F.F. Bruce, perhaps one of my favorite theologians said this:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a "Christ-myth," but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth" theories."
Interesting... I'm wondering if any atheists here believe Jesus never existed?
Pevensie15 -- Apologetics, Theology, and Evangelism
Search This Blog
Blog Archive
About Me
- AJ Diaz
- What's Up? I'm just a normal, Biblical Christian. My purpose is to glorify God. That's the purpose of this blog. Enough about me... I hope to see you in eternity. If you're not a Christian (or even if you are) please visit Wayofthemaster.com (Kirk Cameron's Ministry).
What I'm doing:
Pevensie 15 (Followers)
129 comments:
Interesting why?
I dont find a Christian saying this to be interesting at all, more likely mundane.
How bout we reverse your game, because after all you are positing that a demi-god walked on earth. What makes you think Jesus existed?
A better question is this: How do we know Vagon exists?
Do we know Vagon exists because we read about him? Okay, maybe that is proof. I mean we all see his writings and things he has supposedly said. (except when he quotes others from websites)
Is it because we have witnesses that know him? Okay, maybe, but if you go to his blog and those who knwo him and help him with it you will see all of these names that frankly sound almost as if Alcorn helps.
Is it because someone speaks to him? Okay, maybe. I mean I am so I must believe in him a little.
Is it because his name has been around for 2000 years? uh-oh...
Is it because he has been recorded in history by hundreds of people? Uh-oh...
Is it because he has billions of people following him? Oh no...
Maybe Vagon doesn't exist...
Now much of that was tongue in cheek of course but if we are really honest, there is more proof of Jesus Christ living than any of us. I say my name is Tim but is it? Maybe I am fake. The point is when we all pass from this life, not many will remember us. Not many will take our words and have them passed on to others to save the world or to show how to live life with love or to try and comfort others in times of need. Not many here will have historians and some famous ones at that write about us to tell what we have done in life. Now can you say that about a lot of people, including Mohammed? Yes!!!!! That means he is at least real.
God is Great! Jesus is Alive!
A better question is this: How do we know Vagon exists?
Sounds fun, lets go!
Do we know Vagon exists because we read about him? Okay, maybe that is proof.
Hold up. First we need to decide what Vagon is. We need to give him an ontology. If you just mean the screen-name exists well then, yep its right there score one for proof, nothing else required. If you mean the man behind the moniker well then, lets continue...
I mean we all see his writings and things he has supposedly said. (except when he quotes others from websites)
Is it because we have witnesses that know him? Okay, maybe, but if you go to his blog and those who knwo him and help him with it you will see all of these names that frankly sound almost as if Alcorn helps. Is it because someone speaks to him? Okay, maybe. I mean I am so I must believe in him a little.
That all helps certainly, but we're looking for a person behind the name right? So Vagon could be a really lucky chimp. If the man behind Vagon committed a crime, or did something so phenomenally amazing that he needed to be found, he could be.
There's his google records. Which have an email address, which is registered via another email addres, which belongs to an ISP, which has a paid account, from an address where he lives. Wow proof!
Is it because his name has been around for 2000 years? uh-oh...
Um, unless his claim was really long life, this would falsify him existing now.
Is it because he has been recorded in history by hundreds of people? Uh-oh...
Hmm well maybe. But lets see, if he'd done something important scholars or journalists of the time would record him right? They certainly wouldn't wait over a century.
Is it because he has billions of people following him? Oh no...
No this wouldn't count, I mean its just an appeal to common belief.
Maybe Vagon doesn't exist...
Vagon or the person behind Vagon is an extremely common phenomena. Yet another internet poster. He isn't claiming to be a zombie or anything, so why would we care?
When we talk about Jesus do you mean Paul's spiritual Christ or Jesus the man?
Spiritual Christ, but we know he's just yet another spiritual being so who cares?
Jesus the man claims some pretty wacky things, so maybe thats who we need to find evidence of.
People write about Jesus, but people write about Zeus too. So not really. What about witnesses? Well no. There's no contemporary eyewitness account, in fact they seem pretty anonymous and written much later.
Jesus has been around for 2000 years, but Zeus has been around for at least 4000, I reckon Zeus is sounding better.
Has Jesus been recorded in history, wow yes! Records everywhere. But then why wouldn't any of his contemporary Jewish writers mention Jesus the man? Why do they only mens the followers of the spiritual Christ?
There aren't billions of people following Zeus, Vagon.
Your attempt at discrediting Tim's post fails. Nice try though.
Thanks bossmanham, I didnt realise it was a numbers game! When Islam overtakes you I'll be sure to convert.
Is it any wonder that 1st century documents are rare? We are asked proof (presumeably beyond a reasonable doubt) of Jesus' existance- yet no one seems to question much other historial figures of that time. There really are not many authentic historical documents from the time of Christ anyway. Consider also that maybe there are not many non Christian or Jewish writings which mention Jesus because the few of those documents from the time which do still exist in parts were written by men who had no interest in someone who if they had heard of, they considered to be an unknown "rabble rouser" Jew. Anything from a Roman official most likely had never heard of Jesus during the time of His ministry on earth- Romans had very little if any interest in Jews. To the Romans, Jesus would have been a nobody. If He was known at all, it would have been as a Jewish rabbi, and maybe one who did "a few miracles". As for the first years after Jesus' crucifixion, there would be no mention of the earliest Christians either because they mostly were in hiding because Christianity was outlawed in the Roman Empire, those who were- were executed.
Any writings by people in the first century were more interested in political happenings,and the only religious events which were noticed had either political or international ties. Anything about Jesus' teaching and healings would have been considered nothing more than a minor religious argument.
Judea and Galilee were the main parts where Jesus lived and taught- and as far as the Roman Empire was concerned, these were comparable to the Western frontier in America during the pioneer days. These were remote outposts, and of no significance to the larger cities in the Empire.
Scholars agree that there was a Christian church in the first century. Just because there is virtually no historical documents specifically showing the existance of Jesus, doesn't mean there is evidence showing He never was- the Church in the immediate years following His ascention shows this.
I know it won't matter much to non believers because for some reason anything written about Jesus 50 years or more after His time is somehow irrelevent (even though as Gozreht pointed out- people still believe other historical figures exisited)
but consider such secular writers as Tacticus, who was Governor of Britain AD 80-84 mentions the death of Jesus : Hence, to suppress the rumor, he (Nero) falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with teh most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of teh name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the riegn of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition (you guys ought to love that one!), repressed for a time broke out again..."
There are others, but the main point is, that there may not be reams of historical collections written outside of the Bible about Jesus, but given the time, there is not much else which could prove the existance of anyone else- but there are still witnesses of the Apostles. Jewish scribes have been the most meticulous copiers of history, and those who were the Apostles contemporaries were no different. Luke- the doctor was Very meticulous about details, as were the others.
I don't know Vagon exists, in fact I rather expect he doesn't, if Vagon is anything like Ryk it is an assumed name under which an actual person communicates. As to that actual person existing I can reasonably speculate that one does but I can tell you nothing at all about that person, not even if it shares any of the views and opinions of the avatar Vagon.
The same is true of your Christ, I am sure there was a Jesus or some variant of that name who was crucified by pilot. History records other would be Messiahs who used the name Yeshua or a variant. It is after all a symbolic name. That one of these could have been crucified is plausible enough. However there is no evidence to support that any of the miracles in the Bible actually happened or that there is a God or that any God had anything to do with Yeshu ben pandera, Jesus of Nazereth, or Jeshu Ha Noztri.
At best, and I do mean best, history documents that there was a man named Yeshu or some variant who was executed for herresy and who's followers founded a religion. Even much of that could be mythmaking but I accept that much as provisionally true.
Carolyn the reason why we don't question other historical characters is because they don't claim to be able to raise from the dead. I think thats a fairly good reason.
Tacitus is considered by many to be Rome's greatest historian, so good choice.
The Annals are cool because two separate monasteries scribed a half copy of the Annals and by luck they were different halves. Now obviously between the two halves there's some missing bits, but who'd of thunk it, the Jesus part is also missing bit. Year 30 is completely absent along with parts either side in 29 and 31. I wonder why Christians scribes wouldn't have included those years?
But hey, you're using him as evidence so I assume you think this was just an unfortunate mistake and that missing the Jesus years wasn't a big deal to the Christian scribes.
So lets consider the actual passage you posted, Annals XV,44. I'll also add the remainder so I'm not accused of leaving bits out:
"But the pernicious superstition, checked for a moment, broke out again, not only in Judea, the native land of the monstrosity, but also in Rome, to which all conceivable horrors and abominations flow from every side, and find supporters. First, therefore, those were arrested who openly confessed; then, on their information, a great number, who were not so much convicted of the fire as of hatred of the human race. Ridicule was passed on them as they died; so that, clothed in skins of beasts, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or committed to the flames, and when the sun had gone down they were burned to light up the night. Nero had lent his garden for this spectacle, and gave games in the Circus, mixing with the people in the dress of a charioteer or standing in the chariot. Hence there was a strong sympathy for them, though they might have been guilty enough to deserve the severest punishment, on the ground that they were sacrificed, not to the general good, but to the cruelty of one man."
Major points:
1) From the way its written its clear that he is using second hand information (Read William Lane Craig if you dont believe me)
2)There's no other texts or historical proof that Nero persecuted christians
3) Nero was indifferent to the varying religions in his city
4) Tacitus doesnt use the name Jesus
5) This passage is present word-for-word in the Chronicles of Sulpicius Severus where it is mixed with completely wrong histories. The liklyhood Supicius could have copied it was slim to naught.
6) No early Christian writer use's this passage in their apologetics.
So is it really that likely that Tacitus' Jesus years were stripped by accident and that he would never cross-references this passage in any other of his Christian or Nero discussions?
I can't believe I said "crucified by pilot" sorry it's a bit late I meant Pontius Pilate. As far as I know he wasn't a pilot of any sort.
I can't believe I said "crucified by pilot" sorry it's a bit late I meant Pontius Pilate. As far as I know he wasn't a pilot of any sort.
@ AJ:
I love FFB myself, his treatment on the Scriptures is fantastic.
@ Carolyn:
I absolutely enjoy the apologetic wherewithal you employ. Are you a Romulan or Vulcan?
Just wondering, former Trekkie. You have an encyclopedia for a brain!
Keep it up. I'm taking notes.
@ Vagon:
Do you exist? Or are you a cylon??
@ Ryk:
Hey, man!
BH: Heh I exist at Operating Thetan level, have you met my friend Tom?
How about you man, you got any decent historical evidence for Christ?
I was hoping AJ would have something..
Interesting... I'm wondering if any atheists here believe Jesus never existed?
There was a few messiah-claimants named Yeshua. I think the religious texts about him are untrue or extreme exaggerations. Holy texts are cheap. Some real evidence would be needed...
Vagon,
You almost got me believing in you. if you have an email account and an ISP is backing you up they must be liars and frauds. I think Google made you up.
But on the serious side to some of your points. People did write about Christ during these times. But you will not accept it because some are of course eye witnesses and were included in the Bible. James wrote in 45 AD about him. Paul knew of him, may have even met him during Christ's life. Then he converted and we read the passages that inspire us today. But in any case, history is always recorded after the fact. No one sits around saying "hmmm, I am going to write down what happens to day and then tell everyone...", unless of course you are so dull and bored with life you have to twitter. It is not about numbers. There could be one of us left in the universe and it doesn't mean it's not real.
Other points questioned:
Ryk, pilot!!!! HAHAHAHA. That was funny. And the stupid thing is, I didn't even pick up on it until you corrected yourself. Thanks man, I needed that. But Jesus' name may be "symbolic" now, but it was a real name. Jesus is Greek for the Hebrew word Y'shua, which is a form of Joshua or (Y'hoshua), it is also very closely related to Jesse (Yishai). So I am sure it was a not too common name but still a name that was used in the past. Even today I know a couple of Jesus' (hey-soos).
Back to the existence of Christ. To deny His existence on earth will be the lamest arguement ever. Thousands upon thousands came to know Christ in the first few decades of this side of the calendar. Rome knew of him. They executed him at the suggestion of Jewish leaders. Nero killed thousands because of their belief in him only 30 years later. Tiberius is the one who allowed it to go on. Josephus went to places just to write about him, called Antiquities. There were Jewish people writing about him, look up the Babylonian Talmud. And Tacitus did mention Christ by name, "But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
Can we all agree that there was a Mohammed? Was there a Siddhārtha Gautama? Was there a Confucius? Was there a David Koresh? If we believe in all of these cultic leaders then we should be able to agree there at least was a real life human named Jesus who as Ryk has stated was executed for heresy. Otherwise we have to go back to the argument of proving any of us exist. Decartes is claimed to have said "I think, therefore I am", but does that prove he existed? How do we know he said that? Because he wrote it down? How do we know that? Did someone see him write it? Blah blah blah.
continued...(stupid word count limits)
Holy texts may be cheap in some's opinions but many still hold true to historical events. The Bible mentions plenty of people living at a certain time period, customs, laws, and events and they are all correct.
So after all is said and done we have to come back to what makes Christianity true and the others false. The others I have mentioned i.e., Buddha, Mohammed, etc, never claimed to be God. They only claimed to be his messenger or a person with answers to life's questions. Mohammed may have went a step further and said Gabri'el came to him and gave him a vision and told him to write things down but only he could interpret it. He and only he. There is a ding-dong that everyone should hear. If someone claims to be the only one to be able to interpret things then watch out. Jesus never did that. He told us things and we had to figure them out for ourselves so we can come to God on our own conscience.
Now Jesus did do something the rest of them did not. He claimed to be God. And I will direct you back to the liar, lunatic, or Lord conversation in the other thread.
@ Brazen- actually, I am more like Scotty- but I guess that shows my age a bit ;-) I'm far from being a walking encyclopedia, but I do read a lot and have a lot of books I reference from.
So- there may have been an actual person named Jesus- and we all know His last name was not Christ- that was His title, and that He was excecuted. Now what makes him different than other guys who started religions. His voluntary death on the cross, His resurretion, and His claims to be God.
The things concerning Jesus' life death and resurrection all had eyewitnesses and the written record (the Bible) has enough historical context to back these witnesses up. there is enough known of the time through history and archaeology that shows the authenticity of the people who witnessed, and wrote about them, and of the period in which they lived.
Looking at the customs and society of the Roman Empire, and the laws concerning excecution and burial of dissidents etc, the witness documentation is supported and makes sence.
People call me small minded because I believe that the Bible is true, and that I trust in a God that no one can see. Some folks seem to think we are small minded because we look at history, science, archaeology and literary documents in a different way which points to a higher intelligence, who we believe we were created in His image.
When we read things which seem to make more questions rather than answering them, we are not disheartened or discouraged, it doesn't shake our faith. For me, these things strengthen my faith. Just because I can not discribe the deapths of my belief and faith doesn't mean it is empty.
There are times when archaeology show evidence of real Biblical life people and events, yet many times these are passed off and not proclaimed to the world such as evolutionary findings which may or may not completely support the theory are.. which faith is stronger?
I did not say there was never a Jesus indeed I said there probably was. In fact at least three claimants to being the Messiah used the name. I also said there probably was one that was executed by Pontius Pilate. What I said is that outside of the Bible there is no evidence of miracles or resurrection. The Gospels being the works of writers who were already members of the Christ movement, writing many years after the events happened, based on what they had been told supposedly happened, are not reliable. So while I admit there were Messiah figures of that name and concede that one of them may have been crucified that is the most that history outside of the Gospels can substantiate. Other references to Jesus such as Josephus are at best partial forgeries, even apologists concede that much. All of the other accounts refer primarily to the followers of the Christian faith and their beliefs and such. No one disputes that there were Christians so proving that proves nothing. Proving that a man named Jesus was executed and founded the faith also proves nothing. As to the miracles and such there is no evidence. Even though there were many prolific writers and philosophers at the time who failed to comment on public miracles and ressurections.
Now I admit absence of proof is not proof of absence. The lack of evidence for miracles does not mean that they didn't happen, only that there is no evidence that they did. I do not need to prove they didn't because having disproven the existence of Yahwheh there is no need to disprove that he had a son.
As to Jesus or Yeshu not being symbolic at the time. You must know that Jesus is a translation of Yeshua, coming through the Greek Iesous then the Latin Iesus, now Greek does not have a Y sound however in latin I can also be a consonant with a J giving us Jesus. In Hebrew Yeshua means "Salvation" which is why I say it was symbolic.
@Carolyn
Alright you have stumped me and I am impressed. I can not think of what you are reffering to, and I feel a bit out of sorts. Please would you tell me which archaeological findings you are talking about, and which findings regarding the theory of evolution do not actually support it. I frankly am baffled, I seldom hear much of anything about evolutionary biology outside of books and journals and I certainly haven't heard of any advances that have been falsified. I would really like to know.
Thanx
Ryk
Goz,
I just want to point out that you haven't critically looked at the text. A siginificant chunk came from Tacitus, which I've already been through with Carolyn.
Back to the existence of Christ. To deny His existence on earth will be the lamest arguement ever.
This is a nice assertion, but really you have failed to address the fact that the entire foundation for Jesus (not Christ the spiritual figure) is based on evidence that isn't compelling. In fact as I've pointed out in the case of Tacitus there's a fairly substantial case that it is blatant fraud.
Can we all agree that there was a Mohammed? Was there a Siddhārtha Gautama? Was there a Confucius? Was there a David Koresh?
This seems beside the point because neither of us are assuming that these people are miracle workers.
So after all is said and done we have to come back to what makes Christianity true and the others false... And I will direct you back to[another argument].
Agreed.
So lets stay on this. What is the wealth of historical evidence for this religious leader?
Perhaps there was a man named Yeshua who was executed, but so what? He is not Jesus any more than the Mohammed who was arrested for stealing car parts down the street from me is "the" Mohammed or the Peter at my work is Peter the Great. Historical evidence doesn't wok like that.
Carolyn said: The things concerning Jesus' life death and resurrection all had eyewitnesses and the written record (the Bible) has enough historical context to back these witnesses up.
Please, please, please show me! This is the whole point of the post no?
All your post is doing is saying exactly the same naked assertions I see everywhere. You started off well with Tacitus, but where are the rest? Which archeological sites? What other texts?
Why don't you address my concerns with Tacitus?
In all sincerity, I'm extremely keen to see these evidences. Have you considered the absence of evidence?
@ Vargon- sorry, I do have my moments where I totally lose my train of thought. I wanted to post that whole document that you ended up posting, I was just afraid of running out of space. Anyway, I know he didn't say "Jesus" but he did recognize Jesus' title Christ (even though he didn't believe in a Christ)
And I realize that yes, he was speaking as most, on secondhand info, or after the fact.
What I was trying to do, was in showing that a non Christian did mention, even in part the death of Jesus and of the early persecutions which followed in the early church.
I really don't know if he copied it wrong from somewhere else- I don't know. He did mention it though, whether or not he copied it from someone else, he had heard the story.
There are others, although they were from the 2nd century, who mention Jesus and the crucifixion, and they aren't very nice about what they write either :-0
This may show different things to you and me- to me, it shows that the early writers don't deny the historicity of Jesus as some more modern writers do.
Whether this PROVES who Jesus is, is, still a matter of faith. I think on of the main points of this whole thing is, is that Jesus was a real person at one point of time in History. Now, what is it that separates Him from any other religious leader? What makes Him so unique that if He was just some guy who got excecuted a long time ago- why are there billions of people around the world who believe on Him as God? If He was just some obscure Jewish guy in the Roman Empire, why would so many things rest on His name? I may be not wording this right- I can't really think of the word here. What I mean is that the division of History was (still is considered by Christians) is in BC and AD. I know it's now standing for BCE amd CE., but for centuries it was never disputed. Also, the useage of "in the Year of our Lord" was common. Why would this be if this was just some guy?
The Bible has had more critical and close examination over the centuries than any other Book. Many people who have looked at all the possibilites of it being false or corrupt have come to see that it's truthful in the historical, literary, geographical and archeological evidences.
Think too, for centuries- it has been banned, burned, forbidden and destroyed, people have been tortured, imprisoned and excecuted around the world for having it in their possession. Yet, it is still one of the most sold books of all time, in every known language.
Wasn't it Voltaire (I can't remember) who once said "Christianity will be dead within 100 years" or something to that effect- yet it is still strong.
I know this is gone away from the evidence of Jesus conversation, but I just write what comes to me... sorry.
And yes, I have considered the absence of evidence- but I still believe that doesn't mean there is evidence of absence either.
@ Ryk. Sorry, I don't mean to baffle- I'm actually laughing, because I rarely stump anyone- and when I do, it's because I ramble so much! I'm sorry! I just get to thinking of so many things at a time, I jumble things I think.
Anyway, I'm not really saying that evolution findings are false- it's just that whenever I hear of anything that evolutionsist scientists discover, there are a lot of words such as "may show..", "may have been...", "probably was...", and "thought to have occurred..." stuff like that which shows me at least, that nothing of the findings in such things as fossil links, billion years old reptiles and such are for certain as factual. I'm not basing this on any specific finding though, so I'm not really wanting to go into the whole of the theory right now. All I mean is that every time I watch a show which has to do with evolution, or read an article, there are all these suppositions included.
When I talked about the archaeological finds of Biblical artifacts, I was thinking along the lines of things like the finding of the Pool of Bathesda,
finding of the town of Nazareth, Stone tablet with Latin descriptions of Pontius Pilate
And recent discoveries of the Palace of David, and other discoveries in and around the Temple mount. These discoveries don't make big news, but they are important as they show that the people and places of which were written about in the Bible really did exist or happen.
Anyway- I hope this helps some, I am tired and it's past midnight here, so my brain is fried for another day!
Be on again later tomorrow!
Thanks Carolyn,
It seems like you're missing some key points so I'll reiterate.
If, like you said Tacitus heard it from someone, what makes it true?
He is also claiming that Nero started a fire - the Emperor of Rome! not to mention persecuting a relatively unknown Jewish religious offshoot. Why not any other religious organisation at any other time?
-Why is nearly the exact same writing in the Chronicles of Sulpicius Severus when its very unlikely they met?
Why would scribes ensure this was preserved, but exclude Jesus' active years?
Why wouldn't other early apologeticians mentioned this clearly influential piece?
It seems you might have missed the point. I believe Paul was talking about a mystical revelation from Christ a spirit in his head, not that of an actual man Jesus.
See you tomorrow.
I didn't address your other points so perhaps I should:
Billions believe in him because the Roman and later the English and empires used a form of Christianity as their "official" religion. In turn off-shoots like the US or Australia carried the influence of their parents. the majority of Chinese or Indians (the majority of the worlds population) carry even older religions that have outlasted too.
In fact its adoption by the powerful Roman empire is exactly why we use things like AD and "in the name of the lord" and not for example the mayan alternative.
I have a counter question that should illustrate this, why if, Jesus was the hand behind the calender, did we add extra months? Its the same reason: political influence.
The success of a calender does not indicate Jesus. The calender comes from the success of the western societies whose chosen religion is predominantly Christian. The Chinese (who have a far larger population) actually still celebrate a completely different calender for example.
You say it has been critically examined over the ages, I agree, but so have Buddhist sutras; and for longer. In actuality we see that biblical teaching was wrong in many many cases - such as heliocentricity, age of the earth and more recently with evolution - just as the sutras aren't always right.
Voltaire made a prediction, but I need not bring up the wealth of Christian predictions that have fallen short. I don't see any man as an authority on the future.
I'll end my rant, but I hope you can see what I mean.
I am sorry I keep hearing these voices in my head and he says his name is Vagon. But he can't be real, he hasn't proven it yet.
I mentioned Tacitus because you did. So I did read the text. You claimed he never mentioned Christ, but he did. Carolyn even mentioned the same passage I did. You mention he left out ceratin points in his Annals. He was a skeptic of Christianity anyway. He knew it was a real force but denied the probability of its realness. If he wrote about it then it would discredit his intentions. But I am only speculationg as are you since we do not know the mind of Tacitus. Severis some think was a Christian, I do not know. Again pure speculation: if the Bible was already written then why rewrite it? He may have read where it says do not add to this book (Bible) and decide not to, so who knows?
You were kind of inconsistent. Somewhere you made a comment that you doubt Jesus even existed or at least hinted at it:
"Also you don't have any evidence for Jesus even existing,"
So I ask on this thread can we agree that other people existed such as Mohammed. You say:
"This seems beside the point because neither of us are assuming that these people are miracle workers."
But it is a valid point, because your original issue was can we prove the existence of Jesus. Well if we accept Mohammed then why can't we accept Jesus as an historical figure. But after I reask what makes Christianty true you add:
"Agreed. So lets stay on this."
So are you saying you agree that there was a Jesus? I at first had a hard time with what you meant, a Jesus (the Spiritual one). Could you explain that for me? Are you saying the Jesus who was a man is not the same as Jesus who we worship? I can't seem to follow that track so please explain.
Nero...a nut! Stories say his life was full of murders, incest, and a little bit of craziness to go along with that. Starting a fire was right up his alley. He married a nut as well who told him he needed to find scape goats for all of his problems. he not only tried to destroy Christianity but also Judaism. He had military actions against the Jews as well.
Are you denying he killed Christians? Do you believe in the Holocaust? You wouldn't deny that too would you? There were "apologetics" in the first century. This is where "gnostic" comes from. To know the real meaning. Gnostics claimed that God did not come to earth in the form of Jesus, that knowledge outweighs faith, and only certain people could gain knowledge that was secretive. Paul came to the defense. Paul went to places that were known for their Gnosticism such as Ephesus and Colossae and used terms they would know. The only "secret" to be gained is belief in Jesus. You have to go back and see who he was writing to. These two areas were huge on paganism and gnosticism and were easily influenced by stoics. Paul wrote his two letters to these places to combat these false teachings about secret knowledge. Not about something that was only in his head.
I mentioned Tacitus because you did. So I did read the text.
This concerns me as its one of the basic foundations for Jesus' historicity. So have you actually looked into this or are you just saying there's historic evidence for the sake of it?
You claimed he never mentioned Christ, but he did.
Uh no, please read again.
You mention he left out ceratin points in his Annals.
No again. Certain parts were left out, Tacitus had a complete history by all accounts, we're missing it because it was never scribed in.
He knew it was a real force but denied the probability of its realness. If he wrote about it then it would discredit his intentions. But I am only speculationg as are you since we do not know the mind of Tacitus..
Its abundantly clear you're speculating, what on earth makes you think Tacitus believed some off-shoot religion was "a force"?
At this point I don't see any merit in talking about Severis[sic] until you actually look into his Chronicles, or at least get his name right. No offense, but I sincerely don't see the point.
You were kind of inconsistent. Somewhere you made a comment that you doubt Jesus even existed or at least hinted at it:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I have no doubt that Yeshua's or people with the name Jesus or however you want to term it existed and maybe even got executed/tried for some crime or another. "The" Jesus however has no historical evidence.
So I ask on this thread can we agree that other people existed such as Mohammed. You say:
"This seems beside the point because neither of us are assuming that these people are miracle workers."
But it is a valid point, because your original issue was can we prove the existence of Jesus. Well if we accept Mohammed then why can't we accept Jesus as an historical figure.
I never said they did or didn't exist - that was you creating a strawman and assuming I think they exist. I haven't looked into it because as I mentioned, its beside the point.
So are you saying you agree that there was a Jesus? I at first had a hard time with what you meant, a Jesus (the Spiritual one). Could you explain that for me? Are you saying the Jesus who was a man is not the same as Jesus who we worship? I can't seem to follow that track so please explain.
The Jesus mythicist believes that a spiritual non-physical Christ figure was written into history as a breathing, living man. It seems later that you understand this from your writings about Paul.
Paul went to places that were known for their Gnosticism such as Ephesus and Colossae and used terms they would know. The only "secret" to be gained is belief in Jesus. You have to go back and see who he was writing to. These two areas were huge on paganism and gnosticism and were easily influenced by stoics. Paul wrote his two letters to these places to combat these false teachings about secret knowledge. Not about something that was only in his head.
Now this is the stuff I want to see.
Paul lives in a world of perceived revelation from God. The apostles formulate their own interpretations of this spiritual figure. If there were actually apostles who were witnesses to an actual Jesus figure or had known him personally why would there be a dispute about his teachings? In 1 Corinthians when he tries to enforce his legitimacy to other apostles who claim to be "true apostles". Do you believe Paul would simply ignore any reference at all to Jesus personal ministry when claiming legitimacy? Does that fit in with 2 Corinthians 10:18?
In the face of this I'd like you to back up your assertion Paul wanted belief in Jesus, rather than "Christ". I now await you bringing up 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
Goz: Oh and for the record Carolyn, not I, brought up Tacitus.
Carolyn
Oh, I had heard of those findings, I think some of them are disputed but I am not disputing them particularly. I am aware of the existence of the Hebrew people, I am also aware that their book of myths also included histories and geneologies and descriptions of real places. Surely just because there is ample archaeological evidence of The Coloseum and Troy that the myths of ancient greece are true. Do you believe that Perseus slew the Medusa because actual places are mentioned in the tale?
I have not seen the evidence of Pontius Pilate being a real person but it does not surprise me if it is true and recorded. Why wouldn't history record a Roman governor.
None of this proves in any way that a man named Yeshua worked miracles and rose from the dead.
As to the way scientists talk, that would probably make more sense if you had a background in science, but it is both customary and appropriate to say maybe or probably when discussing science.
Since scientific method is based on hypothesis and refutation it is assumed for the sake of argument that anything could be refuted, even things called laws can and have been refuted at least partially. For example exceptions have been found in the laws of thermodynamics.
Scientists don't say probably because they are uncertain they say it because that is the appropriate way to present a scientific law or theory. You will likely if you read enough science find scientists saying probably about things that you are sure are true.
This is not a rule, casually scientists, like everyone else make many absolute statements, but it would be unprofessional of them to do so formally. To use a notable example, when Richard Dawkins is writing in his books he clearly states that evolution is a fact, however when presenting specific research to his peers he would use more qualified language, on the order of such and such animal likely evolved a certain trait because.... This isn't because he questions the validity of his work. If he did he wouldn't be presenting it. He would do so because he knows that, many of his associates are going to try and refute his work. He also knows that they will understand why he says probably.
To my voices...
I think we really need to start all over. We're not getting anywhere because we can't stay on one topic. What that does is twist the issues. But I will try and deal with it if we can't. Here is my response but at the end I would like to try and start from the beginning.
First of all the mundane:
I spelled it wrong because the "i" and the "u" are too close together on the keyboard.
Who cares who mentioned Tacitus to begin with, the point was apparently he is being considered a valid historian- fine by me.
I noticed you didn't mention the holocaust.
Secondly the real stuff:
To understand what Paul was doing in Corinthians you have to know again his audience. The Corinthians were in an area that was a large, economic center filled with paganism. When the church was established there by Paul they quickly too hold to the spiritual gifts aspects of Christianity. But since they held on to worldy ways they distorted what the gifts meant and became quarrelsome with each other. Paul wrote to them reminding them that the most important thing is love. Paul always had to defend himself wherever he went because of his past. He murdered Christians. If he went proclaiming he is now a Christian, who would believe him? Even so, when he did get his message across there were people going around with him trying to debunk him. Mostly they were Jews of Judaism (FYI only, nothing else meant by it). If I am reading you correctly, he was not defending himself to say that this was the most important issue. He was defening himslef to give him validity of his message. I fail to see why thatis a problem. And he was only comparing himself to the other Apostles because of his past. He was humbling himself. I seriously do not get what you are asking about his belief in Jesus and not Christ. He knew them to be the same thing. Jesus was the Christ. Please rephrase your meaning. You can comment I probably will not answer back because I think we're going into too many directions.
ANYWAY, I would like to start over. Let's establish where we are at.
Was there a man named Jesus of Nazareth? In other words, was there a physical man born to this world that was named Jesus whose parents were thought to have been Mary and a carpenter named Joseph?
When the church was established there by Paul they quickly too hold to the spiritual gifts aspects of Christianity
This sentence should say: they quickly took hold of the spirtual gifts aspects.
Gozreht said...
"Was there a man named Jesus of Nazareth? In other words, was there a physical man born to this world that was named Jesus whose parents were thought to have been Mary and a carpenter named Joseph?"
Yes there was.
I know you may consider this stupid but leaving out all the secular records of Jesus, the four gospels are good evidence for Him.
They are all written from a different perspective and yet still agree, yet strangely differ.
If I were making up a story from four different accounts I would have made them appear to agree more :)
Eg. One gospel says that there were two thieves on the cross who mocked Jesus and another gospel said that one did and the other repented.
Contradiction? Not necessarily.
They chose to emphasize different aspects to the scene.
They obviously both mocked Jesus at one stage, but then one of them repented and got saved.
cheers,
DB
(I hope I am on topic LOL)
You may enjoy this video AJ,
I am sure you have heard of Antony Flew...One of the most important atheist philosophers of the last century. He now believes in a deistic god though not a Christian, yet:)
He states that it is obvious that there is a God through recent scientific discoveries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNkxpTIbCIw
Take the evidence where it leads.
Where there is obvious design, there is a designer.
Blessings.
DB
Mr. Bomb, :)
To me yes, it is that easy but as called upon we have to I guess prove something. And we may never do it completely but who can? We can't even prove we live, at least no hard evidence as of yet. Yes, you are on topic. And that is the starting point. Can we accept that there was at least a man who was born to Mary and to a carpenter named Joseph who lived in Nazareth? You and I say yes.
Anyone else with a short sweet answer?
Sorry dude,
For some reason I thought you were an atheist LOL.
I didn't read all your comments.
Accept my apologies brother!
We all should go by the best conclusion of the evidence we have...believe something beyond a reasonable doubt.
DB
No. I am an anti-atheist. I don't believe in atheist, they don't exist.
Was there a man named Jesus of Nazareth? In other words, was there a physical man born to this world that was named Jesus whose parents were thought to have been Mary and a carpenter named Joseph?
I doubt it, that is probably not.
Vagon said...
"I doubt it, that is probably not."
Please substanciate this claim. Show how it is not probable that He did not exist.
DaBomb, before we do that, maybe we need to go another route. Remember to us it is common sense and such but to an atheist there needs to be more. But what?
So...
Vagon, I am admitting something here. I was going to milk the "who is speaking" thing and the "you're not real" thing to its fullest until it would make you mad. Because I wanted to show you how it felt to be denied a known existence. But then you may have gotten too mad and stopped all dialogue. So I will quit. Although you never did prove it. (haha)
But back to the topic. You actually opened up so much information just by your answer that it totally gives us something to discuss.
If I read it the way I think you meant it, you are saying that the possibility of even the man Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph of Nazareth, isn't an option of being a real historical figure. There never was even a man named Jesus born to Mary and Joseph. Sorry for the repetition but I do not want any confusion, such as "yes, there was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago but he lived in Tel Aviv" and such.
Okay, then is it a good assumption that you do not believe that any "religious founder" was ever real? Now, this is a valid question because we have to get historical aspects out of the way first. Was Mohammed (the one in question) a real man? Was Siddhartha Gautama a real man? And if so, what makes them real as a historical figure (not a religious leader) any more than Jesus?
I appreciate your last answer and openness and I await your answer.
Da Bomb: Look up burden of proof. I'm also replying to AJ who is not uncommonly absent.
Goz:
Vagon, I am admitting something here. I was going to milk the "who is speaking" thing and the "you're not real" thing to its fullest until it would make you mad. Because I wanted to show you how it felt to be denied a known existence. But then you may have gotten too mad and stopped all dialogue. So I will quit. Although you never did prove it. (haha).
Goz, I think you should look up burden of proof too. You have decided that I am real when you replied to me, I don't need to provide proof of my existence, I'm not challenging it (I've already done that myself).
Now onto your arguments for Jesus:
If I read it the way I think you meant it, you are saying that the possibility of even the man Jesus, born to Mary and Joseph of Nazareth, isn't an option of being a real historical figure.
I would think it possible certainly, but there is no contemporary, unbias historical evidence for him and the evidence there is points to the opposite. I do think its unlikely he existed at all.
Okay, then is it a good assumption that you do not believe that any "religious founder" was ever real?
No, religious founders are composed of literally 1000s of people I haven't studied them enough to know.
Now, this is a valid question because we have to get historical aspects out of the way first. Was Mohammed (the one in question) a real man? Was Siddhartha Gautama a real man? And if so, what makes them real as a historical figure (not a religious leader) any more than Jesus?
In both the cases you've provided the data is not certain and I have not looked at either with any great study.
The texts on Siddhartha Gauta in particular spread the era of his birth out greatly. You would have an extremely hard case to argue either way.
Muhammed is a little different, he is purportedly born in a time when historical methods were well tuned, but the sources are all oral accounts scribed by later Muslims. Furthermore, there are writings that do not correlate with historical events. I would say here that, like Jesus, he most probably did not exist.
I appreciate you clarifying the structure of the argument and taking the time to respond.
Now I can see why believing in religion is hard for you. If we can't establish at least a historical account then trying to prove things that may go beyond the natural realm would be useless. But then unfortunately someone in your shoes may have lost half of history because many people fall into the same boat as Christ and the others. Especially now that the internet plays a part in it all. Too many sites clain they have the references to back up what they are saying yet could be as false as 2+2=1000. For every quote I can find that says something, anybody could find another quote that would say the opposite. So who to believe? I say believe the older accounts for the accuracy but the newer accounts for the emotion.
Can you believe in anyone that was said to be alive 2000 years ago? How much data do we need before it can become something to believe in?
I think this last discussion has been great. I wish there was something I could say that would at least get you to believe in the man Jesus. It's a starting place.
If you have any questions for me to answer I will do my best to do it. Again, I have said this for everyone three times. You can send me a message through my blog without anyone knowing if you have questions too embarrassing or personal and if you leave a way of contact I will contact back with what I know. I moderate all the comments on mine so they do not have to be published.
If I may I'd like to join the discussion.
My first point is that there is very little evidence for the historicity of the man Yeshua. Let's examine the evidence shall we?
1) Someone on this thread raised the question of whether any works from the first century [or at least around that era] have survived? Answer: A great many! Here are the names of some of those writers:
Arrian
Petronius
Seneca
Dion Pruscus
Pliny the Elder
Appian
Juvenal
Theon of Smyrna
Martial
Plutarch
Appolonius
Pausanias
Valerius Flaccus
Florus Lucius
Quintilian
Favorinus
Lucanus
Damis
Silius Italicus
Aulus Gellius
Statius
Columella
Ptolemy
Hermogeones
Lysias
Valerius Maximus
Know how many of these writers refer to Jesus? Oh go on take a guess...that's right zero, nadda, not a single one.
There are a few writers who mention Jesus' name though. It's these writers and their works we will next examine.
Continued...
Now let's look at the ancient writers who do mantion Jesus. There are only a few.
the first is Pliny [the govenor of Bithynia] who asked advice from the emperor Trajan on how to handle troublesome christians. [this text is dated 112 CE and makes no mention of Jesus just christians].
The second is Suetonius who notes that around 64 CE "punishment was inflicted on the Chrisians, a class of men given to a new and wicked superstition." [Notice that once again makes no mention is made of Jesus].
All both of these quotes tell us is that Christians existed in the Roman world. This is not in doubt.
Suetonius also relates that between 41 & 54 CE, the emperor Claudius expelled jews from Rome "since the jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus". Ah at last we have a mention of Jesus? Nope. 'Fraid not! Chrestus may well be a corruption of the term Christ but this is unlikely to refer to Jesus for two reasons:
1) Christ is merely a Greek rendering of the jewish term messiah and there were many, many jewish messiahs trying to stir up all sorts of trouble against Rome.
2) Suetonius mentions that 'Chrestus' was in Rome & Jesus never vistited Rome as far as we know.
On the other hand Tacitus does mention "the Christ" of the christians. Isn't that evidence for yeshua's existence? Nope! Why not?
Because Tacitus wasn't quoting from Roman records of that period, he was quoting from christian belief itself. How do we know? Because Tacitus refers to Pontius Pilat as the procurator of Judaea. But Pilate was really the praefect of Judaea. We know this because archaeology has found an inscription outside pilate's court - it reads "Pontius Pilatus praefect Ieudaea [translation: Pontius Pilate the praefect of Judaea]. Only the Gospels ever refered to Pilate as a procurator therefore it was a gospel account that Tacitus was quoting.
Is there any historical text at all that mentions Jesus? Yes & we'll examine it next.
Continued...
Jesus is mentioned by one Jewish writer named Josephus. Josephus, calls jesus a wise man & even declares that he was the Christ. So here at last we have historical evidence that jesus existed...don't we? Nope!
Most scholars now assert that this particular passage from josephus was a forgery which was inserted into Josephus' work by early christians. There are several reasons for holding this view:
1) Origen [an early christian who knew Jospehus' work very well] wrote that there was no mention of Jesus by Josephus.
2) The passage is not in the same style as the rest of Josephus.
3) Josephus NEVER became a christian yet, according to the verse in Josephus, he believed Jesus was the messiah years after Jesus had been crucified - something fishy there.
4) Finally if we remove the passage the chapter makes far more sense. As it stands Josephus is explaining how the Jewish propets had predicted a messiah but how his fellow jews had gotten it wrong. They had been expecting a jew as the messiah when in reality the prophecies really pointed to Titus who, Josephus declares, was first acclaimed imperator in Israel. Right in the middle of this Josephus seems to break off his account, talks about Jesus & calls him the messiah, and then goes back to explaining how Titus was the true messiah who's coming was fortold by the prophets.
Sounds just like someone wrote something into Josephus doesn't it?
But how about the Gospels I hear you ask? Aren't they historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? We'll examine that question next.
Continued...
We may well ask the question are the gospels history? No! They never pretend to be.
History is written, at best, as a series of facts. The historian couldn't care less whether you accept or reject his work he is merely recording events. the gospels on the other hand are written as missionary tracts. As the writer of John keeps saying "this is written that you may believe." In other words there is an agenda.
Who were the writers of the gospels? We don't know! The gospels were written as anonymous works. The church decided on the names of the authors centuries later.
What we do know is that there are good reasons for believing that the authors weren't the apostles.
How can I say that? Well let's examine the evidence shall we?
Matthew & Luke tell markedly different stories about Jesus' birth and lineage while Mark & John have nothing to say on the subject. When it comes to THE central event of christianity - the resurrection - the four Gospels vary wildly. They can't all be correct.
But when Matthew, Mark & Luke do agree, the agreement is so close that it becomes obvious that we are not dealing with three different accounts but three treatments of the same material, on occasion altered at the whim of the author. Sort of like it becomming obvious when three seperate students have taken their ideas from the same text.
In addition if Matthew was written by the former tax gatherer [actually a telones - a customs duty collector] who became a member of Jesus why did he need to borrow so much of his material, even his wording, from the gospel of Mark who wasn't one of the twelve? After all Matthew was an eyewitness. Why would he need to copy the work of someone who wasn't even there?
If the gospel of Mark was by John Mark why didn't he know more about the country, the people, the language?
If the gospel of John was actually written by John the fisherman then why does it begin with a quote from Parmenides' "the way of truth"? Did John study Greek philosophy while he was waiting to pull in the nets? :-) Why don't we hear more about what happened in Galilee since that was John's home town? And why is he the only gospeller who leaves out the transfiguration, when John was one of only three eyewitnesses to this event according to the other gospels? He also omits every single incident specifically involving John & his brother James as described by the other gospellers.
So to sum up. There are no independent records mentioning Jesus except for an author who's work has been tampered with & four anonymous missionary tracts that were written to help people to believe in Jesus as their God. Not a great amount of evidence.
Let's compare jesus to an earlier historical figure - Alexander the Great. What evidence do we have that Alexander existed?
We have accounts of his life by his supporters AND his enemies. We have insciptions from the cities he ordered built. We have the remains of those same cities. And finally we have the effects of his conquest of Persia both positive [the spread of hellenistic culture] and negative [Alexander's destruction of the Avesta]. That's a fair bit of evidence.
Nice work Chris.
Is there any evidence for the historicity of Yeshua? I would argue that there is! Through a recent archaeological dig the earliest church yet found was discovered. This building has the chirho carved into one wall. Why is that significant? Because the chirho was a very early christian symbol. The house dates from the fifth century CE. Now if Yeshua was a mythical invention then what we're dealing with is a myth which sprang into life in just a couple of decades. That is simply not enough time for a full blown myth to develop. So there is evidence that christian groups were meeting only a few short years after jesus had died [according to the gospel accounts]. It is, at last, some historical evidence for the existence of Yeshua. Does it prove he was God? Nope! But if people had evidence then faith would be worthless.
Sorry that should read "if people had proof then faith would be worthless".
@ Ryk
Many thanks.
@ Everyone
[red face] The sentence should read "the house dates from the fifth DECADE CE". sorry everyone
Chris reading through your arguments...I would have to disagree. The points you were making were reading what you wanted into it. ( I thought)
Eg. "If the gospel of John was actually written by John the fisherman then why does it begin with a quote from Parmenides' "the way of truth"? Did John study Greek philosophy while he was waiting to pull in the nets? :-)"
???? Why not? I am an Orchid grower...because I quote Greek philosophers, does that mean I did not write what I wrote?
"In addition if Matthew was written by the former tax gatherer [actually a telones - a customs duty collector] who became a member of Jesus why did he need to borrow so much of his material, even his wording, from the gospel of Mark who wasn't one of the twelve? After all Matthew was an eyewitness. Why would he need to copy the work of someone who wasn't even there?"
Who said that he "borrowed" Mark's language?
"Matthew & Luke tell markedly different stories about Jesus' birth and lineage while Mark & John have nothing to say on the subject."
??One traces Joseph's line and the other Mary's.
...If I remember correctly
I do agree with what you said here,
"Now if Yeshua was a mythical invention then what we're dealing with is a myth which sprang into life in just a couple of decades. That is simply not enough time for a full blown myth to develop"
With followers like Saul who became Paul, it is not logical to conclude that a man who was entirely against a belief would turn around and be fully pro and ready to die for it, if it were not conclusively real.
There must have been something to the belief that turned him so readily around.
cheers
DB
Goz
Can you believe in anyone that was said to be alive 2000 years ago? How much data do we need before it can become something to believe in?
Absolutely. I'm literally being historical here. There are a number of historians from around that time period that show exceptional methods for recording. A couple of great examples are Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius. You can then comport them with historical events of the time and actions. For example reported distances covered, locations of towns, city planning.
If you have any questions for me to answer I will do my best to do it...
Awesome, so I have a couple of questions.
Do you know of any contemporary historical evidence for Jesus?
If yes, please direct me to it.
If not, why do you assume he existed?
Chris:
The house dates from the fifth century CE. Now if Yeshua was a mythical invention then what we're dealing with is a myth which sprang into life in just a couple of decades.
A full blown myth it was not.I think you are assuming too much from this symbol. The official cannon was only around much later.
The myth only need work around fulfilling OT prophesies to become a myth and there were many of the messianic religions at the time.
I'm also not following how a Chi Rho symbol purports to Jesus the man. Its simply "Ch" and "r". Not Yeshua. Can you provide a link to this find?
Christianity is extremely unlikely to have spread until the Jewish War meant the potential missionairies were dispersed throughout the empire.
Chris,
Wow...Where do I begin? I hope it didn't take long for you to write all that garbage.
First of all...
Arrian....A military historian. However, according to your own criteria, his work was useless. He's most known for his work on Alexander the Great, who didn't exist according to your requirement of contemporary historian writing about him.
Petronius...A writer of satire and fiction. Makes a lot of sense for him to write about "a hick from Gallilee". His point of view.
Seneca... A Roman Philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and humorist.
No Historian.
Dion Pruscus...Who?????? Are talking about Priscus? If so, he wasn't until the 4th or 5th century.
Pliny the Elder...author, naturalist, and natural philosopher as well as naval and army commander of the early Roman Empire and personal friend of the emperor Vespasian. Spent most of his spare time studying, writing or investigating natural and geographic phenomena in the field.
Dude....I've got to stop. Refuting your first point so much fun that I'm falling off my seat in hysterical laughter. Did you think that you can throw a bunch of names out there as proof and get away with. You've obviously been hanging around with Ryk, who does the same thing.
By the way Ryk, it was so typical of you to add your kudos to unsubstantiated garbage.
With that said, just in case Chris has been just drinking the Ryk kool aid and would honestly want a tidbit of TRUTH.
By the way, this is also for Vagon because he asked,
"Do I know of any contemporary historical evidence for Jesus?"
Why Yes I do. The Talmud speak of Y'shua three separate times. I can't think of anyone else that had more of a stake in discrediting Y'shua and Christianity than the Jews. However, even the Jews wasn't stupid enough to write him off as someone who didn't exist.
Let's skip past your pseudo-scholarship and get to something I agree with and IS SUPPORTED by evidence.
Yes, some idiot falsely edited Josephus' work. However, that doesn't discount the fact that he did indeed mention him. As an example, the first part of your comment is not relevant to your point but I don't discount all you say.
As you said in your comments in order to sum it up.
"We have accounts of his life by his supporters AND his enemies. We have insciptions from the cities he ordered built. We have the remains of those same cities. And finally we have the effects of his conquest of Persia both positive [the spread of hellenistic culture] and negative [Alexander's destruction of the Avesta]. That's a fair bit of evidence."
Dude...you can say the same thing about Y'shua. By your own evidence, I could say Alexader the Great didn't exist...but mama didn't bore no fool.
Wow. Isn't amazing how we take pieces of things and put them together and since it sounds all logical and intellectual then it must be the truth?
I once had an atheist say to me that Christians are just sun worshipers because they use the word Amen. Which is a form of Amon. And Amon was an Egyptian god of the sun. He also pointed out the testAMENt meant covenent of the sun. I mean the guy was wacko. We can put any two things together and get what we want. And I am sure that goes on both sides.
But...Chris, it seems you went hacking throughout the internet and put many of these things together. That is fine. But until we read everything that every person you listed and until we know the reasons why they wrote anything we will never get it anyway. I just picked a few but from what I saw: Arrian had some major errors in his writing (got that from the net), but heonly focused on Alexander the Great anyway. Juvenal was just a satirist, he wrote comedies. Plutarch's writings are incomplete, by the standards you have laid down then Nero wasn;t real because his writings about him have disappeared. Plus it is said he fabricated many stories and was only comparing Roman life to Greek life.
Then you have to llok at the time period. Most of who you listed were Roman poets, historians, all kinds of writers but they were Roman. Christianity did not fully effect Rome until after this time period. It hit the Greek world before Rome. None of them would mention Christ because they did not know him personally, or they were focusing on other stories. Why would anyone mention Christ if he was writing about Alexander? Even if Christianity was starting to take effect not all writers would write about it anyway. Not all American writers in 1860's wrote about the civil war.
continued...
I read John again and just do not see a direct correlation between Parmenides way of truth. In any case John could have known Greek. As someone already stated by the time he wrote his gospel it was at the end of his life. But what was left out is that he eas exiled on to a Greek island called Patmos. He stayed in Ephesus after Jerusalem was destroyed by Rome. So he could have learned Greek. So even if he did borrow something, big deal. he was using something that people would know and could compare it to. Again if you are going to critique the Bible,please know who the audience is and the circumstances behind it.
The Bible, an agenda? Of course it had an agenda. It was written so people would know the truth.
Mark actually was young and many things were told to him by others. It is said that he traveled with Peter sometimes. But he also traveled with Paul. Luke who was not any eyewitness said he went everywhere and verified things. The different lineage of Christ shows a prophecy to come true. One side of Mary's lineage shows she came from the line of David. The other one shows that Joseph was also from the line of David.
The gospels are four accounts witnessing the same events either by testimony or by investigation. They are written for four different audiences. They do not contradict each other. They may not be in the same order but so what. It's like the old story about how two people stood by an elephant. One was in front and the other was in back and they were told to describe the elephant. Both would be correct but they saw two different things. However, the middle was seen by both and that was the same description: Hence, Jesus came, died for us and rose again by His own power.
continued...
Alexander the Great traveled from Greece to East Asia. He built an Empire and created many enemies and used force to gain that empire. of course there are going to be accounts of his life even by his enemies.
Jesus stayed in Israel. His followers though traveled. And that is where His name spread. It's the same thing but you don't want to agree with it. Fine.
And since I am not asking Vagon anymore, I will ask you. Prove you exist.
Vagon,
I am starting to consider you a friend by the last few ways we have conversed. I hope we can continue.
Some answers to what you have asked:
The Bible also gives details about events, people, and even distances and is accurate. Now it may not go into city planning and stuff but as pointed out the Bible did have an agenda and city planning wasn't in it :)
I personally can not guide you to any "contemporary" historical evidence. But I couldn't do that with my own life. And what kind of evidence would you need? A grave? Eye witnesses still alive? The cross? Blood and DNA? I just don't think any of it would be around, except writings and pictures (ICONS). But again that is most of history. I wish I could give you just one thing beyond what history has recorded.
Why do I know he existed? I wrote out just something small on the other thread. I will copy and paste it for you after this post.
And I wanted to comment on something you said earlier. I think you said it in jest but it disturbed me. You said, "I don't need to provide proof of my existence, I'm not challenging it (I've already done that myself)." What got me is the part in parentheses. It sounded like to me you went "soul searching" and did not like what you found. As if you could not find your purpose in life. Dude, we all have a purpose. Sometimes it takes a lifetime to find it. Even if I am way off base here I hope you take this with all sincerity: I hope you find it.
Pasted:
1. Yes I was raised in a family that believed in God, so my starting point is having a foundation built on Christian principles. But that is not where it has been left. My parents taught me all they could but knew my journey in life was not complete with what they told me. I had to find out things for myself.
2. Yes, I get much of my life from reading the Bible. It is filled with relevant information that calms me, gives me encouragement, leads me onto the right paths and makes me think of what I want to be like in terms of what I am now.
3. But, there is more. If I had other parents with different ideas, I could’ve gotten the same rendering. There are other self-help books and religious ideas that may do the same thing so you need more to understand why I believe in Christ.
4. First of all, I would suggest a book. It is short and simple to read. It is by Josh McDowell called, More Than a Carpenter. I believe it is the 2nd chapter that explains some things in terms, although I believed in this before I read it. Josh says that there are only three things you can think about Christ. You either think he was a liar, a lunatic, or he was in fact the Lord. Now if I write all of chapter 2 here I would lose you to redundancy, so I will shorten it. If he was a liar, why would he tell others to tell the truth? If he was a liar why would he ultimately go to the cross and be executed for his ideas? Maybe he was a lunatic. But he didn’t do any pathological activity that would classify him as one. Unlike David Koresh, he didn’t make people live in communes locked away. He didn’t have a harem for his own benefits. Everything recorded by Christ has beneficial consequences and not one thing contradicts anything else he said. If he was a liar or a lunatic then he must be what he said he was: God.
5. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius. What do they all have in common? (Rhetorical) They all are “founders” of a religion. They all teach about how to live a life that will bring you peace. They all have left a book for others to read and learn. What is the main difference? Only one claimed to be God. The others only claimed to either be a messenger of God or not even that. Jesus said he was God. Liar? Lunatic? Or Lord? Some other differences: Buddha said there is a harmony in this world. If there is good there is an equal amount of bad. In other words, there is no reward for doing good because it causes someone else to do bad. Mohammed tells people to kill the infidel and claims that we all will get 72 virgins in the afterlife in we do such an act. Confucius was just a poet. Christ had life lessons. We actually read about his life and not just thoughts of one person.
6. Nothing else makes sense. Primordial soup? An accident that created life as delicate, complicated and sophisticated as we know it…an accident? (Rhetorical) I look to the vastness of creation and see too much beauty and too many intricacies of every day life to think it was all an accident.
7. My life experiences. I have seen miracles. I have witnessed the power of God in my own life. I feel a presence of my spirit. Now that may sound strange to you. But until you have been in my shoes then that will have to do. And yes, this is where faith comes in. The thing that all atheists have a problem with is faith. If I see something, hear something, feel something but I can’t explain why, then faith starts to take over. We all have faith whether you believe it or not. Each time you drive a car you faith in your abilities to get out of an accident. You have faith in the brake you step on, even without thinking about it.
(Just a sample)
Goz:
I am starting to consider you a friend by the last few ways we have conversed. I hope we can continue.
In so much as one can be a friend on the internet, absolutely.
RE: Distances, locations, planning etc: The Bible certainly does contain accuracies in that regard, especially in the NT, some OT examples are a bit off though. Regardless I was more saying that this is a way to cross check historicity. More on that later.
As to how you or I exist, I'll work that into the historical worth of documents. Historians judge their sources in similarity to the scientific null hypothesis. Oral words are not taken as seriously as written word, because the fidelity of written word is of a better quality.
For example I noticed before you criticised Arrian, but he had a far more sound method of historical analysis than the say gospels. Arrian ignores all works bar eye-witnesses, specifically the written word of eyewitnesses. In general he provides his sources and points out areas of disagreement. This isnt quite today's standards and not as good as say Thucydides, but this is what I mean by a document of historical worth.
If someone was to review you as a historical figure it would be a no-brainer. Government and business records, schooling records, sports, social, religious records. Eyewitness testimony from as recent as a couple of hours. Even these posts. Now I might struggle to get this from your blogger handle but you get the point.
What I am indicating is that there is not one decent piece of historical evidence for there being an actual Jesus.
And I wanted to comment on something you said earlier. I think you said it in jest but it disturbed me. You said, "I don't need to provide proof of my existence, I'm not challenging it (I've already done that myself)."
Heh no not at all mate. I was referring to the fact I've questioned my own existance philosophically, so historicity isnt an issue. For eg I've asked myself "How do I know I exist?".
What I meant was, if you come to the conclusion I don't exist, it would be absurd for you to continue conversing with me.
I feel pretty fulfilled with life right now so no need to worry about that, but thanks for the concern!
@ Da Bomb
Sorry but your response screams of anachronisms.
EG: I wrote "If the gospel of John was actually written by John the fisherman then why does it begin with a quote from Parmenides' "the way of truth"? Did John study Greek philosophy while he was waiting to pull in the nets? :-)"
& you responded "Why not? I am an Orchid grower...because I quote Greek philosophers, does that mean I did not write what I wrote?"
First Parmenides was a Greek philosopher from the 5th century BCE! His works were difficult & expensive to obtain and studied only by the well educated. Why? Because parmenides' work contains a great many difficult terms. Now peasant fisherman from the first century CE are not exactly well known for their attendance at Plato's academy so it's unlikely that a fisherman from the first century studied Greek philosophy, especially a work as difficult as Parmenides. Your comparison of the situation with a modern situation is just an example of anachronism.
next you replied "Who said that he "borrowed" Mark's language?"
I'd already answered this. The gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark & Luke have several places where their accounts are so similar that they are almost word for word. When I see such close similarities in three different students works the conclusion is plagerism!
You then go on to declare that one geneology traces the Joseph's line & the other Mary's. Really? Both geneologies start with JOSEPH & mention his father, his grandfather & so on. Try reading your bible & NOT apologetic sites!
Goz: Thanks for the paste I'll go through your points:
1. I'd say that's fairly typical of anyone in western society.
2. Nothing wrong with that either, any experience can give you ideas of what (and what not) to think, particularly a good book.
3. Agreed.
4. There's a fallacy called "false dichotomy" you're probably familiar with. I would say this is a false "trichotomy" I suppose. As you've no doubt gathered that from my challenge of Jesus' historicity that there's at least one option McDowell hasn't addressed.
5. I have to disagree here. Some of the best life lessons (and indeed many, many, many overlap with Christian lessons) are available across all your religions.
As to only Jesus claiming to be God, some Buddhists and Muslims also worship their founders as gods, though not to the same extent. But I suppose if you consider the Abrahamic religions as you do Buddhism you would find a much more equal percentage of deification.
6. Hopefully I can help it make sense for you. Feel free to ask me about any of the issues you have with it.
7. I'd suggest your falling victim to randomness. Take the example you gave of "Amen". You've recognised that people tend to see things in places that might not be there. This is what is happening with you and these miraculous events.
I call these events outliers. A miracle isn't just an outlier though, like someone surviving cancer. A miracle needs to be something that isn't "possible", like regrowing an amputated limb (overworked example I know). I don't mean to be offensive to your personal experiences, but you've never seen something on that scale.
@ Vagon
Why was the Chi Rho used as a christian symbol? To quote wikipedia "Although not technically a cross, the Chi Rho invokes the crucifixion of Jesus as well as symbolizing his status as the Christ. There is early evidence of the Chi Rho symbol on Christian Rings of the third century".
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho
Now as to a link about this early church find. You may find it here:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/jordan-archaeologists-discover-worlds-first-church_10058854.html
I'm disappointed that it doesn't mention the Chi Rho. Ah well.
My point is that if Yeshua is completely mythical then this is far too soon a date for organised worship to begin. Mythic creations have the general story laid out. After all if it doesn't then what are people being attracted too? But a historical person [even one with mythic additions] may well have some followers this soon after his death. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Lying doubt.
Boy I hope it didn't hurt pulling all those lies from your arse.
You write "However, according to your own criteria, his work was useless. He's most known for his work on Alexander the Great, who didn't exist according to your requirement of contemporary historian writing about him."
Except that I wrote that Alexander did have records written about him. To be exact I wrote What evidence do we have that Alexander existed?
We have accounts of his life by his supporters AND his enemies. We have inscriptions from the cities he ordered built. We have the remains of those same cities. And finally we have the effects of his conquest of Persia both positive [the spread of hellenistic culture] and negative [Alexander's destruction of the Avesta]. That's a fair bit of evidence.
Now let's look at your demolition ha, ha, ha, ha, of my list.
"Petronius...A writer of satire and fiction. Makes a lot of sense for him to write about "a hick from Gallilee". His point of view."
Petronius also makes mention of people who actually existed. Good golly miss molly.
But enough of your strawmen. Let me make this painfully clear. Any historian [except for fundies of course] will ask for a contemporary [or near contemporary] of a person they mention. Why? Because otherwise they are depending upon hearsay.
Do these contemporaries have to be historians? No! I never said they did. That's your lie remember. They just have to be someone living in or around the time of jesus who mentions him.
So that would include philosophers like Seneca, naturalists like pliny, etc. Got it now?
Then you wrote "Refuting your first point so much fun that I'm falling off my seat in hysterical laughter." Since you haven't refuted anything except your own honesty then I'm not that worried.
I'll deal with your half truths about the Talmud in my next post.
Continued...
You then add "The Talmud speak of Y'shua three separate times. I can't think of anyone else that had more of a stake in discrediting Y'shua and Christianity than the Jews. However, even the Jews wasn't stupid enough to write him off as someone who didn't exist."
First twit the Talmud is a collection of writings from from the third century CE. That's hardly contemporary with Jesus. Why didn't you mention that little fact? Perhaps because it would have shown the Talmud quotes as irrelevant?
Let's examine those FOUR [not 3 twit] quotes shall we?
Quote 1 "It has been taught: On the Passover they hanged Yeshu...because he practiced sorcery & led Israel astray"
Quote 2 "Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples - Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, & Todah."
Quote 3 "It happened with Rabbi Elazar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit, that Jacob, a man of Kefer Soma, came to help him in the name of Yeshu ben Pantera."
Quote 4 "Once I was walking along the upper streets of Sepphoris, and found one of the disciples of Yeshu the Nazarene."
Here's a few things for a liar such as yourself to consider.
1) Quote number two mentions the name of 5 disciples of this Yeshu ben Pantera. None of those five are mentioned in the Gospels. Could it be a different Jesus?
How common a name was Yeshu anyway? Well Josephus mentions at least ten. So the name was pretty common. But even if it does refer to the Jesus of the Gospels we are still NOT dealing with contemporary evidence. Hence the Talmud CANNOT be taken as an historical verification of Jesus.
Now let's examine your other lie.
I wrote "We have accounts of his life by his supporters AND his enemies. We have insciptions from the cities he ordered built. We have the remains of those same cities. And finally we have the effects of his conquest of Persia both positive [the spread of hellenistic culture] and negative [Alexander's destruction of the Avesta]. That's a fair bit of evidence."
You replied "Dude...you can say the same thing about Y'shua. Really? So Jesus led an army that destroyed an empire did he? Oh that's right he didn't. That's just another of your lies isn't it?
Jesus also NEVER destroyed the writings of another religion. So that's another of your lies. Jesus never ordered inscriptions made detailing his ordering the construction of a city. Another of your lies.
Telling lies for Jesus is still lying little boy.
@ Gozreht
You wrote "But...Chris, it seems you went hacking throughout the internet and put many of these things together. That is fine. {Nope. Sorry. I have a degree in ancient and classical history].
But until we read everything that every person you listed and until we know the reasons why they wrote anything we will never get it anyway." Reading what they wrote is a fair enough point. But knowing their motives? I'm sorry but we can never know the motives of another. Even when they tell us straight out we can't be sure if they are telling lies like No Doubt or just plain lying to themselves. That's why Historians ask for the writings of people who were both supporters and opponents of someone.
Example: Alexander's supporters write that he conquered Persia to help Greece. Alexander's enemies write that he conquered Persia for his own massive ego. Since both contemporary sources declare that he conquered Persia we can be pretty sure that he did but we can never truely know why Alexander's friends or enemies wrote what they did about his motives.
Or perhaps you mean that we should be aware of the probable bias of the writer. Fair enough. Since alexander's friends are his friends they might be more inclined to put a positive spin on his behaviour. Just like the writer's of the Gospels are more likely to put a positive spin on their beliefs. Remember the author writing "this is written that you may believe." [positive spin].
You then added "I just picked a few but from what I saw: Arrian had some major errors in his writing (got that from the net), but he only focused on Alexander the Great anyway. Juvenal was just a satirist, he wrote comedies. Plutarch's writings are incomplete, by the standards you have laid down then Nero wasn;t real because his writings about him have disappeared. Plus it is said he fabricated many stories and was only comparing Roman life to Greek life".
Sorry but all your list is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a contemporary who mentioned the existence of Jesus was a satirist, or a historian who concentrated on Alexander. If there is any mention of Jesus, even in passing, then that's a point on the positive side. Got it?
My main point for listing these authors was that someone actually asked if any other documents had survived from that era. Many have and none of them mention Jesus!
Some of the authors mentioned were from the early second century. They would have had reason to mention Jesus but why would they? Well Tacitus mentions a scary howl in a forrest - the howl is attributed to Pan. If jesus existed [I argue that he did] and performed all the miracles attributed to him then his fame would have spread from one corner of the empire to the other & in his own lifetime. Instead we find a deafening silence & mentions of spooky howls. Not impressive.
@ Gozreht
Let's examine your next points.
You ask why wouldn't John quote Parmenides? How about this reason. Parmenides is a fith century philosopher who's writings contain a good deal of difficult Greek terms. Now a highly educated Greek who had studied philosophy would have no trouble with them but a peasant fisherman who hadn't studied greek would have found them totally bewildering.
You then write "The Bible, an agenda? Of course it had an agenda. It was written so people would know the truth [according to the assertion of the authors].
You then go into the lineage problem. Shall we examine it together?
Gospel of Matthew
Jesus
Joseph
Jacob
Matthan
Eleazar
etc
Gospel of Luke
Jesus
Joseph
Heli
Matthat
Levi
Both list Jesus as Joseph's son & then Matthew lists the father of Joseph as Jacob & Matthew lists the father of Joseph as Heli.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
You then write The gospels are four accounts witnessing the same events either by testimony or by investigation. They are written for four different audiences. They do not contradict each other."
They in fact do contradict. Want a few examples?
How about you answer this question "who was the first person to see the empty tomb & what did they see?"
According to Mark two Marys and Salome find the tomb empty. They see a young man.
According to Matthew only the two Marys found the tomb empty. There is an earthquake & an angel [not a young man] rolls away the stone from the entrance ten sits uon the stone.
According to Luke at least FIVE women, including the two Marys and Joanna, find the empty tomb. What do they see? Not one but TWO men in shining robes.
According to John however Mary magdelene found the tomb empty & she found it ALONE! She also sees no man, or men in any sort of robes & no angels either. At least on the first visit.
They can't all be correct.
Why are the women there? Mark & Luke both declare that the women have waited until the sabbath is over to annoint Jesus' body.
Two problems:
1) According to Jewish there was no prohibition against annointing a body on the Sabbath.
2) Even if there were the Sabbath had been ended on sunset Saturday. Why wait until Sunday morning if that was their only concern?
According to Matthew the women were there merely to see the tomb [NOT to annoint the body].
John declares that Mary Magdelene had come on the first day of the week while it was still dark. This would agree with Jewish practice [semachoth 8]. A body was viewed within three days to make sure that the body was indeed rotting [in other words that the person hadn't been buried alive.
I find John's account the most believable here. Mary [if she was a friend of the family] would perhaps have been trying to spare Jesus' mother from this grizly duty. A lifelike detail but it still conflicts with the other accounts.
@ Gozreht
You then write "Alexander the Great traveled from Greece to East Asia. He built an Empire and created many enemies and used force to gain that empire. of course there are going to be accounts of his life even by his enemies.
Jesus stayed in Israel. His followers though traveled. And that is where His name spread. [just like a myth spreads. Ever heard of mithras?]
And since I am not asking Vagon anymore, I will ask you. Prove you exist.
Let's see:
1) Contemporary pictures of me just like there are contemporary pictures of Alexander.
2)Official records which note my birth.
3) My university thesis along with my student ID & registration.
4) My work written by myself. Jesus wrote nothing.
5) More to the point you can go and check on any or all of these pieces of evidence at any time.
Finally there is the principle of parsimony. It goes like this: It is vain to seek to do with many what can be done with fewer. How does that apply here? Simply this. Either we have a huge consiracy involving a university, several photographers, publishing companies, and government departments. All to do what? Fake the existence of a non-entity such as myself? Doesn't make sense. It's much more reasonable to assert I actually exist than that all that evidence [the vast majority held by people who have no interest in my existence] are involved in a giant conspiracy.
Let's examine another case though. Mithras. Many people believed in the existence of mithras & books were written about him. Did he exist? Nope. He was thought to be a GOD so he was hardly a noboddy. He had a great many followers. They were prepared to die for him & many did just that. Doesn't prove he existed though. When we try to fit him into history we just encounter too many problems. People just would NOT ignore the things it's claimed Mithras did. Get the idea? Now apply it to Jesus.
Could Mithras have been a teacher or priest who won followers and after his death people made up stories about him? Sure. The process is called pious fraud. We have tons of examples of this. E.g. the twenty plus gospels written after jesus death. Some give stories from his boyhood - like jesus amusing himself by making wooden birds & then waving his hand & making them come alive. That's just one example of pious fraud. There are many, many others.
@ Gozreht
Oh and need I point out that there can only ever be one first person associated with a unique event.
Sounds like the motto from highlander doesn't it? "There can be only one!"
Only one man was the first on the moon [unique event]. One FIRST witness to the empty tomb. But the gospels disagree as to the identity of this first witness.
Oh and as to your comment about the blind witnesses and the elephant. That was a decent argument. Well done.
But you forgot one thing. The story is actually summed up in a poem. The last line reads "and so these men of hindustan disputed loud and long. Each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong. [Now pay close attention to this line] Though each was partly in the right & ALL WERE IN THE WRONG!"
Sort of destroys your point I believe.
Thought this might throw little interest in the camp :)
“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” - Antony Flew (An ex-atheist, yet still non-christian)
Chris said:
"First Parmenides was a Greek philosopher from the 5th century BCE!"
I do not understand your exclamation mark about the 5th century BCE?
Your assumption that John had no access to Parmenides at all is a Hasty generalization fallacy.
Gozreht made a good point about John being on the island of Patmos and with the ability to learn Greek. Which is evidence of your "cherry picking" fallacy.
Also you replied to me about the genealogies. Dude there are answers and explanations which you IGNORE.
I know Ray Comfort is not perfect but here is an answer he gave about this topic:
"Study the wording in Luke 3:23 closely. It says "as was supposed" or "what was thought to be the son of Joseph." He wasn’t. He was the Son of God (God manifest in human form). Then carefully look at the wording of Matthew 1:16. It says, "Joseph the husband of Mary." In neither case is Joseph called the father of Jesus.
In both of these cases, the genealogy goes through the lineage of David (Luke 3:31 and Matthew 1:6). There is no confusion at all in these lists. If names in both don’t reconcile, there are rational explanations. For example, in Matthew we are told that "Jacob begot Joseph," but Luke 3:23 says, "Joseph, the son of Heli." Luke’s record was "according to Law" (a literal translation of "so it was thought" in Luke 3:23), indicating that Joseph was not actually the son of Heli but was reckoned his son according to the Law. Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, Mary’s father.
Please don’t get your information from atheist websites. They hold up the same old mistaken arguments, and they never seek an answer. Imagine if you reject God’s gift of everlasting life and end up (being justly punished for your sins), solely because you believed what some stranger said on an atheist website, instead of sincerely looking into it yourself. What a tragedy."
cheers
DB
@ Da Bomb
You accused me of the Hasty Generalization Fallacy then wrote
"Please don’t get your information from atheist websites. They hold up the same old mistaken arguments, and they never seek an answer."
Have you been to every athiest website? No? How about even the majority? Even a sizable minority? No? Then you are guilty of the Hasty Generalization Fallacy. You know. The exact same fallacy you accused me of using.
Condemning me for an action which you yourself are guilty of is hypocrisy. Perhaps you should repent of your hypocrisy before you post anymore.
Oh & Da Bomb
A worthless argument is one which is based on the idea of "what the author really meant when he wrote X is...[that is essentially what comfort is saying. it is a worthless argument].
The simple reality is unless the person who is saying this has the ability to read minds then we have no idea what the author "really" meant when he wrote X. All we have is the text & archaeological evidence & that is it.
@ Gozreht
I almost forgot.
You also wrote "Plutarch's writings are incomplete, by the standards you have laid down then Nero wasn;t real because his writings about him have disappeared. Plus it is said he fabricated many stories and was only comparing Roman life to Greek life".
Except for a few things like Tacitus [contemporary], Suetonius [contemporary], & Dio Cassius [not a contemporary historian but his account was based upon contemporary republican texts].
We also have coins with the face of Nero platered on them.
http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NERO00000006.jpg
& we even have a bust of Nero.
http://www.the-romans.co.uk/gallery3/bigimages/50.nero.jpg
Both the bust & the coins were produced while Nero was alive.
Conclusion: There is plenty of contemporary evidence for Nero & therefore Nero lived.
@ Da Boimb
You wrote "The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” - Antony Flew (An ex-atheist, yet still non-christian)
[Anthony Flew is NOT a historian & therefore his opinion on historical evidence is less than worthless].
You then write "I do not understand your exclamation mark about the 5th century BCE?"
The older a text the harder to locate copies, especially in the ancient world. Hence the exclamation mark.
You continue "Your assumption that John had no access to Parmenides at all is a Hasty generalization fallacy".
Bull. Learn the definition of terms before you use them. Also that is NOT what I wrote!
You continue "Gozreht made a good point about John being on the island of Patmos and with the ability to learn Greek. Which is evidence of your "cherry picking" fallacy."
The fallacy of suppressed evidence is defined as follows "Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence."
In what way have I done this? I have been the only one, so far, to actually quote from primary sources. Are you saying that my quotes are too short? I can quote entire paragraphs if you like but the point will remain exactly the same. I have not taken any quote out of context.
Also I have already explained why John would have had difficulty with Parmenides' work. Try reading my answers first before replying.
You then add "Also you replied to me about the genealogies. Dude there are answers and explanations which you IGNORE. [Not at all. I use the parsimony principle. It's a principle of logic. Something you should learn before you try to use its terms].
You continue "I know Ray Comfort is not perfect but here is an answer he gave about this topic."
Comfort is neither a qualified historian nor can he read the text in its original language therefore his opinion is also less than worthless.
It is a simple fact that the Gospel of Matthew says that the father of Joseph was Jacob while the gospel of Luke declares that the father of Joseph was Heli. You're ignoring that simple fact & trying to twist and turn to ignore the obvious answer...an answer you'd accept in an instant if it was in any other book. One or both authors got the information wrong. It's that simple.
You conclude by saying "Please don’t get your information from atheist websites." I've already written where I got my information. I am a qualified historian with a degree in ancient & classical history. Once again try reading my answers BEFORE you reply.
Chris,
Dude, you did it! You have completely debunked Christianity. What you have done is a common atheist way of arguing. You have given so much information for all to ponder that they get lost in the argument. Then the responses you get will have to be just as long winded as to add to the confusion. That's why I slowed down with Vagon and was going to take it one at a time. Because now there is so much crap out there that we need to write a book to respond. So I am only going to go one at a time.
There isn't much contradiction as you have claimed. Three of the gospels (we'll leave Mark out for your benefit) say they saw two beings. Matthew says and angel of the Lord spoke to them and when they turned to run and they saw Jesus. luke said that the women saw two men in white. One was the angel, the other was Jesus. John says Mary saw two angels, but one she didn't recognize was Jesus until after he spoke. All three are compatible.
How many women? John says Mary. It doesn't say she was alone but it does mention her only. John's gospel is based on the emotions and persoanlization of the Christ. It is a more one on one writing. John was very clear and to the point. We all can relate to the way John writes. John knew Jesus the best. John wrote for all of us to understand on a personal basis. Luke was a doctor who wrote for his Greek audience. He wrote a gospel and Acts. One is the history of Christ's life and the other is the history of the early church.I would actually believe his accounts as more accurate as an order of events.
They all state the same story.
And the elephant story...yes the poen finishes like that but that his opinion on the situation. A statement is only false if one part of it can be proven false. All who looked at the elephant were correct but they were incomplete, not entirely wrong. If they said the elephant did not have a tail then they would be wrong. But each were completely correct in what they had seen. The poet John Godfrey Saxe was off in his final assumption. But I am so glad we can use him as fact buster to refute Christianity.
Vagon,
One point in you rresponse and then I will have to go.
Your response to #5. Jesus claimed to be God. You mention that some Buddhists and all worship Buddha as god. There is the difference. Jesus himself said he was God. The followers carried His message. Buddha did not claim it, but his followers did. But that was just knit-picking on mu part. Have a great day.
@ Gozreht
let's take your smarmy points one at a time.
"What you have done is a common atheist way of arguing. [Actually it's a scholar's way of arguing. It is a matter of taking all the relevant points and applying them one by one. I'm sorry you couldn't keep up].
You continue "You have given so much information for all to ponder that they get lost in the argument. [So now I'm resposible if someone is incapable of keeping up with an argument? Try rereading the posts swifty].
Oh and another point. I am not an atheist & I couldn't give a flying fuck about the existence or non-existence of christianity. I am a zoroastrian. My religion teaches me, that my highest loyalty is to the truth. Da Bomb has been shown to be a hypocrite, No Doubt tells nothing but lies. But I'm the one who's trying to trick everyone am I?
When you attempt to deal with the contradiction in what the women see you leave out one of the contradictory scriptures & then say "hey, they're not so contradictory." Sorry but that is a half truth & the sad part is you probably don't even realise it.
To repeat:
According to Mark two Marys and Salome find the tomb empty. They see a young man. [NOT AN ANGEL]
According to Matthew only the two Marys found the tomb empty. There is an earthquake & an angel [not a young man] rolls away the stone from the entrance then sits upon the stone.
According to Luke at least FIVE women, including the two Marys and Joanna, find the empty tomb. What do they see? Not one but TWO men in shining robes. [NOT ANGELS & NOT JESUS & AN ANGEL EITHER. THAT IS AN INTERPRETATION NOT WHAT THE TEXT SAYS]
According to John however Mary magdelene found the tomb empty & she found it ALONE! She also sees no man, or men in any sort of robes & no angels either. At least on the first visit.
Your reply to the number of women runs like this "it doesn't say they were alone". Quite right. It doesn't say there weren't fifty million women with them either. So shall we take it that there were fifty million women there with them?
The text says what it says. what you are doing is reading things into the text. Adding to the text if you will. A practice which the Book of revelations condemns I believe. Never mind I'm sure God will forgive you lying for Him.
I'll continue my exercise in futility in my next post.
Continued...
You also add " I would actually believe his {Luke's] accounts as more accurate as an order of events". So the others are inaccurate then? They got it at least partially wrong? Then the gospels do conflict. You just contradicted yourself. "Oh no" you reply. "They don't conflict". Then Luke cannot be MORE accurate than the other writers. Not great on logic are you?
You then close by writing "The poet John Godfrey Saxe was off in his final assumption".
That makes no logical sense. In the poem one man of hindustan is saying the elephant is like a fan, another like a spear & so on. Each is partly right & all were partly wrong. Why wrong? Because the elephant isn't completely like a spear, nor is it completely like a fan, etc. Guess you got it wrong as well.
You close by writing "But I am so glad we can use him as fact buster to refute Christianity".
Once again I couldn't give a shit if christianity is refuted or not. That wasn't the point of the exercise. My point was to give you the facts. As I pointed out Da Bomb has proven himself a complete hypocrit. No Doubts has told lie after lie. Do you rebuke them? No! You come after me because I was telling your precious ego it wasn't perfect & could make mistakes.
Face it. You being wrong about fundamentalism or Jesus' notoriety among secular authorities does NOTHING to refute christianity or God. But it is a slap in the face for your ego. And at the end of the day that's your real God isn't it? Your ego. The thing you truely worship.
Don't worry I don't expect an answer. At least not a truthful one. I'll leave such unpleasant thoughts between you and you conscience. If you have one. Though I'm sure you, like Da Bomb & No Doubt can justify whatever lie, half truth or hypocrisy you feel is needed. I won't trouble you again.
Then why are you here?
Point 1 (if this is the game):
I never said anyone was actually confused. I said it is a tactic that is used.
Point 2: It's just pure consideration to stay on the topic. If you wanted to discuss all of these things then fine. But what you did was overload and when that happens people phase out and only read half of your crap.
Point 3: Nice language. That shows great character.
Point 4: When I talking about the differnces in gospels (men or angels), I strictly said the writings told about how they all saw TWO BEINGS. Some of the verses go on to say that the ladies did not recognize Christ. So to them or the writer he would have described them as men until they knew better. It's called perception.
Point #5: I didn't add a message to the Bible which is what Revelation is more talking about. I did add a little bit of assumption based on the WHOLE TEXT. When Mary only saw one man and THEN later she saw another, then I would assume the other person was there to begin with. DUH!!!!
Point #6: As stated as before Luke I feel is more accurate with the order of events. That has nothing to do with the actual event or the meaning behind it. They are all truth. But Matthew as some think may have been a collection of stories written down and then consolidated. Luke was an actual record keeper. John's purpose was to show who the Christ was on a personal basis. The meaning of the gospel did not change. Again, another tactic.
Point 7: I didn't read the poem. I was only using the one part of it as an analogy. You used him as though he was a reference. So I responded with the line that YOU quoted.
Point 8: I wasn't coming after you. You started off by coming into a conversation with an attitude that was quite rude and smart-elec. You came in with so much anger in your writing I thought your head was spinning and you were spitting out green pea soup.
Point 9: How come everytime there is a dicsussion some how there always seem to show up "an expert" on the subject? "Oh I studied ancient writings", "Oh, I have studied physics and chemistry for years", "Oh I am an archaelogists". If these people are experts then go write a book and make millions. Quit wasting your time on blog. Especially if you don't give a s**t, what a waste of time.
Point 10: "I won't bother you again". I bet you will. I bet your ego is bigger! Yeah, I have an ego. But I am not debating to boost my own status. I stand for Christ. You say anything you want about me. So what!
For the rest of everyone else here reading, sorry for overloading this site.
Vagon,
I am sorry I wanted to tell you a story. About #7 in my post to you. This is from my own perosnal experience, so I hope you don't make light of it (which I am not expecting).
Miracle: I agree with you on the definition.
Just a small story for you. About 4 years ago my father was getting some lumps in his neck that he thought was caused by his training (judo). He thought someone pressed too hard on his throat trying to do a choke hold. But in three days time it went from two lumps to about six. He went to the hospital and they called in a specialist from Texas who said it was anaplastic thyroid cancer. The doctor then proceded to say he had maybe six months to live since it was moving so fast. They scheduled a biopsy and all the other stuff and confirmed it. But after about two weeks they looked at him again and said it wasn't anaplastic thyroid cancer it was large cell lymphoma and it was only in stage one. And today he is still alive after treatment and cancer free.
Now could there be a logic explanation? Yes, but none of the doctors understand how it ended up this way. There was no change in his condition until people around him bathed him in prayer. Coincidence? Maybe. But the order and timing of this whole story doesn't make any logical sense.
I give God the glory and call it a miracle. Even if it was medicine or anything else, then thank God it was all available.
I hope you appreciate the story, even if it doesn't prove anything. But this isn't the first time I have seen this happen before. Anyway thanks for reading.
So, keeping it really, really simple.
What is/are the best historical evidence(s) for the existence of a man called Jesus, who may or may not have been the Christ?
Cheers,
I just picked up on this and I really, seriously, honestly, completely, sincerely do not ever want to make fun of someone's beliefs. I will debate them but not make fun of them. So as I say this keep that in mind. But the one who has made claim to be a scholar of ancient books and is trying to debunk Christianty here on this thread is following a belief of his own that is perhaps even less reliable. Zoroaster doesn't even have a consistent date of life. People say it is anywhere between the 6th and 4th century BC. He is called a prophet and some say he did miracles and stuff. I will stop there because I think that is good enough. Some of you are going to listen to someone who is arguing a man doesn't exist based on the same arguments his own god or teacher is based on. Ryk, please don't hang your hat on this. Again I am not making fun of the religion, and if anyone wants to believe in it, so be it. But to say that this person proves Jesus didn't exist and has his own personal beliefs that are basically the same (in reference and practice, not spiritual). That is not valid. And to call Christians liars after that information walks the line of hypocritical.
@Gozert
I don't "hang my hat" on anyones research without fact checking. I commended Chris because he presented some useful information in a well organized fashion. I always respect that, even when an opponent does so I will often acknowledge it. Most of what Chris presented is information I already have on my home computer. If I were not traveling and on my laptop I could probably cite his sources.
Anyway I have my own opinions on the Christ myth that I have already presented here and have seen nothing to refute them.
ExPatMatt said...
"So, keeping it really, really simple.
What is/are the best historical evidence(s) for the existence of a man called Jesus, who may or may not have been the Christ?
Cheers,"
Hey Matt,
I thought you would know better than that...being around so many christian blogs and read the Bible yourself.
I wouldn't know what the "best" evidences are (it may be relative to the person), I think the gospels are evidence enough in themselves, but if you want more detail, try Josh Mcdowells book "New evidence that demands a verdict", I own that book and it is a good read (a big book).
catch ya,
DB
Chris:
Thanks
My point is that if Yeshua is completely mythical then this is far too soon a date for organised worship to begin. Mythic creations have the general story laid out. After all if it doesn't then what are people being attracted too? But a historical person [even one with mythic additions] may well have some followers this soon after his death. Sorry I wasn't clearer.
You're right mate, no need to apologise.
I still would stand by the fact that the Chi Rho isnt overtly a crucifix symbol, but may have been incorporated later. It also focuses on Christ, not Yeshua/Jesus.
I don't find it follows a real person is evidenced by this symbol.
MY MY MY
SEE THE ATHEIST CRY
WHEN HIS HOUSE OF CARDS COME TUMBLING DOWN
Chris, my friend, I think you broke a record of how quickly you resorted to foul language and name calling, a tell tale sign of how insecure you are in you position.
It’s amazing when the light of truth is shone on darkness, how quickly you cower into vulgarism and incivility. What it comes down to is that you can call it what you want, but truth is truth.
FACT#1
Your so called contemporaries were not legitimate. Just because you call them legitimate doesn’t make them legitimate. My friend…that’s called wishful thinking. Saying that someone doesn’t exist because an ancient fiction writer, satirist, philosopher, etc didn’t write about him is preposterous. That’s like me saying that Jesus was on Mars because Philip José Farmer wrote about it. It’s just absurd. So stop it….you’re embarrassing yourself.
FACT#2
You wrote:
“Except that I wrote that Alexander did have records written about him. To be exact I wrote What evidence do we have that Alexander existed? We have accounts of his life by his supporters AND his enemies.”
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Again, by your own criteria, they have to be contemporaries of Alexander the Great to be legitimate. There are none. You like cutting and pasting so much you should like this. You can find it here at
http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=studying-alexander
“Ancient history is the study of events which may or may not have been recorded accurately. Many of the documents were actually written numerous years - if not centuries - later. Some authors may have had a specific agenda in writing a text. “
My favorite part for you:
“For the history of Alexander, the oldest surviving account is that of Diodorus of Sicily, written around 50 BC. That is three centuries after the life of Alexander.”
I’ve got to repeat that…
“That is three centuries after the life of Alexander.”
One more time for good luck and just in case it didn’t sink in.
“That is three centuries after the life of Alexander.”
Hardly a contemporary.
FACT# 3
You wrote:
“ We have inscriptions from the cities he ordered built. We have the remains of those same cities. And finally we have the effects of his conquest of Persia both positive [the spread of hellenistic culture] and negative [Alexander's destruction of the Avesta]. That's a fair bit of evidence.”
Far more cities were built, wars waged and cultures influenced in the name of Y’shua than Alexander could have ever dreamed of.
Are you now saying Y'shua existed.
FACT# 4
You wrote:
“Petronius also makes mention of people who actually existed. Good golly miss molly.”
You obviously miss the boat on this one. By the way, you do realize Miss Molly is a fictional character in Marascalco and Blackwell’s mind.
No insult…just checking since it appears that fiction appears to be your forte’.
FACT# 5
You wrote:
“First twit the Talmud is a collection of writings from the third century CE. That's hardly contemporary with Jesus. Why didn't you mention that little fact? Perhaps because it would have shown the Talmud quotes as irrelevant?”
This one shows the ultimate in your ignorance. You should have talked this one over with your buddy Ryk. A hint for next time: Don’t argue Judaism with a Jew.
With that said, the Talmud is a collection of interpretations and opinions of the meaning of YOUR and MY G-d's Holy Law. They have their roots as far back as the Babylonian captivity.
They were ACCUMULATED not WRITTEN in the 3rd and 4th century.
Before I end this point, I was mistaken when I mistyped 3 instead of 4. But the point remains undisputed and well worth restating correctly.
The Talmud speaks of Y'shua four separate times. I can't think of anyone else that had more of a stake in discrediting Y'shua and Christianity than the Jews. However, even the Jews weren’t stupid enough to write him off as someone who didn't exist.
I hope you appreciate the story, even if it doesn't prove anything. But this isn't the first time I have seen this happen before. Anyway thanks for reading.
Good to hear your father is well. You're right I don't see that as a miracle and I certainly see no evidence of prayer working, but I appreciate your sincerity.
Da Bomb, I understand its a big book so perhaps you could present just one of McDowell's evidences?
No doubt, I'm hesitant to step in on this argument because there's a lot of emotion going around, that said, Alexander still has much more evidence for his existence than Jesus (I do not mean a spiritual Christ).
I'll refer you to my previous comments on Arrian. It really is a simple matter of historical accuracy. At the very least you must admit Arrian uses methods that noone has used to record Jesus.
Vagon,
I actually agree with you. There is more historical evidence for Alexander the Great than Y'shua. However, whether you believe that he was the Messiah or not, discounting him with the ludicrous criteria Chris is using is laughable.
Would you honestly say that you or I don't exist because one of our contemporaries didn't mention us in their writings?
As for the high emotion, there is none. I deliberately entice those who try to bully others with their pseudo-scholarship, especially when it's so easy.
If I or a fellow believer so off the mark as Chris in an argument, I would expect chastisement. I would think you guys would do the same.
If you want to discuss, then let's discuss. Let's not badger each other with information that is plain wrong.
I am not sure how this got into a discussion of whether Alexander existed. He may not have, what of it? I am not committed to him having existed. Let us assume that like Jesus there is no reliable evidence to prove that Alexander the Great as history records him is a myth. How does this change anyones life? Aside from some historians, who actually may appreciate a spur to further research.
The principal difference is that no one is saying that laws need to be made based on the teachings of Alexander, or that any myths he believed in need to be taught in science classes. No one is saying that people who don't believe in him are bad or immoral.
So historians can assume that the evidence for Alexander the great is adequate until shown otherwise, they can do the same with Jesus for that matter, however any decisions based on the existence of either man should be made on the strength of the evidence not wishful thinking.
So I assure you if anyone wants to make law or policy based on the history of Alexander the Great I will strenuously question that history.
Hi Ryk,
Just a reminder...this perticular blog was started with AJ stating:
F.F. Bruce, perhaps one of my favorite theologians said this:
"Some writers may toy with the fancy of a "Christ-myth," but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth" theories."
Interesting... I'm wondering if any atheists here believe Jesus never existed? "
With that said, Chris indicated that because none of Y'shua's "contemporaries" mentioned him, he didn't exist and it grew from there.
Making other cultures obey Alexanders laws is not what this perticular blog is about. But since you brought it up, just ask anyone from the middle east. You know the answer to that.
I said to EPM,
"I thought you would know better than that...being around so many christian blogs and read the Bible yourself."
I meant no offence by that:) Just wanted to clarify.
Would you honestly say that you or I don't exist because one of our contemporaries didn't mention us in their writings?
In the spirit of honesty, what you are suggesting is absurd and leading. The question here is whether or not there is any evidence for existance it was (as Chris quite rightly pointed out) a point of parsimony.
I want to point a distinction which doesn't appear to have been picked up. Its a stance that was popularized by Earl Doherty. It seems as though you believe my position to be: Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mythical offshoot of Judaism. To say this would be completely against historic principles and you would be right to call me out. Instead I state this as my position :
Chritianity started as a mythical offshoot of Judaism, therefore Jesus didn't exist.
If you have any historical evidence that could cast doubt over this position I am sincerely happy to discuss and revisit my position.
So far the closest anyone has come is Carolyn's Tacitus report and Chris' Chi Rho symbol. As mentioned I find this far from compelling and in the case of Tacitus I find it reinforces my position.
If AJ or yourself want to express incredulity at the mythicist position it would follow that you could at least throw some doubt over it.
We're talking about the purported saviour of the universe here. Obviously the historical method has improved since those times, but surely there is some contemporary mention of this living God using even the barest of historical method?
Let us assume that like Jesus there is no reliable evidence to prove that Alexander the Great as history records him is a myth. How does this change anyones life? Aside from some historians, who actually may appreciate a spur to further research.
He's incredibly influential in military leadership for one. In general its an example of another purported god-human too. Finally he provides an example of the quality of historical information that a human Jesus lacks.
So, keeping it really, really, super-simple.
What is/are the best historical evidence(s) for the existence of a man called Jesus, who may or may not have been the Christ?
Cheers
Da Bomb,
"I thought you would know better than that...being around so many christian blogs and read the Bible yourself".
No offense taken, but we're talking about historical evidence, so reading the Bible doesn't help if what we're trying to do is substantiate claims made in the Bible (ie, the Gospels).
As to Josh Mcdowells book "New evidence that demands a verdict", as has been requested before; if you could present one or two key evidences from the book, that would be really helpful.
Thanks,
Matt,
Thanks for trying to get us back on track with the simple question. There is a lot here but I am staying on topic. I think the first thing we need to do is ask: can we use the Bible as a reference at all? Can it be trusted? Well, if you take certain things into account then I say yes. (shocker, huh?)
But here is why. The Bible mentions real places, e.g., towns in Israel, Asia Minor, Egypt, cities in Arabia and the Middle East. Most of these towns are either still around or excavations have revealed that there was a civilization at these places. For instance in the 1800's explorers could not find ports mentioned in the Bible on the sea of Galilee, but there was a severe drought in the late 1980's and early 1990's that evaporated some of the sea and many of the ports were found with artifacts. The Bible mentions certain people accepted in history e.g., Nebuchadnezzar, Augustus, Herod and kin, Pilate, Caiaphas, Tiberius, Darius, Claudius, Felix, and others. Each person mentioned are within the time period the Bible states such as when Christ was born it is mentioned Herod the Great was king of the region and Augustus as Emperor. Then it states certain events that happened, the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon, the census laws, customs and lifestyles such as the way a house was built and stuff. They all coincide with each other. The Bible mentions distances that are accurate between cities.
That is the first step, finding reliable history sources. And the Bible has at least three valid reasons of why it can be at least trusted as a reference based on historical value. And I am not a scholar on this. This is just what the layman came up with.
Are there any writers of history that can back up some of these events? I am sure there are but apparently on this site, they have all been proven wrong somehow. (Amazing isn't it) But there is some truth to what Flavius Josephus writes. If you read Tacitus in its full context, at least I can see that he is talking about Christians (by the way if there were Christians in the first century, they were named after something, no one calls themselves Timodians unless there was a Tim some where). But many are not going to be mentioned because they did not write on religious practices or ideas. There are what we call today as the early church fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, Martyr, Clement. These are also historians and they focused on religion, especially Christianity. So wouldn’t they be considered experts in their field? But of course the refute is they were biased due to their background. But if you say that then you could say that anyone studying evolution today that has a non-religious background is not valid since they will already have a biased opinion. So who do you trust? The way I feel is if there is a consistent pattern of belief and/or facts then you should be able to trust it or at least use it as a starting point until it can be proven false.
Then of course comes the dates. Why so late? I have stated earlier that many things weren’t written down each day, no one does that. History is always written down after all is said and done, until today’s time since we have newspapers and junk. But Matthew’s gospel, is said to be a bunch of written stories by Matthew as he saw it. After people found all of these writings they put them together. It’s like if I wanted to write about my life I could write from the beginning until now. Or I could write what was on my mind that day. After I am done I would have these collections of all my thoughts. That is what Matthew is like. Luke, though, put everything in order himself. So both are correct in their writings. The dates are later because it took time to collect Matthew’s writings. And Luke did his investigation after Christ had resurrected.
So Gozreht,
Your answer is; the Bible?
Fair enough.
Anyone have any non-Biblical references/sources that indicate the existence of a man named Jesus who may or may not have been the Christ?
Thanks,
Well, one of my answers is the Bible. Actually, my first answer would be the Bible. I, like you, await for other references. I don't completely disregard Josephus or Pliny the Younger, or even some of Tacitus' works. I do have copies of Biblical Archaelogy magazine that goes through some of these things that I forgot my wife subscribed to. They are neat but again some would feel they would be biased. But they do have good articles about how things are being found that the Bible talks about, such as Galilee.
Take care Matt.
Hey Vagon,
With all due respect and please don't take this wrong, but you are very correct in bringing up Earl Doherty and the idea of parsimony in the same comment. His theory is a great example.
Now, if you honestly wish to discuss the fallicy behind his theory, I would love to.
Isn't his theory based pretty much on differences in linguistics and grammer within manuscripts from different era's? That alone is a "no-no".
Sorry I'm watching my granddaughter tonight and her lingo sneaks in there. ;-)
Hey Ex Pat,
I hope all is well with you.
The only non-christian and biblical written resources that mention by name are Josephus and the Talmud. Slim pickins' I know.
However, as Gozreht wrote, there are Pliny the Younger and Tacitus'.
They don't mention Y'shua by name but references the Messiah and the messianic movement. There are critics of the Tacitus about differences in Pilates title. However, students of latin dismiss the critique as prefect and procurator are used interchangeably. I wouldn't argue the fact as I am not an expert in the field.
However, if you accept those possible hsitorical references to Jesus, we can discuss the real reason most believers accept Y'shua as the Messiah. Of course I'm talking about a few pin-point prophecies and interesting "coincindences" that was point to Y'shua. I promise not to bore you with vague minutiae.
No Doubt:
Isn't his theory based pretty much on differences in linguistics and grammer within manuscripts from different era's? That alone is a "no-no".
Well no not really. There are three "difficult" passages for which he provides linguistic interpretations using other examples, not just from the traditional bible but also from other gospels and other jewish mythical writers.
This is the point, there is no such extra-biblical support for the traditional Christian position.
I'd love to discuss Doherty's work with you, but in the end you'd just be ignoring the questions we continue to propose. The reality is he's just the one that popularised it. I can refute Anselm, but you'll still follow Platinga, if you get what I mean.
So, can you then, (this would refute any mythicist not just Doherty) provide any contemporary historical account for Jesus?
If you can please show us,
If you cant, please concede that you base your belief of Jesus on oral accounts transcribed some decades after his purported death.
No Doubt:
I note when talking to Matt you provided Josephus, the Talmud, Pliny and Tacitus.
I can go into length on any of them so it would be good if you picked one and told me which passages you think indicate a historical Jesus and why.
Vagon,
Even though both Anselm and Platinga are defenders of the faith, I follow only G-d which was manifested in the form of Y'shua approximately 2000 years ago.
I have given you historical evidence that he existed in both Josephus and the Talmud. Whether you except them or not is a matter of either you refusing their testimony or you wanting to be argumentative. I have excepted their witness, you have not.
With that said, I will gladly discuss with you their validity on merit only. Bringing opinions, other than your own, only muddies the water. Other opinions, even though they agree with you or me, doesn't validate either one of us, especially if one of both are wrong.
You said choose one. Ok, if you want, let's start with the Talmud. I won't restate what already has been stated unless you want me to. So why do you refuse the Talmud?
Honestly looking for you opinion and not an argument.
Hopefully your friend.
Even though both Anselm and Platinga are defenders of the faith, I follow only G-d which was manifested in the form of Y'shua approximately 2000 years ago.
Its going to be a drawn out discussion if you play semantics for no good reason. It was an analogy, I didn't even know if you'd read Platinga.
I have given you historical evidence that he existed in both Josephus and the Talmud. Whether you except them or not is a matter of either you refusing their testimony or you wanting to be argumentative. I have excepted [sic] their witness, you have not.
Seeing as the original post questions historicity I see no other way than to deal with the subject than by the historical value of the texts. A false dichotomy of "refusal" or "being argumentative" is plain silly.
With that said, I will gladly discuss with you their validity on merit only. Bringing opinions, other than your own, only muddies the water. Other opinions, even though they agree with you or me, doesn't validate either one of us, especially if one of both are wrong.
If your cognitive dissonance doesn't allow you to change your opinion on them, I'd rather not waste my time.
Where have I ever provided other people's opinions? Perhaps its foreign to you because you believe in inerrancy, but I don't take any one source to be beyond reproach.
Honestly looking for you[sic] opinion and not an argument.
Hopefully your friend.
Absolutely open to it, hence why I'm here. From the correspondance above it was Chris that mentioned quotes, I don't want to put words in your mouth so perhaps you could outline which you refer to if only by reference.
Looking forward to a good discussion.
Hye guys I don't have time at the moment to look at that book but I found these if you are interested.
http://www.squidoo.com/Josh-McDowell
I haven't listened to them but I will when I have time.
cheers!
DB
oops I'm actually "Da Bomb" instead of Daniel...:)
@ ExPatMatt and others:
Hey, Matt!
Regarding the historical evidence of Christ having existed, this is such a been there, proved that fact in history that it's shocking that the question still comes up.
I'd cite Lee Strobel's work on the Case for Christ for a bibliography of resource material.
As to the evidence, the best I've found is in Simon Greenleaf's work on the Gospels (you can find it on Abebooks for around $200). He taught evidences at Harvard, I think. You know what? It may have been Oxford...whatever.
In any event, to throw out the Biblical record is like opening up a murder trial and telling the jurists that they can't take the witness testimony for the prosecution, only the defense.
That's loading the dice, my friend.
I'd start with the first hand eyewitness, why wouldn't you?
I'm sure Ryk has an explanation.
How are you, Ryk?
Take care, all. I'm playing the ghost game nowadays. Now you see me...
http://www.squidoo.com/Josh-McDowell
This site is Josh Mcdowell speaking about "evidence that demands a verdict". The book I mentioned.
(I have not listened to it yet)
Thanks Daniel/Da Bomb I'll have to check it out and get back to you.
Vagon,
So you choose to be argumentative. Fine That's your choice. As for your slam on not being read up on a subject or a person, Yes I have read Platinga.
If fact, if you have read him, you would understand why you are consistently opposed to those who believe. One of his best quotes is
"Belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God."
Plantinga indicates that belief in God is basic human nature and it is evil to deny it.
Now please don't get excited about the evil thing. Evil, in it's basic form, is opposition to G-d.
Therefore, you exist to be argumentative with me. The reason I don't want to go there again this week is that one Chris is more than enough for me.
As proof to yourself and to others who are totally honest with you. Re-read the comments and you just want to rehash the same thing without any giving credence to the contrary. You have faith in your beliefs and ideas and I have faith in mine.
I tried to engage in honest and good conversation with you. However, you choose to be like Chris and others and engage immediately with insults and innuendo. Like I said before, I choose not to go down the path again....at least this week. ;-)
Honestly tyring to be your friend but your making it hard. G-d Bless.
Hey again guys,
I listened to the first 4 parts so far and it is really interesting.
I will listen to the last two parts tomorrow.
DB
So from Gozreht we have;
"I don't completely disregard Josephus or Pliny the Younger, or even some of Tacitus' works"".
As back-up for his initial port of call; the Bible.
No Doubt presents;
"The only non-christian and biblical written resources that mention by name are Josephus and the Talmud. Slim pickins' I know".
And clarifies that; "Pliny the Younger and Tacitus'.
They don't mention Y'shua by name but references the Messiah and the messianic movement".
Which isn't what we're after; we're after Jesus the man, not Christ the God.
Da Bomb is sticking with Josh McDowell.
And Brazen is trotting out Strobel's work regarding the case for 'Christ' based on the Bible.
So is that what we have to work with, in regards to demonstrating that there was a carpenter's son named Jesus?
Regards,
Hey Ex-Pat,
Ok...we have given you specific references concerning Y'shua in the Talmud and Josephus.
Non-specific references concerning the Messiah with Pliny the Younger and Tacitus.
And some really good background information with Josh McDowell and Strobel.
I'm at a lost. Your not happy with specifics, non-specific and general background. Honestly...what will you be happy with???????????? Vague.
Ex-Pat,
As an added note:
That is about the man, Y'shua, known to western believers as Jesus.
I offered to discuss "beyond the man" with you. It appears you don't want to go there. Why? Fear of the unknown or the known?
Kindest Regards
What?
No Doubt,
I was under the impression that the topic under discussion was the historicity (sp?) of Jesus; hence my questions. In my last post I merely summarized the references for said topic - I didn't make any judgment about whether or not I found them compelling (I haven't even read them!) or not.
So I don't know where you're getting this 'you're not happy with this and that...' stuff from.
Why are you getting so defensive?
So,
Josephus and the Talmud - is there an online source you could recommend for to read these references? I wouldn't want to get it from an 'atheist site'.
Cheers,
Ex-Pat,
First of all, I would never judge you for spelling. I'm definately not an spelling or grammar expert.
In addition and honestly, I didn't know what else you wanted. It appeared to me that you were being silly so I was being silly back. If I'm wrong, I appologize.
As for Josephus and the Talmud, I have all volumes sitting on my shelf. However, the following are a synopsis of what can be found in Talmud, (treatise Shabbath, folio 104, treatise Sanhedrim, folio 107, and Sota, folio 47) It's not pretty but it is detailed.
3. "...the Toledot Yeshu relates with the most indecent details that Miriam,"
4. "a hairdresser of Bethlehem,affianced to a young man named Jochanan, was seduced by a libertine, Joseph Panther or Pandira, and gave birth to a son whom she named Johosuah or Jeschu. According to the Talmudic authors of the Sota and the Sanhedrim, Jeschu was taken during his boyhood to Egypt, where he was initiated into the secrets doctrines of the priests, and on his return to Palestine gave himself up to the practice of magic.
5. The Toledot Yeshu, however, goes on to say that on reaching manhood, Jeschu learnt the secret of his illegitimacy, on account of which he was driven out of the Synagogue and took refuge for a time in Galilee."
"Now, there was in the Temple a stone on which was engraved the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] or Schem Hamphorasch, that is to say, the Ineffable Name of God; this stone had been found by King David when the foundations of the Temple were being prepared and was deposited by him in the Holy of Holies. Jeschu, knowing this, came from Galilee and, penetrating into the Holy of Holies, read the Ineffable name, which he transcribed on to a piece of whom parchment and concealed in an incision under his skin. By this means he was able to work miracles and to persuade the people that he was the son of God foretold by Isaiah. With the aid of Judas, the Sages of the Synagogue, succeeding in capturing Jeschu, who was then lead before the Great and Little Sanhedrim, by whom he was condemned to be stoned to death and finally hanged." Such is the story of Christ according to the Jewish Kabbalists ..."
Please note that the Talmud uses Y'su in place of Y'shua. This is because Y'shua means savior and y'su means his name will be blotted out.
Have a Good Day
Nodoubt:
I dont mind argument, but I wasn't implying you had or hadnt read into platinga - it was just an analogy. I think the written word isnt too useful at expression, no malice intended.
"Belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God."
Plantinga indicates that belief in God is basic human nature and it is evil to deny it.
Platinga also fails to provide a legitimate ontology for God, so he claims that irrrational belief is a human attribute.
Now please don't get excited about the evil thing. Evil, in it's basic form, is opposition to G-d.
Evil is what Locke calls a secondary quality as opposed to an attribute. An example of a secondary quality is me saying its dark here. The actual attribute is a smaller amount of photons on our retinas as opposed to say "bright".
I tried to engage in honest and good conversation with you. However, you choose to be like Chris and others and engage immediately with insults and innuendo.
Innuendo perhaps, insults no just observations. It seems you've provided some food for thought from the Toldoth Yeshu, I'll write about it in my next post.
Honestly tyring to be your friend but your making it hard. G-d Bless.
I'm always open for a friendly conversation, but people will always get upset when you tell them they are irrational or that they will be tortured for eternity.
I don't think I'm particularly bad and I always try to be honest. If you need a non-bias opinion of me ask Brazen or AJ.
All the best
First and foremost the Toldot Yeshu is not part of the Talmud. I'm unsure how it snuck into your volumes.
Next the account you provided is a copy of texts widely circulated in the 9-10th centuries. The earliest recording was around th 4th century with it being more like the 6th - i.e. it is not contemporary.
I just realised my last bit dropped off, but essentially the point was that Josh McDowell, who Da Bomb referred to doesn't even classify this as a reputable resource for Christ, nor does Klauser who McDowell borrows from...
How many references does it take to be legitimate? Does it have to have an opposing side?
Technically the Bible has over 30 writers. The NT has Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, James and one unknown. Five of these people were direct witnesses of what happened. One had it told to and he wrote it down. One did an investigation. One had an experience on the opposing side and switched. And Hebrews has never really been completely assigned to anyone.
There are also other writings that have never been found just like "regular" historical writings.
If a person is mentioned once or a thousand times when do they become a legitimate figure? If it is the surrounding circumstances I have already provided some facts about how the Bible is accurate in that regards.
If it is opposition that creates legitimacy then I have already discussed Gnostics and their beliefs.
I reaaly don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. So what I am going to do is write a brief (ha-ha) "opinion" and post it. Then walk away. Always keeping my site open for you all if you want more opinions.
Vagon,
Just a clarification, we get upset too when you call us irrational, believers in myths and so forth. We know how you feel about religion but you seem to keep trying to emphasize the "myth". But I understand what you mean, it's not a great witnessing tool to tell someone they are going to burn in hell, especially if they don't believe in it. Hope I haven't done that.
I know you will all anxiously wait for my last post. :)
I am talking about Jesus in the Bible, not the Christ in the Bible. (Although they are one in the same)
Vagon,
"I wasn't implying you had or hadnt read into platinga - it was just an analogy."
Analogy lost on me, My bad. I missed it.
"I think the written word isnt too useful at expression, no malice intended."
I hear that. Remind to discuss an email incident with my wife at another time. How about we both start anew and agree that nothing we write will be taken as an insult or such without clarifying.
Point taken on the evil thing. Good comment. I agree with evil being, unfortunately, a basic human quality.
"I'm always open for a friendly conversation, but people will always get upset when you tell them they are irrational or that they will be tortured for eternity. "
I sorry if you felt like I implied that you were going to burn in hell. I don't recall writing that. I did write that there are two choices, to be with G-d or to be without G-d. Gods Word only describes what it will be like out of the presence of G-d. I honestly don't know if we have the capacity to fully understand that so I normally don't go there.
"First and foremost the Toldot Yeshu is not part of the Talmud. I'm unsure how it snuck into your volumes."
I guess there was a little misunderstanding here. I said,
"As for Josephus and the Talmud, I have all volumes sitting on my shelf. However, the following are a synopsis of what can be found in Talmud, (treatise Shabbath, folio 104, treatise Sanhedrim, folio 107, and Sota, folio 47) It's not pretty but it is detailed."
The specificic reference I gave was from the Babylonian Talmud, which was put together over many years from before the time of Y'shua to many years afterwards, only to be put together between the 3rd and 4th century.
What followed was a generalized synopsis of those passages. Yes, the synopsis was from the Toldot Yeshu. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
I hope we can continue with civil discussion, but I've got to go now. The Shabbath starts soon and we are going to worship and afterwards, my wife and I are taking my lovely grandaughter on her first campout.
Have a good day and I read your comments tomorrow night.
Thanks Goz and No Doubt.
Goz, its not simply the amount of references, its the quality of them. A good example is Arrian which I referred to earlier here and compare to Luke in AJ's latest post.
No doubt, I hope you can see why I don't feel a text that was written around even your estimate of the 3rd century is particularly useful.
Post a Comment