang mang, tokugawa ideyeshu, william the conquerer.....

Claims of miracles in that time period are found in other works besides the Bible.

...and the point there is???

[JD3]

it's hard to rig a "coming back from the dead" sleight-of-hand for people who saw you get tortured to death.

Look, I'm a Chrisitan, but it isn't like thousands saw him. My understanding is a very limited group of believers saw him. A skeptic could easily argue a conspiracy here.

[cpwill]

Look, I'm a Chrisitan, but it isn't like thousands saw him. My understanding is a very limited group of believers saw him. A skeptic could easily argue a conspiracy here.

;) already answered this:

1. the disciples were eyewitnesses of the events surrounding Jesus; so they knew the truth of the events here on earth. now the charge that they may have distorted that truth is one you can certainly make; but it has some pretty big problems for it. number one is that with the exception of John (who was exiled to the island of Patmos), every one of these guys was killed for preaching his beliefs; when all they would have had to do to save their lives was recant. rare indeed is someone who is willing to lay down their life to preach what they know to be true; but this theory would require us to believe that these men deliberately had themselves repeatedly beaten, arrested, tortured, thrown into prison, and killed in order to preach what they knew to be false. furthermore, if you were a 1st century Jew attempting to make up a story about a great teacher; it's unlikely you'd give a suffering Jesus the role of Messiah (Jesus distinctly failed to be the great military commander that many of the jewish communities at that time were hoping would come to kick out the Romans); and it's even more unlikely that you'd give yourself the roles that the disciples did. the disciples depict themselves as faithless fools; who constantly Dont Get It. they also depict themselves as cowards; they run away when Jesus is arrested, Peter is unlikely to sign off on a copy that has him denying he even knew Jesus out of fear; and none of them would have made up a story that had women demonstrating more courage than they did (as happens in the New Testament narrative).

[DRMIZER]

no, because what they are demonstrating is a willingness to die for faith; what the disciples demonstrated was a willingness to die for knowledge. it is possible to have faith in a falsity (indeed, as the fact that the major religions clash would make self-evident), but when we talk about the disciples, we are dealing with people who, for good or ill, would have known the truth about the accuracy of their claims. i can tell you i am 6 foot 4 inches (i am not) and get you perhaps to believe me, and perhaps even be willing to die for this belief, but I am extremely unlikely to die for this belief, because i know that it is a false one.It was a "gift from god" that you were born into Christianity. . . .else you have been born into another religion which would have been as real to you as this one. In such case, you would be willing to die for a different cause and a different master. Why? Because you would not know the difference, just like the terrorists of today. Simple logic. Your historical proof would be as valid as their's today. All religions have their "belief" in their religious history, right or wrong, true of false.

[neo of the mind]

I thought this was a good article that touched on a lot of point.

http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/EvidenceoftheResurection.htm

[DRMIZER]

But I'm not looking for information contrary to the thread. I'm looking for information that supports the thread. You're just coming in here and saying "This is fact, prove me wrong." You havn't given evidence for some of YOUR assertions. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you have no evidence.I stated there is no proof that Jesus existed. I explained my side of my statement. It's your turn to prove he did.

Millions "prove" that Jesus existed through use of the scriptures. If that proof is adequate for your belief, then so be it. I'm simply stating that I do not personally accept the bible as the inerrant word of god because it was written by men, though claimed inspired. There are many, many errors and misconceptions therein which relies on apologetics to give rational explanation to these problems. Many of the writings of the bible cannot be verified by so called "writers of history" who are accepted as historians because their works can be verified through other accepted writers of history.

I do not accept any writers of the bible as historians, nor should they be. Their claim was not to write history; their mission, as I understand it was to record what was given to them through devine inspiration. AND what they witnessed. However, it is accepted in most seminaries that the gospels were WRITTEN/RECORDED some 70 years past the witnessing. Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually write these books attributed to their name?

The writers of the scriptures certainly did not have a logical view of what they witnessed. Many sicknesses and diseases were thought to be demonic posession. Of course, until recently, mental illiness was looked upon as either possession or witchcraft and burned at the stake for being "evil".

I don't believe the authors of the scriptures did an injustice by what they wrote. They wrote for their people, for their times. Their messages from the scriptures fit their times and were understood by their citizens. What mankind has refused to do is provide any kind of progressive revelation to the words of the scriptures.

"God said it, I believe it, that settles it!" The statement isn't correct yet many people swear to this statement. God didn't say it. No. It was written by men. This is an undisputed fact, unless there are those who actually believe that god's hand wrote the bible. If he did, he left many things in a quandry for us to try to figure out on our own, thereby separate into denominations, hate for different religions all in the name of DOGMA, not god. What are we fighting in Iraq this very minute?

Think about this: If the god of our old and new testiment wrote our bible, why was he so misled when he "wrote" the other books in other lands? Seems to me there is either more than 1 god or lots of "interpretations" to his words. One or the other has to be true.

The greatest fallacy I notice in our different ideas about history and the scripture is that scripture, in your opinion is what it is. Hence the continuing discourse among scripture and science. Science moves along a continuium and adds to the cause of humanity. The bible however, is stuck where it was and will always be stuck at that point because we refuse to modify our belief systems. That does not mean that we should ignore the moral principles of the bible or the love that is supposed to be an example to mankind. It does mean that we back off the fundamental ideas that the bible is literal in all its says and remains 2000 to 3000 years old. Many of us are so hung up on the exactness of scripture that we forget the meaning of the message it presents. We'll stomp a hole in anyone's words that has a different perspective about the "holy book" or call them a liar because they write "unproven" words. New thought on this subject actually pisses people off!

As we move along this time line, the further apart science and religion grow. This shouldn't be, in my opinion. I believe god meant for us to "update" our information about the world, medicine and other advances we have made. Ironically, we give god the credit for all of the miracles of medicine yet refuse to progress our concept of god through the scriptures. To many, God does not "unfold" his inspiration any longer. Does this make sense? It does to the person who subscribes to the idea that god said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Certainly I'm not going to change any minds here but maybe it will open a prespective or two on the subject.

[Canajew]

Apply Occam's Razor DRMIZER. Either Jesus existed or he did not. Now which is more likely.

a) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same fictional person over the course of hundreds of years.

b) A number of different people wrote hundreds of pages about the same real person over the course of hundreds of years.


you could say the same thing about Robin Hood.

Or Zeus.

[neo of the mind]

DRMIZER:

Thanks for giving your perspective. You wrote a lot so I will limit my comments. Other than evolution for example, what is "it" that needs to progress in relation to scripture in your opinion?

I think the ten commandments are still valid and the summarization to two of them from the ten by Jesus is valid and don't see a positive in changing that. The health ordinances are still valid and if followed we would be a healthier people. The business ethic ordinances are still valid as well.

The family structure of one husband and one wife with both treating each other appropriately and both fullfilling their roles and responsibilities is still valid and proven to be the best structure for a family. I am not saying the only structure, but the best. Some children are raised by a single parent or grandparents for example and under the circumstances it is better than other options, but not the best option.

I know there are many more examples I could give but I gave these to show the context of my question as I understand your post in this specific scope.

[rsgars]

you could say the same thing about Robin Hood.

Or Zeus.

However, as far as we know, the same cannot be said about you . . . so I guess you don't exist.

[JoeR]

;) already answered this:

All that shows is that they believed in him.

[steveksux]

multiplicity of copies serves as evidence of authenticity of originality. it's a counter-argument to the claim that the texts we have now are somehow altered from the texts that the disciples originally wrote.That goes to show they weren't mangled in translation, but does nothing to prove their truthiness in the first place.. Need corroboration for that.

actually religious boo