# The Historical Jesus.



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *whom, like Jesus, I doubt ever existed in the historical sense*



Not to start a tangent, but I don't think any serious historian doubts that there was a Jesus of Nazareth in the early first century who started a religious/philosophical movement usually termed "The Jesus Movement/Way" or something similar. There's independent confimation of this (e.g., in the works of Josephus).

I too wonder how Mr. Bussey came about his terrorism/security training.


----------



## Karasu Tengu

It is MHO that Christianity in its current form is designed to keep the ignorant, ignorant.  It is fear based.  Take a look at their programing on Sunday Morning television.  (Especially the "healings" ) Why else would they refer to themselves as sheep and flock.  Sheep are some of the dumbest creatures on the planet with the exception of those who believe in fraudulant martial arts teachers.  They wander around with their noses up each others asses and need a "shepard" to straighten them out and "guide" them.  If one were to walk over a cliff the others would blindly follow.  At least Buddhism allows the masses to think for themselves as they struggle for enlightenment.

One man's devine gifts are another mans Santanic manifistations.

I seem to recal a passage in the Bible about not seeking out mediums and psychics in order to gain knowledge of things to come.  But nothing pertaining to meditation and developing one's "awareness".

However I do know some Christians (of faith as opposed to those of religion) who have no problem with meditation, mikkyo, kuji-in etc.  They understand the reasons why it was/is practiced.

Josephus (Joseph of Aramathia?)  Didn't he live quite some time "after" the time of Jesus.  Actually there are accounts in Roman history as to his existance.  The History Channel did a very good (neutral) special as to his life (well that last part of it at least).


----------



## heretic888

> Not to start a tangent, but I don't think any serious historian doubts that there was a Jesus of Nazareth in the early first century who started a religious/philosophical movement usually termed "The Jesus Movement/Way" or something similar.



Actually, there are, but they don't usually receive media acknowledgement for the obvious reasons.  

And, also, even among those that do swear there was a historical 'Jesus' (even that name in its original form, Iesous, gives little credence to this claim) have absolutely _no_ historical documentation or proof to back this up. They basically are just running on a pet hypothesis of theirs (not a theory, which requires proof of some kind to back it up).

On the other hand, there are many many reasons to believe there was no historical Jesus, including the multitude of parallels between the Jesus story and various 'Pagan' myths, but let's not get into that now...  



> There's independent confimation of this (e.g., in the works of Josephus).



The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. And, even if we do assume Josephus wrote them (an unlikely probability), he was not even born until a decade after Jesus supposedly died and cites no historical facts or resources to give reason Jesus ever lived. It is also curious that Church fathers that would have benefitted in citing Josephus as a historical source to "prove" Jesus actually existed, such as Ireneaus living in the early 2nd century and was in constant debate with Pagan critics such as Celsus as to whether Christianity was derived from Paganism or not, completely fail to do so.

Outside of Josephus' flimsy references, there is no mention made of either Jesus or the Christian movement(s) until around 115 CE.



> Actually there are accounts in Roman history as to his existance.



Actually, no, there aren't. At least not until over 110 years after he was supposed to have lived. No historian living during "Jesus"'s own time ever mentions him, including Jewish contemporary Philo.



> The History Channel did a very good (neutral) special as to his life (well that last part of it at least).



Heh. I wouldn't take anything on a popular 'educational' tv channel as being a good source. After all, they are still passing that "the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were Essenes" bit around (it is generally agreed upon in contemporary scholarship the Essenes were not the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.. but Shh! don't tell the media that!).

Laterz.


----------



## Jay Bell

As much as people have the opportunity to get upset about this....heretic is right.  There are no historical non-Christian documentation of Jesus ever existing.  No court (Roman/Hebrew) or death records.

As far as Orthodox Judaism, he never existed.  Most Christian based references will lead you to believe that they thought him to exist, but that they just did not believe he was the Messiah.  This is not true.  No where in Hebrew or Roman texts (both of which are meticulous) is he ever mentioned.

Though I have a lot of respect for the History Channel (and the like), many of their programs are created by third parties and simply aired on the History Channel (Top 10 Martial Arts anyone?).  Recently they aired a program where genetics is proving that all humans traced back to one woman.  Of course, the Xtians grabbed that as being Eve and flew with it as some sort of proof to back the tellings of the bible.

Disclaimer:  I don't enjoy religious debates.  There is no end.  It's taking what people believe with their hearts against written, historical documentation.  Christianity is so intertwined into our basic society that it's near impossible to find credible resources of history of that age without having things lean towards Jesus or Christianity of some breed.


----------



## arnisador

Thread split from this thread.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## arnisador

I did mean Flavius Josephus, who was born shortly after Jesus is presumed to have died. I am aware that there are no other contemporary references and that Josephus was writing decades after the events in question. But it's unusual to question the reference to Jesus in the trial of his brother James. The other reference is known to have been redacted by the pious (though there is a version that came through the Arabs).

What is an approachable and reputable reference for the case that there was no historical Jesus? Certainly one can easily draw parallels between the Bible and earlier mythologies, and between the New Testament's teachings and earlier philosophies, but I am not familiar with the theory that Christianity doesn't trace to a single Jewish individual who lived in the early part of the first century who founded a charismatic movement centered around himself.


----------



## don bohrer

Guys, 
I would like you to read a relitively short book by Lee Strobel, called "The Case For Christ". 


don


----------



## Jay Bell

Thanks for the info, Don.  It looks quite interesting.  I looked it up on Amazon and it looks like Lee Strobel has written two books:

"The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus"

and

"The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity"

I might just have to order me some readin


----------



## MA-Caver

Like wise when you get reading those books suggested (above) then try out Og Mandino's Christ Commission. 

For the record... I'll stand behind and (yes) die for my belief in the Living Jesus Christ.


----------



## Mon Mon

I agree man thats awesome


----------



## Cruentus

To say that there arent historical references to Jesus is false. Here are some to add to your collection:

First, we have statements from non-Christian sources. These sources were from Pagan sources, and not the happy neo-pagan kind that exists today. Many of them just didnt understand the Hebrew religion because it contrasted there poly-theistic beliefs, so they met Christians with distrust. So these non-Christian sources might not be very Christian friendly, yet they do unwittingly point to the existence of  Christ. 
Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) states: the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. 
Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv). Despite all of this, it is estimated that he lived around this time period to give an account that Christians and Christ did indeed exist.
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church. 
Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere). 
The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, "Contra Cels", IV, 51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon ( Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Cels., passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion. 
Next.lets go to some of the Jewish sources:

Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, iv) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.

The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disappoves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ. Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation: 
About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ.) And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.
A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each. 
Those who regard the passage as spurious 
First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following: 
·	Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities; 
·	the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers; 
·	its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., II, vi) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.
But the spuriousness of the disputed Josephan passage does not imply the historian's ignorance of the facts connected with Jesus Christ. Josephus's report of his own juvenile precocity before the Jewish teachers (Vit., 2) reminds one of the story of Christ's stay in the Temple at the age of twelve; the description of his shipwreck on his journey to Rome (Vit., 3) recalls St. Paul's shipwreck as told in the Acts; finally his arbitrary introduction of a deceit practised by the priests of Isis on a Roman lady, after the chapter containing his supposed allusion to Jesus, shows a disposition to explain away the virgin birth of Jesus and to prepare the falsehoods embodied in the later Jewish writings. 
Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions 
A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two: 
·	Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated. 
·	Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; "Contra Cels.", I, 47).
Whatever force these two arguments have is lost by the fact that Josephus did not write for the Jews but for the Romans; consequently, when he says, "This was the Christ", he does not necessarily imply that Jesus was the Christ considered by the Romans as the founder of the Christian religion. 
Those who consider it to be completely genuine 
The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following: 
·	First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way. 
·	Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition. 
·	Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., I, i), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers. 
·	Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity. 
All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of posssible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.

The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit ("Acta Pilati" in Thilo, "Codex apocryph. N.T., I, 526; cf. Justin, "Apol.", I, 35), or even an adulterous, union of His parents (Origen, "Contra Cels.," I, 28, 32). The father's name is Panthera, a common soldier (Gemara "Sanhedrin", viii; "Schabbath", xii, cf. Eisenmenger, "Entdecktes Judenthum", I, 109; Schottgen, "Horae Hebraicae", II, 696; Buxtorf, "Lex. Chald.", Basle, 1639, 1459, Huldreich, "Sepher toledhoth yeshua hannaceri", Leyden, 1705). The last work in its final edition did not appear before the thirteenth century, so that it could give the Panthera myth in its most advanced form. Rosch is of opinion that the myth did not begin before the end of the first century. 
The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents (Wagenseil, "Confut. Libr.Toldoth", 15; Eisenmenger op. cit., I, 116; Schottgen, op. cit., II, 667), with the flight into Egypt (cf. Josephus, "Ant." XIII, xiii), with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve (Schottgen, op. cit., II, 696), with the call of the disciples ("Sanhedrin", 43a; Wagenseil, op. cit., 17; Schottgen, loc. cit., 713), with His miracles (Origen, "Contra Cels", II, 48; Wagenseil, op. cit., 150; Gemara "Sanhedrin" fol. 17); "Schabbath", fol. 104b; Wagenseil, op.cit., 6, 7, 17), with His claim to be God (Origen, "Contra Cels.", I, 28; cf. Eisenmenger, op. cit., I, 152; Schottgen, loc. cit., 699) with His betrayal by Judas and His death (Origen, "Contra cels.", II, 9, 45, 68, 70; Buxtorf, op. cit., 1458; Lightfoot, "Hor. Heb.", 458, 490, 498; Eisenmenger, loc. cit., 185; Schottgen, loc. cit.,699 700; cf."Sanhedrin", vi, vii). Celsus (Origen, "Contra Cels.", II, 55) tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth (cf. Wagenseil, 19) repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulchre. 
Among the Christian sources of the life of Jesus we need hardly mention the so called Agrapha and Apocrypha. For whether the Agrapha contain Logia of Jesus, or refer to incidents in His life, they are either highly uncertain or present only variations of the Gospel story. The chief value of the Apocrypha consists in their showing the infinite superiority of the Inspired Writings by contrasting the coarse and erroneous productions of the human mind with the simple and sublime truths written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 
Among the Sacred Books of the New Testament, it is especially the four Gospels and the four great Epistles of St. Paul that are of the highest importance for the construction of the life of Jesus. 
The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic dscent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; First Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.). However important the four great Epistles may be, the gospels are still more so. Not that any one of them offers a complete biography of Jesus, but they account for the origin of Christianity by the life of its Founder. Questions like the authenticity of the Gospels, the relation between the Synoptic Gospels, and the Fourth, the Synoptic problem, must be studied in the articles referring to these respective subjects. 
Hmmm.No writings to support the existence of Christ, eh? Next youll all try telling me that the Holocost never happened.

*Conclusion:*
I think a major problem is that Critics and Christians alike forget also that the Bible is not just one book. It is a compelation of writtings. Some of these are ment to be historical references, like the Gospels. Some are just letter to the different churches, like Pauls letters. Some are legendary truths to be taken figuratively, with many different levels of meaning, like the creation story. Some are ment almost strictly for record keeping, like numbers. To require evidence outside The Bible (because you see the bible as only one book) is retarded. Count how many books you have in the new testement, and thats how many references you have to Christ and Christians. Then start counting the references outside. Youll find plenty.

Another thing that people forget is how Jesus and the Apostles lived their lives. They were wandering nomads, teaching their beliefs and living off the land. They didnt carry a pen and notepad with them. They didnt use a Bible like we do today. They wandered and taught concepts that were unheard of at the time. It wasnt til much later when different followers saw the importance of writing some of these accounts down that the Gospels were created to be a historical account. Jesus didnt have a Biographer because that was really not the way things were taught back then, by that group. Many Hebrews were still tribal in nature, and Oral tradition was of great importance, as well as the Torah, and other written laws. Plus, the Romans had such a vast kingdom that writings and records were not kept well in the outer lands of Rome, including Jerusulam. Anyways, I could go on and on with valid points here, but the fact is that asking for more written records is almost absurd given the circumstance. We have enough to at least point to the existence of a Christ around 2000 yrs ago, regardless of what your beliefs as to what this Christ was.

And for my final point; just because many of you may feel that writings are scarce, that doesnt make the existence of Jesus, the acts of Jesus, or the Religion invalid. To think so is one of the biggest fallacies of them all. If you dont want to be Christian, fine, but argue it in some other way rather then through illogical assumptions. There are many historical findings out there that people will believe and not question with very little written records at all. Go through all the major religions and even some of the minor ones, and you wont find any better evidence supporting them. Where is Buddas Autobiography? Ohhe didnt have one so he must have never existed, right? OhTaoism only has 1 text written by one guy, so it must not be true either. Druids never existed either because there is very few written accounts of them. Native American Shamans and religions didnt exist either because where are there written accounts? Even if there are some, I need to see more proof then just some, dont I ????????????? Do you see where this gets us? No where. Yet as stupid as these arguments are, people use them to attempt to invalidate Christianity all the time. Now, are there Historians who through an attempt to either make a name for themselves, or just to appease their need to feel superior then their collegues, who maintain that Christ never existed? Sure.but their proofs are extremely flawed, and these historians have yet to prove themselves to the academic community.

Bottom line: I am going to use Tom Browns Tracking school as a secular example to my final point. Tom Brown (a favorete of mine) is noted as the greatest Tracker and wilderness survivalist in North America, and possibly the world. What is his source; his serogot native American Grandfather who was supposedly taught the ways of an Apache scout and Shaman by his people. He passed these ways to Mr. Brown. Sowhere is our written record of this while he was alive? How do we know, other then Tom Browns word, that this isnt all a bunch of Balognie? We have nothing, no written documents. So, we could say that it is all crap if we wanted to. But the fact is, Tom Brown and his students have proven time and time again their abilities to survive and track in the wilderness to Military, FBI, and through many other credible sources who have NEEDED their skills. So what is the point; we have no proof of the orgins of these techniques in writing, but the fact isIT WORKS!! The methods and philosophy behind the methods work. Christianity can be argued by protagonists and antagonists all day long. But the fact is, if applied correctly, (and not used as a ruse for men in power to control, start wars, etc.) Christianity works! Butif you cant make it work for you then it is your loss, in my opinion. However, dont make ludicrous claims with no supporting evidence to try to drag down the rest of the world with you!

Thank you for putting up with me...

I go home now...


PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *Thanks for the info, Don.  It looks quite interesting.  I looked it up on Amazon and it looks like Lee Strobel has written two books:
> 
> "The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus"
> 
> and
> 
> "The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity"
> 
> I might just have to order me some readin  *



Me too...is it "Pro" or "con" on Christs existance. I'd read it either way, but I am just curious.


----------



## arnisador

Are any of those sources contemporaries of Jesus? I believe that every one of the sources that references Jesus himself directly is after the time at which he is assumed to have died (circa 30 CE).

I believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who founded, or about whom there was founded, a religion. But, I acknowledge the sources problem.


----------



## r erman

There is no doubt that Josephus wrote about Jesus.  What is called into question are the later additions added to his antiquities when being "translated" by christian scribes.

Josephus' description was decidedly neutral overall, if not somewhat critical.  Because of this the additions added to elevate Jesus are pretty obvious.

Anyone with an interest in the historical jesus from a scholarly point of view, ought to check in to any of John Dominic Crossan's numerous works.

It's very easy to visualize a jewish peasant wisdom teacher, influenced heavily by essenic spritual teachings by way of John the Baptist, and greek Cynicism(look it up ), teaching his kingdom movment of egalitarian healing and commensality--the myths, legends, and divine powers of Jesus were largely added in after the Council of Nicea decided exactly what Jesus Christ's role would be in their new and improved Roman religion.  It had little to do with the judaic sect of the same name...


----------



## rmcrobertson

It seems pretty clear that this guy existed. Problem is, his historical and material existence settles nothing--the point, for Christians, is that this man was the Son of God, the Word Made Flesh. 

And no amount of research is going to settle that one.

Nor does the Bible help, being a pretty shaky text itself...might look up the obvious reference, the so-called Jesus Project folks...


----------



## don bohrer

Paul,
Very well put. Your not a lawyer by chance?  

As Jay Bell mentioned there are two books written by Lee Strobel. Both are pro Christ, and well done.  

The Case for Christ is the one I would start first. I will let someone borrow my copy to read quickly and when finished pass it on to another interested person. Just email me your address. I will mail it during my lunch.

don


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Are any of those sources contemporaries of Jesus? I believe that every one of the sources that references Jesus himself directly is after the time at which he is assumed to have died (circa 30 CE).
> 
> I believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who founded, or about whom there was founded, a religion. But, I acknowledge the sources problem. *



I achknowledge the problem with these sources as well. Basically we don't have a Biographer who followed around Jesus and wrote down these accounts while he was alive. This is unfortunate, but this is also the case with many accepted historical happenings that people are more ready to accept.

Now, A Christian would explain this as perhaps there wasn't any biographical writings by design. Now, people are required to have a much higher degree of faith to believe the Jesus story; as opposed to having it easily handed to them, they are now required to dig deep within themselves to decide if the religion is true for them or not.

However, from a historical perspective, there are logical reasons why most of Jesus' contemporaries didn't write things down. 

- His followers were told to take up their Robe and walking stick to go out and spread the "word," and follow Jesus. They were not asked to take up a pen and scroll.
- It was more of a commonplace to teach by an Oral tradition rather then writting things down in those days and with that group.
- Christians were persecuted greatly in the beginning by both Jews, Pagans, and the Roman Government. So, desciples were on the run constantly, from town to town. Out of the original apostles, when they finally decided to "settle" for a time, they were killed. John escaped a grissly death, but yet still died in exile. My point is, under these circumstances it was very difficult to "publish" or write down anything.
-Another problem that occurs is, if they were to keep writtings while on the run, where would they put them? How would they stop these writings from being destroyed by their captors? So, given the circumstances, we can possibly theorize that Jesus contemporaries could have actually had more written records that could have been destroyed. I don't think that anyone will argue that the powers that be often try to "rewrite history," because this occurs today. So we can assume that because Christianity was the underdog of the time period, that it would have been difficult to have preserved any kind of written documentation.

I included in my post non-biblical sources because that was what was asked for, and under question. Even though the arguement "you won't find any historical references outside the bible" as a means to invalidate Christianity is flawed because "The Bible" isn't one text, the arguement is outright false anyways, because there are plenty of references to Jesus, Christianity, and Christians outside of the Biblical texts.

* But if one recognizes that the Bible isn't just one text, then one will be able to find the very few writtings by contemporaries of Jesus.* It's a short list, but they are there. The epistle of Peter are letters from Peter, contemporary and apostle of Jesus, written after Jesus' crusifixion, while Peter was trying to establish the Christian Religion in Rome. This could be considered a primary source. Outside of the fact that the author of the epistle addresses himself as the apostle Peter, Paul (who did not have the benefit of meeting Jesus while he was walking on earth) validates this "Peter" by referencing him in his letters. We also have the letters of James, Jude (although he wasn't "one of the 12", he references himself as "The brother of James" and is assumed historically to be a contemprary who would have actually witnessed Jesus), and John. These are 4 authors who we can attribute to being contempraries of Jesus, and their letters, along with Paul's, are the earliest writings we have. They Pre-date the Gospels and Acts. 

So, I maintain that sources exist, and by comparison to many other occurances in history, these sources are plentiful enough. I also maintain, then, that we have to assume that "Someone" named Jesus claimed to be the messiah, which started Christianity. Whether you are Christian or not, it violates good sense to not at least acknowledge this much.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by don bohrer _
> *Paul,
> Very well put. Your not a lawyer by chance?
> 
> As Jay Bell mentioned there are two books written by Lee Strobel. Both are pro Christ, and well done.
> 
> The Case for Christ is the one I would start first. I will let someone borrow my copy to read quickly and when finished pass it on to another interested person. Just email me your address. I will mail it during my lunch.
> 
> don *



No, but I am still thinking about becoming one!  I Run a wealth management Group right now.

I'll P.M. you my address. I would be happy to read the book, and send it either back to you, or to another interested person. I'll P.M. you my address. I appreciate the offer.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by r erman _
> *It's very easy to visualize a jewish peasant wisdom teacher, influenced heavily by essenic spritual teachings by way of John the Baptist, and greek Cynicism(look it up ), teaching his kingdom movment of egalitarian healing and commensality--the myths, legends, and divine powers of Jesus were largely added in after the Council of Nicea decided exactly what Jesus Christ's role would be in their new and improved Roman religion.  It had little to do with the judaic sect of the same name... *



I have to correct you here. The first council of Nicea was in 325. The Gospels and the Letters predate this council by a few hundred years. Yet, these texts speak of the "divine Powers" of Jesus, and of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God long before this council, to the tune of a few hundred years.

Although I will agree with you that the Roman Government used Christianity to their advantage (as we do today, and as many Governments in the past have done), I think that to say that Christ's divinity was fabricated 300 or so years later is false given the evidence. I am sure this theory is something you have read or heard somewhere, but the evidence just doesn't support it.


----------



## arnisador

From a literary point of view, one can go further--a good case can be made for seeing (near-)contemporary writings within the synoptic gospels, even though they were not written until around 70CE-110CE. I'm talking about the Q gospel. I liked this book on it:
The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *From a literary point of view, one can go further--a good case can be made for seeing (near-)contemporary writings within the synoptic gospels, even though they were not written until around 70CE-110CE. I'm talking about the Q gospel. I liked this book on it:
> The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack *



The Gospel of Q is also a good source to look into, but it is hard to find stuff on it. I'll have to check out your book.


----------



## Jay Bell

Paul,

Excellent information.  I'd like to comment on a few points you've made.



> Bottom line: I am going to use Tom Browns Tracking school as a secular example to my final point. Tom Brown (a favorete of mine) is noted as the greatest Tracker and wilderness survivalist in North America, and possibly the world. What is his source; his serogot native American Grandfather who was supposedly taught the ways of an Apache scout and Shaman by his people. He passed these ways to Mr. Brown. Sowhere is our written record of this while he was alive? How do we know, other then Tom Browns word, that this isnt all a bunch of Balognie? We have nothing, no written documents. So, we could say that it is all crap if we wanted to. But the fact is, Tom Brown and his students have proven time and time again their abilities to survive and track in the wilderness to Military, FBI, and through many other credible sources who have NEEDED their skills. So what is the point; we have no proof of the orgins of these techniques in writing, but the fact isIT WORKS!! The methods and philosophy behind the methods work. Christianity can be argued by protagonists and antagonists all day long. But the fact is, if applied correctly, (and not used as a ruse for men in power to control, start wars, etc.) Christianity works! Butif you cant make it work for you then it is your loss, in my opinion.



This isn't about Tom Brown.  However...many feel that his Native American Grandfather stories are rather hokey....even still, the man has exceptional skills.  Tom Brown is alive now.  His Grandfather was a generation above.

What we are speaking of is someone that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago.  This is not based on, "So-and-so once wrote of someone who once knew his uncle' friend who once shared a beer with Christ".  That isn't evidence.  

The written documentation that most focus on regarding Jesus is the Bible.  Written across the span of how many hundreds of years and through how many voices?  

So let me clarify my original post.  Looking back, I was pretty vague in defining what I'd meant.

In the Christian community, there cannot, without a shadow of doubt prove that Jesus existed, beyond faith.  This isn't about the Christian faith, when it was created, by whom or why.  This is concerning the man that is considered the focal point of the Christian religions.  



> However, dont make ludicrous claims with no supporting evidence to try to drag down the rest of the world with you!



Why does this card get played so often?   I'm not trying to drag anyone down "with me".  I'd have to be down for that to happen.  I think it's silly whenever someone attempts to have such a conversation that the Xtian Card is as though non-believers are heathens and are just ignorant to the reality of it all.  Don't be smug about this.  If anything I'm explaining that belief and faith don't always equate to fact.  

Am I anti-Christian?  No...not really.  As you said, if Christianity is used in a positive light, I've seen it help many people in life, especially during hardships.  Unfortunately, in my personal experiances, this is a rarity.  On the other side, it leads to segregation, un-educated and ill-filled hate amoung other things.

Asking people to "prove it" isn't such a bad thing.  It's not a challenge...it's not a claim that Christians are ignorant, weak-minded people with no direction.  It's simply a request for someone to back up their claims.

You mentioned how Christian evidence seems to be more potent then other followings.  What belief system are the masses of western society based on?

Hrm.


----------



## OULobo

Okay, I'm going to throw something out there and see how it lands; First off, you guys are much more informed in ancient history than I am and so please take my statments as from a neophyte at best; Second I am a practicing Catholic but my belief is much more faith based, that being said, I pride myself on my ability to remove my religious bias from arguement and discussion. I don't believe in or have much taste for evangalism.

Now to my point. It may be better to look at things in a realistic fashion as much as a scholastic fashion, much like it is important to know the context of a statment as much as the actual statment. I would imagine that the society we are talking about, Roman ruled Hebrew culture, was probably pretty rife with cults and "prophets". I would imagine that the general population were pretty sceptical about preachers, and saw Jesus and his students as cooks or extremists, disregarding his words and followers until they began to make a bigger impression by gaining a larger following. The timing of the rise of this group would most likely be the same as when christianity started to appear in the records of history, the first fifty to one hundred years after the death of Christ. I would then say that these records are by "contemporaries" of Christ or at least Christianity.


----------



## arnisador

I think the distinction between contemporaries of Jesus and contemporaries of early Christianity is a good one.

We know a lot about ancient cultures. There's no reason this issue can't be addressed historically. Yes, there are many explanations for the lack of records--but it'd be nice to have some!


----------



## Cryozombie

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *
> Yes, there are many explanations for the lack of records--but it'd be nice to have some! *



Just my two cents but...

Having them isnt proof of anything either.

We have "Written" documentation and witnesses to Back Scientology.

The Same goes for Joseph Smith finding the Magic Glasses that only he could use... Witnesses and Written Records...

The Hailbop Comet suicide group... 

Lots of Written Records and Witnesses every day for nutcases all over the world... But it doesnt prove that they are true either.

ALMOST EVERYTHING WE BELIEVE has to be taken on faith at some point...


----------



## MA-Caver

Paul wrote: <snip> 
I achknowledge the problem with these sources as well. Basically we don't have a Biographer who followed around Jesus and wrote down these accounts while he was alive. This is unfortunate, but this is also the case with many accepted historical happenings that people are more ready to accept.

Ah but there was. The book of Matthew is probably the most detailed of the four gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke & John). Argumentors would also say that all four aforementioned gospels are a biography. 

<snip> Now, A Christian would explain this as perhaps there wasn't any biographical writings by design. Now, people are required to have a much higher degree of faith to believe the Jesus story; as opposed to having it easily handed to them, they are now required to dig deep within themselves to decide if the religion is true for them or not.

And that is the basis of the whole concept of ANY religion. Faith, and the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in what you read/hear. The news comes to us daily by the media... and we 
_believe it?_ 

OULobo wrote: <snip> Roman ruled Hebrew culture...

Anyone heard of the phrase: "History is written by the winners..."? (or something like that).  Jesus was an embarassment to the Romans which ruled Judea at the time. Likewise they "cut the head off the snake" but the body still lived and flourished right in their home town (Rome). Is it any wonder that the (Roman) historians might've purposefully omitted any facts about Jesus' existence? 

The jesuits that translated the scrolls held by the church for King James I'm sure omitted many useful details that would've helped later historians verify the existence. They were going on the faith-based assumption that there can be no question thus why add it in? 
Too pat and too simplistic of an explaination but History records and shows time and time again how facts can and have been altered to suit the narrative.


----------



## r erman

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I have to correct you here. The first council of Nicea was in 325. The Gospels and the Letters predate this council by a few hundred years. Yet, these texts speak of the "divine Powers" of Jesus, and of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God long before this council, to the tune of a few hundred years.
> 
> Although I will agree with you that the Roman Government used Christianity to their advantage (as we do today, and as many Governments in the past have done), I think that to say that Christ's divinity was fabricated 300 or so years later is false given the evidence. I am sure this theory is something you have read or heard somewhere, but the evidence just doesn't support it. *



A theory I read somewhere?  Sheesh.  I wasn't very specific in my _brief_ post as I felt enough long-winded diatribe had already been contributed.  But, alas...

My reference to the history and powers attributed to Jesus coming about b/c of Nicea is specifically in regards to the historical persona of Jesus being melded with Mithras and Aestoras(sp?), primarily to make the new roman religion more familiar to the pagans/peasants/commoners/military(i.e. the same rituals and symbols, albeit with different names).

Of course, some of the original text of the gospels were compiled before Nicea(I think Mark is believed to have been compiled around 70 c.e.), but a surprising number of them are probably closer to the time of the Council of Nicea than the time of Jesus--or at least equidistant(I can give the dates if you'd like ).  I will say though, if you have read any of the fragmentary Infancy gospels you will see all manner of ridiculous powers attributed to Christ, not all good, btw.  However, unless the divine connection you are referencing is along the lines of Isis/Osiris symbolism between Jesus and Mary Magdeline and the possible connection to traditions based around egyptian mystery schools, the overall emphasis of the gospels was not Jesus' supernatural powers.  Look into the reconstrusted 'Q'(Quelle), or the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Egerton Gospel, The Gospel of Mary...etc.  Things like Jesus' self-reference as 'Son of Man' have been so misconstrued it's laughable(akin to Mary's purity of spirit being mistranslated as meaning a vigrin conception).  What is most interesting is that the older 'copies' of many of the gospels don't always contain the same information as 'newer' texts used commonly for translation(many of the nag hammadi scrolls come to mind).

As a matter of fact, many of the miracles you may be refering to are _most probably_ symbolic and figuritive in nature.  For example, how many stories of cured leprosy are in the Gospels?  Yet, the greek word Lepra(the term used in the Gospels) is not leprosy(that was called elephas), but a term(also called sara'at) descirbing skin conditions such as eczema and psoriasis.  These skin disorders had a huge stigma attached to them, and the shame attached to these conditions was quite literally refered to as illness. 

Medical anthropology and comparitive ethnomedicine have found a distinct demarcation between curing a disease and 'healing' an illness in ancient cultures.  His healing of the lepers was a rejection of society's standard between clean and unclean, acceptance and social ostracization.  Jesus' Kingdom movement and message of empowerment based on egalitarianism and manifested thru communal healing and eating was a radical social program that subverted the established boundries of society, there was little of it dealing with the supernatural.

If I had the time(which I don't) or the inclination(not currently) there is even more myriad symoblism in the exorcism of demons, or the resuscitation of Lazarus(bringing life out of death) that could be extrapolated as social processes being incarnated as events.

Contrary to what you say, there is more than ample evidence to 'backup' my theory(and probably 20 more), just because I didn't footnote my post doesn't mean it isn't there


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by MACaver _
> *Ah but there was. The book of Matthew is probably the most detailed of the four gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke & John). Argumentors would also say that all four aforementioned gospels are a biography.  *



All authorities, secular and nonsecular, agree that the four synoptic gospels were written roughly from 70-110 CE. They are not contemporary accounts, thoiugh they are biographies. As *PAUL* mentioned, these did not come from biographer(s) who knew Jesus.

They are also not believed to be independent accounts. Some of them drew from others, for example, and one theory posits a pair of books--a biography and a book of sayings/teaching (Q)--that were the sources but are now lost. Those might have been contemporary accounts.


----------



## heretic888

> I did mean Flavius Josephus, who was born shortly after Jesus is presumed to have died. I am aware that there are no other contemporary references and that Josephus was writing decades after the events in question. But it's unusual to question the reference to Jesus in the trial of his brother James. The other reference is known to have been redacted by the pious (though there is a version that came through the Arabs).



It's simple. Josephus was born about a decade after Jesus was supposed to have died. Josephus cites no records or sources for any of his claims about 'Jesus'. In this regard, he is a secondary source.... at best.

And, no, it is only unusual to question the reference to James because media coverage of this subject has made it out to be unusual. If you do some research as to when these 'James reference' was cited by others, we trace the first reference to Origen in the 3rd century. That seems a very LONG time (200 year gap) for no Christian apologetic to ever quote such a damning point against Pagan claims that Christianity was invented (a rather common argument against at the time, actually). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (among others) are all curiously ignorant of Josephus in their debates against Pagan critics.

In addition, even when Origen does quote Josephus....  _the 'James quotation' he uses is actually different than the one we have now!!_ Granted, they are similar in message.... but the actual content of the text is decidedly different than the 'James reference' now bandied about. This seems to indicate Christian interpolators have simply been forging such things as this for a long, long time.

Also, it is curious that Philo Judeaus is silent on Jesus. Very curious indeed, considering the first couple of verses from the Gospel of John were basically plagiarisms of his work.



> but I am not familiar with the theory that Christianity doesn't trace to a single Jewish individual who lived in the early part of the first century who founded a charismatic movement centered around himself.



Well... then perhaps you should investigate some more readings.  

An equally possible, and much more plausible, theory is that Christianity grew from the teachings of the Therapeutae of Alexandria, Egypt.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Well... then perhaps you should investigate some more readings. *



I'm interested. Can you suggest a starting point for my research? Ideally something I might be able to find at a Borders or B&N for now.


----------



## heretic888

> I'm interested. Can you suggest a starting point for my research? Ideally something I might be able to find at a Borders or B&N for now.



Hmmm..... there are quite a few actually. As something of a media ploy, however, major booksellers usually put the 'Jesus was a myth' books in conspiracy or New Age sections rather than in the comparative religion sections.

"The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' A Pagan God?" by Tim Freke and Pete Gandy is good. I have a somewhat old book called "Pagan Christs" by a J.M. Robinson. An interesting read is "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Acharya S. "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" by Kersy Graves. "The Jesus Myth" by G. A. Wells is one of the most well-known books of these types. I would also recommend many of the writings by Sir Wallis Budge and Albert Churchward.

A really good take on the Jesus Myth theory is found online: http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/

Now, mind you, I'm not saying I'm agreeing with all (or even most) of the claims of these various authors, but it is there nonetheless.


----------



## rmcrobertson

I recommend two oldies: Frazier's chapter, "Dying and Reviving Gods," in "The  Golden Bough;" Freud, "The Future of An Illusion." And three newies: Frank Kermode, "The genesis of secrecy," on Biblical interpretation; Mieke Bal's feminist interpretations of the Bible.

And for fun, Philip K. Dick, "Valis."


----------



## Cruentus

Here is a parablecall it The parable of PAUL of MT cause I just made it up on the spot. You guys can take it to mean anything you like, because thats what youre going to do regardless, but I am trying to illustrate a point or two. It doesnt all fit together, but hopefully youll see my point. Many of you will miss the point regardless of what way, shape, or form I illustrate it, but I am hoping that at least one of you will get it:

Little Caesars

There once was a man whos name was Caesar. He was very small in stature, so people called him little, hence his nickname Little Caesar.

Caesar was a carpenter, blue-collar, who loved to cook, and experiment with different kinds of food. One day in one of his many experiments, he decided to take some dough and flatten it out. He then took a sauce from crushed tomatoes and put it on the flattened dough. He then sprinkled cheese on the dough, and put it in his wood-burning oven to cook. When the cheese was melted he took it out and tasted his new creation. This had never been done before. He tasted, and he decided that it was good!

From that day forth, Little Caesar loved his new creation, and experimented with it. He would put all different kinds of meats and cheeses on it. He even tried vegetables and fruit. Sometimes he wouldnt even use tomato sauce, or cheese. It didnt matter what he did or how he did it, just as long as the basic premises of his creation was in tact, and so long as it was good. He decided to give it a name, so he called it Pizza. He loved it so much, that he decided to go on tour with his wonderful creation.

So he toured the countryside doing live cooking shows with his Pizza. Along the way he picked up a bunch of followers who were very busy trying to learn how to make Pizza as wonderfully as little Caesar, and who admired and loved Caesar for all his works. 

Everyone was having a great time, except some of the other traditional pasta chefs. The traditional pasta Chefs spend years and cooking school, and only believed you should cook pasta, and only in specific ways. In fact, the ways to cook pasta are so specific that you should only go to the traditional pasta chefs restaurants and give them a large portion of your $$, so they can cook the pasta for you. In fact, if you were to try to cook it yourself without the years of schooling and dedication, the people of the land would be so appalled that they would stone you to death. Now, there is this carefree Little Caesar guy cooking pizza everywhere. He cooks it for anyone and everyone who wants a taste, and he uses many different ingredients. As long as the basic premise of the pizza remains in tact, people have such freedom to eat what they want with this pizza. And even worsehe showed people how to cook Pizza for themselves! Hell show anyone, even tax collectors and prostitutes! We cannot have this, some blue-collar guy with no culinary schooling taking $$ out from our pockets! The people love him too much for us to be able to have him stoned. Solets go tell the queen!

So, the traditional Pasta Chefs went out and told queen Martha Stuart at K-Mart Palace what this little Caesar Guy had been up to. Queen Stuart did not care who did what really, just as long as people followed her blindly and gave her $$, and didnt question here methods or insider trading violations. When she heard of this, she got worried. The Traditional Chefs paid taxes, gave her $$ from the people, and never questioned her authority. The people thought that she knew the most out of anyone in terms of cooking and housekeeping. That was because the people relied on her K-mart stores and government for necessities, and the Traditional Chefs for pasta; so they feared to much to question authority. This Little Caesar character is having the people cook for themselves, provide for themselves, and think for themselves. Because of this, they are no longer afraid. Since fear is a necessity to run K-mart land, Queen Stuart decided that Little Caesar must be put to death!

So, they hoax one of Caesars 12 pizza chef students to rat him out. Then, they crucify little Caesar. And they tell everyone that whoever is caught making Pizzas could be put to death. You might be forced to acknowledge queen Martha as the ultimate authority, allowing you to escape alive after being tortured some (by being forced to watch the queens show), but chances are, youll be put to death!

This naturally scared the crap out of Ceases followers. They all hid up in a building, and tried to figure out what the hell they were to do. Plus, this happened so suddenly. Little Caesar was only 33 years old. They all figured he would live much longer. It seemed that Caesar knew all along about this, but he didnt inform his students til about a day or so ahead of time that Queen Martha was comin after him. With all their traveling and cooking seminars, they hadnt had the time to write down all of Ceases Recipes, or anything about Ceases life for that matter! How could we have overlooked this? they thought. So many unanswered questions

So, they decided that there was no stopping Martha and her tyranny and insider trading violations. She is untouchable, and they are doomed to die. So, they figured, through divine inspiration, that they would all go off and teach cooking seminars themselves. They might not be as good as Little Caesar, and they might not know all the recipes, but they each had the same basic Premise and truths that made Pizza what it is. They also figured that they hadnt taken the time to write down anything yet, so they had better not stop to do this now. If they stop to write, they will be killed before they get half way through, and the records will be destroyed anyways by Martha and the gang. So they all split up and went in different directions, teaching cooking seminars on making pizza. Each one was a little different then the other, but the basic Premise of Pizza was taught. Andit was good!

They all eventually were killed, except Hungary Howey who was banished to Sicily. They all wrote a bunch of stuff, but much of it was destroyed. Some letters that they had wrote in their travels are the only remnants left. Later on, some of the students of the 12 original pizza cooks wrote stories on Little Caesers life based off what they were taught, and some very few writings that were available. These students succeeded in the long run though; their cooking seminars have spread the good ways of enjoying pizza to thousands. It could not stop now, because Pizza is so good and so yummy, so more and more people were discovering how to enjoy it every day. The momentum would continue until this day.

Now, while the original 11 Ceasians (one of the 12 sold Caesar out and committed suicide, if you remember), as they were called, other things were occurring. The people at K-Mart and the headquarters were doing everything to try to erase the history of Caesar and his Pizza creation. They tried to get rid of records, burn records if they found them, or change records all together. Theyre were also people who were Traditional Pastaians who still followed the pasta chefs who were writing many false things about Caesar because they did not understand how to make pizza. You also had people who were neither Pastians or Ceasians, who didnt understand either culinary school. They would often write things that made absolutely no sense, or werent true. You also had other schools of Pizza sprouting about everywhere. Pizza Paul tried to fight against this by writing many letters on recipes, cooking temperatures, etc. You see, all though there are many ways to make a pizza, there are certain foundations that must be there, or else it wont be pizza. Some culinary schools tried to make pizza without the dough, for instance, which is impossible. Some would make pizza with weird stuff on it, like donkey dung instead of tomato sauce, which is gross. Pizza is supposed to be good, not gross! Pizza Paul would write letters to these schools to try to steer them in the right direction.

Well, as things always do, the Pizza culture, and Ceasianity grew, and peoples perceptions of good Pizza has drastically changed. Many of the writings on Little Caeser and Caeseanity were compiled into a great cook book. Some people forget that these are a compilation of recipes and stories from different authors and eras, forgetting what the whole point of Little Caesars Pizza was in the first place, and interpreting things beyond how these recipes were supposed to be interpreted. Some people insist that you can only make pizza with pepperoni. Others insist on using sausage. Some are adamantly against sticking your dough in the oven before marriage, and some are against two ovens or two doughs banging together. Some dont even know about Ceaseanity, and they are looking to stick doughs in ovens every chance they get, regardless of who gets burned. Some only eat, make, and talk about pizza on Sundays. Others everyday. Some hold up signs on street corners like, Pizza Saves! and they bombard people with zealous cooking ideas, turning them off. Many have used Ceasianity in the name of evil, saying that Pizza making is the only way, and if you dont eat pizza you should be killed off. Caesar never said you couldnt try pasta or Ice Cream, he only promoted the greatness of Pizza, and he just didnt want his people to eat something that would harm them, or stop them from enjoying pizza. 

It is very sad because the simple and wonderful teachings of Little Caesar are today confused and confounded 2000 years later. It seems that many people dont think logically anymore, and dont realize simply that pizza is good, and should be shared with friends. They try to reason everything out with false logic, and information based on false histories. In fact, there are many educated culinary specialists who write about Pizza and Little Caesar in such ridicules ways, only to make a name for themselves. And of course, people now a days, 2000 years later, are so skeptical of every little thing that they cant separate what is true from what is false anymore! And many are so busy trying to be smarter and more special then the other people in the resteraunts, that they cant just sit back and enjoy their own pizza! Some of these pizza history specialists have even conjected, despite all the evidence, that Little Caesar never even existed at all! As if the early Ceasians just made up some story because they LIKED to run from the government, and to eventually be tortured and murdered for their beliefs! Ridicules, I know, but also true. It is ridicules how human beings continue to fabricate reality instead of simply looking at the facts that are available to come up with logical solutions. It seems that the more we think we are progressing, the more we are actually digressing in our taste buds. Soon, it seems, our society wont be able to taste the difference between Pizza and pork rinds!

What to do? Well, I dont have all the answers, nor do I profess too. I can do very little about the idiocy of mankind. So, I guess Ill just sit back and enjoy my pizza, and offer pizza to whoever wants a taste, and talk about Little Ceaser to whoever will listen.


----------



## Andi

Absolute genius!!!  :rofl:  Great story! 



> Queen Stuart did not care who did what really, just as long as people followed her blindly and gave her $$, and didnt question here methods or insider trading violations.





> They all eventually were killed, except Hungary Howey who was banished to Sicily.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 

That made my day. Thanks!


----------



## heretic888

> Now, while the original 11 Ceasians (one of the 12 sold Caesar out and committed suicide, if you remember), as they were called, other things were occurring. The people at K-Mart and the headquarters were doing everything to try to erase the history of Caesar and his Pizza creation. They tried to get rid of records, burn records if they found them, or change records all together.



Very amusing story.... but this part is the major flaw of your analogy.

There is not even a hint of any empirical or historical evidence to back up that there was ever any campaign to destroy the evidence that Jesus had ever lived. It remains little more than a fanciful conspiracy hypothesis (not a theory, which requires concrete proof of some kind to back it up) in the minds of a few modern desparates.

Ironically enough, however, the only major 'book-burning' known to the Greco-Roman world _always_ occured under the reign of Christian emperors. A widesale decree of imperial religious discrimination was also virtually absent under "pagan" emperors but became common practice among the Christian emperors from the 300's onward.

I actually encountered a theory like this when I was part of the jesusmysteries discussion forum at yahoo. When the theorist brought forth the idea that the historical evidence of Jesus was possibly destroyed though a imperial conspiracy compaign, I brough my own rebuttal.

You see, the earliest Christian writings and documents (including the Gospel of Thomas, the writings of Paul, and the writings of Marcion) are all completely absent of any 'historical' information concerning Jesus. Paul has no idea who Joseph, Mary, Pontius Pilate, or Judas Iscariot are, nor can he give the names of the 12 apostles, nor does he seem to know anything about any Bethlehem. He also seems to have little knowledge about Jesus' reputed teachings in the Synoptics.

Of course, one also has to logically justify why all evidence of Jesus had to be destroyed but the evidence for all the dozens of other would-be 'messiahs' who were much more violent and pervasive among the Jewish public, seeking to rise up militarily against the Romans, was left untouched. A curious dilemma, no??

The only way to keep up this conspiracy theory of 'book burning' (which, again, has no empirical or archaeological evidence to support it) is with the following historical steps:

1) There was a historical Jesus who was a bit of a political rebel.

2) He was killed and all records of his existence subsequently destroyed (with no proof of either of these events, of course).

3) This was so successful that even the later 'Christian' disciples such as Paul and Marcion seem to believe that Jesus was some type of aeon or Platonic form rather than an actual human being.... in other words, a mythic archetype.

4) About a century later, somehow fairly ignorant followers of 'Christianity' magically came by Jesus' 'historical information' once again (with, again, no evidence or proof to support this 'information') and we all now know that he definitely lived.

I proposed a more logical sequence of historical steps:

1) Jesus never lived and existed only as a mythic archetype, a Jewish version of the perennial 'pagan' godman (Mithras, Dionysus, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, etc etc) as known by individuals such as Paul and Marcion. This would be keeping in line with the lack of historical evidence concerning this man.

2) Over time, the more ignorant and less-informed of "Christian" followers mistakenly came to believe Jesus actually existed in the flesh as an actual divine human being (there is actually empirical proof for this, as all of the existent Synoptics seem to be based on the gnostic/docetic Marcion's Gospel of the Lord).

Gee.... 2 simplistic steps versus 4 rather convoluted steps. And, you don't have to draw back on some 'conspiracy hypothesis' to back it up. And, even better, it actually has historical and literary evidence to back it up!!  

Well, its just a theory, anyways....


----------



## donald

rmcrobertson; et al,

What do you mean,"shakey text", regarding the Bible? I for one am a believer that Jesus of Nazereth is The Son of The Living God, and that the Holy Bible is The Word of God. Why, you may ask. My answer simply put, is that I do. I agree that there are some things which are hard to understand in this life, and in The Word. There are also some preety amazing things written in there. (Thousands of years before Israel was reestablished as a nation, it was recorded in the Bible.) The only real criteria that can be used to accept, or reject the Biblical(Old&New Testament)  record. Is the faith of the person considering the aforementioned.  In the end thats what it all comes down to. You either listen to, and consider the evidence offered. Which basically boils down to accepting, or rejecting The Bible, but you can't accept, or refute what you don't know. Like any good martial art student. You must first examine a system before you can make an educated call regarding that system. You can't make a real decision based on some one elses opinion, can we? Then its up to the investigator to make the call.
Salute in Christ, :asian: 
Donald(John14:6)


----------



## Cruentus

Glad you enjoyed my story...

As I said, it doesn't apply in every sense of the world. I don't feel that there was a "book burning conspiricy," but I do conject that records were destroyed none-the-less. Example: It is understood that Peter was executed by an up-side-down crusifixion for being a traitor to the Roman Empire by propigating Christianity. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Peter had a diary. Do you think that the Roman Empire would have kept this, or anything else that belonged to him. No...he was some traitor, "insignificant" to the Empire. They would have discarded any records, along with any of his other belongings, upon his execution. No conspiricy, just a logical assumption of what would have happened.

The reality was that Christians were first viewed as a bunch of traitors who needed to be taught a lesson, but not as some major threat to Roman Society. When Christianity grew to a point where it might be a threat, the Empire made it the national religion, thus dispating the threat. My point here is, they wouldn't have made a major issue in detailing in writing how to erase the Christians from history. However, they would have just considered any information found as insignificant rebel propaganda, and it would have been discarded.

Now, some other flaws in YOUR ARGUEMENTS are as such:

You forget about Oral tradition. Our first Christians weren't writing texts, they were wandering into different communities and spreading the religion through an oral tradition. So, just because things weren't written down when Jesus was alive you can't assume that these were stories made up later on.

There isn't really a lack of historical evidence concerning the man, as you say. There is plenty of info available that implies that Jesus existed, considereing the time period, you just refuse to see it for what it is. I don't know why you feel you have to do this, but do what you want. I, and others have posted plenty here to give you more reading material, sources, and records. You, I am sure, will continue to argue, using sources written by who I believe are pseudo-historian's. I can't stop this, so do what you want. We all have to live with our decisions and beliefs. But the flaw here is this: you have less evidence supporting your conjecture, that Jesus doesn't exist, then I do mine, that he does. You say, "Prove it," forgeting that you can't prove that he didn't exist, and that all of the early "Christians" were living one big lie. You have less evidence supporting that the divinity of Christ was a fabrication of later Christians then Christians do supporting that Christians believed in his divinity all along. However, you choose to believe in less reliable evidence, and I cannot stop you.

You also, in your arguement make superfluous and exaggerated assumptions that you presume to be a logical refutation of Christian beliefs, when most Christians do not follow your assumptions. I don't know Christians who believe that early followers were 'fairly ignorant', or that anyone 'magically' found lost documents or stories. You are arguing false assumptions that only you created.

Early Christian writers ademently believed that Jesus was not some mythic character, but was a real person, the son of God, and the Messiah. You again create false evidence by implying that early Christians believed he was a "mythical archtype" when you (once again) have no evidence to support this conjecture. Again, we have a case where we have some evidence that Jesus was a real person, and this was always the Christian belief, but not a lot of evidence. Your arguement behind why there is not a lot of evidence supporting that Jesus was real is that he was a mythical creature, a conjecture which has even less reliable evidence to support it then the original arguement.

You twist the Christian belief into 4 "convoluted" steps, when there is really only one non-convoluted step. According to the Christian Belief, Jesus was a real person who was executed, so his followers who believed him to be the messiah went around spreading his teachings and what they believed. There...1 step, not your convoluted 2 step arguement with little evidence to support it. If you don't want to believe that there even is a God, then don't. But don't pretend that you have some less complex and more logical answer then where the evidence points. It points to my one step, that people who had such and such belief (based off a real person who TAUGHT the belief) went out and taught it to the masses.     

The reasoning that the Gospels were based off the Marcion text is not "imperical proof" of anything. None of what you say so far "imperically proves" that Jesus was not a real person. But again, you are trying to sound like you have some evidence which really isn't evidence at all.

So, I cannot, for obvious reasons agree with your theories. The biggest problem with your conjectures that I have is that you fault people who believe Christ exists because of a lack of evidence, so their belief is "faith based" to a degree, when your conjectures is supported by even LESS evidence, so your beliefs are EVEN MORE faith based then those who you oppose. This makes me wonder if you ran out and tryed to find evidence to support you anti-christian beliefs, and jumped on the first few theories you ran into, rather then openly searching for truth. I wonder what your real hang up is with Christianity also. Hmmm....

Well, just theories, ya know?


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Andi _
> *Absolute genius!!!  :rofl:  Great story!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
> 
> That made my day. Thanks! *



Glad you liked it!


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *Paul,
> 
> Excellent information.  I'd like to comment on a few points you've made.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about Tom Brown.  However...many feel that his Native American Grandfather stories are rather hokey....even still, the man has exceptional skills.  Tom Brown is alive now.  His Grandfather was a generation above. *


*

The "hokeyness" of the stories is exactly why I used the example. They seem unbelievable, yet the concepts work in practical application. The Bible stories, I think, are similar in this sense.




			What we are speaking of is someone that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago.  This is not based on, "So-and-so once wrote of someone who once knew his uncle' friend who once shared a beer with Christ".  That isn't evidence.
		
Click to expand...


I agree, but I don't think that the evidence is that Broad, however. 




			The written documentation that most focus on regarding Jesus is the Bible.  Written across the span of how many hundreds of years and through how many voices?  

So let me clarify my original post.  Looking back, I was pretty vague in defining what I'd meant.

In the Christian community, there cannot, without a shadow of doubt prove that Jesus existed, beyond faith.  This isn't about the Christian faith, when it was created, by whom or why.  This is concerning the man that is considered the focal point of the Christian religions.
		
Click to expand...


The problem with this arguement is that there are very few things that happend in history that we can prove happened with out a shadow of doubt. That is the problem; we can't prove much, and most of what we believe is faith based. What steers our "faith" or "belief" is the evidence available, and our logic based off of the evidence. I still maintain that there is more evidence pointing towards "a guy named Jesus taught, sparking the beginning of Christianity" then other evidence pointing otherwise.  





			Why does this card get played so often?   I'm not trying to drag anyone down "with me".  I'd have to be down for that to happen.  I think it's silly whenever someone attempts to have such a conversation that the Xtian Card is as though non-believers are heathens and are just ignorant to the reality of it all.  Don't be smug about this.  If anything I'm explaining that belief and faith don't always equate to fact.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry to play cards, here.  I am not trying to say you are a heathen or ignorant or whatever. But I believe you, and others here, are the ones being smug. You are trying to push the idea that faith and belief don't equate to fact, as if you have the facts and someone who opposses you doesn't. This seems arrogent, although I know your not trying to be. You say "equate to the facts" but who's fact? The ones you 'believe' are true? I think you see the problem where this leads.




			Am I anti-Christian?  No...not really.  As you said, if Christianity is used in a positive light, I've seen it help many people in life, especially during hardships.  Unfortunately, in my personal experiances, this is a rarity.  On the other side, it leads to segregation, un-educated and ill-filled hate amoung other things.
		
Click to expand...


I am sorry that your personal experiences w/ Christianity hasn't been good. I often find that people base their opinions on what is "fact" on their bad experiences. Just because your experience of something is not good, that doesn't make that something "not good" in and of itself. And, our experiences will not change what is true and what isn't, regardless of what we want to "believe." I think you know this, though, but I am just stating it for good measure.




			Asking people to "prove it" isn't such a bad thing.  It's not a challenge...it's not a claim that Christians are ignorant, weak-minded people with no direction.  It's simply a request for someone to back up their claims.
		
Click to expand...


This is fine, and I agree. What I get annoyed with sometimes is when your asked to "prove" something, or to at least bring evidence to the table, when no matter what you say or what evidence you bring, the person who asked you to 'prove' it will only discredit your evidence because it violates "their beliefs." This is what I find with most people who are anti-christian (which is not you, I don't think), and this attitude is just as close minded then the "Christians" whom they oppose.




			You mentioned how Christian evidence seems to be more potent then other followings.  What belief system are the masses of western society based on?

Hrm.
		
Click to expand...

*
Not really other followings, but other historical occurances. If you go back 400 years or more, there are historical "facts" that exist that are rarely disputed, because the evidence points in that direction. However, the evidence is often less, and of a lessor quality then the evidence pointing towards Jesus' existance. However, people will more readily discredit "Christian" evidence, while they are willing to believe other less supported conjectures. What is my point? I think that many non-christians today make decisions based on emotional hang ups, and are looking to discredit Christianity rather then looking for actual answers in an unbiased fashion. This is not everyone here, obviosly, but I feel that there are many who do this. The evidence for this is that they are willing to accept other "truths" that are often supported by less evidence then the "truths" in Christianity that they dispise.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Technopunk _
> *Just my two cents but...
> 
> Having them isnt proof of anything either.
> 
> We have "Written" documentation and witnesses to Back Scientology.
> 
> The Same goes for Joseph Smith finding the Magic Glasses that only he could use... Witnesses and Written Records...
> 
> The Hailbop Comet suicide group...
> 
> Lots of Written Records and Witnesses every day for nutcases all over the world... But it doesnt prove that they are true either.
> 
> ALMOST EVERYTHING WE BELIEVE has to be taken on faith at some point... *



I believe that this is very true also!


----------



## Cruentus

> Of course, some of the original text of the gospels were compiled before Nicea(I think Mark is believed to have been compiled around 70 c.e.), but a surprising number of them are probably closer to the time of the Council of Nicea than the time of Jesus--or at least equidistant(I can give the dates if you'd like ).



How 'bout I give you the dates. The Gospels in the Bible were written between 70 c.e. and 110 c.e.. The council of Nicea was 325. Could things have been lost in transletions of the gospels? Sure...but that is irrelevent, bacause the "oldest" greek and hebrew versions still exist. But your conjecture that the Gospels were written on or more near the time of the council is not supported by the facts that are available to us. The council was about 215 years after the last gospel was written; about 255 from the first. I don't see how the gospels were written closer to Nicea. Also, the letters were written even before the gospels. I think you make a lot of conjectures which I find hard to buy, because of the lack of/false evidence supporting your conjectures.

But, as with everyone else, you will believe what you want. I don't have hard feelings about this if you don't.


----------



## OULobo

Careful man, its hard to train with severly cramped fingers.


----------



## MA-Caver

I guess the question on my mind after all this (and probably more to come...which is welcomed...by me anyway)... is, and this is directed to those who doubt the man's existence....
Why all the fuss about trying to disprove that one man ever lived? 
Do you doubt the existence of Elijah (not Wood)? Moses? Noah? David? Solomon? What about the apostles themselves? All of them are mentioned in the Bible do you doubt their existence? 
Seems to me (IMHO) that you doubt Jesus' existence because so many millions believe without seeing.  Seems that their beliefs (and mine) go a lot deeper than just historical facts and records (which ironically what most of the Bible is). 

Peace
:asian:


----------



## r erman

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *How 'bout I give you the dates. The Gospels in the Bible were written between 70 c.e. and 110 c.e.. The council of Nicea was 325. Could things have been lost in transletions of the gospels? Sure...but that is irrelevent, bacause the "oldest" greek and hebrew versions still exist. But your conjecture that the Gospels were written on or more near the time of the council is not supported by the facts that are available to us. The council was about 215 years after the last gospel was written; about 255 from the first. I don't see how the gospels were written closer to Nicea. Also, the letters were written even before the gospels. I think you make a lot of conjectures which I find hard to buy, because of the lack of/false evidence supporting your conjectures.
> 
> But, as with everyone else, you will believe what you want. I don't have hard feelings about this if you don't.     *



I think we are not on the same page.  I was referring to all of the gospels(cannonical and non-cannonical) in my post, I wasn't simply referring to the 'official four'...   

For instance, The Secret Book of James is known to have been written sometime before 313c.e. as it mentions martyrdom(313 was when Constantine outlawed the persecution of Christians), but no earlier than around 150c.e.  The Gospel Oxyrhynchus 840 is estimated to have been written around 200c.e. The Gospel of the Nazoreans was written around 150c.e.  The Egerton Gospel  dates from anywhere between 150-200c.e.(although it is assumed that it was a copy of an earlier manuscript--see I can be impartial ).  

Conjectures?  I'm not sure what you mean.  Unless you are referring to my nod towards the gnostics when I mentioned Jesus and Mary running around re-enacting Isis and Osiris/Divine Feminine/Qabbala/Godess worship.  I think it would be fairly obvious that researching this kind of history is(or has been) a hobby of mine.  I could write pages about all of the fragmentary gospels, the infancy gospels, the 'secret'(read inner-circle) versions of the Synoptics, the Gnostic Gospels, the changes and additions to later versions of the gospels, the mistranslations from greek to aramaic to more greek to coptic back again to greek to latin to english...etc, ad infinitum. 

I don't have much traffic with fundamentalist Christians anymore(although my wife and children are Catholic), but I enjoy the teachings of Jesus(or should I say teachings attributed to?), they match up for the most part with my own(read quasi-buddhist) views.  I love all of the western spiritual traditions that have been influenced or founded upon Christianity. 

Anyway, I think there is more than enough real evidence to back up all of my points(particularly the healing/social program points).  Although, I (try to)withold judgement as the conjecture is ultimately arbitrary.  As has been said already there comes a point in any debate where belief comes into play, irregardless of what "proof" is held up.  Although, I disagree with another's previous assumption that all spiritual traditions are predicated on 'faith'...anyway, back to regular programming.

Finally, in the scheme of totality, it matters little whether you look at the story of Christ as mythos or logos, the message is essentialy the same,(of course I put the obligatory)IMO.

It's all good.

'Night

(p.s. Heretic888(?) I propose a third alternative to your Christ did/didn't exist discussion[Buddhism advocates a middle path afterall].  The man did exist, looking at the helenistic society of Rome at the time, it provided the most fertile ground for the seed of Christianity to grow, and change.  Thus the archetype was borne out of the man)


----------



## Cruentus

:rofl: 

Hey guess what!?!? I am Catholic also! I think it is funny that this is the second time on this thread where I have been possibly refered too as a fundamentalist. I better slow my role... 

You're right; we weren't on the same page in that I was refering to the synoptic gospels and you were refering to others. I agree that other "histories" might be closer to the council.

However, the conjecture that I was refering too was the idea that the miricles of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus was fabricated during the council. I simply don't think that the evidence supports the idea that Jesus' divinity was "made up" 325 years after the fact. If anyone made anything up, it would have been Jesus and his original followers themselves. I think that more evidence supports the idea that early Christians bought the whole concept of his divinity from the start. Now, we can argue Christ's divinity in another thread, but speaking historically, it seems that the early Christians going back to people who "knew" him believed #1 that he was a real person, not a mythical archtype. and #2 he was divine.

So, if we disagree (not sure that we even do  ) then it might be on the above point. Glad we're on the same page with the rest.


----------



## Jay Bell

> Why all the fuss about trying to disprove that one man ever lived?
> Do you doubt the existence of Elijah (not Wood)? Moses? Noah? David? Solomon? What about the apostles themselves? All of them are mentioned in the Bible do you doubt their existence?
> Seems to me (IMHO) that you doubt Jesus' existence because so many millions believe without seeing. Seems that their beliefs (and mine) go a lot deeper than just historical facts and records (which ironically what most of the Bible is).



Whoa...no need for the nasty.  I'll try and explain.

Many of my very close friends are Christian.  I'm happy that they have their faith in their lives.  They use religion as a vehicle for making their lives better.  My roomates are even Catholic!  

One of my roomates said to me one day, "Jay, I pray for you every Sunday."  My toes curled.  Reason being...is I have heard this all too many times, which I'll touch on in a moment.

He said, "Every Sunday I pray that you find what you want out of life."  What a wonderful thing for him to do...honestly.  That meant a lot to me.

-However- <enter wicked nasty dark background music>

**Christian Fundamentalist Rant Ahead...you've been warned**

I've also had people tell me they've prayed for me in the past.  The geasture was well received...until they explained further.  "I prayed that God will show you the light so that you can see through your heathenistic ways and accept him as your savior."  Man...that kind of nonsense leads to some pretty severe rash.

I have an ex-girlfriend from back home.  I could no longer date, nor have any remote contact with her at all.  Why?  I followed the "devil's way".  (Meaning that not only was I not Christian...but I wasn't a member of their perticular design of Christianity)

I offered my hand to a man who was witnessing in a park.  He refused to shake it when I said that I did not accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.  He then screamed in my face for five minutes about all the suffering I would endure after my death in a lake of fire.  I approached his pastor with this...it truly disturbed me.  I asked, "How is this a way to treat human beings?"  The pastor looked at me, shrugged and said, "He's right, you know".

I have a couple of friends that can't speak a single sentence without using the words "Jesus", "Bible" or "God".  It's baffling to me.  Though I appreciate that they have beliefs in their lives as they do...is it necessary to wear a banner?  Can these perticular individuals come up with a single thought in their mind on their own?  Of course not.  According to them...it's all Jesus.

It concerns me deeply.  They would rather sit on their knees and pray to someone that may not have existed for four hours for strength instead of getting up and doing something about their troubles.

Am I anti-Christian?  No.  Am I anti-anti-thought?  Yes.  

Not only is their hate outside of the Christian umbrella by such individuals, they hate Christians too!  Imagine that..."Recovering Catholic" is a term that gets used quite often.  Turning their nose up at other Christian beliefs that are "wrong".

Point being...I have serious issues with groups of people that hate based on ignorance.  Not ignorance due to their religous beliefs....but ignorance on why it is okay to hate people that don't follow the same belief system as they.  As far as I recall, Jesus never said it was okay to hate others.  Yet...I see it every day in the Christian faith.  Oddly, they proclaim Jesus' name when they spread such hate.  Idiots in my opinion.

So to wrap this post up...I need to make it clear that I'm not picking on anyone.  From my experiances, Christianity can be a wonderful thing in people's lives.  It can also be a plague that suffers human interaction and compassion.  

I also want to make it clear that dealing with snot-nosed, mindless hate-filled people did not cause me not to believe in Jesus.  Through reading and forming my own opinion I came to that idea.  Does it mean that I have a lower opinion of those that *do* believe in Jesus?  Absolutely not.


----------



## heretic888

Ah, geez.... I think this thing is moving too fast for me to take part in.  

I'll try and address some issues made, but if things keep moving this quickly I doubt I'll be sticking around that long. 



> What do you mean,"shakey text", regarding the Bible? I for one am a believer that Jesus of Nazereth is The Son of The Living God, and that the Holy Bible is The Word of God. Why, you may ask. My answer simply put, is that I do. I agree that there are some things which are hard to understand in this life, and in The Word. There are also some preety amazing things written in there. (Thousands of years before Israel was reestablished as a nation, it was recorded in the Bible.) The only real criteria that can be used to accept, or reject the Biblical(Old&New Testament) record. Is the faith of the person considering the aforementioned. In the end thats what it all comes down to. You either listen to, and consider the evidence offered. Which basically boils down to accepting, or rejecting The Bible, but you can't accept, or refute what you don't know. Like any good martial art student. You must first examine a system before you can make an educated call regarding that system. You can't make a real decision based on some one elses opinion, can we? Then its up to the investigator to make the call.



Ummm.... Donald, I'd like to remind you this thread is about a historical study of Jesus. Not on the validity of Christianity or the Bible. No one is making any claims about the values of Christians or the Bible, only the empirical/historical assumptions many Christians make.



> As I said, it doesn't apply in every sense of the world. I don't feel that there was a "book burning conspiricy," but I do conject that records were destroyed none-the-less. Example: It is understood that Peter was executed by an up-side-down crusifixion for being a traitor to the Roman Empire by propigating Christianity.



The problem once again, Paul, is you don't have a shred of empirical or historical evidence to back up any of those claims about Peter. Or to even back up the claim that he (or Jesus) even existed.

It is fine and dandy if you have 'faith'. I'm not contesting that. But this is supposed to be a discussion on history, not religious belief.



> Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Peter had a diary. Do you think that the Roman Empire would have kept this, or anything else that belonged to him. No...he was some traitor, "insignificant" to the Empire. They would have discarded any records, along with any of his other belongings, upon his execution. No conspiricy, just a logical assumption of what would have happened.



No offense, Paul, but your 'logical assumption' indicates a fair amount of ignorance concerning the history of Hellenistic Rome. There were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of would-be 'messiahs' parading about the empire. Most, if not all, of these individuals were much more pervasive than the Christians and much more violent and rebellious. Yet we are somehow to believe the evidence of the existence of these individuals was left untouched, but the 'peaceful' Jesus was felt to be a threat??

Its a very unlikely probability and can't claim the support of good science or good research.

Also, it is an interesting fact to note that not once in history has there ever been a record of the Roman authorities attempting to 'destroy' the evidence or teachings of any individual or group. They would certainly expel them from the city, or even the empire, but never attempt to 'erase' their existence. In fact, this practice was known to ONLY take place under the reign of Christian emperors. A very interesting paradox, neh?

The bare bones truth is that without any proof or documentation to back up any historical claims all you have is an interesting hypothesis. I really don't see what the big problem is. You make a claim and the burden of proof is on you. It's pretty basic science.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, Paul, but using the logic you have demonstrated in your argument one could justify the existence of ANY individual, fictional or not, without having to draw back on the burden of proof. 

Example: Santa Claus (not St. Nicholas) really did exist but all the evidence of his life was destroyed by the big bad European kings. But, still, I know he existed even though I don't have proof. Why, you ask?? Because the stories say so!!  



> The reality was that Christians were first viewed as a bunch of traitors who needed to be taught a lesson, but not as some major threat to Roman Society.



Contemporary study of the available evidence has demonstrated that idea to be lies invented by Christian authors of later centuries. The Christians were, in fact, only persecuted as a group for a total of 5 years under the Empire's rule. And none of these years were consecutive, mind you.

Historical evidence has shown that the Christians were not persecuted at all as a group (but sometimes as individuals) before 250 CE.

Even the reputed Tacitus 'excerpt' you used as a claim for Jesus' historical existence is identified as a forgery of the 15th century CE, and there is little other proof that Nero (or any Roman leader prior to 250 CE) persecuted the Christians.



> When Christianity grew to a point where it might be a threat, the Empire made it the national religion, thus dispating the threat.



Wrong. Constantine made it the state religion because it would allow him to more easily amass control and power over his subjects. It had nothing to do with it being a 'threat'.



> My point here is, they wouldn't have made a major issue in detailing in writing how to erase the Christians from history. However, they would have just considered any information found as insignificant rebel propaganda, and it would have been discarded.



I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth. Your claim is very interesting in light of common imperial practices.



> You forget about Oral tradition. Our first Christians weren't writing texts, they were wandering into different communities and spreading the religion through an oral tradition. So, just because things weren't written down when Jesus was alive you can't assume that these were stories made up later on.



Ahem. Oral tradition, without empirical support of some kind, cannot hold the claim of good science. I am not saying Christianity is bunk here, mind you, but that your support of oral tradition is an article of faith not research.

Also, the earliest Christian teachings, such as the authentic letters of Paul, demonstrate a complete ignorance of any 'biographical' information concerning Jesus. In fact, to Paul, 'Christ' seems to be little more than a Platonic form, Jungian archetype, or Gnostic aeon. There is definitely a docetic flavor to Paul's non-forged letters.



> There isn't really a lack of historical evidence concerning the man, as you say. There is plenty of info available that implies that Jesus existed, considereing the time period, you just refuse to see it for what it is. I don't know why you feel you have to do this, but do what you want. I, and others have posted plenty here to give you more reading material, sources, and records.



Ahem. I don't know about you, but I don't consider texts written nearly 100 years after the events in question, and which do not draw upon any apparent primary sources or records, to be reliable historical sources. All of the 'sources' you cited (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc.) are all, at best, secondhand accounts based on hearsay. At worst, they are forgeries as, for example, Tacitus' "Jesus reference" has been demonstrated to be.



> You, I am sure, will continue to argue, using sources written by who I believe are pseudo-historian's.



No, not unless you consider Sir Wallis Budge, the former head of the British Museum of Natural History, to be a 'pseudo-historian'. I would, however, consider most of the writers you have mentioned to be theologians and philosophers, not historians.



> You also, in your arguement make superfluous and exaggerated assumptions that you presume to be a logical refutation of Christian beliefs, when most Christians do not follow your assumptions. I don't know Christians who believe that early followers were 'fairly ignorant', or that anyone 'magically' found lost documents or stories. You are arguing false assumptions that only you created.



*cough* Actually, if you reread my post, I posted those 4 steps as being the only way you could support you conspiracy hypothesis of evidence being destroyed. I said nothing at all about it being something Christians believe in.



> Early Christian writers ademently believed that Jesus was not some mythic character, but was a real person, the son of God, and the Messiah. You again create false evidence by implying that early Christians believed he was a "mythical archtype" when you (once again) have no evidence to support this conjecture. Again, we have a case where we have some evidence that Jesus was a real person, and this was always the Christian belief, but not a lot of evidence. Your arguement behind why there is not a lot of evidence supporting that Jesus was real is that he was a mythical creature, a conjecture which has even less reliable evidence to support it then the original arguement



Complete incorrect. Paul, for example, has no knowledge of any 'biographical' details concerning Jesus and his writings are of a decidedly Gnostic orientation. Marcions, another gnostic/docetist was the first Christian to establish a canon of any kind.

In fact, there is no evidence that the Christians saw Jesus as a historical individual until around 110 CE. You are basing your assumptions on incorrect dates which give the highly questionable Synoptics precedence over the Pauline letters.



> You twist the Christian belief into 4 "convoluted" steps, when there is really only one non-convoluted step. According to the Christian Belief, Jesus was a real person who was executed, so his followers who believed him to be the messiah went around spreading his teachings and what they believed. There...1 step, not your convoluted 2 step arguement with little evidence to support it.



You, again, have no evidence to support this claim. It all comes down to an article of faith.



> The reasoning that the Gospels were based off the Marcion text is not "imperical proof" of anything. None of what you say so far "imperically proves" that Jesus was not a real person. But again, you are trying to sound like you have some evidence which really isn't evidence at all.



Actually, I suggest you do more research. Marcion's gospel, dated around 140 CE, is the basis for the Gospel of Luke. The linguistic studies have demonstrated this time and time again... just as we know the 'pastoral letters' attributed to Paul are in fact forgeries. If you have a problem with these claims, take it up with whoever invented the scientific process.

It is rather curious, however, however, that no Christian father ever mentions the Synoptics until the time of Irenaeus (190 CE), which would be keeping in line with their dependency on Marcion.



> How 'bout I give you the dates. The Gospels in the Bible were written between 70 c.e. and 110 c.e..



Incorrect. This is an assumption only Christian theologians hold to today. No independent historian agrees with these dates.

Many of the Gospels' dependence on Marcion (140 CE), the incredibly late dating of texts like the Pastoral Letters (190 CE), and the complete lack of citing the Synoptics prior to Irenaeus (180 CE or so) demonstrates the 'shakiness' of the 70-110 CE claim.



> Sure...but that is irrelevent, bacause the "oldest" greek and hebrew versions still exist.



Incorrect. We don't have any versions of the Greek New Testament prior older than the 500's.



> p.s. Heretic888(?) I propose a third alternative to your Christ did/didn't exist discussion[Buddhism advocates a middle path afterall]. The man did exist, looking at the helenistic society of Rome at the time, it provided the most fertile ground for the seed of Christianity to grow, and change. Thus the archetype was borne out of the man



The problem with that is that it makes an assumption that Jesus actually did exist whereas we have no evidence of documentation that he did.... and we should. Philo is completely silent, an odd paradox.



> However, the conjecture that I was refering too was the idea that the miricles of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus was fabricated during the council



Actually... the 'divinity' of Jesus predates any biographical or 'human' details about him.

Also, as an ending point... I completely agree with Jay's post.

Laterz.


----------



## meni

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *
> 
> No offense, Paul, but your 'logical assumption' indicates a fair amount of ignorance concerning the history of Hellenistic Rome. There were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of would-be 'messiahs' parading about the empire. Most, if not all, of these individuals were much more pervasive than the Christians and much more violent and rebellious. Yet we are somehow to believe the evidence of the existence of these individuals was left untouched, but the 'peaceful' Jesus was felt to be a threat??
> 
> 
> Laterz.  *


Just a quick Hebrew lesson

The translation of the name Yeshua- Hebrew for Jesus 
Meant in Hebrew salvation or redemption!  And as far as I know in our books of records we had at list 3 people that had this name (and others) that alleged or declare that they are the promised "messiah"

But clearly by the obvious state of the world around us the promise redemption isn't here yet! (For example look at the book of Ezekiel chapter 37 verses 26, and many many others!) 

!


And I'm going back to my form 4 
( i'm testing for my 2nd brown )

M


----------



## heretic888

> Just a quick Hebrew lesson
> 
> The translation of the name Yeshua- Hebrew for Jesus
> Meant in Hebrew salvation or redemption!
> 
> And I'm going back to my form 4



That's not entirely true.

'Jesus' is an English transliteration of the Greek word 'Iesous', which is how it is found in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). Iesous is an incorrect and forced transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word 'Yeshwah'. 

Iesous (while similar, yet distinct, from the correct Greek transliteration of Yeshwah) was intentionally designed by the Gospel authors so it would have symbolic significance in the system of Pagan numerology/gematria.

The numerological value of the word 'Iesous' is 888. This number is very significant in a number of Hellenistic philosophical systems. It was for this reason that the Gospel writers chose the name 'Iesous' for their hero figure --- it combines the name Yeshwah/Joshua with Greco-Roman philosophical concepts.

Laterz.


----------



## meni

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *That's not entirely true.
> 
> 'Jesus' is an English transliteration of the Greek word 'Iesous', which is how it is found in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). Iesous is an incorrect and forced transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word 'Yeshwah'.
> 
> Iesous (while similar, yet distinct, from the correct Greek transliteration of Yeshwah) was intentionally designed by the Gospel authors so it would have symbolic significance in the system of Pagan numerology/gematria.
> 
> The numerological value of the word 'Iesous' is 888. This number is very significant in a number of Hellenistic philosophical systems. It was for this reason that the Gospel writers chose the name 'Iesous' for their hero figure --- it combines the name Yeshwah/Joshua with Greco-Roman philosophical concepts.
> 
> Laterz. *



Yeshwah?

How do you read this? 
Ye sho ah? If yes, the exact translation both in Aramaic or Hebrew is redemption, or salvation.

if not please help out with   the phonetically  correct way so  i can find a translation


Meni


----------



## OULobo

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *That's not entirely true.
> 
> 'Jesus' is an English transliteration of the Greek word 'Iesous', which is how it is found in the New Testament (originally written in Greek). Iesous is an incorrect and forced transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic word 'Yeshwah'.
> 
> Iesous (while similar, yet distinct, from the correct Greek transliteration of Yeshwah) was intentionally designed by the Gospel authors so it would have symbolic significance in the system of Pagan numerology/gematria.
> 
> The numerological value of the word 'Iesous' is 888. This number is very significant in a number of Hellenistic philosophical systems. It was for this reason that the Gospel writers chose the name 'Iesous' for their hero figure --- it combines the name Yeshwah/Joshua with Greco-Roman philosophical concepts.
> 
> Laterz. *



I'm not sure I buy this one. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The points are Hebrew and English. The line is the direct similarity and meaning behind the two. I don't think that curving around some diluted theory about the church using pagan symbols (albeit not that far fetched) is the straight line here. The similarity is there without adding in some theory of mistranslation and church conspiracy to involve pagan concepts. The name in Hebrew discribes what Christ would have been (self?) praclaimed as. Mabey the Greek name is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and the English is a direct phonetic translation of the Hebrew?


----------



## meni

> _Originally posted by OULobo _
> *I'm not sure I buy this one. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The points are Hebrew and English. The line is the direct similarity and meaning behind the two. I don't think that curving around some diluted theory about the church using pagan symbols (albeit not that far fetched) is the straight line here. The similarity is there without adding in some theory of mistranslation and church conspiracy to involve pagan concepts. The name in Hebrew discribes what Christ would have been (self?) praclaimed as. Mabey the Greek name is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and the English is a direct phonetic translation of the Hebrew? *


 
 yep i agree  with you!


----------



## heretic888

> Yeshwah?
> 
> How do you read this?
> Ye sho ah? If yes, the exact translation both in Aramaic or Hebrew is redemption, or salvation.
> 
> if not please help out with the phonetically correct way so i can find a translation



Yeshwah/Yeshua is the shortened form of Yehoshua or Jehoshua, which in English we render as 'Joshua'.

Iesous is the forced Greek transliteration of Yeshua/Yehoshua found in the original New Testament.



> The points are Hebrew and English. The line is the direct similarity and meaning behind the two. I don't think that curving around some diluted theory about the church using pagan symbols (albeit not that far fetched) is the straight line here. The similarity is there without adding in some theory of mistranslation and church conspiracy to involve pagan concepts. The name in Hebrew discribes what Christ would have been (self?) praclaimed as. Mabey the Greek name is a mistranslation of the Hebrew and the English is a direct phonetic translation of the Hebrew?



I'm afraid you've got your history a little confused.

The original text of the New Testament, in whatever form you accept it, was Greek. The name we translate in English as 'Jesus' in that original form is 'Iesous'. Iesous itself is a forced and incorrect transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua or Yehoshua. 

The name Iesous does, however, have a numerological significance according to the Greek/Pagan system of gematria. Namely, 888. Even church fathers such as Irenaeus admitted this, saying the Greek name of the 'savior' has 'magical' power.

Draw your own conclusions. But, to me, forced Greek transliteration + numerological significance = something to think about.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

> But clearly by the obvious state of the world around us the promise redemption isn't here yet! (For example look at the book of Ezekiel chapter 37 verses 26, and many many others!)



Actually, if you asked any objective historian or anthropologist to compare the 'state of the world' now compared to earlier centuries, we ain't doing so bad.

Laterz.


----------



## meni

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Actually, if you asked any objective historian or anthropologist to compare the 'state of the world' now compared to earlier centuries, we ain't doing so bad.
> 
> Laterz. *


 i agree but its still not a perfect world!


----------



## Cruentus

Ive seen a lot of claims made here, many that I believe are ludicrous. One of the biggest critiques by those who believe that Jesus was fictitious is this: people who believe that Jesus was a real person lack evidence. They usually use highly exaggerated terms like absolutely no evidence or no imperical factual proof, which usually alerts me to the fact that they are not only arrogant, but that their minds are well closed already. So, even if some evidence is brought forth, they already said that there is absolutely no evidence. Since it is more important for them to be correct then to look at all the evidence and come to a logical conclusion (and admitting that there just might be some evidence out there supporting Jesus existance would mean that their statement of  no evidence would make them wrong), they will never try to get to the bottom of things and try to decifer what might be a likely possability. For these people, it is impossible to have an open discussion. No matter what you will say, all they will do is be an antagonist, which is very easy to do. It takes no brains to be an antagonist. This isnt right because of this, that isnt right because of that, etc., etc., etc.. They are only trying to prove that your wrong rather then trying to find out what might be right, or what possibilities do we have. 

This lends an obvious problem when trying to have a discussion. Now, since they are the antagonist, they have to offer some alternative solution. And they do offer seemingly educated alternatives. But what they dont realize is that their alternatives and antagonizing opinions have less of a logical, historical, archeological, sociological, (or whatever-o-logical) base then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus walked around on earth in the flesh, and developed a following that continues to this day. 

It is easy to tell when they are just being antagonist. They pick apart arguments that contrast their opinions, rebuke people for not providing proof, then offer their solutions without providing proof themselves. They say things like, An interesting FACT to note then proceed with a comment providing no FACTUAL proof or evidence. Or, Contemporary studies say . Or Evidence proves without stating the evidence. This is wrong or This is incorrect then proceed with an opinion with (once again) no proof to back up the opinion. The list goes on.

The antagonist faults people with varied opinions for not providing imperical evidence, even when evidence is provided. Yet, they provide no imperical evidence themselves to support their alternative solutions. When confronted with this, they usually respond with something like, youre the one trying to prove that Jesus existed, so the burden of proof is on you! As if this now exempts them from having to prove their ridicules arguments. They forget that they are the ones trying to prove that millions of people out there are mistakenly worshipping a figure who never existed. They are the ones with the claim that millions are wrong, so the burden of proof is just as much on the antagonist then the believer.

It very illogical, but this occurs within any community. Whenever there is a theory, the antagonist lurks. The antagonist can be any idiot on an internet forum, or the antagonist can be an idiot with a PhD writing for the history channel. It doesnt matter, we just need to recognize that they are idiots. They are idiots because they are not discussion with an open mind or trying to find answers. They are only trying to shoot down other arguments that they may consider main stream so that they can feel intellectually above the populus.

Now, not all of you are antagonists here. I like talking to you because even if you never agree with what I have to say, your at least trying to keep an open mind. I would consider you skeptics rather then antagonists. Some of you here are antagonists, though, and you are very annoying. Your close minded, only trying to discredit rather then trying to come up with a solution. Talking to you is a waste of my time.

Now, I wont be an antagonist towards those skeptical of a historical Jesus either. I have done what was asked. When people asked for other documentation outside of the Bible, I gave it. When people asked for some evidence and explainations to support my views, I offered it. All this, only to be met by some antagonists with some kind of "hard on" to pick apart every thing I say, w/o offering a shred of proof, as they say to support their claims. So, I wont be an antagonist. I will post some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus "existed," and that the Gospels are ment to be taken as a historical account, in my next post.


:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Here are some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus existed:       

* 1. Historical proof #1: The New Testament document versions of these stories pass the transmission test better then many other historical document. *

The transmission test (or Bibliographical test) works likes this: The original story is lost either through lack of evidence of an original document, or because the story was transmitted orally before it was written down. So, we dont have the originals, which is a common occurance with ancient documents. So historians use a method that can be called the transmission test, where they check the trustworthiness of the story by looking at the evidence we do have today. People critique the New Testament all the time because the original gospels texts are lost. They argue that since there is no original source that can be found, then how do we know that this Jesus character wasnt made up. Oral tradition doesnt cut it for them either, because they argue that it could have been fabricated or changed that way as well.

Now it is right to question a document or story when the original is missing. This is the scholarly thing to do. However, just because the proof of the original story is missing, this doesnt mean that the story was made up any more then it could mean that it was true.

So how do we narrow it down? How do we use the evidence that does exist to see if it points towards the idea that Jesus existed, or didnt. We use the transmission test. The factors involved in this test are the number of copies that exist within a given time frame, how much time passed between the copies and the alleged original, and the accuracy of the copies (how similar are they). I maintain that the New Testament passes this test with accuracy far beyond ANY other ancient document.

First, let's count the number of New Testament manuscripts. There are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, other ancient documents, which are relied on commonly by historians, are dwarfed by the New Testament numbers. Let's tour some of the best attested and highly prized sources we have from ancient history. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 200 copies of Demosthenes' works, 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. Clearly, the New Testament has enough copies to exceed the standards secular history places on ancient texts to pass this part of the bibliographical test. 

Before moving on to the question of time span, I want to address the issue of consistency in the copies. Often people charge that the many copies we have of the New Testament contain enough variant readings to hurt rather than help the case for the accuracy of the New Testament. Rather than debate every variant reading, I will make two points that refute this objection. (1) Most variant readings are inconsequential to the text. Many variants include spelling errors, inverted word order (which matters very little to Biblical Greek), repeated words, and other variations where it is easy to see what the document from which it was copied contained. The stories themselves with Jesus divinity and all remain the same. (2) There are very few variant readings on important essential texts, and even for those texts there are methods for navigating through the variant readings to reach a version of the original document. Most scholars estimate that the Biblical stories as we have it today is 99% accurate compared with the original manuscripts. So, the problem of variations within the many copies of the New Testament is not a problem after all. 

The original manuscripts of the Gospels are believed by most scholars to have been written between A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 (although some say 70-110; but it is very difficult for the historians to pin down exact dates, so this issue as to when the first ones were written is still up for grabs). Jesus' death on the cross occurred around A.D. 30 (give or take about 10 years, again we do not know exactly), so the events of Jesus were recorded within a short time span of the original events. In fact, they were written when eyewitnesses were still alive who could confirm or invalidate its testimony. History does not record that the earliest enemies of the Gospels who were alive from A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 tried to discredit the Bible by claiming it is full of lies. Instead, their most frequented attack against the Gospels attempts to discredit Jesus by claiming His mighty works were done through demonic powers, not God's. The eyewitnesses of the first century could not deny that the Gospels record an accurate description of Jesus' life and teaching. The enemies of the Gospel could only debate about the source of Jesus' mighty power. So, the original New Testament manuscripts were recognized by its contemporaries as historically accurate. Eyewitnesses at least believed the very things that were written in the Gospels. However, since we do not have the originals, it is important to look at the time span between the copies and the originals.
The last evidence we must examine for the bibliographical text is the span of time between the original documents and the copies. The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is the John Rylands Fragment, which contains pieces of John's Gospel and is dated around A.D. 125. Although this sounds like a very long time after 30 AD, that would still be less than one generation from the original text. This is not far. We have whole books copied within 100 years of the originals and entire copies of the New Testament as one corpus within 250 years from the date of its completion. The time span of other ancient documents cannot compare with the New Testament's numbers. 1,000 years separate the copies of Tacitus and Ceasar with their original texts. Herodotus' writings were copied 1,300 years after the original manuscripts, and 1,500 years separate the copies of Demosthenes' writings with their originals. Once again, the New Testament proves itself when compared with other ancient texts. 
Based on the information given above, it is safe to conclude that the New Testament stands as the best transmitted manuscript we have of any document from the ancient world. We have more evidence to back its content and check its transmission than any other ancient source, yet other ancient texts are questioned much less then the Biblical texts. One has to ask themselves: why? It was asked to me what I ment by me saying that other historical occurances with less evidence to prove it are more readily acceptable then Biblical texts. Well, this is what I am talking about. To question the New Testament on the grounds of its merits under the transmission test would call into question every ancient manuscript. Classic historians accept the works of Tacitus, Ceasar, and Herodotus as fairly reliable and well-transmitted, and the New Testament far exceeds their credentials. The New Testament clearly passses the bibliographical test, which demonstrates the accuracy of its transmission. However, a document that is transmitted with precise accuracy may still be a fallacious text. So, we must look into other historical tests to see if Jesus was a living person, or was it all fabricated.

* #2. The New Testemament texts pass the internal tests, proving consistency. *

The internal test checks whether the document in question is consistent with itself. In other words, it asks whether the text contradicts itself or provides a harmonious picture.
Most critics of the New Testament constantly allege that the Gospels contradict themselves repeatedly; thus, crippling the integrity of their accuracy. However, I have yet to be shown a true contradiction in the Gospels. Most examples of contradictions in the Gospels go like this: "One Gospel account claims there were two angels at the empty tomb, while another claims there was one angel! So, there is a blatant contradiction!" But this is not an example of a contradiction because it is entirely possible for one account to mention one angel, while another account mentions two, and for both to be true. For whenever there are two angels, there necessarily is at least one angel. (This would be different if each Gospel claimed "only one angel" or "only two angels" were present, but they don't.) The point is that the Gospels do not contain any hard contradictions. Jesus performed miracles, and Jesus didnt perform miracles is an example of a hard contradiction. There are different accounts of the same event, but it is possible to harmonize those accounts into one coherent picture.

However, in order to pass the internal test, Historians do not have to prove the difficult claim that the Gospels do not contain any contradictions. For present purposes all that they need to show is that the Gospels agree to the major facts about Jesus' life and teachings. In fact, all the Gospels agree about the "big picture" decription of Jesus. All of them agree that He performed supernatural acts like healings, exorcisms, and commands over nature. Every single Gospel records that Jesus was an amazing teacher who believed He was the Jewish Messiah. Additionally, all the Gospels agree that He was killed by a conspiracy between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman state. Finally, the Gospels all agree that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. The New Testiment letters and writings beyond the Gospels further support rather then contradict the conjectures made in the Gospels. So, the Gospels present an overall harmonious description of the essentials of Jesus' life and teachings. Therefore, we can conclude that the Gospels pass the internal test.

* #3. The Gospels pass the external tests, in that they are supported by outside verification other then the stories themselves. *

This was a major topic of discussion, and I gave other sources outside of the Bible to support the stories. I will cover some more items here.

The external test checks other ancient sources to see if they agree on material commmon to both sources. The Gospels make several claims which can be checked with other historical sources such as ancient government records, archeology, other classic writers, and other historical witnesses. In what follows I will survey a mere smattering of cases which are typical of the entire New Testament.

First, let's look at some of the archeological finds that coincide with data in the Gospels and see if they support or disconfirm the historical witness of the Gospels. Many secular archeologists assumed that certain places mentioned in the Gospels were made up by the New Testament writers. However, some of these questionable locations have been identified by archeologists. These include the pavement mentioned in John 19:13, the pool of Bethesda, Jacob's well, the pool of Siloam, several ancient cities [Bethlehem, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, and Chorazin], and the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there have been important archeological finds like the remains of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol. Yohanan's skeletal remains were found among a number of other persons killed by the Roman government for the Jewish uprising in A.D. 70. Yohanan was executed by crucifixion, and his remains exemplified that the New Testament's description of Roman crucifixion is accurate. He had a spike driven into both feet, and nails driven between the lower bones of the arms. Furthermore, Yohanan appeared to have had his legs broken, which also dovetails with the New Testament account of Roman crucifixion. There are more archeological finds that support the New Testament and no credible disconfirmations I am aware of. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that the external witness of archeology supports the Biblical account of history. But you do not have to take my word on it. Millar Burrows, an archeologist from Yale University, concludes: 

On the whole, archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by experience of excavation of Palestine. (What Mean These Stones? [New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941], 1.) 

In addition to archeology, there are significant non-Christian textual sources that share common materials with the Gospels, which can be compared. Lets review Flavius Josephus again. In his famous writing, the Antiquities, xvii, 3.3 he writes this:

And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ [or Messiah]. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of wonderful things about him; and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.

The  parts of the above quote are disputed among scholars whether they belong in the original text or not. Many antagonists are quick to point this out, for it seems that the manuscript would fail the internal test, since Josephus is a Jew, he would not likely refer to Jesus as the Messiah or speak so highly of Jesus. 

However, some scholars defend the authenticity of this document by claiming that Josephus may be speaking tongue-in-cheek in parts of this section, and that the reference to Jesus as the Christ may be a general reference to Jesus, since he was known as "Christus" to the Roman world. If the  portions are granted as authentic, then this passage of Josephus confirms much of the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus. However, it doesnt matter if they are or not. Even without the questionable  parts, Josephus reports many facts of Jesus' life which coincide with the Gospels and confirm their truth from an independent non-Christian source. There are other significant texts from Josephus that confirm the Gospels historical claims, which I will not get into for the sake of saving space (lol, look at all the space I wasted already), but from the information given above, I think it is safe to conclude from Josephus' writings, and some of the others I have mentioned, that we have a corroborative source for some of the major claims of the Gospels like the fact that Jesus existed and was considered a great teacher and miracle worker. Let's look at some other external sources which can be used to test the Gospels. 

There are a number of other non-Christian and even non-Jewish sources which match the historical picture given by the Gospels. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome. I mentioned this already, but was discredited without evidence to support the discrediting, of course. Furthermore, from Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament. Additionally, ancient manuscripts from Suetonius, Lucian, Mara Car-Serapion, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, other Jewish sources (like the Talmud), and heretical sources (such as works from Gnostic writers) supports the historical facts given in the New Testament. So, many other ancient texts match the same picture of history given by the New Testament. 

Finally, I will assess the information we have from the writings of Luke - the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke lists many places, names, and other historically verifiable events, which could be checked to test his accuracy. If Luke was in the habit of making up his history as he saw fit, then he left himself vulnerable to critics who could go and check his story-telling. Historians have confirmed many things Luke records (although not everything), but they have not shown a credible discrepency in all of his work. Among the many confirmation include:

·	The census and governorship of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3) 
·	Description of Athens (Acts 17), including the agora, the altar to the "unknown god", and designation of "Areopogite" for a member of the court (Acts 17:34) 
·	Accurate record of Gallio as Proconsul (Acts 18:12) 
·	Correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28) 
·	Accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9) 
·	True depiction of invoking one's roman citizenship (Acts 25:18), including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18) 
·	Description of being in Roman custody (Acts 28:16) and conditions of being imprisoned at one's own expense (Acts 28:30-31) 

Indeed there are literally dozens and dozens of more confirmations of historical data given in Luke's writings. With so many confirmations, and no credible discrepencies, it is fair to say Luke's writings have earned respect as historical documents that show accuracy and scrutiny for detail. 

So, the Gospels also pass the external test. For they have shown that they dovetail with other historical sources that share information in common with them. These sources include archeology, Jewish writings, Gentile writings, government records, and many other informants not reviewed above. The Gospels have shown with incredible accuracy that whenever their is information that can be verified by other sources that it is going to be on the side of truth. In short, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament based on the external test. 

Conclusion
If you have followed what I wrote above, then you have learned several things. (1) There is a method for investigating historical sources. (2) The Gospels pass the bibliographical test, proving their faithful transmission, and exceeding any other ancient document in this respect. (2) The Gospels pass the internal test because they provide a unified picture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. (3) The Gospels pass the external test because they report accurately information that can be cross-checked by a variety of sources.

So what do we conclude from all of this? I have not demonstrated that the Bible is infallible or that it is God's inspired word. (I did not intend to, that isnt the argument here.) Rather, I think I have shown that the Bible's historical accuracy and faithful transmission is impeccable. There are grounds by which a person can reject the Christian message, but one option that is not available as an intellectually sound choice is the argument that the Gospels are corrupt documents with historically inaccurate information. It is not intellectually sound either, given the evidence, to say that Jesus was some made up Character. 

Here are some books that I heard were also good reads:

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Also, I must disclaim that although most of my arguments have been my own, I plagerised most of the material above regarding the historical arguments from something I copied off the net a long time ago. I thought the arguments were good, so I kept it in my pile of crap that I keep for situations like these. I hope whoever the author was, that he wont mind me borrowing his arguments.


----------



## arnisador

I'm looking into the references given previously but I must say that the consistency checks *PAUL* cites are used for other documents and are, to the best of my knowledge, pretty standard for historical work of this nature. I don't doubt that Aristotle existed either--even though he was centuries before Jesus.

I understand the argument that a figurehead could have been created and certainly Christian philosophy echoes aspects of many previous belief systems, but the issue is whether a person named (something that has been transliterated to) Jesus lived around 2000 years ago and either started, or had started around him, a religion. Given the age of the synoptic gospels (70CE-110CE) and the many parallels between them, they appear to have been based on an earlier book(s) (and some absed on others of them). It points to a (near-)contemporary account of an individual.

Of course it could be otherwise, but the story apepars to meet the usual criteria for acceptance by historians.


----------



## heretic888

> Ive seen a lot of claims made here, many that I believe are ludicrous. One of the biggest critiques by those who believe that Jesus was fictitious is this: people who believe that Jesus was a real person lack evidence. They usually use highly exaggerated terms like absolutely no evidence or no imperical factual proof, which usually alerts me to the fact that they are not only arrogant, but that their minds are well closed already. So, even if some evidence is brought forth, they already said that there is absolutely no evidence. Since it is more important for them to be correct then to look at all the evidence and come to a logical conclusion (and admitting that there just might be some evidence out there supporting Jesus existance would mean that their statement of no evidence would make them wrong), they will never try to get to the bottom of things and try to decifer what might be a likely possability. For these people, it is impossible to have an open discussion. No matter what you will say, all they will do is be an antagonist, which is very easy to do. It takes no brains to be an antagonist. This isnt right because of this, that isnt right because of that, etc., etc., etc.. They are only trying to prove that your wrong rather then trying to find out what might be right, or what possibilities do we have.
> 
> This lends an obvious problem when trying to have a discussion. Now, since they are the antagonist, they have to offer some alternative solution. And they do offer seemingly educated alternatives. But what they dont realize is that their alternatives and antagonizing opinions have less of a logical, historical, archeological, sociological, (or whatever-o-logical) base then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus walked around on earth in the flesh, and developed a following that continues to this day.
> 
> It is easy to tell when they are just being antagonist. They pick apart arguments that contrast their opinions, rebuke people for not providing proof, then offer their solutions without providing proof themselves. They say things like, An interesting FACT to note then proceed with a comment providing no FACTUAL proof or evidence. Or, Contemporary studies say . Or Evidence proves without stating the evidence. This is wrong or This is incorrect then proceed with an opinion with (once again) no proof to back up the opinion. The list goes on.
> 
> The antagonist faults people with varied opinions for not providing imperical evidence, even when evidence is provided. Yet, they provide no imperical evidence themselves to support their alternative solutions. When confronted with this, they usually respond with something like, youre the one trying to prove that Jesus existed, so the burden of proof is on you! As if this now exempts them from having to prove their ridicules arguments. They forget that they are the ones trying to prove that millions of people out there are mistakenly worshipping a figure who never existed. They are the ones with the claim that millions are wrong, so the burden of proof is just as much on the antagonist then the believer.
> 
> It very illogical, but this occurs within any community. Whenever there is a theory, the antagonist lurks. The antagonist can be any idiot on an internet forum, or the antagonist can be an idiot with a PhD writing for the history channel. It doesnt matter, we just need to recognize that they are idiots. They are idiots because they are not discussion with an open mind or trying to find answers. They are only trying to shoot down other arguments that they may consider main stream so that they can feel intellectually above the populus.
> 
> Now, not all of you are antagonists here. I like talking to you because even if you never agree with what I have to say, your at least trying to keep an open mind. I would consider you skeptics rather then antagonists. Some of you here are antagonists, though, and you are very annoying. Your close minded, only trying to discredit rather then trying to come up with a solution. Talking to you is a waste of my time.
> 
> Now, I wont be an antagonist towards those skeptical of a historical Jesus either. I have done what was asked. When people asked for other documentation outside of the Bible, I gave it. When people asked for some evidence and explainations to support my views, I offered it. All this, only to be met by some antagonists with some kind of "hard on" to pick apart every thing I say, w/o offering a shred of proof, as they say to support their claims. So, I wont be an antagonist. I will post some other proofs, from a historical perspective, to support the idea that Jesus "existed," and that the Gospels are ment to be taken as a historical account, in my next post.



*rubs head* This entire post was nothing but an overtly emotionalized rant against anybody that disagrees with you. Its entire content consisted of condemning anybody that asks for primary historical sources for your rather dubious claims.

I already rebutted the supposed "evidence" you brought forth (including the forged excerpt from Tacitus), so you have yet to provide any "proof" for your claims. Secondary sources and hearsay are not "evidence" to me.

*shakes head*


----------



## heretic888

Here we go again....



> 1. Historical proof #1: The New Testament document versions of these stories pass the transmission test better then many other historical document.
> 
> The transmission test (or Bibliographical test) works likes this: The original story is lost either through lack of evidence of an original document, or because the story was transmitted orally before it was written down. So, we dont have the originals, which is a common occurance with ancient documents. So historians use a method that can be called the transmission test, where they check the trustworthiness of the story by looking at the evidence we do have today. People critique the New Testament all the time because the original gospels texts are lost. They argue that since there is no original source that can be found, then how do we know that this Jesus character wasnt made up. Oral tradition doesnt cut it for them either, because they argue that it could have been fabricated or changed that way as well.
> 
> Now it is right to question a document or story when the original is missing. This is the scholarly thing to do. However, just because the proof of the original story is missing, this doesnt mean that the story was made up any more then it could mean that it was true.
> 
> So how do we narrow it down? How do we use the evidence that does exist to see if it points towards the idea that Jesus existed, or didnt. We use the transmission test. The factors involved in this test are the number of copies that exist within a given time frame, how much time passed between the copies and the alleged original, and the accuracy of the copies (how similar are they). I maintain that the New Testament passes this test with accuracy far beyond ANY other ancient document.
> 
> First, let's count the number of New Testament manuscripts. There are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, other ancient documents, which are relied on commonly by historians, are dwarfed by the New Testament numbers. Let's tour some of the best attested and highly prized sources we have from ancient history. We have 643 copies of Homer's Iliad, 200 copies of Demosthenes' works, 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. Clearly, the New Testament has enough copies to exceed the standards secular history places on ancient texts to pass this part of the bibliographical test.
> 
> Before moving on to the question of time span, I want to address the issue of consistency in the copies. Often people charge that the many copies we have of the New Testament contain enough variant readings to hurt rather than help the case for the accuracy of the New Testament. Rather than debate every variant reading, I will make two points that refute this objection. (1) Most variant readings are inconsequential to the text. Many variants include spelling errors, inverted word order (which matters very little to Biblical Greek), repeated words, and other variations where it is easy to see what the document from which it was copied contained. The stories themselves with Jesus divinity and all remain the same. (2) There are very few variant readings on important essential texts, and even for those texts there are methods for navigating through the variant readings to reach a version of the original document. Most scholars estimate that the Biblical stories as we have it today is 99% accurate compared with the original manuscripts. So, the problem of variations within the many copies of the New Testament is not a problem after all.
> 
> The original manuscripts of the Gospels are believed by most scholars to have been written between A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 (although some say 70-110; but it is very difficult for the historians to pin down exact dates, so this issue as to when the first ones were written is still up for grabs). Jesus' death on the cross occurred around A.D. 30 (give or take about 10 years, again we do not know exactly), so the events of Jesus were recorded within a short time span of the original events. In fact, they were written when eyewitnesses were still alive who could confirm or invalidate its testimony. History does not record that the earliest enemies of the Gospels who were alive from A.D. 50 - A.D. 90 tried to discredit the Bible by claiming it is full of lies. Instead, their most frequented attack against the Gospels attempts to discredit Jesus by claiming His mighty works were done through demonic powers, not God's. The eyewitnesses of the first century could not deny that the Gospels record an accurate description of Jesus' life and teaching. The enemies of the Gospel could only debate about the source of Jesus' mighty power. So, the original New Testament manuscripts were recognized by its contemporaries as historically accurate. Eyewitnesses at least believed the very things that were written in the Gospels. However, since we do not have the originals, it is important to look at the time span between the copies and the originals.
> The last evidence we must examine for the bibliographical text is the span of time between the original documents and the copies. The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament is the John Rylands Fragment, which contains pieces of John's Gospel and is dated around A.D. 125. Although this sounds like a very long time after 30 AD, that would still be less than one generation from the original text. This is not far. We have whole books copied within 100 years of the originals and entire copies of the New Testament as one corpus within 250 years from the date of its completion. The time span of other ancient documents cannot compare with the New Testament's numbers. 1,000 years separate the copies of Tacitus and Ceasar with their original texts. Herodotus' writings were copied 1,300 years after the original manuscripts, and 1,500 years separate the copies of Demosthenes' writings with their originals. Once again, the New Testament proves itself when compared with other ancient texts.
> Based on the information given above, it is safe to conclude that the New Testament stands as the best transmitted manuscript we have of any document from the ancient world. We have more evidence to back its content and check its transmission than any other ancient source, yet other ancient texts are questioned much less then the Biblical texts. One has to ask themselves: why? It was asked to me what I ment by me saying that other historical occurances with less evidence to prove it are more readily acceptable then Biblical texts. Well, this is what I am talking about. To question the New Testament on the grounds of its merits under the transmission test would call into question every ancient manuscript. Classic historians accept the works of Tacitus, Ceasar, and Herodotus as fairly reliable and well-transmitted, and the New Testament far exceeds their credentials. The New Testament clearly passses the bibliographical test, which demonstrates the accuracy of its transmission. However, a document that is transmitted with precise accuracy may still be a fallacious text. So, we must look into other historical tests to see if Jesus was a living person, or was it all fabricated.



This supposed "transmission test" is not a reliable criteria for establishing historical viability. A large number of copies of _any_ document can produced in a very short amount of time. 

Mass production says absolutely nothing of historical reliability, or else Little Red Riding Hood would be the standard historical textbook in most classrooms.  



> #2. The New Testemament texts pass the internal tests, proving consistency.
> 
> The internal test checks whether the document in question is consistent with itself. In other words, it asks whether the text contradicts itself or provides a harmonious picture.
> Most critics of the New Testament constantly allege that the Gospels contradict themselves repeatedly; thus, crippling the integrity of their accuracy. However, I have yet to be shown a true contradiction in the Gospels. Most examples of contradictions in the Gospels go like this: "One Gospel account claims there were two angels at the empty tomb, while another claims there was one angel! So, there is a blatant contradiction!" But this is not an example of a contradiction because it is entirely possible for one account to mention one angel, while another account mentions two, and for both to be true. For whenever there are two angels, there necessarily is at least one angel. (This would be different if each Gospel claimed "only one angel" or "only two angels" were present, but they don't.) The point is that the Gospels do not contain any hard contradictions. Jesus performed miracles, and Jesus didnt perform miracles is an example of a hard contradiction. There are different accounts of the same event, but it is possible to harmonize those accounts into one coherent picture.
> 
> However, in order to pass the internal test, Historians do not have to prove the difficult claim that the Gospels do not contain any contradictions. For present purposes all that they need to show is that the Gospels agree to the major facts about Jesus' life and teachings. In fact, all the Gospels agree about the "big picture" decription of Jesus. All of them agree that He performed supernatural acts like healings, exorcisms, and commands over nature. Every single Gospel records that Jesus was an amazing teacher who believed He was the Jewish Messiah. Additionally, all the Gospels agree that He was killed by a conspiracy between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman state. Finally, the Gospels all agree that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the grave. The New Testiment letters and writings beyond the Gospels further support rather then contradict the conjectures made in the Gospels. So, the Gospels present an overall harmonious description of the essentials of Jesus' life and teachings. Therefore, we can conclude that the Gospels pass the internal test.



This entire part of the post is completely incorrect. The Synoptics _are_ self-contradictory at many parts:

1) There are two different lineages attributed to Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew. From one generation past Joseph onward, these patrilineal lines of descent have completely different names ---- meaning, Joseph must have had two granddaddies on his poppa's side. And, who said the Bible promoted homophobia??  

2) The Bible is theologically contradictory. On one point the lineages are established to trace Joseph's line through to David to "prove" Jesus is the messiah and is of the "seed of David". On the other hand, Jesus is the messiah because of the virgin birth and isn't blood-related by Joseph at all. These two "messiah proofs" don't mix, friends. Either he is of the seed of David and Joseph and Mary did the nasty-nasty, or he is not of the seed of David --- and Mary was a virgin momma.

3) Many events in the Bible are contradictory. How and when the angel comes to tell Mary she is impregnated with Jesus is contradictory in different gospels. The number of people that witness Jesus resurrect differs in the Gospels. Oh yeah, and the places people witness Jesus resurrect is contradictory in the Gospels (in one account, its in Bethlehem; in another, its a town 100 miles away).

Not internally consistent at all.



> 3. The Gospels pass the external tests, in that they are supported by outside verification other then the stories themselves.
> 
> This was a major topic of discussion, and I gave other sources outside of the Bible to support the stories. I will cover some more items here.
> 
> The external test checks other ancient sources to see if they agree on material commmon to both sources. The Gospels make several claims which can be checked with other historical sources such as ancient government records, archeology, other classic writers, and other historical witnesses. In what follows I will survey a mere smattering of cases which are typical of the entire New Testament.
> 
> First, let's look at some of the archeological finds that coincide with data in the Gospels and see if they support or disconfirm the historical witness of the Gospels. Many secular archeologists assumed that certain places mentioned in the Gospels were made up by the New Testament writers. However, some of these questionable locations have been identified by archeologists. These include the pavement mentioned in John 19:13, the pool of Bethesda, Jacob's well, the pool of Siloam, several ancient cities [Bethlehem, Cana, Nazareth, Capernaum, and Chorazin], and the residence of Pilate in Jerusalem. Furthermore, there have been important archeological finds like the remains of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol. Yohanan's skeletal remains were found among a number of other persons killed by the Roman government for the Jewish uprising in A.D. 70. Yohanan was executed by crucifixion, and his remains exemplified that the New Testament's description of Roman crucifixion is accurate. He had a spike driven into both feet, and nails driven between the lower bones of the arms. Furthermore, Yohanan appeared to have had his legs broken, which also dovetails with the New Testament account of Roman crucifixion. There are more archeological finds that support the New Testament and no credible disconfirmations I am aware of. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that the external witness of archeology supports the Biblical account of history. But you do not have to take my word on it. Millar Burrows, an archeologist from Yale University, concludes:
> 
> On the whole, archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by experience of excavation of Palestine. (What Mean These Stones? [New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941], 1.)
> 
> In addition to archeology, there are significant non-Christian textual sources that share common materials with the Gospels, which can be compared. Lets review Flavius Josephus again. In his famous writing, the Antiquities, xvii, 3.3 he writes this:
> 
> And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who received the truth with pleasure. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ [or Messiah]. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross on his impeachment by the chief men among us, those who had loved him at first did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of wonderful things about him; and even now the tribe of Christians, so named after him, has not yet died out.
> 
> The  parts of the above quote are disputed among scholars whether they belong in the original text or not. Many antagonists are quick to point this out, for it seems that the manuscript would fail the internal test, since Josephus is a Jew, he would not likely refer to Jesus as the Messiah or speak so highly of Jesus.
> 
> However, some scholars defend the authenticity of this document by claiming that Josephus may be speaking tongue-in-cheek in parts of this section, and that the reference to Jesus as the Christ may be a general reference to Jesus, since he was known as "Christus" to the Roman world. If the  portions are granted as authentic, then this passage of Josephus confirms much of the Gospels' portrayal of Jesus. However, it doesnt matter if they are or not. Even without the questionable  parts, Josephus reports many facts of Jesus' life which coincide with the Gospels and confirm their truth from an independent non-Christian source. There are other significant texts from Josephus that confirm the Gospels historical claims, which I will not get into for the sake of saving space (lol, look at all the space I wasted already), but from the information given above, I think it is safe to conclude from Josephus' writings, and some of the others I have mentioned, that we have a corroborative source for some of the major claims of the Gospels like the fact that Jesus existed and was considered a great teacher and miracle worker. Let's look at some other external sources which can be used to test the Gospels.
> 
> There are a number of other non-Christian and even non-Jewish sources which match the historical picture given by the Gospels. The Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, records that Jesus Christ is the man from whom Christians derive their name when he wrote about Nero's burning of Rome. I mentioned this already, but was discredited without evidence to support the discrediting, of course. Furthermore, from Pliny the younger's letter to Emperor Trajan (dated A.D. 112), we learn of some of the beliefs and practices of the early church, which correspond with the New Testament. Additionally, ancient manuscripts from Suetonius, Lucian, Mara Car-Serapion, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian, other Jewish sources (like the Talmud), and heretical sources (such as works from Gnostic writers) supports the historical facts given in the New Testament. So, many other ancient texts match the same picture of history given by the New Testament.
> 
> Finally, I will assess the information we have from the writings of Luke - the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke lists many places, names, and other historically verifiable events, which could be checked to test his accuracy. If Luke was in the habit of making up his history as he saw fit, then he left himself vulnerable to critics who could go and check his story-telling. Historians have confirmed many things Luke records (although not everything), but they have not shown a credible discrepency in all of his work. Among the many confirmation include:
> 
> · The census and governorship of Quirinius (Luke 2:1-3)
> · Description of Athens (Acts 17), including the agora, the altar to the "unknown god", and designation of "Areopogite" for a member of the court (Acts 17:34)
> · Accurate record of Gallio as Proconsul (Acts 18:12)
> · Correct description of two ways to gain Roman citizenship (Acts 22:28)
> · Accurate explanation of provincial penal procedure (Acts 24:1-9)
> · True depiction of invoking one's roman citizenship (Acts 25:18), including the legal formula, de quibus cognoscere volebam (Acts 25:18)
> · Description of being in Roman custody (Acts 28:16) and conditions of being imprisoned at one's own expense (Acts 28:30-31)
> 
> Indeed there are literally dozens and dozens of more confirmations of historical data given in Luke's writings. With so many confirmations, and no credible discrepencies, it is fair to say Luke's writings have earned respect as historical documents that show accuracy and scrutiny for detail.
> 
> So, the Gospels also pass the external test. For they have shown that they dovetail with other historical sources that share information in common with them. These sources include archeology, Jewish writings, Gentile writings, government records, and many other informants not reviewed above. The Gospels have shown with incredible accuracy that whenever their is information that can be verified by other sources that it is going to be on the side of truth. In short, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the New Testament based on the external test.



A few problems with this external consistency claim:

1) The Bible in fact has many historical events _wrong_. There was no census during the reign of Herod, for example. Most, if not all, of the 'historical events' also cannot be verified by outside sources so this entire claim of external consistency is bunk.

2) Contrary to what has been stated, there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date. It has been linguistically proven that Luke is dependent on Marcion (dated at 140 CE). John's gospel is an attempted repudiation of the gnostic leader Cerinthus (145 CE) and is partially derived from his writings. Matthew (with its identification of Peter as 'the rock' of the Church) shows evidence of the developing Roman hiearchy which had not come into effect until around 170 CE. Justin Martyr (150 CE) is completely ignorant of the existence of the 4 Synoptics yet only one generation later Irenaeus (175 CE) is defending their existence as the "true canon". As other scholars have pointed out, Irenaeus' "artificial arguments" are indicative of the fact that the notion of the 4 Synoptics as the "only canon" was a novel and new idea that needed defending.

3) As we accurately date the Synoptics at a later date (Luke and John at the very least date past 160 CE), the idea that they are a primary historical source is less and less viable. As before, hearsay and secondary sources are not reliable historical records.

4) There is no mention in any _reliable_ historical sources outside the Bible of the existence of Jesus or Christians prior to approximately 115 CE. That is nearly 100 years after the events in question and hardly reliable sources.



> Rather, I think I have shown that the Bible's historical accuracy and faithful transmission is impeccable.



Then why were there so many versions of it at the same time as the precious "Four Synoptics"??



> but one option that is not available as an intellectually sound choice is the argument that the Gospels are corrupt documents with historically inaccurate information. It is not intellectually sound either, given the evidence, to say that Jesus was some made up Character.



*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science. Personally, I will never regard a religious text as a primary historical source. Especially one that dates to decades after the events in question.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

> I understand the argument that a figurehead could have been created and certainly Christian philosophy echoes aspects of many previous belief systems, but the issue is whether a person named (something that has been transliterated to) Jesus lived around 2000 years ago and either started, or had started around him, a religion. Given the age of the synoptic gospels (70CE-110CE) and the many parallels between them, they appear to have been based on an earlier book(s) (and some absed on others of them). It points to a (near-)contemporary account of an individual.



Incorrect.

The early dating of the Synoptics is something only committed to by theologians. Not historians. St. Jerome flat-out stated that the Gospel of Luke was of a relatively late date (past 150 CE) and Ireneaus commnted that the Gospel of John was created to refute Cerinthus (145 CE). In addition, NONE of the Gospels are known by name before the time of Irenaeus (175 CE) and even then the implications are quite clear that there were not very popular texts (Irenaeus went out of his way to defend their exclusive canonhood) and many other texts were given precedence (including Marcion's Gospel of the Lord).

Good day.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> **rubs head* This entire post was nothing but an overtly emotionalized rant against anybody that disagrees with you. Its entire content consisted of condemning anybody that asks for primary historical sources for your rather dubious claims.
> 
> I already rebutted the supposed "evidence" you brought forth (including the forged excerpt from Tacitus), so you have yet to provide any "proof" for your claims. Secondary sources and hearsay are not "evidence" to me.
> 
> *shakes head* *



"Ahem" "Your incorrect" "sigh" (please note my mocking tone  )

I have been in quite a few religious discussions on MT, and even the people who disagree with me will attest that I am not the "emotional type" who has a fit when people disagree with me.

I like discussions with people, even when they disagree. An example of what I don't mind is the exchange earlier on this thread between myself and "r erman." We disagreed on some details regarding the Council of Nicea and how some of the Gospels relate to the Council. He proposed his evidence to support his arguement, as I did mine. We came to some conclusions. We may even still disagree, but at least we had a meaningful discussion.

You, however, do not seem to have the ability to have a meaningful discussion regarding this subject. You are the very typical antagonist described in my above post. You pose your opinions as if they are educated, but with no evidence to back them up. You pose opinions as if they are fact, when they are not. And...the very little evidence you do bring forth has less historical and logical support then what you are contesting. Sometimes this evidence is outright wrong, or at least seen as such by almost any historian. You say things that are outright untrue, offering no evidence to support your claim. The list goes on. The really annoying part, though, is your arrogence. "Ahem" "Incorrect" "In fact" "I suggest you do more research" Re-read what I wrote about the antagonist, because it accurately describes your behavor on this thread. And..guess what??? It's annoying.

But you wanna play games, fine. I can pick apart your arguements too, as I have been. Except I'll offer actual evidence to support my claims. And, just like your horrably lossing this arguement so far, Antagonists generally never win arguements, except in there own minds and maybe the minds of one or two that get dragged down their arrogent path with them. Just keep this in mind.


----------



## cdhall

I just noticed this thread and I apologize for not going through the whole thing before posting but I have read some of this and it purports to answer the question of Jesus and his place in history.

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel 

I don't know if there is a good way to link to an item on Amazon.com but here is the URL I landed at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5040797/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3609634-0145541

He also wrote 
The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity
by Lee Strobel 

I'm taking a class on Apologetics at Church right now and our teacher formerly taught at Westpoint.  He is very good.  I want to keep this brief so I'll get off now and try to read the thread.
:asian:


----------



## Jay Bell

Paul,

You've lost me here on your last two posts.  Antagonist...I just don't see it.  He's giving information.  He's putting out times, dates, historical documents, etc to back up that information.  All you seem to be doing is complaining about it <??>

I was under the impression that you two were having a great topic of conversation (up until you last two posts).


----------



## Cruentus

Yes...here we go again indeed....



> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Here we go again....
> 
> 
> This supposed "transmission test" is not a reliable criteria for establishing historical viability. A large number of copies of any document can produced in a very short amount of time.
> 
> Mass production says absolutely nothing of historical reliability, or else Little Red Riding Hood would be the standard historical textbook in most classrooms.  *


*

O.K. You have just proven your inability to read. And, this is exactly what I am talking about. You make a claim: "This supposed 'transmission test' is not reliable criteria for establishing historical viability." O.K.....prove it! You make this claim, that this test isn't reliable, but you leave nothing to back up your conjecture. Not only that, this is totally wrong. If you look into it, you will find that "the Bibliographical Test" or "Transmission Test" is a common test used to verify the validity of ANY historical documention, especially ancient ones where the originals are missing. The idea is very simple; you compare all the copies that existed within a given time frame to see how close they "match" to what may have been the original "story" (Document, or orally transmitted story). The Gospels pass this test with flying colors. If you READ what I wrote, you would see that I admitted that this doesn't prove that Jesus was divine. THe stories could still have been made up, although there are other tests that disprove the "made up" conjecture. But this does prove that the Gospels in the Bible weren't "changed" or "embelished" over time. The stories we have today are going to be extremely close to the stories that were being orally transmitted around the time of the apostles, and around the time they were first written down (a date that we still are uncertian of because none of the original manuscripts have been found). So, we can conclude that for whatever reason, people were telling and eventually writting the gospel stories, and they believed them to be true.




			This entire part of the post is completely incorrect. The Synoptics are self-contradictory at many parts:
		
Click to expand...

 No....they are not....as I explained. However, at least you have some evidence here, so I will entertain you.

Before I go through everything point by point, I want to point out one thing. The fact that the Gospels differ a bit is a good thing, historically. If they were all exact and to the tee with no discrepancies, then Historians would have more of a reason to doubt their validity. They would doubt that they all weren't copies of the same source. Since the 4 Biblical Gospels do differ, then this helps verify Jesus' existance and their beliefs of him to be the Messiah even more because they now exist as 4 seperate sources. Now, some of the sources were clearly "cross referenced." For example, the most widely accepted theory about Johns Gospel is that the author read the Synoptics prior to writing his version. However, this still does not discredit this account. Just look at the media today. One Reporter will cover the latest on Ben and J-Lo, and a bunch of other reporters will read that report, gather other information, and report later on the same story but with additional information to make it unique and readable. Why would the second reporter just copy the 1st report? And, does the fact that the second reporter read the 1st report before making his make his report untrue? No, it doesn't.

So, some discrepencies are good, historically speaking. They verify at least the existance and the beliefs more then they discredit.




			1) There are two different lineages attributed to Jesus, one in Luke and one in Matthew. From one generation past Joseph onward, these patrilineal lines of descent have completely different names ---- meaning, Joseph must have had two granddaddies on his poppa's side. And, who said the Bible promoted homophobia?? 

Click to expand...


LOL...homophobia. 

O.K....differen't names in this case isn't a "hard" contradiction (I explained hard contradictions previously), if even a contradiction at all. Plus, you need to understand the nature of titles like "father" and "brother" in the ancient middle eastern world. "Brother" for instance could mean Sibling, friend, cousin, second cousin, brother in law, cousin in law, etc. Father could mean Dad, Uncle, Grandfather, elder, or teacher. They didn't have the same seperation with titles like father or Brother like we do today, so this really isn't a contradiction when you understand this, and you take it within the context of the authors intent.




			2) The Bible is theologically contradictory. On one point the lineages are established to trace Joseph's line through to David to "prove" Jesus is the messiah and is of the "seed of David". On the other hand, Jesus is the messiah because of the virgin birth and isn't blood-related by Joseph at all. These two "messiah proofs" don't mix, friends. Either he is of the seed of David and Joseph and Mary did the nasty-nasty, or he is not of the seed of David --- and Mary was a virgin momma.
		
Click to expand...


Still no problems here, theologically, not if you understand how marraige is treated theologically. Christian theology explains that when a man and a woman marry, they are no longer 2 people. They become "one." When I marry, my wifes parents become my parents and vice-versa. This makes Jesus son of David through marrage. Who's "seed" at that point is moot.




			3) Many events in the Bible are contradictory. How and when the angel comes to tell Mary she is impregnated with Jesus is contradictory in different gospels. The number of people that witness Jesus resurrect differs in the Gospels. Oh yeah, and the places people witness Jesus resurrect is contradictory in the Gospels (in one account, its in Bethlehem; in another, its a town 100 miles away).

Not internally consistent at all.



			Again...not hard contradictions. Contradictions in details and hard contradictions are seperate things. 

For you to say "Not internally consistant at all" is again you posting your perception as fact. And again, it is not true. All the Gospels say he died by the cross, for instance, a "hard consistancy." They all give the account of Peters deniel, Judas selling him out, etc. The "Hard" consistancies are in tact. 




			A few problems with this external consistency claim:

1) The Bible in fact has many historical events wrong. There was no census during the reign of Herod, for example. Most, if not all, of the 'historical events' also cannot be verified by outside sources so this entire claim of external consistency is bunk.
		
Click to expand...


There you go again. It's not "bunk," dude. You claim that because some historical events in the bible haven't been verified yet by outside sources, then you generalize "the entire claim of external consistency is bunk." This is false logic. Just because some things haven't yet been verified, that doesn't mean that the whole story must be false. I point out some things that HAVE been verified. What IS verified is more important to the external test then what HASN'T been verified. 




			2) Contrary to what has been stated, there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date. It has been linguistically proven that Luke is dependent on Marcion (dated at 140 CE). John's gospel is an attempted repudiation of the gnostic leader Cerinthus (145 CE) and is partially derived from his writings. Matthew (with its identification of Peter as 'the rock' of the Church) shows evidence of the developing Roman hiearchy which had not come into effect until around 170 CE. Justin Martyr (150 CE) is completely ignorant of the existence of the 4 Synoptics yet only one generation later Irenaeus (175 CE) is defending their existence as the "true canon". As other scholars have pointed out, Irenaeus' "artificial arguments" are indicative of the fact that the notion of the 4 Synoptics as the "only canon" was a novel and new idea that needed defending.
		
Click to expand...


You again make a claim: "there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date." Then you proceed to give alternate dates. Have you given us sources or logical/historical proof to back up these dates? NO! And this is the problem with your arguements. Now, I wouldn't be all over you about this, but you tend to discredit what other say by saying they lack "proof," even when they offer you evidence. Then what do you do? You offer false evidence to support your solutions with even less proof to support it (support offered or in existance).

But whatever. What you say above (particularly the dates) is almost entirely thought of by historians and the scholarly community alike to be false. They date the first "copies" that were found was authered somewhere between 70-110 AD. These are what is commonly accepted to be true, not just my theory. Just because there are a small few scholars who disagree, and it plugs into your fantasy world, that doesn't make it the truth.  




			3) As we accurately date the Synoptics at a later date (Luke and John at the very least date past 160 CE), the idea that they are a primary historical source is less and less viable. As before, hearsay and secondary sources are not reliable historical records.
		
Click to expand...


Once again, the burden of proof is on you for this, because this is not the accepted idea based on the data, yet you offer no data (once again).




			4) There is no mention in any reliable historical sources outside the Bible of the existence of Jesus or Christians prior to approximately 115 CE. That is nearly 100 years after the events in question and hardly reliable sources.
		
Click to expand...


Once again, these are your special dates, but not the dates of what the data points too.




			Then why were there so many versions of it at the same time as the precious "Four Synoptics"??
		
Click to expand...


Not a bad question. You could ask this about News stories. Why did almost every paper in the country cover 9-11 when it occured? Because each paper had something a little bit different to offer about the same event. This is the same with the Gospels; each one emphasises different theological points, even though they are about the same events/occurances.




			*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science. Personally, I will never regard a religious text as a primary historical source. Especially one that dates to decades after the events in question.
		
Click to expand...


*chuckles* Sorry to break it to you, but none of this is pseudo science. It isn't even science in question here, it is history. And..the you have offered the most psuedo-info of anybody on this thread so far, so your one to talk about pseudo science. 

And, you don't have to be Christian, Catholic, or anything if you don't want too. I can't foce you. And, you don't have to regard a "relgious text" as anything more then that, if that is what plugs into your program more comfortably. I have a problem with the whole "I am going to argue what is generally exepted and say that there lacks evidence, and then propose alternatives that lack EVEN MORE evidence" thing that you have been doing.

But...whatever.




			Laterz. 

Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


> Um...yea. "laterz" :shrug:
Click to expand...


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *Paul,
> 
> You've lost me here on your last two posts.  Antagonist...I just don't see it.  He's giving information.  He's putting out times, dates, historical documents, etc to back up that information.  All you seem to be doing is complaining about it <??>
> 
> I was under the impression that you two were having a great topic of conversation (up until you last two posts). *



Right....I understand and through my annoyance (which I recognize is more my problem then his or anyone elses) I was a bit harsh. I'll give you some concrete examples of what I mean to better illustrate tha "antagonist" thing:

"The problem once again, Paul, is you don't have a shred of empirical or historical evidence to back up any of those claims"

See, this is arrogent. To dispute evidence is fine, but to say that I don't have a shred of evidence is an insult at best. How does he know what evidence I have, or don't have? Like I am dumb, and I am just making things up as I go along.  

"Also, it is an interesting fact to note..."

O.K....I just quote this little portion because what an antagonist does is say things are "fact," without offering evidence to support there "facts." Often times, these "facts" are just opinions. This kind of behavior is not conducive to a discussion where 2 parties are trying to come to a conclusion of some sort.

"In fact, this practice was known to ONLY take place under the reign of Christian emperors."

An example of an outlandish claim, without supporting evidence. To say that something as common as leaders destroying records happends ONLY under Christian rule is a comment that is difficult to prove at best, yet we are supposed to by this as "fact."

"Contemporary study of the available evidence has demonstrated that idea to be lies invented by Christian authors of later centuries. The Christians were, in fact, only persecuted as a group for a total of 5 years under the Empire's rule. And none of these years were consecutive, mind you"

More claims, w/ no backups. What contemporary studies? He is making the claim here, the burden of proof is on him, yet...no proof. Again, we are just expected to accept a false statement as truth.

"Even the reputed Tacitus 'excerpt' you used as a claim for Jesus' historical existence is identified as a forgery of the 15th century CE, and there is little other proof that Nero (or any Roman leader prior to 250 CE) persecuted the Christians."

Again...evidence anyone?

"I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth"

This is arogent as hell. I suggest YOU study more MOTHER***ker! :rolf: LOL, seriously, though, who is he to tell me to "study more"? Arrogent...

"Also, the earliest Christian teachings, such as the authentic letters of Paul, demonstrate a complete ignorance of any 'biographical' information concerning Jesus. In fact, to Paul, 'Christ' seems to be little more than a Platonic form, Jungian archetype, or Gnostic aeon. There is definitely a docetic flavor to Paul's non-forged letters."

Blah, blah, blah, with no proof proof proof once again.

"In fact, there is no evidence that the Christians saw Jesus as a historical individual until around 110 CE. You are basing your assumptions on incorrect dates which give the highly questionable Synoptics precedence over the Pauline letters."

Once again "in fact" and "I have no evidence." But...where is his evidence?

"You, again, have no evidence to support this claim. It all comes down to an article of faith."

Once again....no evidence eh?

Now, mind you all this with "ahem" and "sigh" and other little arrogent throw-ins.

So, I don't know if you see what I mean here about the antagonist or not. It LOOKS like a discussion is taking place, but really one person is trying to discuss an issue and at least trying to bring constructive evidence to the table, and the other is only trying to argue that person wrong in the most arrogent way that they can think of, while barely bringing anything constructive to the table, particularly in terms of evidence. 

Now For the most part this has been a good discussion. You, for instance, and others, I know do not agree with me, which is fine. But I do think that we have been able to have constructive dialog on both sides.

Heretic888 has had some constructive things to say, even though I disagree. But mostly of what is being said, especially towards me, has not been constructive in my opinion. He has been an antagonist during most of the conversation.

Now, you may disagree with me, and that is fine. But, I hope that you see that I am not just "complaining," but that I have a valid conern regarding "the antagonist." My concern is that conversations that are supposed to be constructive are reduced to the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I....infinity!" with an antagonist in the room.  Hell, they are everywhere, not just in religious discussions!

Anyways, sorry if I sounded like I was just pissin a b**ch...I didn't mean too.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *I just noticed this thread and I apologize for not going through the whole thing before posting but I have read some of this and it purports to answer the question of Jesus and his place in history.
> 
> The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
> by Lee Strobel
> 
> I don't know if there is a good way to link to an item on Amazon.com but here is the URL I landed at
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5040797/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-3609634-0145541
> 
> He also wrote
> The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity
> by Lee Strobel
> 
> I'm taking a class on Apologetics at Church right now and our teacher formerly taught at Westpoint.  He is very good.  I want to keep this brief so I'll get off now and try to read the thread.
> :asian: *



Lee Stobel is a good source. Don Bohrer was kind enough to send me a copy. I read some last night. It is an enjoyable read so far, as well as a good apologetic book. I'd be interested to see what you post here, reflecting what you've learned in your class.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Incorrect.
> 
> The early dating of the Synoptics is something only committed to by theologians. Not historians. St. Jerome flat-out stated that the Gospel of Luke was of a relatively late date (past 150 CE) and Ireneaus commnted that the Gospel of John was created to refute Cerinthus (145 CE). In addition, NONE of the Gospels are known by name before the time of Irenaeus (175 CE) and even then the implications are quite clear that there were not very popular texts (Irenaeus went out of his way to defend their exclusive canonhood) and many other texts were given precedence (including Marcion's Gospel of the Lord).
> 
> Good day.  *



I almost forgot to address this one:

Sorry...I believe that you are "Incorrect." Early dating of synoptics are dated by historians. Trust me, if it was left up to theologians who wanted to fill an agenda, they wouldn't have dated it even as far as 70-110 CE. Both historians and theologians dispute these dates among their peers, but 70-110 is generally accepted. The rest of what you write here is a spin on information, and is not entirely true.


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Sorry...I believe that you are "Incorrect." Early dating of synoptics are dated by historians.  *



Yes, I agree. What is the source for the claim that they date from the mid-to-late 2nd century?


----------



## meni

Can anyone anywhere  please find me a single shred of historical evidence by a  counterpart of Jesus the even mention Jesus or in the same time of Jesus that recall his action?
 Any historian or hard archeology will do º

But as we all know it a matter of faith not of historical evidence!

So sorry 

M


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by meni _
> *Can anyone anywhere  please find me a single shred of historical evidence by a  counterpart of Jesus the even mention Jesus or in the same time of Jesus that recall his action?
> Any historian or hard archeology will do º
> 
> But as we all know it a matter of faith not of historical evidence!
> 
> So sorry
> 
> M *



You'd be good to re-read this thread. A matter of faith? Yes. Is ANY history or truth a matter of faith though? To a degree, yes, if you think about it.

The notion that Jesus lived and had followers who believed the Gospel claims happends to be quite verifyable historically, as I have contended, if you read anything I have said.


----------



## meni

I read your replays 3 times and still there is no historical proof at all


----------



## heretic888

I am not going to respond to your first post, Paul, as Jay summed things up fairly nicely. 

You can keep on insulting me ("arrogant", "antagonist", "can't read", "annoying", etc) if that makes you feel better. It doesn't really bother me. *shrugs* 

For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of Shadowhunter. Hmmmmmmm....... ;p



> You make a claim: "This supposed 'transmission test' is not reliable criteria for establishing historical viability." O.K.....prove it!



Very well.

There are two primary flaws in establishing the 'transmission test' (independent of its connection to the Bible) as a criteria for historical viability.

One) Numerous historically viable texts and documents fail the 'transmission test':

You admitted this within your own post. There are only 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. By the criterion of the 'transmission test', the historical viability of these documents is highly questionable. However, we know from empirical historical evidence (of which the 'transmission test' is not a type) that this is not so. Thus, the reliability of the 'transmission test' on this front alone is brought into question.

Two) Numerous unhistorical texts and documents successfully pass the 'transmission test':

In ancient China, countless copies of the Tao te Ching were popularly known. The popularity of the Tao te Ching spread even to foreign lands such as Japan and Korea. However, modern historians acknowledge that there is very little possibility that Lao Tzu ever existed and, if he did, the Tao te Ching most certainly wasn't authored by him (as it is claimed to be). As I stated before, numerous copies have been published of popular fables such as Little Red Riding Hood and Uncle Tom. I am quite certain the number of copies of Homer's epics is immense, yet these are still mythological works. Again, the reliability of the 'transmission test' as a viable means of historical inquiry is also brought into question due to the fact that works of fiction can pass its criterion.

Additionally, there are many claims concerning the Bible and its connection to the 'transmission test' that don't quite bear out the weight of historical inquiry.

You stated that there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. 

However, you neglect to give the time frame in which all these manuscripts were produced (one of the criterion for the 'tranmission test'). You fail to state whether all these manuscripts were produced within a period of 100 years or 1,000 years.

You also give the impression that any of these copies of the New Testament are in any way historically close to their supposed 'originals'. However, this is not the case. We, in fact, do not have any full versions of the canonically recognized New Testament books prior to the 500's CE. That makes even the oldest of the manuscripts you described to still be over 300 years removed from their 'originals'. A single excerpt or portion dating to the 100's CE is not enough to establish a concrete historical link.

Thus, based on the above reasoning, I am forced to be skeptical on the New Testament and any historical viability it may have from the 'transmission test' --- which, as I demonstrated above, is itself a dubious means of historical research.



> . But this does prove that the Gospels in the Bible weren't "changed" or "embelished" over time. The stories we have today are going to be extremely close to the stories that were being orally transmitted around the time of the apostles, and around the time they were first written down (a date that we still are uncertian of because none of the original manuscripts have been found). So, we can conclude that for whatever reason, people were telling and eventually writting the gospel stories, and they believed them to be true.



I'm afraid this is not quite true.

Regardless of the number of copies existing at any given time, the oldest of full New Testament books dates back to the 500's CE (and, rest assured, the number of New Testament manuscripts dating back this far is quite few indeed). That is well over 300 years removed from the 'oral stories' you cite as original sources.

In addition, there is no historical proof whatsoever that the New Testament books we have now are even dependent on any sort of first century 'oral tradition' --- there is indeed the possibility that they are all mid-to-late 2nd century creations. The first time the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 170 CE), and we still don't know if the Synoptics he refers to are identical (or even similar) to the copies we have now. The first time the Pauline epistles are mentioned is with Marcion (circa 140 CE), and his versions are in a quite different form than the versions we have now.



> So, some discrepencies are good, historically speaking. They verify at least the existance and the beliefs more then they discredit.



Perhaps. But when the discrepancies are so extreme that they actually record the same event as taking place in two completely different locations (as with Jesus' supposed resurrection), then you have a problem.



> O.K....differen't names in this case isn't a "hard" contradiction (I explained hard contradictions previously), if even a contradiction at all. Plus, you need to understand the nature of titles like "father" and "brother" in the ancient middle eastern world. "Brother" for instance could mean Sibling, friend, cousin, second cousin, brother in law, cousin in law, etc. Father could mean Dad, Uncle, Grandfather, elder, or teacher. They didn't have the same seperation with titles like father or Brother like we do today, so this really isn't a contradiction when you understand this, and you take it within the context of the authors intent.



For a text that, at its earliest, dates back to the 500's CE, you sure seem to be making an interesting presumption concerning the author's intentions (considering he/she never wrote anything to clarify this point). 

Also, this was not written in the dialect of the "ancient Middle Eastern world". It is written in the Greek language, where the distinctions between "father" and "brother" and so on are more concrete. I think the contradition is pretty straightforward.

Matthew 1:16 states: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 states: "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli"

According to the Synoptics, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob and Eli. This, to me, is a little screwy.



> Still no problems here, theologically, not if you understand how marraige is treated theologically. Christian theology explains that when a man and a woman marry, they are no longer 2 people. They become "one." When I marry, my wifes parents become my parents and vice-versa. This makes Jesus son of David through marrage. Who's "seed" at that point is moot.



Key words here: "according to Christian theology." Just because Christians of later centuries project their theology onto the New Testamental books does not change what was written by at least the 500's.

In no way was this how the Hebrews saw the situation, nor is it how they see it now. Born of the "seed of David" is a fairly straightforward description. Either, Jesus was born of the seed of David or he was born of a virgin. You can't have both.



> There you go again. It's not "bunk," dude. You claim that because some historical events in the bible haven't been verified yet by outside sources, then you generalize "the entire claim of external consistency is bunk." This is false logic. Just because some things haven't yet been verified, that doesn't mean that the whole story must be false. I point out some things that HAVE been verified. What IS verified is more important to the external test then what HASN'T been verified.



I must admit... you do have a point here.

However, it is widely known among modern researchers that there was no census during Herod's reign, nor was there any attempted "slaughter of innocents". Neither Philo nor Josephus make any mention of either of these events.

In addition, the primary event itself, the trial and execution of Jesus, is completely absent from the Roman records. It is also absent of any historian's mention until around 115 CE (over 80 years after the event in question) and even these 'historical mentions' are of an incredibly dubious nature (Tacitus' supposed reference to Jesus and his record of Nero's persecution of the Christians, for example, is a forgery of the Middle Ages).

I will admit that _some_ of the events of the New Testament  _may_ have historical viability. Of course, this brings into question as to when the New Testament books were actually written (its not hard to be historically accurate when you have hindsight). In addition, other events of the New Testament (including the existence and execution of Jesus) have no reliable external sources to corroborate their historical viability.



> You again make a claim: "there is little (if any) evidence to support dating the Synoptics at such an early date." Then you proceed to give alternate dates. Have you given us sources or logical/historical proof to back up these dates? NO!



I actually gave evidence to support my claims, you musta just overlooked it.  

There are numerous reasons to doubt the early (70-110 CE) dating of the Synoptics:

One) There is no extant version of any of the Synoptics that dates prior to the 500's CE. Thus, we have no reason to conclude that the Synoptics we possess are even remotely similar in content to the ones mentioned by individuals such as Irenaeus. They may indeed be alike in name only.

Two) The first time in recorded history that the Synoptics are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). Justin Martyr, writing only one generation earlier, fails to mention even one of their names a single time. In addition, Irenaeus is quite enthusiastic in his defense of these Synoptics as the "true canon" --- indicating the idea of defending these four exclusively was something of a new and novel idea at the time.

Three) The Gospel of Luke (and possibly some of the other Synoptics) has been demonstrated to be dependent on the Gospel of Marcion (circa 140 CE). The claim of Tertullian (circa 200 CE) was that Marcion had edited Luke. However, this does not bear the weight of logic; there are numerous verses within Luke that would indeed have benefitted Marcion's philosophical position (of docetism), and there are numerous verses in his Gospel of the Lord that indeed do not benefit his philosophical position.

Four) St Jerome (circa 320 CE) has admitted that the Gospel of Luke is of a very late date, written after other Gospels known to have first been published in 160 CE. He also admits that the Theophilus mentioned in Luke was in fact the Bishop of Antioch during the 170's CE.

Five) Irenaeus has admitted that the Gospel of John was written to repudiate the writings of the gnostic Cerinthus. Cerinthus was active during the 140's CE.

Six) Both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew contain verses whose content deals with the hierarchical system first being developed within Rome during the 170's CE.

Seven) Certain excerpts from our Gospel of Mark (namely, the chronological order of Jesus' teaching at Taberbaum) are directly derived and dependent on the Gospel of Luke --- indicating our Luke has historical precedence. As Luke has been demonstrated to be derived from Marcion, this indicates both Luke and Mark were written within the latter half of the 2nd century (150-200 CE).

Eight) There have been studies demonstrating Luke may also be partially dependent on the writings of Josephus (circa 95 CE).

There's your evidence.  



> Once again, these are your special dates, but not the dates of what the data points too.



The supposed "historical references to Jesus" that are so often bandied around date to about 115 CE. This includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc. Mind you, this does not mean all (or even any) of these references actually refers to Jesus or are even authentic (non-forged), but these are their supposed dates nonethless.

The only historical source to supposedly refer to Jesus before this timeframe is Josephus (95 CE), and even the authenticity of his excerpts (including the James reference) are questioned by many.



> Not a bad question. You could ask this about News stories. Why did almost every paper in the country cover 9-11 when it occured? Because each paper had something a little bit different to offer about the same event. This is the same with the Gospels; each one emphasises different theological points, even though they are about the same events/occurances.



Actually, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

There were literally _hundreds_ of Christian gospels and epistles during the later half of the 2nd century, and the Synoptics were by no means the most well-known or popular of them (only Irenaeus and Tertullian, both in Rome, seem to have any faith in them). There is in fact no reason to conclude that the Synoptics are any more authentic than any of these other Gospels (especially considering we have no extant form of the Synoptics prior to the 500's CE and they are never mentioned by name until the 170's CE).

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador

> *I am quite certain the number of copies of Homer's epics is immense, yet these are still mythological works.*



But the question we're asking is more akin to, Was there a Homer? Or perhaps more to the point, no one believes there was an Odysseus--that fact is believed to have been transmitted faithfully.



> There is no extant version of any of the Synoptics that dates prior to the 500's CE. Thus, we have no reason to conclude that the Synoptics we possess are even remotely similar in content to the ones mentioned by individuals such as Irenaeus. They may indeed be alike in name only.



Might not similar reasoning apply to Homer's works? It matters less perhaps in that case, though people debate whether there was a Trojan War.

There are indeed discrepancies in the Synoptics. But there are also sections that have such similar phrasing that it is clear that they are linked. The similarities are more telling than the dissimilarities.

A religion was founded by Muhammed. It can be done.


----------



## MA-Caver

This snippet from a John Lennon & Yoko Ono interview, in 1980 (the year he died).
PLAYBOY: "So Janov was a daddy for you. Who else?"  

ONO: "Before, there was Maharishi."  

LENNON: "Maharishi was a father figure, Elvis Presley might have been a father figure. I don't know. Robert Mitchum. Any male image is a father figure. There's nothing wrong with it until you give them the right to give you sort of a recipe for your life. What happens is somebody comes along with a good piece of truth. Instead of the truth's being looked at, the person who brought it is looked at. The messenger is worshiped, instead of the message. So there would be Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxism, Maoism-- everything-- it is always about a person and never about what he says."  

ONO: "All the 'isms' are daddies. It's sad that society is structured in such a way that people cannot really open up to each other, and therefore they need a certain theater to go to to cry or something like that."  

LENNON: "Well, you went to est."  

ONO: "Yes, I wanted to check it out."  

LENNON: "We went to Janov for the same reason."  

ONO: "But est people are given a reminder..."  

LENNON: "Yeah, but I wouldn't go and sit in a room and not pee."  

ONO: "Well, you did in primal scream."  

LENNON: "Oh, but I had you with me."  

ONO: "Anyway, when I went to est, I saw Werner Erhardt, the same thing. He's a nice showman and he's got a nice gig there. I felt the same thing when we went to Sai Baba in India. In India, you have to be a guru instead of a pop star. Guru is the pop star of India and pop star is the guru here."  

LENNON: "But nobody's perfect, etc., etc. Whether it's Janov or Erhardt or Maharishi or a Beatle. That doesn't take away from their message. It's like learning how to swim. The swimming is fine. But forget about the teacher. If the Beatles had a message, it was that. With the Beatles, the records are the point, not the Beatles as individuals. You don't need the package, just as you don't need the Christian package or the Marxist package to get the message. People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or antireligion. I'm not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables. Because people got hooked on the teacher and missed the message."  

PLAYBOY: "And the Beatles taught people how to swim?"  

LENNON: "If the Beatles or the Sixties had a message, it was to learn to swim. Period. And once you learn to swim, swim. The people who are hung up on the Beatles' and the Sixties' dream missed the whole point when the Beatles' and the Sixties' dream became the point. Carrying the Beatles' or the Sixties' dream around all your life is like carrying the Second World War and Glenn Miller around. That's not to say you can't enjoy Glenn Miller or the Beatles, but to live in that dream is the twilight zone. It's not living now. It's an illusion."  

PLAYBOY: "What is the Eighties' dream to you, John?"  

LENNON: Well, you make your own dream. That's the Beatles' story, isn't it? That's Yoko's story. That's what I'm saying now. Produce your own dream. If you want to save Peru, go save Peru. It's quite possible to do anything, but not to put it on the leaders and the parking meters. Don't expect Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan or John Lennon or Yoko Ono or Bob Dylan or Jesus Christ to come and do it for you. You have to do it yourself. That's what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshiped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There's nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can't wake you up. You can wake you up. I can't cure you. You can cure you."  

PLAYBOY: "What is it that keeps people from accepting that message?"  

LENNON: "It's fear of the unknown. The unknown is what it is. And to be frightened of it is what sends everybody scurrying around chasing dreams, illusions, wars, peace, love, hate, all that... it's all illusion. Unknown is what what it is. Accept that it's unknown and it's plain sailing. Everything is unknown... then you're ahead of the game. That's what it is. Right?"  
(End of Interview)


----------



## Klondike93

Wow, great discussion so far I think, but I have to wonder about basing your evidence on "oral traditions". Stories told over time will tend stray far from the original, become greatly exaggerated.
I see Paul basing a lot of his evidence on this and find it shakey at best. Others seem to be basing what they say on actual writings, other than the bible, which if based of "oral traditions" must be somewhat suspect.  I'm currious what historians Paul is citing, are they other than christian? (I'm not Paul bashing either, just you have me asking myself the most questions, but that's what discussion is for right?)


----------



## don bohrer

I will say this again "The Case for Chris by Lee Strobel" is worth reading. You can also check out Josh Mcdowell's book "The new evidence that demands a verdict". I have only skimmed Josh's book, but found it more in-depth than Strobel's. I have heard Mcdowell, Strobel and another "Hank Hennegraaff" speak many times in the apologetics field. "Hank Hennegraaff" is a speaker and author that I think you will find very compelling. All three authors I mentioned are up to date on their facts, offer evidence and do a great job at answering these tough questions. 

don


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> _Matthew 1:16 states: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."
> 
> Luke 3:23 states: "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli"
> 
> According to the Synoptics, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob and Eli. This, to me, is a little screwy._



Jacob and Eli (also known as Heli) were brothers, their mother being Estha.  According to ancient Jewish geneological customs,  Joseph was the biological son of Jacob *and* the legal son of Eli.

Jame Akin explains in The Geneologies of Christ .


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by meni _
> *I read your replays 3 times and still there is no historical proof at all *



Yup...your lost. I have offered evidence, so take it for what it's worth. Sorry that I can't help you further.


----------



## r erman

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *
> 
> Example: Santa Claus (not St. Nicholas) really did exist but all the evidence of his life was destroyed by the big bad European kings. But, still, I know he existed even though I don't have proof. Why, you ask?? Because the stories say so!!
> 
> 
> 
> *



Just a fun tidbit; The _historical_ St Nicholas was one of the Bishops at the first Council of Nicea, and debated with an so-far-unnamed Bishop over the divinity of Christ.  In fact, when the other Bishop refused to see St Nick's POV(that Christ was divine) he struck the man.  This debate, and the debate over the Arian letter(written by the philosopher Arius) points to the _possibility_(I'm being cautious ) that established men of christian faith still wrestled with what would be the 'official' standing on Jesus within Christianity.

Also, in regards to the 'age' of the gospels, I'll use Matthew as an example, the Ebionites were known to have used a version of Matthew in the first half of the second century, this according to Iranaeus(140-200).  What is interesting to note, though, is that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth of Christ.  This brings up two possibe conclusions: 1) This early 'version' of Matthew did not contain the virgin story, or 2) they were using their own non-canonical gospel at or around 175c.e(quotations of which are mentioned by Epiphanius in his Heresies 30 in 375)--if they had their own gospel it was a gospel that was easily confused with Matthew.

I know there has been a lot of debate over what sources were used for the Gospels and the ages thereof.  The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have put forth the Gospel of Peter as the source for the passion stories, but still insist that Mark, or the structure of Mark, was the primary base for the canonical gospels(and possibly the hypothetical 'Q' text being the basis for these as well).  They generally advocate, and offer evidence to support, that there were two primary archetypical gospels that the followers of Christ used.  The first would have been a gospel of the sayings of Jesus(Q), and second, a gospel of the signs, or miracles, of Jesus.  This goes a long way in explaining why there were divergent groups of Christians in the first couple of centuries.

I have to argue with the point that there are no discovered Gospels dated before 500c.e.(unless referring to the Synoptics).  The Egerton Gospel papyrus was found in Egypt and dates to the second half of the second century(150-200c.e.)  It is considered one of the oldest extant copies of a gospel in the world.

p.s. for those wanting historical proof of Jesus.  Look into John Dominic Crossan's lates work:  Excavating Jesus.  I would not suggest apologetic books, such as those by McDowell or others.  They are not scholarly and don't stand up to criticism--these books are great for fundamentalists looking for some kind of veracity, but aren't regarded as accurate by any objective scholarly body--including those bodies trying to discover the historical Christ.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *I am not going to respond to your first post, Paul, as Jay summed things up fairly nicely.
> 
> You can keep on insulting me ("arrogant", "antagonist", "can't read", "annoying", etc) if that makes you feel better. It doesn't really bother me. *shrugs*
> 
> For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of Shadowhunter. Hmmmmmmm....... ;p
> *


*

Shadow hunter.......O.K. ya caught me!  

Seriously, I am not just trying to insult you, although in my annoyance, I may have come off as harsh. However, this last post brings some interesting ideas forth more so then your other posts, so I am happy to address your arguements. 




			Very well.

There are two primary flaws in establishing the 'transmission test' (independent of its connection to the Bible) as a criteria for historical viability.

One) Numerous historically viable texts and documents fail the 'transmission test':

You admitted this within your own post. There are only 20 copies of Tacitus' Annals, 10 copies of Ceasar's triumphs in the Gallic Wars, and 8 copies of Herodotus' History. By the criterion of the 'transmission test', the historical viability of these documents is highly questionable. However, we know from empirical historical evidence (of which the 'transmission test' is not a type) that this is not so. Thus, the reliability of the 'transmission test' on this front alone is brought into question.
		
Click to expand...


These other documents don't exactly "fail" the transmission test, they just don't pass as well as the New Testement documents. What this proves is that we have more evidence to conclude what the origional followers of Jesus believed, namely that he was A. a real person, and B. believed to be the messiah. If these copies varied on these 2 points, they would certianly be up for arguement. Since they don't, then we have to figure the obvious, which is that these 2 points are correct.

This test also concludes that we have more evidence to support what was actually written in the New Testement then in any other ancient document. So, if you doubt that Jesus existed, then you must doubt EVERY other ancient document ever written. 




			Two) Numerous unhistorical texts and documents successfully pass the 'transmission test':

In ancient China, countless copies of the Tao te Ching were popularly known. The popularity of the Tao te Ching spread even to foreign lands such as Japan and Korea. However, modern historians acknowledge that there is very little possibility that Lao Tzu ever existed and, if he did, the Tao te Ching most certainly wasn't authored by him (as it is claimed to be). As I stated before, numerous copies have been published of popular fables such as Little Red Riding Hood and Uncle Tom. I am quite certain the number of copies of Homer's epics is immense, yet these are still mythological works. Again, the reliability of the 'transmission test' as a viable means of historical inquiry is also brought into question due to the fact that works of fiction can pass its criterion.
		
Click to expand...


I'll say this for the 3rd time, because you don't seem to be getting it. The Transmission Test doesn't prove that the stories weren't made up (there are other tests for that) as much as it DOES prove that these stories weren't altered over time to fit in with some Christian agenda. Part of what has been said by people on this thread is the idea that the Gospel stories are "made up" much later then the time proposed when Jesus was crusified. This transmission test proves that this cannot be true.

Also, Red Riding Hood and other similar examples are not good ones because these are works of fiction. We KNOW that these are works of fiction because we know the authors, we have the originals, so we know the intent. With the Biblical Gospels, letters, and stories, it would seem that the authors intent was not to create a work of fiction. It would seem that contemporaries of these authors, as well as the authors themselves, would not risk death and torture over fiction. So your point, that anything could be a "history" based on this test is wrong. The test isn't claiming to be able to differentiate between fiction and non-fiction, it only claims to be able to piece together what was written in the original texts, and what was believed and being preached at the time.




			Additionally, there are many claims concerning the Bible and its connection to the 'transmission test' that don't quite bear out the weight of historical inquiry.

You stated that there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts (which continue to grow with archeological work). Additionally, there are copies of ancient translations of the Bible which include over 10,000 in Latin, over 4,000 in Slavic, over 2,500 in Armenian, over 2,000 in Ethiopian, and hundreds more in other languages. Combining the Greek texts with the translated documents gives the New Testament over 24,000 manuscripts. 

However, you neglect to give the time frame in which all these manuscripts were produced (one of the criterion for the 'tranmission test'). You fail to state whether all these manuscripts were produced within a period of 100 years or 1,000 years.
		
Click to expand...


All those manuscripts were dated prior to 800 CE. Many of the Greek, and Eithopian texts, for example, were found prior to 200 (we are talking into the thousands). Other texts, including many that I have mentioned that are considered to be "true," only have hundreds of copies at best. And the first of these copies were found sometimes up to 1000 years or more after the originals are believed to be written. 

The first fragments of John are written on papyris, and are found in Eitheopia, dated prior to 100 CE. Hmmm...Eitheopia. Look on a map and tell me how far Eitheopia is from the proposed middle east, and imagine how long it might take to translate an original text to etheiopian on a plant leaf from that far away. Remember now, there is no computer for them to just copy the word document. It had to be carefully hand written.

But, these are just more points that you refuse to see, but the FACT is that there is more evidence supporting the New Testement than any other ancient text, and supporting the FACT that Jesus LIVED, and people BELIEVED. 




			You also give the impression that any of these copies of the New Testament are in any way historically close to their supposed 'originals'. However, this is not the case. We, in fact, do not have any full versions of the canonically recognized New Testament books prior to the 500's CE. That makes even the oldest of the manuscripts you described to still be over 300 years removed from their 'originals'. A single excerpt or portion dating to the 100's CE is not enough to establish a concrete historical link.
		
Click to expand...


Although what you say is not completely true, I'll bite anyways. Let's say you are correct that the full versions aren't available until 300 years later (which your not, but lets just say so for arguments sake), and all we have is fragments. Well, if the fragments match the originals, and the put together pieces add up to be the New Testement that we have today, then I conceed that these "fragements" are plenty to establish concrete historical links. This only further proves my points.




			Thus, based on the above reasoning, I am forced to be skeptical on the New Testament and any historical viability it may have from the 'transmission test' --- which, as I demonstrated above, is itself a dubious means of historical research.
		
Click to expand...


You've demonstrated nothing. Go back to the drawing board.





			I'm afraid this is not quite true.

Regardless of the number of copies existing at any given time, the oldest of full New Testament books dates back to the 500's CE (and, rest assured, the number of New Testament manuscripts dating back this far is quite few indeed). That is well over 300 years removed from the 'oral stories' you cite as original sources.
		
Click to expand...


Once again, this doesn't matter. I don't care if the first "full Book" was found in 1999. If the fragments go back as far as the first century, which they do, and all the fragements add up to our first New Testement full texts, which they do, then we can figure that these are fairly accurate. Remember, for some ancient texts we don't have existing copies until 1000 years after the fact, yet these are not discredited in the same manner as the New Testement. 




			In addition, there is no historical proof whatsoever that the New Testament books we have now are even dependent on any sort of first century 'oral tradition' --- there is indeed the possibility that they are all mid-to-late 2nd century creations. The first time the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 170 CE), and we still don't know if the Synoptics he refers to are identical (or even similar) to the copies we have now. The first time the Pauline epistles are mentioned is with Marcion (circa 140 CE), and his versions are in a quite different form than the versions we have now.
		
Click to expand...


Well...as I have maintained, there is planty of evidence "whatsoever"  The fact that our earliest copies of the Gospels are generally accepted to be between 70-110 CE is plenty of evidence (and actually our first copies are believed more so as follows: Mark 70s, Luke and Matthew 80's, and John 90's - but there are good conjectures that perhaps John came as late as 110, where we get the idea that our 1st copies were found between 70-110). THis idea points to the probability that something had to have been actually written prior to these dates, for these are copies. Considering this, then these stories would have been told and written during the time when the people who witnessed these events were still alive, and could dispute any incorrect information. This is where the oral tradition comes into play. Really, this happends to a degree today. If a news story is published that has false information, all the eyewitnesses can go to another reporter and report the truth. If a News reporter today were to report on President Bush as a real person, but it becomes common knowledge that President Bush doesn't actually exist, and is a fabrication created by Fox News, Other media sources could report this using other opinions and eyewitness accounts to what is really going on. We don't have any stories from the 1st or 2nd centuries claiming that Jesus was a fabrication by the Christians. So YOU are the one who has nothing to support this great Christian consperacy.

Now, are there other "possabilities," yes. Hey, it is possible that your parents aren't your real parents, and you were really bought by Gypsies. It is possible that you were really a girl at one time, but your parents wanted a boy so you went through a sex change before you could remember. Hey anything is possible. However, what is possible, and what is likely are 2 entirely different things.




			Perhaps. But when the discrepancies are so extreme that they actually record the same event as taking place in two completely different locations (as with Jesus' supposed resurrection), then you have a problem.
		
Click to expand...


As I said, no problems here. The discrepencies you claim aren't hard contradictions; they don't jeprodize the idea that Jesus was a real person who people believed was the Messiah. 




			For a text that, at its earliest, dates back to the 500's CE, you sure seem to be making an interesting presumption concerning the author's intentions (considering he/she never wrote anything to clarify this point). 

Click to expand...


This is wrong. The authors intentions are plainly stated within the Gospels themselves, and they imperically say that they are giving testemony to "real" events. Here is just one example from John:

"It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 

There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." John 21:24-25 




			Also, this was not written in the dialect of the "ancient Middle Eastern world". It is written in the Greek language, where the distinctions between "father" and "brother" and so on are more concrete. I think the contradition is pretty straightforward.

Matthew 1:16 states: "Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

Luke 3:23 states: "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli"

According to the Synoptics, Joseph has two fathers: Jacob and Eli. This, to me, is a little screwy.
		
Click to expand...


I maintain that the distinction was not CLEARLY made with titles such as father or brother, for one. Just because you have a different OPINION, that doesn't make it true. Secondly, Dennis Mahon linked to a decent site that explains the circumstance better then I am willing too. 




			Key words here: "according to Christian theology." Just because Christians of later centuries project their theology onto the New Testamental books does not change what was written by at least the 500's.

In no way was this how the Hebrews saw the situation, nor is it how they see it now. Born of the "seed of David" is a fairly straightforward description. Either, Jesus was born of the seed of David or he was born of a virgin. You can't have both.
		
Click to expand...


It is incidental in both the Christian and Hebrew Circumstance. I explained why it was incidental in the Christian sense, which is what matter most in this case because the Hebrews who decided Jesus was the Messiah bacame Christian immediately at that point. But even in the hebrew sense, Mary was also understood to be a decendant of David, removed by many generations.  




			I must admit... you do have a point here.

However, it is widely known among modern researchers that there was no census during Herod's reign, nor was there any attempted "slaughter of innocents". Neither Philo nor Josephus make any mention of either of these events.

In addition, the primary event itself, the trial and execution of Jesus, is completely absent from the Roman records. It is also absent of any historian's mention until around 115 CE (over 80 years after the event in question) and even these 'historical mentions' are of an incredibly dubious nature (Tacitus' supposed reference to Jesus and his record of Nero's persecution of the Christians, for example, is a forgery of the Middle Ages). 






			Well, the idea that the Romans didn't attempt to slaughter the innocent is completely false. You'll have to bring forth some evidence supporting this false idea, because most historians know that both Christians and Jews alike were slaughtered by Romans form time to time, particularly during the Roman/Jewish war. Plus, you have no evidence that the entire history of Tacitus is a forgery, either.




			I will admit that some of the events of the New Testament  may have historical viability. Of course, this brings into question as to when the New Testament books were actually written (its not hard to be historically accurate when you have hindsight). In addition, other events of the New Testament (including the existence and execution of Jesus) have no reliable external sources to corroborate their historical viability.
		
Click to expand...


First, I can't say that I know all the nuances and customs of America from even 100 years ago. I'd have to go to the library and do some reasearch to fabricate something and make it look like it was written 100 years ago. Problem is, there weren't libraries, or printing presses. Mostly only the Government and rich had scribes who could keep track of history, yet how would early christians even get access to this material? So, I believe that when considering the facts, hindsite is NOT 20-20 in this regard. So, the Gospels must have been accurate depictions of the eyewittness testamonies and stories of that time period.

Again..."no reliable external source." Come-on, dude, I went over this once already. Just revert ot my previous posts to provide an explaination for this one.




			I actually gave evidence to support my claims, you musta just overlooked it. 

Click to expand...


Well...no you didn't, otherwise I would have had some points to address. Regardless, lets see what points you have now...




			There are numerous reasons to doubt the early (70-110 CE) dating of the Synoptics:

One) There is no extant version of any of the Synoptics that dates prior to the 500's CE. Thus, we have no reason to conclude that the Synoptics we possess are even remotely similar in content to the ones mentioned by individuals such as Irenaeus. They may indeed be alike in name only.
		
Click to expand...


I don't believe your dates are accurate, again, but this doesn't matter...I covered this point above.




			Two) The first time in recorded history that the Synoptics are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). Justin Martyr, writing only one generation earlier, fails to mention even one of their names a single time. In addition, Irenaeus is quite enthusiastic in his defense of these Synoptics as the "true canon" --- indicating the idea of defending these four exclusively was something of a new and novel idea at the time.
		
Click to expand...


The idea of defending these 4 exclusively was novel, I will agree. But this is because it was believed by Irenaus and his contemporaries that these 4 fit in historacally and theologically better into the Christan ideas then the other accounts. And Irenaus was pretty smart. We find today that in 2003 that the 4 Gospels are not only the earliest, but have the most supporting evidence, and are most likely to contain eyewitness accounts then the other 20 or so.




			Three) The Gospel of Luke (and possibly some of the other Synoptics) has been demonstrated to be dependent on the Gospel of Marcion (circa 140 CE). The claim of Tertullian (circa 200 CE) was that Marcion had edited Luke. However, this does not bear the weight of logic; there are numerous verses within Luke that would indeed have benefitted Marcion's philosophical position (of docetism), and there are numerous verses in his Gospel of the Lord that indeed do not benefit his philosophical position.
		
Click to expand...


These are just hypothesies. If it is true what historians are saying regarding Luke predating 140 CE (when you claim Marcion Gospel was written) then why can't it be that the Marcion Gospel was dependent on Luke. How can we accept Tertullians claim better then anyone elses? This evidence is shakey at best.




			Four) St Jerome (circa 320 CE) has admitted that the Gospel of Luke is of a very late date, written after other Gospels known to have first been published in 160 CE. He also admits that the Theophilus mentioned in Luke was in fact the Bishop of Antioch during the 170's CE.
		
Click to expand...


You'll have to show me evidence where Jerome has said what you claim, first of all, for me to believe it. Second of all, evidence today proves this to be false, even if Jerome did in fact say what you claim. Jerome could have been wrong, ya know.




			Five) Irenaeus has admitted that the Gospel of John was written to repudiate the writings of the gnostic Cerinthus. Cerinthus was active during the 140's CE.
		
Click to expand...


No...the Gospel of John repudiates the writings of the gnostic Cerinthus. This doesn't mean that was the purpose for writing it, how could it be when Johns Gospel predates Cerinthus? 




			Six) Both the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew contain verses whose content deals with the hierarchical system first being developed within Rome during the 170's CE.
		
Click to expand...


You'll have to elaborate on this point a bit more. Which verses, which hierarchical system? I can't take this point on face value, but I would hazard to guess that it is only being interpreted to "deal" with a hierarchical system of 170, when it isn;t the case.




			Seven) Certain excerpts from our Gospel of Mark (namely, the chronological order of Jesus' teaching at Taberbaum) are directly derived and dependent on the Gospel of Luke --- indicating our Luke has historical precedence. As Luke has been demonstrated to be derived from Marcion, this indicates both Luke and Mark were written within the latter half of the 2nd century (150-200 CE).
		
Click to expand...


This is not correct; historians note mark as the first Gospel to have been written. Prove them wrong, and then we can explore this point.




			Eight) There have been studies demonstrating Luke may also be partially dependent on the writings of Josephus (circa 95 CE).
		
Click to expand...


Again, how do we know that these studies are any more credible then the ones that make different claims?




			There's your evidence. 

Click to expand...


Thank you! Now we are having a discussion. Although I don't agree with much of your evidence, at least we have SOMETHING to work with. 




			The supposed "historical references to Jesus" that are so often bandied around date to about 115 CE. This includes Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc. Mind you, this does not mean all (or even any) of these references actually refers to Jesus or are even authentic (non-forged), but these are their supposed dates nonethless.

The only historical source to supposedly refer to Jesus before this timeframe is Josephus (95 CE), and even the authenticity of his excerpts (including the James reference) are questioned by many.



Actually, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

There were literally hundreds of Christian gospels and epistles during the later half of the 2nd century, and the Synoptics were by no means the most well-known or popular of them (only Irenaeus and Tertullian, both in Rome, seem to have any faith in them). There is in fact no reason to conclude that the Synoptics are any more authentic than any of these other Gospels (especially considering we have no extant form of the Synoptics prior to the 500's CE and they are never mentioned by name until the 170's CE).

Laterz. 

Click to expand...



Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


> O.K...I am not sure what the point here in the beginning of the quote, but lets explore your point at the end. You say there are 100's of gospels. I will agree that there are quite a few. Many of these Gospels may not help the "Christian" premise of JEsus' divinity, I will admit. However, that isn't what we are discussing here. We are disputing whether or not Jesus existed as a real person, or was he "made up." With hundereds of Gospels and accounts, and none of them saying that "Jesus was a made up character," then I would have to conclude that he was as these accounts say, A REAL PERSON. Right?
> 
> Now, the main idea, or thing that I think we can learn here is this: Your evidence that Jesus did not exist is NO MORE compelling then my evidence that he did exist, at the very least. I would of course say that my evidence is more compelling, but these are matters of opinion, and I will let the MT readers decide what to believe for themselves. However, you came on here with this auro of superior knowledge, as if you have some kind of evidence or proof that blows conventional ideas out of the water. I think that you have proven that your evidence is at best, no better then the evidence against your claims. So, we remain at a standstill. If I believe in "my evidence " on faith and not imperical fact, as you and some others here have contested, then the same is true for you; you believe in your evidence on faith and not imperical fact as well. So it appears we are at a standstill; I cannot force you to go against your "faith" based idea that Jesus never existed.
> 
> Also...I wanted to thank you for your last post. It didn't have that "arrogence" I was describing earlier, and you brought more ideas and evidence to the table for us to explore. This made for a much better conversation then what was going on in the beginning. And again, I apologize for getting fusterated there for awhile.
> 
> Have a good one...
> 
> PAUL
Click to expand...


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> *Wow, great discussion so far I think, but I have to wonder about basing your evidence on "oral traditions". Stories told over time will tend stray far from the original, become greatly exaggerated.
> I see Paul basing a lot of his evidence on this and find it shakey at best. Others seem to be basing what they say on actual writings, other than the bible, which if based of "oral traditions" must be somewhat suspect.  I'm currious what historians Paul is citing, are they other than christian? (I'm not Paul bashing either, just you have me asking myself the most questions, but that's what discussion is for right?)
> 
> 
> 
> *



Paul basher!! :rofl: 

Here is a tidbit about oral tradition with the Ancient Hebrews. 

Some Rabbi's were noted for being able to memorize the entire Torrah, word for word. This seems like quite a feat by todays standards of Internet, sticky notes, outlook calanders, and palm pilots. They didn't have a method of writing things down in those days, and writing was very scarce and much revered. So, the Rabbi's and teachers had to have a great memory, and memorizing was a much valued talent of the rabbi's and teachers.

Now, when we think of Oral tradition, we think of the telephone game, which is a bad analogy. For one, we are whispering to the next person in line, which they can barely here. For two, part of the fun in the exercise is when they screw up a phrase, and "Katie likes to drink apple juice" turns into "Katie bikes and thinks on river rouge" and all the 6 year olds in the room crack up.

This isn't quite the way Oral tradition was transmitted in Ancient Hebrew days. The teachers knew that they had to be extremely careful not to screw it up. So, when they taught, they had checks and balances in place. First, they weren't allowed to relay the story until the original person who told them gave them permission, meaning that they made sure that they were telling it verbatum prior to being able to teach the story. Second, the audience and other rabbi's could correct them if they made a mistake in the telling of the story. So imagine your in church and a preacher or priest is telling a story, and someone chimes in on the background to say that something isn't exactly correct, and they are able to discuss the matter right there in church. This was perfectly acceptable in ancient Judiaism.

So...a better analogy is everyone circles up to play telephone, and the first person says out loud "Katie likes to drink apple juice," then every third person says the phrase outloud and checks with the rest of the group to make sure they have it correct before moving on. Kind of a different way of thinking about it, eh?

So when you understand the nature of the oral tradition back then, you understand that it can still be regarded as a reliable source. 

But besides all of that, even if you don't buy the idea's about oral tradition, evidence shows that the first gospel stories were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. We are talking 20-40 years after the event, which by ancient standards of documentation, is not very long. In other ancient documents, things often weren't written down until 100's of years after the event. Anyhow, if these stories were all "made up" then early people who opposed the idea of Jesus would have written something to the effect of, "These Christians are a religious cult who made up a fictitious character named Jesus, and are making all sorts of outlandish claims about this made up person." You will find nothing to that effect. You do however find early opposition that attributes Jesus powers to sorcery and demonic powers. This only validates Jesus' existance, and his miricles for that matter.

In terms of siting historians, I don't know what they're religious denomination is. I know of at least 2 that are Jewish, and I know some are definatily Christian. However, If you meet them with suspicion because of their faith, then shouldn't you meet the non-christian ones with the same suspicion because they don't want to believe in the Christian Premise? How many of those who say "Jesus never existed" are non-Christian. I'll bet you all of them! Regardless, I might have to compile a list of historians that you can check for at a later time, but the list is quite big.

:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Dennis_Mahon _
> *Jacob and Eli (also known as Heli) were brothers, their mother being Estha.  According to ancient Jewish geneological customs,  Joseph was the biological son of Jacob and the legal son of Eli.
> 
> Jame Akin explains in The Geneologies of Christ . *



Good link...thanks Dennis!


----------



## heretic888

> But the question we're asking is more akin to, Was there a Homer? Or perhaps more to the point, no one believes there was an Odysseus--that fact is believed to have been transmitted faithfully.



The point I was attempting to make in that specific quote, arnisdor, is that the 'transmission test' is a less than reliable means of historical research. Namely, because unhistorical and mythological works can (and have) satisfied its criteria with flying colors. At the same time, extremely historically viable sources can (and have) failed the criteria of the 'transmission test'.

I would submit rather that the 'transmission test' is a means of deciphering a text or document's popularity at a given time than its historical credibility. Personally, I would attribute the large number of Biblical texts to Judeo-Christian imperialism and colonialism (so to speak) than any supposed historical precedent.



> Might not similar reasoning apply to Homer's works? It matters less perhaps in that case, though people debate whether there was a Trojan War.



The difference being, arnisdor, that modern students of Homer's works do not claim them to be literal historical accounts. Nor do they claim that Odysseus was an actual person. Nor do they claim them to be any older than empirical or textual documentation allows.



> There are indeed discrepancies in the Synoptics. But there are also sections that have such similar phrasing that it is clear that they are linked. The similarities are more telling than the dissimilarities.



Well, arnisdor, that is because virtually all Biblical scholars today make note that the Synoptics are either dependent on one another (the most popular theory I have heard is that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark), or that they are all derived from a common source (such as Q, the Gospel of Thomas, or Macion's Gospel of the Lord --- sometimes referred to as the Gospel of Paul) or, rather, multiple common sources.



> Wow, great discussion so far I think, but I have to wonder about basing your evidence on "oral traditions". Stories told over time will tend stray far from the original, become greatly exaggerated.



Also, there is no real historical proof that any of the modern Synoptics are based on any "oral tradition", whether it be apostolic or otherwise. The only thing backing this claim up is theological commitment and cultural bias (people seem to forget that Judeo-Christian philosophy is what has driven Western culture for over 1500 years).

The first time any of the Synoptics are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). And, as a correction to what I have stated previously, we have no complete New Testamental books/gospels older than the 300's CE (putting all of our versions of the New Testament ironically _after_ the famed Council of Nicaea). Also, we have no evidence to conclude that the Synoptics cited by Irenaeus and the Synoptics from the 300's are in any way similar --- again, they may be alike in name only.

Also, contrary to what has been stated on this thread beforehand, the Gospels have indeed been altered and edited from time to time. We have proof of this in both historical documentation (comparing extant versions of the Synoptics with one another) as well as textual evidence (the claims of certain historical figures). To paraphrase Freke and Gandy:

The Pagan critic Celsus (circa 170 CE) complains that Christians "altered the original text of the gospels three or four times, or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics." Modern scholars have found that he was right. A careful study of over 3,000 early manuscripts have shown how scribes made many changes [G. Stanton, 'Gospel Truth?', page 35]. 

The Church father Origen (circa 230 CE), an opponent of Celsus, states: "It is an obvious fact today that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors."

To convey the enormity of the problem, one scholar (G. Stanton) describes selecting a place in the gospels completely at random (in this case, he chose Mark 10:11) and checking to see how many differences were recorded between various early manuscripts for these passages. He discovered "no fewer than 48 places where the manuscripts differ, sometimes there are only two possibilities, often there are three or more, and in one case there are six!"

Scholars also know that whole sections of the gospels were added later. For example, originally Mark did not contain any words beyond Chapter 16 verse 8 --- the fear of the women at their discovery of the empty tomb. The so-called "long ending" in which the risen Jesus appears to his disciples, is not found in any early manuscripts and yet now appears in nearly all New Testaments. 

Now, granted, there are _fragments_ or _excerpts_ of certain Gospels that we know of that go back to the 100's CE. However, these are just fragments. We really have no idea what Gospel they are actually a part of, or the theological/philosophical position of their author(s).



> Jacob and Eli (also known as Heli) were brothers, their mother being Estha. According to ancient Jewish geneological customs, Joseph was the biological son of Jacob and the legal son of Eli.



Really?? Its a shame the only evidence to support that theory is from Eusebius --- writing over 300 years after the events in question. Eusebius fails to draw upon any primary sources or direct records to support this "legal son vs biological son" theory. And, its not like Eusebius is exactly known for his truthfulness, either (he authored a biography of Constantine portraying him as a benevolent leader rather than a tyrannical and bloodthirsty dictator).

The Biblical srewiness still remains.



> Yup...your lost. I have offered evidence, so take it for what it's worth. Sorry that I can't help you further.



Actually, paul, you have yet to offer the "hard" evidence that meni is requesting. Your earliest external source that corroborates the existence of Jesus include those of Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius. These are all dated around 112 CE --- over 80 years after the events in question. And, each one fails to site a prior primary source or direct record. By the criteria of serious historical research, these are all considered secoondary sources and amount to little more than hearsay.

This, of course, doesn't take into account the flimsy historical basis for some of these sources. Tacitus erroneously calls Pontius Pilate a "procurator" rather than his historicaly correct title of "prefect", and there is also no other evidence to support Tacitus' supposed description of Nero's persecution of the Christians (Josephus, for example, never mentions this). There is a very good possibility that the supposed reference to Jesus attributed to Tacitus is indeed a forgery (considering it is never mentioned by anyone until a Christian writer in the 1400's).

Contemporary Jewish historians of Jesus' own time, such as Philo and Justus, remain silent on both him and any Christian sect(s). There remains, to date, no "hard" evidence to corroborate his existence.



> Just a fun tidbit; The historical St Nicholas was one of the Bishops at the first Council of Nicea, and debated with an so-far-unnamed Bishop over the divinity of Christ. In fact, when the other Bishop refused to see St Nick's POV(that Christ was divine) he struck the man. This debate, and the debate over the Arian letter(written by the philosopher Arius) points to the possibility(I'm being cautious ) that established men of christian faith still wrestled with what would be the 'official' standing on Jesus within Christianity.



Actually, the historical evidence seems to indicate that the "Christians" had been arguing amongst themselves for a long, long time. After all, in most of the Mediterranean, Gnosticism was the most popular and most common form of Christianity, not the Literalism of Rome.



> Also, in regards to the 'age' of the gospels, I'll use Matthew as an example, the Ebionites were known to have used a version of Matthew in the first half of the second century, this according to Iranaeus(140-200). What is interesting to note, though, is that the Ebionites denied the virgin birth of Christ. This brings up two possibe conclusions: 1) This early 'version' of Matthew did not contain the virgin story, or 2) they were using their own non-canonical gospel at or around 175c.e(quotations of which are mentioned by Epiphanius in his Heresies 30 in 375)--if they had their own gospel it was a gospel that was easily confused with Matthew.



This actually proves very little.

As I stated before, the Synoptics are never mentioned by name before Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). Justin Martyr, writing only one generation earlier (and who claimed to have been familiar with the Ebonites), never mentions them at all.

And, again, there is no evidence to conclude that the Synoptics and Gospel of Matthew that Irenaeus mentions (and that these Ebionites may have possessed) is in any way similar to the ones we have now.



> I know there has been a lot of debate over what sources were used for the Gospels and the ages thereof. The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar have put forth the Gospel of Peter as the source for the passion stories, but still insist that Mark, or the structure of Mark, was the primary base for the canonical gospels(and possibly the hypothetical 'Q' text being the basis for these as well). They generally advocate, and offer evidence to support, that there were two primary archetypical gospels that the followers of Christ used. The first would have been a gospel of the sayings of Jesus(Q), and second, a gospel of the signs, or miracles, of Jesus.



There are alternate theories, of course, that also have evidence to support them as well.

It is interesting to note, however, that the two types of gospels you cited (sayings gospel and sings gospel) are put in neither a time or place setting. In 1919, the German scholar Karl Ludwig Schmidt published a careful way in which Mark's gospel had been created. The Jesus story had been pieced together from pre-existing fragments (such as from the two pre-gospels you mentioned) and their narrative connection and "flow" was entirely of Mark's invention. 



> This goes a long way in explaining why there were divergent groups of Christians in the first couple of centuries.



There are other explanations, as well.

The Pauline epistles, which are first mentioned around 140 CE with Marcion, demonstrate an ignorance of not only any of Jesus' reputed sayings (Paul doesn't even know about the Lord's Prayer) but also of Jesus' many miracles. He also demonstrates a lack of knowledge of any of the "biographical" details of Jesus' story. 

Paul's letters, if their first century dating is indeed accurate, may demonstrate an early period within the Jesus movement(s), when the Christians had yet to have completed the biographical and narrative details to their godman.



> I have to argue with the point that there are no discovered Gospels dated before 500c.e.(unless referring to the Synoptics). The Egerton Gospel papyrus was found in Egypt and dates to the second half of the second century(150-200c.e.) It is considered one of the oldest extant copies of a gospel in the world.



The Egerton Papyrus is a _fragment_ of an unknown Gospel. There are, in fact, a few unknown gospel fragments dated to the 2nd century. However, there are no complete (or even mostly complete) versions of the Synoptics (or any other gospel for that matter) until the 300's CE --- after the theological dictations of the Council of Nicaea had been established.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> The point I was attempting to make in that specific quote, arnisdor, is that the 'transmission test' is a less than reliable means of historical research. Namely, because unhistorical and mythological works can (and have) satisfied its criteria with flying colors. At the same time, extremely historically viable sources can (and have) failed the criteria of the 'transmission test'.
> 
> I would submit rather that the 'transmission test' is a means of deciphering a text or document's popularity at a given time than its historical credibility. Personally, I would attribute the large number of Biblical texts to Judeo-Christian imperialism and colonialism (so to speak) than any supposed historical precedent.



Again, I think your missing the point as to why historians use this test to verify historacal documents. It isn't so much that it deperates fact from fiction, rather it helps to define what the original stories were. Since the gospels hold up to the test, the Christian consperacy theory that Christians "changed" the text overtime to suit an agenda is bunk, because the copies closely match each other, meaning that they all closely match the "original" story of what was being told, and what was eventually written down. The context in which the authors write the texts more-so then this test shows that they at least believed that Jesus was A. a real person and B. the messiah.


----------



## Cruentus

> The difference being, arnisdor, that modern students of Homer's works do not claim them to be literal historical accounts. Nor do they claim that Odysseus was an actual person. Nor do they claim them to be any older than empirical or textual documentation allows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but this was written in the context of being an "Epic." Epic means: Large and Grandious story. Historians recognize this as a Legend with some historical possibilities (like the possabilities of a Trojan War, as well as some verifiable places) in a similar manner that historians regard The book of Genesis. Historians (not all theologians mind you) maintain that Genesis was told orally for thousands of years prior to it being written. This story has some events and things that can be regarded as true, however it is quite mythological in it's story telling.
> 
> However, you forget that the first COPIES of homers works were dated 1000 years after the supposed 1st copy was written, which could have been many more years after any of the supposed events.
> 
> The Gospels have copies dated maybe 40-80 years at best from the original events themselves. The Gospels are a much closer history then Homers works. And it is clear that Homer was keeping up with tradition in writing a poetic Mythology, when the Gospel writers were trying to records a history.
> 
> So Homers works and the Gospels are 2 different animals.
Click to expand...


----------



## Cruentus

> Well, arnisdor, that is because virtually all Biblical scholars today make note that the Synoptics are either dependent on one another (the most popular theory I have heard is that Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark), or that they are all derived from a common source (such as Q, the Gospel of Thomas, or Macion's Gospel of the Lord --- sometimes referred to as the Gospel of Paul) or, rather, multiple common sources.



I explained this one in my media/J-Lo example before. And even you said that 100's of Gospels were made, some dating close to the resurection, and some centuries later. It would make sense that some of these writers wrote in light of other writings, but this doesn't invalidate the idea that Jesus was a real person and that people believed him to be the messiah. If anyhting it validates the idea more. What you won't find, in these early writings, is anyone saying that Jesus never existed, the percise thing that you have been trying to prove.


----------



## Cruentus

> Also, there is no real historical proof that any of the modern Synoptics are based on any "oral tradition", whether it be apostolic or otherwise. The only thing backing this claim up is theological commitment and cultural bias (people seem to forget that Judeo-Christian philosophy is what has driven Western culture for over 1500 years).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true according to many historians. Read my explaination regarding Oral tradition above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first time any of the Synoptics are mentioned by name is with Irenaeus (circa 175 CE). And, as a correction to what I have stated previously, we have no complete New Testamental books/gospels older than the 300's CE (putting all of our versions of the New Testament ironically after the famed Council of Nicaea). Also, we have no evidence to conclude that the Synoptics cited by Irenaeus and the Synoptics from the 300's are in any way similar --- again, they may be alike in name only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again...this is false. We have found many copies prior to Irenaus, and they all match up pretty well. We can look at the actual copies today to make comparisons, so that is how we know that what Irenaus had, and what we had in 300 CE are similar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, contrary to what has been stated on this thread beforehand, the Gospels have indeed been altered and edited from time to time. We have proof of this in both historical documentation (comparing extant versions of the Synoptics with one another) as well as textual evidence (the claims of certain historical figures). To paraphrase Freke and Gandy:
> 
> The Pagan critic Celsus (circa 170 CE) complains that Christians "altered the original text of the gospels three or four times, or even more, with the intention of thus being able to destroy the arguments of their critics." Modern scholars have found that he was right. A careful study of over 3,000 early manuscripts have shown how scribes made many changes [G. Stanton, 'Gospel Truth?', page 35].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of these "changes" are mere linguistic errors, incidental to the point of the stories.
> 
> However, This arguement is Moot anyways, because the subject here is "Was Jesus a real person." There is no evidence that he wasn't real person before, and Christians altered the story to say that he was. Plus, Celsus says one thing, His Christian Peers say another, so it is all hersay on both sides. But what is important to note here is that Celsus doesn't claim that Jesus never existed, he just claims that Christian scholars altered the stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Church father Origen (circa 230 CE), an opponent of Celsus, states: "It is an obvious fact today that there is much diversity among the manuscripts, due either to the carelessness of the scribes, or the perverse audacity of some people in correcting the text, or again to the fact that there are those who add or delete as they please, setting themselves up as correctors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right...but the premise that Jesus was a real person wasn't one of those additions or deletions. This is what is really important here for this arguement. The rest is debatable, but under a different subject matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To convey the enormity of the problem, one scholar (G. Stanton) describes selecting a place in the gospels completely at random (in this case, he chose Mark 10:11) and checking to see how many differences were recorded between various early manuscripts for these passages. He discovered "no fewer than 48 places where the manuscripts differ, sometimes there are only two possibilities, often there are three or more, and in one case there are six!"
> 
> Scholars also know that whole sections of the gospels were added later. For example, originally Mark did not contain any words beyond Chapter 16 verse 8 --- the fear of the women at their discovery of the empty tomb. The so-called "long ending" in which the risen Jesus appears to his disciples, is not found in any early manuscripts and yet now appears in nearly all New Testaments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is conjecture is considered completely false by other archeologists and historians, but if you want to follow around an antagonist like a puppy, be my guest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, granted, there are fragments or excerpts of certain Gospels that we know of that go back to the 100's CE. However, these are just fragments. We really have no idea what Gospel they are actually a part of, or the theological/philosophical position of their author(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true again, scholars have been able to decifer where they believe they are from. However, even if this was true, it still doesn't speak against the idea that "Christ was a real person" which is what you are trying to say.
> 
> So, I am waiting for you to show your imperical evidence that Jesus could not have been a real person. You require "imperical evidence" for those that disagree with you, so I can certainly require it to support your points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Cruentus

> Really?? Its a shame the only evidence to support that theory is from Eusebius --- writing over 300 years after the events in question. Eusebius fails to draw upon any primary sources or direct records to support this "legal son vs biological son" theory. And, its not like Eusebius is exactly known for his truthfulness, either (he authored a biography of Constantine portraying him as a benevolent leader rather than a tyrannical and bloodthirsty dictator).
> 
> The Biblical srewiness still remains.



I still maintain my position on the Father title as I explained earlier. But all this is clouding the fact that you cannot prove that Jesus wasn't a real person against all the evidence that points to the idea that he was.


----------



## Cruentus

> Actually, paul, you have yet to offer the "hard" evidence that meni is requesting. Your earliest external source that corroborates the existence of Jesus include those of Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius. These are all dated around 112 CE --- over 80 years after the events in question. And, each one fails to site a prior primary source or direct record. By the criteria of serious historical research, these are all considered secoondary sources and amount to little more than hearsay.
> 
> This, of course, doesn't take into account the flimsy historical basis for some of these sources. Tacitus erroneously calls Pontius Pilate a "procurator" rather than his historicaly correct title of "prefect", and there is also no other evidence to support Tacitus' supposed description of Nero's persecution of the Christians (Josephus, for example, never mentions this). There is a very good possibility that the supposed reference to Jesus attributed to Tacitus is indeed a forgery (considering it is never mentioned by anyone until a Christian writer in the 1400's).
> 
> Contemporary Jewish historians of Jesus' own time, such as Philo and Justus, remain silent on both him and any Christian sect(s). There remains, to date, no "hard" evidence to corroborate his existence.



There is plenty of evidence that exists. What you consider "hard" evidence or not is debatable. But regardless, how much "hard evidence supporting ANY history prior to 1000 CE do you think we have? Not much at all. It is ALL debatable, and we can do this all day.

But the real problem here is that most of the evidence supports that Jesus was a real person, even though you may find this evidence debatable. None of the evidence contends that he never existed.


----------



## Cruentus

> The Egerton Papyrus is a fragment of an unknown Gospel. There are, in fact, a few unknown gospel fragments dated to the 2nd century. However, there are no complete (or even mostly complete) versions of the Synoptics (or any other gospel for that matter) until the 300's CE --- after the theological dictations of the Council of Nicaea had been established.



You make this point, as well as a tone of others. But you have yet to argue effectively how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying.


----------



## heretic888

> These other documents don't exactly "fail" the transmission test, they just don't pass as well as the New Testement documents.



Yes, but the fact that these historical documents don't pass as well as well-known mythological and unhistorical works brings the entire historical validity of the 'transmission test' into question.



> What this proves is that we have more evidence to conclude what the origional followers of Jesus believed, namely that he was A. a real person, and B. believed to be the messiah.



Not really.

When you consider the fact that we have no complete (or even mostly complete) New Testament books older than the 300's CE, then all you really have evidence for is what "Christians" may have believed after the dictations of the Council of Nicaea were established, in which a certain form of Christianity was made the state religion.



> If these copies varied on these 2 points, they would certianly be up for arguement. Since they don't, then we have to figure the obvious, which is that these 2 points are correct.



The Synoptics that _we_ have (dating no earlier than the 300's) don't vary on these points. However, there are Christian manuscripts just as old as, if not older, than these that do contan differing viewpoints (including the works of Marcion).

In addition, you seem to be making the presumption on what the early "Christians" believed based on a religious text (which may or may not have actually been theirs). There is no evidence to conclude that the original "Christians" were not indeed docetists and viewed the Gospel narrative merely as something along the lines of a mystery play or mystery drama (which were very popular at the time).

Also, as I demonstrated in my prior post, the Synoptics _have_ undergone changes and alterations over the years --- but not in either of the two points you mentioned. Meaning, the characters within the Synoptics believe Jesus to be a real person and to be the Messiah. This, however, is not to say that the original Christians themselves held such beliefs (of which there is no proof to support).



> This test also concludes that we have more evidence to support what was actually written in the New Testement then in any other ancient document. So, if you doubt that Jesus existed, then you must doubt EVERY other ancient document ever written.



No. I don't doubt that the Synoptics existed in a somewhat similar form from the 300's onward (the Council of Nicaea ensured that). Of course, this says nothing about what the Christians before or during the 300's believed --- only what is written in the Synoptics. And, as before, changes have been made to the Synoptics since then, but not in either of the points you are contesting.



> I'll say this for the 3rd time, because you don't seem to be getting it. The Transmission Test doesn't prove that the stories weren't made up (there are other tests for that) as much as it DOES prove that these stories weren't altered over time to fit in with some Christian agenda.



Ok, if you are talking about the Synoptics not undergoing any changes at all (outside of the 2 points you highlighted before), then I'm afraid they do fail the 'transmission test' rather badly. Both Celsus and Origen complained of changed taking place in Christian texts during their own times and extant versions of the Synoptics have been shown to differ from one another (as G. Stanton demonstrated).



> Part of what has been said by people on this thread is the idea that the Gospel stories are "made up" much later then the time proposed when Jesus was crusified. This transmission test proves that this cannot be true.



Again, not really.

There are no extant versions of the Synoptics prior to the 300's CE.... and the ones that do date this far back are quite few in number. Even if there have been no changes made to the Synoptics since then (which is an untrue assertion in and of itself), all this 'transmisson test' tells us is that variations on the Synoptics haven't been "made up" since the 300's. It most certainly doesn't tell us how the authors of the Synoptics viewed Jesus (again, the Gospels could have been merely mystery plays to them) or how Christians prior to the 300's viewed him.



> Also, Red Riding Hood and other similar examples are not good ones because these are works of fiction. We KNOW that these are works of fiction because we know the authors, we have the originals, so we know the intent. With the Biblical Gospels, letters, and stories, it would seem that the authors intent was not to create a work of fiction.



I'm afraid you have no proof of this claim on the authors' intentions (if you do, please post it). There are, in fact, no reliable historical proclamations of Christian Literalism made until the mid-2nd century (with Justin Martyr).



> It would seem that contemporaries of these authors, as well as the authors themselves, would not risk death and torture over fiction.



There is, again, no proof of this claim that the authors or their contemporaries ever risked death or torture. No official persecutions of the Christians as a group took place before 250 CE. Even the Church father Origen admitted that the number of Christians that had died for the faith were "few in number" and "easily counted".

Even if we assume they actually were persecuted, there is still no reason to conclude they did not view the Gospel accounts as fiction. "Christianity" could have originally been something like a Mystery School (which were occassionally persecuted by Rome) in which the Gospel narrative was seen as a mystery drama meant to reveal spiritual truths to an initiate. Mystery Schools were persecuted from time to time in Roman history.



> So your point, that anything could be a "history" based on this test is wrong. The test isn't claiming to be able to differentiate between fiction and non-fiction, it only claims to be able to piece together what was written in the original texts, and what was believed and being preached at the time.



All this 'transmission test' can do (assuming, of course, that the Synoptics even pass it --- which they don't) is what was written in the Synoptics from the 300's onward. It tells us nothing of what was written beforehand or what was believed and preached by the Christians then or before.



> All those manuscripts were dated prior to 800 CE.



Ok. That is still a timeframe of almost 500 years between the earliest available versions.



> Many of the Greek, and Eithopian texts, for example, were found prior to 200 (we are talking into the thousands).



Ok, this I _know_ to be untrue. There are _no_ complete (or even mostly complete) New Testamental books prior to the 300s CE. These texts, if they indeed date to this time, would be fragments or excerpts from unknown gospels.



> The first fragments of John are written on papyris, and are found in Eitheopia, dated prior to 100 CE.



From Freke and Gandy:

In 1992, Carsten Thiede's 'The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?' claimed that the three fragments stored for a long time in Magdalene College, Oxford, date from the middle of the first century. However, the eminent papyrologist Graham Stanton has clearly demonstrated that the fragments are written in the 'Biblical Unical' handwriting which only emerged in the late second century. In addition, these tiny fragments can tell us nothing about the texts they came from and for whole texts we must wait until the fourth century.



> Look on a map and tell me how far Eitheopia is from the proposed middle east, and imagine how long it might take to translate an original text to etheiopian on a plant leaf from that far away. Remember now, there is no computer for them to just copy the word document. It had to be carefully hand written.



That makes the assumption that "Christianity" began in the Middle East, of which there is no proof. A lot of modern research seems to imply that Christianity most likely has its origins in Egypt. Alexandria, to be exact.



> But, these are just more points that you refuse to see, but the FACT is that there is more evidence supporting the New Testement than any other ancient text



All you've proven is that the Synoptics have been relatively unchanged in their basic content since the 300's. That doesn't support anything.



> and supporting the FACT that Jesus LIVED, and people BELIEVED.



Again, even if the Synoptics did pass the 'transmission test' (which they don't), this tells us nothing about whether there was a historical Jesus or not or what Christians prior to the 4th century actually believed and taught. You make the assumption, without any empirical basis, that all (or even most) Christians considered the Gospels to be historical accounts (when it is known that a significant percentage of Christians during the 2nd and 3rd century were Marcionites --- which if of a distinctly docetic slant).



> Although what you say is not completely true, I'll bite anyways. Let's say you are correct that the full versions aren't available until 300 years later (which your not, but lets just say so for arguments sake), and all we have is fragments.



Whole (or even mostly whole) New Testamental texts do not date back earlier than the 300's CE, correcting what I stated earlier.



> Well, if the fragments match the originals, and the put together pieces add up to be the New Testement that we have today, then I conceed that these "fragements" are plenty to establish concrete historical links. This only further proves my points.



I'm afraid you are using false logic here, paul.

Just because fragments match certain excerpts within the Synoptics does _not_ mean those fragments come from the Synoptics. The fragments may indeed come from a text that the Synoptics used for source material (such as Q or the Gospel of Thomas). There is absolutely no reason to conclude that these fragments come from pre-existing versions of the Synoptics themselves (outside of theological commitment, that is).



> You've demonstrated nothing. Go back to the drawing board.



Guess again.  



> Once again, this doesn't matter. I don't care if the first "full Book" was found in 1999. If the fragments go back as far as the first century, which they do, and all the fragements add up to our first New Testement full texts, which they do, then we can figure that these are fairly accurate.



Not quite. None of the fragments date back to the first century (as Mr. Stanton demonstrated). Also, not all the fragments "add up to our New Testament texts". They don't even add up to one of the Synoptics. 

And, again, just because a fragment has something in common with one of our Synoptics does not mean it comes from that Synoptic. It is perfectly plausible that the fragment comes from a source material for our Synoptics. There is absolutely no evidence to contradict this one way or the other.

The fact that the Synoptics are not mentioned until around 190 CE by Irenaeus and that the oldest versions we have of them date to the 300's lends credence to the possibility that these fragments come from a source material from the Synoptics, and not the Synoptics themselves.



> Remember, for some ancient texts we don't have existing copies until 1000 years after the fact, yet these are not discredited in the same manner as the New Testement.



So??



> Well...as I have maintained, there is planty of evidence "whatsoever"



You have yet to present any.



> The fact that our earliest copies of the Gospels are generally accepted to be between 70-110 CE is plenty of evidence



Our earliest extant copies of the Gospels are dated to the 300's CE. Whoever you got that information from is incorrect.



> Considering this, then these stories would have been told and written during the time when the people who witnessed these events were still alive, and could dispute any incorrect information. This is where the oral tradition comes into play.



This makes the assumption that the Gospel narratives are records of actual events and not mystery dramas or fictional novels. You have provided no proof that this was not how the authors saw the narratives.



> We don't have any stories from the 1st or 2nd centuries claiming that Jesus was a fabrication by the Christians. So YOU are the one who has nothing to support this great Christian consperacy.



Actually, paul, we do. 

The Pagan critic Celsus (circa 170 CE) made many claims against Christians that they had just fabricated their stories from pre-existing Pagan myths. Justin Martyr's writings also imply these arguments were used against him as well.

Within the Christian tradition(s), Marcion (circa 140 CE) was a docetist --- meaning he did not believe Jesus existed in the physical sense (i.e, the Gospel narrative was a mystery drama of sorts). He claimed to be a disciple of Paul and, given the lack of biographical information on Jesus in the Pauline epistles, Paul's characteristic use of Gnostic terminology, and Paul's treatment of Jesus as a sort of godman or archetype, there is much credence to the theory that Paul was a docetist as well.



> Now, are there other "possabilities," yes. Hey, it is possible that your parents aren't your real parents, and you were really bought by Gypsies. It is possible that you were really a girl at one time, but your parents wanted a boy so you went through a sex change before you could remember. Hey anything is possible. However, what is possible, and what is likely are 2 entirely different things.



I'm afraid you need to re-evaluate your claims of "likelihood" here. For all your claims, you have yet to contend with the lack of historical corroboration of Jesus' existence by anyone within 50 years of the date of his supposed death, Paul's ignorance of Jesus' biographical details and decidedly Gnostic/Docetic rhetoric, the obvious parallels between the Gospel narrative and pre-existing Pagan myths, the incredibly late date of the first mention of the Synoptics, and the incredibly late date of any extant Synoptic copies.



> As I said, no problems here. The discrepencies you claim aren't hard contradictions; they don't jeprodize the idea that Jesus was a real person who people believed was the Messiah.



Really??

In Mark and Matthew, the resurrected Jesus appears to his other disciples in Galilee, where they have been specificaly sent by divine decree. Yet this stupendous supernatural event does not seem to have impressed itself upon the other disciples, since Luke and the author of the Acts of the Apostles have the risen Jesus appearing in and around Jerusalem. Indeed, according to Acts, not only did they not receive any divine commandment to go to Galilee, but were expressly forbidden to leave Jerusalem.

That isn't a hard contradiction??  



> This is wrong. The authors intentions are plainly stated within the Gospels themselves, and they imperically say that they are giving testemony to "real" events. Here is just one example from John:
> 
> "It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.
> 
> There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." John 21:24-25



*wink wink* That is what the character "John" within the narrative is said to have said. Considering the extremely late date of even orthodox researchers for the Gospel of John (110 CE or so), its fairly apparent the disciple John didn't write that (or any of the Gospel).

Besides, that statement is still keeping in line with the view that the narrative could have been seen as a mystery drama to Christian initiates.



> I maintain that the distinction was not CLEARLY made with titles such as father or brother, for one. Just because you have a different OPINION, that doesn't make it true.



I think someone needs to brush up on their Greek. 



> Secondly, Dennis Mahon linked to a decent site that explains the circumstance better then I am willing too.



That site, as I explained, does not provide any evidence to support its claims.



> So, I believe that when considering the facts, hindsite is NOT 20-20 in this regard. So, the Gospels must have been accurate depictions of the eyewittness testamonies and stories of that time period.So, I believe that when considering the facts, hindsite is NOT 20-20 in this regard. So, the Gospels must have been accurate depictions of the eyewittness testamonies and stories of that time period.



Ummm.... no. Just because something is written down, doesn't make it true. Many of the historical "events" in the Gospels never took place (such as the census during the reign of Herod, and the "slaughter of innocents").



> Again..."no reliable external source." Come-on, dude, I went over this once already. Just revert ot my previous posts to provide an explaination for this one.



I did. And not one of the external sources you provided is, at best, a secondary source and, at worst, a forgery.



> The idea of defending these 4 exclusively was novel, I will agree. But this is because it was believed by Irenaus and his contemporaries that these 4 fit in historacally and theologically better into the Christan ideas then the other accounts. And Irenaus was pretty smart. We find today that in 2003 that the 4 Gospels are not only the earliest, but have the most supporting evidence, and are most likely to contain eyewitness accounts then the other 20 or so.



*chuckles* Sure, you just have to account for why they are never mentioned before 190 CE. And why no version of them exists before the 300's CE. And, why one of them is dependent on a pre-existing Gospel (Marcion's Gospel of the Lord). And, why none of them are considered eyewitness accounts. And, why the source material they are believed to be dependent on (Q and possibly Thomas) has no time/place setting. And, why other Christian figures such as Jerome flat out stated some of them are of a late date.



> These are just hypothesies.



No, its a theory because, unlike many of your claims, there is empirical evidence to back it up.



> If it is true what historians are saying regarding Luke predating 140 CE (when you claim Marcion Gospel was written)



Ahem. Some historians.



> then why can't it be that the Marcion Gospel was dependent on Luke.



Because a textual examination shows this to not be true. There are verses in Luke that would support Marcion's position but that are not in Marcion's gospel, and there are verses that don't help Marcin's position, but are still in his gospel. Marcion's gospel also is simpler and has a better flow than the Luke verses it shares. Also, Marcion is mentioned decades before the Gospel of Luke ever is.

Sorry, but no dice.



> How can we accept Tertullians claim better then anyone elses?



Because Tertullian was a known liar and forger of documents, as modern research has shown.



> You'll have to show me evidence where Jerome has said what you claim, first of all, for me to believe it.



It's in Charles Waite's 'History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred'.



> of all, evidence today proves this to be false, even if Jerome did in fact say what you claim. Jerome could have been wrong, ya know.



You have yet to present this evidence, and instead base your arguments on a lot of assumptions that have no empirical basis to back them up (only theological commitment).



> No...the Gospel of John repudiates the writings of the gnostic Cerinthus. This doesn't mean that was the purpose for writing it, how could it be when Johns Gospel predates Cerinthus?



Because John's Gospel is _dependent_ on Cerinthus.



> This is not correct; historians note mark as the first Gospel to have been written.



Ahem. Some historians.

You need to quit pretending everything here is unilateral. Its not.



> O.K...I am not sure what the point here in the beginning of the quote, but lets explore your point at the end. You say there are 100's of gospels. I will agree that there are quite a few. Many of these Gospels may not help the "Christian" premise of JEsus' divinity, I will admit. However, that isn't what we are discussing here. We are disputing whether or not Jesus existed as a real person, or was he "made up." With hundereds of Gospels and accounts, and none of them saying that "Jesus was a made up character," then I would have to conclude that he was as these accounts say, A REAL PERSON. Right?



No. This agan makes assumptions on what these people believed or how they saw the Gospels. There were a lot of myths about Dionysus and Mithras too, but none of the initiates of those schools thought they were real people.

The fact that the earlier Christian texts (such as Paul's epistles) evince an ignorance of any biographical details on Jesus and that the reputed Gospel sources (such as Q) are in a non-time/place setting, it is indeed quite possible (and very probable) that the early Christians did not view Jesus as an actual person.



> This isn't quite the way Oral tradition was transmitted in Ancient Hebrew days. The teachers knew that they had to be extremely careful not to screw it up. So, when they taught, they had checks and balances in place. First, they weren't allowed to relay the story until the original person who told them gave them permission, meaning that they made sure that they were telling it verbatum prior to being able to teach the story. Second, the audience and other rabbi's could correct them if they made a mistake in the telling of the story. So imagine your in church and a preacher or priest is telling a story, and someone chimes in on the background to say that something isn't exactly correct, and they are able to discuss the matter right there in church. This was perfectly acceptable in ancient Judiaism.



This again makes the assumption that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. There is no proof for this claim.



> But besides all of that, even if you don't buy the idea's about oral tradition, evidence shows that the first gospel stories were written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses.



You have yet to provide this evidence.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 

This discussion is getting to be laughable, and I am not going to go through each and every point again. You have resorted to repeating yourself on many accounts, even though the points have been refuted. I feel like we are going around in circles at this point.

What I can't believe is that you can't see that your evidence and the evidence of the scholars you quote is no more "imperical" then the evidence that supports the ideas of Jesus being a real person. And the evidence that supports your ideas is, at best, a long shot. There is FAR more corroborating evidence supporting the idea that Jesus was a real person, and his followers believed in his divinity.

How about just admiting the truth...that your evidence is not more "imperical" then anyone elses? Then we might be able to start getting somewhere....


----------



## r erman

*STOP DEBATING!!!*

I'm at work and can't even get a chance to say anything, LOL.

Heretic--What was the point of responding to my post.  Nothing I said contradicts what you are saying--although I don't necessarily agree with your supposition that Jesus never existed.  And you didn't contradict anything I was saying either--my point about Nicea was exaclty to point out what you said in response.  It almost seems like you are arguing for the fun of it--even if the argument isn't a refutation of what you say...

PAUL.  It's been fun "talking" with you.  You ain't bad for a _christian_  BTW, I assumed you were fundamentalist, but a level-headed one.  I wasn't refering to you when I mentioned me not trafficking with fundies.


----------



## Cruentus

Heretic pointed out one thing that could possibly be a good refutation of my arguement that early opponents of Christians did not oppose the idea that Jesus was a real person.



> The Pagan critic Celsus (circa 170 CE) made many claims against Christians that they had just fabricated their stories from pre-existing Pagan myths. Justin Martyr's writings also imply these arguments were used against him as well.
> 
> Within the Christian tradition(s), Marcion (circa 140 CE) was a docetist --- meaning he did not believe Jesus existed in the physical sense (i.e, the Gospel narrative was a mystery drama of sorts). He claimed to be a disciple of Paul and, given the lack of biographical information on Jesus in the Pauline epistles, Paul's characteristic use of Gnostic terminology, and Paul's treatment of Jesus as a sort of godman or archetype, there is much credence to the theory that Paul was a docetist as well.



This is misinformation. First, the part about Paul being a Gnostic has no credence at all, particularly when you read the letters themselves and realize that The philosophies he proposes doesn't fit at all with the Gnostics (which is why they are Christian). There is also no historical connection that I have seen pointing to Paul being anything but a Christian after his conversion.

However, what is also misinformation is the idea that Gnostics, Docetists, or Celsus believed that Jesus didn't exist. On the contrary, they believe he existed, but as a Pagan God only in spirit and sorcery. They attribute his miricles, and even the resurection to sorcery and spiritism. This is quite different then saying that Jesus was completely made up by the Christians, which was a claim not made by these 3 sources. I will post further about these sources later.


----------



## Cruentus

An eclectic Platonist and polemical writer against Christianity, who flourished towards the end of the second century. Very little is known about his personal history except that he lived during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, that his literary activity falls between the years 175 and 180, and that he wrote a work entitled alethès lógos ("The True Word", or "The True Discourse"), against the Christian religion. He is one of several writers named Celsus who appeared as opponents of Christianity in the second century; he is probably the Celsus who was known as a friend of Lucian, although some doubt this, because Lucian's friend was an Epicurean, and the author of the "True Discourse" shows himself a Platonist. It is generally supposed that Celsus was a Roman. His intimate acquaintance, however, with the Jewish religion and his knowledge, such as it was, of Egyptian ideas and customs incline some historians to think he belonged to the Eastern portion of the empire. Those who believe him to have been a Roman explain his knowledge of Jewish and Egyptian matters by assuming that he acquired that knowledge either by travelling, or by mingling with the foreign population of Rome. 

Celsus owes his prominence in the history of Christian polemics not so much to the pre-eminent character of his work, as to the circumstance that about the year 240 a copy of the work was sent to Origen by his friend Ambrosius, with a request to write a refutation of it. This Origen, after some hgesitation, consented to do, and embodied his answer in the treatise "Against Celsus" (katà Kélsou). So careful is Origen to cite the very words of his opponent that it is possible to reconstruct the text of Celsus from Origen's answer, a task which was accomplished by Jachmann in 1846, and more successfully by Keim in 1873. The original of Celsus's treatise having perished, the text reconstructed from Origen (about nine-tenths of the original has in this way been recovered) is our only primary source. 

Celsus's work may be divided as follows: a preface, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of Judaism, an attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy, a refutation of Christian teachings in detail, and an appeal to Christians to adopt paganism. In the preface Celsus forecasts the general plan of his attack by describing in the first place the general character of Christianity and then proceeding to accuse both Christian and Jew of "separatism", that is to say, of arrogating to themselves a superior wisdom, while in reality their ideas concerning the origin of the universe, etc., are common to all peoples and to the wise men of antiquity. In the second portion, Celsus argues that Christ did not fulfil the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew people. Christ, he says, claimed to be of virgin birth; in reality, He was the son of a Jewish village woman, the wife of a carpenter. The flight into Egypt, the absence of any divine intervention in favour of the Mother of Jesus, who was driven forth with her husband, and other arguments are used to show that Christ was not the Messias. During the course of His public ministry Christ could not convince His countrymen that His mission was divine. As followers He had ten or twelve "infamous publicans and fishermen". Such is not the company that befits a god. (This is one out of many instances in which Celsus suddenly passes from the Jewish to the pagan point of view.) As to the miracles ascribed to Christ, some, said Celsus, were merely fictitious narratives, the others, if they did really take place, are not more wonderful than the deeds of the Egyptians and other adepts in the magic arts. He next proceeds (cf. Orig., "Contra Celsum", II) to upbraid those Jews who, "abandoning the law of their fathers", allowed themselves to be deceived by one whom their nation had condemned, and changed their name from Hebrew to Christian. Jesus did not fulfil His promises to the Jews; instead of succeeding as they should have expected the Messias to succeed, He failed even to keep the confidence and loyalty of His chosen followers. His alleged prediction of His death is an invention of His Disciples, and the fable of His Resurrection is nothing new to those who remember the similar stories related of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, and Rhampsinit. If Christ rose from the dead, why did He appear to His Disciples only, and not to His persecutors and to those who mocked Him? 

In the third portion (cf. Origen, op. cit., III) Celsus inaugurates a general attack on Christianity from the point of view of philosophy. He upbraids both Jews and Christians with their ridiculous disagreement in matters of religion, whereas, in fact, both religions rest on the same principles: the Jews revolted from the Egyptians and the Christians from the Jews; sedition was in both cases the true cause of separation. Next, he upbraids the Christians with lack of unity among themselves; so many sects are there, and so different, that they have nothing common save the name Christian. Like almost all the pagan opponents of Christianity he finds fault with Christians because they exclude from their fellowship the "wise and good", and consort only with the ignorant and sinful. He misunderstands the Christian teaching regarding the Incarnation, "as if", he says, "God could not by His own power accomplish the work which He sent Christ on earth to accomplish". With this misunderstanding is connected Celsus's false view of the Christian teaching on the subject of Divine Providence and God's special care of mankind as compared with the plants and animals. The world, he says, was not "made for man's use and benefit", but for the perfection and completion of God's plan of the universe. In the fourth part of his "True Discourse" (cf. Origen, op. cit., V) Celsus takes up the teachings of the Christians in detail and refutes them from the point of view of the history of philosophy. Whatever is true in the doctrines of the Christians was borrowed, he contends, from the Greeks, the Christians having added nothing except their own perverse misunderstanding of the tenets of Plato, Heraclitus, Socrates, and other Greek thinkers. "The Greeks", he says, "tell us plainly what is wisdom and what is mere appearance, the Christians ask us at the outset to believe what we do not understand, and invoke the authority of one who was discredited even among his own followers." In like manner the Christian teaching concerning the Kingdom of God is merely a corruption of Plato's doctrine; when the Christians tell us that God is a spirit, they are merely repeating the saying of the Stoics that God is "a spirit penetrating all and encompassing all". Finally, the Christian idea of a future life is borrowed from the Greek poets and philosophers; the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is simply a corruption of the world-old idea of transmigration of souls. In the fifth, and last portion of his work (cf. Origen, op. cit., VII, lxii sqq.; VIII) Celsus invites the Christians to abandon their "cult" and join the religion of the majority. He defends the worship of idols, the invocation of demons (daímones), the celebration of popular feasts, urging among other considerations, that the Christian who enjoys the bounties of nature ought, in common gratitude, to render thanks to the powers of nature. He concludes his treatise by an appeal to Christians to abandon their "vain hope" of establishing the rule of Christianity over all the earth; he invites them to give up their "life apart", and take their place among those who by word and deed and active service contribute to the welfare of the empire. In an epilogue he promises another work (whether it was ever written we do not know) in which he is to explain in detail how those who would and could follow his philosophy of life should live. 

The aim of Celsus's work is different from that of the other opponents of Christianity in the early centuries. He exhibits comparatively little of the bitterness which characterized their attacks. He does not descend to the lower level of pagan polemics. For instance, he omits the customary accusation of atheism, immorality, "Thyestian feasts and dipodean gatherings", accusations which were very commonly urged against the Christians for the purpose of rousing popular indignation. His aim was, perhaps, eirenic. His appeal to his Christian contemporaries to abandon their separatism and make common cause with the pagan subjects of the empire may have been more than a rhetorical device. It may have been inspired by a sincere wish to "convert" the Christians to an appreciation and adoption of the pagan philosophy of life. Indeed, Origen acknowledges that his opponent is not blind to the unfavourable side of pagan religion, especially to the abuses of particular cults and the absurdities of popular mythology. It is only just to Celsus, therefore, to ascribe to him all possible sincerity in his wish to "help all men", and to bring all men to the ideal of "one religion". On the other hand, Celsus's attitude towards the Christian religion was, it hardly need be said, that of a pagan not well informed on all points and devoid of that sympathy which alone would enable him to understand the meaning of the most essential tenets of Christianity. He was remarkably well read in pagan literature, and, besides, was acquainted with the religious ideas of the "barbarous" peoples. 

His knowledge of Judaism and Christianity was such as could not have been obtained from books alone. He must have consorted with Jewish and Christian teachers, and with the representatives of the Gnostic sects. Hence arose the danger of confounding with the official doctrine of Christianity the tenets of a particular school of Gnostic interpretations, a danger which Celsus did not succeed in escaping, as is evident in many passages of his work, and as Origen was very careful to point out. He was acquainted with the Old Testament only in part. He used the "books of the Christians", the Gospels and, possibly, some of the Pauline Epistles, but on the latter point there is room for doubt. Celsus may have obtained his knowledge of St. Paul's teaching by conversation with Christians. There can be no doubt, however, that he used the Gospels, not merely some proto-evangelical documents, but the four narratives substantially as we have them to-day. Celsus took pains to make himself acquainted with the beliefs of his Christian contemporaries, and he is unquestionably conscious of his knowledge of Christianity. Yet, he has no suspicion of the distinction between the universally accepted teachings of the "great Church" of the Christians and the doctrines peculiar to Ophites, Marcionites, and other heretical sects. Moreover, he is, if indeed well-intentioned, yet a partisan; he adopts the current Roman notion that Christianity is merely an offshoot of Judaism; in regard to the person of Christ he exhibits none of that respect which the later Platonists manifested towards the founder of Christianity; towards the miracles ascribed to Christ he shows a sceptical spirit, at one time describing them as fables invented by the Disciples, at another paralleling them with the wonders wrought by Egyptian sorcerers; he looks upon the Resurrection of Christ as either a silly story invented by the followers of Jesus, or a ghost-apparition such as is narrated of many of the heroes of antiquity. Above all, he fails to attain a correct understanding of the doctrine of Incarnation and atonement. When he comes to speak of the manner of life of his Christian neighbours, he, in common with all his pagan fellow-writers, cannot see the reasonableness of Christian humility, nor can he reconcile with the Christian hope of conquering the world to Christ, the fact that Christian proselytizers shun encounters with the learned and powerful and seek out the poor and the sinful, women, children, and slaves, and preach the Gospel to them. His manner too, in spite of the probable eirenic scope of his work, is that of a special pleader for paganism who uses all the resources of dialectic and rhetoric, all the artifices of wit and sarcasm to make his opponents seem ridiculous. Perhaps the secret of his efforts to render Christianity ridiculous is betrayed in his open disapproval of the attitude of aloofness which Christians adopted towards the interest and welfare of the empire. "You refuse to serve the state," he says, "in peace or in war; you wish its downfall; you use all the force of your magic arts to acomplish the ruin of mankind". 

Celsus anticipated in his criticism of the New Testament the objections which have in our own time become identified with the names of Strauss and Renan. Similarly, in the objections which he urged from the point of view of philosophy he anticipated in a striking manner the arguments used by modern rationalists and evolutionists. Too much stress has, perhaps, been laid on the last point. Nevertheless, it is interesting, to say the least, to find a second-century opponent of Christianity off-setting the Christian idea of a direct divine origin of man by the theory that men and animals have a common natural origin, and that the human soul is sprung from the animal soul. 

Celsus is generally described as a Platonist in philosophy. This is correct, if not understood in a too exclusive sense. Although he antedates Plotinus, the first great neo-Platonist, by almost half a century, he belongs to the age of syncretism in which Greek philosophy, realizing the inadequacy of its own resources, developed an eclectic spiritualism which welcomed and strove to assimilate the religious teachings of the various Oriental peoples. This syncretic tendency was resorted to as a remedy against the materialism and scepticism in which philosophy had, as it were, run to seed. Thus Celsus draws his philosophy not only from the genuine works of Plato, but also from the pseudo-Platonic writings, especially the so-called letters of Plato, from Heraclitus, Empedocles, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and from the religious systems of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Hindus, etc. The fundamental principles, however, on which he builds this syncretic system, are Platonic. God, he teaches, is the ineffable, unknowable One, the Source of all things, Himself without source, the All-pervading Logos, the World-Soul. God is a spirit, and whatever has come directly from His hands is spirit. Material things He made through the agency of created gods. The substance of material things is eternal matter; all force is spirit (angel or demon) indwelling in matter. The human soul is divine in its origin; it was placed in the body on account of some primordial sin. All change, all growth and decay in the universe, is not the result of chance or violence but part of a plan of development in which spirits minister to the design of an all-seeing, infinitely beneficent spirit. Even the vicissitudes of the idea of God, the various religions of ancient and modern times, are, says Celsus, part of the divinely appointed scheme of things. For no matter how the religions of the world may differ among themselves, they all hold that there is one God who is supreme. Moreover, the various mythological concepts must be understood to mean the same powers (dunámeis) which are worshipped in different countries under different names. Those are the beneficent powers which give increase and fruit to the tiller of the soil. Christians are, therefore, ungrateful for the gifts of nature when the refuse to worship the deities who symbolize the forces of nature. Finally these powers, spirits, or demons, mediate between God and man, and are the immediate source of prophecy and wonder-working. This last point is important. To understand Celsus's criticism of the Gospel narrative it is necessary to remember that he was a firm believer in the possibility of cures by magic.


----------



## Cruentus

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death. The word Docetae which is best rendered by "Illusionists", first occurs in a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203) to the Church at Rhossos, where troubles had arisen about the public reading of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion at first unsuspectingly allowed but soon after forbade, this, saying that he had borrowed a copy from the sect who used it, "whom we call Docetae". He suspected a connection with Marcionism and found in this Gospel "some additions to the right teaching of the Saviour". A fragment of apocryphon was discovered in 1886 and contained three passages which savoured strongly of Illusionism. The name further occurs in Clement of Alexandria (d. 216), Strom., III, xiii, VII, xvii, where these sectaries are mentioned together with the Haematites as instances of heretics being named after their own special error. The heresy itself, however, is much older, as it is combated in the New Testament. Clement mentions a certain Julius Cassianus as ho tes dokeseos exarchon, "the founder of Illusionism". This name is known also to St. Jerome and Theodoret; and Cassianus is said to be a disciple of Valentinian, but nothing more is known of him. The idea of the unreality of Christ's human nature was held by the oldest Gnostic sects and can not therefore have originated with Cassianus. As Clement distinguished the Docetae from other Gnostic sects, he problably knew some sectaries the sum-total of whose errors consisted in this illusion theory; but Docetism, as far as at present known, as always an accompaniment of Gnosticism or later of Manichaeism. The Docetae described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, i-iv, X, xii) are likewise a Gnostic sect; these perhaps extended their illusion theory to all material substances. 

Docetism is not properly a Christian heresy at all, as it did not arise in the Church from the misundertanding of a dogma by the faithful, but rather came from without. Gnostics starting from the principle of antagonism between matter and spirit, and making all salvation consist in becoming free from the bondage of matter and returning as pure spirit to the Supreme Spirit, could not possibly accept the sentence, "the Word was made flesh", in a literal sense. In order to borrow from Christianity the doctrine of a Saviour who was Son of the Good God, they were forced to modify the doctrine of the Incarnation. Their embarrassment with this dogma caused many vacinations and inconsistencies; some holding the indwelling of an Aeon in a body which was indeed real body or humanity at all; others denying the actual objective existence of any body or humanity at all; others allowing a "psychic", but not a "hylic" or really material body; others believing in a real, yet not human "sidereal" body; others again accepting the of the body but not the reality of the birth from a woman, or the reality of the passion and death on the cross. Christ only seemed to suffer, either because He ingeniously and miraculously substituted someone else to bear the pain, or because the occurence on Calvary was a visual deception. Simon Magus first spoke of a "putative passion of Christ and blasphemously asserted that it was really he, Simon himself, who underwent these apparent sufferings. "As the angels governed this world badly because each angel coveted the principality for himself he [Simon] came to improve matters, and was transfigured and rendered like unto the Virtues and Powers and Angels, so that he appeared amongst men as man though he was no man and was believed to have suffered in Judea though he had not suffered" (passum in Judea putatum cum non esset passus -- Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I, xxiii sqq.). The mention of the demiurgic angels stamps this passage as a piece of Gnosticism. Soon after a Syrian Gnostic of Antioch, Saturninus or Saturnilus (about 125) made Christ the chief of the Aeons, but tried to show that the Savior was unborn (agenneton) and without body (asomaton) and without form (aneideon) and only apparently (phantasia) seen as man (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., XXIV, ii). 

Another Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus (137) and became the master of Marcion, taught that "Christ, the Son of the Highest God, appeared without birth from the Virgin, yea without any birth on earth as man". All this is natural enough, for matter not being the creation of the Highest God but of the Demiurge, Christ could have none of it. This is clearly brought out by Tertullian in his polemic against Marcion. According to this heresiarch (140) Christ, without passing through the womb of Mary and endowed with only a putative body, suddenly came from heaven to Capharnaum in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and Tertullian remarks: "All these tricks about a putative corporeality Marcion has adopted lest the truth of Christ's birth should be argued from the reality of his human nature, and thus Christ should be vindicated as the work of the Creator [Demiurge] and be shown to have human flesh even as he had human birth" (Adv. Marc., III, xi). Tertullian further states that Marcion's chief disciple, Apelles, sightly modified his master's system, accepting indeed the truth of Christ's flesh, but strenously denying the truth of His birth. He contended that Christ had an astral body made of superior substance, and he compared the Incarnation to the appearance of the angel to Abraham. This, Tertullian sarcastically remarks, is getting from the frying pan into fire, de calcariâ in carbonariam. Valentinus the Egyptian attempted to accommodate his system still more closely to Christian doctrine by admitting not merely the reality of the Saviour's body but even a seeming birth, saying that the Saviour's body passed through Mary as through a channel (hos dia solenos) though he took nothing from her, but had a body from above. This approximation to orthodoxy, however, was only apparent, for Valentinus distinguished between Christ and Jesus. Christ and the Holy Ghost were emanations from the Aeons together proceeded Jesus the Saviour, who became united with the Messias of the Demiurge. 

In the East, Marinus and the school of Bardesanes, though not Bardesanes himself, held similar views with regard to Christ's astral body and seeming birth. In the West, Ptolemy reduced Docetism to a minimum by saying that Christ was indeed a real man, but His substance was a compound of the pneumatic and the psychic (spiritual and ethereal). The pneumatic He received from Achamoth or Wisdom, the psychic from the Demiurge, His psychic nature enabled him to suffer and feel pain, though He possessed nothing grossly material. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xii, II, iv). As the Docetae objected to the reality of the birth, so from the first they particularly objected to the reality of the passion. Hence the clumsy attempts at substitution of another victim by Basilides and others. According to Basilides, Christ seemed to men to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ, who suffered but Simon of Cyrenes who was constrained to carry the cross and was mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus returned Simon's and thus stood by and laughed. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to his father (Irenaeus, Adv. Char., 1, xxiv). According to some apocrypha it was Judas, not Simon the Cyrenean, who was thus substituted. Hippolytus describes a Gnostic sect who took the name of Docetae, though for what reason is not apparent, especially as their semblance theory was the least pronounced feature in their system. Their views were in close affinity to those of the Valentians. The primal Being is, so to speak, the seed of a fig-tree, small in size but infinite in power; from it proceed three Aeons, tree, leaves, fruit, which, multiplied with the perfect number ten, become thirty. These thirty Aeons together fructify one of themselves, from whom proceeds the Virgin-Saviour, a perfect representation of the Highest God. The Saviour's task is to hinder further transference of souls from body to body, which is the work of the Great Archon, the Creator of the world. The Saviour enters the world unnoticed, unknown, obscure. An angel announced the glad tidings to Mary. He was born and did all the things that are written of him in the Gospels. But in baptism he received the figure and seal of another body besides that born of the Virgin. The object of this was that when the Archon condemned his own peculiar figment of flesh to the death of the cross, the soul of Jesus--that soul which had been nourished in the body born of the Virgin--might strip off that body and nail it to the accursed tree. In the pneumatic body received at baptism Jesus could triumph over the Archon, whose evil intent he had eluded. 

This heresy, which destroyed the very meaning and purpose of the Incarnation, was combated even by the Apostles. Possibly St. Paul's statement that in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead corporaliter (Col., i, 19, ii, 9) has some reference to Docetic errors. Beyond doubt St. John (I John, i, 1-3, iv, I-3; II John, 7) refers to this heresy; so at least it seemed to Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E., VII, xxv) and Tertullian (De carne Christi, xxiv). In sub-Apostolic times this sect was vigorously combated by St. Ignatius and Polycarp. The former made a warning against Docetists the burden of his letters; he speaks of them as "monsters in human shape" (therion anthropomorphon) and bids the faithful not only not to receive them but even to avoid meeting them. Pathetically he exclaims: If, as some godless men [atheoi], I mean unbelievers, say, He has suffered only in outward appearance, they themselves are nought but outward show. why am I in bonds? Why should I pray to fight with wild beasts? Then I die for nothing, then I would only be lying against the Lord" (Ad Trall. x; Eph., vii, xviii; Smyrn., i-vi). In St. Ignatius' day Docetism seems to have been closely connected with Judaism (cf. Magn viii, 1 x, 3; Phil, vi, viii). Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians re-echoes I John, iv 2- 4; to the same purpose. St. Justin nowhere expressly combats Docetic errors, but he mentions several Gnostics who were notorious for their Docetic aberrations, as Basilideans and Valentinians, and in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" he strongly emphasizes the birth of Christ from the Virgin. Tertullian wrote a treatise "On the flesh of Christ" and attacked Docetic errors in his "Adversus Marcionem". Hippolytus in his "Philosophoumena" refutes Docetism in the different Gnostic errors which he enumerates and twice gives the Docetic system as above referred to. 

The earlier Docetism seemed destined to die with the death of Gnosticism, when it received a long lease of life as parasitic error to another heresy, that of Manichaeism. Manichaean Gnostics started with a two-fold eternal principle, good (spirit) and evil (matter). In order to add Christian soteriology to Iranian dualism, they were forced, as the Gnostics were, to tamper with the truth of the Incarnation. Manichees distinguished between a Jesus patibilis and a Jesus impatibilis or Christ. The latter was the light as dwelling in, or symbolized by, or personified under, the name of the Sun; the former was the light as imprisoned in matter and darkness; of which light each human soul was a spark. Jesus patibilis was therefore but a sign of the speech, an abstraction of the Good, the pure light above. In the reign of Tiberius Christ appears in Judea, Son of the Eternal Light and also Son of Man; but in the latter expression "man" is a technical Manichaean term for the Logos or World-Soul; both anthropos and pneuma are emanations of the Deity. Though Christ is son of man He has only a seeming body, and only seemingly suffers, His passion being called mystical fiction of the cross. It is obvious that this doctrine borrowed from that of the Incarnation nothing but a few names. Scattered instances of Docetism are found as far West as Spain among the Priscillianists of the fourth and the fifth century. The Paulicians in Armenia and the Selicians in Constantinople fostered these errors. The Paulicians existed even in the tenth century, denying the reality of Christ's birth and appealing to Luke, vii, 20. God, according to them, sent an angel to undergo the passion. Hence they worshipped not the cross but the Gospel, Christ's word. Among the Slavs the Bogomilae renewed the ancient fancy that Jesus entered Mary's body by the right ear, and received from her but an apparent body. In the West a council of Orléans in 1022 condemned thirteen Catharist heretics for denying the reality of Christ's life and death. In modern theosophic and spiritist circles this early heresy is being renewed by ideas scarcely less fanstastic than the wildest vagaries of old.


----------



## Cruentus

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know. A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be: 


A collective name for a large number of greatly-varying and pantheistic-idealistic sects, which flourished from some time before the Christian Era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to the Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-sent Saviour. 
However unsatisfactory this definition may be, the obscurity, multiplicity, and wild confusion of Gnostic systems will hardly allow of another. Many scholars, moreover, would hold that every attempt to give a generic description of Gnostic sects is labour lost. 

ORIGIN

The beginnings of Gnosticism have long been a matter of controversy and are still largely a subject of research. The more these origins are studied, the farther they seem to recede in the past. Whereas formerly Gnosticism was considered mostly a corruption of Christianity, it now seems clear that the first traces of Gnostic systems can be discerned some centuries before the Christian Era. Its Eastern origin was already maintained by Gieseler and Neander; F. Ch. Bauer (1831) and Lassen (1858) sought to prove its relation to the religions of India; Lipsius (1860) pointed to Syria and Phoenicia as its home, and Hilgenfeld (1884) thought it was connected with later Mazdeism. Joel (1880), Weingarten (1881), Koffmane (1881), Anrich (1894), and Wobbermin (1896) sought to account for the rise of Gnosticism by the influence of Greek Platonic philosophy and the Greek mysteries, while Harnack described it as "acute Hellenization of Christianity". For the past twenty-five years, however, the trend of scholarship has steadily moved towards proving the pre-Christian Oriental origins of Gnosticism. At the Fifth Congress of Orientalists (Berlin, 1882) Kessler brought out the connection between Gnosis and the Babylonian religion. By this latter name, however, he meant not the original religion of Babylonia, but the syncretistic relgion which arose after the conquest of Cyrus. The same idea is brought out in his "Mani" seven years later. In the same year F.W. Brandt published his "Mandiäische Religion". This Mandaean religion is so unmistakably a form of Gnosticism that it seems beyond doubt that Gnosticism existed independent of, and anterior to, Christianity. In more recent years (1897) Wilhelm Anz pointed out the close similarity between Babylonian astrology and the Gnostic theories of the Hebdomad and Ogdoad. Though in many instances speculations on the Babylonian Astrallehre have gone beyond all sober scholarship, yet in this particular instance the inferences made by Anz seem sound and reliable. Researches in the same direction were continued and instituted on a wider scale by W. Bousset, in 1907, and led to carefully ascertained results. In 1898 the attempt was made by M. Friedländer to trace Gnosticism in pre-Christian Judaism. His opinion that the Rabbinic term Minnim designated not Christians, as was commonly believed, but Antinomian Gostics, has not found universal acceptance. In fact, E. Schürer brought sufficient proof to show that Minnim is the exact Armaean dialectic equivalent for ethne. Nevertheless Friedländer's essay retains its value in tracing strong antinomian tendencies with Gnostic colouring on Jewish soil. Not a few scholars have laboured to find the source of Gnostic theories on Hellenistic and, specifically, Alexandrian soil. In 1880 Joel sought to prove that the germ of all Gnostic theories was to be found in Plato. Though this may be dismissed as an exaggeration, some Greek influence on the birth, but especially on the growth, of Gnosticism cannot be denied. In Trismegistic literature, as pointed out by Reitzenstein (Poimandres, 1904), we find much that is strangely akin to Gnosticism. Its Egyptian origin was defended by E. Amélineau, in 1887, and illustrated by A. Dietrich, in 1891 (Abraxas Studien) and 1903 (Mithrasliturgie). The relation of Plotinus's philosophy to Gnosticsm was brought out by C. Schmidt in 1901. That Alexandrian thought had some share at least in the development of Christian Gnosticism is clear from the fact that the bulk of Gnostic literature which we possess comes to us from Egyptian (Coptic) sources. That this share was not a predominant one is, however, acknowledged by O. Gruppe in his "Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte" (1902). It is true that the Greek mysteries, as G. Anrich pointed out in 1894, had much in common with esoteric Gnosticism; but there remains the further question, in how far these Greek mysteries, as they are known to us, were the genuine product of Greek thought, and not much rather due to the overpowering influence of Orientalism. 

Although the origins of Gnosticism are still largely enveloped in obscurity, so much light has been shed on the problem by the combined labours of many scholars that it is possible to give the following tentative solution: Although Gnosticism may at first sight appear a mere thoughtless syncretism of well nigh all religious systems in antiquity, it has in reality one deep root-principle, which assimilated in every soil what is needed for its life and growth; this principle is philosophical and religious pessimism. The Gnostics, it is true, borrowed their terminology almost entirely from existing religions, but they only used it to illustrate their great idea of the essential evil of this present existence and the duty to escape it by the help of magic spells and a superhuman Saviour. Whatever they borrowed, this pessimism they did not borrow -- not from Greek thought, which was a joyous acknowledgment of and homage to the beautiful and noble in this world, with a studied disregard of the element of sorrow; not from Egyptian thought, which did not allow its elaborate speculations on retribution and judgment in the netherworld to cast a gloom on this present existence, but considered the universe created or evolved under the presiding wisdom of Thoth; not from Iranian thought, which held to the absolute supremacy of Ahura Mazda and only allowed Ahriman a subordinate share in the creation, or rather counter-creation, of the world; not from Indian Brahminic thought, which was Pantheism pure and simple, or God dwelling in, nay identified with, the universe, rather than the Universe existing as the contradictory of God; not, lastly, from Semitic thought, for Semitic religions were strangely reticent as to the fate of the soul after death, and saw all practical wisdom in the worship of Baal, or Marduk, or Assur, or Hadad, that they might live long on this earth. This utter pessimism, bemoaning the existence of the whole universe as a corruption and a calamity, with a feverish craving to be freed from the body of this death and a mad hope that, if we only knew, we could by some mystic words undo the cursed spell of this existence -- this is the foundation of all Gnostic thought. It has the same parent-soil as Buddhism; but Buddhism is ethical, it endeavours to obtain its end by the extinction of all desire; Gnosticism is pseudo-intellectual, and trusts exclusively to magical knowledge. Moreover, Gnosticism, placed in other historical surroundings, developed from the first on other lines than Buddhism. 

When Cyrus entered Babylon in 539 B.C., two great worlds of thought met, and syncretism in religion, as far as we know it, began. Iranian thought began to mix with the ancient civilization of Babylon. The idea of the great struggle between evil and good, ever continuing in this universe, is the parent idea of Mazdeism, or Iranian dualism. This, and the imagined existence of numberless intermediate spirits, angels and devas, as the conviction which overcame the contentedness of Semitism. On the other hand, the unshakable trust, in astrology, the persuasion that the planetary system had a fatalistic influence on this world's affairs, stood its ground on the soil of Chaldea. The greatness of the Seven -- the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn -- the sacred Hebdomad, symbolized for millenniums by the staged towers of Babylonia, remained undiminished. They ceased, indeed, to be worshipped as deities, but they remained archontes and dynameis, rules and powers whose almost irresistible force was dreaded by man. Practically, they were changed from gods to devas, or evil spirits. The religions of the invaders and of the invaded effected a compromise: the astral faith of Babylon was true, but beyond the Hebodomad was the infinite light in the Ogdoad, and every human soul had to pass the adverse influence of the god or gods of the Hebdomad before it could ascend to the only good God beyond. This ascent of the soul through the planetary spheres to the heaven beyond (an idea not unknown even to ancient Babylonian speculations) began to be conceived as a struggle with adverse powers, and became the first and predominant idea in Gnosticism. The second great component of Gnostic thought is magic, properly so called, i.e. the power ex opere operato of weird names, sounds, gestures, and actions, as also the mixture of elements to produce effects totally disproportionate to the cause. These magic formulae, which caused laughter and disgust to outsiders, are not a later and accidental corruption, but an essential part of Gnosticism, for they are found in all forms of Christian Gnosticism and likewise in Mandaeism. No Gnosis was essentially complete without the knowledge of the formulae, which, once pronounced, were the undoing of the higher hostile powers. Magic is the original sin of Gnosticism, nor is it difficult to guess whence it is inherited. To a certain extent it formed part of every pagan religion, especially the ancient mysteries, yet the thousands of magic tablets unearthed is Assyria and Babylonia show us where the rankest growth of magic was to be found. Moreover, the terms and names of earliest of Gnosticism bear an unmistakable similarity to Semitic sounds and words. Gnosticism came early into contact with Judaism, and it betrays a knowledge of the Old Testament, if only to reject it or borrow a few names from it. Considering the strong, well-organized, and highly-cultured Jewish colonies in the Euphrates valley, this early contact with Judaism is perfectly natural. Perhaps the Gnostic idea of a Redeemer is not unconnected with Jewish Messianic hopes. But from the first the Gnostic conception of a Saviour is more superhuman than that of popular Judaism; their Manda d'Haye, or Soter, is some immediate manifestation of the Deity, a Light-King, an Æon (Aion), and an emanation of the good God. When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with aprocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim. As Christianity grew within and without the Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed to be the only true form of Christianity, unfit, indeed, for the vulgar crowd, but set apart for the gifted and the elect. So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling Christianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their energies to uprooting it. Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism is utterly alien to that of Christianity, it then seemed to the unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof. When domiciled on Greek soil, Gnosticism, slightly changing its barbarous and Seminitic terminology and giving its "emanatons" and"syzygies" Greek names, sounded somewhat like neo-Platonism, thought it was strongly repudiated by Plotinus. In Egypt the national worship left its mark more on Gnostic practice than on its theories. 

In dealing with the origins of Gnosticism, one might be tempted to mention Manichaeism, as a number of Gnostic ideas seem to be borrowed from Manichaeism, where they are obviously at home. This, however, would hardly be correct. Manichaeism, as historically connected with Mani, its founder, could not have arisen much earlier than A.D. 250, when Gnosticism was already in rapid decline. Manichaeism, however, in many of its elements dates back far beyond its commonly accepted founder; but then it is a parallel development with the Gnosis, rather than one of its sources. Sometimes Manichaeism is even classed as a form of Gnosticism and styled Parsee Gnosis, as distinguished from Syrian and Egyptian Gnosis. This classification, however, ignores the fact that the two systems, though they have the doctrine of the evil of matter in common, start from different principles, Manichaeism from dualism, while Gnosticism, as an idealistic Pantheism, proceeds from the conception of matter as a gradual deterioration of the Godhead. 

DOCTRINES

Owing to the multiplicity and divergence of Gnostic theories, a detailed exposition in this article would be unsatisfactory and confusing and to acertain extent even misleading, since Gnosticism never possessed a nucleus of stable doctrine, or any sort of depositum fidei round which a number of varied developments and heresies or sects might be grouped; at most it had some leading ideas, which are more or less clearly traceable in different schools. Moreover, a fair idea of Gnostic doctrines can be obtained from the articles on leaders and phases of Gnostic thought (e.g. BASILIDES; VALENTINUS; MARCION; DOCETAE; DEMIURGE). We shall here only indicate some main phases of thought, which can be regarded as keys and which, though not fitting all systems, will unlock most of the mysteries of the Gnosis. 

(a) Cosmogony 

Gnosticism is thinly disguised Pantheism. In the beginning was the Depth; the Fulness of Being; the Not-Being God; the First Father, the Monad, the Man; the First Source, the unknown God (Bythos pleroma, ouk on theos, propator, monas, anthropos, proarche, hagnostos theos), or by whatever other name it might be called. This undefined infinite Something, though it might be addressed by the title of the Good God, was not a personal Being, but, like Tad of Brahma of the Hindus, the "Great Unknown" of modern thought. The Unknown God, however, was in the beginning pure spirituality; matter as yet was not. This source of all being causes to emanate (proballei) from itself a number of pure spirit forces. In the different systems these emanations are differently named, classified, and described, but the emanation theory itself is common too all forms of Gnosticism. In the Basilidian Gnosis they are called sonships (uiotetes), in Valentinianism they form antithetic pairs or "syzygies" (syzygoi); Depth and Silence produce Mind and Truth; these produce Reason and Life, these again Man and State (ekklesia). According to Marcus, they are numbers and sounds. These are the primary roots of the Æons. With bewildering fertility hierarchies of Æons are thus produced, sometimes to the number of thirty. These Æons belong to the purely ideal, noumenal, intelligible, or supersensible world; they are immaterial, they are hypostatic ideas. Together with the source from which they emanate they form the pleroma. The transition fromthe immaterial to the material, from the noumenal to the sensible, is brought about by a flaw, or a passion, or a sin, in one of the Æons. According to Basilides, it is a flaw in the last sonship; according to others it is the passion of the female Æon Sophia; according to others the sin ofthe Great Archon, or Æon-Creator, of the Universe. The ultimate end of all Gnosis is metanoia, or repentance, the undoing of the sin of material existence and the return to the Pleroma. 

(b) Sophia-Myth 

In the greater number of Gnostic systems an important role is played by the Æon Wisdom -- Sophia or Achamoth. In some sense she seems to represent the supreme female principle, as for instance in the Ptolemaic system, in which the mother of the seven heavens is called Achamoth, in the Valentinian system, in which he ano Sophia, the Wisdom above, is distinguished from he kato Sophia, or Achamoth, the former being the female principle of the noumenal world, and in the Archotian system, where we find a "Lightsome Mother" (he meter he photeine), and in which beyond the heavens of the Archons is he meter ton panton and likewise in the Barbelognosis, where the female Barbelos is but the counterpart of the Unknown Father, which also occurs amongst the Ophites described by Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres., III, vii, 4). Moreover, the Eucharistic prayer in the Acts of Thomas (ch. 1) seems addressed to this supreme female principle. W. Bousset's suggestion, that the Gnostic Sophia is nothing else than a disguise for the Dea Syra, the great goddess Istar, or Astarte, seems worthy of consideration. On the other hand, the Æon Sophia usually plays another role; she is he Prouneikos or "the Lustful One", once a virginal goddess, who by her fall from original purity is the cause of this sinful material world. One of the earliest forms of this myth is found in Simonian Gnosis, in which Simon, the Great Power, finds Helena, who during ten years had been a prostitute in Tyre, but who is Simon's ennoia, or understanding, and whom his followers worshipped under the form of Athena, the goddess of wisdom. According to Valentinus's system, as described by Hippolytus (Book VI, xxv-xxvi), Sophia is the youngest of the twenty-eight æons. Observing the multitude of æons and the power of begetting them, she hurries back into the depth of the Father, and seeks to emulate him by producing offspring without conjugal intercourse, but only projects an abortion, a formless substance. Upon this she is cast out of Pleroma. According to the Valentinian system as described by Irenaeus (op. cit., I) and Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ix), Sophia conceives a passion for the First Father himself, or rather, under pretext of love she seeks to know him, the Unknowable, and to comprehend his greatness. She should have suffered the consequence of her audacity by ultimate dissolution into the immensity of the Father, but for the Boundary Spirit. According to the Pistis Sophia (ch. xxix) Sophia, daughter of Barbelos, originally dwelt in the highest, or thirteenth heaven, but she is seduced by the demon Authades by means of a ray of light, which she mistook as an emanation from the First Father. Authades thus enticed her into Chaos below the twelve Æons, where she was imprisoned by evil powers. According to these ideas, matter is the fruit of the sin of Sophia; this, however, was but a Valentinian development; in the older speculations the existence of matter is tacitly presupposed as eternal with the Pleroma, and through her sin Sophia falls from the realm of light into Chaos or realm of darkness. This original dualism, however, was overcome by the predominant spirit of Gnosticism, pantheistic emanationism. The Sophia myth is completely absent from the Basilidian and kindred systems. It is suggested, with great verisimilitude, that the Egyptian myth of Isis was the original source of the Gnostic "lower wisdom". In many systems this Kato Sophia is sharply distinguished from the Higher Wisdom mentioned above; as, for instance, in the magic formula for the dead mentioned by Irenaeus (op. cit., I, xxi, 5), in which the departed has to address the hostile archons thus: "I am a vessel more precious than the female who made you. If your mother ignores the source whence she is, I know myself, and I known whence I am and invoke the incorruptible Sophia, whois in the Father, the mother of your mother, who has neither father nor husband. A man-woman, born from a woman, has made you, not knowing her mother, but thinking herself alone. But I invoke her mother." This agrees with the system minutely described by Irenaeus (op. cit., I, iv-v), where Sophia Achamoth, or Lower Wisdom, the daughter of Higher Wisdom, becomes the mother of the Demiurge; she being the Ogdoad, her son the Hebdomad, they form a counterpart of the heavenly Ogdoad in the Pleromata. This is evidently a clumsy attempt to fuse into one two systems radically different, the Basilidian and the Valentinian; the ignorance of the Great Archon, which is the central idea of Basilides, is here transferred to Sophia, and the hybrid system ends in bewildering confusion. 

(c) Soteriology 

Gnostic salvation is not merely individual redemption of each human soul; it is a cosmic process. It is the return of all things to what they were before the flaw in the sphere of the Æons brought matter into existence and imprisoned some part of the Divine Light into the evil Hyle (Hyle). This setting free of the light sparks is the process of salvation; when all light shall have left Hyle, it will be burnt up, destroyed, or be a sort of everlasting hell for the Hylicoi. In Basilidianism it is the Third Filiation that is captive in matter, and is gradually being saved, now that the knowledge of its existence has been brought to the first Archon and then to the Second Archon, to each by his respective Son; and the news has been spread through the Hebdomad by Jesus the son of Mary, who died to redeem the Third Filiation. In Valentinianism the process is extraordinarily elaborate. When this world has been born from Sophia in consequence of her sin, Nous and Aletheia, two Æons, by command of the Father, produce two new Æons, Christ and the Holy Ghost; these restore order in the Pleroma, and in consequence all Æons together produce a new Æon, Jesus Logos, Soter, or Christ, whom they offer to the Father. Christ, the Son of Nous and Aletheia, has pity on the abortive substance born of Sophia and gives it essence and form. Whereupon Sophia tries to rise again to the Father, but in vain. Now the Æon Jesus-Soter is sent as second Saviour, he unites himself to the man Jesus, the son of Mary, at his baptism, and becomes the Saviour of men. Man is a creature of the Demiurge, a compound of soul, body, and spirit. His salvation consists in the return of his pneuma or spirit to the Pleroma; or if he be only a Psychicist, not a full Gnostic, his soul (psyche) shall return to Achamoth. There is no resurrection of the body. (For further details and differences see VALENTINUS.) 

In Marcionism, the most dualistic phase of Gnosticism, salvation consisted in the possession of the knowledge of the Good God and the rejection ofthe Demiurge. The Good God revealed himself in Jesus and appeared as man in Judea; to know him, and to become entirely free from the yoke of the World-Creator or God of the Old Testament, is the end of all salvation. The Gnostic Saviour, therefore, is entirely different from the Christian one. For 

the Gnostic Saviour does not save. Gnosticism lacks the idea of atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for, except ignorance be that sin. Nor does the Saviour in any sense benefit the human race by vicarious sufferings. Nor, finally, does he immediately and actively affect any individual human soul by the power of grace or draw it to God. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world the truth, which alone can save. As a flame sets naphtha on fire, so the Saviour's light ignites predisposed souls moving down the stream of time. Of a real Saviour who with love human and Divine seeks out sinners to save them, Gnosticism knows nothing. 
The Gnostic Saviour has no human nature, he is an æon, not a man; he only seemed a man, as the three Angels who visited Abraham seemed to be men. (For a detailed exposition see DOCETAE.) The Æon Soter is brought into the strangest relation to Sophia: in some systems he is her brother, in others her son, in other again her spouse. He is sometimes identified with Christ, sometimes with Jesus; sometimes Christ and Jesus are the same æon, sometimes they are different; sometimes Christ and the Holy Ghost are identified. Gnosticism did its best to utilize the Christian concept of the Holy Ghost, but never quite succeeded. She made him the Horos, or Methorion Pneuma (Horos, Metherion Pneuma), the Boundary-Spirit, the Sweet Odour of the Second Filiation, a companion æon with Christos, etc., etc. In some systems he is entirely left out. 
(d) Eschatology 

It is the merit of recent scholarship to have proved that Gnostic eschatology, consisting in the soul's struggle with hostile archons in its attempt to reach the Pleroma, is simply the soul's ascent, in Babylonian astrology, through the realms of the seven planets to Anu. Origen (Contra Celsum, VI, xxxi), referring to the Ophitic system, gives us the names of the seven archons as Jaldabaoth, Jao, Sabaoth, Adonaios, Astaphaios, Ailoaios, and Oraios, and tells us that Jaldabaoth is the planet Saturn. Astraphaios is beyond doubt the planet Venus, as there are gnostic gems with a female figure and the legend ASTAPHE, which name is also used in magic spells as the name of a goddess. In the Mandaean system Adonaios represents the Sun. Moreover, St. Irenaeus tells us: "Sanctam Hebdomadem VII stellas, quas dictunt planetas, esse volunt." It is safe, therefore, to take the above seven Gnostic names as designating the seven stars, then considered planets, 

Jaldabaoth (Child of Chaos? -- Saturn, called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides) is the outermost, and therefore the chief ruler, and later on the Demiurge par excellence. 
Jao (Iao, perhaps from Jahu, Jahveh, but possibly also from the magic cry iao in the mysteries) is Jupiter. 
Sabaoth (the Old-Testament title -- God of Hosts) was misunderstood; "of hosts" was thought a proper name, hence Jupiter Sabbas (Jahve Sabaoth) was Mars. 
Astaphaios (taken from magic tablets) was Venus. 
Adonaios (from the Hebrew term for "the Lord", used of God; Adonis of the Syrians representing the Winter sun in the cosmic tragedy of Tammuz) was the Sun; 
Ailoaios, or sometimes Ailoein (Elohim, God), Mercury; 
Oraios (Jaroah? or light?), the Moon.
In the hellenized form of Gnosticism either all or some of these names are replaced by personified vices. Authadia (Authades), or Audacity, is the obvious description of Jaldabaoth, the presumptuous Demiurge, who is lion-faced as the Archon Authadia. Of the Archons Kakia, Zelos, Phthonos, Errinnys, Epithymia, the last obviously represents Venus. The number seven is obtained by placing a proarchon or chief archon at the head. That these names areonly a disguise for the Sancta Hebdomas is clear, for Sophia, the mother of them, retains the name of Ogdoas, Octonatio. Occasionally one meets with the Archon Esaldaios, which is evidently the El Shaddai of the Bible, and he is described as the Archon "number four" (harithmo tetartos) and must represent the Sun. In the system of the Gnostics mentioned by Epiphanius we find, as the Seven Archons, Iao, Saklas, Seth, David, Eloiein, Elilaios, and Jaldabaoth (or no. 6 Jaldaboath, no. 7 Sabaoth). Of these, Saklas is the chief demon of Manichaeism; Elilaios is probably connected with En-lil, the Bel of Nippur, the ancient god of Babylonia. In this, as in several other systems, the traces of the planetary seven have been obscured, but hardly in any have they become totally effaced. What tended most to obliterate the sevenfold distinction was the identification of the God of the Jews, the Lawgiver, with Jaldabaoth and his designation as World-creator, whereas formerly the seven planets together ruled the world. This confusion, however, was suggested by the very fact that at least five of the seven archons bore Old-Testament names for God -- El Shaddai, Adonai, Elohim, Jehovah, Sabaoth. 
(e) Doctrine of the Primeval Man 

The speculations on Primeval Man (Protanthropos, Adam) occupy a prominent place in several Gnostic systems. According to Irenaeus (I, xxix, 3) the Æon Autogenes emits the true and perfect Anthrôpos, also called Adamas; he has a helpmate, "Perfect Knowledge", and receives an irresistible force, so that all things rest in him. Others say (Irenaeus, I, xxx) there is a blessed and incorruptible and endless light in the power of Bythos; this is the Father of all things who is invoked as the First Man, who, with his Enna, emits "the Son of Man", or Euteranthrôpos. According to Valentinus, Adam was created in the name of Anthrôpos and overawes the demons by the fear of the pre-existent man (tou proontos anthropou). In the Valentinian syzygies and in the Marcosian system we meet in the fourth (originally the third) place Anthrôpos and Ecclesia. In the Pistis Sophia the Æon Jeu is called the First Man, he is the overseer of the Light, messenger of the First Precept, and constitutes the forces of the Heimarmene. In the Books of the Jeu this "great Man" is the King of the Light-treasure, he is enthroned above all things and is the goal of all souls. According to the Naassenes, the Protanthropos is the first element; the fundamental being before its differentiation into individuals. "The Son of Man" is the same being after it has been individualized into existing things and thus sunk into matter. The Gnostic Anthrôpos, therefore, or Adamas, as it is sometimes called, is a cosmogonic element, pure mind as distinct from matter, mind conceived hypostatically as emanating from God and not yet darkened by contact with matter. This mind is considered as the reason of humanity, or humanity itself, as a personified idea, a category without corporeality, the human reason conceived as the World-Soul. This speculation about the Anthrôpos is completely developed in Manichaeism, where, in fact, it is the basis of the whole system. God, in danger of the power of darkness, creates with the help of the Spirit, the five worlds, the twelve elements, and the Eternal Man, and makes him combat the darkness. But this Man is somehow overcome by evil and swallowed up by darkness. The present universe is in throes to deliver the captive Man from the powers of darkness. In the Clementine Homilies the cosmogonic Anthrôpos is strangely mixed up with the historical figure of the first man, Adam. Adam "was the true prophet, running through all ages, and hastening to rest"; "the Christ, who was from the beginning and is always, who was ever present to every generation in a hidden manner indeed, yet ever present". In fact Adam was, to use Modernist language, the Godhead immanent in the world and ever manifesting itself to the inner consciousness of the elect. The same idea, somewhat modified, occurs in Hermetic literature, especially the "Poimandres". It is elaborated by Philo, makes an ingenious distinction between the human being created first "after God's image and likeness" and the historic figures of Adam and Eve created afterwards. Adam kat eikona is: "Idea, Genus, Character, belonging to the world, of Understanding, without body, neither male nor female; he is the Beginning, the Name of God, the Logos, immortal, incorruptible" (De opif. mund., 134-148; De conf. ling.,146). These ideas in Talmudism, Philonism, Gnosticism, and Trismegistic literature, all come from once source, the late Mazdea development of the Gayomarthians, or worshipper of the Super-Man. 

(f) The Barbelo 

This Gnostic figure, appearing in a number of systems, the Nicolaites, the "Gnostics" of Epiphanius, the Sethians, the system of the "Evangelium Mariae" and that in Iren., I, xxix, 2 sq., remains to a certain extent an enigma. The name barbelo, barbeloth, barthenos has not been explained with certainty. In any case she represents the supreme female principle, is in fact the highest Godhead in its female aspect. Barbelo has most of the functions of the ano Sophia as described above. So prominent was her place amongst some Gnostics that some schools were designated as Barbeliotae, Barbelo worshippers of Barbelognostics. She is probably none other than the Light-Maiden of the Pistis Sophia, the thygater tou photos or simply the Maiden, parthenos. In Epiphanius (Haer., xxvi, 1) and Philastrius (Haer., xxxiii) Parthenos (Barbelos) seems identical with Noria, whoplays a great role as wife either of Noe or of Seth. The suggestion, that Noria is "Maiden", parthenos, Istar, Athena, Wisdom, Sophia, or Archamoth, seems worthy of consideration. 

RITES

We are not so well informed about the practical and ritual side of Gnosticism as we are about its doctrinal and theoretical side. However, St. Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians, Hippolytus's account of the Elcesaites,the liturgical portions of the "Acta Thomae", some passages in the Pseudo-Clementines, and above all Coptic Gnostic and Mandaean literature gives us at least some insight into their liturgical practices. 
(a) Baptism 

All Gnostic sects possessed this rite in some way; in Mandaeism daily baptism is one of the great practices of the system. The formulae used by Christian Gnostics seem to have varied widely from that enjoyed by Christ. The Marcosians said: "In [eis] the name of the unknown Father of all, in [eis] the Truth, the Mother of all, in him, who came down on Jesus [eis ton katelthonta eis Iesoun]". The Elcesaites said: "In [en] the name of the great and highest God and in the name of his Son, the great King". In Iren. (I, xxi, 3) we find the formula: "In the name that was hidden from every divinity and lordship and truth, which [name] Jesus the Nazarene has put on in the regions of light" and several other formulae, which were sometimes pronounced in Hebrew or Aramaid. The Mandaeans said: "The name of the Life and the name of the Manda d'Haye is named over thee". In connection with Baptism the Sphragis was of great importance; in what the seal or sign consisted wherewith they were marked is not easy to say. There was also the tradition of a name either by utterance or by handing a tablet with some mystic word on it. 

(b) Confirmation 

The anointing of the candidate with chrism, or odoriferous ointment, is a Gnostic rite which overshadows the importance of baptism. In the "Acta Thomae", so some scholars maintain, it had completely replaced baptism, and was the sole sacrament of initiation. This however is not yet proven. The Marcosians went so far as to reject Christian baptism and to substitute a mixture of oil and water which they poured over the head of the candidate. By confirmation the Gnostics intended not so much to give the Holy Ghost as to seal the candidates against the attacks of the archons, or to drive them away by the sweet odour which is above all things (tes uter ta hola euodias). The balsam was somehow supposed to have flowed from the Tree of Life, and this tree was again mystically connected with the Cross; for the chrism is in the "Acta Thomae" called "the hidden mystery in which the Cross is shown to us". 

(c) The Eucharist 

It is remarkable that so little is known of the Gnostic substitute for the Eucharist. In a number of passages we read of the breaking of the bread, but in what this consisted is not easy to determine. The use of salt in this rite seems to have been important (Clem., Hom. xiv), for we read distinctly how St. Peter broke the bread of the Eucharist and "putting salt thereon, he gave first to the mother and then to us". There is furthermore a great likelihood, though no certainty, that the Eucharist referred to in the "Acta "Thomae" was merely a breaking of bread without the use of the cup. This point is strongly controverted, but the contrary can hardly be proven. It is beyond doubt that the Gnostics often substituted water for the wine (Acta Thomae, Baptism of Mygdonia, ch. cxxi). What formula of consecration was used we do not know, but the bread was certainly signed with the Cross. It is to be noted that the Gnostics called the Eucharist by Christian sacrificial terms -- prosphora, "oblation", Thysia (II bk. of Jeû, 45). In the Coptic Books (Pistis Sophia, 142; II Jeû, 45-47) we find a long description of some apparently Eucharistic ceremonies carried out by Jesus Himself. In these fire and incense, two flasks, and also two cups, one with water, the other with wine, and branches of the vine are used. Christ crows the Apostles with olive wreaths, begs Melchisedech to come and change wine into water for baptism, puts herbs in the Apostles' mouths and hands. Whether these actions in some sense reflect the ritual of Gnosticism, or are only imaginations of the author, cannot be decided. The Gnostics seem also to have used oil sacramentally for the healing of the sick, and even the dead were anointed by them to be rendered safe and invisible in their transit through the realms of the archons. 

(d) The Nymphôn 

They possessed a special Gnostic sacrament of the bridechamber (nymphon) in which, through some symbolical actions, their souls were wedded to their angels in the Pleroma. Details of its rites are not as yet known. Tertullian no doubt alluded to them in the words "Eleusinia fecerunt lenocinia". 

(e) The Magic Vowels 

An extraordinary prominence is given to the utterance of the vowels: alpha, epsilon, eta, iota, omicron, upsilon, omega. The Saviour and His disciples are supposed in the midst of their sentences to have broken out in an interminable gibberish of only vowels; magic spells have come down to us consisting of vowels by the fourscore; on amulets the seven vowels, repeated according to all sorts of artifices, form a very common inscription. Within the last few years these Gnostic vowels, so long a mystery, have been the object of careful study by Ruelle, Poirée, and Leclercq, and it may be considered proven that each vowel represents one of the seven planets, or archons; that the seven together represent the Universe, but without consonants they represent the Ideal and Infinite not yet imprisoned and limited by matter; that they represent a musical scale, probably like the Gregorian 1 tone re-re, or d, e, f, g, a, b, c, and many a Gnostic sheet of vowels is in fact a sheet of music. But research on this subject has only just begun. Among the Gnostics the Ophites were particularly fond of representing their cosmogonic speculations by diagrams, circles within circles, squares, and parallel lines, and other mathematical figures combined, with names written within them. How far these sacred diagrams were used as symbols in their liturgy, we do not know.


----------



## Cruentus

The significance is (drum roll)....

These folks didn't try to prove that Jesus was not "REAL"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Thank you....thank you very much... 

O.K....ya got me though. They DID try to say that Christ never had a body. They believed that he was a spirit who did his deeds through sorcery and magic spells. They believed that they could too be that powerful through magic. So, if you are using this as a reference, you either accept this belief, or you are sorely mistakenly thinking that they are supporting the idea that Jesus was made up.

So...now let's see who's history we should believe. 

#1.The Gnostics, Docetists, and Celsus say in their history that Jesus was in fact "REAL," but he was a spirit who performed magic.

#2. Modern Day Skeptics who believe that Jesus was a made up character, with no IMPERICAL evidence, or even non-imperical evidence to support this claim. 

#3. Christian History says Jesus was a real person who is the messiah.

#4. MOST of the rest of the educated world says in their history, at the very least, that Jesus was a REAL person who had a following of people who BELIEVED he was the Messiah.

Hmmmmm......I think at the very least, if I am logical, and if my brain functions on this planet, I am going to go for that he was at least a real person. At least. AT LEAST # 4. Now...I personally would take it a step up and pick #3, but that is just me.

But #2 with no evidence (or, less evidence then #4 at least)? Or #1, that he was a spirit using magic spells!?!?!? Come on! Let's wake up to the real world.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by r erman _
> *STOP DEBATING!!!
> 
> 
> PAUL.  It's been fun "talking" with you.  You ain't bad for a christian  BTW, I assumed you were fundamentalist, but a level-headed one.  I wasn't refering to you when I mentioned me not trafficking with fundies. *



LOL thanks man. Dude...fundamentalist!?!?! Catholic, I say Catholic! :soapbox:  Oh well...I guess I don't sound Catholic here.


----------



## arnisador

Please, post links to long segments of others' writings rather than copying them into the thread. There may be times when it's necessary to copy the material but as a rule mixing the long text in breaks the flow of the discussion between particpants here.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Cruentus

Sorry....

I bummed my sources from an encyclopedia.

I'll try to find more links, or just summerize better, next time!


----------



## r erman

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *LOL thanks man. Dude...fundamentalist!?!?! Catholic, I say Catholic! :soapbox:  Oh well...I guess I don't sound Catholic here.   *



 

I thought there was some hope for protestants...I guess not(that was a joke, and not be taken as a slight to anyone who fits the bill).

I don't think Paul was as gnostic, he warns some of the early churches against the teachings of the gnostics in some of his letters.  Incidently, the follower's of Jesus' brother James were supposed to have considered Pauline Christianity to be false...Interesting that so much of the New testament, let alone modern christianity, is based more on Paul than Jesus.

I didn't read all of the above posts, but has anyone else explored the connection between the teachings of Jesus and the altered Hebrew teachings found in the Targums(paraphrases of Hebrew texts rendered in Aramaic that were a sort of 'Oral Tradition'[uh oh] that Jesus worked from)?  Interesting stuff.

I won't add anymore for now


----------



## Cruentus

:rofl: 

Seriously...here are some sources for further reading. Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" has been referenced here already. I am currently reading it right now, and I must say that it is decent. When i am finished, I would like to pass it along to one of you, if that is O.K. w/ Don (the cool guy who let me borrow his book, and told me to pass it along). So PM me if your interested.

Other sources (both Christian and Non) are as follows:

For a taped Debate, if you can find it: William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler, "Atheism Vs. Christianity: Where does the evidence point? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), videocassette.

"The Making of the New Testament" Aurthur G. Patzia

"A History of God" Karen Armstrong

"The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurection of Jesus" William Lane Craig

"The Testimony of the Evangelists" Simon Green leaf

"Jesus Under Fire" eds. Michael J Wilkins and J.P. Morelands

"The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" Gleason L. Archer

"When Critics Ask" Thomas Howe & Norman Geisler

"The Books and The parchments" F.F. Bruce

"Evidence that demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell

"Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testement" Benjamin B. Warfield

"Act of God" Charles Templeton

"Josephus and the Scriptures" Edwin Yamauchi

"The Case Against Christianity" Michael Martin

"The Historical Jesus" Gary Habermas

"Pontius Pilate" Paul L. Maier

"The Verdict of History" Gary Habermas

"The Real Jesus" Luke Timothy Johnson

"Ready with an Answer" John Anjerberg & John Weldon

"Archaeology and the New Testament" John McRay

"Jesus: The Evidence" Ian Wilson

"American Athiest" 'Where Jesus Never Walked' Frank Zindler

"The Archaeology of the New Testament" Jack Finegan

"Rocks, Relics, and Biblical Reliability" Clifford Wilson

"The War of the Scrolls" 'Christianity Today'  Kevin D. Miller

"Jesus under Seige" Gregory A. Boyd

"The Historical Jesus" John Dominic Crossan

"New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels" Royce Gordon Gruenler

"Farewell To God" Charles Templeton

"People of the Lie" M. Scott Peck

"Jesus: A Biblical Defense of his Diety" Josh McDowell and Bart Larson

"Science Speaks" Peter W. Stoner

"Betrayed!" Stan Telchin

"Jewish Doctors Meet the Great Physician" Ruth Rosen

"The Passover Plot" Hugh Schonfield

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail" Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh

"Harvard Theological Review 25 (1932): The use of nails in the Crucifixion" J.W. Hewitt

"Journal of the American Medical Association (3/21/86): On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ" William Edwards

"The Easter Jesus" Gerald Collins

"Jesus: An Historiancs Review of the Gospels" Michael Grant

"The Historical Evidence for the Resurection of Jesus Christ" Kirsopp Lake

"The Evidence for the Resurection" J.N.D. Anderson

"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurection Debate" Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew

"Christ Is Risen: So What?" Michael Green

"More then a Carpenter" Josh McDowell

"Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" A.N. Sherwin-White

"Handbook of Christian Apoligetics" Peter Kreeft

"Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis


----------



## Cruentus

These are a variety of cites ranging from stuff written in the early 1900's to stuff written in the last decade or so. It ranges from Theology to history to archeology, etc. There is much more then that out there, but these were just a few.

Also, important to note that I didn't just Cite stuff that supported my arguements. I cited works that both supported and went against what I said.

Examples would be Frank Zindler and Michael Martin, both who I have read works on, who are probably two of the leading exponnents of Christianity today. They both make seemingly compelling arguements that Jesus never existed.

You see, I believe that to truely be able to study something and formulate opinions, one must look at both sides of the arguement. So, don't just find the books that support your narrow world view just to verify your opinions (this goes for both Non-Christians as well as Christians). Look at both sides, and THEN make an educated decision. 

To get started, I would get a cassete tape of that Debate I cited, or get the works cited by Lee Strobel, and by Michael Martin.

Happy Reading!


----------



## Cruentus

*What I found from my studies of BOTH sides of the arguement:* 

First, I would like to admit that there is a lack of what could be considered "Imperical" evidence for the existance of Jesus. This makes it difficult to believe the Christian Premise at first.

However, what I also found was that there is a lack of "Imperical" evidence for almost EVERYTHING in history; especially when regarding events that happened prior to 1000 CE. The "problems" we run into verifying the Gospel stories are often magnified when trying to verify any other event in Ancient history.
So, I found that even though the Evidence for Jesus' existance doesn't appear to be emperical enough on the surface, there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion.

I also found that the problem the Athiests and skeptics have is within their solutions. They focus on refuting existing evidence, which is not hard to cast doubt with ANY ancient history. This makes the Skeptic arguement sound compelling to the average person who does not realize the nature of Ancient History. However, the skeptic alternative solutions is where the skeptic arguments really fall short, I have found. The reason is because the skeptic alternative solution, I find, is MORE DIFFICULT to prove given the evidence we have then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus was a real person who developed a following called the Christain Religion. At the very least, the skeptic solutions are no more imperical then the non-skeptical ones. 

I think you will find...regardless of what you choose to believe or not believe, that my above statement is very true.

Have a good day...


----------



## don bohrer

Good Job! Well done indeed. 

don


----------



## Klondike93

Well done Paul


artyon: 

%think%


----------



## Cruentus

Thanks guys...


----------



## heretic888

Sorry this reply took so long, guys. There was a lot of misinformation that needed to be addressed, and I haven't had the time to do this with any useful sources on hand. Be forewarned that this is most likely going to be a VERY long post. That being said....



> You make this point, as well as a tone of others. But you have yet to argue effectively how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying.



The point I was making, paul, was that, contrary to what you have erroneously claimed beforehand, there are no extant New Testament manuscripts prior to the early-to-mid 300's CE. In fact, even the earliest extant versions of _some_ of the books of the New Testament date back even later to the 400's CE. And, as before, the actual number of New Testament documents that date even this far back are _very_ few in number (effectively 'failing' your 'transmission test'). This late dating of the extant New Testament documents is fairly well known (if you want corroboration for this, look into Crossan's works). Whatever source told you there were extant copies dating to the 1st to 3rd centuries is, to be blunt, incorrect. 

In addition, also contrary to what you have claimed, no New Testament fragments date prior to the mid-to-late 100's CE. The empirical proof of such a late dating is found among the works of the eminent papyrologist Graham Stanton, who noted that all supposed '1st century fragments' are written in the 'Biblical Uncial' handwriting --- which only emerged in the late 2nd century. Additionally, the actual number of pre-3rd century fragments amounts to less than 10 (which, again, hardly does well for your 'transmission test').

And, even then, the fragments still remain just that --- fragments. Although some scholars have erroneously claimed what canonical Gospels they _believe_ the fragments to come from, there is actually no proof to corroborate such a claim. It is equally possible (and, based on the ignorance of the early Church fathers concerning the Synoptics, much more probable) that the fragments are actually derived from documents that the canonical Gospels used as source material (such as is commonly claimed by the Q-theorists that Matthew and Luke did with Mark). This could easily account for the common passages between the fragments and our extant Gospels. After all, it must be remembered that even the lengthiest of the fragments consist of only a few pages of papyri --- as opposed to any 4th century extant document, which consists of over 800 pages of papyri.

Yet, despite the obvious lack of empirical evidence to corroborate such an early dating for any of the Synoptic Gospels, many scholars still maintain the late 1st century to early 2nd century dates. The only historical 'evidence' (which is not empirical but textual) to back this up are some rather vague allusions in the writings of Papias and Polycarp (both dated to the early 2nd century). The problem is that their writings have been through the 'holy forgery mill' of Irenaeus (late 2nd century) and Eusebius (early 4th century), and it is virtually impossible to determine precisely what Papias and Polycarp wrote themselves and what was forged in later centuries. It is interesting to note in the works of Papias (interpolated they may be), however, that his 'Gospel of Matthew' consists of nothing more than a collection of oracles --- meaning it was in a _quite_ different form than our Matthew (this seems to indicate that, even in the early 2nd century, the Matthew narrative as we know it had yet to be authored). In addition, Papias himself is _very_ critical of the Gospel of Mark --- due to the fact that Mark was not supposed to have been present during the events he recounts (Mark was supposed to have been some sort of secretary for Peter). Papias makes no mention of either Luke or John. So, at best, the only canonical Gospel that was completed during the time of Papias (circa 110 CE) was Mark's. This, of course, assumes that the reference to Mark was not an interpolation of later centuries.

It is very suspicious that Justin Martyr (circa 150 CE) never mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John in any of his extant works and yet just a generation later in the same part of the world (Rome), Irenaeus (circa 190 CE) states that there are only 4 gospels and the canon is closed. Celsus (circa 170 CE) knows nothing about Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John but does refer to gospels of Helen, Mariamme, Salome, and a host of other women. The only texts known to Plotinus (early-200's CE) in his criticism of Christianity are Gnostic works. Still no Synoptics.

On a final note, in 1919 the German scholar Karl Ludwig Schmidt was able to show that the author of Mark (supposedly the earliest and 'simplest' of the Synoptics) had created his gospel by linking together smaller existing stories, which had no time/place setting themselves. He, in effect, created the Jesus story from pre-existing narrative fragments. Schmidt demonstrated that the connecting links between these various fragments were entirely of Mark's own invention. For example, some scholars have noted that all passages in Mark referring to Galilee are later additions to the text. This can be seen in the line 'And passing by the sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew' (Mark 1:6) in wich the words 'by the sea of Galilee' are placed quite ungrammatically in the Greek syntax. The verb 'passing along' is not used with the preposition 'by' in Greek. If this part of the excerpt is removed, the passage flows on normally and naturally. This has led many New Testmanent scholars to believe Mark added a geographical context to a story that previously lacked it. 

Additionally, Mark evinces a clear ignorance of Palestinian geography: 'In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying "If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery" (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce.' (I. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence)

Any way you cut it... these Synoptics were not eyewitness accounts and not historically accurate.



> how any of this proves that Jesus never existed against what ALL the other sources are saying



You have yet to provide any of these 'sources', so I will have to take that rebuttal with a grain of salt. I assume you are referring to your flimsy external sources --- all of which are written nearly 100 years after the events in question (and, lacking any obvious direct records or primary sources, are thus secondary sources), some of which do not even refer to Jesus ('Chrestus' is not an aberration of 'Christos' and Jesus was never supposed to have been in Rome), and some of which are forgeries (Tacitus' reference to Jesus is never quoted prior to the 1400's, when it suddenly 'magically' appears in all extant versions of his works).

So, again, what sources??



> This discussion is getting to be laughable, and I am not going to go through each and every point again. You have resorted to repeating yourself on many accounts, even though the points have been refuted. I feel like we are going around in circles at this point.



Gee.... now who's arrogant??  

Maybe I should just go over all the points I had either mentioned for the first time and/or that you have yet to refute in any satisfactory manner:

1) The New Testament does not effectively 'pass' the 'transmission test' prior to the the 400's CE --- and even then, it only does so with a minimal number of documents (only a few dozen at most).

2) The New Testament does not tell us what the original Christians may or may not have believed. It only tells us what they may have read --- not their interpretation of what they read.

3) There are Christian texts just as old, if not older, than the Synoptics that paint a very different picture of Jesus. These include, but are not limited to, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Hebrews, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord, and the Gospel of the Egyptians.

4) The Gospels have undergone changes and revisions both before and after the 400's CE --- some of which are much more than the 'linguistic differences' you attempted to reduce them to. There is both empirical and textual evidence for this (such as the writings of Origen). An example of this is the 'long ending' found in the Gospel of Mark.

5) There is, in fact, no reliable proof (whether empirical or textual) that Christian "literalism" existed prior to Justin Martyr, circa 150 CE.

6) There is no reliable proof of "persecution" of Christians as a group prior to 250 CE in either empirical or textual sources. Even the first time persecution by Emperor Nero is ever mentioned is by Bishop Melito of Sardis around 170 CE --- well over 100 years after the events in question.

7) No extant New Testament document dates prior to the 300's CE.

8) No New Testament fragment dates prior to the mid-to-late 100's CE.

9) The fragments in question are not proof that the Synoptics existed then in the first place, as we cannot accurately confirm they come from the Synoptics in the first place. They could be from source materials the Synoptics drew upon.

10) There is no proof that Christianity began in Palestine. In fact, the relatively large number of Christians in "Pagan" countries is as early as the 2nd century is testament that it did not. Additionally, the vast majority of these 'Christians' were members of Gnostic sects (according to Irenaeus, Tertuallian, and the Pastoral Letters).

11) The Synoptics are never quoted or mentioned by name until 190 CE with Irenaeus. Papias and Polycarp, due to the massive interpolations in their works, are not reliable sources.

12) There were Pagan critics as early as the 2nd century that made claims that the teachings and stories of Christianity are plagiarisms of Paganism. Justin Martyr responded to them in much of his work, and there is also Celsus.

13) Early Christian texts, such as Marcion's Apostolikon (which textual examination have shown predate the canonical Pauline Epistles by decades) are of a decidedly docetic nature viewing Jesus in a non-historical light.

14) There are blatant contradictions in the New Testament --- including different accounts of where the resurrection took place (one account says Galilee and another says Jerusalem).

15) There is no reputable evidence, whether primary or secondary, to support Eusebius' claims about Jesus having two "fathers" (Joseph and Eli).

16) Many of the historical "events" in the Gospels never took place, such as Herod's supposed "slaughter of innocents".

17) The external sources you provided are unreliable and even spurious at times.

18) There is no proof that the authors of the Synoptics were either Jewish or from Palestine.

19) There is no empirical or reliable textual evidence that the Synoptics were "eyewitness accounts".

Gee... by my count, that's almost 20 points that need addressing. Good luck.  



> What I can't believe is that you can't see that your evidence and the evidence of the scholars you quote is no more "imperical" then the evidence that supports the ideas of Jesus being a real person.



Ahem. It's spelled 'empirical' and I can assure you it is a real word (look up 'empiricism' in the dictionary if you don't believe me).

Additionally, what I am pointing out is the incredible _lack_ of ANY empirical evidence to corroborate your claims. You have certainly failed to provide any. There is no empirical evidence per se to support my claims. On the other hand, there is plenty of secondary and textual evidence --- such as the obvious parallels between the Jesus story and Pagan myths, the 'silence of Paul', and no mention of Christian 'literalist' beliefs prior to 150 CE.



> There is FAR more corroborating evidence supporting the idea that Jesus was a real person, and his followers believed in his divinity.



Not unless you consider your word to be some kind of proof. You have yet to provide any evidence to support these claims. All you've provided are erroneous dates for Biblical manuscripts and fragments, and a lot of unproven assumptions on what the early Christians believed and where they were centered.



> How about just admiting the truth...that your evidence is not more "imperical" then anyone elses?



Well, then I'd be lying. Last time I checked, that's a sin.  



> This is misinformation. First, the part about Paul being a Gnostic has no credence at all, particularly when you read the letters themselves and realize that The philosophies he proposes doesn't fit at all with the Gnostics



There are two reasons for this rather erroneous interpretation (by the way, I am going to assume Paul actually existed and wrote most of the epistles attributed to him for this discussion):

One) Many of letters attributed to Paul were, in fact, late 2nd century forgeries. Only 7 (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) are generally regarded by scholars as authentic. In addition, many excerpts within the authentic Pauline epistles have been edited or added in by later redactors.

Two) For such a "non-Gnostic", Paul sure likes to use Gnostic terminology a lot. The problem is the translation from the Greek to "churchy" English that give a false impression of what is actually written. Paul makes extensive use of Gnostic concepts such as gnosis, sophia, pistis, psychic, pneumatic, aeon, archon, the '7 heavens', and many variations of telios.

I suggest reading Freke and Gandy's work --- they discuss the 'Gnosticism' of Paul in depth.



> Gnostics (which is why they are Christian).



Umm... most of the Gnostic sects _were_ Christian. Even their opponents (Irenaeus and Tertullian) admitted this.



> There is also no historical connection that I have seen pointing to Paul being anything but a Christian after his conversion.



Many Gnostic groups, including the Valentinians and Marcionites, trace their beginnings to Paul. Additionally, Marcion made extensive mention of Paul while he was in Rome decades before any literalist did (Justin Martyr, in all of his extant works, does not mention Paul once).



> However, what is also misinformation is the idea that Gnostics, Docetists, or Celsus believed that Jesus didn't exist. On the contrary, they believe he existed, but as a Pagan God only in spirit and sorcery.



This is a horrid misinterpretation of the Gnostic doctrine of Docetism. The very fact that people still buy that line is testament to how slow religious scholarship progresses.

Freke and Gandy: "The opponents of Gnosticism have portrayed this as a rather strange belief that Jesus did not actually have a flesh and blood body, but only seemed to exist physically, and that he magically made it appear as if he was dying on the cross although in reality he was not. As usual, however, by taking the Gnostics literally, the Literalists completely miss the point."

Freke and Gandy again: "The Gnostics did not believe that Jesus only seemed to exist, or that he magically avoided suffering on the corss, or, more sinisterly, that he had himself replaced by Simon of Cyrene, who was crucified instead while Jesus stood safely at a distance laughing. Such doctrines would, as the Literalists claimed, be distasteful and ridiculous. But this is a misunderstanding (or more likely a conscious distortion!) of Gnostic teachings. In fact, 'Illusionism' is simply part of understanding the crucifixion story as an initiation allegory [...]"

Elsewhere, Freke and Gandy claim: "The Gnostics' doctine that Jesus is a symbolic visionary figure is known as docetism. It is misunderstood by Christian Literalists as the bizarre claim that Jesus was some sort of disembodied spook that miraculously appeared to be a man who lived the life described in the gospels. But this crazy idea is just the product of Literalists taking the Gnostics literally."

Gerald Massey states: "The Docetae sects, for example, are supposed to have held that the transactions of the gospel narrative did occur, but in a phantasmagoria of unreality. This, however, is but a false mode of describing the position of those who denied the Christ could be incarnated and become human to suffer and die upon the cross. The Christians who report the beliefs of the Gnostics, Docetae, and others, always assume the actual history and then try to explain the non-human interpretation as an heretical denial of the alleged facts. But the docetic interpretation was first, was pre-historical [...]"

Ireneaus, in his refutation of the Docetics, refers to them as seeing Jesus as an 'imaginary' being: "He shall also judge those who describe Christ as [having become man] only in [human] opinion. For how can they imagine that they do carry on a real discussion, when their Master was a mere imaginary being? Or how can they receive anything steadfast from Him, if He was a merely imaginary being, and not a verity? And how can these men really be partaken of salvation, if He in whom they profess to believe, manifested Himself as merely an imaginary being?"

The common interpretation of what Docetism (or Illusionism) entails is always based upon its refutations by its Literalist opponents --- _not_ how it was understood by its proponents.

Oh, and by the way, paul..... next time, try and cite something more historically reliable and authoritative than an encyclopedia.

*chuckles* Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

At this point, I think that we can consider this conversation over.

As I have said before, and I wasn't trying to be arrogent, but you have resorted to regurgitating your points. You give a huge list of points, however many of them I have refuted. Some I haven't, but what's the purpose? If you won't recognize the points that I have addressed, then why should I continue to address more of your points? So you can pretend that I didn't address them? The whole thing has gotten stupid because of this.

I have read many things on both sides of the arguement. How much have you read that supports my side? With that being said, I'd like to refer you to some of the sources I have given earlier. Particularly "Jesus Under Fire," or anything by William Lane Craig.
Many of your arguements have been successfully refuted by these sources. Maybe while you read them, you can talk to the book and say "you didn't address this point" while they address it in the text. That would be about as productive as this conversation has gotten.

Besides...say what you'd like...but NOTHING you say could refute this:



> What I found from my studies of BOTH sides of the arguement:
> 
> First, I would like to admit that there is a lack of what could be considered "Imperical" evidence for the existance of Jesus. This makes it difficult to believe the Christian Premise at first.
> 
> However, what I also found was that there is a lack of "Imperical" evidence for almost EVERYTHING in history; especially when regarding events that happened prior to 1000 CE. The "problems" we run into verifying the Gospel stories are often magnified when trying to verify any other event in Ancient history.
> So, I found that even though the Evidence for Jesus' existance doesn't appear to be emperical enough on the surface, there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion.
> 
> I also found that the problem the Athiests and skeptics have is within their solutions. They focus on refuting existing evidence, which is not hard to cast doubt with ANY ancient history. This makes the Skeptic arguement sound compelling to the average person who does not realize the nature of Ancient History. However, the skeptic alternative solutions is where the skeptic arguments really fall short, I have found. The reason is because the skeptic alternative solution, I find, is MORE DIFFICULT to prove given the evidence we have then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus was a real person who developed a following called the Christain Religion. At the very least, the skeptic solutions are no more imperical then the non-skeptical ones.
> 
> I think you will find...regardless of what you choose to believe or not believe, that my above statement is very true.
> 
> Have a good day...


----------



## heretic888

> At this point, I think that we can consider this conversation over.



Unless you can actually start providing us some reliable information or sources, then sure. 

Seriously... almost all of the "evidence" that you've presented thus far is nothing but misinformation (example: the unreliable external sources you cited to "prove" Jesus' historicity) and "blind faith" assumptions (example: Christianity started in Palestine in the 1st century CE --- there is no proof for these claims).



> As I have said before, and I wasn't trying to be arrogent, but you have resorted to regurgitating your points. You give a huge list of points, however many of them I have refuted.



Actually, you've refuted _none_ of them.

I, on the other hand, refuted several of your points (including your 'transmission test' theory) and pointed out the misinformation in several of your claims (namely, the dates you gave for extant New Testament documents and fragments).

You have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence for any of your points.



> Some I haven't, but what's the purpose? If you won't recognize the points that I have addressed, then why should I continue to address more of your points? So you can pretend that I didn't address them? The whole thing has gotten stupid because of this.



Why should I recognize points that are "supported" by misinformation, apologetic forgeries, and unproven assumptions??

Again, this conversation is going to go nowhere unless you actually start providing _real_ empirical evidence for your claims. You have yet to do so.



> I have read many things on both sides of the arguement.



Two things:

One) So what?? Somebody could have read arguments for both sides in the 15th century and still conclude Galileo is wrong and the Earth really is the center of the known universe.

Just because you've listened to "both sides" does not make your theories and hypotheses any more credible. The evidence you use to support your ideas is what gives them credibility.

Two) For someone who has "read both sides", you seem to possess a decided ignorance about many common criticisms against the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament.



> How much have you read that supports my side?



A lot, actually. I was a "true believer" in my younger days. None of the material I read, however, has convinced me of the historicity of Jesus.



> With that being said, I'd like to refer you to some of the sources I have given earlier. Particularly "Jesus Under Fire," or anything by William Lane Craig.



I'd direct you to sources I gave earlier, as well. Especially Earl Doherty's works. And, unlike your arguments on this thread, they actually use reliable empirical evidence to support their arguments.



> Many of your arguements have been successfully refuted by these sources.



In your mind, perhaps.



> Maybe while you read them, you can talk to the book and say "you didn't address this point" while they address it in the text. That would be about as productive as this conversation has gotten.



Yes, but that has more to do with your inability to provide any credible evidence than anything else.



> Besides...say what you'd like...but NOTHING you say could refute this:



*chuckles* Oh, really??  



> First, I would like to admit that there is a lack of what could be considered "Imperical" evidence for the existance of Jesus. This makes it difficult to believe the Christian Premise at first.



No, it makes it difficult to believe at all. Period.

And, again, its spelled _empirical_. Crack open a dictionary and check for yourself.



> However, what I also found was that there is a lack of "Imperical" evidence for almost EVERYTHING in history; especially when regarding events that happened prior to 1000 CE. The "problems" we run into verifying the Gospel stories are often magnified when trying to verify any other event in Ancient history.
> So, I found that even though the Evidence for Jesus' existance doesn't appear to be emperical enough on the surface, there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion.
> 
> I also found that the problem the Athiests and skeptics have is within their solutions. They focus on refuting existing evidence, which is not hard to cast doubt with ANY ancient history. This makes the Skeptic arguement sound compelling to the average person who does not realize the nature of Ancient History. However, the skeptic alternative solutions is where the skeptic arguments really fall short, I have found. The reason is because the skeptic alternative solution, I find, is MORE DIFFICULT to prove given the evidence we have then the simple idea that a guy names Jesus was a real person who developed a following called the Christain Religion. At the very least, the skeptic solutions are no more imperical then the non-skeptical ones.



*sighs* This entire quote is _blatantly_ untrue.

You have attempted to use a vague, generalized claim about history as whole to invalidate a particular, specified claim about an individual point in history (the 'mythicist' theory about Jesus). That would be like saying that just because many people in Nazi Germany were biggoted fascists that _all_ Germans during the 40's were fascists.

In any event, the historical claims made during this quote are laughable in and of themselves. What you failed to tell everybody, and/or failed to take into consideration, that this point during human history was one of the most _well-recorded_ known to modern man. There were dozens (nearly a hundred, I believe) of Roman historians writing at or within a century of the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived (I can post their names if you wish). They don't make a whisper of him. They _do_ make extensive mention, however, of dozens of other would-be "messiahs" running around both Judea and Rome. The same holds true for Jewish historians such as Philo and Justus, as well.

So, it seems, your vague generalization about history does not actually hold true for this particular stretch of history in this particular part of the world. Sorry... but generalizations don't prove particulars.

Besides, this quote doesn't actually solve the _known_ historical inconsistencies in the New Testament. For example, Jesus was supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod, who died 4 BCE. Yet, he was also supposed to have been born during the census of Quirinus, which historians record at 6 CE. That's a 10 year difference there for "eyewitness" accounts and does indeed fit what you would call a "hard contradiction".

In addition, the fact remains that the earliest Gospels themselves (namely, Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are written in a form similar to _plays_. It seems very much so that the Synoptics were originally mystery dramas of some sort (and Christianity itself some form of Hellenistic-Jewish mystery school, it seems). The proof of this found in the Synoptics themselves. Many scenes take place in which Jesus is off by himself with _no witnesses whatsoever_ to record his supposed utterances. An example of this is found in the passion scene at the Garden of Gethsemane, as well as Jesus' "tests" during his time in the desert. This poses a problem for an eyewitness account of historical events --- but _not_ for a character monologue in a theatrical performance.

The events themselves are often structured like a play, as well. Events in different locations occur with no break in the narrative and with no dialogue between the disciples or Jesus between events. There remains a very dramatic and "theatrical" flare to the earliest threads of the Gospels. It seems very likely the Jesus narrative was originally some form of mystery play akin to the kind played out in Greece and Egypt centuries prior to the common era.

There is also, again, the blatant ignorance of Palestinian geography and laws found within Mark, the earliest of the Synoptics. There is also the research of Karl Schmidt in demonstrating Mark itself is created from numerous pre-existing story fragments taking place in no time/place setting. The chronological and narrative link between these various story fragments was entirely of Mark's own creation, as well.

When the Gospels themselves don't pass the test of historical reliability (I wouldn't call a play created out of pre-existing story fragments with an obvious ignorance of the geography of the place its supposed to take place in a 'historically reliable' document), then how are we to seriously regard for the historicity of Jesus --- whose major supposed "proof" is found in Biblical canon?? There certainly isn't any credible proof in any extra-Biblical sources, as I stated beforehand. In addition, as stated before, Paul (in his authentic epistles) evinces a clear ignorance of both Jesus' teachings and his biography, and he himself seems to have Gnostic/Docetic leanings.

These points, among others, are all deeply troubling concerns for the contemporary apologetic. 

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Unless you can actually start providing us some reliable information or sources, then sure.
> 
> Seriously... almost all of the "evidence" that you've presented thus far is nothing but misinformation (example: the unreliable external sources you cited to "prove" Jesus' historicity) and "blind faith" assumptions (example: Christianity started in Palestine in the 1st century CE --- there is no proof for these claims).
> *


*

Yea...misinfo according to YOU. I gave you a list of sources...but of course THAT"S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Whatever.




			Actually, you've refuted none of them.

I, on the other hand, refuted several of your points (including your 'transmission test' theory) and pointed out the misinformation in several of your claims (namely, the dates you gave for extant New Testament documents and fragments).

You have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence for any of your points.
		
Click to expand...


Your dillusional. Anybody with the free time to read through this entire thread can see that your an idiot. NOT because of your beliefs, but because of your refusal to recognize that I at least have made points with sources to back them up.

I can recognize your points and your sources...so why can't you recognize mine? I'll answer for you....your too threatened by my arguement. 




			Why should I recognize points that are "supported" by misinformation, apologetic forgeries, and unproven assumptions??
		
Click to expand...


Because...it is only in your OPINION, and possibly the opinion of a select few other scholars, that what I have brought to the table is not credible. That is the problem I have in talking to YOU. You don't respect my opinion or my sources, yet you expect me to respect yours. You are so threatened by my arguement that you've resorted to a thinly supported refutation of my sources because you can't/won't address my real arguements.




			Again, this conversation is going to go nowhere unless you actually start providing real empirical evidence for your claims. You have yet to do so.
		
Click to expand...


I've provided evidence, so what you say is debatable. One thing that isn't debatable, though, is the fact that your sources are certianly no more "imperical" or "credable" then mine.





			Two things:

One) So what?? Somebody could have read arguments for both sides in the 15th century and still conclude Galileo is wrong and the Earth really is the center of the known universe.

Just because you've listened to "both sides" does not make your theories and hypotheses any more credible. The evidence you use to support your ideas is what gives them credibility.
		
Click to expand...


No...it doesn't make my arguement in itself more credible, but it does show that I don't feel threatened by other arguements, and that I have the ability to look at things objectively and with an open mind. You have yet to provide evidence that you have this same ability. It also does say that I know what both sides of the arguement are, so that my opinion isn't one sided like yours.

And the point of my objectivity above, sir, DOES give my opinion more credence then yours. 




			Two) For someone who has "read both sides", you seem to possess a decided ignorance about many common criticisms against the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament.
		
Click to expand...


Once again...your OPINION.




			A lot, actually. I was a "true believer" in my younger days. None of the material I read, however, has convinced me of the historicity of Jesus.
		
Click to expand...


Well, just because you were a Christian puppet at one point in your life, and you read a few things on the opposing side that made you feel "empowered" with knowledge, and made you feel better, smarter, etc., then your Christian peers, that doesn't give any evidence to your objectivity. Maybe you've been reading the wrong stuff.




			I'd direct you to sources I gave earlier, as well. Especially Earl Doherty's works. And, unlike your arguments on this thread, they actually use reliable empirical evidence to support their arguments.
		
Click to expand...


I'd be happy to read some of your sources...as I believe some of my sources that support your side reference some of yours, although I could be mistaken. I find it laughable, though, that your close-minded enough to believe that any of these sources are somehow more "reliable" and "emperical" then other competable references out there. 





			In your mind, perhaps.
		
Click to expand...


No....Anyone with the ability to read and understand what we have both written here can clearly see that for many of your points, I have addressed them, argued them, and given references to my arguement. You may not agree with my ARGUEMENT...and that is fine. But instead of giving a counter point or explaining why you don't agree, you revert to saying the logical equivelent of "ISN'T SO!" Well...sorry to break it to you but just because you say it ain't so, that doesn't make it true. Because you expect anyone to buy your crap just because you said it is megalomania, in my opinion.




			Yes, but that has more to do with your inability to provide any credible evidence than anything else.
		
Click to expand...


Oh no....it couldn't have anything to do with your unobjective, arrogent attitude, or your inability to recognize my arguements and sources when they are spelled out for you, could it?




			*chuckles* Oh, really?? 

Click to expand...


yea...chucklehead...really.




			No, it makes it difficult to believe at all. Period.

And, again, its spelled empirical. Crack open a dictionary and check for yourself.
		
Click to expand...


Hey...stick to the arguement or F**K off. My spelling has little to do with anything here. Some of us have jobs and lives, and don't care to spend time correcting spelling and grammer on internet forums to pacify our need to "look smart."




			*sighs* This entire quote is blatantly untrue.

You have attempted to use a vague, generalized claim about history as whole to invalidate a particular, specified claim about an individual point in history (the 'mythicist' theory about Jesus). That would be like saying that just because many people in Nazi Germany were biggoted fascists that all Germans during the 40's were fascists.
		
Click to expand...


Your comparison is completely illogical. A doesn't = B and B Doesn't = C for C to = A here. I make a summerizing point that holds true for the study of ANY ancient history, a point which most scholars will agree on. This isn't the logical equivalent of making a generalization of an entire race because of an event in history. 




			In any event, the historical claims made during this quote are laughable in and of themselves. What you failed to tell everybody, and/or failed to take into consideration, that this point during human history was one of the most well-recorded known to modern man. There were dozens (nearly a hundred, I believe) of Roman historians writing at or within a century of the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived (I can post their names if you wish). They don't make a whisper of him. They do make extensive mention, however, of dozens of other would-be "messiahs" running around both Judea and Rome. The same holds true for Jewish historians such as Philo and Justus, as well.
		
Click to expand...


O.K....assuming your point is true, you just countered your own arguement. If there were "extensive mentions" of would be messiah's running around, then wouldn't be logical that the Jesus figure that the Christians worshipped could have been one of these figures? Remember...we aren't argueing over his possible divinity. We are arguing over the possability that he existed as a real person. Your statement here proves that this is not only possible, but probable (especially given the commonality of the name 'Jesus') 




			So, it seems, your vague generalization about history does not actually hold true for this particular stretch of history in this particular part of the world. Sorry... but generalizations don't prove particulars.

Besides, this quote doesn't actually solve the known historical inconsistencies in the New Testament. For example, Jesus was supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod, who died 4 BCE. Yet, he was also supposed to have been born during the census of Quirinus, which historians record at 6 CE. That's a 10 year difference there for "eyewitness" accounts and does indeed fit what you would call a "hard contradiction".

In addition, the fact remains that the earliest Gospels themselves (namely, Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are written in a form similar to plays. It seems very much so that the Synoptics were originally mystery dramas of some sort (and Christianity itself some form of Hellenistic-Jewish mystery school, it seems). The proof of this found in the Synoptics themselves. Many scenes take place in which Jesus is off by himself with no witnesses whatsoever to record his supposed utterances. An example of this is found in the passion scene at the Garden of Gethsemane, as well as Jesus' "tests" during his time in the desert. This poses a problem for an eyewitness account of historical events --- but not for a character monologue in a theatrical performance.

The events themselves are often structured like a play, as well. Events in different locations occur with no break in the narrative and with no dialogue between the disciples or Jesus between events. There remains a very dramatic and "theatrical" flare to the earliest threads of the Gospels. It seems very likely the Jesus narrative was originally some form of mystery play akin to the kind played out in Greece and Egypt centuries prior to the common era.

There is also, again, the blatant ignorance of Palestinian geography and laws found within Mark, the earliest of the Synoptics. There is also the research of Karl Schmidt in demonstrating Mark itself is created from numerous pre-existing story fragments taking place in no time/place setting. The chronological and narrative link between these various story fragments was entirely of Mark's own creation, as well.

When the Gospels themselves don't pass the test of historical reliability (I wouldn't call a play created out of pre-existing story fragments with an obvious ignorance of the geography of the place its supposed to take place in a 'historically reliable' document), then how are we to seriously regard for the historicity of Jesus --- whose major supposed "proof" is found in Biblical canon?? There certainly isn't any credible proof in any extra-Biblical sources, as I stated beforehand. In addition, as stated before, Paul (in his authentic epistles) evinces a clear ignorance of both Jesus' teachings and his biography, and he himself seems to have Gnostic/Docetic leanings.

These points, among others, are all deeply troubling concerns for the contemporary apologetic. 

Laterz.
		
Click to expand...

*
Now you've resorted to a long rant of repeating aforementioned points. I will not waste my time addressing the rant of someone who is not only repeating things I have previously addressed, but who doesn't have respect for my opinion anyways. 

But here is a rhetorical question for you: Why all the animosity towards the mere idea that someone named Jesus could have claimed to be the messiah almost 2000 yrs ago, gathered a following, which we now call Christianity today? Why are you so threatened by the mere thought? Why the refusal to acknowledge known authors and sources as credable, even if you don't believe the claims? I think you are clearly hiding behind emotional hang-ups through pseudo-educated opinions. Seek help.

PAUL


----------



## heretic888

> Yea...misinfo according to YOU.



I could address the points one by one, from your flimsy "external sources" to your incorrect dates for New Testamental works and fragments.... if that is what you wish. I could also address the fact that you've given no evidence to actually support the popular 70-110 CE dating for the Synoptics outside of the notion that "that's what everyone else says". I could also address the reality that the New Testament does indeed _not_ "pass" your transmission test to any respectable degree.

Also, some of your claims ("there is seems to be FAR more evidence available to verify the existance of Christ, and to verify the Gospel accounts then in any ANY other Ancient history, or World Religion") are so unverified and unsupported its not even funny.

So, again, where is your evidence?? :shrug: 



> I gave you a list of sources...but of course THAT"S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Whatever.



Correct. A list of names and book titles does not constitute "evidence" to me. 

One were to assume that if any of these sources had strong arguments and/or evidence for their case(s), that you would present them on the thread to refute the "mythicist" position I am supporting. However, you have yet to do so. 

This, to me, is very interesting... to say the least.



> Your dillusional.



Ahem. It's spelled _delusional_, and I'd appreciate it if you kept the personal insults to a minimum.



> Anybody with the free time to read through this entire thread can see that your an idiot. NOT because of your beliefs, but because of your refusal to recognize that I at least have made points with sources to back them up.



Such as??

The only "evidence" I have seen you attempt to provide is:

1) External sources limited to completely unreliable and/or questionable quotations found in Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger. 

Even the oldest of these sources, Josephus, dates back to nearly 70 years after the Gospel events were supposed to have occured. In addition, Josephus himself was born nearly 20 years after the time of the supposed death of Jesus, and he does not draw upon any primary sources or records in the two excerpts in question. By no means does he constitute a reliable (re: primary) historical source on Jesus. And he's the _oldest_ of these external sources!! Most of the others date to around 115 CE --- nearly 100 years after the events in question!!!

Of course, this is assuming these are even historically accurate accounts in the first place. The Christian persecutions under the Emperor Nero, for example, is mentioned _nowhere_ outside of a single line in Tacitus' works, and this excerpt wasn't ever quoted until the 1400's CE. In fact, no _Christian_ even makes mention of the Nero persecutions until 170 CE --- over 100 years after they were supposed to have taken place!! Tacitus even incorrectly refers to Pontius Pilate as a "procurator" rather than the historically accurate title of "prefect". The Tacitus excerpt is thus an obviously historically inaccurate source --- if not a forgery.

The other external sources don't fare much better. This is hardly useful "evidence" at your disposal.

Two) Your supposed "transmission test".

As I stated before, the New Testament does not pass the transmission test to any respectable degree. Even the earliest copies of any extant New Testamental books dates to the 300's CE. The copies of some of the books date back even further to the 400's CE. Thus, we have to wait until the 5th century to get our hands on anything resembling a complete New Testament. And, rest assured, the number of Biblical copies dating this far back is quite few indeed.... at most, a few dozen. 

This was after Church canon had already been established and after Constantine had instituted literalist Christianity as the state religion (and subsequently began a campaign to stomp out all other religious dissidents). So, contrary to what you claimed beforehand, even these 4th and 5th century copies (the earliest copies known) could easily be the product of political agendas and revisions.

So, it seems there is again no "evidence" found in your transmission test claims, either.

Three) Supposed "internal consistencies" within the New Testament.

This is the easiest one to shoot down. I already cited the conflict of birth dates between the death of Herod in 4 BCE vs. the census of Quirinus in 6 CE. There are also the different references of Jesus' "post-ressurection" commands (one account has him telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, while another has him appearing to them for the first time in Galilee) in the different Synoptics... as well as differing claims on what his "final utterances" were during the crucifixion. There are also conflicts on where Jesus was supposed to have travelled during his ministry (one account says he stayed in and around Galilee, while another has him going all around Judea). 

And, as before, there are the conflicting lineages traced to David. And, before you start citing the dubious Eusebius again, I'd like to mention that according to one of these lineages Jesus is only 20 or so generations removed from David while the other has him over 40 generations removed from David!!! Even if Joseph did have "two fathers", this issue still remains blatantly inconsistent!

There appears to be little, if any, internal consistency within the Synoptics. This internal consistency bears even worse if we throw Paul's ignorance of Jesus' biography and reported teachings into the mix.

Sorry, no "evidence" here. 

Four) Supposed "external consistencies" between the New Testament and historical sources.

This one's almost as easy as one above. An easy inconsistency can be found in the New Testament's "slaughter of innocents" initiated by Herod. No historian, including Josephus and Philo (both Jews), makes any mention of this. There is also the conflict between the reign of Herod, ending in 4 BCE, and the census of Quirinus, taking place in 6 CE --- events which the Synoptics record as taking place during the same time!!

Let's refer once again to the geographical and legal inconsistencies in Mark: "In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce." (I. Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence)

I don't suppose I should mention that no external source is "consistent" with the trial and execution of Jesus, either?? An interesting fact... considering the Romans were such a copious and well-documented people during this time period, especially in regards to their legal proceedings.

Well, that's all the supposed "evidence" I can see... just these four points, all of which consist largely (if not entirely) of misinformation, as I have just demonstrated.

If you have any other "evidence" to present, please feel free to do so.



> I can recognize your points and your sources...so why can't you recognize mine? I'll answer for you....your too threatened by my arguement.



No, its because your four major points of "evidence" (as covered above), are all misinformed. I'm not _threatened_ by anything here.



> Because...it is only in your OPINION, and possibly the opinion of a select few other scholars, that what I have brought to the table is not credible.



Ok. I'll admit that.



> That is the problem I have in talking to YOU. You don't respect my opinion or my sources, yet you expect me to respect yours. You are so threatened by my arguement that you've resorted to a thinly supported refutation of my sources because you can't/won't address my real arguements.



I don't recall claiming that I don't "respect" your opinion.

In any event, I have addressed all the supposed "evidence" you have presented (the four points above). None of them are really that credible or reliable. In my opinion, of course.   



> I've provided evidence, so what you say is debatable.



You've provided _flimsy_ evidence. There's a difference.



> One thing that isn't debatable, though, is the fact that your sources are certianly no more "imperical" or "credable" then mine.



Why do you make a habit out of misspelling words in quotation marks??  

If what you mean by sources here is the bibliographical list of works you mentioned, then I'll certainly grant the claim in the above quote. If you are referring to my claims, however, then I'm afraid mine do have much more empirical data to support them (for example: no extant New Testament book dates prior to the 300's --- in contrast to what you have state before). In my opinion, of course.



> No...it doesn't make my arguement in itself more credible, but it does show that I don't feel threatened by other arguements, and that I have the ability to look at things objectively and with an open mind. You have yet to provide evidence that you have this same ability. It also does say that I know what both sides of the arguement are, so that my opinion isn't one sided like yours.
> 
> And the point of my objectivity above, sir, DOES give my opinion more credence then yours.



I hope you're aware that this entire quotation seems to be more concerned with validating yourself and not your arguments.  

I don't really care what you've read or how "objective" you think you are. The proof is in the pudding (i.e. the evidence) not in your opinion of yourself.



> Once again...your OPINION.



Yep. The opinion of someone who actually _has_ read the argument of the side that you claim to know so much about (but don't show it in your posts, and don't mention it in your bibliography).



> Well, just because you were a Christian puppet at one point in your life, and you read a few things on the opposing side that made you feel "empowered" with knowledge, and made you feel better, smarter, etc., then your Christian peers, that doesn't give any evidence to your objectivity. Maybe you've been reading the wrong stuff.



I never claimed I was a "Christian puppet" or what have you... simply that, at one point, I was a devout Christian (to some, of course, there is little difference). I have, in fact, read many of the works you cited. That haven't impressed me in my more recent years of life.

You seem to be projecting a lot onto what you think happened in my life. You also seem to be taking a lot of this personally and feel the need to reduce yourself to character attacks. I would suggest re-evaluating your strategy here.



> I'd be happy to read some of your sources...as I believe some of my sources that support your side reference some of yours, although I could be mistaken. I find it laughable, though, that your close-minded enough to believe that any of these sources are somehow more "reliable" and "emperical" then other competable references out there.



I, in fact, did not mention anything about the reliability of the sources you listed. I was referring to the flimsiness of your own arguments on this thread.



> No....Anyone with the ability to read and understand what we have both written here can clearly see that for many of your points, I have addressed them, argued them, and given references to my arguement. You may not agree with my ARGUEMENT...and that is fine. But instead of giving a counter point or explaining why you don't agree, you revert to saying the logical equivelent of "ISN'T SO!" Well...sorry to break it to you but just because you say it ain't so, that doesn't make it true. Because you expect anyone to buy your crap just because you said it is megalomania, in my opinion.



*chuckles* I find it amazingly humorous that you can blithely reduce my claims to the flimsiness of your evidence as being just "my opinion". Yet, you rigidly assert your observations of my arguments as if it were the Word of God (pardon the pun).

And, in defense, I did in fact offer many counterpoints to your arguments (as I also did in this post). You just chose to ignore them and assail me with a bevy of personal insults.

Now, granted, I can't go into _extensive_ detail on _every_ one of my counterpoints.... but if you want me to detail a point of contention, I will be more than happy to do so.



> Oh no....it couldn't have anything to do with your unobjective, arrogent attitude, or your inability to recognize my arguements and sources when they are spelled out for you, could it?



I don't recall you "spelling out" any sources in support of your arguments. You just presented your supposed "evidence" (which I already addressed) and pasted a bibliographical list on the end. You used very little, if any, direct quotations or citations in-argument.



> Your comparison is completely illogical. A doesn't = B and B Doesn't = C for C to = A here. I make a summerizing point that holds true for the study of ANY ancient history, a point which most scholars will agree on. This isn't the logical equivalent of making a generalization of an entire race because of an event in history.



Actually, it does hold true. You make a vague generalization about historical information covering a broad stretch of time (several millenia) and any locale to somehow prove a point concerning a particular stetch of time in a particular place in the world.

The simple truth, paul, is that generalizations don't prove particulars.

I'll address the rest later. Bye.


----------



## arnisador

If you'd like to isolate a single point(s) in a new thread(s), that's fine. I know I find it hard to follow like this!

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## heretic888

> The simple truth, paul, is that generalizations don't prove particulars.



Outside of using generalizations to "prove" particulars, we run into further historical complications.

You see, even if your assumption that it is very difficult to historically verify any person and/or event prior to 1000 CE is accurate, it most certainly doesn't hold true to the time period and part of the world that we are presently concerned with. The Hellenistic Roman Empire circa 100 BCE to 100 CE is without doubt one of the most _well-recorded_ points in human history. There were over a hundred Roman historians writing at or within a century of the time Jesus was supposed to have lived. This doesn't even take into account the Jewish historians of the period, either. As before, only a handful of historians make reference to Jesus... and, each time, the reference is either forged, hearsay, or not even referring to Jesus in the first place (an example of this is the Chrestus vs Christos idiocy).

In either event, your claim that a lack of empirical evidence is somehow "not a problem" for the historicist position about Jesus is in no way accurate. This is most definitely a problem for apologetics of any stripe.



> O.K....assuming your point is true, you just countered your own arguement. If there were "extensive mentions" of would be messiah's running around, then wouldn't be logical that the Jesus figure that the Christians worshipped could have been one of these figures? Remember...we aren't argueing over his possible divinity. We are arguing over the possability that he existed as a real person.



It's possible... if you want to be really broad in your conception of what the "historical Jesus" could be. None of these messiahs were connected to the founding of any religious cult dedicated to their worship, nor did they live a life even remotely like the kind mentioned in the Gospel narratives. If your definition of "historical Jesus" is simply a claimed messiah named Joshua (Yeshwah) that was summarily tried and executed by the Romans, then sure.... there were plenty of "historical Jesuses" by that account. 

None of these "historical Jesuses", however, is ever associated with a Christist cult, nor any body of ethical/moral teachings, nor with a crucifixion and subsequent resurrection, nor any other affectation associated with the Mystery Cults of the time (such as the devouring of the god-man).

All of these Jesuses are also executed for accounts of political rebellion. The Jesus of the Gospel story was not. If he was, it stands to reason that his disciples would have been imprisoned with him.... but they were not. They were completely left unharmed in the story. The Jesus of the Gospels is tried for "religious crimes", not political ones. The Jews are without doubt painted as the "bad guys" in the story, not the Romans (Pontius Pilate seems to make every effort in the story to let Jesus go).

In any event, none of these Jesuses are ever associated with Pontius Pilate. They are almost always centered in Rome, a city the Christian Jesus was never supposed to have visited at all.



> Your statement here proves that this is not only possible, but probable (especially given the commonality of the name 'Jesus')



This is not accurate. The name 'Joshua' (Yeshwah or Yehoshua) was quite common. 'Jesus' was not. The Greek name Iesous (which we transliterate as 'Jesus') is a forced and incorrect transliteration of the Jewish name Yehoshua. It is specifically altered from the true transliteration to have numerological significance in the Greek gematria system (namely, the number 888).

Thus, 'Jesus' was not common at all. In fact, it wasn't even a real name (although it was similar to a real name). No one would have had this name in Judea.



> Now you've resorted to a long rant of repeating aforementioned points. I will not waste my time addressing the rant of someone who is not only repeating things I have previously addressed, but who doesn't have respect for my opinion anyways.



*chuckles* Already addressed?? You have made no mention of the obvious legal and geographical inconsistencies in Mark, the research showing Mark to be a "patchwork" of pre-existing non-time/place story fragments, the obvious mystery play nature of the Gospel narratives in all but John, or other points. You can make claims that you have "addressed" these points, but anyone that has read through the thread will tell you otherwise.

I don't ever recall saying I don't respect your opinion. I just happen to think you're wrong on this particular subject.  



> But here is a rhetorical question for you: Why all the animosity towards the mere idea that someone named Jesus could have claimed to be the messiah almost 2000 yrs ago, gathered a following, which we now call Christianity today? Why are you so threatened by the mere thought? Why the refusal to acknowledge known authors and sources as credable, even if you don't believe the claims? I think you are clearly hiding behind emotional hang-ups through pseudo-educated opinions. Seek help.



Amazing. You are once again resorting to character insults and some half-arsed psychobabble (as a psychology major I can assure you that you don't have the foggiest clue on what is entailed in any of the psychological conditions you've projected onto me) to defend your position.

In no way am I exerting any "animosity", nor am I "threatened". If I was in any way angry or threatened, one would assume I would resort to the tactics _you_ have reduced yourself to --- namely, personal attacks, character insults, and ill-informed psychobabble a la Freudian projectionism. I would suggest looking in the mirror before using such tactics again.

I don't recall naming any of the bibliographical sources you cited as being unreliable, only that the "evidence" you have presented thus far is simply misinformation and hearsay. I did not make a single utterance about any of the authors you mentioned, only your own rather flimsy arguments.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> It's possible... if you want to be really broad in your conception of what the "historical Jesus" could be.



Good. I win, you lose. What started this thread was your comment, "whom, like Jesus, I doubt ever existed in the historical sense"

Then you go on and on how he never existed historically. You go off on many tangents, listing a whole slew of historical pseudo-facts to support your opinion that he never existed, which is very confusing to the reader. I guess you figured you could confuse everyone into buying your conjecture.

However, since we aren't talking about divinity, or viability of the Christian faith, but we ARE talking about the existance of the historical Jesus, then you lose. You finally admit that there were messiah's (or "would be" messiah's) walking around who were executed for their beliefs. You may not believe in the history as told in the Gospel stories  (you may not believe for instance, that Jesus rose from the dead, or healed the sick), but that isn't what we are talking about here. You may argue EVERY DETAIL of the gospels if you'd like, but it doesn't matter for this arguement. 

Now although I have allowed you to pull me on to many different tangents, we are talking about the possibility that a "Messiah," or someone who claimed to be, existed, and developed a following. Since you've admitted that not only was this historically verifiable, but you have verified that there were in fact many "messiah's" who existed around that time period.

So, the historical Jesus, whoever he may have been, did in fact exist in the broad sense. You have just admitted it. Therefore, this arguement is over, and you've lost.

Any questions?


PAUL

P.S. I am not trying to resort to insulting you to win an arguement here, but I am going to call things as I see them. If I think your refusal to acknowledge my arguement is annoying and idiotic, I will say so. If I think that your scoff's, "ahem's" (although 'ahem 2' was kind of funny), your "rolleyes," your unessicary correcting of my spelling and grammer, and your overall method of addressing an arguement is arrogent, I am going to say so. Trust me, it isn't personal, I am just calling things as I see them. And, I feel that your entire methodoligy and undertone here has been far more insulting then anything that I have said so far, for at least I have been straight forward in my opinions that might be considered insults.

Also...my questions that I posed regarding your personal emotional/psychological position on the subject were only that, questions. They are rhetorical because although I would like to know the answer, I doubt I'll get the straight story. They are only questions, however. They are not me trying to impose "ill-informed psychobabble" on you, even though you have resorted in attempting to do so on me in your last post.


----------



## heretic888

> Good. I win, you lose.



No. Nobody "wins" in a discussion like this. This isn't the freakin' presidential election here. It's just a free-flow of ideas and positions on an internet forum with no real tangible "end" established in any formal manner. There is no "winner" and no "loser" in discussions like this.



> Then you go on and on how he never existed historically. You go off on many tangents, listing a whole slew of historical pseudo-facts to support your opinion that he never existed, which is very confusing to the reader. I guess you figured you could confuse everyone into buying your conjecture.



If you are confused with any of my "pseudo-facts" (interesting position coming from someone whose only four "facts" I completely rebuked), then feel free to ask for clarification. Most of them are, however, simply cut-and-dry observations about both New Testament textual threads and Biblical scholarship.



> However, since we aren't talking about divinity, or viability of the Christian faith, but we ARE talking about the existance of the historical Jesus, then you lose. You finally admit that there were messiah's (or "would be" messiah's) walking around who were executed for their beliefs.



Incorrect. You are once again projecting your own personal wishes and desires onto what I actually said... err, typed.

All I stated was that there were many claimed "messiahs" by the rather common name of Joshua (Yehoshua or Yeshua) that were summarily tried and executed by the Romans for inciting political rebellion. That's it.

None of these individuals developed a new religious cult dedicated to their exclusive worship (it should be remembered there is a substantial difference between the Jewish conception of "messiah" and the divine god-man figure found in the Greco-Christian "christ"). None of these individuals were associated with some new and "revolutionary" moral teaching. None of these individuals were associated with Pontius Pilate. Most, if not all, of these individuals _were_ centered in Rome --- not Galilee. None of these individuals are ever associated with living a life even remotely similar to that of the Gospel narrative (even when you take out the "supernatural" aspects).

The Jesus of the Gospels (and thus, the Christians) is tried and executed for religious crimes (claiming to be the "messiah" and the "son of God"). Every "messiah Joshua" we are referring to is executed for _political_ crimes. The Romans didn't give a flip what religious claims these individuals were and weren't making. They were concerned, however, if these individuals were inciting rebellion against the state.

Jesus, however, never incited rebellion against the state. "Give unto caesar what is his", right?? None of Jesus' disciples are ever gone after (an interesting strategy if they were indeed part of some political rebellion), only Jesus himself. In fact, in the story, the Romans (a la Pontius Pilate) make every effort to let Jesus go but its the Jewish Sanhedrin that are the "evil" prosecutors here. Jesus' stated crimes are that he claims to be the "son of god", _not_ that he is inciting rebellion of any form.

In addition, none of these individuals ever had the _name_ of Jesus. They were all Joshuas. The Greek Iesous is a forced and artificial (re: altered) transliteration of Yehoshua. No Jewish man of any century would have this name, because it's not a real name to begin with (although its somewhat similar to a real name).

So... what do we have here?? Well, our "historical Jesus" is limited solely to any number of Jewish men named Joshua (not Jesus) that claim to be messiahs, that are tried and executed for political (not religious) crimes, that are never associated with Galilee or Pontius Pilate, never associated with any new religious cult centered around their worship, never associated with any of the moral or ethical teachings found in the "Christian Jesus", and didn't live a life even remotely similar to the Gospel narrative.

If the preceding fits your bill of a "historical Jesus", then yes, there were many "historical Jesuses". Of course, no devout Christian would concede that any of those individuals are their Jesus. Nor would any hardline skeptic or atheist concede that any of those individuals fit the bill, either. Truly, these "historical Jesuses" are so removed and remote from the Biblical figure that to even draw a comparison seems laughable.

Still, to each his own. I guess.



> You may not believe in the history as told in the Gospel stories (you may not believe for instance, that Jesus rose from the dead, or healed the sick), but that isn't what we are talking about here. You may argue EVERY DETAIL of the gospels if you'd like, but it doesn't matter for this arguement.



Actually, the Gospel accounts are pretty important here... considering they are the only supposed "eyewitness" accounts of who and what Jesus was, and if the life of a real-life historical individual doesn't fit the Christian/Gospel account to the slightest, it doesn't really seem fair (or intelligent) to associate the two individuals as the same person.



> Now although I have allowed you to pull me on to many different tangents, we are talking about the possibility that a "Messiah," or someone who claimed to be, existed, and developed a following. Since you've admitted that not only was this historically verifiable, but you have verified that there were in fact many "messiah's" who existed around that time period.



I admitted there were many "Messiah Joshuas" that developed a political following of some kind. None of these followings were Christian, however.

It _is_ conceivable that Gospel authors based their "Jesus Christ" character on one of the many Joshuas claiming to be a messiah at the time that were tried and executed (although I would look at the Old Testamental Joshua/Jesus as the main source). However, basing a fictional character loosely on a real-life person doesn't somehow make the fictional character "real".

All you've managed to show on this little tangent is that the Christian Jesus _may_ have been loosely based on one of the Messiah Joshuas tried and executed by the Romans for inciting political rebellion. None of these messiahs actually lived a life similar to that in the Gospels, however, nor are any of them associated with Christianity.

Given that in Paul's time (approximately 50 to 80 CE by most accounts) there is virtually _no_ knowledge of either Jesus' biographical details nor his teachings, it seems the Gospel authors didn't start adapting this "historical Jesus" until fairly late in the game, however.



> So, the historical Jesus, whoever he may have been, did in fact exist in the broad sense. You have just admitted it. Therefore, this arguement is over, and you've lost.



Uhhh.... right.

All I admitted was that a Messiah Joshua that the Gospel Jesus is _based_ on may have exited. No one actually lived a life as found in the Gospel narrative, however, as virtually every aspect of the life described in the Gospels are mythos derived from Pagan and Jewish myths.



> Any questions?



No, not really.



> P.S. I am not trying to resort to insulting you to win an arguement here



Actually, that was exactly what you were doing. Your previous post was mostly concerned with launching insults at me and projecting a little "mini-history" about my life and beliefs that I have never stated before. In fact, almost everything you said about me was blatant misinformation and lies. Not once did I say any of your sources were questionable (all I did say was the arguments and "evidence" that _you_ were using on the thread were bunk), and not once did I launch a personal attack at you. You, however, felt completely justified in doing both of these against me.

I find it amusingly humorous that you accuse me of doing something that you have been engaged in for quite some time on the thread now.



> If I think your refusal to acknowledge my arguement is annoying and idiotic, I will say so.



So.... because I disagree with you, I become "idiotic" and "annoying"??  

You are truely worthy of your apologetic heritage, my friend. Who knows?? Maybe next you'll start forging a document to "prove" that I am part of some anti-Christian coalition??



> Trust me, it isn't personal



Oh, it isn't personal... even though you are now spending most of your posts launching a bevy of personal insults ("delusional", "annoying", "idiotic", "stupid", "close-minded") at me?? 

Rigghhhhhht.......



> And, I feel that your entire methodoligy and undertone here has been far more insulting then anything that I have said so far, for at least I have been straight forward in my opinions that might be considered insults.



Ok. Apparently your definition of "insulting" is "not agreeing with everything I say". The fact that you resort to personal attacks when I make an attempt rebuke your "facts" and when I point out blatant lies you have spurted ("I have covered all these points!!"... Oh, what about the geographical and legal inconsistencies in Mark, the 'patchwork' nature of Mark, and the 'dramatic' form of the earlier Gospels??") says something very real about you and your arguments.



> Also...my questions that I posed regarding your personal emotional/psychological position on the subject were only that, questions.



"Your dillusional."

"Well, just because you were a Christian puppet at one point in your life, and you read a few things on the opposing side that made you feel 'empowered' with knowledge, and made you feel better, smarter, etc., then your Christian peers, that doesn't give any evidence to your objectivity."

"Anybody with the free time to read through this entire thread can see that your an idiot."

"You are so threatened by my arguement that you've resorted to a thinly supported refutation of my sources because you can't/won't address my real arguements."

"Because you expect anyone to buy your crap just because you said it is megalomania, in my opinion."

And that's just in your last post alone.



> are only questions, however. They are not me trying to impose "ill-informed psychobabble" on you, even though you have resorted in attempting to do so on me in your last post.



You know, paul, just because you say you didn't do something doesn't make it so. 

This isn't the first time I've caught you in a lie on this thread, and I doubt it will be the last.

Have a nice one.


----------



## Cruentus

Um...your still talking? Didn't you "lose" the arguement here? It sounds like your being a poor sport. 

The issue was the existance of a would be messiah, you admited to the probability that there were messiah(s) that existed, outside of the evidence I brought forth that pointed to this likely conclusion. So...you lose!

Now you want to play like there was no arguement, and there is no 'winner' or 'loser' to the arguement. Spoken like a true loser who is trying to hide the fact that he lost! The fact is you came into this thread swingin' and I put you down...hard. 

The divinity of Jesus would be a different arguement all together, because yes...this would be a 'faith based' arguement, coming down to belief rather then historical facts. If that was the arguement, then yes, no one could truely 'win' or 'lose' per say.

But the historic idea of a Messiah? This could come down to verifiable evidence...where there could be a clear "winner" or "loser." You came into this thread with the attitude that your so damned smart, and that your going crush us all in our ignorance. Face it...you came in to bash down anyone who thought differently then you so badly that you forgot what the discussion was about; that it was NOT about Divinity or historocracy of the Bible even...it was about the historical fact of a Messiah. You forgot this....and you gave up the arguement in the process. Admit it...you came in to "win," but you clearly did not. And now you want to say that there was no arguement where there could be a winner or loser...? :rofl: How convienient! :roflmao:

SO....How about taking your beating like a man, rather then denying it like a sore loser? 

Oh...now about YOU being more insulting to ME rather then the other way around. Here is a perfect example:



> You know, paul, just because you say you didn't do something doesn't make it so.
> 
> This isn't the first time I've caught you in a lie on this thread, and I doubt it will be the last.



O.K....you just called me a "liar" without SAYING I am a liar. You do this in almost all you posts...you insult me through implication. Not only is this worse and more character damaging then an actual insult, but it proves your lack of straightforwardness. A lack of honesty that prevails in your statements that you expect us to believe as "fact," and with a lack of straightforwardness in your arguements as a whole.

So...if you wanna insult me, just do it, and don't be a pansy-@$$. If you think I am a liar, just say so. You see, you've called me plenty more things here then I have called you through your undertones. Again...you attack my honesty, which is humorous, yet I have been nothing but straightforward here, and you sir have not been.

By the way...I wasn't making a psychological implication specifically, as I said before. I just called things the way I saw them, and if it was insulting then oh well. The "questions" at the end of my post regarded this: It does seem clear to me that you have a "deal" of some sort...so asking what your 'deal' was at that point was an honest question, not a psychological implication.

But...if you want to continue to believe I am a liar, then go ahead....then I'll continue to believe that your an arrogent A-hole.

Have a good day.


----------



## heretic888

> Um...your still talking? Didn't you "lose" the arguement here? It sounds like your being a poor sport.



Only in your mind, paul. Just because you declare yourself the "winner" doesn't make it so.

I demonstrated quite clearly in the two prior posts that your "Messiah Joshua" does _not_ fit with most individuals' conceptions of a "historical Jesus". It is either your inability to read and/or your rigid egotism that is preventing you from grasping this very obvious truth. Apparently, though, we'll have to go over the facts once again...

None of these Joshuas were tried and executed for "religious" crimes; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with founding a Christist cult; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are particularly associated with Galilee; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with Pontius Pilate; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas were tried and prosecuted by Jewish leaders (as opposed to Roman authorities); Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with establishing something resembling a Christian moralism; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are associated with living a life even remotely similar to the Gospel narrative; Jesus was. None of these Joshuas are hailed by their followers as a Pagan-esque godman; Jesus was. All of these Joshuas were tried and executed for inciting political rebellion; Jesus wasn't. None of these Joshuas had the name 'Jesus'; Jesus did.

Once again, you are being so vague and so broad in your definition of a "historical Jesus" that you are allowing any Jewish man with the name Joshua that claims to be a "messiah" and was executed to fit the bill. The fact that they didn't have anything to do with Christianity, didn't claim to be some kind of godman, didn't have a life even remotely similar to the kind attributed to Jesus, were tried for political not religious crimes, and didn't even have Jesus' name is completely beyond you.

Sorry, paul, but you haven't "won" anything. Except in your own mind, of course.



> The issue was the existance of a would be messiah



Actually, no, that's not the issue at all. The issue is the existence of a "historical Jesus", not a would-be messiah of any type.



> you admited to the probability that there were messiah(s) that existed, outside of the evidence I brought forth that pointed to this likely conclusion.



And this proves the existence of a historical Jesus.... _how??_

You are seriously exhibiting some extreme delusions here, paul. And this isn't an insult (like you launched against me earlier), its a cut-and-dry observation. This would be like proving Macolm X _really_ existed because there were many Black Muslim leaders in the 60's.... as opposed to showing any empirical evidence (which, unlike with Jesus, we actually have) that Malcolm X the individual specifically had historical validity.

I am amazed at your tendencies to use historical generalizations to "prove" historical specifics. The world doesn't work that way.



> Now you want to play like there was no arguement, and there is no 'winner' or 'loser' to the arguement. Spoken like a true loser who is trying to hide the fact that he lost! The fact is you came into this thread swingin' and I put you down...hard.



Spoken by someone that doesn't know much about public debating. Seriously, paul, go to college. Get your facts straight.



> But the historic idea of a Messiah? This could come down to verifiable evidence...where there could be a clear "winner" or "loser."



Actually, no, there wouldn't be any verifiable evidence.

We have many individuals (none of which were the Christian Jesus) that _claimed_ to be the messiah. There is actually no proof that any of these individuals was a messiah.



> You came into this thread with the attitude that your so damned smart, and that your going crush us all in our ignorance. Face it...you came in to bash down anyone who thought differently then you so badly that you forgot what the discussion was about; that it was NOT about Divinity or historocracy of the Bible even...it was about the historical fact of a Messiah.



_Wrong_. This discussion (if you can read the thread title) was about the historical fact of a "Jesus of Nazareth". I didn't say anything about there being or not being any historical "messiahs".

Read the thread title. It says "historical Jesus", not "historical messiah".



> You forgot this....and you gave up the arguement in the process. Admit it...you came in to "win," but you clearly did not. And now you want to say that there was no arguement where there could be a winner or loser...?  How convienient!



And to think this was the person that called me a moron.  



> O.K....you just called me a "liar" without SAYING I am a liar. You do this in almost all you posts...you insult me through implication. Not only is this worse and more character damaging then an actual insult, but it proves your lack of straightforwardness. A lack of honesty that prevails in your statements that you expect us to believe as "fact," and with a lack of straightforwardness in your arguements as a whole.



*shrugs* I suppose it depends on your definition of a "liar", paul. 

Make of it what you will, paul. It wasn't an insult, it was an observation. You lied on the thread. And it wasn't the first time either. If that makes you a "liar", then you're a liar.



> So...if you wanna insult me, just do it, and don't be a pansy-@$$. If you think I am a liar, just say so. You see, you've called me plenty more things here then I have called you through your undertones. Again...you attack my honesty, which is humorous, yet I have been nothing but straightforward here, and you sir have not been.



No, you have not been straightforward at all. You directly insulted me and fabricated some "psychobabble" and "psychological history" about me and my beliefs. Anyone that has read through the thread can see this. 

Then, when I called you on it, you flatly denied doing any of this. Sorry, but in my book, that's called _lying_.



> By the way...I wasn't making a psychological implication specifically, as I said before. I just called things the way I saw them, and if it was insulting then oh well. The "questions" at the end of my post regarded this: It does seem clear to me that you have a "deal" of some sort...so asking what your 'deal' was at that point was an honest question, not a psychological implication.



A 'deal', huh??

Paul, your lack of any educative background in psychology is so painfully obvious to someone like me its not even funny.



> But...if you want to continue to believe I am a liar, then go ahead....then I'll continue to believe that your an arrogent A-hole.



We're all entitled to our beliefs, paul, regardless of any evidence to support them. You have demonstrated this time and time again. And are demonstrating it again. 

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> We're all entitled to our beliefs, paul, regardless of any evidence to support them. You have demonstrated this time and time again. And are demonstrating it again.



Yup...so I'm entitled to BELIEVE that your an arrogent @$$ who just terribly lost an arguement. Gee...thanks for your permission, however, the "evidence" is in the thread. But...since you've proven your inability to look at evidence objectively outside of your own little world, you'll "make up" your own conclusions as you have been.

So, have fun. I hope reality smacks you in the face someday.


----------



## heretic888

I would like to spend this time to apologize to the other users in the forum for the direction this thread has taken.

This discussion, which began as a free exchange of ideas and historical "facts", has devolved into little more than a mud-slinging contest between paul and myself. Of course, I would contest that most (if not all) of the mud-slinging and character assassination was initiated and engaged by paul. You may notice that his final post did not address the historical Jesus issue at all. In fact, if we observe the thread, the further down we go the more paul's posts seem more concerned validating his "objectivity" and "honesty", and attacking all others who don't agree with his historical conclusions, than with providing any evidence or facts (it is contestable whether he provided any "facts" to begin with). Of course, this is all just my opinion. 

In any event, whose fault it was is irrelevant. What's done is done. I would like this discussion to continue in the direction in which the thread began, as an exhange of historical ideas and sources. I would like attention to be refocused on the question of the historicity of "Jesus of Nazareth". Perhaps someone new would like to throw his or her hat on the table??

Anyway, that's all for now. Laterz.


----------



## cdhall

Are you going to start this new Thread in the Study where it may be more closely moderated?

Did you start a new thread already?  I haven't looked yet.

I just took part of a class on Apologetics but I do not feel that I'm much qualified to argue this topic beyond reccomending Strobel's The Case for Christ and then perhaps also The Case for Faith, which I probably did in this thread already.

I'll go look for a new thread to start and see if I can find something to say with some documentation to back it up.
:asian:


----------



## heretic888

No, I haven't started a new thread, nor do I plan on doing so. At least not in the near future; a new thread might be more appropriate a little later on down the line.

Please feel free to throw your throughts in the thread. I must ask, however, that people do more than cite an author or a book when presenting their hypotheses and/or theories (although, I admit, time pressures made me guilty of this myself on occassion). Present a factual claim or "evidence" and directly cite the book in support, please.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *I would like to spend this time to apologize to the other users in the forum for the direction this thread has taken.
> 
> This discussion, which began as a free exchange of ideas and historical "facts", has devolved into little more than a mud-slinging contest between paul and myself. Of course, I would contest that most (if not all) of the mud-slinging and character assassination was initiated and engaged by paul. You may notice that his final post did not address the historical Jesus issue at all. In fact, if we observe the thread, the further down we go the more paul's posts seem more concerned validating his "objectivity" and "honesty", and attacking all others who don't agree with his historical conclusions, than with providing any evidence or facts (it is contestable whether he provided any "facts" to begin with). Of course, this is all just my opinion.
> 
> In any event, whose fault it was is irrelevant. What's done is done. I would like this discussion to continue in the direction in which the thread began, as an exhange of historical ideas and sources. I would like attention to be refocused on the question of the historicity of "Jesus of Nazareth". Perhaps someone new would like to throw his or her hat on the table??
> 
> Anyway, that's all for now. Laterz.  *



Your being a pompus d***head again. Don't try to act all innocent as if you just came in for a free exchange of ideas, and I barraded you with insults. You came in to try to put anyone down anyone who disagreed with you...period. You have been mostly very arrogent in almost everyone of your posts. You constantly imply that I am stupid, uneducated, and a liar. You have been doing this from the begining of the discussion, yet you expect MT readers to now buy that I initiated the character assasination!?!?!? 

Oh...but your so civil and you want to steer the discussion back in the right direction. That's not what you want...you want to further "character assasinate" me with your last post. That's all that was...you trying to make yourself look better at my expense. And why.....cause you can't handle thhat you LOST this arguement.

My last posts weren't based off of me validating myself, as you would like others to believe. It was me pointing out the simple fact that you lost this arguement, despite your unreasonable and exessive tactics.

This started out as a discussion, Heretic, and you turned it into an arguement. In an arguement, there are clear winners and losers....and you lost. You can't handle it, so now you want to "steer the thread" to hide the fact that you lost the arguement, back into a discussion (while making me out to be the bad guy in the process).

Heck...I love a discussion. I even love a debate. And...I don't mind if someone has different beliefs then me. I, however, don't really enjoy having to crush an arrogent internet troll- f**k like you who is too close-minded to have a decent discussion. :feedtroll


----------



## heretic888

Thank you, paul, for proving my points.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *No, I haven't started a new thread, nor do I plan on doing so. At least not in the near future; a new thread might be more appropriate a little later on down the line.
> 
> Please feel free to throw your throughts in the thread. I must ask, however, that people do more than cite an author or a book when presenting their hypotheses and/or theories (although, I admit, time pressures made me guilty of this myself on occassion). Present a factual claim or "evidence" and directly cite the book in support, please.
> 
> Laterz. *



Why? So you can try to strip apart their claims, while ignoring their sources and valid points? What's the matter...you can't handle it when someone won't let you traunce on them, can you? You can't leave this thread w/o having at least one person to traunce on so you can feel "right" and "superior" to them, eh?

If you want a discussion....start speaking with an open-minded tonge that would be condusive to a discussion.


----------



## cdhall

Ah yes.
I remember now.
I started reading this thread but it took off way too fast.

At this point I would like to say:

A. I misunderstood heretic888 earlier because I thought he said he wanted to start a new thread but he did not;

B. I would have to establish some rules before I begin a debate and I started the Logic thread in the Study after a dead-end discussion with CoolKempoDude I think it was who denied that such a thing as "logic" even existed;

C. I am not going to get into a contentious or long debate with an anonymous member of MT, but I might go find 2-3 bits of well documented evidence (for example, I'm almost positive that Jesus is mentioned in some Roman historical records but I'd have to look) and put them up here;

D. Paul needs to add "Pina Coladas" to his profile if I remember that song correctly.


----------



## heretic888

> I am not going to get into a contentious or long debate with an anonymous member of MT, but I might go find 2-3 bits of well documented evidence (for example, I'm almost positive that Jesus is mentioned in some Roman historical records but I'd have to look) and put them up here



I would be interested in seeing what information you have on the subject. If you don't want to get into it on the public forums, then you can email me or pm me.

Laterz.


----------



## Shodan

Howz about we all sit back and sip a nice cool pina colada while discussing the teachings of Jesus and how He would have liked to have seen us treat and act towards one another (whether you believe he existed or not!!)

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## heretic888

> Howz about we all sit back and sip a nice cool pina colada while discussing the teachings of Jesus and how He would have liked to have seen us treat and act towards one another (whether you believe he existed or not!!)



I think that would be more appropriate in another thread.


----------



## cdhall

> _Originally posted by Shodan _
> *Howz about we all sit back and sip a nice cool pina colada while discussing the teachings of Jesus and how He would have liked to have seen us treat and act towards one another (whether you believe he existed or not!!)
> 
> :asian:  :karate: *



Yes, that is a great idea. If you don't do it first, I'll PM you and/or start a thread on that topic.  Good idea.


----------



## cdhall

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *I would be interested in seeing what information you have on the subject. If you don't want to get into it on the public forums, then you can email me or pm me.
> 
> Laterz.  *



I know I mentioned it several times, but here is an interview with Lee Strobel who wrote The Case for Christ.  

http://www.familychristian.com/books/strobel.asp

He should be a pretty credible source. I have not read this yet, but I will try to refrain from posting again until I read this thread and get some original thoughts or evidence to put up so as to limit duplicating what may have already been posted.
:asian:


----------



## Cruentus

Since you like the logic stuff, let me explain some of the logical fallacies that have been occurring on this thread. I won't go into all of them, because I am guilty of some as well as virtually everyone here. Logical fallacy is something that just simply occurs with almost everyone when discussing a subject such as this one.

What I will address is some of the fallacies that Heretic888 had presented from the beginning that complicated the argument to a degree where no one else wanted to participate. I am not trying to attack Heretic here; I just want to state what happened here. I will address some mistakes that I have made here myself as well.

I think that many people outside of Heretic and myself started reading this thread, but when it digressed way in the beginning, people stopped reading, or they were too afraid to even get involved in a time consuming mess of a discussion. Since hindsight is 20-20, I would like to analyze quickly what had occurred, so MT readers will understand.

Logical Fallacy #1: Argumentum Ad Nauseam - Basically, this is if you repeat yourself over and over again, and in this case, write incredibly LONG posts with MANY different assumptions, supposed facts, etc., people get tired of hearing about it, so they tend to shut down. It then appears as if you've won the argument, especially on the net, because people will stop responding so it will LOOK like no one can refute your argument. This usually isn't the case, the case usually is that you've overloaded the issue so badly, and you've repeated yourself over and over again so much, that people just don't want to get involved. But...of course just because people don't want to get involved, this doesn't mean that your argument is correct.

Upon looking backwards, BOTH Heretic and myself are guilty of this one. Now, my posts are long a lot, so I have to be careful of doing this. Although, when I do this, I am not doing it intentionally. I just have a lot to say. It becomes a more serious problem when this is done intentionally to try to deter anyone from taking part in the argument so that you look like the winner. I feel that in Heretic's case this was intentional at times. A perfect example is page 8 where he rattles off a slew of info (much of it not directly applying to the argument) and 19 different questions. It then seems that I either have to answer all 19 questions in detail, which could take pages, or I don't answer them all, and I am insulted for not addressing all his points. The fact is he didn't want any of these points addressed really, he just wanted to post up SO MUCH junk that it would deter the average person from wanting to respond, thus making him feel undisputed.

Point is...posting a ton of info doesn't make the info itself, or the argument correct. I need to remember this when I post as well, because we were both guilty of this, I believe.

Logical Fallacy #2: Argumentum Ad Logicam - it is when you make a conclusion based off of false evidence, but the evidence is not proven to be true. This is tough to deal with and very frustrating because IF the evidence was true then the conclusions might indeed be true; people easily lose sight of the fact that the evidence hasn't been proven, so they assume the evidence is true, thus giving the conclusion the appearance of truth. Then the arguer who is not committing the fallacy often gets caught into the trap of either ignoring the fact that the evidence presented isnt necessarily true (thus hurting his argument) or he argues every little piece of evidence, thus dealing with TOO MUCH info that further clouds the argument. Here are some examples from Heretics 1st post:

- "And, also, even among those that do swear there was a historical 'Jesus' (even that name in its original form, Iesous, gives little credence to this claim) have absolutely no historical documentation or proof to back this up."

He expects us to conclude that there is NO historical documentation to back up his claim, but has yet to provide proof of "No historical documentation."

- "On the other hand, there are many many reasons to believe there was no historical Jesus, including the multitude of parallels between the Jesus story and various 'Pagan' myths"

Fails to prove that a pagan myth comparison disproves the historical Jesus in any way.

- "The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries"

Makes a claim that these are forgeries, with no proof to back the claim.

- "The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries"

Largely...by who. Who says they are correct? Obviously there are scholars who would disagree, but we are instead supposed to believe yet another conclusion based off evidence which has not been proven to be true.

I could go on and on, but this is just in the 1st post. Now I know it is difficult to cite everything, but I am not talking about just citing sources here. It goes beyond that. What I am talking about is listing unproven evidence to support a claim, but doing it SO MUCH and with SUCH AUTHORITY, that the audience either A. Believes it to be true, or B. falls into the trap of the above fallacy, where there is too much stuff to address, so they shut down. In either case, this is a major fallacy that is not conducive to a good discussion. Mainly because the person performing this fallacy (heretic in this case) entraps the opposing arguers into taking part in the fallacy. Either the opposing party addresses every little side issue (as I tried to do) which leads to ad nauseum, too much info, and extremely long posts, or the opposing party shuts down and ignores the issue, so it appears that the person performing the fallacy won the argument.

This is a very frustrating fallacy because you can get sucked right into this trap (as I did) if your not paying attention. Then, you find yourself arguing over every little word and nuance, and losing site of the original argument in the first place.

#3: Argumentum Ad Hominum - or "argument against the man."
Heretic has done this right from the start, and this is what caused me to get extremely pissed off. Here were some common comments by heretic towards me:

"I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth."

"*cough* Actually, if you reread my post..."

"Actually, I suggest you do more research."

"*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science."

"Ahem. It's spelled 'empirical' and I can assure you it is a real word (look up 'empiricism' in the dictionary if you don't believe me)."

All this stuff is an attempted attack on my character. There is a lot more, but you catch my drift. All this implies that I either haven't read enough on the subject, so my argument must be wrong. Or, I don't read thoroughly, or I have horrible spelling, implying that I am "stupid." I have also been called "ignorant" by him as well, as well as "Liar". 

This was done as an attempt to win an argument through an attack to my character by implying that I am stupid, uneducated, and a liar. This is really low. Fallacy #1 and #2 was frustrating enough to have to deal with, but this put me over the edge.

I responded by calling things as I saw them. Some of these things were personal attacks on heretic. This made the thread digress further, which is my fault. However, I did not attack his character in order to win an argument. I used evidence and logic to win the argument. My "attacks" were my attempt to merely address what he had been doing to me all along on this thread, and how he had been acting.


*SOOOOO....* these are the logical fallacies that caused this thread to digress the way it did. I hope everyone now understands. I am partially guilty, as I could have handled the situation better. Heretic, however, is the person who initiated this digression through these 3 tactics. This is worth mentioning because he is now trying to save face by trying to look like he is coming from an open-minded perspective, when that could not be further from the way he first came into this thread. The implication was also that I am "to blame" for this digression because I am not afraid to call things as I see them, even if it means being 'insulting'.

So...if heretic can refrain from performing these three fallacies, then I would vow to refrain from being insulting, and some constructive conversation could happen. Until then, I don't expect anything constructive to come out of talking to him.


----------



## Klondike93

> _Originally posted by cdhall _
> *I know I mentioned it several times, but here is an interview with Lee Strobel who wrote The Case for Christ.
> 
> http://www.familychristian.com/books/strobel.asp
> 
> He should be a pretty credible source. I have not read this yet, but I will try to refrain from posting again until I read this thread and get some original thoughts or evidence to put up so as to limit duplicating what may have already been posted.
> :asian: *



I read that article and wasn't impressed with it at all. The only facts the guy talked about was what he read about in the bible. Where's the evidence other than in the bible? Also, how are things dated, by using the bible? How accurate can that be?


----------



## arnisador

Please, keep the discussion polite and respectful.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## MA-Caver

I still shake my head in wonder and ponder why there are folks trying to prove that this ONE MAN never existed when millions believe that he did and millions more devote their whole lives to his teachings. 

I mean, what is it that makes people want to say "he never existed" ? Jealousy? Envy? Fear? Shame? Bitterness from a bad experience related to beliefs? Something I tell ya. I dunno. But the alterior motive to try and DISPROVE one man's entire existence goes a lot deeper than one may want to admit. 
The evidence lies in one book (two, if you're LDS); the Bible. Also funny/strange that no-one disputes the existence of anyone else mentioned in the bible, i.e. Moses, Noah, Adam, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, John, Peter, Mark, Luke, etc. etc. etc. etc.... Just Jesus. 

I'll stand behind my original statements made much earlier in this thread... Jesus was born, had lived and died and was resurrected... and he did it for the remission of my sins. ... and for anyone else who chooses to believe that. 

Jesus said: I will come again.
:asian: 

p.s. read Og Mandino's Christ Commission... at least _this_ author is trying to prove that Jesus didn't rose from the dead. THAT should be the focus of an argu--err discussion about the man.


----------



## Nightingale

One of the things about christianity I've always wondered about...

why do christians use the bible and only the bible to justify their belief in the bible?  

A conversation I had with a friend last week:

Me: how do you know Jesus is God?
Fred: Because the Bible says so.
Me: How do you know the Bible is correct when it says this?
Fred: Because the Bible is the word of God, and divinely inspired.
Me: how do you know this?
Fred: Because the Bible says so!

I changed his wording around a bit to try to get him to see exactly what he was saying...

Me: How do you know that Jethro Tull is an alien?
Him: because his fan club manual says so.
Me: How do you know the manual is correct?
Him: because it was written by people guided by aliens.
Me: How do you know this?
Him: because it says so on page 53 of the manual!

He chuckled a bit at this and did admit the flaw in his reasoning there...  basically, he believed a book because the book itself claimed it was correct.  he could come up with absolutely nothing besides the book to justify his position.


----------



## cdhall

OK.  I did not want to muddy the waters, but it may be useless now.

But first, Klondike93, I'll bet you $100 that Lee Strobel has done more research and has more interviews and reasoning behind his opinons than you do.

If you write a book comparable to The Case for Christ and get it published I'll pay you $100 for doing it no matter what side of the fence you come down on.

I'll look at the article later, but my offer will stand for until December 31, 2005 to give you time to get it done.

Secondly, regarding MACaver, when I was a "pagan" or whatever the proper word is for a non-Christian, reading the Iliad in college, I was struck by the fact that in the book it Aeneas is given the choice to go home and live a long, long time or kill Hector and die quickly but also become the most famous Greek that ever lived.

I was Awestruck that sitting in that literature class some 2500+ years after the "fact" that Aeneas was the most famous Greek to ever live.  At least you could argue that he was.  Seemed like a prophesy fullfilled to me.  And then I learned later that Troy was actually found and the Trojan War quit being a pure myth.

So in a similar fashion I wonder how could Jesus not have existed but yet had this profound effect on World history, philosophy and religion?

The most significant event in the history of the world was the life of Jesus Christ.  The Crusades were fought because of it; the United States was founded largely because of it; the World Trade Center was recently bombed because of it. Not just God in general but the works and teaching of Jesus created Christianity as distinct from Judaism and history took a different course.  

Could all this have happened from a lie someone made up near a desert in a small province on the outskirts of the largest, most modern empire on Earth? 

Maybe.  I guess that really is a totally separate question, but again, I'll try to read this thread and stick to the topic which I think is

What non-Christian/Biblical evidence is there that Jesus existed?

Right now it looks to me like there may be none.  Too bad I didn't finish that class recently at my Church. I am going to go back to the teacher of that class for some evidence. He should be able to tell me by Monday what evidence there is even if there is none.

Then a separate thread can done on the validity of any/all the evidence for Jesus' existence but I think that would only rehash the book The Case for Christ but perhaps we shall see.

By the way, has everyone here seen the movie "Contact?"  I think it is very relevant to this thread and that it is worth $1 to rent.

And since I brought that up, yes I know this whole post is WAAY 
:-offtopic 

Does anyone find it odd that the description of the beginning of the Universe in the Bible (written long ago by a bunch of primitives) http://www.biblegateway.com/ 


"Genesis 1

The Beginning 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. " 


matches up very well with the assertion of the Big Bang theory (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html)

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit."

Who told this to the author of Genesis? This should be an uncomfortable realization for anyone wanting to discredit the Bible as a reliable source of information I would think.  I think I recall from a class I took at UT that the Greek mentioned "void" as being the beginning and this was the word for "nothing" which seems very close in my opinion to being the same thing as a expansive Universe (or Universes) being compressed to just a few millimeters across.

I'll try to shut up until I read this whole thread and get something to say to directly address the topic.


----------



## MA-Caver

The book of Genesis was written by Moses and passed to Joshua. According to beliefs God explained the "Big-Bang" to Moses and thus we have the accounting there of the origins.


----------



## Klondike93

> _Originally posted by MACaver _
> *The book of Genesis was written by Moses and passed to Joshua. According to beliefs God explained the "Big-Bang" to Moses and thus we have the accounting there of the origins. *



So the Earth is really only a few thousand years old as the bible would have you believe? I can't buy that at all.

As for Mr. Hall, you read it the wrong, I should have used better wording I suppose. My meaning is that the guy has been brought up more than once in this thread so I took a better look through the link you provided. What I read was a guy who had decided to read the bible and "bang" got religion. If you read the first few paragraphs you see the guy had problems as a young man and it's no wonder that he "converted", it was inevetable in my opinion. That's what I meant by not impressed. As for the research you talk about, how much of it was done in the bible? Most in my opinion or else someone would have told us about where he got his info from, eh? Now whether Jesus was an actual person or not, I never really gave it much thought until this thread popped up. After reading both sides of the argument, I agree with Paul (I think he said it anyways), either you believe or you don't because no one can say for sure. Do I believe that he was real, I did. Do I think he was the son of God, I did but only because of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told". See I'm not nearly as educated as the rest of you here so I have to take what you have provided and read it and form my opinion from there.
I like the Nightingale statement because that's kind of how I look at it. The bible is a book, written by humans and could be true or could be good fiction. Thus the question of this thread in the first place, and the answer so far has been, "because the bible tells me so".


----------



## MA-Caver

> KLONDIKE93 wrote: So the Earth is really only a few thousand years old as the bible would have you believe? I can't buy that at all.



No, I did not say I believe that. I was merely answering cdhalls' question of who authored Genesis. 

I consider myself an creationist/evoluntionist...meaning I believe that God (the Father) created the earth and all things in/on it. Also believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. 

The Bible speaks of the creation taking place in six days. But are they man's days or God's days? What may be a "day" to God may end up being a million or tens of millions of years to God. Moses was only writing down what he was told. 
We don't know specifics. It doesn't matter. I've seen enough fossils in/under the ground to know that 65 million years ago there was prehistoric life. Fossil evidence sustains this unquestionably. Hiking around mountains and crawling in/out of caves support millions of years of existence of the planet. 

FAITH sustains what I believe the Bible tells me. Faith and that I have my own interpersonal experiences that can only be attributed to God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.  
If you do not have faith then you cannot possibly believe in a power greater than yourself.


----------



## Cruentus

I can understand not being impressed by Lee Strobel based on that interview. The article provides a nice little conversion story, but it doesn't even touch on the evidence provided in his book, and it does sound like the old "I believe because the Bible says so" arguement.

You gotta read the book, however. He interviews a lot of different scholars who attack the subject from different angles. I have read previously and looked into the background of some of these scholars, and their credentials are quite high. The book is credable in my opinion, and the evidence is pretty well laid out there. A lot of evidence is brought to the table well outside the just the scriptures themselves. Also, it is a very easy read.

Strobels book doesn't get highly in depth on all the evidence however, but if you were to pick up publications by some of the scholars that were interviewed you would find a wealth of scholarly proof.

Now, ultimatily, anything we believe does come down to faith. You don't have to believe I exist if you don't want to, despite the evidence of my incredably long posts. 

But when people say "there is absolutely no evidence...." to support the Christian premise, I think this is completely arrogent and ignorant. It is like saying that all Christains are ignorant puppets, which is pretty close minded and insulting. There is plenty of evidence to support Christianity, and to support Jesus, both inside and outside the Bible. It comes down to whether or not you buy the evidence that is available. If one says, "I don't agree with the evidence..." or "I don't believe the evidence available fully supports the Christian premise..." then fine. I can understand and respect that opinion. What I can't respect is comments like, "there is absolutely NO evidence available...", because these are arrogent, ignorant, and outright insulting.


----------



## Nightingale

I never said there was no evidence...

merely that Christians tend to take the Bible as their ONLY evidence, which isn't very smart when trying to convince people.  To believe what a book says simply because that same book says you ought to believe it is illogical.  

-Nightingale


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *
> 
> I never said there was no evidence...
> 
> merely that Christians tend to take the Bible as their ONLY evidence, which isn't very smart when trying to convince people.  To believe what a book says simply because that same book says you ought to believe it is illogical.
> 
> -Nightingale *



Oh.....yea, I know.  Niether you nor Klondike said there was "no evidence", but I was just addressing the issue because it is something that people often try to say.

And...I totally agree with you about the illogic of "I believe in this book because this book say's so," and the use of this illogic in evangalization.

I am not Mr. Evangalist here, but every now and again I'll get in a conversation with someone who is open to understanding my beliefs, and who really wants to get into the subject. When that occurs, I usually start with the philisophical standpoint first, then historical next. I can't just start talking about what Paul said to the Corinthians if they don't agree that the Bible is a valid source for anything. So I usually start with philisophical questions that are anthropomorphic by nature, such as  "Does God exist?" I go through philisphical proofs, gradually leading up to the philosophical questions regarding christianity. Then I take a historical perspective regarding the bible, to show it's validity. It is then, and only If we are in agreement on the philisophical and historical side, that scripture will hold any validity to them.

  :asian:


----------



## Nightingale

hmm...

cool.


----------



## Klondike93

Thanks for the great answers Paul and MACaver very well put.

And Paul per your recomendation I'll check the book out.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> *Thanks for the great answers Paul and MACaver very well put.
> 
> And Paul per your recomendation I'll check the book out.
> 
> *



Cool man! Actually I came accross Lee Strobels book through Don Bohrer here on MT. I had read a lot of other sources prior to this thread, but I found Strobels book to be a pretty concise way of going through the evidence, and a very easy read. Don was kind enough to send me a copy, and has given me permission to forward it to anyone interested in reading it.

So, if you promise to either send it back, or pass it along after you've read it, I would be happy to mail you the book. Just PM me your address!


----------



## Klondike93

Tried to PM you Paul, but your box is full.


----------



## cdhall

It will take me longer than I thought to get caught up on this thread and say something.

However, for what it is worth, in the Apologetics class I was taking they mentioned that the Bible is the Literal Word of God, but that does not mean that the Bible should be taken literally.

And example they used is that there is a passage that talks about the Mountains Singing.  Our teacher said basically that God instructed/led the author to write that (so it is literally the word of God) but that does not mean that God meant for you to believe that the mountains would literally sing.

I think I got that right. I'll be back at some point I hope.  Good job with the Case for Christ too Paul.  My Pastor gave me a copy. There is a bookshelf full of them in the Church office.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> *Tried to PM you Paul, but your box is full.
> 
> 
> *



Ah crap. I don't know why that is. I'll have to figure out how to clear my in box, and I'll let you know when my box is clear.


----------



## Cruentus

I figured it out...so my inbox is all clear!

Try sending me a PM now! This also goes for anyone who tried to PM me earlier, but couldn't.

Later man!


----------



## heretic888

Oy vey. Wotta mess....



> I know I mentioned it several times, but here is an interview with Lee Strobel who wrote The Case for Christ [...] He should be a pretty credible source.



In regards to determining the "historicity" of Jesus Christ, I don't think any modern scholar is anymore "credible" than another. 

The credibility is found in their arguments and purported evidence, not in themselves. You could have an individual with fairly laughable credentials that could still make an airtight case with solid logic and sound evidence. At the same time, you could have an individual with amazingly respectable credentials that spews absolute garbage at you with no real logical coherence or evidence, expecting to be well-received because he is an "expert" in the field.

This is why adhering to the scientific process in these matters is so important, and not just being wooed by "credentials".



> Logical Fallacy #1: Argumentum Ad Nauseam - Basically, this is if you repeat yourself over and over again, and in this case, write incredibly LONG posts with MANY different assumptions, supposed facts, etc., people get tired of hearing about it, so they tend to shut down. It then appears as if you've won the argument, especially on the net, because people will stop responding so it will LOOK like no one can refute your argument. This usually isn't the case, the case usually is that you've overloaded the issue so badly, and you've repeated yourself over and over again so much, that people just don't want to get involved. But...of course just because people don't want to get involved, this doesn't mean that your argument is correct.
> 
> Upon looking backwards, BOTH Heretic and myself are guilty of this one. Now, my posts are long a lot, so I have to be careful of doing this. Although, when I do this, I am not doing it intentionally. I just have a lot to say. It becomes a more serious problem when this is done intentionally to try to deter anyone from taking part in the argument so that you look like the winner. I feel that in Heretic's case this was intentional at times. A perfect example is page 8 where he rattles off a slew of info (much of it not directly applying to the argument) and 19 different questions. It then seems that I either have to answer all 19 questions in detail, which could take pages, or I don't answer them all, and I am insulted for not addressing all his points. The fact is he didn't want any of these points addressed really, he just wanted to post up SO MUCH junk that it would deter the average person from wanting to respond, thus making him feel undisputed.



I feel I should speak up here, as paul has taken it upon himself to dictate to the world what my "intentions" were in my posts without any real psychological insight or evidence into the matter.

I often repeated myself because paul seemed to ignore large parts of my posts (which, by the way, were nowhere _near_ as lengthy as his). The points in which he did provide "refutations" were often counter-refuted by me in later posts. He often seemed to ignore these counter-refutations, as well.

Now, I can't speak for what paul's intentions were (unlike what he has felt obliged to do to me). However, many times throughout the thread, I have been given the impression that paul attempted to place both our arguments on "even ground" by _ignoring_ (whether intentionally or unintentionally) many of the points and issues I raised. I was given the impression that just because many of the points and issues I raised were not addressed that they somehow "went away" or their validity was somewhere destroyed. An example of this is my refutation of the "four facts" (external sources, transmission test, internal consistency, and external consistency) paul has brought forth in his arguments.

Thus, I felt the need to repeat points of mine that were not addressed or points whose refutations I counter-refuted. I did this more than once, and paul continually ignored both many of my original points and virtually all of my counter-refutations. Eventually, it seemed this "silent treatment" was not making the unaddressed issues go away (as I kept bringing them back up), so he seemed to resort to ridiculing me with a bevy of personal attacks to somehow invalidate my arguments and counterarguments.

Again, this is all the impression I received. I don't know what paul's real purposes were or, whether any of this was intentional or not.



> Logical Fallacy #2: Argumentum Ad Logicam - it is when you make a conclusion based off of false evidence, but the evidence is not proven to be true. This is tough to deal with and very frustrating because IF the evidence was true then the conclusions might indeed be true; people easily lose sight of the fact that the evidence hasn't been proven, so they assume the evidence is true, thus giving the conclusion the appearance of truth.



This seems like circular logic to me. If the "evidence" has not been proven true, then it is not real evidence or data. It is pseudo-evidence.



> - "And, also, even among those that do swear there was a historical 'Jesus' (even that name in its original form, Iesous, gives little credence to this claim) have absolutely no historical documentation or proof to back this up."
> 
> He expects us to conclude that there is NO historical documentation to back up his claim, but has yet to provide proof of "No historical documentation."



You want me to _prove_ there is "no historical documentation"?? If you expect me to prove a negative, paul, then you can add another logical fallacy to your little list here.

What I meant is that, to date, there is no credible historical documentation of Jesus Christ that has been put forward. If you feel I am wrong on this, then prove me wrong. Put forward the documentation. Then, I will address it. 

But, as is, I can't just address _every_ little supposed claim of historical documentation concerning Jesus that has ever been proposed (many, if not all, of which are, to be frank, bunk). Nor can I "prove" the man never existed (which is not the position I have ever assumed on here, I have merely proposed that it is very unlikely he existed). If I attempted either of these, then the posts would just be _too_ lengthy.

Perhaps in a later post I will submit a detailed explanation of my own position and the arguments and evidence I have to support it, as all I have done so far is provide refutations to others' positions. However, I can't just start this up in the middle of a post addressing other issues.



> - "On the other hand, there are many many reasons to believe there was no historical Jesus, including the multitude of parallels between the Jesus story and various 'Pagan' myths"
> 
> Fails to prove that a pagan myth comparison disproves the historical Jesus in any way.



By itself, no. In fact, I never claimed the Pagan parallels by themselves somehow disprove the historical Jesus. 

However, when we take into account that many (if not all) of the "biographical" details of Jesus Christ in the Gospel narratives are prefigured in various Pagan myths, and _other_ proposed claims into account (the "silence" of the early Christian fathers on Jesus' life and teachings, the lack of external sources verifying Jesus' existence, the seemingly non-historical nature of the Gospels themselves, the proliferation of Gnosticism/Docetism as the most prominent form of early Christianity, etc.), then it does seem to point to some rather startling conclusions.



> - "The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries"
> 
> Makes a claim that these are forgeries, with no proof to back the claim.



Well, to be blunt, you never asked.  

Like I said before, I can't go into detail into every little issue that is brought up on this thread. If you want me to "prove" a claim, or go into detail on something, then just ask.



> - "The 'Jesus references' among Josephus's works are largely discredited as forgeries of the 2nd and 3rd centuries"
> 
> Largely...by who. Who says they are correct? Obviously there are scholars who would disagree, but we are instead supposed to believe yet another conclusion based off evidence which has not been proven to be true.



Well, the "Testimonium Flavius" is almost universally recognized as a forgery (which is fairly obvious if you've ever read it). As I understand it, many scholars believe the actual author of the excerpt is Eusebius (320 CE), who was also the first individual to ever quote it. 

The supposed reference to "James the Just" is debatable, but I also regard it to be a forgery. If you want me to give my reasons for this in detail, then ask.



> I could go on and on, but this is just in the 1st post. Now I know it is difficult to cite everything, but I am not talking about just citing sources here. It goes beyond that. What I am talking about is listing unproven evidence to support a claim, but doing it SO MUCH and with SUCH AUTHORITY, that the audience either A. Believes it to be true, or B. falls into the trap of the above fallacy, where there is too much stuff to address, so they shut down. In either case, this is a major fallacy that is not conducive to a good discussion. Mainly because the person performing this fallacy (heretic in this case) entraps the opposing arguers into taking part in the fallacy. Either the opposing party addresses every little side issue (as I tried to do) which leads to ad nauseum, too much info, and extremely long posts, or the opposing party shuts down and ignores the issue, so it appears that the person performing the fallacy won the argument.



Your complaints here seem to have nothing to do with the "Argumentum Ad Logicam" you mentioned before. Your major problem seems to be with the tone used in the posts, not any supposed "lack of evidence".

Again, if you want me to clarify my "evidence", the ask. Not once did you ever do this (although, admittedly, I did go in some detail in later posts on how some of the supposed external are spurious).



> #3: Argumentum Ad Hominum - or "argument against the man." Heretic has done this right from the start, and this is what caused me to get extremely pissed off.



Whatever personal attacks you _believe_ I may have made against you are nothing compared to the blatant character assassination you have been involved in for quite some time (examples: "anyone reading this thread can tell you are a complete and total moron" and "you're delusional"). I suggest you calm down and take a good, long look in the mirror, paul.



> "I suggest you study the history of the Hellenistic Roman Empire in more depth."



That's because you made a historically dubious claim (namely, that the Jews were somehow "religiously persecuted" in ancient Rome or that the Greco-Roman world did not "understand" monotheism). This claim was blatantly biased by your own personal religious beliefs and does not reflect any historical research into the subject (namely, the imperial operations and positions in Hellenistic Rome).



> "*cough* Actually, if you reread my post..."



This is because, at the time, you misrepresented my position (something you've been doing a lot, actually), whether consciously or unconsciously. Thus, I asked you to reread my original post in more detail.



> "*chuckles* That depends on how much weight you give to pseudo-science."



You made a claim that I believed had no scientific basis for it. Thus, the appelation "pseudo-science".



> "Ahem. It's spelled 'empirical' and I can assure you it is a real word (look up 'empiricism' in the dictionary if you don't believe me)."



Yes. I overlooked this mispelling the first 7 times or so... but after you kept doing it over and over, and kept putting the word in quotation marks (which gave me the impression that I was somehow "making it up"), it just started to get too annoying.



> All this stuff is an attempted attack on my character. There is a lot more, but you catch my drift. All this implies that I either haven't read enough on the subject, so my argument must be wrong.



Again, paul, don't try and assume the moral high ground here. None of my "attacks" on your character were blatant (and many of them were made jokingly), unlike yourself who felt justified in fabricating a pseudo-psychological evaluation of me (on the basis of less than 10 words I said) to somehow devalue my position. The projectionism you are engaging in here is so obvious its painful.



> Or, I don't read thoroughly, or I have horrible spelling, implying that I am "stupid."



This is completely your own personal projections into what I actually said. I never once called you "stupid". In fact, not once have I ever given my standards on what I believe constitutes "intelligence" in the first place.

All I said was that you were constantly mispelling a certain word that you felt the need to place in quotation marks (which I found increasingly annoying), which was true, and that you misrepresented my position by not reading my post in greater detail, which was also true. 

If you feel any of this constitutes "stupidity", then that is your value judgment. Not mine.



> I have also been called "ignorant" by him as well, as well as "Liar".



Actually, you called yourself a "liar". I never called you that, nor did I call you "ignorant".

The truth, however, is that you fabricated an untrue "psychological history" of me in an attempt to devalue my position. When I called you on it, you denied it. Thus, you were lying.

I don't know what it is that you think constitutes a "liar" (lying just once doesn't pass the test for me), but the fact is that you were lying about me on the thread.



> This was done as an attempt to win an argument through an attack to my character by implying that I am stupid, uneducated, and a liar. This is really low. Fallacy #1 and #2 was frustrating enough to have to deal with, but this put me over the edge.



If what I did put you over the edge, then you must really hate yourself. What I did was nothing compared to the blatant insults that have been hurled at me by you (example: "you're an idiot"). Still, you don't see me whining about it, or projecting my own personal wishes and anger onto others.



> However, I did not attack his character in order to win an argument.



Actually.... yeah, you did. Or, at least you tried to.

Seriously, paul, what do you expect me to believe?? You ignore most of my arguments and counter-refutations and, after I repeat them and you still ignore them, you start ridiculing me and then attacking me (culminating in a fabricated "psychological history" of my personal beliefs). It gives me the impression that you started mud-slinging to "win" the argument and then later declare yourself the "winner" on very dubious logical grounds as if the argument is over.

So, yeah... from where I'm standing, if looked like you tried to use character assassination to "win".



> I used evidence and logic to win the argument.



You never "won" the argument, as I have stated before. I once again provided a refutation to your claim that any "Joshua Messiah" in history somehow equals the "Jesus Christ" of Christianity, and you once again ignored this refutation (not even addressing it) and declared yourself the "winner" with even greater rigidity.



> My "attacks" were my attempt to merely address what he had been doing to me all along on this thread, and how he had been acting.



No. You projected onto my posts what you have been doing all along. Some of your attacks were not projections but blatant attacks, also. I never made any "psychological history" of you or your beliefs.



> I still shake my head in wonder and ponder why there are folks trying to prove that this ONE MAN never existed



It's very simple, macaver. Some of us are just interested in truth, no matter what form it may take. You seem to have some problem with that.



> when millions believe that he did



Millions also believed the world was flat, and that slavery was justified. Popularity doesn't prove anything.



> and millions more devote their whole lives to his teachings.



Purported teachings.



> I mean, what is it that makes people want to say "he never existed" ? Jealousy? Envy? Fear? Shame? Bitterness from a bad experience related to beliefs? Something I tell ya. I dunno. But the alterior motive to try and DISPROVE one man's entire existence goes a lot deeper than one may want to admit.



Oh look... someone _else_ is trying to use some dubious "psychobabble" to devalue the mythicist position. Big surprise.  



> The evidence lies in one book (two, if you're LDS); the Bible.



And where does that lead us if the Bible is found to be both internally and externally inconsistent?? And, if the Bible itself is not an eyewitness account of historical events, as many Christian proponents claim?? Hmmm...



> Also funny/strange that no-one disputes the existence of anyone else mentioned in the bible, i.e. Moses, Noah, Adam, Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, John, Peter, Mark, Luke, etc. etc. etc. etc.... Just Jesus.



Actually, many people do dispute some (perhaps all) of those other individuals. Each one must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in light of the evidence. This thread, however, is about Jesus.

I personally find it "funny/strange" that no one disputes the NON-existence of Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, Heracles, Bacchus, Attis, or Adonis even though their lives are oftentimes very similar to Jesus' and there is just as much historical "evidence" to support their existence as Jesus'.



> I was Awestruck that sitting in that literature class some 2500+ years after the "fact" that Aeneas was the most famous Greek to ever live. At least you could argue that he was. Seemed like a prophesy fullfilled to me. And then I learned later that Troy was actually found and the Trojan War quit being a pure myth.



Actually, it is still debatable whether the Trojan War actually happened or not.



> So in a similar fashion I wonder how could Jesus not have existed but yet had this profound effect on World history, philosophy and religion?
> 
> Could all this have happened from a lie someone made up near a desert in a small province on the outskirts of the largest, most modern empire on Earth?



Yes. It's been done before, there is nothing extraordinary about it. Mithraism and Manicheism both became virtual world-religions, and the historicity of both of their respective founders is highly dubious. The historicity of Gautama Buddha is also highly questionable, but we see Buddhism all over the world.

The simple truth is that just because a lot of people start believing something doesn't make it true.



> The most significant event in the history of the world was the life of Jesus Christ.



That's so debatable it's not even funny.



> the United States was founded largely because of it



That is blatantly untrue. The United States (and democratic ideals as whole) was established as a _rejection_ of traditional religion. Why do you think democracy as a whole only began to flourish when secular humanism developed, when people began to question and criticize traditional religious concepts?? When traditional religion was running the show, you didn't see a single democracy grow. Not one.



> the World Trade Center was recently bombed because of it.



That is such a simplified and untrue generalization of what really happened that I don't even know where to begin. :uhoh: 



> Who told this to the author of Genesis? This should be an uncomfortable realization for anyone wanting to discredit the Bible as a reliable source of information I would think. I think I recall from a class I took at UT that the Greek mentioned "void" as being the beginning and this was the word for "nothing" which seems very close in my opinion to being the same thing as a expansive Universe (or Universes) being compressed to just a few millimeters across.



No, this is a logical fallacy and quite common among many modern apologetic authors. They basically try and read their own religion's doctrines into modern scientific discoveries.

Having Yahweh declare there to be light is not even close to what the Big Bang Theory posits. For, you see, a lotta stuff happened in Genesis before there was light. Apparently, there was water first (as God had to "divide the depths"), an obvious plagiarism of the Egyptian creation myth.  

Don't you find it interesting that no Jew, Christian, or Muslim could enlighten us about this great Big Band until it was conveniently "discovered" by astronomers in the 20th century??



> The book of Genesis was written by Moses and passed to Joshua. According to beliefs God explained the "Big-Bang" to Moses and thus we have the accounting there of the origins.



Actually, that's not a part of Jewish or Christian belief at all. Namely, because Judaism and Christianity didn't even know what the "Big Bang" was until the rest of the world did.

That account is something modern apologetics do when they try and read their own beliefs into scientific theories.



> The Bible speaks of the creation taking place in six days. But are they man's days or God's days? What may be a "day" to God may end up being a million or tens of millions of years to God. Moses was only writing down what he was told.



Actually, macaver, a literal reading of Genesis is still refuted here. The "six thousand years old" bit comes from adding up all the accumulated years of all the Biblical figures that are in the Old Testament. The number comes down to Adam and Eve being "born" about 5,500 to 6,000 years ago. We have extensive fossil evidence, however, that Homo Sapiens Sapien is at least 8,000 years old.



> But when people say "there is absolutely no evidence...." to support the Christian premise, I think this is completely arrogent and ignorant. It is like saying that all Christains are ignorant puppets, which is pretty close minded and insulting. There is plenty of evidence to support Christianity, and to support Jesus, both inside and outside the Bible. It comes down to whether or not you buy the evidence that is available. If one says, "I don't agree with the evidence..." or "I don't believe the evidence available fully supports the Christian premise..." then fine. I can understand and respect that opinion. What I can't respect is comments like, "there is absolutely NO evidence available...", because these are arrogent, ignorant, and outright insulting.



It's quite simple, paul.

If the "evidence" is refuted to be false or untrue, then it ceases to be "evidence". It is pseudo-evidence. When I said "there is absolutely no evidence..." I was referring to my position that the only evidence to support Jesus' historical existence is, in fact, pseudo-evidence.

You can "respect" that position or not. The decision's up to you. However, just as I don't consider the "evidence" that the world is flat (something many "experts" believed in the Middle Ages) to be true, I also don't consider the "evidence" that Jesus existed to be true. There is indeed a very real distinction between evidence and pseudo-evidence.

Anyways, everything said here is just my opinion on the subject.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> Anyways, everything said here is just my opinion on the subject.



Fine...and I am going to refrain from answering you entire post to address one very important opinion, if that is O.K. I think this is the exact point in which we both differ, and where we both can't find a common ground for discussion.



> If the "evidence" is refuted to be false or untrue, then it ceases to be "evidence".



This is the area I think we differ the most. If we can't get some sort of agreement on this, then we will not be able to find a common ground for a discussion. 

You believe that because evidence was "refuted" that it ceases to be evidence. I don't think that this is the case, because what if these "refutations" are wrong? Then the evidence remains credable. What Christian apologists believe is that these refutations are incorrect, and they have counter proofs to support their arguements, therefore maintaining that their evidence is credable, and the refutations are not. And obviously opponents of Christianity believe that these refutations are credable, and they have arguements behind their claims.

So what it comes down too is faith....either in the evidence supporting Christianity, or the evidence supporting the refutations of Christianity. I understand this and am wholely comfortable with this...are you?

The major problem I have with your viewpoint is it seems that you think that your arguements are "empirical" fact, and anything that opposes your arguements are just poorly supported opinions. This is the part that I think can be arrogent, whether intentional or not. When you take on this attitude, it is nearly impossible to have a decent conversation where we are all on the same playing field. It is like saying that Christians are all ignorant because they accept poorly supported opinions to be true, rather then empirical fact. But the only "Fact" here is that the evidence refuting Christianity is no more "empirical" then the evidence supporting it. This is at the very least. 

You see, I believe in the Christian premise. Yet, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant or stupid. I may believe that they are wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean ignorant, stupid, or lesser then me. If it was true that the evidence refuting Christianity was empirical and fact, and everything else was bunk, then how could you think anything BUT Christians are ignorant and stupid? You can't.

To me, the issue seems very black and white. Either A. Christianity DOES have evidence to back it's claims (even if you disagree with the evidence) or B. Christianity has NO evidence, and therefore all it's followers stupid and ignorant for believing such nonsense with no evidence to support it. I don't think that there isn't much of an alternative here.

If we can agree that no one side is stupid or ignorant, and that there is evidence and arguements to support either side, and to agree with either side is a faith based decision based off the presented evidence, then I think we can really turn this into something productive.

So...if we can agree that at the very least, [to rephrase it] niether side is any more empirically correct then the other, and that to believe in either side is FAITH based on evidence, then I think we might be able to have a discussion on an even ground. 

If you continue to insist that your BELIEFS are FACT, and everyone elses beliefs must be fiction based off evidence you consider empirical, then it will be impossible to have a productive conversation with you on the subject. 

So....where do you stand? If we can find some agreement on this, then I have a great idea for a structured way we can debate on the internet, turning this mess into something productive. If we can't...then I don't see what the point would be, really.


----------



## heretic888

> Fine...and I am going to refrain from answering you entire post to address one very important opinion, if that is O.K. I think this is the exact point in which we both differ, and where we both can't find a common ground for discussion.



If you want to start finding "common ground" then stick to the subject and discuss the attempted refutations (and counter-refutations) I presented against your "evidence". Or, present new "evidence".



> This is the area I think we differ the most. If we can't get some sort of agreement on this, then we will not be able to find a common ground for a discussion.



Ok, if you say so.



> You believe that because evidence was "refuted" that it ceases to be evidence. I don't think that this is the case, because what if these "refutations" are wrong? Then the evidence remains credable. What Christian apologists believe is that these refutations are incorrect, and they have counter proofs to support their arguements, therefore maintaining that their evidence is credable, and the refutations are not. And obviously opponents of Christianity believe that these refutations are credable, and they have arguements behind their claims.



Ok, allow me to rephrase then. I _believe_ most (if not all) of "evidence" you have presented thus far is pseudo-evidence. 



> So what it comes down too is faith....either in the evidence supporting Christianity, or the evidence supporting the refutations of Christianity. I understand this and am wholely comfortable with this...are you?



No, I'm not. Sorry, but I don't do "faith".

There are scientific empirical standards to evaluate all this "evidence" under. I, of course, believe my position has the most empirical evidence in support of it. That is, naturally, just my opinion on the matter. 

But to say it is my opinion is _not_ to reduce everything here to the ethereal domains of "faith" (because, very simply, not all positions are of equal merit). This gives the mistaken impression that all positions are thus on some kind of "equal footing", which they are not.

I support the position that I _feel_ has the most empirical evidence in support of it. If you feel otherwise, present your evidence or present your refutations of my evidence and we'll take it from there.



> The major problem I have with your viewpoint is it seems that you think that your arguements are "empirical" fact, and anything that opposes your arguements are just poorly supported opinions. This is the part that I think can be arrogent, whether intentional or not. When you take on this attitude, it is nearly impossible to have a decent conversation where we are all on the same playing field.



Not once have I ever claimed that my position are unmalleable "facts". I _do_ believe that, at present, my position has the most empirical evidence in support of it. That is, I feel my opinion is the most informed, one might say. However, not once have I ever said it was anything _but_ my opinion.



> It is like saying that Christians are all ignorant because they accept poorly supported opinions to be true, rather then empirical fact.



I don't recall characterizing "all Christians" in any way.



> But the only "Fact" here is that the evidence refuting Christianity is no more "empirical" then the evidence supporting it. This is at the very least.



That is very, very debatable and a "fact" that I most certainly would contest with.



> You see, I believe in the Christian premise. Yet, I don't believe that everyone who doesn't agree with me is ignorant or stupid. I may believe that they are wrong, but being wrong doesn't mean ignorant, stupid, or lesser then me. If it was true that the evidence refuting Christianity was empirical and fact, and everything else was bunk, then how could you think anything BUT Christians are ignorant and stupid? You can't.



That's you, paul. Not me. What you fail to realize is that just because _you_ see the world a certain way does not mean everyone else does.

I, in fact, do not think anyone is "ignorant and stupid" nor do I believe anyone is inherently, absolutely "wrong" per se. Just because something is not empirically true does not mean it is "bunk" or "stupid". I see the nested value in everything. 

Needless to say, I see and interpret the world in a quite different way then you do.



> To me, the issue seems very black and white. Either A. Christianity DOES have evidence to back it's claims (even if you disagree with the evidence) or B. Christianity has NO evidence, and therefore all it's followers stupid and ignorant for believing such nonsense with no evidence to support it. I don't think that there isn't much of an alternative here.



There goes your first mistake, paul.... _nothing_ in life is black and white.



> If we can agree that no one side is stupid or ignorant, and that there is evidence and arguements to support either side, and to agree with either side is a faith based decision based off the presented evidence, then I think we can really turn this into something productive.



Ok, I'll address them one at a time:

1) I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed, that any side is "stupid" or "ignorant".
2) I agree that there is _supposed_ evidence for both sides, which does not necessarily mean it is valid or true.
3) I do not agree that both sides are "faith-based" (at least not how this concept is typically used). I don't think that either side is simply "fact" or that either side is simply "wrong". However, I do feel that (for me, at least) the basis for the position is reliance on what is perceived to be greater evidence not some philosophical commitment (i.e., "faith").



> So...if we can agree that at the very least, [to rephrase it] niether side is any more empirically correct then the other, and that to believe in either side is FAITH based on evidence, then I think we might be able to have a discussion on an even ground.



Apparently, your conception of putting this discussion on "even ground" is reducing both positions to an extreme non-objectivity, a premise I cannot subscribe to.



> If you continue to insist that your BELIEFS are FACT, and everyone elses beliefs must be fiction based off evidence you consider empirical, then it will be impossible to have a productive conversation with you on the subject.



I think your problem, paul, is that you see things way too dualistically, too black and white. Either its fact or its bullsh*t. Either you're completely right or you're completely wrong. Either your informed or you're an idiot.

And then, in an attempt to alleviate this dilemma, you go in the opposite direction and try to assume this rigid relativistic stance in which every position is magically "equal" regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof) in support of it. Except, of course, for the position _that_ all positions are equal, which is supposed to be superior than everything else.

I would propose a more holistic and balanced view of the situation in which no one is inherently "right" and no one is inherently "wrong", nor is everyone's position magically "equal". I would say that everyone is partially right (and thus partially wrong), but that some positions (partial as they are) are basically more "accurate" than other positions (which are still partially right in their own respect).

It's called a nested hierarchy, or holarchy. Interesting stuff.



> So....where do you stand? If we can find some agreement on this, then I have a great idea for a structured way we can debate on the internet, turning this mess into something productive. If we can't...then I don't see what the point would be, really.



I think I've basically explained my position on this (which seemed to be more philosophical/epistemological than historical). Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> No, I'm not. Sorry, but I don't do "faith".
> 
> There are scientific empirical standards to evaluate all this "evidence" under. I, of course, believe my position has the most empirical evidence in support of it. That is, naturally, just my opinion on the matter.
> 
> But to say it is my opinion is not to reduce everything here to the ethereal domains of "faith" (because, very simply, not all positions are of equal merit). This gives the mistaken impression that all positions are thus on some kind of "equal footing", which they are not.
> 
> I support the position that I feel has the most empirical evidence in support of it. If you feel otherwise, present your evidence or present your refutations of my evidence and we'll take it from there.



I'm sorry, but you DO do faith. You may call it something else, a belief, or a theory perhaps. But, you are still relying on a belief that your theories and conjectures are true; and since it is indeed a "belief", then it is indeed faith.

When talking about the historacracy of ANYTHING over 1000 years ago, almost nothing is "empirical," despite what you want to BELIEVE. We are talking about issues with limited evidence on both sides. If we were arguing on whether or not bleach would turn your hair blonde, then we could have emperical evidence, because we could test it and watch the results. We can't do this with ANYTHING that happened over 1000 years ago.

Now, when I said faith, I am not trying to reduce your arguement or mine to "blind faith" with no educated evidence to support the belief. Both your beliefs and mine have evidence behind it, our beliefs are "educated."

And, yes, on the issue of "did Jesus exist as a real person," one of us is correct, and the other is not. One of us will have the evidence and ability to win the arguement, and one of us won't. We aren't on the same playing field in that sense.

However, we need to start there. We need to start on the same playing field. We need to realize that none of us has anything "empirical," and that we both have evidence that needs to be taken into consideration. Until you can realize that, you will continue to believe that your better/smarter then those who disagree with you, and nothing will get accomplished.



> That's you, paul. Not me. What you fail to realize is that just because you see the world a certain way does not mean everyone else does.
> 
> I, in fact, do not think anyone is "ignorant and stupid" nor do I believe anyone is inherently, absolutely "wrong" per se. Just because something is not empirically true does not mean it is "bunk" or "stupid". I see the nested value in everything.



Ah...that wasn't condensending at all to point out what you think I have "failed to realize."  I haven't failed to realize anything in that regard. But I did pose the question: HOW could you think anything other then my conclusion with your attitude? I asked HOW.

I'll also ask, what nested value do you see in Christianity, since you see the nested value in everything?

Also...to say that nothing in life is black in white is ironically a "black and white" statement and a contradiction...but whatever. I said that the issue SEEMED black and white. You explain how it is different if it is not.



> If you want to start finding "common ground" then stick to the subject and discuss the attempted refutations (and counter-refutations) I presented against your "evidence". Or, present new "evidence".



I am addressing you first point last. It is useless to have a discussion where we are both talking at each other, and getting into contests to see how much evidence we can post, without having a common ground for discussion. The convesation goes no where, not even for outside readers. Simply "sticking to the subject" unfortunatily will not give us this common ground, as we have proven. What will is we can agree on what I first said regarding our evidence in this post.

Regardless, I have been talking to Kaith about getting a special forum together where we can have a structured debate on the subject. A little structure will keep things on track better then they have been, and we can see who really has the best evidence out of the 2 of us. Just be patient, though, for it might take a few weeks to get this together, if it goes through.


----------



## heretic888

> I'm sorry, but you DO do faith. You may call it something else, a belief, or a theory perhaps. But, you are still relying on a belief that your theories and conjectures are true; and since it is indeed a "belief", then it is indeed faith.



Hmmm.... I think we're mixing up definitions here. I assumed (probably incorrectly on my part) you meant faith in the sense of "blind faith" as it is popularly used (especially in discussions such as these). This definition, to me, implies that I am just riding along on these theories without any evidence or proof to back them up.

If we are referring to this "blind faith" definition of faith, then I would strongly disagree with your conjectures here. If we are referring to the definition of faith as merely another word for confidence or conviction, then I would certainly agree with that.



> When talking about the historacracy of ANYTHING over 1000 years ago, almost nothing is "empirical," despite what you want to BELIEVE. We are talking about issues with limited evidence on both sides. If we were arguing on whether or not bleach would turn your hair blonde, then we could have emperical evidence, because we could test it and watch the results. We can't do this with ANYTHING that happened over 1000 years ago.



Ummm.... no offense, paul, but I think you need to look up the definition of "empiricism". 

Empirical information (following the dictates of the scientific process) refers to ANY information or data disclosed through an injunction, social practice, or paradigm of some kind (I am, of course, referring to Thomas Kuhn's definition of these various concepts). This data does not have to be limited to sensorimotor information such as those found in the so-called "hard sciences" (as you have mistakenly portrayed), but also includes non-physical data as found in sciences such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, cognitive science, semiotics, linguistics, and so forth. This includes historical research. 

Furthermore, even the "hard sciences" make use of decidedly non-physical tools to study and observe their sensorimotor phenomena; tools such as mathematics, logic, and so forth. Thus, your characterization of empirical data as being only externally observable information is somewhat mistaken.

In addition, there is still much sensorimotor information that we _do_ have access to concerning the time period. Contrary to the false historical generalization you have made in previous threads, the time and place in question was one of the most literate and well-recorded circumstances in human history (second only to modern and postmodern times). While it is true that much information has been lost (due in no small part to the "purges" of the Christian empire), we still have the writings of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of historians and commentators of the time. There is also a fair abundance of archaeological data as well, although this is typically less available than the historical writings.

So, I'm afraid your overall characterization of any lack of "empirical information" is not entirely accurate.



> Now, when I said faith, I am not trying to reduce your arguement or mine to "blind faith" with no educated evidence to support the belief. Both your beliefs and mine have evidence behind it, our beliefs are "educated."



Alright. That's what I was trying to clear up.



> And, yes, on the issue of "did Jesus exist as a real person," one of us is correct, and the other is not. One of us will have the evidence and ability to win the arguement, and one of us won't. We aren't on the same playing field in that sense.



Well.... not necessarily. 

While it is true that one of us is more "correct" than the other in this particular issue, much of the above characterizations are dependent on definition. For example, by "historical Jesus" do we mean a specific individual that lived a life similar to those in the Gospels?? Or, do we mean any individual that the possibly mythopoetic Gospel accounts might have been based upon?? Does our "historical Jesus" have to have any direct relationship to Christianity?? Or, could he have simply been an "inspiration" for later generations??

I think to solve this issue, we have to establish some agreed upon definitions for exactly who and what we mean by a "historical Jesus". Only then can we ascertain whether this personage actually existed in a historical-literal sense or not.



> However, we need to start there. We need to start on the same playing field. We need to realize that none of us has anything "empirical," and that we both have evidence that needs to be taken into consideration.



I agree with the part about starting on the same playing field, but I disagree on the comment concerning empirical information (my comments on empiricism are found above). I will agree, though, that we both what we respectively consider to be "evidence" than needs to be taken into consideration.



> Until you can realize that, you will continue to believe that your better/smarter then those who disagree with you, and nothing will get accomplished.



I never claimed I was "better" or "smarter" than anyone. I have no idea where you keep getting these notions from.



> But I did pose the question: HOW could you think anything other then my conclusion with your attitude? I asked HOW.



Very simply, paul, just because someone is empirically "incorrect" on a particular subject does not mean they are "stupid" or "inferior". That is not a position I hold, not have I ever claimed it was.



> I'll also ask, what nested value do you see in Christianity, since you see the nested value in everything?



Hmm.... it depends which aspects of "Christianity" you are referring to.



> Also...to say that nothing in life is black in white is ironically a "black and white" statement and a contradiction...but whatever.



I know. I did that intentionally.  



> I said that the issue SEEMED black and white. You explain how it is different if it is not.



Its fairly simple, paul. People are not inherently "right" or "wrong" in their views of things. Even if they are empirically incorrect in their truth-claims (such as "the world is flat"), this does not necessarily mean their position has no value or "truth" in it. The level of rational-formalism (from which we developed scientific empiricism) is merely one level in the development of human consciousness. The levels that preceded it (including the level of mythic-membership) is not necessarily "wrong" because the way the world is seen at that level, just like the way the world is seen at the rational-formalistic level, is indeed quite real to individuals at that "level". Yes, it is true that the higher "level" of rational-formalism is of a greater consciousness and "correctness" than the mythic-membership (which can be an atheistic or secular membership as well), but it itself is only a partial truth and will eventually be superseded by an even greater "level".

Thus, I would say reality is composed of increasingly higher levels of nested, partial truths (by the way, I must add I am borrowing heavily from the writings of Ken Wilber in these conceptualizations).



> I am addressing you first point last. It is useless to have a discussion where we are both talking at each other, and getting into contests to see how much evidence we can post, without having a common ground for discussion. The convesation goes no where, not even for outside readers. Simply "sticking to the subject" unfortunatily will not give us this common ground, as we have proven. What will is we can agree on what I first said regarding our evidence in this post.



Hmmm..... I suppose.



> Regardless, I have been talking to Kaith about getting a special forum together where we can have a structured debate on the subject. A little structure will keep things on track better then they have been, and we can see who really has the best evidence out of the 2 of us. Just be patient, though, for it might take a few weeks to get this together, if it goes through.



A few weeks?? 

Alright... whatever. Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Hmmm.... I think we're mixing up definitions here. I assumed (probably incorrectly on my part) you meant faith in the sense of "blind faith" as it is popularly used (especially in discussions such as these). This definition, to me, implies that I am just riding along on these theories without any evidence or proof to back them up.
> 
> If we are referring to this "blind faith" definition of faith, then I would strongly disagree with your conjectures here. If we are referring to the definition of faith as merely another word for confidence or conviction, then I would certainly agree with that.
> *


*

I think we are in agreement here.




			Ummm.... no offense, paul, but I think you need to look up the definition of "empiricism". 

Empirical information (following the dictates of the scientific process) refers to ANY information or data disclosed through an injunction, social practice, or paradigm of some kind (I am, of course, referring to Thomas Kuhn's definition of these various concepts). This data does not have to be limited to sensorimotor information such as those found in the so-called "hard sciences" (as you have mistakenly portrayed), but also includes non-physical data as found in sciences such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, cognitive science, semiotics, linguistics, and so forth. This includes historical research. 

Furthermore, even the "hard sciences" make use of decidedly non-physical tools to study and observe their sensorimotor phenomena; tools such as mathematics, logic, and so forth. Thus, your characterization of empirical data as being only externally observable information is somewhat mistaken.
		
Click to expand...


No offense taken, and I looked up the word just to make sure. Here is the definition I have been going by taken from Websters dictionary: "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>"

This is a lot simpler then Kuhn's definition, and I am thinking that this is the generally excepted definition. Basically, through my understanding of the word, I have been taking it to mean that something that an Emperical fact can be observed, then proved or disproved. Much of what we are talking about can't really be observed to be proven or disproven. The events in question would have occured almost 2000 years ago. We are reduced to having to come up with conclusions from logical arguements and theories based off lean and erratic evidence. To me, if the evidence was Emperical, then there would be no arguement regarding this issue.

Now, if we go by Kuhn's definition, I can see how "Emperical" could encompass more then just the observable. I can see how either one of our conclusions could be based off Emperical evidence according to Kuhn's definition. 

Since I now know what you mean by Emperical, and that you are not going by the same definition as Websters dictionary, I now understand what you mean, so I won't feel the need to argue over a definition.




			Well.... not necessarily. 

While it is true that one of us is more "correct" than the other in this particular issue, much of the above characterizations are dependent on definition. For example, by "historical Jesus" do we mean a specific individual that lived a life similar to those in the Gospels?? Or, do we mean any individual that the possibly mythopoetic Gospel accounts might have been based upon?? Does our "historical Jesus" have to have any direct relationship to Christianity?? Or, could he have simply been an "inspiration" for later generations??

I think to solve this issue, we have to establish some agreed upon definitions for exactly who and what we mean by a "historical Jesus". Only then can we ascertain whether this personage actually existed in a historical-literal sense or not.
		
Click to expand...


I agree that establishing definitions here would be neccisary so we can be sure that we are arguing over the same thing.




			I agree with the part about starting on the same playing field, but I disagree on the comment concerning empirical information (my comments on empiricism are found above). I will agree, though, that we both what we respectively consider to be "evidence" than needs to be taken into consideration.
		
Click to expand...


I already explained the part about Empiricism, but I think we are in agreement here also. 




			I never claimed I was "better" or "smarter" than anyone. I have no idea where you keep getting these notions from.
		
Click to expand...

 
To me, actions speak louder then words. I can say to someone, "No, I don't think your stupid." But if I then proceed to talk to them like they are stupid, then what am I really saying? I got these notions from your tone in a few of your posts on this thread. Perhaps I misread you, which would be easy to do during a somewhat 'heated' arguement. So, to prevent this, I think both you and I should be careful how we word things so we don't sound as if we are downtalking others.




			I know. I did that intentionally. 

Click to expand...


lol. Good one. I am now beginning to understand your sense of humor.




			Its fairly simple, paul. People are not inherently "right" or "wrong" in their views of things. Even if they are empirically incorrect in their truth-claims (such as "the world is flat"), this does not necessarily mean their position has no value or "truth" in it. The level of rational-formalism (from which we developed scientific empiricism) is merely one level in the development of human consciousness. The levels that preceded it (including the level of mythic-membership) is not necessarily "wrong" because the way the world is seen at that level, just like the way the world is seen at the rational-formalistic level, is indeed quite real to individuals at that "level". Yes, it is true that the higher "level" of rational-formalism is of a greater consciousness and "correctness" than the mythic-membership (which can be an atheistic or secular membership as well), but it itself is only a partial truth and will eventually be superseded by an even greater "level".

Thus, I would say reality is composed of increasingly higher levels of nested, partial truths (by the way, I must add I am borrowing heavily from the writings of Ken Wilber in these conceptualizations).
		
Click to expand...


That is certianly one way of looking at things.




			Hmmm..... I suppose.
		
Click to expand...


Cool. I think we might have actually gotten somewhere with this.




			A few weeks?? 

Alright... whatever. Laterz.
		
Click to expand...

*
Yes...a few weeks. Let me explain. I have this sweet idea for a new forum, but it might take too much Moderation so I don't know how well it would fly. But basically it would be an extension of the study, and it would be called "The Debate section". The Debate section would be a place where people could have a structured debate on a given topic. I am working out the details, but here are some basics: a person who is starting a discussion would be "The Affirmative" and they would state a premise in one sentance that they would support. They would have 500 words to state their initial arguement. One other person would be designated as "The negative," and they would have 500 words to respond with there opener. There would be a total of 10 posts per affirmative and negative (20 total posts) limited to 500 words each. Each arguer has to post "in turn" and has to wait for the other to respond (3 day minimum, maybe) before posting again (causing the other to lose their turn if the wait is too long). During the arguement, no one but the 2 arguers could post, and posts would be deleted by anyone who breaks the rules, whether inside the arguement or not. After the arguement is over, the thread is closed, then moved over to a poll thread where MT readers can vote on who they think won the debate. People may post comments on the debate as well once it is over.

Anyways, I just bounced this off of Kaith the other day. It is a good idea, but it might take too much moderation to execute. If it does go through, I think this would be a great vehicle for people to debate in a structured fashion, whether it is about a martial art's issue, or a social, political, or religious issue. I think this would be a great vehicle for us to debate this subject as well, provided it goes through. It would give us more structure to post clear arguements, eliminating much of the problems we've been having on this thread.

If it doesn't go through, I would like to set up a thread with a similar structure that we can both agree upon, and then we can really have a good discussion, I think.

So...yes, I need a few weeks. I'll let you know how it's going then.


----------



## heretic888

> I think we are in agreement here.



Sweet.



> No offense taken, and I looked up the word just to make sure. Here is the definition I have been going by taken from Websters dictionary: "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>"



Even when we look at this definition, it does not contradict what I have stated (a la Thomas Kuhn). Scientific process is utilized in non-physical sciences such as anthropology and historical research, in which a form of "observation" and "experimentation" is drawn upon. This applies to both "hard" physical evidence, such as direct historical records, and subjective observation/evidence, such as the use of logic or linguistic threads to ascertain the authenticity of such records. It should be remembered however, that the injunctions used in historical research are different than the injunction used in chemistry or psychology, as they are basically observing different phenomena.

As many scientists have noted today, "empirical" evidence can refer to ANY raw data, whether sensorimotor or not.



> This is a lot simpler then Kuhn's definition, and I am thinking that this is the generally excepted definition. Basically, through my understanding of the word, I have been taking it to mean that something that an Emperical fact can be observed, then proved or disproved.



This does not contradict Kuhn's definition of the concept. In any event, Kuhn's conceptualization of the scientific process involving injunction, datum, and falsification is one of the more generally accepted schemas among today's scientists.



> Much of what we are talking about can't really be observed to be proven or disproven. The events in question would have occured almost 2000 years ago. We are reduced to having to come up with conclusions from logical arguements and theories based off lean and erratic evidence. To me, if the evidence was Emperical, then there would be no arguement regarding this issue.



This is not quite true. Even events with valid "hard" evidence (such as varying theories of "evolution") are heavily debated today. Likewise, some events with non-physical evidence (such as many mathematical concepts) are not argued.

In any event, according to the dictates of scientific process, nothing can be "proven" per se. Meaning, no theory can ever becaome a "fact". However, phenomena can easily be disproven.



> Now, if we go by Kuhn's definition, I can see how "Emperical" could encompass more then just the observable. I can see how either one of our conclusions could be based off Emperical evidence according to Kuhn's definition.



Once again, all sciences include "observable" phenomena. Mathematics are observable, as are linguistics, they are just simply non-physical.



> Since I now know what you mean by Emperical, and that you are not going by the same definition as Websters dictionary, I now understand what you mean, so I won't feel the need to argue over a definition.



Actually, I am going by both definitions. They do not contradict one another. In any event, I agree that the issue does not need to be discussed any further for the time being.



> I agree that establishing definitions here would be neccisary so we can be sure that we are arguing over the same thing.



Right. So, the question now is: what do you mean when you say "historical Jesus", paul???



> I already explained the part about Empiricism, but I think we are in agreement here also.



Double sweet.



> To me, actions speak louder then words. I can say to someone, "No, I don't think your stupid." But if I then proceed to talk to them like they are stupid, then what am I really saying? I got these notions from your tone in a few of your posts on this thread. Perhaps I misread you, which would be easy to do during a somewhat 'heated' arguement. So, to prevent this, I think both you and I should be careful how we word things so we don't sound as if we are downtalking others.



*shrugs* I'm sorry that you got that impression, but that was never my intention. I do not believe that if someone disagrees with me on something, or even if they are empirically "incorrect", that that somehow makes them "stupid" or "ignorant" or "wrong". That's just my way of looking at the world.



> lol. Good one. I am now beginning to understand your sense of humor.



Triple sweet.



> That is certianly one way of looking at things.



A way that, I believe, has more than enough cross-cultural data and evidence to support. But, I think that's better-suited for another discussion.  



> Cool. I think we might have actually gotten somewhere with this.



Quadruple sweet.



> So...yes, I need a few weeks. I'll let you know how it's going then.



Ok.

I looked over your idea in the preceding post and, while it seems interesting, I must admit that it is respectfully not something I'm particularly enthusiastic about. I personally prefer the free-ended discussion in threads like this one --- even though things can get a little out of hand at times. I'm not particularly fond of the word limitations, or the fact that popular consensus is supposed to determine who "won" (after all, many people may just vote "Jesus existed" because they're Christian or the opposite because they're atheist). And, again, I don't actually think anyone can "win" a debate like these at all. You just have present your evidence and theories, and have each individual come to their own personal conclusions.

This is, of course, just my opinion. Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> I looked over your idea in the preceding post and, while it seems interesting, I must admit that it is respectfully not something I'm particularly enthusiastic about. I personally prefer the free-ended discussion in threads like this one --- even though things can get a little out of hand at times. I'm not particularly fond of the word limitations, or the fact that popular consensus is supposed to determine who "won" (after all, many people may just vote "Jesus existed" because they're Christian or the opposite because they're atheist). And, again, I don't actually think anyone can "win" a debate like these at all. You just have present your evidence and theories, and have each individual come to their own personal conclusions.



Well, I agree that even if someone "wins" an arguement, by concensus or whatever, it doesn't mean they are right. And I also agree that some people might vote on any debate according to there beliefs rather then according to who argued the best, so who "won" might not be entirely accurate. I think it still would be fun, though, regardless of who "wins." 

Also, I like the idea of word limitations. I did some debate/forensics in high school, and in a structured debate you have time limitations. I like time limits when speaking or word limits when debating orally because this forces myself and the other party to both stick to the subject, and to state clear and concise points so that the "judges" and audience can understand. I like an open talk forum like this too, but sometimes a problem occurs when the subject moves off on tangents, or gets too "big" for the audience to understand all of what is being said. A word limitation causes us to be nice and concise.

That's just what I think. I think it is an idea worth trying. It could turn out well, or it could totally flop. We'll have to see.


----------



## heretic888

Ok. We'll see.  

I might post some of my "evidence" related to the subject a little later, but don't have anything with me right now.

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/simon_s_verse



> Their curiosity piqued, two Jerusalem scholars uncovered six previously invisible lines of inscription: a Gospel verse  Luke 2:25.
> 
> 
> Archaeological finds confirming biblical narrative or referring to figures from the Bible are rare, and this is believed to be the first discovery of a New Testament verse carved onto an ancient Holy Land shrine, said inscriptions expert Emile Puech, who deciphered the writing.


----------



## heretic888

> Interesting discovery--early use of biblical verse.



Not all that early, arnisdor.  

If you read the article, the inscriptions in question date to the 4th century. Assuming they are legit in the first place.

Laterz.


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

> *If you read the article, the inscriptions in question date to the 4th century. Assuming they are legit in the first place.*



Actually, that not what the article says:

_The passage is identical to the Gospel verse Luke 2:25, as it appears in a 4th-century version of the Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, which was later revised extensively. _

The article makes no mention as to how old the inscription is, just that it is identical to a 4th Century edition of the Bible.


----------



## heretic888

> The article makes no mention as to how old the inscription is, just that it is identical to a 4th Century edition of the Bible.



*coughs* Check again, dennis:

"The Simon and Zachariah inscriptions were carved around the 4th century, at a time when Byzantine Christians were searching the Holy Land for sacred sites linked to the Bible and marked them, often relying on local lore, said Puech." 

*beams triumphantly*


----------



## Dennis_Mahon

Point taken, my mistake.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Pretty much a dead thread...but here's some input based on what people were writing about...

The arguable Christian interpolations found in Josephus:

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/question.htm

This one is interesting, at it has two translations of Josephus' work.  One is taken from the Arabic.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

The topic of Josephus and his reference to Jesus has been debated elsewhere:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus





And, finally, a perspective on the historicity of Jesus:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html


The old saying goes that one can not politely discuss religion and politics.  I've found that people can generally discuss politics on this board...but THIS topic, it doth inflame.

Vitriol as I've seen here I've seen elsewhere.

Steve


----------



## Cruentus

Hi everyone.

What pisses me off about this particular thread and arguement is that many people who don't "believe" in a historical Jesus all too often fail to recognize that their "belief" is just that....a "belief" based off evidence. It isn't proven fact.

As a Catholic Christian, I am happy to admit the fact that historical evidence isn't "black and white." Now, there is plenty of evidence and scholarly works based on evidence supporting the idea that the Christian premise is true. It can be an educated belief to believe in the Jesus story, but it is a belief all the same. I have no problem in admiting this...there wouldn't be a need for "faith" if everything in this world was black and white.

So...how come those who CHOOSE to not believe in Jesus admit that this is simply their BELIEF based on their accepted evidence? Because too many clowns and pseudo-scholars with goofy names lurk on the internet, that's why. Too many a-holes who's entire existance revolves around trying to prove they are smarter/better then their peers. So...instead of humbly saying that they believe Jesus didn't exist in the historical sense, and here is why....then providing evidence, they say  things that ellude to the idea that all the crap that comes out of their mouths is fact and everyone else who disagrees is spewing fiction.

It's stupid. Get lives.

PAUL

P.S. This post is not directed at any one particular person...I am only expressing my opinions about this thread and the many places it has gone so far.


----------



## heretic888

> Point taken, my mistake.



To quote Jay: "No worries." :asian: 



> What pisses me off about this particular thread and arguement is that many people who don't "believe" in a historical Jesus all too often fail to recognize that their "belief" is just that....a "belief" based off evidence. It isn't proven fact.



Yes, and just as many (in fact a LOT more) treat their "belief" in a historical Jesus as "fact", too. This is pretty typical for ALL beliefs held with conviction. Period.



> As a Catholic Christian, I am happy to admit the fact that historical evidence isn't "black and white." Now, there is plenty of evidence and scholarly works based on evidence supporting the idea that the Christian premise is true. It can be an educated belief to believe in the Jesus story, but it is a belief all the same. I have no problem in admiting this...there wouldn't be a need for "faith" if everything in this world was black and white.



Just because things aren't "black and white" doesn't mean they are all the same shade of grey.  



> So...how come those who CHOOSE to not believe in Jesus admit that this is simply their BELIEF based on their accepted evidence? Because too many clowns and pseudo-scholars with goofy names lurk on the internet, that's why. Too many a-holes who's entire existance revolves around trying to prove they are smarter/better then their peers. So...instead of humbly saying that they believe Jesus didn't exist in the historical sense, and here is why....then providing evidence, they say things that ellude to the idea that all the crap that comes out of their mouths is fact and everyone else who disagrees is spewing fiction.



Paul, everything you have said COMPLETELY holds true for the other side of the fence, as well. There are MUCH more "pseudo-scholars" and "a-holes" that DO believe there was a historical Jesus and treat it as scientific "fact". Again, this is nothing uncommon or atypical; it is, in fact, quite endemic to many beliefs held with any degree of emotional conviction (whether supported by good evidence or not).

What you are complaining about tends to be more of an aspect of human nature (or, to be more accurate, an aspect of human nature at a certain stage of personal development). NOT the exclusive quality of any kind of political/religious position or party.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

Hey, Heretic888...

For once I think I agree with almost everything you've just said.

This does hold true for both sides of the fence...I absolutely agree. I will admit that I personally get less annoyed with people who do this on the Christian side because there not trying to challange my beliefs; however, it doesn't help when it is done on either side.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Why do people who believe take such umbrage to people challenging those beliefs?

Steve


----------



## Nightingale

guys, haven't we about beat this to death?

-N-


----------



## Jay Bell

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Why do people who believe take such umbrage to people challenging those beliefs?
> 
> Steve *



I really don't know...

_The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. _ 

-- Thomas Jefferson


----------



## heretic888

I knew it. Jay's a communist.

CRUCIFY 'IM!!!


----------



## arnisador

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.
> 
> -- Thomas Jefferson *



I wasn't familiar with this quotation. It's well on-point.

I _do_ suspect we've beaten this one to death, though.


----------



## don bohrer

> guys, haven't we about beat this to death?



I agree... You hatfields just stay on yer side of the line and we Mccoys will stay on ours....... anybody crossin da line gets it! 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          :biggun: 


don


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Why do people who believe take such umbrage to people challenging those beliefs?
> 
> Steve *



I'm probably used the wrong lingo, Steve, so let me explain. I don't mind if someone questions or challanges my beliefs, so I phrased it wrong when I said "challange."

I do mind when my beliefs are slammed or if I am inenvertantly insulted because of my beliefs. An example would be if someone makes a blatent and ignorant statement like, "Christians generally are illogical in their beliefs, and they aimlessly follow whatever their pastor or priest says." As a Catholic Christan, that would be insulting to me, and you can expect me having a problem with the statement, and you can expect me saying something about it.

It is also insulting to me when someone treats Christian beliefs, and inadvertantly "Christians" as ignorant, because "they follow evidence and conclusions that are "wholey untrue," or "unsupported by factual evidence", etc., etc., etc. It is as if they are the ones who are so much smarter, better, cooler, or whatever, then the Christian population.

I'm sorry, but I am not ignorant because of my beliefs. My beliefs are supported by evidence also. And I believe that my evidence is "factual" even if others might disagree.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I have no problem with people not believing in Christianity. I have no problem with people accepting a different set of evidence then what I am willing to accept. Fine. But I have a serious problem with people treating me like I am somehow ignorant due to my beliefs.

Hopefully that clarifies things...

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *guys, haven't we about beat this to death?
> 
> -N- *





> I do suspect we've beaten this one to death, though.





> I agree... You hatfields just stay on yer side of the line and we Mccoys will stay on ours....... anybody crossin da line gets it!



I agree...this one is definatily a dead horse....:deadhorse 

I think that this type of a discussion would do well in a structured debate formate rather then going back and forth aimlessly, and having contests in seeing who can write the longest posts (yes, I am guilty of this more then anyone.  ) I have discussed with Bob Hubbard over the phone the possability of having a "debate" forum attached to the study, which would have strict debate rules such as post length requirements, amount of posts back and forth, etc. Debators would make opening statements as conclusions at the end. Then, after the conclusions, the thread is closed, copied, and reopened as a poll where MT members can read the entire structured exchange and vote on who they think won the arguement. The vote, of course, should be on who argued the best, and not tied to peoples personal biases (of course we can't control that, but it would be at least known). Anyways, at some point when I have time, I am going to write up a the proposed idea, and the Moderators will have a chance to look at my proposal to give input, and see if the idea would work.

But in terms of this topic...I agree that this horse is dead.


----------



## MA-Caver

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *I agree...this one is definatily a dead horse....:deadhorse
> But in terms of this topic...I agree that this horse is dead.
> *



The horse may be dead yes I'll go with that... but Jesus Lives!  :asian:


----------



## heretic888




----------



## MisterMike

Commander to Morpheus: "Not everyone believes what you belive."

Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to."


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> * *



:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## heretic888

Exactly.


----------



## Nightingale

:deadhorse


----------



## Josh

What good does debating and arguing over all this do??? 

Jesus tells us to go and preach to all the world. He even said that His disciples would do greater than He Himself. 

That's why the Gospel whether openly or secretly, is taught in every nation. 

and about this Josephus. He was a jewish historian. He taught on the Bible. He wasn't Christ.  All you have to do to find about about Josephus is go to any web search. Geez. Yea. I mean. I just tried it. He was Flavius Josephus. Where did ya'll get he was supposedly Christ??


----------



## heretic888

> What good does debating and arguing over all this do???



To the world at large?? About as much good as _not_ discussing it; namely, because the world as a whole doesn't give a ***** one way or the other.

We, however, do. Discussions like these are mostly for the benefit of the participants, because they want to discuss the subject at hand. Most people, however, don't.

If you don't like the subject being discussed, here's some simple advice: _don't click on the thread's link_ . Its that simple.



> Jesus tells us to go and preach to all the world. He even said that His disciples would do greater than He Himself.



Uhhhhh.... right.



> That's why the Gospel whether openly or secretly, is taught in every nation.



Actually, no, its not. I can name about a dozen tribal "nations" off-hand that have never even heard of Christianity.

And, why is everyone treating "the Gospel" as if its a single, monolithic entity?? As if its some uniform creed that _all_ "Christians" agree upon?? I can assure you, no one seems as confused and divided as to what exactly "Christianity" is as the Christians themselves. 

Maybe you guys should convert each other before tackling the rest of the world??



> and about this Josephus. He was a jewish historian. He taught on the Bible. He wasn't Christ. All you have to do to find about about Josephus is go to any web search. Geez. Yea. I mean. I just tried it. He was Flavius Josephus. Where did ya'll get he was supposedly Christ??



Ugh.  

I suggest actually _reading_ the thread next time before making comments like this one again.

Laterz.


----------



## ABN

> *and about this Josephus. He was a jewish historian. He taught on the Bible. He wasn't Christ.  All you have to do to find about about Josephus is go to any web search. Geez. Yea. I mean. I just tried it. He was Flavius Josephus. Where did ya'll get he was supposedly Christ?? *



Could we please have a moment of silent prayer, or just silence if you prefer, for the American education system....

andy


----------



## heretic888

> Could we please have a moment of silent prayer, or just silence if you prefer, for the American education system....



Now now.... I don't think that's being very fair to America. We've got lots of nice people that have mastered the ability to read English.


----------



## arnisador

http://www.cincypost.com/2001/apr/13/jesus041301.html



> The search for the answer to that question has inspired some of the greatest artists in Western history, and this Easter season, it's inspired at least two TV documentaries.
> 
> ''The Face: Jesus in Art''' is a two-hour PBS documentary (3 p.m. Sunday, Channel 48; 2 p.m. Sunday, Channel 54) tracing the depictions of Jesus from the third century.
> 
> The Discovery Channel airs its three-part ''Jesus: The complete Story'' 8-11 p.m. Sunday. The final hour includes the reconstruction of Jesus' face using modern forensic science and recent archaeological findings.
> 
> The Discovery Channel's documentary falls far short of the ''complete story,'' and the really interesting parts of the show could be condensed to a solid half-hour piece. The best thing about the series is the thrilling use of computer enhanced images that frequently illustrate what a dusty pile of rocks at a digging site really looked like.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

> and about this Josephus. He was a jewish historian. He taught on the Bible. He wasn't Christ. All you have to do to find about about Josephus is go to any web search. Geez. Yea. I mean. I just tried it. He was Flavius Josephus. Where did ya'll get he was supposedly Christ??



<groan...>

Nobody here said he was Christ.  

Some debated the textual references from Josephus that referred to Jesus as the Christ.  Many scholars believe the references to be a Christian interpolation.

Okay...now I need to make something clear here.  JOSEPHUS DIDN'T TEACH "ON" (sic) THE BIBLE.  The "Bible" as you know it didn't exist back then.  In Josephus' time the Gospels either hadn't been written or were in the process of being written.

Given that Josephus was a JEW, and not a Christian, he didn't teach Christian religious principles.  

As for doing the internet search, look at some of the other links that have been provided.

Steve


----------



## Nightingale

I saw a very interesting tv show on the discovery channel two days ago. they keep re-running it.  It explores the plagues that Moses cast on the Egyptians and the science behind them.  According to the show, there's overwhelming evidence that they were caused by a volcanic erruption of a mediteranian island called Santirini, miles away.  The interesting debate here would be...was the erruption a coincidence, or an act of God?


network:  Discovery Channel 
series:  Ancient Evidence

episode:  Who Was Moses? 
rating:  nr | cc 


... Ancient Evidence Who Was Moses? Experts examine the stables of Ramses II, ancient Egyptian texts and everything in between to get the real story behind Moses ... 

airing:   Dec 03 2003 @ 10:00 PM
 Dec 04 2003 @ 01:00 AM
 Dec 07 2003 @ 07:00 PM


----------



## Cruentus

I will say that one must take some of those shows on discovery and PBS with a grain of salt. A lot of time they present ill supported theories that are unique, so they get people to watch the show due to the uniqueness. It works...I watch a lot of these specials, but most of the time I sit there thinking "what a load of crap".

The special where they tried to use forensic science to reconstruct the face of Jesus is a prime example of ill supported conjectures. All the did was take skulls from the time period and culture, reconstruct a face based on those skulls, looked at biblical and historical descriptions of hair color, eye color, skin color, etc., and whammo...they reconstructed a face. 

Think for a minute how dumb this is. To me, this is about the equivalent of someone 2000 years from now saying, "lets try to find out what Paul Janulis' face really looked like, then they take Arnisadors skull, reconstruct the face, and give it dirty blonde hair and blue eyes based off a written description of me. See what I mean? No two people look alike in any culture...so I think there attempt to reconstruct the face was a long shot to say the least. This wasn't even what bothered me....it was the fact that in the special they presented their evidence as being factual when it probably is not. 

Anyways...thats my feelings on a lot of these specials. Sometimes I come accross interesting theories that gets me thinking, but mostly these specials are a big eye rolling fest.


----------



## Nightingale

there's a lot of scientific evidence to back up the volcano theory, including deposits of volcanic material at appropriate levels in the archeological/fossil record.  take a look at the show and see.  its really very well done, and makes no judgement on religion. its straight scientific analysis.  Although it presents strong evidence that the plagues of egypt were caused by the volcanic erruption, they make no judgement on whether or not the event was divinely influenced, or how the heck Moses knew all about the effects before they happened.  The show is very much about using the bible to reconstruct history.


----------



## heretic888

> Okay...now I need to make something clear here. JOSEPHUS DIDN'T TEACH "ON" (sic) THE BIBLE. The "Bible" as you know it didn't exist back then. In Josephus' time the Gospels either hadn't been written or were in the process of being written.



According to the Testimonium Flavius _attributed_ to Josephus, however, he's pretty "preachy" on his description of Jesus.  



> Given that Josephus was a JEW, and not a Christian, he didn't teach Christian religious principles.



Errrr.... that seems like a moot point, considering pretty much *all* "Christians" of the time were Jews.



> I saw a very interesting tv show on the discovery channel two days ago. they keep re-running it. It explores the plagues that Moses cast on the Egyptians and the science behind them. According to the show, there's overwhelming evidence that they were caused by a volcanic erruption of a mediteranian island called Santirini, miles away. The interesting debate here would be...was the erruption a coincidence, or an act of God?



Oh boy.  

I'm gonna have to go with Paul on this one. Claims like this I can only take with a grain of salt.

ESPECIALLY when you take into consideration the entire BASIS for the theory is based on assumption upon assumption. Namely, that these "volcanic erruptions" took place when Moses was supposed to have lived. Last time I checked, there isn't a whole lof of scholarly agreement as to *when* exactly Moses was supposed to have lived.

Also, how exactly would volcanic eruptions cause "plauges" over a nation as vast as Egypt??

My spider sense is tingling, Batman. Smells mighty fishy to me.  



> Although it presents strong evidence that the plagues of egypt were caused by the volcanic erruption, they make no judgement on whether or not the event was divinely influenced, or how the heck Moses knew all about the effects before they happened. The show is very much about using the bible to reconstruct history.



Thus making it an exercise in pseudo-science.

Now, the Bible may be historically true and it may not be but these individuals are already operating on the *assumption* that it is true without any real scientific evidence to support such a claim (last time I checked, for example, there is no "scientific" proof these plagues ever took place or that Moses even lived). That, my friends, is pseudo-science and no different than the humorous "creation science" we see being done in other academic circles.

Also, on a personal note, I would just like to add that one of the first things that was taught to me in my introductory psychology class is that correlation is *not* causation.

Spider sense continues to tingle. Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale

We may not have actual birth/death dates of Moses, but we do have the exact dates of the Egyptian Pharoah, Ramses, mentioned in the story.

The show simply analyzed where historical record coincides with biblical mythology.  It makes no judgement on the bible. It simply presents the bible story and the historical record and points out where they match (and where they don't.)

Before arguing with me any further on this (and all I said was that the show was interesting, not that it was correct!) watch the dang show so you know what you're talking about, ok?


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *there's a lot of scientific evidence to back up the volcano theory, including deposits of volcanic material at appropriate levels in the archeological/fossil record.  take a look at the show and see.  its really very well done, and makes no judgement on religion. its straight scientific analysis.  Although it presents strong evidence that the plagues of egypt were caused by the volcanic erruption, they make no judgement on whether or not the event was divinely influenced, or how the heck Moses knew all about the effects before they happened.  The show is very much about using the bible to reconstruct history. *



There are some things that are presented on these specials that are pretty good, for sure. It is just that as a whole, I have been disappointed on more then one occasion.

PAUL


----------



## Nightingale

I have been disappointed in some of the tv specials too... especially the jesus/face one.  however, I was impressed by this one, and, having grown up the daughter of a science teacher, that is saying something.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

> Errrr.... that seems like a moot point, considering pretty much *all* "Christians" of the time were Jews.



Excellent point, Heretic.  You're correct.  I meant an orthodox Jew, of the kind that wouldn't have been running with the Jesus movement.  Something a little more along the line of Paul before his conversion.  This movement apparently wasn't popular with the mainstream Jews of the time.



Charles Pellegrino's *Return to Sodom and Gomorrah* talks about the volcanic explosion of Thera that supposedly gave rise to the plagues of Egypt.

Here's the book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=sr_8_1/002-3149925-6835210?v=glance&n=507846

Here's a review of the book:

http://members.aol.com/ScottH9999/essays/highcrit.htm


----------



## heretic888

> We may not have actual birth/death dates of Moses, but we do have the exact dates of the Egyptian Pharoah, Ramses, mentioned in the story.



And because he's in the story, that _must_ have been when the events in question took place!  

In all seriousness, _many_ scholars contest Ramses being the pharoah that the exodus took place under (assuming it took place at all --- its something the Egyptians make no record of --- come to think of it, there's no record or documentation that the Jews were ever Egyptian slaves or that they built the pyramids... hmmmm). He was a _very_ firm and powerful ruler and it is very unlikely he would have allowed such an event to transpire.

The more likely candidate that I have heard, would be the ruler Akhenaton. He interestingly developed the first form of recorded monotheism in the history of the world. Both Freud and Campbell have proposed Moses, if he existed, may have been a priest in the court of Akhenaton (which would explain the Jews' sudden embracing of "monotheism"). After Akhenaton's defeat, Egypt was thrown into a bit of anarchy for a while, and this would have been the perfect time for a Jewish patriarch like Moses to haul his peepz on outta there.



> The show simply analyzed where historical record coincides with biblical mythology. It makes no judgement on the bible. It simply presents the bible story and the historical record and points out where they match (and where they don't.)



*shrugs* It still strikes me that their entire "method" is making a lot of assumptions concerning the "scientific" viability of the Bible. I also don't quite understand how volcanic ash from a nearby island could cause "plagues" to an empire as vast as Egypt.



> Before arguing with me any further on this (and all I said was that the show was interesting, not that it was correct!) watch the dang show so you know what you're talking about, ok?



*sigh* But how can I do that when I spend all my free time on this lovely website??  



> Something a little more along the line of Paul before his conversion.



The actual notion that Paul was an orthodox-style Jew before his "conversion" is extremely dubious. He was from Tarsus, a center of Mithraic and astrological philosophy, and his writings reflect this more than once.

Also, it curious that an "orthodox Jew" speaks only Greek to his audience, and quotes only from the somewhat inaccurate Greek version of the Old Testament to _Jewish_ populations.

Curiouser and curiouser.  



> This movement apparently wasn't popular with the mainstream Jews of the time.



Well, there was a reason for that. Just as there was a reason the "movement" (which was actually several movements and groups) was extremely popular among the Gentiles.

Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale

the show does explain the effects of volcanic ash on a climate.  we're not just talking a little bit of dust here.


----------



## heretic888

> the show does explain the effects of volcanic ash on a climate. we're not just talking a little bit of dust here.



We're not just talking about a little plot of land here, either.  

Egypt was a freakin' *huge* nation (still is, really). The amount of ash that would be needed to cause "plagues" (I'm still not quite sure how the ash could mimic these "plagues" --- could anyone give a medical basis for this claim??) would be stupendous.

Laterz.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

> We're not just talking about a little plot of land here, either.



Thera's explosion devastated a good portion of the Med, and brought an end to the Minoan culture.  


The Egyptians were largely located in the Nile Delta.  It isn't inconceivable that Thera's explosion wracked the region...including Egypt's Nile Delta, and then the story grew with the telling. 

Were there literally seven plagues as described in the Bible?  Probably not.  However, Thera's explosion would have been remembered and embellished...it was the most significant geological disaster of that millenium in that part of the world.

Some speculate the Noachian flood could have been the flooding of the Black Sea by the Mediterranean.  

Apply Occam's razor, and I think these speculations make a bit more sense than the traditional explanations as given in the Bible.


Steve


----------



## Cruentus

> Apply Occam's razor, and I think these speculations make a bit more sense than the traditional explanations as given in the Bible.



Well, science can bring to light some of the writings in ancient texts.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *We're not just talking about a little plot of land here, either.
> 
> Egypt was a freakin' *huge* nation (still is, really). The amount of ash that would be needed to cause "plagues" (I'm still not quite sure how the ash could mimic these "plagues" --- could anyone give a medical basis for this claim??) would be stupendous.
> 
> Laterz. *



I need to echo nightengale here. Watch the show. I saw the episode that she was refering to, and they did a pretty good job of explaining the volcano theory. 

PAUL


----------



## heretic888

> Well, science can bring to light some of the writings in ancient texts.



I have found that what is much more commonplace is that certain modern individuals, oftentimes who lack a professional background in any formal science, retroactively project scientific theories and discoveries onto ancient texts in some attempt to vindicate criticism of them.



> I need to echo nightengale here. Watch the show. I saw the episode that she was refering to, and they did a pretty good job of explaining the volcano theory.



I'll try and catch it when I get a chance.


----------



## hardheadjarhead

Heretic,

Geologists have established Thera blew up.  They know the Minoan culture was wiped out by it.  They've determined that a resultant Tsunami wiped out portions of the coast of Greece and hit Egypt.  They know from taking core samples the spread of the thermoplastic flow and that ash settled in Egypt.  They know from the explosion of Krakatoa that such an event can have dynamic impacts on populations hundreds of miles away.  Thera blew up around the time that Ramses lived.  Some archeologists suspect he was the pharoah mentioned in the Bible.

So...this isn't pseudo science.  What's your beef?  

Now...insofar as _speculating_ that the effects of this catastrophe might have led to the description of the "plagues" of Moses described in the Bible...is that such a far jump?

Or would you prefer to believe them interecessions on the part of The Lord?

Perhaps you'd like to believe the ancient Greek Gods really did in fact throw huge boulders at each other?

Or maybe that Atlantis really existed?

My point is this...it is very likely that oral history...and later written history...corrupted and embellished historical events to the point where geological events of this magnitude became miracles.  That isn't so implausible, is it?  The sky darkens, a huge rumbling is heard and a huge choking and hot cloud of dust settles over the land...primitive people are going to run with that and make it an act of God.  Or Gods.


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons

Let us not forget that much of the Nile Delta including Alexandria ended up in the bottom of the Med after an earth quake.

Modern day Egypt is large.

Ancient Day Egypt was along the the Nile. Yes it is a long river, yet look at the population size and the technology of the day. Almost every human of the time lived along rivers or coast line.

Given these assumptions or facts or little details you could see how a plague could in affect been seen to have happened.

Now, do I know that such a thing happened? No I do not. I can read about the Volcano's and the other events tat we can Carbon Date and make a hypothesis just like anyone else.

Now, I do believe that many of the stories of the Bible Old and New Testament were taken from common fold lore and adopted to better be able to absorb the various peoples of the region. 

Just my Opinion
:asian:


----------



## heretic888

> Thera blew up around the time that Ramses lived. Some archeologists suspect he was the pharoah mentioned in the Bible.



Emphasis on the "some". I already provided a much more plausible time for the purported Jewish exodus, although it doesn't really detract from your hypothesis any.



> So...this isn't pseudo science. What's your beef?



I misinterpreted the original post on it. I thought it was some self-appointed agenda to "prove" the Bible right, which would indeed make it pseudo-science.



> Now...insofar as speculating that the effects of this catastrophe might have led to the description of the "plagues" of Moses described in the Bible...is that such a far jump?



Nope.



> Or would you prefer to believe them interecessions on the part of The Lord?



I'm actually more interested in the truth than in a "preference".



> Perhaps you'd like to believe the ancient Greek Gods really did in fact throw huge boulders at each other?



Not particularly. Then again, it doesn't really matter to me.



> Or maybe that Atlantis really existed?



Maybe it did.



> My point is this...it is very likely that oral history...and later written history...corrupted and embellished historical events to the point where geological events of this magnitude became miracles. That isn't so implausible, is it? The sky darkens, a huge rumbling is heard and a huge choking and hot cloud of dust settles over the land...primitive people are going to run with that and make it an act of God. Or Gods.



Although I agree with your basic line of thinking here, I just have to add: "Primitive"?? Heh, that's treading dangerous waters, bucky.  

Laterz.


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Emphasis on the "some". I already provided a much more plausible time for the purported Jewish exodus, although it doesn't really detract from your hypothesis any.
> . . . *




Heretic888,

I really do enjoy reading your informed posts. I do not think you will find any one thing that everyone on this planet will agree too.   I agree that your explanation is just as plausible, given the feel we get for those leaders then from a perspective in today's world.

Looking forward to more discussion ty everyone
:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead

> "Primitive"?? Heh, that's treading dangerous waters, bucky.



Hardly.  If some evangelist wants to flame me for not buying into a literal interpretation of the Bible, so be it.



Steve


----------



## heretic888

Well, seeing as how this thread's kinda died down a bit, I guess I'll just continue from what the last post said...



> Hardly. If some evangelist wants to flame me for not buying into a literal interpretation of the Bible, so be it.



Heh. Ok.  

So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus

> I misinterpreted the original post on it. I thought it was some self-appointed agenda to "prove" the Bible right, which would indeed make it pseudo-science.



Someones agenda doesn't make their evidence or their assumption based off that evidence right or wrong. You were willing to jump all over him based off what you thought his agenda was, regardless of the evidence.

Thus, this illustrates how you've been handling this entire thread. YOU have an agenda and a BELIEF. For whatever reason it is vitally important for you to maintain your belief that a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed...that it was a made up story. So, as soon as you smell a somewhat Christian agenda, your ready to try to slam down any evidence they might bring forth, no matter how much or little you may know of that evidence. 

So, instead of trying to get to the bottom of something, your trying to slam others beliefs and conjectures. At least, this is the way you come across...like a total A-hole. 

Perhaps you think that people don't want to talk with you, or that they would rather let this thread die, because you have such a strong arguement. Your arguement isn't THAT strong. People would rather let the thread die because, well, there seems to be no point. Your looking to pick a part other peoples beliefs rather then have a discussion where we can all learn something.

At least this is the way you come accross. I thought that maybe this was just my perception; that maybe because I am coming from a Christian perspective, I am taking your posts the wrong way. THis can't be the case, however. I have gotton more PM's regarding this thread then any other...and only about half from Christians. Some were just telling me to keep up the good fight...others were telling me not to stoop to your level or to play your game. So...I know I am not alone in this opinion.

Nobody likes to have their beliefs, opinions, or conjectures slammed to the floor in an arrogent way. Sometimes, I have to remind myself of this too...we all need reminders. But when you come across as arrogently as you do somethimes, looking to hammer on peoples beliefs, you are precieved just as badly as a "street corner bible beater" who is only interested in screaming his beliefs at you, treating you as if your opinions don't matter.

Solution: I'd like to see a more 'inclusive' discussion, rather then an exclusionary arguement where you jump all over people for not accepting your beliefs. If we can't have that...then perhaps we should let the thread die.

 
PAUL


----------



## hardheadjarhead

> So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then??



You assume a great deal, heretic.

Regarding theology, I am much more in agreement with you and Bertrand Russel than with Paul.

But I have to agree with Paul on the way you come off.

You don't debate with the hopes of making people embrace your ideas. Obviously you're quite bright, but by arrogating yourself with your condescending arguments you do nothing more than alienate people.  I can't respect that.



Steve


----------



## heretic888

Oh boy. Back at it again, Paul??  

Ummmm.... why exactly are you now commenting on something said about two pages back?? Something which you had ignored previously??  

Anyways....



> Someones agenda doesn't make their evidence or their assumption based off that evidence right or wrong. You were willing to jump all over him based off what you thought his agenda was, regardless of the evidence.



Ok, Paul, that's _not_ how the scientific method works. If you come into the process with a truth assumption already layed down, you are not using science to try and find the answer or the truth to the problem or question. You are using science to try and validate your own personal beliefs. An example of this is the flood research people that already _assume_ the Bible is literally/historically true and that the Deluge did happen (proof or not), and then basically go about collecting evidence to "prove" their religious beliefs to others.

As I stated on the creationism thread, you already have the conclusion figured out in your head and are just using "science" to amass the details to "prove" that conclusion right. And that, my friends, is pseudo-science. In real science, the conclusion is the end point, not the beginning.

And I didn't "jump all over him". All I said was that, based on what little I knew of the program, it _sounded_ like pseudo-science. But, I was clearly mistaken, and admitted that. So, why are you even bringing this up??



> Thus, this illustrates how you've been handling this entire thread. YOU have an agenda and a BELIEF.



*chuckles* Doesn't everyone??  

Yes, my "agenda" is to express what I believe to be true and criticize that which I believe to not be true. My "belief" is that it is highly unlikely that a historical Jesus existed (among other things). DEAL WITH IT.



> For whatever reason it is vitally important for you to maintain your belief that a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed



I've actually never said there is no way a historical Jesus actually existed, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.



> a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed...that it was a made up story.



This makes the false assumption that something not exisiting historically and something being "a made up story" are the same thing.



> So, as soon as you smell a somewhat Christian agenda, your ready to try to slam down any evidence they might bring forth, no matter how much or little you may know of that evidence.



*chuckles* What evidence??  

I criticize that which I believe to not be true. Something you seem to be doing now, Paul. You are dangerously flirting with hypocrisy here.



> So, instead of trying to get to the bottom of something, your trying to slam others beliefs and conjectures.



I criticize views that I do not believe to be true. Big deal.

If someone posits a view I believe to not be true, I request evidence. If that evidence does not hold out, I continue my criticism. So far, that has continued to occur in this thread.

I have also not made any kind of "rigid" position on any of this one way or another. I never adamantly stated that the "plague/volcano" special was pseudo-science, only that it _sounded_ like pseudo-science (based on the limited description I had heard). Likewise, I never adamantly stated that Jesus did not exist, only that it was extremely unlikely.

You, however, seem to be more than rigid on your positions right now and in the past, as well.



> At least, this is the way you come across...like a total A-hole.



Well, the admins obviously don't think so. Nor does anyone else that has participated in this thread outside of the random "why are you picking on Jesus??" complaints.

You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am somehow _obliged_ to treat any and all viewpoints as if they have equal scientific/historical validity. I can assure you, I am not.

From where I'm standing, a lot of these complaints (including some of yours) resemble individuals afraid of having their beliefs questioned. Too bad.



> Perhaps you think that people don't want to talk with you, or that they would rather let this thread die, because you have such a strong arguement.



Paul, please try and use logic every now and then. I revived this thread to discuss the last poster's interpretation of the Bible, not to go back over either the volcano or Jesus theories. That is something you are individually guilty of, my friend.



> Your arguement isn't THAT strong.



It was apparently strong enough to ruffle your feathers. So much so that you resorted to ignoring most of my "evidence" and selectively cut-and-pasting what I said to declare yourself the "winner". Do we really need to rehash all this again??



> People would rather let the thread die because, well, there seems to be no point.



Some do, some don't. I know you're a Christian, Paul, but you don't have to make black-and-white generalizations about _everything_.  



> Your looking to pick a part other peoples beliefs rather then have a discussion where we can all learn something.



*chuckles* Allow me to quote the post I revived this thread with:

"So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??"

Oh yeah, really picking apart there.  



> At least this is the way you come accross. I thought that maybe this was just my perception; that maybe because I am coming from a Christian perspective, I am taking your posts the wrong way. THis can't be the case, however. I have gotton more PM's regarding this thread then any other...and only about half from Christians. Some were just telling me to keep up the good fight...others were telling me not to stoop to your level or to play your game. So...I know I am not alone in this opinion.



Or, at least you say you're not alone.  

Even if your PM claim is true, there also seems to be another assumption you seem to constantly make in this discussion: popularity does not confer legitimacy.



> Nobody likes to have their beliefs, opinions, or conjectures slammed to the floor in an arrogent way. Sometimes, I have to remind myself of this too...we all need reminders. But when you come across as arrogently as you do somethimes, looking to hammer on peoples beliefs, you are precieved just as badly as a "street corner bible beater" who is only interested in screaming his beliefs at you, treating you as if your opinions don't matter.



This really comes down to a matter of ego, from where I'm standing. Everyone wants to be treated as if their beliefs are as equal and valid as all others. They're afraid of being questioned. The basic mentality is: "All opinions should be equally treasured and nurtured and thus NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO." Thus, they rationalize that the questioner is "an *******" or "has an agenda" or "had bad experiences with Christianity".

What this really comes down to, Paul, is that you don't like me questioning your beliefs. So, you're not alone in that opinion. Big deal. Your fear and/or "hurt feelings" is not enough reason for me to shut up.

If the discussion actually offends you _that_ much, then the answer is simple: don't participate. Its not exactly brain surgery.



> Solution: I'd like to see a more 'inclusive' discussion, rather then an exclusionary arguement where you jump all over people for not accepting your beliefs. If we can't have that...then perhaps we should let the thread die.



No, you want me to treat your beliefs as if they are right from the outset, and my beliefs as if they might be right. Like I said before, Paul, you are flirting dangerously with hypocrisy here. Very dangerously.

*chuckles* Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale

ok...

this is starting to bug me.

I'm the one that brought up the TV show and got jumped on for it...

and I'm female.  

so please stop referring to me as "him"

ok?


----------



## heretic888

> You assume a great deal, heretic.



Not really. I made an inference based on the content of your post. I was obviously mistaken. It happens.



> Regarding theology, I am much more in agreement with you and Bertrand Russel than with Paul.



What makes you think my "theology" is at all similar to Betrand Russel's?? Talk about making assumptions....



> But I have to agree with Paul on the way you come off.
> 
> You don't debate with the hopes of making people embrace your ideas. Obviously you're quite bright, but by arrogating yourself with your condescending arguments you do nothing more than alienate people. I can't respect that.



*chuckles* Obviously, there is some miscommunication here.  

I do find it humorous, however, that the ones that claim I am being "condescending" were always the first ones to start making personal attacks. Very curious, no?   



> ok...
> 
> this is starting to bug me.
> 
> I'm the one that brought up the TV show and got jumped on for it...
> 
> and I'm female.
> 
> so please stop referring to me as "him"
> 
> ok?



Many apologies, Nightingale.  :asian: 

Heh. Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale

the assumptions people make are amusing...

people assume I'm male (even with a girly username like "Nightingale") because I'm a martial artist.

then, people assumed I was a christian and had some kind of pro-bible agenda because I pointed people to an interesting TV show that happened to reference the bible.

then, people assumed the TV show had to have a Christian agenda because it referenced the bible.  


Interesting that every assumption was false.


----------



## heretic888

> the assumptions people make are amusing...
> 
> people assume I'm male (even with a girly username like "Nightingale") because I'm a martial artist.
> 
> then, people assumed I was a christian and had some kind of pro-bible agenda because I pointed people to an interesting TV show that happened to reference the bible.
> 
> then, people assumed the TV show had to have a Christian agenda because it referenced the bible.
> 
> 
> Interesting that every assumption was false.



Yeah.... life's funny like that.


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *Oh boy. Back at it again, Paul??
> 
> Ummmm.... why exactly are you now commenting on something said about two pages back?? Something which you had ignored previously??
> 
> Anyways.... *


*

Yup...I'm at it 'again'...  dur-dur-dur :erg:

Also...since this is the internet, if I get busy I'll be late posting...so what?




			Ok, Paul, that's not how the scientific method works. If you come into the process with a truth assumption already layed down, you are not using science to try and find the answer or the truth to the problem or question. You are using science to try and validate your own personal beliefs. An example of this is the flood research people that already assume the Bible is literally/historically true and that the Deluge did happen (proof or not), and then basically go about collecting evidence to "prove" their religious beliefs to others.
		
Click to expand...


O.K....now this is just a flippin idiotic attempt to try to defend you position. First of all...what do you call "Hypothesis"? It's a question based off an ASSUMPTION, of which goes through a series of tests to prove or disprove the assumption.

See here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypothesis

But besides that...we are not just talking about science and history...this question also involves religion. Science does a great job of explaining "how", but not such a good job of explaining "why", which religion/philosephy is designed to explain. Anyways...




			As I stated on the creationism thread, you already have the conclusion figured out in your head and are just using "science" to amass the details to "prove" that conclusion right. And that, my friends, is pseudo-science. In real science, the conclusion is the end point, not the beginning.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry...I haven't been following the creationism thread. So how does it feel to be wrong again? 





			And I didn't "jump all over him". All I said was that, based on what little I knew of the program, it sounded like pseudo-science. But, I was clearly mistaken, and admitted that. So, why are you even bringing this up??
		
Click to expand...


Ohhhh.....wow. You admitted to being wrong once. Someone save it quick before he realizes what he has done. :shrug:

I bring it up because your behavior is unbarable. You alienate others so you can raise yourself on a pedistle....and it wasn't like you just said something, and now its over. You will continue...on and on and on...until people stop talking to you....so you can then 'believe' that you must have completely crushed everyone in an arguement.

Gosh...your such a man....




			*chuckles* Doesn't everyone??  

Yes, my "agenda" is to express what I believe to be true and criticize that which I believe to not be true. My "belief" is that it is highly unlikely that a historical Jesus existed (among other things). DEAL WITH IT.
		
Click to expand...


Deal with it? Oh....we all have been....believe me. Your agenda is very clear also. Its just to bad that you feel the need to criticize what you believe to be untrue. It's not dealing with your beliefs that is a problem. It's not dealing with a discussion either. It's dealing with YOUR behavior.  




			I've actually never said there is no way a historical Jesus actually existed, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.

This makes the false assumption that something not exisiting historically and something being "a made up story" are the same thing.
		
Click to expand...


Now your playing semantics.




			*chuckles* What evidence?? 

Click to expand...


There you go again with your arrogent behavior.




			I criticize that which I believe to not be true. Something you seem to be doing now, Paul. You are dangerously flirting with hypocrisy here.
		
Click to expand...


WRONG! In a discussion forum, I state my beliefs, LISTEN to others, and discuss the issues. I am not out to be critical of someone elses beliefs. However, when someone is critical of mine...sometimes I can't help but get in their face. YOU sir, are the one who have been critical of others beliefs and evidence since the beginning of this discussion.




			I criticize views that I do not believe to be true. Big deal.
		
Click to expand...


The "Big Deal" is that how you behave is not condusive of a good discussion.




			If someone posits a view I believe to not be true, I request evidence. If that evidence does not hold out, I continue my criticism. So far, that has continued to occur in this thread.

I have also not made any kind of "rigid" position on any of this one way or another. I never adamantly stated that the "plague/volcano" special was pseudo-science, only that it sounded like pseudo-science (based on the limited description I had heard). Likewise, I never adamantly stated that Jesus did not exist, only that it was extremely unlikely.
You, however, seem to be more than rigid on your positions right now and in the past, as well.
		
Click to expand...


First of all...because of YOUR beliefs and assumptions, there is no amount of evidence out there that anyone could bring you that would "hold out" enough for you. So what's the point of asking for it anyways? The only point I can see is that you do it so you can slam and criticize others.

Am I 'rigid' in my beliefs? Why yes....that's because I have balls. You should get some. I don't sit on the fence out of fear that God forbid I might be wrong. If I am wrong...the great...I learned something. I am not so "rigid", though, that I can't discuss issues with people who don't agree with me. But, I am a little too 'rigid' to let people slam on my beliefs w/o me saying something on the matter.




			Well, the admins obviously don't think so. Nor does anyone else that has participated in this thread outside of the random "why are you picking on Jesus??" complaints.
		
Click to expand...


Don't be so sure about what the "admins" think. Just because you play by the rules, it doesn't mean you can't still act like a jerk. I've been suspended before because others acted like jerks, yet I got mad and responed too quickly. The "admins" agreed with my viewpoint and that the other party were the jerks...however, I still broke the rules. Point is, you can be a jerk without the admins jumping down your throat if you play by the rules. Also, just because someone doesn't want to say something to your face because they don't want to cause trouble, that doesn't mean that they aren't thinking it. Something for YOU to think about....




			You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am somehow obliged to treat any and all viewpoints as if they have equal scientific/historical validity. I can assure you, I am not.
		
Click to expand...


No...but I believe that you ARE required to at least respect others viewpoints....yet at this, you have failed horribly.




			From where I'm standing, a lot of these complaints (including some of yours) resemble individuals afraid of having their beliefs questioned. Too bad.
		
Click to expand...


WRONG AGAIN! At least when it comes to me...I can't speak for other people who believe in a historical Jesus. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned...I do mind not having my beliefs respected.

But asking you to show respect...yea...I gues thats just "too bad".




			Paul, please try and use logic every now and then. I revived this thread to discuss the last poster's interpretation of the Bible, not to go back over either the volcano or Jesus theories. That is something you are individually guilty of, my friend.
		
Click to expand...


Try not to be such an A-hole "every now and then." And...I don't care why you revived this thread...its all along the same lines. The last posted would have explained his position on his interpretation of the bible, and if it didn't coincide with yours, you would have pissed all over it. Same thing you've been doing from the beginning. [/QUOTE]




			It was apparently strong enough to ruffle your feathers. So much so that you resorted to ignoring most of my "evidence" and selectively cut-and-pasting what I said to declare yourself the "winner". Do we really need to rehash all this again??
		
Click to expand...


No...your arrogence stinks enough to ruffle my feathers. Don't think that your arrogence and your argument are one in the same. 




			Some do, some don't. I know you're a Christian, Paul, but you don't have to make black-and-white generalizations about everything.  

*chuckles* Allow me to quote the post I revived this thread with:

"So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??"

Oh yeah, really picking apart there. 

Click to expand...


But it doesn't matter. You'll ask him to elaborate, he will, and if doesn't coincide with your beliefs then you'll piss on it. This is what you've been doing thusfar, so why should I think that you'd change your behavior?




			Or, at least you say you're not alone.  

Even if your PM claim is true, there also seems to be another assumption you seem to constantly make in this discussion: popularity does not confer legitimacy.
		
Click to expand...


First off...why would I lie to you? At least I am man enough to use my real name and contact information. I am also man enough to tell the truth. I can't say the same about you.




			This really comes down to a matter of ego, from where I'm standing. Everyone wants to be treated as if their beliefs are as equal and valid as all others. They're afraid of being questioned. The basic mentality is: "All opinions should be equally treasured and nurtured and thus NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO." Thus, they rationalize that the questioner is "an *******" or "has an agenda" or "had bad experiences with Christianity".

What this really comes down to, Paul, is that you don't like me questioning your beliefs. So, you're not alone in that opinion. Big deal. Your fear and/or "hurt feelings" is not enough reason for me to shut up.

If the discussion actually offends you that much, then the answer is simple: don't participate. Its not exactly brain surgery.
		
Click to expand...


It's not a matter of ego...its a matter of respect. You treat those who don't believe the same as you with very little respect. This is my problem. Ask anyone who has been on this forum with me where there has been a heated discussion....I can handle when people don't agree with me. I can handle having my beliefs questioned.

I shouldn't have to handle people who don't respect my or others opinions. Neither should anybody else. THATS what it comes down to.

Another problem that I have as well is your elitist attitude. You take the position that not all 'beliefs' are equal so you can then take the position that yours are 'better' then everyone else around you who doesn't agree. You have yet to prove that your "opinions" are superior then anyone elses...and you won't. THATS WHY THEY ARE "Beliefs" AND "opinions"... not facts; no ones is 'better' then anyone elses unless it can be "imperically" proven, at which point the opinion/belief must become fact.




			No, you want me to treat your beliefs as if they are right from the outset, and my beliefs as if they might be right. Like I said before, Paul, you are flirting dangerously with hypocrisy here. Very dangerously.

*chuckles* Laterz. 

Click to expand...

*
No...I just want you to treat other opinions with respect. You can disagree with me...fine. I recognize that I might be wrong, even though I don't believe that I am. If you would do the same, life would be so much easier. 

Now...does your behavior annoy me enough to stay off the thread. No...it annoys me so much more. It annoys me so much that I am not going to let you dominate a thread as you disrespect and "traunce" all over my beliefs. If I did what you are doing to a buddhist, hinduist, or athiest, I'd be blamed for being an intolerant SOB. So...what does that make you?

It's not about who's right or wrong, or who's afraid to have their beliefs challanged, or anything like that. Not anymore, at least. It's about respecting other opinions...

thats all...

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *ok...
> 
> this is starting to bug me.
> 
> I'm the one that brought up the TV show and got jumped on for it...
> 
> and I'm female.
> 
> so please stop referring to me as "him"
> 
> ok?
> 
> *



:rofl: 

Sorry...I think that was my fault. You are correct, you were the one who got jumped on for bringing up the TV show. I got a little mixed up because the last question was directed towards steve, so I just wrote "him," and it looks like we kept going with it.

I never thought you were a him....even though you could probably beat up most guys:boxing: 

Sorry again!


----------



## Nightingale

Gentlemen, please play nice...

this is an interesting thread and I really don't want to have to lock it.


----------



## arnisador

> Well, the admins obviously don't think so.



We're only human--we can't read all of a thread this size. There are only so many hours in the day!

As always, we ask that everyone keep the discussion polite and respectful.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## hardheadjarhead

> What makes you think my "theology" is at all similar to Betrand Russel's??QUOTE]
> 
> No.  You're correct, you're not in Russel's league.  He was polite, if anything.  His intellect allowed him that security.
> 
> I didn't write that possessed a theology.  I said "regarding theology".  Quite different.  Russel didn't "have" a theology.  He wrote quite a bit about it, though, as you no doubt know.
> 
> You're right in one respect, though...I do assume too much here.  What are you?  Theist?  Atheist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do find it humorous, however, that the ones that claim I am being "condescending" were always the first ones to start making personal attacks. Very curious, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> You condescended to me right off the bat, and I never once attacked you.  It seems your general tone and style.  I'm not sure you wouldn't write like that regardless of the topic.  It appears almost natural.
> 
> Use of the "eye rolling" and eye-winking smiley faces, the "chuckles"...all so uneccessary.  A pity, too.  You seem very well read.
> 
> 
> Steve
Click to expand...


----------



## heretic888

This thread has obviously devolved into some silly attempt to crucify (pun intended) my character. I certainly can't recall when I was "condescending" to Hardheadjarhead but, if thats the way he feels (right or wrong), then I apologize.

But, as a matter of fact, you DID attack me before I ever said anything of a "condescending" light to you.

As for Paul, you are rehashing the same garbage all over again. For all your posturing, you were the first one to attack anyone else in the thread, and you were the one that brought it back up over a month after the "debate" between us had been more or less settled. You obviously have a problem with letting things go.

I'm sorry that your definition of "respect" is limited into treating someone else's viewpoint as if it has equal logical/historical validity as all others. That's not my definition of respect, and I don't expect others to subscribe to it.

As for all the smilies and chuckles, I do that to add humor. This is an internet forum. Don't take it all so seriously.


----------



## heretic888

I know I'll probably regret this later, but here goes...



> Yup...I'm at it 'again'...  dur-dur-dur



Wow. If I didn't know better, I'd say Paul almost had a sense of humor. Almost.  



> Also...since this is the internet, if I get busy I'll be late posting...so what?



I just found it interesting that you are replying to a single line I typed over two pages back and written several days ago. And, moreover, you are rehashing the same "Well, I think you're an ******* and so that disproves your argument!!" line of thinking that we settled months back. Vey interesting, indeed.



> O.K....now this is just a flippin idiotic attempt to try to defend you position. First of all...what do you call "Hypothesis"? It's a question based off an ASSUMPTION, of which goes through a series of tests to prove or disprove the assumption.



Thanks for taking what I said completely out of context. Real nice.  

A hypothesis is an educated guess, more or less. It is based on prior experience or observation of _some_ kind. The Deluge researchers, however, lack any sort of empirical experience or observation regarding their claims and the entire basis for their experiment rests solely on the purpose of trying to vindicate their religion to others. Now, not all researchers of the Flood are guilty of this, but a significant portion are.

The point I was trying to make is that these particular individuals _already_ have the conclusion part of the scientific method decided in their minds. Thus, all they are using "science" for is to amass the random "evidence" needed to "prove" their beliefs right to the rest of the world. Like I said before, the conclusion is supposed to be the _last_ thing the scientist comes up with. Not the first. Thus, it is pseudo-science (not unlike scientific creationism).

By already declaring the stories in the Bible are historically and literally true without any empirical evidence to back such a claim up, and using said stories as a basis for conducting a scientific inquiry, is nothing short of a logical folly.



> But besides that...we are not just talking about science and history...this question also involves religion. Science does a great job of explaining "how", but not such a good job of explaining "why", which religion/philosephy is designed to explain. Anyways...



I believe Jay Gould referred to them as "non-overlapping magisteria".  



> Sorry...I haven't been following the creationism thread. So how does it feel to be wrong again?



You have a nasty habit, paul, of declaring someone "wrong" or declaring yourself "the winner" for no other reason than your say-so. My point about the conclusion being the final stage of the scientific method (and not the first, as it is with pseudo-scientists like scientific creationists and some of the flood researchers) is still quite valid.



> Ohhhh.....wow. You admitted to being wrong once. Someone save it quick before he realizes what he has done.



The chip on your shoulder is obvious, paul. You should probably stop taking an internet discussion so seriously.



> I bring it up because your behavior is unbarable. You alienate others so you can raise yourself on a pedistle....and it wasn't like you just said something, and now its over. You will continue...on and on and on...until people stop talking to you....so you can then 'believe' that you must have completely crushed everyone in an arguement.
> 
> Gosh...your such a man....



You know, Paul, for all your claims attempting to assassinate my character in some attempt to vindicate your argument (which is what this all really boils down to), you have yet to provide any concrete examples of this that I have not completely debunked. Your best shots were supposed "allusions" and "tones" in my posts, whereas your posts have been downright (and overtly) hostile and aggressive.

Just look at the track record. You couldn't beat my position with your "evidence", and so you begin to simply ignore and selectivly cut-and-paste the "evidence" I provided. After I repeatedly pointed this out, you then attacked me personally, resorting to some psychobabble about me having "bad experiences" with Christianity when I was younger or about how you were "so much better read" then me on the subject. When I pointed this all out, you flatout denied it. When I pointed out your denial, you got upset because you believed I was calling you a "liar". And then, after all that, you declared yourself the "winner" of the argument by taking a single line I said completely out of context. Repeatedly, I might add.

And, what's worse, after over two months after we had come to an understanding of sorts, you _bring up_ the same inane accusations and arguments all over again!! 

And, now.... you have the _audacity_ to say that _my_ behavior is unbearable?! Try looking in the mirror sometime, Paul. You might learn something.



> Its just to bad that you feel the need to criticize what you believe to be untrue.



Why?? If someone had said something along the lines of "Christianity is a big crock", I doubt you'd keep quiet about it. So, what possesses you into thinking I should??

If I think something is untrue or, worse, a lie then I will let you know it. Some would appreciate that kind of honesty (instead of pretending you agree with everyone else and massaging their poor wittle egos), and some don't. You are obviously of the latter.



> It's not dealing with your beliefs that is a problem. It's not dealing with a discussion either. It's dealing with YOUR behavior.



I could copy and paste the short "behavior record" of yours that I explained above... but why bother??  



> Now your playing semantics.



Actually, no, I'm not. There is a difference between something being "non-historical" and something being a "made up story" (thus implying it is nothing more than an amusing fiction at worst and a lie at best).



> There you go again with your arrogent behavior.



*chuckles* Its called a _joke_, Paul. Maybe you should try making one someday??  



> WRONG! In a discussion forum, I state my beliefs, LISTEN to others, and discuss the issues. I am not out to be critical of someone elses beliefs.



Even though you have been. Repeatedly. And you are now, too.

Still flirting with hypocrisy, paul.



> YOU sir, are the one who have been critical of others beliefs and evidence since the beginning of this discussion.



Thanks for the compliment.  



> The "Big Deal" is that how you behave is not condusive of a good discussion.



This coming from Mr. "I won, I won!! Why are you still talking!! The argument's over because I say so!! I won!!"?? Right.  



> First of all...because of YOUR beliefs and assumptions, there is no amount of evidence out there that anyone could bring you that would "hold out" enough for you.



I guess when you can't bring the "evidence", then you attack the critiquer, saying how no evidence would be "good enough". Not exactly atypical of you, paul.



> So what's the point of asking for it anyways? The only point I can see is that you do it so you can slam and criticize others.



Key words: "only point I can see".



> Am I 'rigid' in my beliefs? Why yes....that's because I have balls. You should get some. I don't sit on the fence out of fear that God forbid I might be wrong. If I am wrong...the great...I learned something.



And this, class, is the kind of personal attacks Paulikus Maximum has been engaging almost from the very beginning. So, what have we learned today??



> I am not so "rigid", though, that I can't discuss issues with people who don't agree with me. But, I am a little too 'rigid' to let people slam on my beliefs w/o me saying something on the matter.



Good for you. Wanna cookie??



> Don't be so sure about what the "admins" think. Just because you play by the rules, it doesn't mean you can't still act like a jerk. I've been suspended before because others acted like jerks, yet I got mad and responed too quickly. The "admins" agreed with my viewpoint and that the other party were the jerks...however, I still broke the rules. Point is, you can be a jerk without the admins jumping down your throat if you play by the rules.



Actually, not that it matters in any way, but two of the admins have sent me PMs with positive feedback. I have received none, however, with negative feedback.



> No...but I believe that you ARE required to at least respect others viewpoints....yet at this, you have failed horribly.



As I said before, Paul, your definition of "respect" is "pretend they're right until proven wrong". That's not the definition I subscribe to.



> WRONG AGAIN! At least when it comes to me...I can't speak for other people who believe in a historical Jesus. I don't mind having my beliefs questioned...



Heh. Coulda fooled me.  



> Try not to be such an A-hole "every now and then." And...I don't care why you revived this thread...its all along the same lines. The last posted would have explained his position on his interpretation of the bible, and if it didn't coincide with yours, you would have pissed all over it. Same thing you've been doing from the beginning.



I was unaware you had gained the power of precognition, paul. Mind telling me who will win the next Superbowl??  



> No...your arrogence stinks enough to ruffle my feathers. Don't think that your arrogence and your argument are one in the same.



I re-quote: "Mr. 'I won, I won!! Why are you still talking!! The argument's over because I say so!! I won!!'". The mirror, Paul. The mirror.



> First off...why would I lie to you? At least I am man enough to use my real name and contact information. I am also man enough to tell the truth. I can't say the same about you.



Well, your pathetic attempt to turn this into some ego "manly" contest aside...

You have already lied on this thread before. Namely, when I called you on it (your personal attacks concerning my "psychological history" concerning Christianity). Then you denied it. That, friends, is called _lying_.



> It's not a matter of ego...its a matter of respect. You treat those who don't believe the same as you with very little respect. This is my problem. Ask anyone who has been on this forum with me where there has been a heated discussion....I can handle when people don't agree with me. I can handle having my beliefs questioned.



Sounds like ego from where I'm standing. "Honor" and "respect" are the ego's favorite catchwords, because they basically boil down to making you feel better about yourself. A self-massage, if you will.



> Another problem that I have as well is your elitist attitude. You take the position that not all 'beliefs' are equal so you can then take the position that yours are 'better' then everyone else around you who doesn't agree. You have yet to prove that your "opinions" are superior then anyone elses...and you won't. THATS WHY THEY ARE "Beliefs" AND "opinions"... not facts; no ones is 'better' then anyone elses unless it can be "imperically" proven, at which point the opinion/belief must become fact.



Paul, I already "proved" my position. You, using your usual tactics, simply ignored and/or cut-and-paste said evidence. Then you turned it into a mudslinging war.

You, for example, never commented on the geographical and legal incongruities I mentioned, or the "mystery play" form of much of the biblical drama, or the much later dating of *all* extant Biblical texts compared to the earlier dates you had erroneously provided --- you just ignored them all.

You claim I slam on others' "evidence", but at least I give it a fighting chance. You just pretend others' "evidence" doesn't even exist to suit your purposes.



> No...I just want you to treat other opinions with respect. You can disagree with me...fine. I recognize that I might be wrong, even though I don't believe that I am. If you would do the same, life would be so much easier.



That's obviously not the problem, Paul, because as I've stated before I have _never_ rigidly pronounced there was no Jesus. Only, that it was extremely unlikely. Meaning, I might be wrong. So, there's no problem in accepting I *might* be wrong.

This, begs the question, then, what is the problem??

Well, I'm sure the guy that resorted to mud-slinging, accusations of being "poorly read", a false "psychological history" of the opposition, and bluntly declared himself the "winner" by taking the opposition's quote out of context can enlighten us all on that.  



> Now...does your behavior annoy me enough to stay off the thread. No...it annoys me so much more. It annoys me so much that I am not going to let you dominate a thread as you disrespect and "traunce" all over my beliefs.



Never mind. You just answered my question. The problem is obviously ego. Again.



> If I did what you are doing to a buddhist, hinduist, or athiest, I'd be blamed for being an intolerant SOB. So...what does that make you?



Here's a little hint for life, Paul: just because someone calls you something doesn't make it true.

"To thine own self be true." - William Shakespeare

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888

> No. You're correct, you're not in Russel's league. He was polite, if anything. His intellect allowed him that security.



*sigh* More personal attacks.  

Why is it the ones that always accuse you of being "condescending" and "demeaning" are always the ones that do the most mud-slinging??

Smoke and mirrors, I guess. Emphasis on the mirrors.



> I didn't write that possessed a theology. I said "regarding theology". Quite different. Russel didn't "have" a theology. He wrote quite a bit about it, though, as you no doubt know.



Yup.



> You're right in one respect, though...I do assume too much here. What are you? Theist? Atheist?



Hrmmmm..... I guess you could say "panentheist" or "neo-perennial philosopher", or maybe "nondualist".



> You condescended to me right off the bat,



I don't recall "condescending" you. Could you please cite the specific example.



> and I never once attacked you.



Ok, Mr. "You alienate people" and "I can't respect you".

You and I must have a different definition of "personal attack".



> Use of the "eye rolling" and eye-winking smiley faces, the "chuckles"...all so uneccessary.



Humor, my friend. Humor.  



> A pity, too. You seem very well read.



Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## arnisador

I think this thread has played out. I'm going to lock it. Feel free to start a new thread for any particular sub-issue of this discussion.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------

