Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos

The problem is there is an abundance of textual historical evidence that Jesus existed, as has been already pointed out. There's none to suggest that he didn't.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

The problem is there is an abundance of textual historical evidence that Jesus existed, as has been already pointed out. There's none to suggest that he didn't.

There is no evidence ( outside of one mention and a disputed mention if my memory serves me correctly) in any sources outside of Christian sources. There is no contemporary evidence.

''There's none to suggest that he didn't'' - what an extraordinary statement ? Why would there be ?

And please ISAW don't jump in with the evidence of absence cliche, it is meaningless.

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

There is no evidence ( outside of one mention and a disputed mention if my memory serves me correctly) in any sources outside of Christian sources. There is no contemporary evidence.

''There's none to suggest that he didn't'' - what an extraordinary statement ? Why would there be ?

And please ISAW don't jump in with the evidence of absence cliche, it is meaningless.

No their are two, one of which is disputed.
If the story was around at the time their might be written accounts that objected to the story. The fact that their is no dispute of the resurrection story shows that either such stories were common and unremarkable or that the resurrection was kept to themselves by the apostles for some time.
Understandable enough but what is remarkable is that at some point they decided to broadcast it and not just locally but all the way to Rome.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Not particularly.
I picked socrates and Alexander because they are two hugely famous people from history.
i dont see why they are something we should avoid.
Unless of course you think the argument they didnt exist is stronger than that for Jesus existing.

This is rubbish and I suspect you know it. There is plenty of evidence of Alexander as the most cursary search would show.

There are no contemporary writings , but the record of the books and authors from that time do exist and these included contemporaries , general soldiers etc. The 5 main sources ( the earlist dating from 100 bc) can directly trace their lineage to those original sources before they were lost.

Then we have the Babylonian Chronicles which mention the Battle of Gaugamela and his later life and death.

Next we have The Greek Epigrams the most important being the Decree of Phillipi and The Commeration of Antilochus (I may have the name wrong there)

And that is before we even get to Zoroastrian sources and Indo-Greek sources .

I will get to Socrates later.

marienbad

Did Socrates exist ?

Other than being mentioned by Plato Aristotle Aristophanes Xenophon there is no record of his existance . So it is possible that these contemporaries and students of his conspired to invent him. Why they would do so we can only speculate.

It is possible that Plato just invented him as a literary device to communicate his own message. It is possible than a man called Socrates did exist , but he may have been a plummer or a carpenter and Plato just co-opted his name as a means to transmit his own message .

While it may be an interesting question it dos'nt really matter . What matters is that his philosophy or what we know as his philosophy survived . In the same way the sonnets would be just as great whether Shakespeare or Rochester wrote them.

In fact the similarities of Socrates and Jesus are quite striking-

They left no record,they were phiilosophers and moralists, their message had a profound effect on history, they were both executed. There the similarity ends I am afraid - Socrates was either just a man of a fiction of Plato and Jesus was a God - no correction The GOD

The point is though no one really cares if Socrates existed. it really is '' the thoughts that count''

Andrewf20

We should perhaps focus on the question - assuming that a man called Jesus did exist (which seems very plausible to me), is there evidence that he was the son of God? I dont see his existence as a man who lived a long time ago is an issue in itself, however his large claims are what we should be debating I think. Was he a a human who was an eccentric preacher, who could perform magic or was he the son of God, born of a virgin, who rose from the dead and so on.

tommy2bad

Andrewf20 wrote: »

We should perhaps focus on the question - assuming that a man called Jesus did exist (which seems very plausible to me), is there evidence that he was the son of God? I don't see his existence as a man who lived a long time ago is an issue in itself, however his large claims are what we should be debating I think. Was he a a human who was an eccentric preacher, who could perform magic or was he the son of God, born of a virgin, who rose from the dead and so on.

Well once you go down that rabbit hole you have to start examining scripture as no other evidence exists. Scripture supports the claim from OT prophesy if the NT is a true and factual account.
The writers believed it to be true, we have no reason to think they were setting up a financial scam or anything else. Why they believed it to be true is a mix of trusting the word of witnesses and believing the OT prophesy.
Back to believing or not believing.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Your expectation (as expressed in the line I've bold-faced) is not realistic or historically justified. You would be hard pressed to find books referring to contemporary events of any kind in the 1st Century. Many references we have to other historical events in that period were written many years after the event. For example, historians quite happily accept the writings of Tacitus and Suetonius as good evidence for the murder of Julius Caesar, even though they both wrote over a century after the event.

Books anywhere in the first century were rare and expensive. A man with twenty books in his home was considered the possesser of an extensive library.

All of Jesus' miracles took place in Palestine, which was a rather out of the way spot on the map, certainly no literary hotseat. And many of them occurred in Galilee rather than Jerusalem.

Therefore it would extremely surprising if anyone in the First Century other than Christians wrote a first-hand account about the acts of Jesus - and it would be a fluke of lottery-winning proportions if such a book had actually survived to modern times.

Nevertheless, against all the odds, we do have Josephus (a first Century Jew) who in his Antiquities made reference to Jesus. He refers to the martyrdom of James, stating that he was "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" and also to the beheading of John the Baptist.

Scholars have long debated another work by Josephus - the Testimonium Flavianum - and some parts of it are thought to be later additions. However, there is broad scholarly consensus that the reference to Jesus as a worker of startling miracles is genuine. This would represent a level of near contemporary evidence which, given the time and place in which Jesus ministered, is far greater than historians would have any right to expect.

Not really PDN, I am not referring to books as such - just any mention of Jesus and the claims made on behalf of Jesus , after all those claims are truly revolutionary , miracles , messiah, resurrection . You would expect that most literary of people -the jews , to have made some note of his passing , particularly as they wre the ones waiting for the Messiah. Not a word , not even a denial that he was the Messiah.

As to the remoteness of Palestine - not so- it was the safest and easiest of time for travel and communication right up and and beyond the middle ages . All made possible by the Pax Romana of the Emperor Augustus.
A courier could travel from Rome to Palestine in 40 to 50 days , In season -Spring and Summer- sailing time was ten days.

Is is arguable that without the safety provided by the Roman Empire than Christianity would never have left Palestine , particularly the journeys of Paul.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Not really PDN, I am not referring to books as such - just any mention of Jesus and the claims made on behalf of Jesus ,

And where would these mentions be if not in books? Little yellow post-it's beside a Jewish telephone or two? Maybe on a 1st Century Jewish blog?

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

And where would these mentions be if not in books? Little yellow post-it's beside a Jewish telephone or two? Maybe on a 1st Century Jewish blog?

Graffiti but the romans made them wash it off instead of writing it a hundred times.

ISAW

Wh1stler wrote: »

The difference is that if it was suggested that neither Socrates nor Alexander ever existed, I would not dismiss the evidence out of hand.

what do you mean?
what evidence would you not dismiss?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

There is no evidence ( outside of one mention and a disputed mention if my memory serves me correctly) in any sources outside of Christian sources. There is no contemporary evidence.

Of Alexander or Socrates?
where is your contemporary evidence of them?
what writings can you produce?

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

And where would these mentions be if not in books? Little yellow post-it's beside a Jewish telephone or two? Maybe on a 1st Century Jewish blog?

Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery - any representation whatsover will suffice .

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery - any representation whatsover will suffice .

Well, why don't you give us examples of where some of these have recorded other contemporary events in First Century Palestine?

After all, if you would expect such evidence (as you said) then there should be a whole raft of such stuff surviving. Heck, museums should be full of them.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Of Alexander or Socrates?
where is your contemporary evidence of them?
what writings can you produce?

Just gave it to you ISAW, now can you give me an comparision of a nearer contemporary of Jesus - The emperor Augustus for example ?

Why always go back a further 400 years to Alexander and Socrates ? Lets compare Augustus and Jesus , shall we ? Or Virgil and Jesus ,
or even Josephus and Jesus ?

Lets be honest here there is even no mention of Nazereth before Christian times.

I await your comparision of sources for Jesus and Octavian with interest.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Well, why don't you give us examples of where some of these have recorded other contemporary events in First Century Palestine?

After all, if you would expect such evidence (as you said) then there should be a whole raft of such stuff surviving. Heck, museums should be full of them.

Why would I PDN , I am not trying to prove the existance of Jesus ? As a matter of fact I have never understood the obsession with proving the existance of Jesus . As I said already that no one really gives a s%&*e if Socrates existed . It is his philosophy or what we know as his philosophy that counts . Same with Jesus or it should be.

In a way this obsession with proving his existance, seems to me anyway, to conceal real doubt. Whatever happened to faith.

To be honest in the great scale of things claimed by Christianity being concerned overmuch with proving such things by historical standards is the least of your worries.

philologos

Why is there an obsession? What I and others say simply is that there is an abundance of history to back Jesus up when people claim that He didn't exist. The reality is that is an absurdity and there is plenty to back up Jesus' existence in comparison to other ancient figures.

Unless you're saying that you don't assess the historicity of Jesus as one does the historicity of other historical figures. That would mean that one would be having a double standard surely. If one holds one standard for everything else, and a different and higher standard concerning Jesus, that starts to look like one is simply refusing to acknowledge the case concerning Him.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Why would I PDN ,

Perhaps because you might want to prove that your claim was not utterly unrealistic and unhistorical?

You say that we should expect such contemporary evidence regarding Jesus' activities to have survived - but are unwilling or unable to show that such contemporary evidence exists about any other activities in First Century Palestine.

As a matter of fact I have never understood the obsession with proving the existance of Jesus . As I said already that no one really gives a s%&*e if Socrates existed . It is his philosophy or what we know as his philosophy that counts . Same with Jesus or it should be.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of Jesus - I'm simply pointing out that your position is unreasonable and unjustifiable.

In a way this obsession with proving his existance, seems to me anyway, to conceal real doubt. Whatever happened to faith.

LOL - classic example of deflection.

I call you out on a claim that you can't sustain - so you start accusing me of being obsessed and of lacking faith. Wouldn't it be more honest to just hold your hands up and admit you posted something silly?

PDN

philologos wrote: »

Why is there an obsession? What I and others say simply is that there is an abundance of history to back Jesus up when people claim that He didn't exist. The reality is that is an absurdity and there is plenty to back up Jesus' existence in comparison to other ancient figures.

There's no obsession. Just the usual non-Christian posters making unsubstantiated claims and, when pressed to back them up, launching ad hominem attacks instead.

HamletOrHecuba

Christian Faith is Not irrational; but is it possible to reach it through reason?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

This is rubbish and I suspect you know it. There is plenty of evidence of Alexander as the most cursary search would show.

One sheet of evidence is plenty!

Can you produce it?

There are no contemporary writings , but the record of the books and authors from that time do exist and these included contemporaries , general soldiers etc.

oh so thats NO contemporaneous evidence! Is it? You admit there are no writings about alesander or Socrates from their own lifetime?

What books and authors ? ever heard of the Q document?

The 5 main sources ( the earlist dating from 100 bc) can directly trace their lineage to those original sources before they were lost.

so let me get this straight.
thats NO SOURCES from Alexanders time.
No copies 300 years later.
Books for 200 years later referring to earlier lost books.

and that somehow is better evidence to people actually alive when Jesus was alive dictating or writing about him within a few decades of his death?

Then we have the Babylonian Chronicles which mention the Battle of Gaugamela and his later life and death.

Very good. you research is getting better.
You have happened on the single piece of writing with the name Alexander (actually a-lik-sa is the name used) on it dating to when he was alive.

Line 4
http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/bchp-alexander/alexander_02.html
But not very huge in terms of the "plenty" of writings is it?

And it is arguable it referred to the battle of Guagamela

Also
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z7.html

According to the Persian Magians, an eclipse of the moon was more significant for the king himself than most other omens. The Babylonian Chaldaeans, in their catalogue of prophecies, offered an even less propitious interpretation: "If the moon or the sun are eclipsed and Jupiter is not visible: end of a dominion." [2] Moreover, according to the systems generally used in prophetic writings, an eclipse on the thirteenth day of the month meant disaster for Babylonia and an eclipse in the month of Ulûlu meant disaster for Persia. A westerly wind during such an eclipse indicated that the catastrophe was to come from that direction; an easterly wind as the disc of the moon became visible meant the eastern regions were safe. The fact that Saturn was visible gave added force to all these prophecies.

In other words, after the omens of 20 September, a Babylonian astronomer would have known that the end was near for the ruler of Persia and Babylonia and that the cause of his demise would be an enemy from the west. Although the east would provide sanctuary, this was still a demoralising prospect. On another clay tablet we find a similar description of a lunar eclipse, but this time it predicts the fate of the victor rather than the defeated party:

If on the thirteenth or fourteenth of Ulûlu the moon is eclipsed, the watch passes and the darkness remains, the moon’s features are dark as lapis lazuli, the moon is eclipsed as far as its centre and its western quadrant covered, a westerly wind is blowing, the sky remains dark and the light concealed, then the king’s son will undergo a cleansing ritual in front of the throne, but he will not ascend to the throne. An invader will mount an invasion supported by the rulers of the west; for eight years he will exercise kingship [lacuna]; he will defeat a hostile army; he will find abundance and riches on his path; he will pursue his enemy relentlessly and there will be no end to his good fortune.
[29th Ahû tablet of Enuma Anu Enlil; obv. 59-61]

Fair amount of astrology there as "evidence" for a king alexander.

Next we have The Greek Epigrams the most important being the Decree of Phillipi and The Commeration of Antilochus (I may have the name wrong there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Philippi,_242_BCE

about 100 years later!
but what has it to do with alexander or scorates?
other than Philipi is reputed to be named after Alexanders father?

A man called Philip of Macedon is mentioned 100 years after he dies. so what?

Commeration of Antilochus? Is relevant because?

And that is before we even get to Zoroastrian sources and Indo-Greek sources .

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.html

Source Criticism
The distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources was first made by a Renaissance fraud named Nanni of Viterbo in his Commentaries on various authors discussing antiquities (1498).

the only contemporary, primary source on Alexander is the Astronomical diary that was kept in the Esagila, the temple of the Babylonian supreme god Marduk.

As for zoroastrans

Texts like the Book of Arda Wiraz were written long after the events they describe, and contain information that was certainly orally transmitted.

... Of course, they are tertiary sources and must be used with caution; nonetheless, they are useful to reconstruct the Persian side of the story, something about which our Greek sources tell us next to nothing.

To be clear... By "tertiary " I mean ...

Secondary sources are used to write tertiary sources. A secondary source is essentially an afterthought of someone who wants to know what has happened and has researched the primary sources in the archives. A primary source is contemporary with the events it describes.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Perhaps because you might want to prove that your claim was not utterly unrealistic and unhistorical?

You say that we should expect such contemporary evidence regarding Jesus' activities to have survived - but are unwilling or unable to show that such contemporary evidence exists about any other activities in First Century Palestine.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of Jesus - I'm simply pointing out that your position is unreasonable and unjustifiable.


LOL - classic example of deflection.

I call you out on a claim that you can't sustain - so you start accusing me of being obsessed and of lacking faith. Wouldn't it be more honest to just hold your hands up and admit you posted something silly?

Firstly PDN I am not accusing you personally of anything , I don't even know you. Rather than sound pompous and write that '' one would think-- ''one would suppose'' etc it is easier to write as we speak and say you, it is not meant to be you PDN

This is just going round in circles in a different version of ISAW with Alexander and Socrates . I have already answered that one and I have asked for a comparision with Augustus Josephus Virgil and so far no takers.

I have answered your claim that Palestine was remote and inaccessible.

Now you want to set me another challenge . Ok I will give it a go and I await your response and that of ISAW to my question on Jesus and octavian or reasons why it dos'nt apply.

HamletOrHecuba

Marian you seem to come here regularly to argue, why?

You seem pretty set in your non-Christianity.

marienbad

PDN a simple wiki search yielded this on Herod the great

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Just gave it to you ISAW,

you gave tertiary sources and claimed them as primary.
the ONLY primary source i am aware of for alexander you did produce a single stone tablet of tens of thousands of tablets ONE has the name very like Alexander on it!
how many have Joshua or Jeshu?
No other sources from his timle mention alexander.

Why always go back a further 400 years to Alexander and Socrates ?

eh? 300 years not 400!

i told you why . Alexander is considered the greatest Military general ever and conquered the world. Socrates is considered to be one of the greatest thinkers of all times?
either would dwarf the fame or achievements of any roman emperor.

Lets compare Augustus and Jesus , shall we ? Or Virgil and Jesus ,
or even Josephus and Jesus ?

Well Jesus was a workmans son from a small village and the other is an emperor.

Lets be honest here there is even no mention of Nazereth before Christian times.

In 1620 the Catholic Church purchased an area in the Nazareth basin measuring approx. 100 × 150 m (328.08 ft × 492.13 ft) on the side of the hill known as the Nebi Sa'in. This "Venerated Area" underwent extensive excavation in 1955-65 by the Franciscan priest Belarmino Bagatti, "Director of Christian Archaeology." Fr. Bagatti uncovered pottery dating from the Middle Bronze Age (2200 to 1500 BC) and ceramics, silos and grinding mills from the Iron Age (1500 to 586 BC), pointing to substantial settlement in the Nazareth basin at that time. However, lack of archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times, at least in the major excavations between 1955 and 1990, shows that the settlement apparently came to an abrupt end about 720 BC, when many towns in the area were destroyed by the Assyrians.

Lets be more honest the place wasnt there from 720BC but was before that.

Jerome (c. 347 – 420) linked "Nazarene" to a messianic prophecy by Isaiah, claiming that "Nazarene" was the Hebrew reading of a word modern scholars read as ne·tzer (branch).

There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, And a Branch shall grow out of his roots.

ve·ya·tza cho·ter mig·ge·za yi·shai ve·ne·tzer mi·sha·ra·shav yif·reh.

http://biblos.com/isaiah/11-1.htm

Isiah by the way is pre christian.

You were saying?

I await your comparision of sources for Jesus and Octavian with interest.

I await your primary sources for socrates and Alexander.

so far yu have one mention on a stone. The only one i am aware of.
Maybe you can double the availmable primary contemporaneous sources for Alexander?
Any offers?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

PDN a simple wiki search yielded this on Herod the great

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Sorry, I'm unsure what your point is here. Is it the coins? Do you think that we should expect that people made coins with Jesus' image on them?

marienbad

PDN- Josephus on Salome - a minor historical personage if ever there was one

Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (Book XVIII, Chapter 5, 4):

Herodias, was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamme, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod, her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Phillip the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus the son of Herod the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons , Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus;

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

I await your response and that of ISAW to my question on Jesus and octavian or reasons why it dos'nt apply.

You think that there should be the same degree of surviving contemporary evidence for a carpenter in Palestine who was executed (even one who made extraordinary claims and worked miracles) as for the Emperor of an Empire that spanned most of the known world?

Are you being serious?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

PDN- Josephus on Salome - a minor historical personage if ever there was one

Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (Book XVIII, Chapter 5, 4):

Herodias, was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamme, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod, her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Phillip the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus the son of Herod the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons , Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus;

And where are the contemporary "Letters books epipigrams scrolls statues poems pottery" that refer to this royal personage?

HamletOrHecuba

Did anyone doubt Jesus's existence in antiquity?

I havent come across any claim, and Im sure if it existed we would have heard no end of it.

Does that not count as proof?