Egyptians, and the Origins of Christianity?

[SFL Cat]

Yes, if I were a follower of Yesuah (i.e., one of the Apostles ... and there is historical evidence that they existed), I would gladly suffer persecution and have my life cut short just to support my story about a fabricated individual who I really knew never existed.

[Mac Howard]

I was unimpressed with the article that seems now to dominate the discussion. It was typical of an atheist supporting his position with an argument that only supports agnosticism - flawed logic and excessive certainty.

Let's set this straight - there is no lack of evidence. It's that the evidence is hearsay. We may not be prepared to put a man in jail on hearsay evidence but that doesn't mean that it's worthless. I suspect we act on hearsay evidence every day of our lives - hell, we would know nothing if we only accepted eye witness evidence.

And the more hearsay evidence the more probable that it's based on truth. And there's a lot of hearsay evidence about Jesus - about 30 gospels to begin with.

And I may be wrong here but isn't there one piece of eye witness evidence? Paul! Didn't Paul claim to communicate with Jesus on his Road to Damascus conversion?

Sure, you may consider him a nut, maybe wondering what he's been smoking, but you have an eye witness claiming to have spoken/seen Jesus (I'm not well up on the story so someone will probably put me right if I'm wrong here).

But, to begin with, the logic that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence is flawed. It simply doesn't follow. If you didn't live in a country that records births and deaths there would be no evidence that your great grandfather existed except "hearsay" evidence - your existence. You will find no eye witness evidence for his existence but he sure as hell existed.

I've considered this argument for some time and come to the conclusion that the reason for the lack of any contemporary written evidence is because Jesus was not the colossus of today but just a minor preacher in his own time. There was no reason for historians to write about him. He was just one of many radical preachers in Judea at the time. The story of Pilate's washing his hands of the case would support this. Judea was a hotbed of insurgency and Pilate had greater concerns than to trouble himself about a nonentity of a preacher from the sticks (Galilee) who preached "love your enemy". There were dozens of these preachers from Galilee (called the "mesmerics"). Jesus was just one of a crowd with a small collection of followers - not worth writing into the history books.

Yes I know that his followers claimed that thousands listened to him but, hey, if you're trying to convince others of the importance of your messiah you don't tell them that he preached a wonderful sermon to a crowd of thirty. A supporter never exaggerated before? There are people still think the 49ers are a football team

My speculation, and I wouldn't claim it to be any higher than that but I think it fits the facts as we know them the best, is that Jesus was a minor preacher at the time and of no concern to authorities or historians. After his death the story was embellished - maybe ideas from other religions to build up the superhero image were borrowed (no shortage of them from Greek, Egyptian and far eastern travellers) - and followers, Paul in particular, transformed Jesus' reputation and consequently ministry from minor to major to massive.

It's a simple explanation but I think it best fits the facts - a minor religious figure (far from a legend in his own time) superbly supported by his followers. The question it leaves, of course, is how much of the stories are true and how much embellished/exaggerated/created? But I don't think there's any real reason to believe there's no basis behind the stories.

[bignej]

Arguing that just because there are many written accounts of someone doesn't mean they actually existed. The author of that article used the example of Hecules. He was written about by the greeks as if he actually existed. By your standards, he did.

[Sun Tzu]

Mac that was very well written, and I can see your point/s. However I also have to agree with bignej (unfortunately) in that with the logic that you're using, 1,000 years from now people will think The Easter Bunny was real.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Mac that was very well written, and I can see your point/s. However I also have to agree with bignej (unfortunately) in that with the logic that you're using, 1,000 years from now people will think The Easter Bunny was real.

Or Alexander the Great.

[Icy]

I fully agree with Mac Howard explanation. I think Jesus existed and was just another preacher. For any reason his story grew up more than others and Christianity expanded worldwide to what we know today. But from that to believe that he was the son of a god... there are a lot of holes in that theory that make it impossible for those of us without faith to believe it based just on writings possible manipulated by his followers.

I have not studied it but i wonder what was for example the starting point of sects/religions like Scientology (did a guy invent all that and it was it later exaggerated or made up by it's followers?) and what will be said about it in centuries from now or what about if it expands to become a major religion. Of course that won't happen as we live in the information age so it's was harder to make up stories, but just think on all the followers that sect and similar ones have that fully believe what they are told by their leaders.

[revrew]

Dutch actually makes a very good point.

A study of how ancient history is known at all is important. The Easter Bunny example doesn't hold, because it's not ancient history. We have historians, photographs, legal records, etc ... all methods of recording history now that didn't exist in the majority of the ancient world.

Fellows like Josephus, who actually recorded history for history's sake, were the very rare exception in the ancient world, not the rule - as we have now.

For that purpose, the Gospel writer Luke is as legitimate of a historian as any that existed during the day. Just because he believed in the cause of the history he recorded is not a disqualifier, as anyone recording history at all (outside of Greece/Rome, perhaps) recorded it to reflect their cause. Even Josephus, for his part, was only recording history to tell the Jewish story. Luke is no different.

Now, we do have certain archaelogical evidences of the time period, such as minted coins bearing the image of a Caesar or pottery and buildings depicting events in artistic form. But these, in the study of ancient history, are often sparsely found and just as likely to be artistic fabrications (i.e. Hercules).

So, outside of confirmational clues in the archeological record, how do ancient historians know anything about anyone from the few centuries surrounding Jesus alleged life? The PRIMARY way of establishing the facts of early Western/MidEastern Civilization is through the writings that have survived, the literary history. This changed centuries later, as Western Civilization spread and map-makers and recorders and historians began becoming more prevalent, until eventually the scientific mind became the norm as it has today. But this was not the case yet in Jesus day. And you cannot apply the same principles of today's scientific mind - "show me the proof and the legal record or it doesn't exist" - in the analysis of that time period. Not even Julius Caesar had a birth certificate, so you know there's no official record of a carpenter's son from the boondocks who was killed like a common criminal.

Instead, historians look to the literary record to determine the history of the time. Do we have writings that indicate this person existed? Are there multiple authors/confirmations? How many do we have? Were they read widely and affirmed, or localized? If enough literary evidence can be put together, there's an assumption that the event happened. How do we know, for example, that Rome burned under Nero? Not because of the insurance records. Not because of pots with Rome burning and Nero's face on it. Not because the official historians filing the Chronicles of Rome. We know because we have writings from all over the place talking about the burning and about the cruelty of Nero. Add that to what archeological evidence we do have, and we can assume the event happened. Same with Alex the Great, Julius Ceasar, the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, etc etc.

When the same standards are applied to Jesus, the evidence is overwhelming. There are far MORE transcripts, accounts, diverse authors, copies, widespread literary evidence of the existence (and, I'd argue, resurrection) of Jesus than there are a host of other, even significant political, historical figures. This is all quite stunning, considering he was a nobody from nowhere who did absolutely nothing politically but be killed. Will you find a birth certificate? No. Dead record? No. TV reel or any other documentation? No. But neither will you find it for any of the millions of Jews who lived and died during the centuries surrounding Jesus. That kind of historical record keeping didn't exist.

But if we use the same standards we apply to the rest of the ancient world, the evidence that Jesus lived stacks up with any of them.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by bignej

Arguing that just because there are many written accounts of someone doesn't mean they actually existed. The author of that article used the example of Hecules. He was written about by the greeks as if he actually existed. By your standards, he did.

I didn't argue that. My point was a lack of evidence does not prove non-existence and that the hearsay evidence we have allows for the possibility of his existence (not that it proves it). There are millions of people for whom there is no evidence that have existed. The lack of evidence comes from reasons other than non-existence - usually because there is little reason in most people's lives to record them.

But in this case there IS evidence - albeit hearsay evidence which, while not having the credibility of eye witness evidence, is not without some value particularly with the amount we have and the range of sources. So the argument is doubly false - no evidence does not prove non-existence and what's more there is evidence..

Note that I began by saying the article was guilty of excessive certainty. I finished by saying that my explanation was speculation. That is my whole point - we cannot be certain. The evidence adds up to an agnostic position but not an atheistic (or for that matter a believer's) one. We simply cannot be certain either way.

My "unknown-at-the-time preacher bolstered by supporters exaggerated stories" I think is more probable than his "created idea imposed on a fictitious human presented as fact" because it involves behaviour that is very common in human beings (exaggeration of the object of our commitment) whereas his is an artificial construct to justify a pre-existing belief (Jesus didn't exist). Certainly both explanations are possible and neither can be proved wrong so it is flawed for either to argue theirs is certain and the other's definitively wrong.

Where I disagree with the article is that he claims that an existing Jesus is speculation (correct) but his non-existent Jesus is fact (wrong). If you think about it, his allowing that an existing Jesus is a possibility destroys the possibility of the non-existence being fact. That is a common atheistic flaw - you cannot simultaneously allow the possibility something (such as God) and then claim that there definitely isn't one. That flaw is precisely why agnosticism and atheism are often confused.

As for Hercules - there may well be a human at the centre of the myth, not with all the characteristics of Hercules the myth but perhaps a particularly fierce warrior or some such individual, again we cannot know for certain.

As for the Easter Bunny - I'm not aware than anyone is saying it's real - are they?

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Icy

For any reason his story grew up more than others and Christianity expanded worldwide to what we know today.

The reason was Paul. He was the great communicator, the superb publicist (and it helped that he was an educated Roman citizen and allowed to speak his mind without being crucified). Even before Jesus, Judaism was gaining some sort of foothold in Greece but Paul recognised that the Jewish dietary laws and circumcision had all the appeal for potential converts of rampant herpes and stripped them away from the demands made by Peter and the desciples. In Paul's Christianity you only had to accept Jesus to become a believer. For Peter (and possibly Jesus) you had to become a Jew.

Paul was therefore able to claim Christianity was for all people - gentiles as well as Jews- which expanded his audience somewhat.

It has been argued that Paul was more important than Jesus. If it hadn't been for Paul, Christianity would, at best have remained a minority religion, at worst have faded from view. Christians may argue that was precisely why Jesus selected Paul to spread the message.

[Mac Howard]

I've just read my post two up - it was written at two in the morning after watching another inept display by Man Utd. Sorry for that I'll be more succinct:

The absence of eye witness evidence does not prove non-existence unless you can show all other explanations invalid.

Hearsay evidence may be less credible than eye witness evidence but you cannot proceed to "prove" non-existence by ignoring it all together.

You cannot claim to have proven your case when accepting the possibility of a contradictory case. Your own acceptance is an admission you've proved nothing. Claiming the alternative is "speculation" doesn't help particularly when your own is the same.

Those are the flaws in the article that I criticise above.

There are three possibilities

1) The whole story is true. To accept this you must accept the reality of supernatural events that are essentially unproven.

2) The whole story is a fiction. To accept this you must accept a proof that is flawed.

3) The story has a kernal of truth which has been exaggerated by followers. To accept this you need not accept unproven supernatural events or dubious proofs of non-existence merely an acceptance of very common human behaviour..

On a probability basis the third is probably the most likely

Modern archeology is showing this to be true of many biblical stories - a kernal of truth with exaggerated descriptions and/or supernatural explanations from a people limited in their understanding of nature. The walls of Jericho have fallen (several times from earthquakes), societies destroyed by floods, there was a Semitic population in Egypt prior to the exodus (though not necessarily slaves), Israelites were captured and taken to Babylon and then released, a great temple was built and destroyed in Jerusalem twice (Solomon's and Herod's). And so on. Actual events often given supernatural and religious significance. The only archeological finds that might support the Jesus story would be written records but in 66 AD the Romans put Palestine to the sword, burnt Jerusalem and other Jewish cities to the ground - and what the temple could not withstand certainly papyrus would not . If there were records they would stand small chance of surviving - unless perhaps buried in a cave in the Judean wilderness (the Dead Sea Scrolls) or Egypt (the Gnostic Gospels). The second of these does support the Jesus story. This destruction might, indeed, be why the gospels date from after 70 AD - earlier writings being destroyed.

[RainMaker]

Isn't the hearsay evidence a bit sketchy too? Few, if any of those published accounts from that time really mention his full name. I don't believe any mention any of the miracles her performed. It's basically "hey there was this Cristos guy who was a teacher". Not, there was a guy named Jesus who walked on water, rose from the dead, etc.

[bignej]

The article stated that there was a possibility he existed. I think the author was pointing out that christians accept it as truth that this man not only lived but performed all of these miracles, yet noone cared to document his existence at all until 70 years after his death. Seriously if someone actually did some of those things, there should have been something somewhere. Jesus and whether he actually existed means nothing without the miracles. Like St. Nick in the Santa Claus example, he becomes simply some dude. The author is an obvious atheist but that doesn't negate his point. We wouldnt accept that someone existed and performed supernatural acts without some shred of evidence. Jesus (and Hercules) have no eyewitness account of their existence except for passed down info.

[RedKingGold]

Shit, I feel like an idiot for worshipping the Easter Bunny all these years.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by bignej

The article stated that there was a possibility he existed.

And, in doing so, undermined his own "proof". You cannot simultaneously say "maybe he existed" and "he definitely didn't". It has to be "maybe he existed and maybe he didn't". By allowing the possibility of Jesus' existence he shows little faith in his argument that he didn't.

Seriously if someone actually did some of those things, there should have been something somewhere.

Not if he did nothing that was deemed worthy of recording at the time or if the Romans destroyed such records when they destroyed the Jewish cities in the Jewish wars or 66-74 AD or if the newly formed Roman church destroyed them when they burnt all books that didn't directly support their particular interpretation of the stories in the 4th and 5th centuries. Today we know from discoveries in the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi that monks hid documents from the orthodox priests/Romans in the first century and from the Roman church in the 4th in caves in the wilderness and desert precisely to ensure their survival from destruction. Who knows what else might still be hidden?

[bignej]

I didnt read anywhere in the article where he said that Jesus "definitely didnt exist". All that he is doing is pointing out the silliness of believing something based on hearsay.

[RainMaker]

Regardless of whether he was an actual person or not, it's safe to assume his life was rather uneventful. Accounts from that time mention him in passing and hardly give him the status of someone who walked on water and rose from the dead.

[JediKooter]

Josephus was know for his embelishments as well. So, I would take what he has written with a pillar of salt.

Also, if I remember correctly, Paul was not born until after Jesus had died and only had 'visions' of Jesus. Not quite what I'd call an eyewitness.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Josephus was know for his embelishments as well. So, I would take what he has written with a pillar of salt.

Also, if I remember correctly, Paul was not born until after Jesus had died and only had 'visions' of Jesus. Not quite what I'd call an eyewitness.

Josephus says nothing of note about Jesus and so his embellishments are meaningless. In fact Josephus' omission on Jesus is precisely why some say he didn't exist.

Paul claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus and describes the meeting. That is eye witness evidence. What it's worth is debatable but it remains eye witness evidence (which is often debatable).

There is ample 'evidence" for Jesus in written documents and not just the bible - it just isn't definitive proof. But to say there is no evidence is nonsense - it just isn't as convincing as we should like to justify belief in the whole story.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Paul claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus and describes the meeting. That is eye witness evidence. What it's worth is debatable but it remains eye witness evidence (which is often debatable).

He claims to have met the resurrected Jesus.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He claims to have met the resurrected Jesus.

Yes, and if my memory serves me well (and it may not) he said something to the effect "Why are you persecuting me?".

[RainMaker]

Just saying that I don't exactly count the vision of a resurrected person as an "eyewitness account". More like a guy who is probably fucking crazy.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Just saying that I don't exactly count the vision of a resurrected person as an "eyewitness account". More like a guy who is probably fucking crazy.

So...
Everyone who is Christian is crazy?
It is the core of the religion.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Josephus says nothing of note about Jesus and so his embellishments are meaningless. In fact Josephus' omission on Jesus is precisely why some say he didn't exist.

Paul claims to have seen and spoken to Jesus and describes the meeting. That is eye witness evidence. What it's worth is debatable but it remains eye witness evidence (which is often debatable).

There is ample 'evidence" for Jesus in written documents and not just the bible - it just isn't definitive proof. But to say there is no evidence is nonsense - it just isn't as convincing as we should like to justify belief in the whole story.

Paul's visions of Jesus do not count in my opinion, simply because now we are in the supernatural world. No different than Edgar Cayce saying that he had visions of Jesus. They would be no more or less credible than Paul's, yet, I am sure we would cast a doubtful eye towards Cayce.

[Surtt]

Just look at George Washington.

I don't think most people would dispute he existed.
But look at the myths that are built around him: throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, chopping down the cherry tree, etc.
If he lived 2000 years ago, just going by the stories, it would be hard to accept he was a real person.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Paul's visions of Jesus do not count in my opinion, simply because now we are in the supernatural world. No different than Edgar Cayce saying that he had visions of Jesus. They would be no more or less credible than Paul's, yet, I am sure we would cast a doubtful eye towards Cayce.

I cast a doubtful eye on the whole supernatural thing, JediKooper, and certainly put down Paul's eye witness evidence as being dubious in the extreme. But I'm pointing to the argument that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence and even one example (or as you point out possibly other occasions we may not be aware of) of an eye witness account.

The first problem with that article is that he immediately dismisses any evidence which might upset his case. He doesn't just call it questionable - he dismisses it outright. He does so, I think, because he's trying to prove a pre-determined position - Jesus doesn't exist - coming from his atheism and evidence of any sort gets in the way.

There simply is no evidence that Jesus did not exist and plenty that he did. In fact it's difficult to know what evidence you could have to prove his non-existence outside of suddenly a document coming up that credibly states "I made it all up". So, in the absence of any worthwhile proof of his belief he stretches the argument.

The lack of any definitive evidence is certainly a concern but to say it is a definitive factor is to assume:

a) Jesus was important enough at that time to justify a record of his actions

b) any records have not been destroyed - either by time, reuse or deliberate destruction by antagonistic authority.

I don't think anything in Jesus' story, once you put aside the supernatural, justifies any real national importance in his lifetime and I'm aware of the destruction of all that is Jewish by the Romans in 66-74 AD and all that is not in exact lockstep with the Pauline church in the 4th of 5th centuries. So it's feasible that nothing was ever written and, if it was, has been destroyed one way or another.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Just look at George Washington.

I don't think most people would dispute he existed.
But look at the myths that are built around him: throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, chopping down the cherry tree, etc.
If he lived 2000 years ago, just going by the stories, it would be hard to accept he was a real person.

Well it would if you rejected the idea that beneath all the hype there was a human being that, while not necessarily justifying it, triggered it. But you're correct in what you suggest - there are billions of people for whom there is no evidence whatsoever, let alone the level of hearsay evidence we have for Jesus, that have existed. History would be thinly populated indeed if we insisted that everyone for whom there was no evidence hadn't existed

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I was unimpressed with the article that seems now to dominate the discussion. It was typical of an atheist supporting his position with an argument that only supports agnosticism - flawed logic and excessive certainty.

I just rolled my eyes after reading the first paragraph.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts.

Shroud of turin?
Maybe easy to dismiss, but it does not do your creditability any good pretending it does not exist.

All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus.

source?
You have a copy of all contemporary Roman records?

Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

Again source?
Stating opinion as fact.

Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.

Ever read a history book?
Lies!!!
hearsay!!!

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Well it would if you rejected the idea that beneath all the hype there was a human being that, while not necessarily justifying it, triggered it.

I am just saying that debating if Christ existed or not is kind of a moot point.

edit.
Just because someone existed does not make the stories any more (or less) believable.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Shroud of turin?
Maybe easy to dismiss, but it does not do your creditability any good pretending it does not exist.

It does not do your creditability any good pretending that it's authentic or worth mentioning as anything except a clever fraud.

source?
You have a copy of all contemporary Roman records?

There are existing contemporary sources from a bunch of people, and none mention Jesus. Go back and check my link on the first page.

Again source?
Stating opinion as fact.

It's not opinion. There is NO existing contemporary evidence mentioning Jesus. Again, read my link. Find me a single piece if you can. If it existed it would be a big deal, and all over google no doubt. Search on.

Ever read a history book?
Lies!!!
hearsay!!!

I've read a ton. Any history book worth a damn uses primarily contemporary evidence as much as possible, and where it can't and is instead relying on non-contemporary or untrustworthy evidence, it would say so.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I am just saying that debating if Christ existed or not is kind of a moot point.

edit.
Just because someone existed does not make the stories any more (or less) believable.

I don't see how it can be a moot point. If Christ DIDN'T exist, well, doesn't that sort of make Christianity itself a moot point? If he DID exist, yeah, sure, it doesn't mean that any of the NT is true, it just means that it did in fact start with a dude named Jesus. Still, that would be slightly more promising for believers.

The lack of any contemporary evidence not only talking about Jesus himself, but also about the pretty spectacular miracles he is supposed to have performed - you know, the kind of things you'd figure would get people talking - would be pretty worrying to me if I was trying to prove Christianity and Jesus Christ were real, and not another religion of many that have come and gone on this strange little planet of ours.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't see how it can be a moot point. If Christ DIDN'T exist, well, doesn't that sort of make Christianity itself a moot point? If he DID exist, yeah, sure, it doesn't mean that any of the NT is true, it just means that it did in fact start with a dude named Jesus. Still, that would be slightly more promising for believers.

The lack of any contemporary evidence not only talking about Jesus himself, but also about the pretty spectacular miracles he is supposed to have performed - you know, the kind of things you'd figure would get people talking - would be pretty worrying to me if I was trying to prove Christianity and Jesus Christ were real, and not another religion of many that have come and gone on this strange little planet of ours.

The reason I said it is a moot point is that,
if You are a Christian: you will believe in Christ, no matter if there is historical evidence or not.
(I do not believe there is any way to prove he didn't exist)

If you do not: having a actual Christ will not prove he was the son of god.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

It does not do your creditability any good pretending that it's authentic or worth mentioning as anything except a clever fraud.

Fraud?
Source?

As I said it is out there and people believe it.
If you say nothing exist, but people say what about....
You need to at least acknowledge that it is there.

There are existing contemporary sources from a bunch of people, and none mention Jesus. Go back and check my link on the first page.
It's not opinion. There is NO existing contemporary evidence mentioning Jesus. Again, read my link. Find me a single piece if you can. If it existed it would be a big deal, and all over google no doubt. Search on.

???
You are making a statement about something that happened 2000 years ago and challenging me to prove it it wrong using google?

I am not a biblical scholar or an archaeologist.
But if you make a claim about such things i expect you to have someone in those field to back you up.
Stating opinion as fact.

*I see a bunch of sources at the bottom.
But without citing them in the actual essay they are worthless.

**
"There is NO existing contemporary evidence mentioning Jesus"
Do you have listing of everyone crucified?
Or perhaps a listing of all miracles performed and the performer?

At least state what you are referring to here.
Are there court records? Newspaper clippings? stone tablets?

I've read a ton. Any history book worth a damn uses primarily contemporary evidence as much as possible, and where it can't and is instead relying on non-contemporary or untrustworthy evidence, it would say so.

Of course every book written in the first century adhered to this literary standard.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Fraud?
Source?

As I said it is out there and people believe it.
If you say nothing exist, but people say what about....
You need to at least acknowledge that it is there.

There have been numerous tests done on the shroud that proved it isn't authentic or as old as it was said to be. It's like someone using the human footprint that was intentionally planted below a dinosaur footprint fossil by a creationist to prove that humans did exist at the same time as dinosaurs.

???
You are making a statement about something that happened 2000 years ago and challenging me to prove it it wrong using google?

No, I'm making a statement that something doesn't exist. There is NO contemporary evidence in existence. How am I supposed to dig up something that doesn't exist. If you think it does, or that it might exist, google it. You won't find anything that isn't refuted in the link I provided you.

Do you have listing of everyone crucified?
Or perhaps a listing of all miracles performed and the performer?

No, to both counts. I don't see the relevance here? I don't think there has ever been a miracle of any form performed EVER by ANYONE. By it's very definition, a miracle should never take place, except by supernatural means, and I don't see any evidence that that's ever happened.

At least state what you are referring to here.
Are there court records? Newspaper clippings? stone tablets?

No. Don't be lazy. Read the link. It details several important people who were alive and writing at the time of Jesus. Some of them Jews, some not. None of them mention Jesus or any miracles. These are all we have that are contemporary and originating in the area around where Jesus was supposed to be.

If the Bible was a history book, you would be right.

Correct. It's NOT a history book. Yet it describes a history of the world and mankind, and there are a lot of people who consider it a history book.

[bignej]

I guess its back to the same tired same argument given to "prove" god exists. "....but you can't prove that he didn't exist".

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by bignej

I guess its back to the same tired same argument given to "prove" god exists. "....but you can't prove that he didn't exist".

+1

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I cast a doubtful eye on the whole supernatural thing, JediKooper, and certainly put down Paul's eye witness evidence as being dubious in the extreme. But I'm pointing to the argument that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence and even one example (or as you point out possibly other occasions we may not be aware of) of an eye witness account.

The first problem with that article is that he immediately dismisses any evidence which might upset his case. He doesn't just call it questionable - he dismisses it outright. He does so, I think, because he's trying to prove a pre-determined position - Jesus doesn't exist - coming from his atheism and evidence of any sort gets in the way.

There simply is no evidence that Jesus did not exist and plenty that he did. In fact it's difficult to know what evidence you could have to prove his non-existence outside of suddenly a document coming up that credibly states "I made it all up". So, in the absence of any worthwhile proof of his belief he stretches the argument.

The lack of any definitive evidence is certainly a concern but to say it is a definitive factor is to assume:

a) Jesus was important enough at that time to justify a record of his actions

b) any records have not been destroyed - either by time, reuse or deliberate destruction by antagonistic authority.

I don't think anything in Jesus' story, once you put aside the supernatural, justifies any real national importance in his lifetime and I'm aware of the destruction of all that is Jewish by the Romans in 66-74 AD and all that is not in exact lockstep with the Pauline church in the 4th of 5th centuries. So it's feasible that nothing was ever written and, if it was, has been destroyed one way or another.

You make some good points. I think the key is, look at the evidence that does exist and does that evidence hold up. If the evidence is credible, then you have to include it any analysis being done. I don't know if this guys atheism is getting in the way or he doesn't feel the evidence is credible, I have no idea.

I think it's definitely an interesting subject, but, with the actual events being from so long ago, I don't think there will be a definitive yes or no.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by bignej

I guess its back to the same tired same argument given to "prove" god exists. "....but you can't prove that he didn't exist".

Well, yes and no.

I think the inescapable fact is that to be a Christian you have to accept the NT on it's own merits, as there is nothing independent that confirms the wonderous things written in it. Faith, in other words. And this is why for me it slots in comfortably next to every other religion in the world. It just happens to be the one I'm surrounded by more-so than the others.

[Dutch]

This thread reminds me of environmentalists to some extent.

Earth's temperature at 400-year high
Earth's temperature at 400-year high - CNET News

Scientists do not have temperature records going back hundreds of years. Temperature records actually go back only 150 years. To determine surface temperature, researchers examine corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits and documentary sources such as historic drawings of glaciers.

Climactically speaking, the last 400 years have been sort of a roller coaster ride. From 1500 to 1850, the Earth was wrapped in what climatologists call the little ice age, where temperatures dipped. Since 1850, they have been rising. This last period also coincides with the Industrial Revolution.

Still, the researchers found Mann's conclusion that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere in the last few decades represented a high for the last 1,000 years to be plausible. None of the climate reconstructions in the new study indicate that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades. (The Spanish Armada took place in 1588.)

The cause? A lot of it is from human activity. "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods before the Industrial Revolution

How do we go from 400 years ago looking at pictures of caves and glaciers to the man-made Industrial Era beginning 300 years later to "prove" Global Warming?

Faith?

Are they wrong? I'm not sure.

[JediKooter]

Well, it took 4 centuries before the first council of Oceana to get the story of global warming out to the people.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, it took 4 centuries before the first council of Oceana to get the story of global warming out to the people.

And how many centuries of mega-taxation before it's popular to question it?

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

You make some good points. I think the key is, look at the evidence that does exist and does that evidence hold up. If the evidence is credible, then you have to include it any analysis being done. I don't know if this guys atheism is getting in the way or he doesn't feel the evidence is credible, I have no idea.

I think it's definitely an interesting subject, but, with the actual events being from so long ago, I don't think there will be a definitive yes or no.

That's precisely what I'm saying - the nature of the evidence and the manner in which we've received it means there is inevitably a significant "not known" element in the subject. My disagreement with the article is that it assumes far too great a certainty than it can reasonably claim.

To move from "no evidence" to "no existence" can only be acceptable when all alternative reasons for the lack of evidence have been eliminated. In the case of the Jesus story there are at least two other explanations for that lack of evidence - that durable evidence was never created because he was not of sufficient importance at the time or that evidence was destroyed either by time, reuse, carelessness or deliberately destroyed perhaps by the Romans in 66-74 AD or the new Pauline church in the 4th and 5th centuries.

For me it's simply a case of "no smoke without fire". There's an awful lot of smoke to deal with and the most straight forward explanation of this is that there is a figure of Jesus on which the hype is then built to promote his message after his death. I see no reason to come up with a more imaginative explanation than this.

Just seen a program on the History channel, Sun Tzu , which I suspect is based on the book you read and triggered the start of the thread. Interesting but not convincing. I was not impressed at all by the rationalisation in the final analysis with which the priest/author hung on to his faith

[Sun Tzu]

I would love to know what the special...or at least the book is that this special was based on. I am in absolutely no way, shape, or form an expert on any of this stuff. I find all of this very interesting be though I'm leaning towards the option of jesus existing but being just your average ordinary joe. My "Easter bunny" example was meant to show that by the logic that was being used In said post, that we could make the arguement that any mythical person/creature existed because...hey a lot of people wrote about it, and who's to say that they didn't exist? I'm also very open however to reading some suggested material that may have a logical explanation as to how Jesus did perform all of these miracles...or even one of them for that matter.

Thanks again for the great reading so far. Please forgive any grammatical errors here. I'm posting from my new iPhone. This thing is awesome but will take some getting used to.

[revrew]

Some flawed thinking in the arguments about "Why no recordings of Jesus' miracles? I mean, if the guy walked on water, wouldn't that merit some record, somewhere?"

Answer: No.

For in the historical context, one has to consider, where and before whom were these alleged miracles performed? Rural Israel and Judea, among typically small crowds of uneducated peasants, nobodies and priests (who more often than not attributed his "miracles" to black magic or trickery).

Imagine same scenario today: A man walks across a lake in rural Minnesota before a crowd of 10 people. What record would exist? The news media (which they didn't have back then) would interview the witnesses...but who would believe them? Would this become "national news"? Would it make the NYT best-sellers list? Heck no. And the media and press didn't exist then. Would a Roman official make a record of it? No. "Crazy Jews dreaming up their Messiah again, eh, Flavius? Tell 'em to shut up and pay their taxes."

The only highly public miracle Jesus performed before educated crowds in a major city of political importance...his resurrection. And what do we have? Eyewitness accounts recorded by a LEGITIMATE historian of the day, Dr. Luke. A flood of accounts written - while Jesus' contemporaries were still alive (not while Jesus was alive, the resurrection happened after his death, obviously) and while eyewitnesses were still around to confirm or deny the reports - about the resurrection.

A bit of historical perspective makes it obvious: there wouldn't be any "records" of his miracles to look up. We have one legitimate record of his life, Luke's. Three, if you count Matthew and John (not going to get into the Mark controversy in this thread). Paul (who was alive during Jesus lifetime), wrote about it extensively 10-20 years later (not 70), even saying to his readers: "Don't believe me? Check with the eyewitnesses; they're still alive."

Asking for more proof that Jesus existed is asking for the unreasonable. Like asking for proof of the existence of Joseph, his father, or Mary, his mother. Good luck with that. The fact that we have so MUCH about Jesus is the remarkable fact, not that we have so little.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I'm also very open however to reading some suggested material that may have a logical explanation as to how Jesus did perform all of these miracles...or even one of them for that matter.

There is one example that I know of off the top of my head, though unrelated to Jesus. It's the story of the parting of the Red Sea. It was possibly mistranslated to where the actual meaning was, the Sea of Reeds and when a low tide came in, people could very easily travel across without drowning. I think that fits within a reasonable logical explaination.

[Chief Rum]

Paul has always interested me as a historical figure. Some of the above mentions have brought to mind how when the first Christians, especially converts outside of Judea, worshipped, they didn't have a "New Testament" to pray with (of course). You could even argue the Old Testament was of little use to the mostly Jewish converts, as they had to have been disenchanted by both the differences in teachings between the Pharisees and Jesus, and also by being persecuted among their own people (Christianity was largely regarded as a Jewish outlier cult in the early years after Jesus's death). Gentile converts, of course, wouldn't even have had the Old Testament.

Without a book in which the events of Jesus's life was recorded, there had to be tellings and re-tellings of the stories over and over again to keep the stories alive and known. Of course, it's possible (perhaps even likely if the few who could read or write were put to use) that copies of the early stories were written down that have simply not survived. But from this point in history, it has the appearance that Chrisitianity was almost entirely oral in nature in its first few decades.

[SFL Cat]

Happy Resurrection Day everyone!

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Happy Resurrection Day everyone!

w00t!

No Rainmaking on my parade today!

[Chief Rum]

And yesterday was Zombie Jesus Day. How on Earth did we miss this obvious connection to the coming Zombie Apocalypse?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by revrew

For in the historical context, one has to consider, where and before whom were these alleged miracles performed? Rural Israel and Judea, among typically small crowds of uneducated peasants, nobodies and priests (who more often than not attributed his "miracles" to black magic or trickery).

This in itself is an interesting point that also isn't unique to Christianity, and is worthy of a thread of its own rather than expanding on here and dragging this thing too OT.

Imagine same scenario today: A man walks across a lake in rural Minnesota before a crowd of 10 people. What record would exist? The news media (which they didn't have back then) would interview the witnesses...but who would believe them? Would this become "national news"? Would it make the NYT best-sellers list? Heck no. And the media and press didn't exist then. Would a Roman official make a record of it? No. "Crazy Jews dreaming up their Messiah again, eh, Flavius? Tell 'em to shut up and pay their taxes."

Of course. In the example above, everyone would think they were nuts, and would demand to see it again for themselves. This is because common sense tells us that man can't ordinarily walk across the surface of water. Only the most naive of people would believe something like this without seeing it for themselves.

The only highly public miracle Jesus performed before educated crowds in a major city of political importance...his resurrection. And what do we have? Eyewitness accounts recorded by a LEGITIMATE historian of the day, Dr. Luke. A flood of accounts written - while Jesus' contemporaries were still alive (not while Jesus was alive, the resurrection happened after his death, obviously) and while eyewitnesses were still around to confirm or deny the reports - about the resurrection.

There is no certainty as to who wrote any of the gospels, nor when they were written. Most biblical historians date the first gospel as Mark's, written sometime after the year 70 AD, roughly 40 or more years since Jesus likely would have been crucified. Mark's gospel is referenced by both Matthew (~600 references) and Luke (~300 references), placing them well beyond the lifespan of the average human who would have been contemporary to Jesus.

The author of Luke himself admits to being an interpreter of earlier events passed on to him:

" ¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." - Luke 1:1-4

Remembering here that he is getting his information from "uneducated peasants, nobodies and priests (who more often than not attributed his "miracles" to black magic or trickery)", more than half a century later.

A bit of historical perspective makes it obvious: there wouldn't be any "records" of his miracles to look up.

If we were talking about a man walking across water, sure. Jesus raises four people from the dead, including himself, cures just about ever disease known in his time, and feeds a crowd of people with next to no bread or fish, next to many more. These are all acts that are miracles in the "no freaking way should this happen" sense, and there are lots of them. People would take notice of this kind of thing. We have the writings of Romans and Jews around these poor and miserable areas that this happened. None of them put a single letter to paper about any of it.

We have one legitimate record of his life, Luke's. Three, if you count Matthew and John (not going to get into the Mark controversy in this thread). Paul (who was alive during Jesus lifetime), wrote about it extensively 10-20 years later (not 70), even saying to his readers: "Don't believe me? Check with the eyewitnesses; they're still alive."

Again, this is contrary to what biblical historians believe, who date these gospels far later.

Asking for more proof that Jesus existed is asking for the unreasonable. Like asking for proof of the existence of Joseph, his father, or Mary, his mother. Good luck with that. The fact that we have so MUCH about Jesus is the remarkable fact, not that we have so little.

We'll have to agree to disagree. We have just as much proof of every single other major religious figure.

[JediKooter]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.