Did Jesus Exist? Debunking Atheist Conspiracy Theory
Sound of Trumpet
Did Jesus Exist?
by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
A reader writes:
Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
regarding whether Jesus even existed as a historical figure (yes,
people are still talking about that). They contended that there is no
sufficient evidence, pointing out that that usual non-Christian
sources (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) were not
contemporaries of Jesus and therefore only had the “hearsay” of
believers to rely upon, and furthermore that the believers themselves
could not be trusted because, obviously, they had a vested interest in
ensuring that Jesus was regarded as a real person. They demanded that
a reliable, “independent” source that was contemporaneous with Jesus
would be sufficient proof, but of course no such source exists, as far
as we know, mostly because Jesus was a “nobody” to contemporary
historians at the time he lived. I responded by contending that their
assumptions about the reliability of historical knowledge were wrong-
headed (the main arguer, I know, is a fellow science major), but this
didn’t get me very far.
Do you know of good sources concerning this question that I can
also put forward to my non-believer friends? I’m still amazed that
this question is even considered serious.
This sort of questioning is only taken seriously by a small cadre of
zealots who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue
their anti-Christian agenda. Nobody talks this way about any other
historical figure, much less a historical figure with the massive
impact of Jesus. For instance, nobody says of Hannibal that he never
existed, or that the campaign he waged against Rome was a myth. When
people do attempt such massive conspiracy theories, they inevitably
turn out to be either kooks or satirists.
For a good treatment of this silly fad among New Atheists and their
socially inept acolytes (who do not understand normal social and
affective cues and who therefore can’t conceive of how normal people
function in their normal social and emotional interactions: thus
blocking them from realizing how absurd this theory is on its face), I
suggest this fine series by James Hannam here, here, here, and here.
When you have people making massive efforts to concoct a conspiracy
theory that nobody would risk ten cents on any other historical
figure, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the “Jesus never
existed” dude, not on you, to show that his tissue of highly dubious
suppositions and theories is valid. The problem with the ridiculous
theorizing behind the Jesus Myth is that you can use it to “prove”
that JFK never existed. (“Would an Ivy League graduate really say “I
am a jelly donut” before a crowd of Germans as the JFK chroniclers
describe? Obviously this is a Eucharistic text interpolated into the
record in order to invest the JFK myth with cultic significance and
transfer the affections of American Catholics from the Church to the
so-called “Kennedy family”. We can see that shortly after these
alleged “events” many American Catholics do, in fact, begin to place
their faith more in the Kennedy cultus than in their previous
allegiance to the Church. Clearly then, the JFK myth was concocted by
the leaders of the Democratic party in order to draw gullible
Catholics away from the Church and into their cult. In addition, the
so-called “assassination” of JFK is rife with difficulties. How many
shots were there? Where did they come from? Who was behind the so-
called “murder” of “JFK”? Obviously, the whole story is a much later
addition to a myth of the seasonal cycles and there originally was no
“JFK” and no “assassination”. The story was added to provide a veneer
of tragic martyrdom and solidify support for the Kennedy legend among
the new band of followers that emerged in the late 60s and 70s.)
Anybody can play this silly game. Meanwhile, big solid facts in the
New Testament records and the behavior of the early Church make it
obvious that the writers and their followers (and their enemies, by
the way) are all reacting to an actual person they either knew
personally, or know just as the rising generation today know of JFK
through their familiarity with the eyewitnesses. Only people with no
normal social skills (like the New Atheists) think that the argument
“Romans who cared not a jot for Jews and peasants never noticed Jesus,
so he didn’t exist” is a crushing disproof of the existence of Christ.
As with all latest real Jesuses, this latest real Jesus tells you a
lot about the blind spots and obsessions of the discoverer of the
latest real Jesus. It tells you nothing about Jesus.
Free Lunch
<sound_of...@gawab.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Even if there were an itinerant preacher and teacher named Jesus,
there's no reason to claim that He is a god or godlike or the son of a
god. No evidence supports that amazing claim. No evidence supports the
claim that gods exist.
Josef Balluch
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
Oh goody! Mark Shea, the hypocrite's hypocrite, is going to take on the
Atheist Conspiracy, not to be confused with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy
which by all accounts does not exist.
> This sort of questioning is only taken seriously by a small cadre of
> zealots who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue
> their anti-Christian agenda. Nobody talks this way about any other
> historical figure, much less a historical figure with the massive
> impact of Jesus. For instance, nobody says of Hannibal that he never
> existed, or that the campaign he waged against Rome was a myth.
yaaaawwwwnnnnnnn
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Generals laying siege
to cities? Happens all the time. Miracle workers who raise people from the
dead? Present your extraordinary evidence, Mark.
...
> When you have people making massive efforts to concoct a conspiracy
> theory that nobody would risk ten cents on any other historical
> figure, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the “Jesus never
> existed” dude, not on you, to show that his tissue of highly dubious
> suppositions and theories is valid.
Guess again, Mark. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Regards,
Josef
Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks
without knowledge, of things without parallel.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Uncle Vic
4729-937b-9...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> Did Jesus Exist?
There is no way to know. The only documentation for the existence of the
Jesus character is in the Bible, which we all know to be a collection of
myths that have very little if anything to do with reality. So it is
highly doubtful.
If there was corroboration of the Jesus myth in real contemporary
historical journals, there'd be something to debate. But, alas, there is
none.
--
Uncle Vic
AA # 2011
Member EAC Bitchslapping Dept.
panam...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
snip
Hilarious article. Sounds a lot like the nonsense "biblical scholars"
started ranting as it became clear there was no contemportary record
of their Christ, or even their Jesus. The same old "..well, by that
method, you can't prove *(historical figure X)* existed!..". It was
crap then, and it's crap now. Their error lies in their preconcieved
notion that the Christian bible really *is* a document that accurately
describes history, equal to archival Roman documents or the Library of
Congress. Any casual study of the *real* history of the book should be
enough to show that it is not.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
>On Feb 18, 10:23 am, Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trum...@gawab.com>
>wrote:
>> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>>
>> Did Jesus Exist?
>>
>> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
>snip
>
>Hilarious article. Sounds a lot like the nonsense "biblical scholars"
>started ranting as it became clear there was no contemportary record
>of their Christ, or even their Jesus. The same old "..well, by that
>method, you can't prove *(historical figure X)* existed!..". It was
It is just plain dishonest, because the other figures they name are
conclusions from evidence using the historical process.
While Jesus is a presupposition with no corroborating evidence.
In fact it's doubly dishonest because they also bait'n'switch to the
demand for something that would convince a solipsist that of something
undisputed.
Instead of actually providing evidence for Jesus.
>crap then, and it's crap now. Their error lies in their preconcieved
>notion that the Christian bible really *is* a document that accurately
>describes history, equal to archival Roman documents or the Library of
>Congress. Any casual study of the *real* history of the book should be
>enough to show that it is not.
Aside from that. they should first demonstrate it actually is, instead
of assuming it and expecting people who only want them to put up or
shut up, to take it seriously.
The real problem is they cannot put up and are psychologically
incapable of shutting up. Their excuses for doing neither have no
validity in the real world.
Jimbo
Jimbo
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
T Guy
wrote:
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
> A reader writes:
>
> Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
> regarding whether Jesus even existed as a historical figure (yes,
> people are still talking about that).
I'm amazed too. I understand that it only happens because a large
number of people appear to be going around claiming that he did exist
for some reason.
They contended that there is no
> sufficient evidence, pointing out that that usual non-Christian
> sources (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) were not
> contemporaries of Jesus and therefore only had the “hearsay” of
> believers to rely upon, and furthermore that the believers themselves
> could not be trusted because, obviously, they had a vested interest in
> ensuring that Jesus was regarded as a real person. They demanded that
> a reliable, “independent” source that was contemporaneous with Jesus
> would be sufficient proof, but of course no such source exists, as far
> as we know, mostly because Jesus was a “nobody” to contemporary
> historians at the time he lived. I responded by contending that their
> assumptions about the reliability of historical knowledge were wrong-
> headed (the main arguer, I know, is a fellow science major), but this
> didn’t get me very far.
>
> Do you know of good sources concerning this question that I can
> also put forward to my non-believer friends? I’m still amazed that
> this question is even considered serious.
>
As am I; see above.
> This sort of questioning is only taken seriously by a small cadre of
> zealots who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue
> their anti-Christian agenda.
Jesus' existence is only taken seriously by a small cadre of zealots
who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue their
Christian agenda.
>Nobody talks this way about any other
> historical figure, much less a historical figure with the massive
> impact of Jesus. For instance, nobody says of Hannibal that he never
> existed, or that the campaign he waged against Rome was a myth. ..
I refer you to your earlier phrase 'They demanded that a reliable,
“independent” source that was contemporaneous with Jesus would be
sufficient proof.' Replace 'Jesus' with 'Hannibal' and you're there.
I got as far as Livy and Polybius both mentioning him before I got fed
up and thought I'd shout out for a real expert. Any out there?
Oh, and if there isn't: this still trumps Jesus.
> When you have people making massive efforts to concoct a conspiracy
> theory that nobody would risk ten cents on any other historical
> figure, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the “Jesus never
> existed” dude, not on you, to show that his tissue of highly dubious
> suppositions and theories is valid. ...
Nope. When you have people making massive efforts to concoct a
conspiracy theory that nobody would risk ten cents on any other
figure, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the “Jesus existed”
dude, not on you, to show that his tissue of highly dubious
suppositions and theories is valid. ...
> Anybody can play this silly game.
True. Some might take umbrage that you barged in and took the first
turn, but I'm not going to make a big issue of it if no one else is
put out.
jantero
designed to lead to even more embarassment and discredit for the jebus
cult.
Below is an interesting discussion of whether jesus ever existed. For
a special bonus for people who read this lenthy piece, at its end I
put links to photos of Hitler and his buddies celebrating christmas in
1941. ;-))
excerpt: "Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from
two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed
passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no
mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors
make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment
from the silence of history concerning the foundation of
Christianity."
http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F
Did Jesus Even Exist?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Some
writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length against
people who try from time to time to deny it. It would be easier,
frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was a
figment of the imagination than to believe that there never was such a
person as Jesus.
- N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)
For most of my life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus, although
certainly not a god, was nevertheless an historical personage -
perhaps a magician skilled in hypnosis. To be sure, I knew that some
of the world's greatest scholars had denied his existence.
Nevertheless, I had always more or less supposed that it was
improbable that so many stories could have sprung up about someone who
had never existed. Even in the case of other deities, such as Zeus,
Thor, Isis, and Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they
were merely deified human heroes: men and women who lived in the later
stages of prehistory - persons whose reputations got better and better
the longer the time elapsed after their deaths. Gods, like fine wines,
I supposed, improved with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the evidence for the
historicity of Jesus. I was astounded at what I didn't find. In this
article, I would like to show how shaky the evidence is regarding the
alleged existence of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is
more reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to account
for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus were a fiction than
if he once were real.
Burden of Proof
Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be a proof of the
non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized that the burden of proof
does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case,
the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or
some process exists. If someone claims that he never has to shave
because every morning before he can get to the bathroom he is
assaulted by a six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims
his whiskers better than a razor - if someone makes such a claim, no
skeptic need worry about constructing a disproof. Unless evidence for
the claim is produced, the skeptic can treat the claim as false. This
is nothing more than sane, every-day practice.
Unlike N. T. Wright, quoted at the beginning of this article, a small
number of scholars have tried over the centuries to prove that Jesus
was in fact historical. It is instructive, when examining their
"evidence," to compare it to the sort of evidence we have, say, for
the existence of Tiberius Cæsar - to take up the challenge made by
Wright.
It may be conceded that it is not surprising that there are no coins
surviving from the first century with the image of Jesus on them.
Unlike Tiberius Cæsar and Augustus Cæsar who adopted him, Jesus is not
thought to have had control over any mints. Even so, we must point out
that we do have coins dating from the early first century that bear
images of Tiberius that change with the age of their subject. We even
have coins minted by his predecessor, Augustus Cæsar, that show
Augustus on one side and his adopted son on the other. 1 Would Mr.
Wright have us believe that these coins are figments of the
imagination? Can we be dealing with fig-mints?
Statues that can be dated archaeologically survive to show Tiberius as
a youth, as a young man assuming the toga, as Cæsar, etc. 2 Engravings
and gems show him with his entire family. 3 Biographers who were his
contemporaries or nearly so quote from his letters and decrees and
recount the details of his life in minute detail. 4 There are
contemporary inscriptions all over the former empire that record his
deeds. 5 There is an ossuary of at least one member of his family, and
the Greek text of a speech made by his son Germanicus has been found
at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. 6 And then there are the remains of his villa
on Capri. Nor should we forget that Augustus Cæsar, in his Res Gestæ
("Things Accomplished"), which survives both in Greek and Latin on the
so-calledMonumentum Ancyranum, lists Tiberius as his son and co-ruler.
7
Is there anything advocates of an historical Jesus can produce that
could be as compelling as this evidence for Tiberius? I think not, and
I thank N. T. Wright for making a challenge that brings this disparity
so clearly to light.
There is really only one area where evidence for Jesus is even claimed
to be of a sort similar to that adduced for Tiberius - the area of
biographies written by contemporaries or near contemporaries. a It is
sometimes claimed that the Christian Bible contains such evidence.
Sometimes it is claimed that there is extrabiblical evidence as well.
Let us then examine this would-be evidence.
The Old Testament "Evidence"
Let us consider the so-called biblical evidence first. Despite the
claims of Christian apologists, there is absolutely nothing in the Old
Testament (OT) that is of relevance to our question, apart from the
possible fact that some prophets may have thought that an "anointed
one" (a rescuer king or priest) would once again assume the leadership
of the Jewish world. All of the many examples of OT "predictions" of
Jesus are so silly that one need only look them up to see their
irrelevance. Thomas Paine, the great heretic of the American
Revolution, did just that, and he demonstrated their irrelevance in
his book An Examination of the Prophecies, which he intended to be
Part III of The Age of Reason. b
The New Testament "Evidence"
The elimination of the OT leaves only the New Testament (NT)
"evidence" and extrabiblical material to be considered. Essentially,
the NT is composed of two types of documents: letters and would-be
biographies (the so-called gospels). A third category of writing,
apocalyptic, c of which the Book of Revelation is an example, also
exists, but it gives no support for the historicity of Jesus. In fact,
it would appear to be an intellectual fossil of the thought-world from
which Christianity sprang - a Jewish apocalypse that was reworked for
Christian use. 8 The main character of the book (referred to 28 times)
would seem to be "the Lamb," an astral being seen in visions (no
claims to historicity here!), and the book overall is redolent of
ancient astrology. 9
The name Jesus occurs only seven times in the entire book, Christ only
four times, and Jesus Christ only twice! While Revelation may very
well derive from a very early period (contrary to the views of most
biblical scholars, who deal with the book only in its final form), the
Jesus of which it whispers obviously is not a man. He is a
supernatural being. He has not yet acquired the physiological and
metabolic properties of which we read in the gospels. The Jesus of
Revelation is a god who would later be made into a man - not a man who
would later become a god, as liberal religious scholars would have it.
The Gospels
The notion that the four "gospels that made the cut" to be included in
the official New Testament were written by men named Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John does not go back to early Christian times. The titles
"According to Matthew," etc., were not added until late in the second
century. Thus, although Papias ca. 140 CE ('Common Era') knows all the
gospels but has only heard of Matthew and Mark, Justin Martyr (ca. 150
CE) knows of none of the four supposed authors. It is only in 180 CE,
with Irenæus of Lyons, that we learn who wrote the four "canonical"
gospels and discover that there are exactly four of them because there
are four quarters of the earth and four universal winds. Thus, unless
one supposes the argument of Irenæus to be other than ridiculous, we
come to the conclusion that the gospels are of unknown origin and
authorship, and there is no good reason to suppose they are eye-
witness accounts of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. At a minimum, this
forces us to examine the gospels to see if their contents are even
compatible with the notion that they were written by eye-witnesses. We
cannot even assume that each of the gospels had but one author or
redactor.
It is clear that the gospels of Matthew and Luke could not possibly
have been written by an eye-witness of the tales they tell. Both
writers plagiarize d (largely word-for-word) up to 90% of the gospel
of Mark, to which they add sayings of Jesus e and would-be historical
details. Ignoring the fact that Matthew and Luke contradict each other
in such critical details as the genealogy of Jesus - and thus cannot
both be correct - we must ask why real eye-witnesses would have to
plagiarize the entire ham-hocks-and-potatoes of the story, contenting
themselves with adding merely a little gravy, salt, and pepper. A real
eye-witness would have begun with a verse reading, "Now, boys and
girls, I'm gonna tell you the story of Jesus the Messiah the way it
really happened..." The story would be a unique creation. It is
significant that it is only these two gospels that purport to tell
anything of Jesus' birth, childhood, or ancestry. Both can be
dismissed as unreliable without further cause. We can know nothing of
Jesus' childhood or origin!
Mark
But what about the gospel of Mark, the oldest surviving gospel?
Attaining essentially its final form probably as late as 90 CE but
containing core material dating possibly as early as 70 CE, it omits,
as we have seen, almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus,
beginning the story with John the Baptist giving Jesus a bath, and
ending - in the oldest manuscripts - with women running frightened
from the empty tomb. (The alleged postresurrection appearances
reported in the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the
earliest manuscripts, even though they are still printed in most
modern bibles as though they were an "authentic" part of Mark's
gospel.) Moreover, "Mark" being a non-Palestinian non-disciple, even
the skimpy historical detail he provides is untrustworthy.
To say that Mark's account is "skimpy" is to understate the case.
There really isn't much to the gospel of Mark, the birth legends,
genealogies, and childhood wonders all being absent. Whereas the
gospel of Luke takes up 43 pages in the New English Bible, the gospel
of Mark occupies only 25 pages - a mere 58% as much material! Stories
do indeed grow with the retelling.
I have claimed that the unknown author of Mark was a non-Palestinian
non-disciple, which would make his story mere hearsay. What evidence
do we have for this assertion? First of all, Mark shows no first-hand
understanding of the social situation in Palestine. He is clearly a
foreigner, removed both in space and time from the events he alleges.
For example, in Mark 10:12, he has Jesus say that if a woman divorces
her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. As G. A. Wells,
the author of The Historical Evidence for Jesus 10 puts it,
Such an utterance would have been meaningless in Palestine, where only
men could obtain divorce. It is a ruling for the Gentile Christian
readers... which the evangelist put into Jesus' mouth in order to give
it authority. This tendency to anchor later customs and institutions
to Jesus' supposed lifetime played a considerable role in the building
up of his biography.
One further evidence of the inauthenticity of Mark is the fact that in
chapter 7, where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus is made to
quote the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah in order to score his
debate point. Unfortunately, the Hebrew version says something
different from the Greek. Isaiah 29:13, in the Hebrew reads "their
fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote," whereas the Greek
version - and the gospel of Mark - reads "in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" [Revised Standard Version).
Wells observes dryly [p. 13], "That a Palestinian Jesus should floor
Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their
scriptures is very unlikely." Indeed!
Another powerful argument against the idea that Mark could have been
an eye-witness of the existence of Jesus is based upon the observation
that the author of Mark displays a profound lack of familiarity with
Palestinian geography. If he had actually lived in Palestine, he would
not have made the blunders to be found in his gospel. If he never
lived in Palestine, he could not have been an eye-witness of Jesus.
You get the point.
The most absurd geographical error Mark commits is when he tells the
tall tale about Jesus crossing over the Sea of Galilee and casting
demons out of a man (two men in Matthew's revised version) and making
them go into about 2,000 pigs which, as the King James version puts
it, "ran violently down a steep place into the sea... and they were
choked in the sea."
Apart from the cruelty to animals displayed by the lovable, gentle
Jesus, and his disregard for the property of others, what's wrong with
this story? If your only source of information is the King James
Bible, you might not ever know. The King James says this marvel
occurred in the land of the Gadarenes, whereas the oldest Greek
manuscripts say this miracle took place in the land of the Gerasenes.
Luke, who also knew no Palestinian geography, also passes on this bit
of absurdity. But Matthew, who had some knowledge of Palestine,
changed the name to Gadarene in his new, improved version; but this is
further improved to Gergesenes in the King James version.
By now the reader must be dizzy with all the distinctions between
Gerasenes, Gadarenes, and Gergesenes. What difference does it make? A
lot of difference, as we shall see.
Gerasa, the place mentioned in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, is
located about 31 miles from the shore of the Sea of Galilee! Those
poor pigs had to run a course five miles longer than a marathon in
order to find a place to drown! Not even lemmings have to go that far.
Moreover, if one considers a "steep" slope to be at least 45 degrees,
that would make the elevation of Gerasa at least six times higher than
Mt. Everest!
When the author of Matthew read Mark's version, he saw the
impossibility of Jesus and the gang disembarking at Gerasa (which, by
the way, was also in a different country, the so-called Decapolis).
Since the only town in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee that he knew
of that started with G was Gadara, he changed Gerasa to Gadara. But
even Gadara was five miles from the shore - and in a different
country. Later copyists of the Greek manuscripts of all three pig-
drowning gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) improved Gadara further to
Gergesa, a region now thought to have actually formed part of the
eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. So much for the trustworthiness
of the biblical tradition.
Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography
is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on
the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to
Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of
Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40
miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he
could have walked only 30. Of course, one would never know all this
from the King James version which - apparently completely ignoring a
perfectly clear Greek text - says "Departing from the coasts of Tyre
and Sidon, he came unto the Sea of Galilee..." Apparently the
translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At
least they knew more than did the author of Mark!
John
The unreliability of the gospels is underscored when we learn that,
with the possible exception of John, the first three gospels bear no
internal indication of who wrote them. Can we glean anything of
significance from the fourth and latest gospel, the gospel of John?
Not likely! It is so unworldly, it can scarcely be cited for
historical evidence. In this account, Jesus is hardly a man of flesh
and blood at all - except for the purposes of divine cannibalism as
required by the celebration of the rite of "holy communion."
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the
word was god," the gospel begins. No Star of Bethlehem, no
embarrassment of pregnant virgins, no hint that Jesus ever wore
diapers: pure spirit from the beginning. Moreover, in its present
form, the gospel of John is the latest of all the official gospels. f
The gospel of John was compiled around the year 110 CE. If its author
had been 10 years old at the time of Jesus' crucifiction in the year
30 CE, he would have been 80 years old at the time of writing. Not
only is it improbable that he would have lived so long, it is
dangerous to pay much attention to the colorful "memories" recounted
by a man in his "anecdotage." Many of us who are far younger than this
have had the unpleasant experience of discovering incontrovertible
proof that what we thought were clear memories of some event were
wildly incorrect. We also might wonder why an eye-witness of all the
wonders claimed in a gospel would wait so long to write about them!
More importantly, there is evidence that the Gospel of John, like
Matthew and Luke, also is a composite document, incorporating an
earlier "Signs Gospel" of uncertain antiquity. Again, we ask, if
"John" had been an eye-witness to Jesus, why would he need to
plagiarize a list of miracles made up by someone else? Nor is there
anything in the Signs Gospel that would lead one to suppose that it
was an eye-witness account. It could just as easily have been
referring to the wonders of Dionysus turning water into wine, or to
the healings of Asclepius.
The inauthenticity of the Gospel of John would seem to be established
beyond cavil by the discovery that the very chapter that asserts the
author of the book to have been "the disciple whom Jesus loved" [John
21:20] was a late addition to the gospel. Scholars have shown that the
gospel originally ended at verses 30-31 of Chapter 20. Chapter 21 - in
which verse 24 asserts that "This is the disciple which testifieth of
these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony
is true" - is not the work of an eye-witness. Like so many other
things in the Bible, it is a fraud. The testimony is not true.
Saint Saul And His Letters
Having eliminated the OT and the gospels from the list of possible
biblical "evidences" of the existence of Jesus, we are left with the
so-called epistles.
At first blush, we might think that these epistles - some of which are
by far the oldest parts of the NT, having been composed at least 30
years before the oldest gospel - would provide us with the most
reliable information on Jesus. Well, so much for blushes. The oldest
letters are the letters of St. Saul - the man who, after losing his
mind, changed his name to Paul. Before going into details, we must
point out right away, before we forget, that St. Saul's testimony can
be ignored quite safely, if what he tells us is true, namely, that he
never met Jesus "in the flesh," but rather saw him only in a vision he
had during what appears to have been an epileptic seizure. No court of
law would accept visions as evidence, and neither should we.
The reader might object that even if Saul only had hearsay evidence,
some of it might be true. Some of it might tell us some facts about
Jesus. Well, allright. Let's look at the evidence.
According to tradition, 13 of the letters in the NT are the work of
St. Saul. Unfortunately, Bible scholars and computer experts have gone
to work on these letters, and it turns out that only four can be shown
to be substantially by the same author, putatively Saul. g These are
the letters known as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. To
these probably we may add the brief note to Philemon, a slave-owner,
Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. The rest of the so-called Pauline
epistles can be shown to have been written by other and later authors,
so we can throw them out right now and not worry about them.
Saul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:32 that King Aretas of the Nabateans
tried to have him arrested because of his Christian agitation. Since
Aretas is known to have died in the year 40 CE, this means that Saul
became a Christian before that date. So what do we find out about
Jesus from a man who had become a Christian less than ten years after
the alleged crucifixion? Precious little!
Once again, G.A. Wells, in his book The Historical Evidence for
Jesus[pp. 22-23], sums things up so succinctly, that I quote him
verbatim:
The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events
that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these
events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been
ignorant of them if they had really occurred.
These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to
the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example,
by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or
place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before
a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They
mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his
master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he,
any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)
These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to
have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the
gospels, he worked so many...
Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never
gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher... on only one
occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an
ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having
delivered.
It turns out that Saul's appeal to the authority of Jesus involves
precisely the same error we found in the gospel of Mark. In 1 Cor.
7:10, Saul says that "not I but the Lord, [say] that the wife should
not separate from the husband." That is, a wife should not seek
divorce. If Jesus had actually said what Saul implies, and what Mark
10:12 claims he said, his audience would have thought he was nuts - as
the Bhagwan says - or perhaps had suffered a blow to the head. So much
for the testimony of Saul. His Jesus is nothing more than the thinnest
hearsay, a legendary creature which was crucified as a sacrifice, a
creature almost totally lacking a biography.
Extrabiblical "Evidence"
So far we have examined all the biblical evidences alleged to prove
the existence of Jesus as an historical figure. We have found that
they have no legitimacy as evidence. Now we must examine the last line
of would-be evidence, the notion that Jewish and pagan historians
recorded his existence.
Jewish Sources
It is sometimes claimed that Jewish writings hostile to Christianity
prove that the ancient Jews knew of Jesus and that such writings prove
the historicity of the man Jesus. But in fact, Jewish writings prove
no such thing, as L. Gordon Rylands' book Did Jesus Ever Live? pointed
out nearly seventy years ago:
…all the knowledge which the Rabbis had of Jesus was obtained by them
from the Gospels. Seeing that Jews, even in the present more critical
age, take it for granted that the figure of a real man stands behind
the Gospel narrative, one need not be surprised if, in the second
century, Jews did not think of questioning that assumption. It is
certain, however, that some did question it. For Justin, in his
Dialogue with Trypho, represents the Jew Trypho as saying, "ye follow
an empty rumour and make a Christ for yourselves." "If he was born and
lived somewhere he is entirely unknown."
That the writers of the Talmud [4th-5th centuries CE, FRZ] had no
independent knowledge of Jesus is proved by the fact that they
confounded him with two different men neither of whom can have been
he. Evidently no other Jesus with whom they could identify the Gospel
Jesus was known to them. One of these, Jesus ben Pandira, reputed a
wonder-worker, is said to have been stoned to death and then hung on a
tree on the eve of a Passover in the reign of Alexander Jannæus
(106-79 BC) at Jerusalem. The other, Jesus ben Stada, whose date is
uncertain, but who may have lived in the first third of the second
century CE, is also said to have been stoned and hanged on the eve of
a Passover, but at Lydda. There may be some confusion here; but it is
plain that the Rabbis had no knowledge of Jesus apart from what they
had read in the Gospels. 11
Although Christian apologists have listed a number of ancient
historians who allegedly were witnesses to the existence of Jesus, the
only two that consistently are cited are Josephus, a Pharisee, and
Tacitus, a pagan. Since Josephus was born in the year 37 CE, and
Tacitus was born in 55, neither could have been an eye-witness of
Jesus, who supposedly was crucified in 30 CE. So we could really end
our article here. But someone might claim that these historians
nevertheless had access to reliable sources, now lost, which recorded
the existence and execution of our friend JC. So it is desirable that
we take a look at these two supposed witnesses.
In the case of Josephus, whose Antiquities of the Jews was written in
93 CE, about the same time as the gospels, we find him saying some
things quite impossible for a good Pharisee to have said:
About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to
call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a
teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many
Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon
hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had
condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come
to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day
he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had
prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And
the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this
day not disappeared. 12
Now no loyal Pharisee would say Jesus had been the Messiah. That
Josephus could report that Jesus had been restored to life "on the
third day" and not be convinced by this astonishing bit of information
is beyond belief. Worse yet is the fact that the story of Jesus is
intrusive in Josephus' narrative and can be seen to be an
interpolation even in an English translation of the Greek text. Right
after the wondrous passage quoted above, Josephus goes on to say,
"About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into
disorder..." Josephus had previously been talking about awful things
Pilate had done to the Jews in general, and one can easily understand
why an interpolator would have chosen this particular spot. But his
ineptitude in not changing the wording of the bordering text left a
"literary seam" (what rhetoricians might term aporia) that sticks out
like a pimpled nose.
The fact that Josephus was not convinced by this or any other
Christian claim is clear from the statement of the church father
Origen (ca. 185-ca. 154 CE) - who dealt extensively with Josephus -
that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, i.e., as "the
Christ." Moreover, the disputed passage was never cited by early
Christian apologists such as Clement of Alexandria (ca.150-ca. 215
CE), who certainly would have made use of such ammunition had he had
it!
The first person to make mention of this obviously forged
interpolation into the text of Josephus' history was the church father
Eusebius, in 324 CE. It is quite likely that Eusebius himself did some
of the forging. As late as 891, Photius in his Bibliotheca, which
devoted three "Codices" to the works of Josephus, shows no awareness
of the passage whatsoever even though he reviews the sections of
theAntiquities in which one would expect the disputed passage to be
found. Clearly, the testimonial was absent from his copy of
Antiquities of the Jews. 13 The question can probably be laid to rest
by noting that as late as the sixteenth century, according to Rylands,
14 a scholar named Vossius had a manuscript of Josephus from which the
passage was wanting.
Apologists, as they grasp for ever more slender straws with which to
support their historical Jesus, point out that the passage quoted
above is not the only mention of Jesus made by Josephus. In Bk. 20,
Ch. 9, §1 of Antiquities of the Jews one also finds the following
statement in surviving manuscripts:
Ananus… convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a
man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and
certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and
delivered them up to be stoned.
It must be admitted that this passage does not intrude into the text
as does the one previously quoted. In fact, it is very well integrated
into Josephus' story. That it has been modified from whatever
Josephus' source may have said (remember, here too, Josephus could not
have been an eye-witness) is nevertheless extremely probable. The
crucial word in this passage is the name James (Jacob in Greek and
Hebrew). It is very possible that this very common name was in
Josephus' source material. It might even have been a reference to
James the Just, a first-century character we have good reason to
believe indeed existed. Because he appears to have born the title
Brother of the Lord, h it would have been natural to relate him to the
Jesus character. It is quite possible that Josephus actually referred
to a James "the Brother of the Lord," and this was changed by
Christian copyists (remember that although Josephus was a Jew, his
text was preserved only by Christians!) to "Brother of Jesus" - adding
then for good measure "who was called Christ."
According to William Benjamin Smith's skeptical classic Ecce Deus, 15
there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted
passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts - showing
that such interpolation had already been taking place before the time
of Origen but did not ever succeed in supplanting the original text
universally.
Pagan Authors Before considering the alleged witness of Pagan authors,
it is worth noting some of the things that we should find recorded in
their histories if the biblical stories are in fact true. One passage
from Matthew should suffice to point out the significance of the
silence of secular writers:
Matt. 27:45. Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the
land unto the ninth hour... Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud
voice, yielded up the ghost. 51. And, behold, the veil of the temple
was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake,
and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of
the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his
resurrection [exposed for 3 days?], and went into the holy city, and
appeared unto many.
Wouldn't the Greeks and Romans have noticed - and recorded - such
darkness occurring at a time of the month when a solar eclipse was
impossible? Wouldn't someone have remembered - and recorded - the name
of at least one of those "saints" who climbed out of the grave and
went wandering downtown in the mall? If Jesus did anything of
significance at all, wouldn't someone have noticed? If he didn't do
anything significant, how could he have stimulated the formation of a
new religion?
Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this
Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in
hisAnnals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's
persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour,
Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements
of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd
styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone
the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the
procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this
passage:
[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to
believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons
for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had
told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying
procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half
of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded earlier
events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his
correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed man
Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper
name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as
"the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to
Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians
their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the Roman
authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The
Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself
never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any
of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything
of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient
Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda - an
unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the
works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of
collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian
persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from
Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the
author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the
passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was
first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de
Spire himself to have been the forger. i
So much for the evidence purporting to prove that Jesus was an
historical figure. We have not, of course, proved that Jesus did not
exist. We have only showed that all evidence alleged to support such a
claim is without substance. But of course, that is all we need to
show. The burden of proof is always on the one who claims that
something exists or that something once happened. We have no
obligation to try to prove a universal negative. j
It will be argued by die-hard believers that all my arguments "from
silence" prove nothing and they will quote the aphorism, "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence." But is the negative evidence I
have referred to the same as absence of evidence? It might be
instructive to consider how a hypothetical but similar problem might
be dealt with in the physical sciences.
Imagine that someone has claimed that the USA had carried out atomic
weapons tests on a particular Caribbean island in 1943. Would the lack
of reports of mushroom-cloud sightings at the time be evidence of
absence, or absence of evidence? (Remember, the Caribbean during the
war years was under intense surveillance by many different factions.)
Would it be necessary to go to the island today to scan its surface
for the radioactive contamination that would have to be there if
nuclear explosions had taken place there? If indeed, we went there
with our Geiger-counters and found no trace of radioactive
contamination, would that be evidence of absence, or absence of
evidence? In this case, what superficially looks like absence of
evidence is really negative evidence, and thus legitimately could be
construed as evidence of absence. Can the negative evidence adduced
above concerning Jesus be very much less compelling?
It would be intellectually satisfying to learn just how it was that
the Jesus character condensed out of the religious atmosphere of the
first century. But scholars are at work on the problem. The
publication of many examples of so-called wisdom literature, along
with the materials from the Essene community at Qumran by the Dead Sea
and the Gnostic literature from the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, has
given us a much more detailed picture of the communal
psychopathologies which infested the Eastern Mediterranean world at
the turn of the era. It is not unrealistic to expect that we will be
able, before long, to reconstruct in reasonable detail the stages by
which Jesus came to have a biography.
They Should Have Noticed
John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review
and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker
Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who
lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus
is supposed to have lived:
Josephus
Philo-Judæus
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Phædrus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in
the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of
Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the
works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of
Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor,
we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or
Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history
concerning the foundation of Christianity.
AS promised, pics of Hitler at a Christmas party.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Even if there were an itinerant preacher and teacher named Jesus,
>there's no reason to claim that He is a god or godlike or the son of a
>god. No evidence supports that amazing claim. No evidence supports the
>claim that gods exist.
No, anybody who believes the Bible is 100% literally true has to
accept that there are more than one god. If they reject this, they
aren't far from those of us who don't believe in one more god than
they don't believe in.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
to be contemporary?
Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
Howard Brazee
<Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
>Jesus' existence is only taken seriously by a small cadre of zealots
>who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue their
>Christian agenda.
A large cadre of Christians and Muslims take his existence seriously.
Uncle Vic
news:oaaul61g8detf6i89...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>>historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
> to be contemporary?
>
> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>
Do any of those documents claim Aristotle performed inhuman miracles, or
was the son of some god in the sky?
That's the difference between "Jesus" and actual historical people.
Christopher A. Lee
<urkiddi...@nonono.com> wrote:
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in
>news:oaaul61g8detf6i89...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>>>historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>>
>> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
>> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
>> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>>
>> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
>> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
>> to be contemporary?
>>
>> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>>
>
>Do any of those documents claim Aristotle performed inhuman miracles, or
>was the son of some god in the sky?
Aristotle is a conclusion from multiple corroborating sources.
Jesus is a presupposition with no evidence outside the Christian
tradition.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:39:54 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>Even if there were an itinerant preacher and teacher named Jesus,
>>there's no reason to claim that He is a god or godlike or the son of a
>>god. No evidence supports that amazing claim. No evidence supports the
>>claim that gods exist.
>
>No, anybody who believes the Bible is 100% literally true has to
>accept that there are more than one god. If they reject this, they
>aren't far from those of us who don't believe in one more god than
>they don't believe in.
Yeah, but that's faith, that is. You can believe in a lot of gods as
long as you don't ask them to do anything.
Josef Balluch
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>>historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
What about Vishnu? Does Vishnu exist? There is a book somewhere that sez he
does ....
> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> there a critical number of documents needed to have ?
There would appear to be a lower bound as my statement above indicates.
...
> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
Aristotle's accomplishments are fairly well documented and do not appear to
have been disputed, even by his contemporaries.
Regards,
Josef
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless ... its
falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it
endeavors to establish.
-- David Hume
Cormac
There is no Gospel according to Jesus Christ. He probably existed but
without the miracles.
Cormac
.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> >historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> We have *some* evidence.
So provide it, please.
> The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> it does exist.
As does the Greek Homeric Hymns, the Egyptian "Book Of The Dead", the
Indian "Rig Vita", the Japanese "Nihon Shoki", and thousands of other
expressions of humanity's ancient superstitous past.
> How many early documents would you require to have a
> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
A Roman record of his arrest & execution would do.
That being said, such a thing would only be evidence that your Jesus
actually existed..and not evidence that the man was a god. Or even the
son of a god.
> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
> to be contemporary?
Yes.
> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
No.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Martin Edwards
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
> A reader writes:
>
> Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
> regarding whether Jesus even existed as a historical figure (yes,
> people are still talking about that). They contended that there is no
> sufficient evidence, pointing out that that usual non-Christian
> sources (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) were not
> contemporaries of Jesus and therefore only had the “hearsay” of
> believers to rely upon, and furthermore that the believers themselves
> could not be trusted because, obviously, they had a vested interest in
> ensuring that Jesus was regarded as a real person.
And?
Martin Edwards
> On Feb 18, 9:25 pm, Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo<ckdbig...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>>> historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>>
>> We have *some* evidence.
>
> So provide it, please.
>
>> The Bible is anything but convincing, but
>> it does exist.
>
> As does the Greek Homeric Hymns, the Egyptian "Book Of The Dead", the
> Indian "Rig Vita", the Japanese "Nihon Shoki", and thousands of other
> expressions of humanity's ancient superstitous past.
>
Pastor Dave
<jante...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
> About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine
> the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded
> at what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to show
> how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged existence
> of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is more
> reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to
> account for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus
> were a fiction than if he once were real.
>
> Burden of Proof
>
> Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be
> a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized
> that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic
> in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof
> weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some
> process exists. If someone claims that he never has to
> shave because every morning before he can get to the
> bathroom he is assaulted by a six-foot rabbit with extremely
> sharp teeth who trims his whiskers better than a razor -
> if someone makes such a claim, no skeptic need worry
> about constructing a disproof. Unless evidence for the
> claim is produced, the skeptic can treat the claim as false.
> This is nothing more than sane, every-day practice.
Actually, you're (or the writer's) in error here.
POINT 1: Comparing proving the existence of Jesus, a human being,
to a "six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers
better than a razor" is not in any sense logical.
POINT 2: The main evidence for Jesus is textual. And when it comes
to textual criticism (the science), it is the opposite. It is assumed
to be true, unless proved false. That of course, does not include
stories told as fiction.
The objection by the critic is to the supernatural. However, this
is a bias and not a reasonable objection, for the following reasons;
a) One is free to be critical of statements of supernatural power,
but the person themselves is another story.
b) Textual evidence for other figures in ancient history is put aside
and the person is assumed to have existed.
b) An unfair burden is put on the textual evidence for Jesus and
it is not due to the supernatural component, but peoples' bias.
As an example of both the assumption of truth and the unfair
burden put on the record of Jesus, we have Caesars that have
but one piece of textual evidence for them and nothing else
and who claimed to be "God above all gods" and yet, the
skeptics do not question that they existed, even given the
supernatural statements and the paucity of evidence for them.
In fact,the skeptics do not even question that they existed.
d) The texts of the NT are automatically rejected out of hand
because thy are the NT. However, that is not reasonable,
considering that they were just texts that were later
compiled together and that does not add to, nor take away
from their truth. These skeptics act like the plan was to
write "the Bible". The plan was simply to make a record
and they were no considered "religious texts".
Luke 1:1-4
1) Since many took in hand to draw up an account concerning
the matters having been borne out among us,
2) as those from the beginning delivered to us, becoming
eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,
3) it seemed good also to me, having traced out all things
accurately from the first, to write in order to you, most
excellent Theophilus,
4) that you may know the certainty concerning the words
which you were taught.
e) Even though there is more textual evidence for Jesus
than any other figure in ancient history, it is unfairly
discounted and also the other texts mentioning Him,
written by pagan unbelievers of the time, officials
included, are discounted by the skeptic.
So when the skeptic says "Prove it!", what they really mean is;
"Okay, I am going to take away all of the evidence that would
be considered evidence if we were talking about anyone else
and that I would surely accept if we were talking about anyone
else and even if supernatural statements were made and then
I am going to demand that you prove his existence!"
> Unlike N. T. Wright, quoted at the beginning of this article,
> a small number of scholars have tried over the centuries to
> prove that Jesus was in fact historical.
By the standard employed when using textual evidence, Jesus
is well beyond proved historical and proved beyond any other
figure in ancient history and that is a fact and no amount of
denial will change this fact! Any skepticism is that due to bias
and bias only and is therefore not borne out of any scientific
approach to the subject of His existence! Jesus existed, period!
There is more textual evidence for Jesus, than for any other
figure in ancient history and that by far; leaps and bounds!
Now, if you want to believe that people were fooled by some
magician and that there was no real, supernatural component
to His life, well, that's up to you. But He did exist, end of story!
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
"Leftists seem to be tolerant of just about everything
except dissenting opinions." - Unknown
Les Hellawell
As we have seen people can rationalise anything to themselves. They
can rationalise the earth is flat, we were all created, man never
landed on the moon, and that the entire universe revolves around
them. They can claim Clinton was the best or worst ever President, the
Iraq war was right, the Iraq war was wrong and 70,000,000 were killed
in Russian by wicked atheists. Unless you become a better expert on
the subject than them they can quite easily out argue you because you
will not be equipped to see the flaws, illogic, half truths, dowright
lies, fabrications, omissions and misunderstandings deliberate or
genuine. And they always present their arguments with the absolute
conviction they are right and in possesion of the absolute truth and
will forcefully express it (usually a good sign they are talking
nonesense.
The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods into
existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
evidence'. We need not rationalisation, no lies, no fabrications
or any of the other tricks. We do not even need to be experts on
religion. Just ask them for evidence to show how they know
their god exists. We know they have none, they know they
have none. We have asked so many times now it would
be silly to ask them again because we know they have no answer.
Thus endeth theism. It is dead, the fraud has been exposed,
all that is left is the last rattle of the dead beast. It may take
a while, not our lifetime perhaps, yet it is dead. Just listen
to the bleatings and screaming of the men of 'faith' if you
are not convinced of this. Of course they blame us but
we are not responsible for their inability to show their god
exists, we are just their scapegoats, we are just the first to
realise it.
If they are happy with their heavily rationalised beliefs fine, it
is their lives not ours and not for us to intefere, but they cannot
just keep their pet beliefs to themselves can they? They are
so self-centred and narcicc - (ow the ell do you type that word),
so full of their own self-importance they just have to have
everybody else sharing their stupid beliefs, and will bore to death
anybody they can grab hold of with them. Krishna is real,
Phsychiatrist are con men, evolution is a lie, Jesus will save us
from dad, the Bible is literally true and so on. We seem to attract
all thse nut cases believers with their cranky beliefs here like
flies round a honey jar and boy some of them are about at nutty as it
gets.
Atheists are not responsible for Christianity
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
Yorkshire -The White Rose County
SolomonW
They say you can convince anyone that anything is right, if they are
intelligent.
Howard Brazee
<urkiddi...@nonono.com> wrote:
>> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>>
>
>Do any of those documents claim Aristotle performed inhuman miracles, or
>was the son of some god in the sky?
>
>That's the difference between "Jesus" and actual historical people.
That difference isn't whether a historical Jesus existed, it's only
whether such a person has the attributes ascribed to him.
Not at all the same thing.
There was a historical Vlad the Impaler, not believing that he was
supernatural doesn't change whether I should believe he existed.
Howard Brazee
>> We have *some* evidence.
>
>So provide it, please.
The Bible does exist.
>> The Bible is anything but convincing, but
>> it does exist.
>
>As does the Greek Homeric Hymns, the Egyptian "Book Of The Dead", the
>Indian "Rig Vita", the Japanese "Nihon Shoki", and thousands of other
>expressions of humanity's ancient superstitous past.
They also are *some* evidence. And there are supporting documents
from others (Most all by True Believers, but some by people who admit
to being writers of fiction).
>> How many early documents would you require to have a
>> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
>A Roman record of his arrest & execution would do.
That would be more than a tiny bit. I am arguing against the claim
that there is zero evidence. Not that there is convincing evidence.
>That being said, such a thing would only be evidence that your Jesus
>actually existed..and not evidence that the man was a god. Or even the
>son of a god.
My Jesus? I'm an atheist. Evidence that a historical Jesus
existed is not evidence that the miracles ascribed to him happened.
>> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
>> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
>> to be contemporary?
>
>Yes.
I agree that contemporary evidence would be more convincing. I
disagree that later evidence is zero evidence.
>> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>
>No.
--
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>They say you can convince anyone that anything is right, if they are
>intelligent.
Whoever has said this hasn't observed the real world.
Or else uses the No True Scotsman argument.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:53:11 -0800 (PST), "panam...@hotmail.com"
><panam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> We have *some* evidence.
>>
>>So provide it, please.
>
>The Bible does exist.
Yes, but it is demonstrably inaccurate from verse 1.
>>> The Bible is anything but convincing, but
>>> it does exist.
>>
>>As does the Greek Homeric Hymns, the Egyptian "Book Of The Dead", the
>>Indian "Rig Vita", the Japanese "Nihon Shoki", and thousands of other
>>expressions of humanity's ancient superstitous past.
>
>They also are *some* evidence. And there are supporting documents
>from others (Most all by True Believers, but some by people who admit
>to being writers of fiction).
They are evidence of what people believe, not of what is correct.
>>> How many early documents would you require to have a
>>> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>>
>>A Roman record of his arrest & execution would do.
>
>That would be more than a tiny bit. I am arguing against the claim
>that there is zero evidence. Not that there is convincing evidence.
Given the nature of the claims in the Bible about Jesus, the
clearly-edited claims of the Bible aren't even enough to call a grand
jury.
>>That being said, such a thing would only be evidence that your Jesus
>>actually existed..and not evidence that the man was a god. Or even the
>>son of a god.
>
>My Jesus? I'm an atheist. Evidence that a historical Jesus
>existed is not evidence that the miracles ascribed to him happened.
Depends on what you mean by 'historical' Jesus. If you are just talking
about an itinerant teacher, I agree that the stories are inspired by one
or more such rabbis, one of which may have even had the most popular
name in the region.
>>> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
>>> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
>>> to be contemporary?
>>
>>Yes.
>
>I agree that contemporary evidence would be more convincing. I
>disagree that later evidence is zero evidence.
Again, what exactly are you arguing for? Are you arguing that the Jesus
portrayed in the Bible and Christianity existed, that there is evidence
that He was the Son of God and is part of the Trinity? If that is the
case, you have failed. If you are only arguing the most minimal "Someone
like Jesus might have actually existed, except for all the miracles and
God stuff" then you are arguing against a very lightly stuffed
scarecrow.
jantero
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:23:44 -0800 (PST), jantero
In accusing others of error, you show how stunted you are in dealing
with logical arguments.
The author of the piece was using a simple argument to demonstrate the
neccesity of proof in making claims for the existence of something,
and on whom the duty of proof falls.
The fact that you couldn't understand that is indicative of a sort of
brain damage that sets in with people who have been brainwashed by
cultic institutions.
> POINT 2: The main evidence for Jesus is textual. And when it comes
> to textual criticism (the science), it is the opposite. It is assumed
> to be true, unless proved false. That of course, does not include
> stories told as fiction.
Again, you display an inability for any kind of logical thinking.
There are all sorts of textual sources for Zeus and Neptune, etc.
Nobody thinks they actually exist, or ever did exist.
There are all sorts of "texts" in existance about all sorts of things
that aren't true. Do you think the "elders of zion" writeup has to be
taken as truth, unless proven false?
You lack the ability to reason even at a high schooler's level.
You go downhill for here, so <snip>
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>There was a historical Vlad the Impaler, not believing that he was
>supernatural doesn't change whether I should believe he existed.
I think your point would have been conveyed better with "There was a
historical Vlad Dracula," since the vampire isn't called Vlad the
Impaler, he's called Dracula.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.ethshar.com/TheFinalCalling01.html
Bill
> Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote innews:oaaul61g8detf6i89...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> >>historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> > We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> > it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> > tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> > We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> > there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
> > to be contemporary?
>
> > Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>
> Do any of those documents claim Aristotle performed inhuman miracles, or
> was the son of some god in the sky?
>
> That's the difference between "Jesus" and actual historical people.
>
You obviously haven't thought about any of this. Your "logic" is
strange: Jesus didn't exist because he is said to have performed
miracles or people said he was the son of God. Explain how that works.
If someone said something similar about you, like you had super-human
intelligence for instance, would you immediately not exist? Your post
proves that no one will make such claims about you of course, so
you're probably safe from instantaneous extinction, but your
"point"won't be so lucky.
Bill
Mickey
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:15:25 +0000, Les Hellawell wrote:
But, not if they are totally brainwashed.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:02:57 -0700, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
Before they can be considered as evidence, the Bible has to be shown
to be an authoritative source in the real world.
Which it can't be. It is the only source for the majority of events of
the OT and the all those in the NT.
And is demonstrably unreliable as it describes things that never
happened, physical impossibilities, earlier myths retold in a first
century Jude an setting, etc.
>>>That being said, such a thing would only be evidence that your Jesus
>>>actually existed..and not evidence that the man was a god. Or even the
>>>son of a god.
>>
>>My Jesus? I'm an atheist. Evidence that a historical Jesus
>>existed is not evidence that the miracles ascribed to him happened.
>
>Depends on what you mean by 'historical' Jesus. If you are just talking
>about an itinerant teacher, I agree that the stories are inspired by one
>or more such rabbis, one of which may have even had the most popular
>name in the region.
But if they claim this is somehow evidence for the a historical Jesus
as the man described by the gospels (even forgetting the supernatural
bits and the obvious fiction), they have to say which of these
itinerant teachers or rabbis it actually was.
Until then it's just rationalisation.
>>>> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
>>>> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
>>>> to be contemporary?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>>I agree that contemporary evidence would be more convincing. I
>>disagree that later evidence is zero evidence.
>
>Again, what exactly are you arguing for? Are you arguing that the Jesus
>portrayed in the Bible and Christianity existed, that there is evidence
>that He was the Son of God and is part of the Trinity? If that is the
>case, you have failed. If you are only arguing the most minimal "Someone
>like Jesus might have actually existed, except for all the miracles and
>God stuff" then you are arguing against a very lightly stuffed
>scarecrow.
The historical process requires corroborating evidence from multiple
sources. Until then it's just "somebody says".
This is used to determine the reliability of the source.
But when the only source is a work telling religionists what to
believe, describes supposedly major events that never happened,
includes impossibilities, repeat earlier myths and legends etc...
James Dale Guckert
> Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
I call BS right here.
--
JDG
John Briggs
Any historical evidence for that?
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo<ckdb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>> historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
> to be contemporary?
>
> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
We do actually have writings by Aristotle.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
The point was about historical evidence independent of claims that Jesus
is said to have performed miracles or that he was the son of God.
--
John Briggs
Stephen Harker
> My Jesus? I'm an atheist. Evidence that a historical Jesus
> existed is not evidence that the miracles ascribed to him happened.
Additionally, and in context, the miracles appear to be typical of the
period. For example in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_in_the_Greco-Roman_world> we see a
comment:
>===================================================================
There are several notable historical personages of the 1st century CE
who have many of the literary characteristics earlier associated with
the Greek "divine men" (Orpheus, Pythagoras and Empedocles). Of
particular note are Jesus the Christ, Simon Magus and Apollonius of
Tyana.[71] From an outsider's point of view Jesus was a typical
miracle-worker. He exorcised daemons, healed the sick, made prophecies
and raised the dead.
>===================================================================
--
Stephen Harker s.ha...@adfa.edu.au
PEMS http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
UNSW@ADFA
Howard Brazee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Before they can be considered as evidence, the Bible has to be shown
>to be an authoritative source in the real world.
I haven't heard that that is a requirement for something to be
considered evidence. If some non-educated person says he saw a rare
animal that we fear may be extinct, that is evidence enough for
someone who is an authority to follow up with some further checking.
If such an authority and checking were not possible, the evidence
doesn't change. It just remains unconvincing.
Howard Brazee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>But if they claim this is somehow evidence for the a historical Jesus
>as the man described by the gospels (even forgetting the supernatural
>bits and the obvious fiction), they have to say which of these
>itinerant teachers or rabbis it actually was.
That claim just moves its plausibility from where I would say
"probably", to where I would say "show me".
But I'm not a believer in the supernatural and have high requirements
to be convinced. But my lack of willingness to accept unlikely
evidence is about me, not about the evidence.
Howard Brazee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>The historical process requires corroborating evidence from multiple
>sources. Until then it's just "somebody says".
>
>This is used to determine the reliability of the source.
>
>But when the only source is a work telling religionists what to
>believe, describes supposedly major events that never happened,
>includes impossibilities, repeat earlier myths and legends etc...
I have no disagreement with this. The evidence of one document is
minimal. The fact that there are True Believers does not change the
quality of this evidence. Neither is the fact that the miracles
mentioned are so far away from what we see in this world - and the
True Believers are so similar to other True Believers who believe
religions that conflict with this belief.
The quality of this evidence is minimal. But not zero.
Note: I am much more willing to argue about such details with people
who on my side. Irrationally, I expect them to be more from their
arguments than I expect from the other side.
Bill
I've tried that too. People posting here cannot separate the
historical reality of the man, Jesus, from what's said about him. This
usually manifests itself as the dimwitted claim that Jesus could not
have existed because he did impossible things. When that is shown to
be nonsense, the claim will then be that since there's no extra-
Biblical evidence of his existence, he must not have existed. When
that gets shot down, as it always does, the last resort is a variation
of the first one, namely Jesus could not have existed since people
said he preformed miracles and miracles are impossible so anyone who
performs a miracle must not exist. This really is about the sum total
of the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus although these may
take many forms.
Bill
John Briggs
> historical reality of the man, Jesus, from what's said about him. This
> usually manifests itself as the dimwitted claim that Jesus could not
> have existed because he did impossible things. When that is shown to
> be nonsense, the claim will then be that since there's no extra-
> Biblical evidence of his existence, he must not have existed. When
> that gets shot down, as it always does, the last resort is a variation
> of the first one, namely Jesus could not have existed since people
> said he preformed miracles and miracles are impossible so anyone who
> performs a miracle must not exist. This really is about the sum total
> of the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus although these may
> take many forms.
Tell me more about this extra-Biblical evidence of his existence.
--
John Briggs
ADR
Of course, you are right on this argument. Because certain things
ascribed to Jesus are highly unlikely, it does not mean that he did
not exist. But they reverse is also true. They are not an evidence
that he existed.
Personally, despite the lack of primary evidence, I think that Jesus
existed and he was one of various eschatological prophets in Palestine
at that time. I think that his existence is totally
inconsequential. He was made into what he is in the literature and
religion by Paul of Tarsus. Since Paul took Jesus way out of the
Jewish milieu and since he "taught" way before any written gospel had
been assembled, it is impossible to assess how much influence he had
in the writing of these documents and how the "historical" Jesus
intersected with the "fictional" one. I do not think that we would
never know.
Christopher A. Lee
Standard bill lie - the same kind of deliberate misrepresentaion he
has been doing ever since he crashed the atheist group in 1993.
>>> The point was about historical evidence independent of claims that Jesus
>>> is said to have performed miracles or that he was the son of God.
>>
>> I've tried that too. People posting here cannot separate the
>> historical reality of the man, Jesus, from what's said about him. This
>> usually manifests itself as the dimwitted claim that Jesus could not
>> have existed because he did impossible things. When that is shown to
>> be nonsense, the claim will then be that since there's no extra-
>> Biblical evidence of his existence, he must not have existed. When
>> that gets shot down, as it always does, the last resort is a variation
>> of the first one, namely Jesus could not have existed since people
>> said he preformed miracles and miracles are impossible so anyone who
>> performs a miracle must not exist. This really is about the sum total
>> of the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus although these may
>> take many forms.
Bill projects theists here.
There is zero, zip, zilch, nada evidence outside Christian tradition
for an historical "Jesus the man". What little evidence there is, is
against it.
But then Bill knows this, so why does he keep pretending?
>Tell me more about this extra-Biblical evidence of his existence.
There is none - otherwise they would have provided it long ago.
John Briggs
We can make educated guesses: Paul (in his genuine letters) is not only
unaware of most of what is in the Gospels, he is also unaware of much of
the Acts of the Apostles :-)
--
John Briggs
Pastor Dave
<jante...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>> POINT 1: Comparing proving the existence of Jesus, a human being,
>> to a "six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers
>> better than a razor" is not in any sense logical.
>
> In accusing others of error, you show how stunted you are in dealing
> with logical arguments.
Anyone who makes that comparison is not being logical.
Anyone who defends that approach is not being logical.
>Again, you display an inability for any kind of logical thinking.
>
>There are all sorts of textual sources for Zeus and Neptune, etc.
>Nobody thinks they actually exist, or ever did exist.
This shows how little you know, or research. Neither of those
characters are put forth as historical characters, with a time
frame for their birth that could be traced back. To put forth
such a claim at that time, when those people lived, claiming
that the person was born and lived and that, right amongst
them an it not be true, would have prevented its continued
existence as truth.
You insult me and yet, you are a ridiculous little man who
operates from pure bias and hatred of God and you know it.
Goodbye. I have no time for ridiculous people.
--
Pastor Dave
The best Bible software: http://www.theword.net/ is free!
When Christianity becomes religion it leaves the heart hungry.
ADR
> > Personally, despite the lack of primary evidence, I think that Jesus
> > existed and he was one of various eschatological prophets in Palestine
> > at that time. I think that his existence is totally
> > inconsequential. He was made into what he is in the literature and
> > religion by Paul of Tarsus. Since Paul took Jesus way out of the
> > Jewish milieu and since he "taught" way before any written gospel had
> > been assembled, it is impossible to assess how much influence he had
> > in the writing of these documents and how the "historical" Jesus
> > intersected with the "fictional" one. I do not think that we would
> > never know.
>
> We can make educated guesses: Paul (in his genuine letters) is not only
> unaware of most of what is in the Gospels, he is also unaware of much of
> the Acts of the Apostles :-)
> --
> John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course. How much his teachings and the theological writings and
musings of Palestine at that time influenced these Gospels, we would
also never know.
Bill
Too bad you will understand the humor in your remarks.
Bill
T Guy
We'll have to hope that you will understand the humour in yours.
Meanwhile, while you're working on that one, how about that extra-
Biblical evidence of Jesus's existence?
John Briggs
Again, please - this time in English?
--
John Briggs
Bill
There's several possibilities here: Jesus existed but performed no
miracles. Jesus existed and did perform miracles. Jesus never existed
and there were no miracles, Jesus never existed but there were
miracles attributed to a fictional Jesus. It would be a miracle if
anyone ever makes any sense of any of this.
Now, why even argue against the historicity of Jesus when all that's
really needed is to provide evidence for the impossibility of
miracles? This should be easy since all we have to do is show that
every event has a wholly natural explanation which is really, really
easy since that's the only kind of explanation we accept anyway. Since
we have decided in advance that there cannot be miracles, the actual
existence of Jesus becomes irrelevant.
Granted, miracles are miraculous exactly because they are impossible
which means no scientific (natural) explanation can possibly work.This
being obviously true, even to those who wish it otherwise, the problem
of the historicity of Jesus comes roaring back again. However,
challenging the historicity of Jesus then becomes somewhat pointless
since we still have the whole issue of miracles to deal with. We
really can't use the historicity of Jesus to discredit the possibility
of miracles or the impossibilities to challenge the historicity of
Jesus.
Bill
Irish Palantine
That he existed or didn't do the water - wine trick?
rincewind
wrote:
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
Volume 2 - The New Testament, he has one paragraph on the idea that
Jesus didn't actually exist. He basically dismisses the claim and
shows exactly why.
Now if the self-proclaimed "penultimate agnostic" (although some claim
he was an atheist) can't accept the idea that Jesus was fictional,
that's pretty much good enough for me!
Uncle Vic
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:06:11 -0600, Uncle Vic
> <urkiddi...@nonono.com> wrote:
>
>>> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>>>
>>
>>Do any of those documents claim Aristotle performed inhuman miracles, or
>>was the son of some god in the sky?
>>
>>That's the difference between "Jesus" and actual historical people.
>
> That difference isn't whether a historical Jesus existed, it's only
> whether such a person has the attributes ascribed to him.
>
> Not at all the same thing.
>
> There was a historical Vlad the Impaler, not believing that he was
> supernatural doesn't change whether I should believe he existed.
>
I think it's beside the point whether a man named Jesus existed 2000 years
ago. It was a very common name.
The one described in the bible did not exist, since it is not possible for
a man (or anything else we know of) to raise the dead, etc, etc, etc.
--
Uncle Vic
AA # 2011
Member EAC Bitchslapping Dept.
Uncle Vic
6318be...@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
> I've tried that too. People posting here cannot separate the
> historical reality of the man, Jesus, from what's said about him. This
> usually manifests itself as the dimwitted claim that Jesus could not
> have existed because he did impossible things.
Why is that dimwitted, other than the fact that you want it to be
dimwitted?
> When that is shown to
> be nonsense, the claim will then be that since there's no extra-
> Biblical evidence of his existence, he must not have existed. When
> that gets shot down, as it always does, the last resort is a variation
> of the first one, namely Jesus could not have existed since people
> said he preformed miracles and miracles are impossible so anyone who
> performs a miracle must not exist. This really is about the sum total
> of the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus although these may
> take many forms.
Nonsense.
SolomonW
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:20:24 +1100, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>They say you can convince anyone that anything is right, if they are
>>intelligent.
>
> Whoever has said this hasn't observed the real world.
What real world?
I think the history of the second half of the twenty century is full of it.
>
> Or else uses the No True Scotsman argument.
Many others, my favourite is the strawman arguement.
Cormac
>
> > There is no Gospel according to Jesus Christ. He probably existed but
> > without the miracles.
>
> Any historical evidence for that?
> --
> John Briggs- Hide quoted text -
>
>There is no evidence for the existence of a Gospel according to Jesus Christ. The reference to him in orthodox history are brief and fragmentary. The most sighificant by Josephus is clearly a forgery.
Cormac.
Olrik
Shit, it's not even a bad dodge...
> Bill
Josef Balluch
...
> As we have seen people can rationalise anything to themselves.
It goes deeper than that. Many people MUST rationalize. It is a survival
mechanism. We are programmed for survival but we are cognizant that some
day we must die. This creates an obvious conundrum: why fight each day to
survive when all we are doing is delaying the inevitable? Fortunately for
these people, rationalization comes to the rescue. Maybe death is not the
end; maybe there is eternal life. They now have a reason to fight another
day. Without this rationalization mankind would likely have died out long
ago, literally due to lack of interest.
> Unless you become a better expert on
> the subject than them they can quite easily out argue you because you
> will not be equipped to see the flaws, illogic, half truths, dowright
> lies, fabrications, omissions and misunderstandings deliberate or
> genuine.
This only works with a rather small subset of theists who are capable of
rational discourse. The rest are simply too frightened to think.
> And they always present their arguments with the absolute
> conviction they are right and in possesion of the absolute truth and
> will forcefully express it (usually a good sign they are talking
> nonesense.
Ask them if they need a deity. If the answer is "no" then they likely would
be capable of rational discourse.
...
> Just ask them for evidence to show how they know
> their god exists. We know they have none, they know they
> have none. We have asked so many times now it would
> be silly to ask them again because we know they have no answer.
Yes. As stated, they are motivated by fear. Evidence is often irrelevant to
them.
> Thus endeth theism. It is dead, the fraud has been exposed,
> all that is left is the last rattle of the dead beast.
Actually the fraud has been known for thousands of years, but it is
difficult to convey this to the fearful. As a popular saying goes: you
can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.
...
> We seem to attract
> all thse nut cases believers with their cranky beliefs here like
> flies round a honey jar and boy some of them are about at nutty as it
> gets.
>
> Atheists are not responsible for Christianity
Quite so, but it has been well noted that christianity has produced many
atheists. One of the reasons is as you noted: because of their behaviour in
this forum. Their behaviour is rather obnoxious but it is actually
something we can treasure.
Regards,
Josef
I might have become a Christian had I not met so many.
-- Mahatma Gandhi
ADR
The impossibility of miracles does not really undermine the probablity
that a prophet called Jesus was active in Palestine in the beginning
of the 1st century AD and that he was eventually executed by the
Romans, who were always suspicious of disruptive theological movements
that had the possibility of upsetting the status quo.
Miraculous events were connected with a variety of persons, either
modern or antique, the historicity of which is beyond any doubt.
Notably, many miraculous events have been connected with Alexander the
Great and many, many other very distinquished personalities. Simply
because story-tellers connect certain "miraculous" events with certain
personalities, it does not mean that these personalities did not
exist.
Since miracles were the manifestation of the divine, they have been
incorporated into the gospels for reasons that have more to do with
the religious environment of the 1st and 2nd century AD than anything
else. I would not use these accounts as a proof that Jesus did not
exist. Now, how close this Jesus was to the person described in the
gospels is quite another story. Many elements of him may have been
invented and weaved around his teachings which appear to have been
written down in summary format (what is usually called "the gospel of
Q") at an early date.
William December Starr
Les Hellawell <l...@fakeaddress.com> said:
> The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
> through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods
> into existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
> evidence'.
I prefer "Prove it" myself, though your formulation is probably more
formally correct.
-- wds
William December Starr
Bill <b...@billconner.com> said:
> Too bad you will understand the humor in your remarks.
Well _there's_ a definitive answer if ever I've seen one...
-- wds
Kadaitcha Man
cuckolded groom, fiend, thou torments me ere I come to hell. Ye
giggled:
If you think about it, Hellawell's 'formulation' is illogical bullshit.
Care to discuss?
--
play the whale : v. To spew.
Les Hellawell
<dowdy.f...@alt.graphics.magazines.pornographic> wrote:
<snip offensiveness that serves no useful purpose but
to inflate the writers almighty ego - all bow down to
the almighty)
>
>> In article<qltul61b9v2o675hi...@4ax.com>,
>> Les Hellawell<l...@fakeaddress.com> said:
>>
>>> The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
>>> through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods
>>> into existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
>>> evidence'.
>>
>> I prefer "Prove it" myself, though your formulation is probably more
>> formally correct.
>
>If you think about it, Hellawell's 'formulation' is illogical bullshit.
>Care to discuss?
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.
Your asserted claim, you discuss.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
Yorkshire -The White Rose County
Kadaitcha Man
a rancorous intruding fool, a prating murderer, a hideous general
lout, base unsightly horrible shadow, I'll have thy head. Ye dodged:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:35:59 +0800, Kadaitcha Man
> <dowdy.f...@alt.graphics.magazines.pornographic> wrote:
>
> <snip offensiveness that serves no useful purpose but
> to inflate the writers almighty ego - all bow down to
> the almighty)
>
>>
>>> In article<qltul61b9v2o675hi...@4ax.com>,
>>> Les Hellawell<l...@fakeaddress.com> said:
>>>
>>>> The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
>>>> through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods
>>>> into existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
>>>> evidence'.
>>>
>>> I prefer "Prove it" myself, though your formulation is probably more
>>> formally correct.
>>
>> If you think about it, Hellawell's 'formulation' is illogical bullshit.
>
>> Care to discuss?
>
> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
> evidence.
See above.
> Your asserted claim, you discuss.
I will, with the other poster. You can just FROAD, you headfucked netl0oN.
--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in alt.atheism.
Hammer of Thor: February 2007
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: April 2006
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: January 2007
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: August 2008
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, Official owner
and trainer of Bucky Breeder, August 2008.
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most Hated Usenetizens of All Time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Les Hellawell
<depilated.b...@alabama.peanut-slit-eyed-demon> wrote:
>Les Hellawell, ye polecat. Ye are a milk-livered proud insulting boy,
>a rancorous intruding fool, a prating murderer, a hideous general
>lout, base unsightly horrible shadow, I'll have thy head. Ye dodged:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 16:35:59 +0800, Kadaitcha Man
>> <dowdy.f...@alt.graphics.magazines.pornographic> wrote:
>>
>> <snip offensiveness that serves no useful purpose but
>> to inflate the writers almighty ego - all bow down to
>> the almighty)
>>
>>>
>>>> In article<qltul61b9v2o675hi...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Les Hellawell<l...@fakeaddress.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
>>>>> through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods
>>>>> into existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
>>>>> evidence'.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer "Prove it" myself, though your formulation is probably more
>>>> formally correct.
>>>
>>> If you think about it, Hellawell's 'formulation' is illogical bullshit.
>>
>>> Care to discuss?
>>
>> That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
>> evidence.
>
>See above.
>
>> Your asserted claim, you discuss.
>
>I will, with the other poster. < snip ego stroking>
Fine I can live with that - good luck
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>>They say you can convince anyone that anything is right, if they are
>>>intelligent.
>>
>> Whoever has said this hasn't observed the real world.
>
>
>What real world?
Earth.
>I think the history of the second half of the twenty century is full of it.
But when I look around, I see intelligent people who already *know*
what they wish to know, who cannot be convinced that facts contrary to
their core values are true.
>>
>> Or else uses the No True Scotsman argument.
>
>Many others, my favourite is the strawman arguement.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>> The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
>> through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods
>> into existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
>> evidence'.
>
>I prefer "Prove it" myself, though your formulation is probably more
>formally correct.
Just providing any evidence at all is a first step towards such proof.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>> The theists have wasted several forest several times over and gone
>>> through train loads of black ink rationalising their various gods
>>> into existence yet we can dismiss them all with just two words 'No
>>> evidence'.
>>
>>I prefer "Prove it" myself, though your formulation is probably more
>>formally correct.
>
>Just providing any evidence at all is a first step towards such proof.
Although, coming up with evidence of a Creator would then lead to
asking why I should then reject the beliefs of millions who believe
His name is Brahma.
Kadaitcha Man
repugnant unrelenting fool, ye are deformed, crooked, old and sere,
ill faced, worse bodied, shapeless everywhere, vicious, ungentle,
foolish, blunt, unkind, stigmatical in making, worse in mind. Ye
preached:
>> I will, with the other poster. You can just FROAD, you headfucked
>> netl0oN.
> < snip ego stroking>
Put back.
> Fine I can live with that - good luck
>
>
>
>
> Les Hellawell
> Greetings from:
> Yorkshire -The White Rose County
--
jantero
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:11:57 -0800 (PST), jantero
>
> >> POINT 1: Comparing proving the existence of Jesus, a human being,
> >> to a "six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers
> >> better than a razor" is not in any sense logical.
>
> > In accusing others of error, you show how stunted you are in dealing
> > with logical arguments.
>
> Anyone who makes that comparison is not being logical.
>
> Anyone who defends that approach is not being logical.
That shows how stupid you are.
The whole argument is based on considering whether Jesus ever
existed, and using an example of an obvious fictional character.
You're so brainwashed you couldn't even get it.
>
> >Again, you display an inability for any kind of logical thinking.
>
> >There are all sorts of textual sources for Zeus and Neptune, etc.
> >Nobody thinks they actually exist, or ever did exist.
>
> This shows how little you know, or research. Neither of those
> characters are put forth as historical characters,
Of course they were. People during the tiome believed they existed.
You're replies are below high school level.
with a time
> frame for their birth that could be traced back.
That doesn't exist for jesus, either.
You're assuming the mythologies surrounding jesus are true - that's
what's under debate, idiot.
To put forth
> such a claim at that time, when those people lived, claiming
> that the person was born and lived and that, right amongst
> them an it not be true, would have prevented its continued
> existence as truth.
>
> You insult me and yet, you are a ridiculous little man who
> operates from pure bias and hatred of God and you know it.
>
> Goodbye. I have no time for ridiculous people.
You're a lame fool.
>
> --
>
> Pastor Dave
>
> The best Bible software:http://www.theword.net/is free!
Joebruno
wrote:
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
>
> Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
> regarding whether Jesus even existed as a historical figure (yes,
> people are still talking about that). They contended that there is no
> sufficient evidence, pointing out that that usual non-Christian
> sources (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) were not
> contemporaries of Jesus and therefore only had the “hearsay” of
> believers to rely upon, and furthermore that the believers themselves
> could not be trusted because, obviously, they had a vested interest in
> ensuring that Jesus was regarded as a real person. They demanded that
> a reliable, “independent” source that was contemporaneous with Jesus
> would be sufficient proof, but of course no such source exists, as far
> as we know, mostly because Jesus was a “nobody” to contemporary
> historians at the time he lived. I responded by contending that their
> assumptions about the reliability of historical knowledge were wrong-
> headed (the main arguer, I know, is a fellow science major), but this
> didn’t get me very far.
>
> Do you know of good sources concerning this question that I can
> also put forward to my non-believer friends? I’m still amazed that
> this question is even considered serious.
>
> This sort of questioning is only taken seriously by a small cadre of
> zealots who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue
> their anti-Christian agenda. Nobody talks this way about any other
> historical figure, much less a historical figure with the massive
> impact of Jesus. For instance, nobody says of Hannibal that he never
> existed, or that the campaign he waged against Rome was a myth. When
> people do attempt such massive conspiracy theories, they inevitably
> turn out to be either kooks or satirists.
>
> For a good treatment of this silly fad among New Atheists and their
> socially inept acolytes (who do not understand normal social and
> affective cues and who therefore can’t conceive of how normal people
> function in their normal social and emotional interactions: thus
> blocking them from realizing how absurd this theory is on its face), I
> suggest this fine series by James Hannam here, here, here, and here.
>
> When you have people making massive efforts to concoct a conspiracy
> theory that nobody would risk ten cents on any other historical
> figure, the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on the “Jesus never
> existed” dude, not on you, to show that his tissue of highly dubious
> suppositions and theories is valid. The problem with the ridiculous
> theorizing behind the Jesus Myth is that you can use it to “prove”
> that JFK never existed. (“Would an Ivy League graduate really say “I
> am a jelly donut” before a crowd of Germans as the JFK chroniclers
> describe? Obviously this is a Eucharistic text interpolated into the
> record in order to invest the JFK myth with cultic significance and
> transfer the affections of American Catholics from the Church to the
> so-called “Kennedy family”. We can see that shortly after these
> alleged “events” many American Catholics do, in fact, begin to place
> their faith more in the Kennedy cultus than in their previous
> allegiance to the Church. Clearly then, the JFK myth was concocted by
> the leaders of the Democratic party in order to draw gullible
> Catholics away from the Church and into their cult. In addition, the
> so-called “assassination” of JFK is rife with difficulties. How many
> shots were there? Where did they come from? Who was behind the so-
> called “murder” of “JFK”? Obviously, the whole story is a much later
> addition to a myth of the seasonal cycles and there originally was no
> “JFK” and no “assassination”. The story was added to provide a veneer
> of tragic martyrdom and solidify support for the Kennedy legend among
> the new band of followers that emerged in the late 60s and 70s.)
>
> Anybody can play this silly game. Meanwhile, big solid facts in the
> New Testament records and the behavior of the early Church make it
> obvious that the writers and their followers (and their enemies, by
> the way) are all reacting to an actual person they either knew
> personally, or know just as the rising generation today know of JFK
> through their familiarity with the eyewitnesses. Only people with no
> normal social skills (like the New Atheists) think that the argument
> “Romans who cared not a jot for Jews and peasants never noticed Jesus,
> so he didn’t exist” is a crushing disproof of the existence of Christ.
>
The evidence and views on the subject are mixed:
IEJ(Norah)
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> >historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
> to be contemporary?
>
> Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>
> "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> - James Madison
On one hand you are correct that there still exist documents where a
historic Jesus is mentioned. And I am not talking about Josephus but
of three roman documents from today's Italy area written around 35-50
AD. On the other the existens of a historic person Jesus doesn't prove
that Jesus was what we Christians belive him to have been.
I think that's essential to tell to believers as well as atheists and
other non-believers. Thus I can understand those who dispute terms
like 'scholars of Christianity'.
Inger E
jantero
> On Feb 19, 4:25 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> > >historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> > We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> > it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> > tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> > We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> > there a critical number of documents needed to have ? Do they need
> > to be contemporary?
>
> > Or do we also have zero evidence that a historical Aristotle existed?
>
> > --
> > "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
> > than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
> > to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
>
> > - James Madison
>
> On one hand you are correct that there still exist documents where a
> historic Jesus is mentioned. And I am not talking about Josephus but
> of three roman documents from today's Italy area written around 35-50
> AD. On the other the existens of a historic person Jesus doesn't prove
> that Jesus was what we Christians belive him to have been.
No, there are no reliable historical mentions of him.
Here's an extract from a good article on the subject, it's worth
reading:
Did Jesus Even Exist? http://www.atheists.org/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F
"" Pagan Authors
Before considering the alleged witness of Pagan authors,
it is worth noting some of the things that we should find recorded in
their histories if the biblical stories are in fact true. One passage
from Matthew should suffice to point out the significance of the
silence of secular writers:
Matt. 27:45. Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the
land unto the ninth hour... Jesus, when he had cried again with a
loud
voice, yielded up the ghost. 51. And, behold, the veil of the temple
was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did
quake,
and the rocks rent; 52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of
the saints which slept arose, 53 And came out of the graves after his
resurrection [exposed for 3 days?], and went into the holy city, and
appeared unto many.
Wouldn't the Greeks and Romans have noticed - and recorded - such
darkness occurring at a time of the month when a solar eclipse was
impossible? Wouldn't someone have remembered - and recorded - the
name
of at least one of those "saints" who climbed out of the grave and
went wandering downtown in the mall? If Jesus did anything of
significance at all, wouldn't someone have noticed? If he didn't do
anything significant, how could he have stimulated the formation of a
new religion?
Considering now the supposed evidence of Tacitus, we find that this
Roman historian is alleged in 120 CE to have written a passage in
hisAnnals (Bk 15, Ch 44, containing the wild tale of Nero's
persecution of Christians) saying "Therefore, to scotch the rumour,
Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost
refinements
of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd
styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone
the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the
procurator Pontius Pilatus..." G.A. Wells [p. 16] says of this
passage:
[Tacitus wrote] at a time when Christians themselves had come to
believe that Jesus had suffered under Pilate. There are three reasons
for holding that Tacitus is here simply repeating what Christians had
told him. First, he gives Pilate a title, procurator [without saying
procurator of what! FRZ], which was current only from the second half
of the first century. Had he consulted archives which recorded
earlier
events, he would surely have found Pilate there designated by his
correct title, prefect. Second, Tacitus does not name the executed
man
Jesus, but uses the title Christ (Messiah) as if it were a proper
name. But he could hardly have found in archives a statement such as
"the Messiah was executed this morning." Third, hostile to
Christianity as he was, he was surely glad to accept from Christians
their own view that Christianity was of recent origin, since the
Roman
authorities were prepared to tolerate only ancient cults. (The
Historical Evidence for Jesus; p.16).
There are further problems with the Tacitus story. Tacitus himself
never again alludes to the Neronian persecution of Christians in any
of his voluminous writings, and no other Pagan authors know anything
of the outrage either. Most significant, however, is that ancient
Christian apologists made no use of the story in their propaganda -
an
unthinkable omission by motivated partisans who were well-read in the
works of Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria, who made a profession of
collecting just such types of quotations, is ignorant of any Neronian
persecution, and even Tertullian, who quotes a great deal from
Tacitus, knows nothing of the story. According to Robert Taylor, the
author of another freethought classic, the Diegesis (1834), the
passage was not known before the fifteenth century, when Tacitus was
first published at Venice by Johannes de Spire. Taylor believed de
Spire himself to have been the forger. i
So much for the evidence purporting to prove that Jesus was an
historical figure. We have not, of course, proved that Jesus did not
exist. We have only showed that all evidence alleged to support such
a
claim is without substance. But of course, that is all we need to
show. The burden of proof is always on the one who claims that
something exists or that something once happened. We have no
obligation to try to prove a universal negative. j """
xxend
>
> I think that's essential to tell to believers as well as atheists and
> other non-believers. Thus I can understand those who dispute terms
> like 'scholars of Christianity'.
>
> Inger E- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Baker
No *reliable* records, that's true. As far as I'm concerned, the
jury's still out. I don't entirely discount the possibility that an
itinerant preacher named Yoshuah ben Yosef (or something similar)
*may* have existed sometime around 2000 years ago, but as Norah
pointed out, the existence of the man doesn't prove he was who
Christians believe he was.
Jimbo
wrote:
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
> A reader writes:
>
Blah, blah, blah, blah... It all boils down to this. There exists no
records, no writings, no nothing contemporary tot he time of your
supposed Yeshua that shows that he existed. The apostles, supposedly
charged with spreading the good news, didn't begin to write about him
until at least 30 years after his alleged death, and if some
historians are accurate, possibly as long as 70 years. None of the
extra biblical writers, such as Josephus, were born until after your
Yeshua's alleged death. In other words, second, third, and possibly
more, hand retellings. In addition, the contradictions, discrepancies
and increased (as they were written) number of "miracles" performed in
each successive retelling (gospel) lends a great deal of credance to
the fact that these were fictionalized accounts.
To date, you have not presented evidence to the contrary of that.
Jimbo
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:23:17 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
> > Did Jesus Exist?
>
> > by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
> Atheist Conspiracy, not to be confused with the Evil Atheist Conspiracy
> which by all accounts does not exist.
>
> > This sort of questioning is only taken seriously by a small cadre of
> > zealots who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue
> > their anti-Christian agenda. Nobody talks this way about any other
> > historical figure, much less a historical figure with the massive
> > impact of Jesus. For instance, nobody says of Hannibal that he never
> > existed, or that the campaign he waged against Rome was a myth.
>
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Exactly! This is something that the godbots will never understand.
No one is saying that Hannibal (for whom dozens of manuscripts written
during his time exists) is a god, or a son of a god, or performed
extraordinary miracles. Addtionally, Hannibal doesn't have present
day followers demanding that we all adhere to the "Hannibal's
Commandments", or worship him as a god. Other than historical
curiosity, or academic endeavor, Hannibal's existence one way or the
other os simply a scholastic question. All seeing idiot will never
understand the difference though. He's a religionist, and
religionists tend to be stupid.
Jimbo
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> >historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
Present it, we will examine it and go from there.
>
> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
> there a critical number of documents needed to have ?
The very fact that you are asking this question leads me to believe
that you have nothing. If you have the evidence, then present it.
So far, I have seen nothing written during the time of Christ or even
shortly thereafter that verifies that he lived.
Jimbo
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:27:51 -0800 (PST), T Guy
>
> <Tim.Bate...@redbridge.gov.uk> wrote:
> >Jesus' existence is only taken seriously by a small cadre of zealots
> >who trot this sort of argumentation out in order to pursue their
>
> A large cadre of Christians and Muslims take his existence seriously.
>
\
A large cadre of children take the existence of Santa Claus seriously,
that doesn't mean he actually exists.
Jimbo
> On 2/18/11 7:23 AM, Sound of Trumpet copied and pasted:
>
> > Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
>
>
> --
> JDG
He was the Janitor. He's talking about Sanitation Engineering
College. :D
Jimbo
> On 19/02/2011 02:25, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo<ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> >> historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> > We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> > it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> > tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> > to be contemporary?
>
>
> We do actually have writings by Aristotle.
> --
> John Briggs
And unlike the alleged Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, Aristotle
actually signed his work. The authors of the four gospels was
actually unknown and the early church wimply assigned them authors.
Jimbo
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:23:44 -0800 (PST), jantero
> <jantero...@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>
>
>
> > About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine
> > the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded
> > at what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to show
> > how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged existence
> > of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is more
> > reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to
> > account for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus
> > were a fiction than if he once were real.
>
> > Burden of Proof
>
> > Although what follows may fairly be interpreted to be
> > a proof of the non-historicity of Jesus, it must be realized
> > that the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic
> > in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof
> > weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some
> > process exists. If someone claims that he never has to
> > shave because every morning before he can get to the
> > bathroom he is assaulted by a six-foot rabbit with extremely
> > sharp teeth who trims his whiskers better than a razor -
> > if someone makes such a claim, no skeptic need worry
> > about constructing a disproof. Unless evidence for the
> > claim is produced, the skeptic can treat the claim as false.
> > This is nothing more than sane, every-day practice.
>
> Actually, you're (or the writer's) in error here.
>
> POINT 1: Comparing proving the existence of Jesus, a human being,
> to a "six-foot rabbit with extremely sharp teeth who trims his whiskers
> better than a razor" is not in any sense logical.
>
> to textual criticism (the science), it is the opposite. It is assumed
> to be true, unless proved false. That of course, does not include
> stories told as fiction.
And there's the rub, pastor dave. You have no idea if the bible was
told as fiction, the result of eating bad grain, or any of a number of
religious zealots trying rationalize the world around them and failing.
Jimbo
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:51:12 -0800, Christopher A. Lee
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >Before they can be considered as evidence, the Bible has to be shown
> >to be an authoritative source in the real world.
>
> I haven't heard that that is a requirement for something to be
> considered evidence. If some non-educated person says he saw a rare
> animal that we fear may be extinct, that is evidence enough for
> someone who is an authority to follow up with some further checking.
It depends on the animal, and the circumstances of the telling. An
uneducated person of sound mental state that says he saw something is
farr different than an uneducated person who is a known drug addict,
or attention seeker.
Again, you have to examine all the evidence, not simply what you pick
and choose.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
>> >historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>>
>> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
>> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
>> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
>Present it, we will examine it and go from there.
If he had some he would have provided it instead of just talking about
it.
>> We have more documents that Aristotle existed - but only documents. Is
>> there a critical number of documents needed to have ?
The standard dishonest analogy that equates the un evidenced and
disputed with a conclusion from evidence.
Aristotle is a conclusion from the historical process. Jesus is a
pre-existing belief whose believers look for anything that can be
rationalised as "evidence".
>The very fact that you are asking this question leads me to believe
>that you have nothing. If you have the evidence, then present it.
>So far, I have seen nothing written during the time of Christ or even
>shortly thereafter that verifies that he lived.
The fact that they always trot out the same stuff that has been
debunked over and over again, shows they have nothing.
They seem to imagine a whole slew of stuff that doesn't stand up to
the slightest scrutiny, is better than a single conclusive piece.
Jimbo
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:50:38 +0000, John Briggs
>
>
>
>
>
> <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >On 19/02/2011 23:19, Bill wrote:
> >> On Feb 19, 2:08 pm, John Briggs<john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>> On 19/02/2011 17:18, Bill wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 18, 9:06 pm, Uncle Vic<urkiddingri...@nonono.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote innews:oaaul61g8detf6i89...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> >>>>>>> historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> >>>>>> We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> >>>>>> it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> >>>>>> tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> >>>>>> to be contemporary?
>
>
> >>>>> Do any of those documents claim Aristotle performed inhuman miracles, or
> >>>>> was the son of some god in the sky?
>
> >>>>> That's the difference between "Jesus" and actual historical people.
>
> >>>> You obviously haven't thought about any of this. Your "logic" is
> >>>> strange: Jesus didn't exist because he is said to have performed
> >>>> miracles or people said he was the son of God. Explain how that works.
> >>>> If someone said something similar about you, like you had super-human
> >>>> intelligence for instance, would you immediately not exist? Your post
> >>>> proves that no one will make such claims about you of course, so
> >>>> you're probably safe from instantaneous extinction, but your
> >>>> "point"won't be so lucky.
>
> has been doing ever since he crashed the atheist group in 1993.
>
> >>> The point was about historical evidence independent of claims that Jesus
> >>> is said to have performed miracles or that he was the son of God.
>
> >> historical reality of the man, Jesus, from what's said about him. This
> >> usually manifests itself as the dimwitted claim that Jesus could not
> >> have existed because he did impossible things. When that is shown to
> >> be nonsense, the claim will then be that since there's no extra-
> >> Biblical evidence of his existence, he must not have existed. When
> >> that gets shot down, as it always does, the last resort is a variation
> >> of the first one, namely Jesus could not have existed since people
> >> said he preformed miracles and miracles are impossible so anyone who
> >> performs a miracle must not exist. This really is about the sum total
> >> of the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus although these may
> >> take many forms.
>
>
> There is zero, zip, zilch, nada evidence outside Christian tradition
> for an historical "Jesus the man". What little evidence there is, is
> against it.
>
> But then Bill knows this, so why does he keep pretending?
>
> >Tell me more about this extra-Biblical evidence of his existence.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill once claimed that he had the evidence to prove the historical
Yeshua's existence, but every time he is pressed to present that
evidence, he quibbles. Suspicious behavior for one so sure of his
facts.
Jimbo
> On Feb 19, 5:25 pm, Bill <b...@billconner.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 5:54 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > is said to have performed miracles or that he was the son of God.
> > > > > John Briggs
>
> > > > I've tried that too. People posting here cannot separate the
> > > > historical reality of the man, Jesus, from what's said about him. This
> > > > usually manifests itself as the dimwitted claim that Jesus could not
> > > > have existed because he did impossible things. When that is shown to
> > > > be nonsense, the claim will then be that since there's no extra-
> > > > Biblical evidence of his existence, he must not have existed. When
> > > > that gets shot down, as it always does, the last resort is a variation
> > > > of the first one, namely Jesus could not have existed since people
> > > > said he preformed miracles and miracles are impossible so anyone who
> > > > performs a miracle must not exist. This really is about the sum total
> > > > of the arguments for the non-existence of Jesus although these may
> > > > take many forms.
>
> > > ascribed to Jesus are highly unlikely, it does not mean that he did
> > > not exist. But they reverse is also true. They are not an evidence
> > > that he existed.
>
> > > Personally, despite the lack of primary evidence, I think that Jesus
> > > existed and he was one of various eschatological prophets in Palestine
> > > at that time. I think that his existence is totally
> > > inconsequential. He was made into what he is in the literature and
> > > religion by Paul of Tarsus. Since Paul took Jesus way out of the
> > > Jewish milieu and since he "taught" way before any written gospel had
> > > been assembled, it is impossible to assess how much influence he had
> > > in the writing of these documents and how the "historical" Jesus
> > > intersected with the "fictional" one. I do not think that we would
> > > never know.
>
> > There's several possibilities here: Jesus existed but performed no
> > miracles. Jesus existed and did perform miracles. Jesus never existed
> > and there were no miracles, Jesus never existed but there were
> > miracles attributed to a fictional Jesus. It would be a miracle if
> > anyone ever makes any sense of any of this.
>
> > Now, why even argue against the historicity of Jesus when all that's
> > really needed is to provide evidence for the impossibility of
> > miracles? This should be easy since all we have to do is show that
> > every event has a wholly natural explanation which is really, really
> > easy since that's the only kind of explanation we accept anyway. Since
> > we have decided in advance that there cannot be miracles, the actual
> > existence of Jesus becomes irrelevant.
>
> > Granted, miracles are miraculous exactly because they are impossible
> > which means no scientific (natural) explanation can possibly work.This
> > being obviously true, even to those who wish it otherwise, the problem
> > of the historicity of Jesus comes roaring back again. However,
> > challenging the historicity of Jesus then becomes somewhat pointless
> > since we still have the whole issue of miracles to deal with. We
> > really can't use the historicity of Jesus to discredit the possibility
> > of miracles or the impossibilities to challenge the historicity of
> > Jesus.
>
> The impossibility of miracles does not really undermine the probablity
> that a prophet called Jesus was active in Palestine in the beginning
> of the 1st century AD and that he was eventually executed by the
> Romans,
And the question remains, can you prove that he existed?
Jimbo
Blah, blah, blah... Do you have the evidence or not?
jantero
Do you think the magical claims made in the "gospels" could have
occured without any reliable commentators of the time taking note and
writing about them?
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jantero
> On Feb 18, 10:25 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:20:14 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It's not a conspiracy theory to say that you have zero evidence that a
> > >historical Jesus existed. It's a simple fact.
>
> > We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> > it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> > tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> Present it, we will examine it and go from there.
In that vein, Homer's discussion of Zeus in the Iliad is evidence of
his existence.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>No, there are no reliable historical mentions of him.
>
>
>No *reliable* records, that's true. As far as I'm concerned, the
>jury's still out. I don't entirely discount the possibility that an
>itinerant preacher named Yoshuah ben Yosef (or something similar)
>*may* have existed sometime around 2000 years ago, but as Norah
>pointed out, the existence of the man doesn't prove he was who
>Christians believe he was.
What difference does it make if there was a non-divine person that was
written up and worshipped as Jesus of Nazareth? We see some
religions with real people who were ascribed divinity, and others
without known real people.
Would finding a contemporary record of his birth change anybody's view
of his divinity?
John Baker
I don't think they could have occurred at all, let alone without
anyone noticing. But what does that have to do with anything?
I never said I believed in an historical Jesus, or that said Jesus was
in any way divine. I merely stated that I did not *entirely* discount
the possibility that a man - a perfectly ordinary, non-divine human
being - *may* have existed, upon whom the legend is based.
David Johnston
> > > We have *some* evidence. The Bible is anything but convincing, but
> > > it does exist. How many early documents would you require to have a
> > > tiny bit of evidence that Jesus existed?
>
> > Present it, we will examine it and go from there.
>
> In that vein, Homer's discussion of Zeus in the Iliad is evidence of
> his existence.
It would be more like saying that it was evidence of Troy.
jantero
Perhaps. If he existed at all, maybe Benny Hinn is a modern day type
example.
Terry Cross
wrote:
> http://www.ncregister.com/blog/did-jesus-exist/
>
> Did Jesus Exist?
>
> by Mark Shea Friday, February 04, 2011 12:00 AM
>
>
> Recently I got into an argument with my non-believer college pals
> people are still talking about that). They contended that there is no
> sufficient evidence, pointing out that that usual non-Christian
> sources (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Josephus, etc.) were not
> contemporaries of Jesus and therefore only had the “hearsay” of
> believers to rely upon, and furthermore that the believers themselves
> could not be trusted because, obviously, they had a vested interest in
> ensuring that Jesus was regarded as a real person. They demanded that
> a reliable, “independent” source that was contemporaneous with Jesus
> would be sufficient proof, but of course no such source exists, as far
> as we know, mostly because Jesus was a “nobody” to contemporary
> historians at the time he lived. I responded by contending that their
> assumptions about the reliability of historical knowledge were wrong-
> headed (the main arguer, I know, is a fellow science major), but this
> didn’t get me very far.
The people most hostile to the historical Jesus are in the
overwhelming majority --- Jews. If Jesus were eleminiated as an
historical figure, Jews would not bear the collective guilt they lay
on them selves for the crucifixion.
I kid you not, this seems to be the line of reasoning. This will
probably not make sense to you until you read the blistering anti-
Christian language in the Talmud and other Jewish writings in history,
including the Toldeth Yeshu. A thorough course in the subject would
have you believing that Jews have nothing else to believe or write but
anti-Christianity.
The truth reveals itself in the darker corners of Judaism even today.
In Israel's law of return, if you are born Jewish, your religion does
not matter and you can "return" to Israel -- unless you are a
Christian. You can be a flaming God-denying atheist homosexual and
you will be wecomed with wreaths and open arms. But if you are a
Christian they will spit on you.
This is the vein of endemic hostility the Martin Luther discovered.
It is as though when the rabbis of the ancient Talmud wrote of the
boiling excrement in Hell where Jesus is imprisoned, they were
chronicling the seething hatred in the heart of their own culture.
TCross
Zev
news:811e9e2f-01e2-46e7-b5db-
e695c6...@f18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Jews don't lay on themselves any guilt for the crucifixion.
> I kid you not, this seems to be the line of reasoning. This will
> probably not make sense to you until you read the blistering anti-
> Christian language in the Talmud and other Jewish writings in history,
> including the Toldeth Yeshu. A thorough course in the subject would
> have you believing that Jews have nothing else to believe or write but
> anti-Christianity.
A thorough course in Judaism and Jewish literature
would show that the subject is marginal.
You Gentiles are so self-centered...
> The truth reveals itself in the darker corners of Judaism even today.
> In Israel's law of return, if you are born Jewish, your religion does
> not matter and you can "return" to Israel -- unless you are a
> Christian. You can be a flaming God-denying atheist homosexual and
> you will be wecomed with wreaths and open arms. But if you are a
> Christian they will spit on you.
There are hundreds of thousands of Christians in Israel.
How many spitting complaints do you know about?
> This is the vein of endemic hostility the Martin Luther discovered.
> It is as though when the rabbis of the ancient Talmud wrote of the
> boiling excrement in Hell where Jesus is imprisoned, they were
> chronicling the seething hatred in the heart of their own culture.
Martin Luther discovered that his new kind of Christianity
didn't appeal to Jews any more than the old kind did.
Then he chronicled the seething hatred in the heart
of his own culture.
John Briggs
Which doesn't seem to have existed either...
--
John Briggs
William December Starr
Terry Cross <tcro...@hotmail.com> said:
> The people most hostile to the historical Jesus are in the
> overwhelming majority --- Jews. If Jesus were eleminiated as an
> historical figure, Jews would not bear the collective guilt they
> lay on them selves for the crucifixion.
>
> I kid you not, this seems to be the line of reasoning.
It's true, you aren't kidding. You're just lying.
-- wds
Robert Bannister
But isn't that how Schliemann discovered the site of Troy by examining
all the clues in Homer? Keep on reading and someone might find Zeus.
--
Rob Bannister
ADR
Schlieman discovered Troy not only by the clues of Homer but by the
fact that the site of Troy was known (or was thought to be known) in
classical antiquity. There were temples there that even sported the
armor of Achilles. In fact, Alexander the Great "borrowed" the armor
of Achilles and, according to some accounts, this is what he wore in
the battle of Granicus. The problem was not the location, but the
veracity of the account. Until he dug there, the assumption was that
the Trojan war was just a fable and everything was made up.
Successive excavations did not solve the issue because none of the
unearthed Troys actually fit the story very well. So, although they
may be a "factual core" to the story, the Iliad is likely more of a
fable than a reality.