Who was Jesus

[karakara]

I'm using it as it's used very often by both Professors and authors of psychological and Statistics tomes and in general lecture vernacular..  if I'm guilty in butchering or misusing axiom, at least I'm in good company. I'm surprised, considering your background, that you haven't heard yourself in a class or come across it in print.

I highly doubt this!! If they're professors at any decent university, they won't use the term losely like that. I've heard the term numerous times in class and seen it countless times on print, but never seen or heard misused (by real professors anyway), like you claim. Except for on the internet of course. Where do/did you go to school??? Have you heard this yourself??
And just because it's on the web, doesn't mean you're in good company  :hail:

Yes, perspective is all-important.

Yes, you are 100% correct about Jung, I stand corrected, especially as I did not elaborate on how I was referencing Jung.. quite misleading and inaccurate, sorry. I was making the leap into sociological/(cultural)anthropological territory as was alluding to Joseph Campbell's work and theories based upon Jungian Archetypes.. whether they're totally valid or not is a matter of debate.

Thanks for your corrections.

You're welcome, mate    Nice to see a religious guy admit a flaw! And thanks for the remarks on Campbell, I'll have to check up on that.

Well, when you're wrong, you're wrong.. unless, you also happen to be right: this is getting philosophical...

[Asmodean]

For the U.S. citizens maybe.  But you are correct on Gagarin  :nerd:

[Zarathustra]

You mean, just because something can be found online, doesn't mean it's guaranteed factual?... I'll have to look into that ;-)

 :eek:  

For the U.S. citizens maybe.  But you are correct on Gagarin  :nerd:

You are correct! I didn't state that he was correct on the first name though. I was actually impressed, since a lot of americans have never heard of him.

[karakara]

For the U.S. citizens maybe.  But you are correct on Gagarin  :nerd:

Nu, da. Oshibka moya! Konyechno, vy sovsem pravy!

hey, a typo.

[Asmodean]

Nu, da. Oshibka moya! Konyechno, vy sovsem pravy!

hey, a typo.

Konyechno ya soverschenno prav. (Of course I'm absolutely right  

[Titan]

I'm sorry, I got lost in the posts, what was the last post I needed to respond to? Kyu, can you help me out a little?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm sorry, I got lost in the posts, what was the last post I needed to respond to? Kyu, can you help me out a little?

I haven't been in it since page 3 (it seemed to be overtaken by karakara) but I don't think you actually answered my post which is here.

Kyu

[Titan]

So what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Why? Because it didn't spread around the globe in an instant?

No because if there were relatively few followers the evidence would be far more scarce so it plays into my argument that there is no real evidence for the bloke.

You are basing this distinction on what exactly? You are essentially claiming that if he has anymore people mentioning him it feeds into the fact that people were perpetuating the myth, if there were less then it means that there was no real evidence for him. Do you have a precise number of first hand accounts you need?

But with the claims you are making concerning the validity of events in history you had better be ready to apply said methods to all historical accounts and see what remains. We haven't gotten to whether the essential claims of Christianity are true or not, merely that someone existed around that time and made such an indelible impact on the lives of the commoners that the world was forever changed.

No, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

That is your belief, one which I hope to pull you towards a more logical conclusion.

I know this is unlikely, but would you ever be interested in visiting Indonesia for a few weeks. I know this sounds weird but if you just pay for the airfare my family will provide food and transportation and everything. The reason I say this is because there are some events that I really would like your explanation on that occur in Indonesia quite frequently, things that have eye witness testimony from multiple accounts. If these things are all easily explained by science I would love to know. But this is an honest proposal, if you are interested.

I would at some point (and if so I genuinely would like to meet you ... not everything has to be about religion) but right now I'm afraid I can't afford it. My next planned trip abroad is to Auschwitz anyway, hopefully next year.

Auschwitz is a place that I too would like to visit. Don't worry, money is always a problem and I won't hold this against you. I'm currently in the US anyway.

No, I'm talking about when Christianity first started. People simply could have said: "Where was he buried and who was guarding the tomb" and the fraud could have been discovered that simply.

I'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

No, I'm saying it isn't a fraud and I'm referring to the tomb back then. Because of the close proximity there were people who could have said "Where was he buried?" and proven the disciples wrong. Also, there are some very interesting elements to the story that make it very unlikely for it to have been a myth.

Dr. William F. Albright argued "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New testament critics today."

Albright was a biblical archaeologist I believe ... his views are fairly outmoded so I'm not sure why I should take the statement of someone so evidently biased towards a particular POV as valid. That said it seems to be a fairly common view that most of the books of the bible were broadly speaking in existence by the 1st Century CE.

It will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Okay so you accept that the books were written AT LEAST before the year 100 A.D.?

Not only that, but one of the prophecies of Christ came true during the fall of Jerusalem.

A prophecy probably included after the event ... now you may think, "well he would say that" and of course you'd be correct, I would BUT one huge problem with your bible is that there appear to be so many cuts and additions since the books were originally written (Lord knows what they would have done if they'd been able to cut & paste on computers) that it is hard to tell what si genuine and what is not.

Like I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

But the account doesn't include many other prophecies that would have made it more valid. Do you have evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem? Second, do you realize how detail oriented early scribes were in copying the documents? I think you are grossly underestimating their attention to detail.

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

I would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

They persecuted quite a few people but not strictly for their religious beliefs. Can you site a group that was tortured as much as the Christians were? You also didn't answer my question. Why would they make up a character that supposedly existed only a few decades prior and then die for it?

It is hardly uncommon for historians to utilize modern words to describe titles of the past so that they make more sense or to lump different titles under one title.

The relevant point being?

That it doesn't represent a flaw in the Tacitus account.

I burped...can you track it? Can you prove it happened? What exactly does a "trail of evidence" entail? I have a few miracles I would like to site but I don't know what you are qualifying as evidence in this case.

Would I care to want to prove or disprove it? I think not. If there is no evidence for a so -called miracle then it can be dismissed.

Eye-Witness testimony good enough for you?

Do you think the Romans were kept up to date on every sect creation in their entire empire? Honestly?

I think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

It may have been excellent but there is no reason for them to keep track of the rebellious Jewish sects. How many of those authors refer to the Zealots that brought about the destruction of jerusalem?

Well within scope time-wise.

Not for it to have been a major issue in the area yet.

And the point you're making is?

It wouldn't have crossed their literary radar. There was no point of writing it because it was hardly relevant at the time.

Maybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous

Jesus Christ.

Such as?

From Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Does his account give validity to the event for you?

So hypothetically, if there weren't any satires of an event by a particular author we can hold that it didn't happen?

That's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

But why would he mock a small idea of resurrection that had just sprouted? Why not insult the concept as a whole?

Do you realize what you are suggesting here? I have shown you how many of these people wouldn't have had the chance to hear about Jesus or Christianity or wouldn't have had a reason to write about it. Since Remsberg didn't even do such inquiry I don't hold his works in high regard. But I hold you in high enough regard that if there was one who you believe absolutely should have mentioned Christ I'll definitely look into it.

Fine but I'm still not doing your research for you.

All you have to do is give me a few of the names...I'll do the research and find out whether they are valid problems.

Which part of his texts do not conform to his works as a whole? Besides the line I mentioned?

Specifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus. [/quote]
I already pointed out that that section may not have been part of his text. I also asked why they picked Josephus and not one of the other Roman authors? Why not many of them? Why just him? The addition seems to be more of a "look what he said, that would be perfect if we added this" over "he hasn't mentioned anything of Jesus, let's put something about Jesus in here."

[Kyuuketsuki]

You are basing this distinction on what exactly? You are essentially claiming that if he has anymore people mentioning him it feeds into the fact that people were perpetuating the myth, if there were less then it means that there was no real evidence for him. Do you have a precise number of first hand accounts you need?

The point I am making is that fewer people in the religion at the time would make it less noticeable to the then authorities and explain why there were so few records BUT it could be equally well explained by it never actually happening at all. In that sense it plays towards my version.

No, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

That is your belief, one which I hope to pull you towards a more logical conclusion.

More logical? In whose book?

I'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

No, I'm saying it isn't a fraud and I'm referring to the tomb back then. Because of the close proximity there were people who could have said "Where was he buried?" and proven the disciples wrong. Also, there are some very interesting elements to the story that make it very unlikely for it to have been a myth.

Still confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

It will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Okay so you accept that the books were written AT LEAST before the year 100 A.D.?

As a working assumption back by some significant expert opinion yes.

Like I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

But the account doesn't include many other prophecies that would have made it more valid. Do you have evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem? Second, do you realize how detail oriented early scribes were in copying the documents? I think you are grossly underestimating their attention to detail.

The codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

To quote a review of Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus":

Ehrman's fascinating book lifts the lid off the process by which the world has inherited the Bible in its current form, or forms. In very readable and often amusing style he explains the difficulties inherent in translating from source texts which have been written down without the convenience of punctuation or even spaces between words, texts which are themselves copies several generations removed from the originals and therefore rife with transcription errors. He also explains the way in which modern translators go about inferring where the errors are, thereby enabling revisions which may return us more closely to the original.

In addition to transcription errors, the ancient scribes apparently imposed their own logic on the texts, "correcting" words or passages which did not comply with their own view of how the stories should go. There are also instances where analysis of the vocabulary indicates certain passages have been supplemented by additional narrative in order to tidy it up a little.

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

Sure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

They persecuted quite a few people but not strictly for their religious beliefs. Can you site a group that was tortured as much as the Christians were? You also didn't answer my question. Why would they make up a character that supposedly existed only a few decades prior and then die for it?

I think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

That it doesn't represent a flaw in the Tacitus account.

On the basis of the things I've posted so far I believe that to be wrong.

Eye-Witness testimony good enough for you?

If you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

I think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

It may have been excellent but there is no reason for them to keep track of the rebellious Jewish sects. How many of those authors refer to the Zealots that brought about the destruction of jerusalem?

And as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

It wouldn't have crossed their literary radar. There was no point of writing it because it was hardly relevant at the time.

I disagree (see above)

From Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Does his account give validity to the event for you?

No but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

That's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

But why would he mock a small idea of resurrection that had just sprouted? Why not insult the concept as a whole?

I've no idea, I'm not a telepath let alone a time traveller.

All you have to do is give me a few of the names...I'll do the research and find out whether they are valid problems.

You know where the post is.

Specifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus.

I already pointed out that that section may not have been part of his text. I also asked why they picked Josephus and not one of the other Roman authors? Why not many of them? Why just him? The addition seems to be more of a "look what he said, that would be perfect if we added this" over "he hasn't mentioned anything of Jesus, let's put something about Jesus in here."

The point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Kyu

[Titan]

You are basing this distinction on what exactly? You are essentially claiming that if he has anymore people mentioning him it feeds into the fact that people were perpetuating the myth, if there were less then it means that there was no real evidence for him. Do you have a precise number of first hand accounts you need?

The point I am making is that fewer people in the religion at the time would make it less noticeable to the then authorities and explain why there were so few records BUT it could be equally well explained by it never actually happening at all. In that sense it plays towards my version.

So the entire world was changed by a fictitious man? History doesn't support your version.

No, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

That is your belief, one which I hope to pull you towards a more logical conclusion.

More logical? In whose book?

Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

I'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

No, I'm saying it isn't a fraud and I'm referring to the tomb back then. Because of the close proximity there were people who could have said "Where was he buried?" and proven the disciples wrong. Also, there are some very interesting elements to the story that make it very unlikely for it to have been a myth.

Still confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

I don't know, it doesn't matter much. If people think it is they will start worshiping the tomb which is detrimental to faith.

It will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Okay so you accept that the books were written AT LEAST before the year 100 A.D.?

As a working assumption back by some significant expert opinion yes.

Okay, excellent, so we are AT LEAST within a handful decades.

Like I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

But the account doesn't include many other prophecies that would have made it more valid. Do you have evidence that it was written after the fall of Jerusalem? Second, do you realize how detail oriented early scribes were in copying the documents? I think you are grossly underestimating their attention to detail.

The codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

That is actually incorrect, they would write it themselves, yes but it would be reviewed thoroughly.

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

Sure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I think you are completely disconnected from the world of Christian sacrifice. You need an eye opener to see what is really going on out there. It isn't overplayed at all, if anything it is underplayed.
What character did the Waco people make up and die defending? I think you are making some stuff up.

I would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

They persecuted quite a few people but not strictly for their religious beliefs. Can you site a group that was tortured as much as the Christians were? You also didn't answer my question. Why would they make up a character that supposedly existed only a few decades prior and then die for it?

I think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

You are going to have to give me more background for "Wako."

Eye-Witness testimony good enough for you?

If you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

I think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

It may have been excellent but there is no reason for them to keep track of the rebellious Jewish sects. How many of those authors refer to the Zealots that brought about the destruction of jerusalem?

And as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Okay, can you point me to the section of the Roman records where they talk about various small rebellions?

From Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

Does his account give validity to the event for you?

No but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

But not resurrection fiction that you get tortured and punished for.

That's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

But why would he mock a small idea of resurrection that had just sprouted? Why not insult the concept as a whole?

I've no idea, I'm not a telepath let alone a time traveller.

So your reasoning falls apart...you haven't thought through it. My theory has less assumptions and "I'm not sure"s

All you have to do is give me a few of the names...I'll do the research and find out whether they are valid problems.

You know where the post is.

I said a few, pick your favorites, the ones that definitely should have mentioned him. I'll do ALL the research and dissect it.

Specifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus.

I already pointed out that that section may not have been part of his text. I also asked why they picked Josephus and not one of the other Roman authors? Why not many of them? Why just him? The addition seems to be more of a "look what he said, that would be perfect if we added this" over "he hasn't mentioned anything of Jesus, let's put something about Jesus in here."

The point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Only because he mentions it. Your reasonign is circular...they picked Josephus because he mentioned Jesus, he mentioned Jesus because they edited his texts. Please base your reasoning on something more well foundd.

[curiosityandthecat]

Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Titan, with all due respect, we have no interest in this. I don't mean we have no interest in "true logic and rationality;" rather, I mean we have as much interest in being pulled toward Christianity via logic as Christians have of being pulled toward atheism using charisma, creative oration and guilt.

The fact remains that, as far as logic and reason go, the nonreligious stance always has a leg up on the religious one, simply because one is based in the realm of reality and the other in the realm of the spirit (whatever that may be).

[Kyuuketsuki]

The point I am making is that fewer people in the religion at the time would make it less noticeable to the then authorities and explain why there were so few records BUT it could be equally well explained by it never actually happening at all. In that sense it plays towards my version.

So the entire world was changed by a fictitious man? History doesn't support your version.

Actually, history doesn't support your version and yes I see that as entirely possible.

Look at it this way ... whether or not he existed, once Jesus was dead, you no longer need the primary to support the tale as it is self-supporting. IOW from, say, 50CE you only have the stories (by which I mean tales, not necessarily fiction), there's no body (because it has supposedly risen to the heavens) and all you really have is word of mouth to be later codified by various individuals. So what we're really arguing about here is that 50 year period.

Add to it this ... was Haile Selassi a good man? Some say that he was the most brutal dictator to his people and upon his death left 11 billion dollars in a Swiss account yet he is revered by millions of Rastafari as their god emperor on Earth. Ghandi is revered/remembered as a good man and maybe he was but I am willing to bet that he wasn't as good as current day claims of him say he was. Mother Teresa is held up (was held up within her lifetime) as an icon of virtue and ran one Bombay's most well funded Catholic institutions for the poor & needy yet she is believed to have re-used hypodermics, left patients screaming in pain because she believe pain brought you closer to "God" and funnelled most of the funds she got (intended by the donors to support her clinic) back to the coffers of Rome. What was she doing? Paving her way to Heaven?

What I am trying to get across to you is that people are not necessarily what they appear to be even when they are alive and the person vs the publicly perceived persona (particularly a long time after they lived and died or rose into the clouds) are two distinct things which may or may not closely align but more to the point that the principal of a given tale is not needed after a time and may not be needed at all if something was there in its place.  

Your Jesus Christ may have existed but equally he may not have because they never had long distance communications beyond the spoken and written word (no camera, no video, no radio, no TV) so all the information people got would have been through other and not through a medium you could at least partially trust. IOW many, many Christians in that time (probably the vast majority) would never even have seen their Christ if he existed and given the lack of hard evidence and eyewitness accounts for him it is not a huge leap to assume he never existed at all.

It's that simple and I take the basic position that I want evidence before I accept he existed ... I will not assume he did. Why? Because I can.

Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Well you haven't succeeded so far so good luck with that particular piece of futility.

Still confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

I don't know, it doesn't matter much. If people think it is they will start worshiping the tomb which is detrimental to faith.

Of course it matters though I concede not much to this discussion if you're not claiming it (the modern discovery) is his tomb.

The codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

That is actually incorrect, they would write it themselves, yes but it would be reviewed thoroughly.

And, given the evidence historians have of such transcription errors and personal interpretations (including many other historical works not necessarily biblical) along with a through knowledge of how people tend to do such things, you know that how?

Sure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I think you are completely disconnected from the world of Christian sacrifice. You need an eye opener to see what is really going on out there. It isn't overplayed at all, if anything it is underplayed.
What character did the Waco people make up and die defending? I think you are making some stuff up.

And I think you are completely over-inflating the claim of Christian sacrifice.

The Wako people, led by David Koresh, died defending their beliefs that that the second coming of Christ was about to occur but they key point is that they believed so utterly in their leader. Arguably it isn't a good example because of the claims and counter-claims over who was to blame for the deaths of so many.

I think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

You are going to have to give me more background for "Wako."

Scrap Wako (I accept it was a poor example, at least for now) ... what about the other evidence you need to prove your persecution claim?

If you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

There're 2 billion Christians worldwide who believe they have the right saviour, there's another 2 billion Muslims, who knows how many Jews and other religions who all think they have the right saviour or other answer ... what do you think I am going to say to that?

As I said earlier, I couldn't care less whether you burped elephants, I would care a lot more if you said those elephants would lead us to spiritual paradise meaning Earthly life was irrelevant and defined a moral code by which should now live (though in truth I'd just piss myself laughing)!

And as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Okay, can you point me to the section of the Roman records where they talk about various small rebellions?

Don't be foolish, I can no more do that than I can give you the specific evidence for the big bang, but my understanding is that the historians have such evidence. However, from the "Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems" July, 1973 it says, "Systematic record keeping in the ancient world reached a high point during the Roman Empire and then degenerated with the decline of strong central government." So no doubt you'll realise that what I am saying in general terms at least (I have few doubts you'll object to specifics) is correct about the Romans ... they were meticulous record keepers.

No but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

But not resurrection fiction that you get tortured and punished for.

And I repeat that you have to justify that claim first ... I am not accepting it from you without good reason.

I've no idea, I'm not a telepath let alone a time traveller.

So your reasoning falls apart...you haven't thought through it. My theory has less assumptions and "I'm not sure"s

Not at all because all I am saying is what was said not what the thought or why they did something.

I said a few, pick your favorites, the ones that definitely should have mentioned him. I'll do ALL the research and dissect it.

Josephus

The point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Only because he mentions it. Your reasonign is circular...they picked Josephus because he mentioned Jesus, he mentioned Jesus because they edited his texts. Please base your reasoning on something more well foundd.

Are you being deliberately obfuscative? Look ... a major evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is a statement by Josephus about him, specifically:
 
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Now Josephus is understood to have been an historian who wrote with remarkable clarity and objectivity and that passage just ... isn't ... it is uncharacteristic of the writings of the man that historians respect, it is not in the slightest bit objective (even I can see that) and it doesn't ring true.

It DOES NOT prove there was no Christ it simply weakens the case for that person existing by removing (invalidating) a major piece of supporting evidence and as I have repeatedly said mine is an assumptive position ... I take the position there was no Christ because I can, because you & your fellows have no evidence that can be validated. In one sense I genuinely don't care whether your Messiah existed or not but I do what I do from the philosophical position that if I take this point of view it either stops you dead or we have to move on leaving the existence of Jesus Christ as explicitly assumed.

I'd offer to carry on but given that the thread is about who Jesus apparently was and you can't actually prove he even existed I'm entirely happy to ground it here

Kyu

[Wraitchel]

I almost hate to add my opinion because, like Curio, I am not interested in being pulled toward X-tianity by logic or any other means. I have rejected it in its entirety and have moved on. I think of Jesus as an early figure for social justice. He was a radical, and he was very cool, if a quarter of what they say about him is true. I think his words started being distorted immediately and with each re-telling so that little is left of his original message. I think Jesus was a Jew and never meant for his followers to be so obsessed with the immortality of their own worthless souls. I think he meant to revolutionize his world through peace and compassion. I've got no problem with that.  

I marked "other" because there was no option for social revolutionary.

[Titan]

So the entire world was changed by a fictitious man? History doesn't support your version.

Actually, history doesn't support your version and yes I see that as entirely possible.

Look at it this way ... whether or not he existed, once Jesus was dead, you no longer need the primary to support the tale as it is self-supporting. IOW from, say, 50CE you only have the stories (by which I mean tales, not necessarily fiction), there's no body (because it has supposedly risen to the heavens) and all you really have is word of mouth to be later codified by various individuals. So what we're really arguing about here is that 50 year period.

However, there is the fact that the people who supposedly saw him rise were willing to DIE for their beliefs. If it was indeed a fiction then they would have sacrificed everything for nothing.

Add to it this ... was Haile Selassi a good man? Some say that he was the most brutal dictator to his people and upon his death left 11 billion dollars in a Swiss account yet he is revered by millions of Rastafari as their god emperor on Earth. Ghandi is revered/remembered as a good man and maybe he was but I am willing to bet that he wasn't as good as current day claims of him say he was. Mother Teresa is held up (was held up within her lifetime) as an icon of virtue and ran one Bombay's most well funded Catholic institutions for the poor & needy yet she is believed to have re-used hypodermics, left patients screaming in pain because she believe pain brought you closer to "God" and funnelled most of the funds she got (intended by the donors to support her clinic) back to the coffers of Rome. What was she doing? Paving her way to Heaven?

1. Those who were closest to Haile Selassie were not willing to die for the Rastafarians belief that he was God on earth. There is a strict deviation in the accounts. The early early church was willing to die for Jesus when they were the ones who claimed to have seen him rise from the dead.
2. Ghandi and Mother Teresa have not been deified.
3. I don't defend people's wrong views on Christianity.

What I am trying to get across to you is that people are not necessarily what they appear to be even when they are alive and the person vs the publicly perceived persona (particularly a long time after they lived and died or rose into the clouds) are two distinct things which may or may not closely align but more to the point that the principal of a given tale is not needed after a time and may not be needed at all if something was there in its place.  

Please provide evidence for a sect that believed their leader to be a messiah and were willing to die for that cause that has gone on to live and survive with even nonbelievers respecting the achievements of the "messiah."

Your Jesus Christ may have existed but equally he may not have because they never had long distance communications beyond the spoken and written word (no camera, no video, no radio, no TV) so all the information people got would have been through other and not through a medium you could at least partially trust. IOW many, many Christians in that time (probably the vast majority) would never even have seen their Christ if he existed and given the lack of hard evidence and eyewitness accounts for him it is not a huge leap to assume he never existed at all.

It's that simple and I take the basic position that I want evidence before I accept he existed ... I will not assume he did. Why? Because I can.

The problem is that the Gospel tradition is so counter culture that it doesn't make sense unless it is a first hand account and not a fabrication. For instance, women played a vital role in testifying about the Lord's return. But women at the time were not even trusted as witnesses in the courts. If they had wanted to make a story around this man or if they were trying to prop up their beliefs they would have excised this portion of the text in order to make their religion more plausible.

Logic isn't whatever we want to be. There are real forms of logic and I hope to pull you towards Christianity with true logic and rationality.

Well you haven't succeeded so far so good luck with that particular piece of futility.

Again, I'm not giving up on you that easily.

Still confused so I'll ask it straight, is the tomb currently claimed by some to be the tomb of Jesus Christ or is it just a tomb that might be the tomb of Jesus Christ?

I don't know, it doesn't matter much. If people think it is they will start worshiping the tomb which is detrimental to faith.

Of course it matters though I concede not much to this discussion if you're not claiming it (the modern discovery) is his tomb.

I'm not.

The codex account? Apparently it is, at 1500 years old (IIRC), the oldest bible known and therefore presumed to be closer to the original version than any other. No (although there are many scholars who believe that this is how much of the bible was written), do you have evidence that it wasn't? You see the thing is you cannot use the contents of a single book (yeah I know it was many books but let's set that aside for now) with a specific agenda (to promote the religion of Christianity) as validatable evidence for anything in the real world. That is why the bible is considered an historical source rather than actual history by most historians. Do you realise how difficult it would be to transcribe the bible? Considerably more than 600 printed pages (today) x what? 2000 words per page? And each one transcribed individually?

That is actually incorrect, they would write it themselves, yes but it would be reviewed thoroughly.

And, given the evidence historians have of such transcription errors and personal interpretations (including many other historical works not necessarily biblical) along with a through knowledge of how people tend to do such things, you know that how?

But the personal interpretations represent a clear distinction from the volumes that are practically identical. You are talking about transcription errors of small spelling mistakes not edited texts.

Sure, why not? How long ago was Wako? Look how many died there? And this idea of the poor Christians dying for their beliefs is a bit overplayed by your lot isn't it?

I think you are completely disconnected from the world of Christian sacrifice. You need an eye opener to see what is really going on out there. It isn't overplayed at all, if anything it is underplayed.
What character did the Waco people make up and die defending? I think you are making some stuff up.

And I think you are completely over-inflating the claim of Christian sacrifice.

The Wako people, led by David Koresh, died defending their beliefs that that the second coming of Christ was about to occur but they key point is that they believed so utterly in their leader. Arguably it isn't a good example because of the claims and counter-claims over who was to blame for the deaths of so many.

1. It's Waco (with a C).
2. There are many uncertainties about what transpired there...not that I'm defending the actions of those in the house.
3. I don't defend Christians with irrational outworks of Christianity but Christianity itself. How is that not getting across to you?

I think you have to demonstrate that the Christians were as persecuted as you claim, I'm certainly not going to accept it on the basis that you believe it or that someone else with a pro-Christian agenda says so. And again Wako.

You are going to have to give me more background for "Wako."

Scrap Wako (I accept it was a poor example, at least for now) ... what about the other evidence you need to prove your persecution claim?

I'll reference Augustine and the fact that Christianity was one of the few religions that many Roman emperors and citizens did not view as a mere social activity. They saw it as being detrimental to the empire as a whole.

If you say you burped then fine you burped, I don't care. If, however, you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth then I might choose to dispute it.

What if you said you burped and an elephant fell out of your mouth and 20 people adamantly agree even if they have nothing to gain from the story.

There're 2 billion Christians worldwide who believe they have the right saviour, there's another 2 billion Muslims, who knows how many Jews and other religions who all think they have the right saviour or other answer ... what do you think I am going to say to that?

As I said earlier, I couldn't care less whether you burped elephants, I would care a lot more if you said those elephants would lead us to spiritual paradise meaning Earthly life was irrelevant and defined a moral code by which should now live (though in truth I'd just piss myself laughing)!

I think that it is pretty easy to demonstrate how those religions are pointless or false.

And as I said the Romans were meticulous record keepers, they had census's in every country and guard house records have been shown to be things of great accuracy ... I hardly think something as notable as rebels would be ignored. It would have been tracked and, when appropriate, viciously put down.

Okay, can you point me to the section of the Roman records where they talk about various small rebellions?

Don't be foolish, I can no more do that than I can give you the specific evidence for the big bang, but my understanding is that the historians have such evidence. However, from the "Report of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data Systems" July, 1973 it says, "Systematic record keeping in the ancient world reached a high point during the Roman Empire and then degenerated with the decline of strong central government." So no doubt you'll realise that what I am saying in general terms at least (I have few doubts you'll object to specifics) is correct about the Romans ... they were meticulous record keepers.

They were meticulous about keeping records but not about everything, and that is why I was asking where they talk about the various religious groups that were arising.

No but it validates that the idea of resurrection was not an uncommon one at the time.

But not resurrection fiction that you get tortured and punished for.

And I repeat that you have to justify that claim first ... I am not accepting it from you without good reason.

You never addressed the data I provided for why Luke was written prior to A.D. 68 (at the latest) and if that is true then you have all of the apostles who were being killed right and left for their beliefs.  

I said a few, pick your favorites, the ones that definitely should have mentioned him. I'll do ALL the research and dissect it.

Josephus

From Wikipedia:

"He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus."

I'm making special note of James the brother of Jesus...a pretty clear depiction of a character who lived at the time.

On the other hand, while this argument asserts that Josephus could not have written the Testimonium in its current form, it also demonstrates, according to some scholars, that the version of the Antiquities known to Origen must have written something about Jesus, for otherwise Origen would have no reason to make the claim that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ."

Which is what I argued...not that the work in its entirety was true but that Josephus did mention Jesus.

The point is that Josephus IS cited as evidence that there was a literal Jesus Christ.

Only because he mentions it. Your reasonign is circular...they picked Josephus because he mentioned Jesus, he mentioned Jesus because they edited his texts. Please base your reasoning on something more well foundd.

Are you being deliberately obfuscative? Look ... a major evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is a statement by Josephus about him, specifically:
 
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Now Josephus is understood to have been an historian who wrote with remarkable clarity and objectivity and that passage just ... isn't ... it is uncharacteristic of the writings of the man that historians respect, it is not in the slightest bit objective (even I can see that) and it doesn't ring true.

It DOES NOT prove there was no Christ it simply weakens the case for that person existing by removing (invalidating) a major piece of supporting evidence and as I have repeatedly said mine is an assumptive position ... I take the position there was no Christ because I can, because you & your fellows have no evidence that can be validated. In one sense I genuinely don't care whether your Messiah existed or not but I do what I do from the philosophical position that if I take this point of view it either stops you dead or we have to move on leaving the existence of Jesus Christ as explicitly assumed.

Wow, first of all your position at the end isn't one of trying to understand history but of stopping a philosophy. If you were truly rational you would not take a stance for the purpose of arguing against something but you would take a stance because you believed it to be true...this makes me question your intentions. Secondly, you did not answer my point about your circular reasoning. Why did he mention Jesus at all?

[myleviathan]

However, there is the fact that the people who supposedly saw him rise were willing to DIE for their beliefs. If it was indeed a fiction then they would have sacrificed everything for nothing.

I have heard this argument time and time again, ad nauseum. It's a simple fact that religious fanatics will die for their belief. The type of people who die for religious causes have never needed a bird's eye view of something as fantastic as a resurrection to feel adequately secure in their belief to go ahead and make themselves martyrs.

Generations of Christians (and fanatics of other religions) have been more than willing to die after accepting the hand-me-down testimony of another human being. Why should the Biblical characters known as the apostles or disciples be any different? I would be willing to accept that the disciples were at least loosely based on historical figures. But whether they were willing to die because they actually witnessed the resurrection is extremely dubious, especially in light of the willingness of other Christians who hadn't witnessed the resurrection to shed their blood.

What if the stories of the disciple's martyrdom are myths designed by other martyrs in order to encourage others to die for their faith? I'm not claiming that Jesus or his disciples are liars or a lunatics, but the authors who created their characters may very well have been.

The problem is that the Gospel tradition is so counter culture that it doesn't make sense unless it is a first hand account and not a fabrication.

The Gospel tradition has never been counter culture, at least in the US. Plus, when did 'culture's' take on something improve its historical reliability? It seems like you're employing a truth by popularity argument, which is invariably misleading.  

I think that it is pretty easy to demonstrate how those religions are pointless or false.

Not to the people who believe them they aren't. They have just as much of a case for belief as you do. At some point you have to accept whether you can believe in a god-man rising from the dead or a god-woman with six arms. You can pull out any Roman or Jewish historian you would like - none supports the modern existence of sin or angels or demons or god-men who die and are subsequently resurrected. There is no historical evidence or otherwise for the impossible.