Proof that jesus walked the earth???

PDN · 20-11-2007 04:37PM

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I dont discount historians, nor scholars when their pursuit of learning is a valid one. The trouble is about 90% of these so-called learned men are shilling for their christian agendas.

I think what you really mean is that you don't discount historians or scholars providing that their findings agree with your preconceived prejudices.

PDN · 20-11-2007 04:41PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Western historians belong to the nominally Christian world, and one of the cultural assumptions of that world is the historicity of Jesus. The evidence for Jesus' historicity is certainly not stronger than for Mohammed's, or Shakespeare's, or the Trojan War, but their historicity is openly questioned by Western historians from an initial position of scepticism, while Jesus' is occasionally questioned from an initial position of acceptance.

I disagree. Most historians that I have read agree that Mohammed was a real person, as was Shakespeare, and that a Trojan War really occurred. And I agree with them, not because of any initial position of acceptance or scepticism, but because the weight of the evidence supports these conclusions, as does the evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

interestinguser · 20-11-2007 04:42PM

I think what you really mean is that you don't discount historians or scholars providing that their findings agree with your preconceived prejudices.

PDN,

Are there any circumstances/any evidence that could potentially be provided that would lead you to question the historical existence of Jesus?

Observation: posters on this forum often tend to focus on the more heated comments made and not on the more reasoned, thought out comments. Easier to reply to I guess. Case in point: none of the christains have made any comment about the link I provided dealing with The Jesus Project, a serious historical project dealing with the subject being discussed. Strange.

PDN · 20-11-2007 04:55PM

interestinguser wrote: »

PDN,

Are there any circumstances/any evidence that could potentially be provided that would lead you to question the historical existence of Jesus?

How kind of evidence would conclusively demonstrate that anyone didn't exist? What kind of evidence would lead us to question whether Mohammed or Julius Caesar existed? I guess if someone discovered a signed declaration by Peter and the other apostles that they had made the whole story up, and that Jesus had never existed, and it could somehow be proved that the declaration was genuine and not extracted by torture, then that would be pretty convincing.

Scofflaw · 20-11-2007 05:02PM

PDN wrote: »

I disagree. Most historians that I have read agree that Mohammed was a real person, as was Shakespeare, and that a Trojan War really occurred. And I agree with them, not because of any initial position of acceptance or scepticism, but because the weight of the evidence supports these conclusions, as does the evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

Good heavens! What historians are you reading that simply accept the Trojan War (the one in the Iliad) actually happened? The general view is that it might well reflect an oral tradition probably attached to some episode or episodes of Mycenean overseas adventuring - which would be like saying that the Bible represented an oral tradition probably attached to some popular Judean speaker or speakers.

Would you care to list the evidence in favour of the Trojan War - the one in the Iliad? Or the evidence for Mohammed, or Shakespeare - since it's the evidence that convinces you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

interestinguser · 20-11-2007 05:14PM

PDN wrote: »

How kind of evidence would conclusively demonstrate that anyone didn't exist? What kind of evidence would lead us to question whether Mohammed or Julius Caesar existed? I guess if someone discovered a signed declaration by Peter and the other apostles that they had made the whole story up, and that Jesus had never existed, and it could somehow be proved that the declaration was genuine and not extracted by torture, then that would be pretty convincing.

I should have phrased my question more carefully. Would anything convince you that the likelihood of jesus being a singular historical figure was quite slim? Granted it is not possible to say with absolute certainty that a person did not exist. Hence people ask the question is there any good evidence to believe he did. Would you be willing to admit that it is possible he didn't exist if evidence arose to suggest this?

PDN · 20-11-2007 05:19PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good heavens! What historians are you reading that simply accept the Trojan War (the one in the Iliad) actually happened? The general view is that it might well reflect an oral tradition probably attached to some episode or episodes of Mycenean overseas adventuring - which would be like saying that the Bible represented an oral tradition probably attached to some popular Judean speaker or speakers.

Would you care to list the evidence in favour of the Trojan War - the one in the Iliad? Or the evidence for Mohammed, or Shakespeare - since it's the evidence that convinces you?

cordially,
Scofflaw

If by "the one in the Iliad" you mean identical in every detail, then that is certainly not what I posted. However, I understand Manfred Korfmann, who leads the excavations at Troy, has demonstrated that the city was destroyed by a war.

Are you seriously questioning whether Shakespeare existed? Or just playing games?

Scofflaw · 20-11-2007 05:53PM

PDN wrote: »

If by "the one in the Iliad" you mean identical in every detail, then that is certainly not what I posted. However, I understand Manfred Korfmann, who leads the excavations at Troy, has demonstrated that the city was destroyed by a war.

No, the question of whether the Iliad is accurate in detail is separate. We're only concerned for the moment with whether the Trojan War of Homer happened at all.

Troy VIIa is considered the 'best candidate' for Homer's Troy. There is evidence that the part that has been excavated was destroyed by fire, and there some indications that this may have been war rather than natural disaster.

Does that prove that this is Homer's Troy - and by extension that Homer's Trojan War happened? Not a bit.

We have on the one hand a narrative, and on the other some archaeological evidence. Nothing yet connects the two except coincidence.

PDN wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning whether Shakespeare existed? Or just playing games?

Try "who was Shakespeare" on Google. Theories as to who wrote Shakespeare's plays were/are a commonplace of post-modernism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 20-11-2007 09:37PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Try "who was Shakespeare" on Google. Theories as to who wrote Shakespeare's plays were/are a commonplace of post-modernism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Post modernism seems to want to question whether or not anything ever happened as we were taught it did. Post modernism loves to jump on conspiracy theories.

See the Davinci Code as a prime example. As it does with Shakespeare it does with Jesus.

Ther is enough extrabiblical evidence to support that Jesus of Nazareth lived. And you can not discount the Bible as proof of that because the letters of Paul were written by a man who lived at the time. Nor can you ignore the gosples and Acts as they were also written by eyewitnesses or those connected to eyewitnesses.

I didn't see Ireland play on the weekend against Wales, but I can go and read an account on the RTE webpage and get a report. I can then offer that report to someone else who would accept my report based on the fact that I read one from an eyewitness.

Glad to hear scofflaw that you wouldn't expect any stone inscriptions on Jesus. If the expectation of history being written about an obscure Jew of Palestine in teh first century wouldn't be written about, then why was so much written about Him and so much of history affected by a guy who didn't live?

PDN · 20-11-2007 11:28PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Try "who was Shakespeare" on Google. Theories as to who wrote Shakespeare's plays were/are a commonplace of post-modernism.

So maybe the attempts to argue against the historicity of Jesus is also a post-modernism thing? In that case there probably isn't much point in presenting logical arguments since post modernism and logic don't mix.

Scofflaw · 21-11-2007 12:30AM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Post modernism seems to want to question whether or not anything ever happened as we were taught it did. Post modernism loves to jump on conspiracy theories.

See the Davinci Code as a prime example. As it does with Shakespeare it does with Jesus.

Hmm. Not sure the Da Vinci code is an example of post-modernism at work - I'm pretty certain it's pure book-selling material.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Ther is enough extrabiblical evidence to support that Jesus of Nazareth lived.

Support it? Of course. Prove it beyond reasonable doubt? I think that's arguable, but there certainly is a case.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And you can not discount the Bible as proof of that because the letters of Paul were written by a man who lived at the time. Nor can you ignore the gosples and Acts as they were also written by eyewitnesses or those connected to eyewitnesses.

Much of that is also debatable.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I didn't see Ireland play on the weekend against Wales, but I can go and read an account on the RTE webpage and get a report. I can then offer that report to someone else who would accept my report based on the fact that I read one from an eyewitness.

Yes, and we can check that against the evidence of other eye-witnesses, and the published scores. The point in respect of the Gospels is that we have such a very small number of accounts, and they are by Christians, indeed by promoters of the Church.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Glad to hear scofflaw that you wouldn't expect any stone inscriptions on Jesus. If the expectation of history being written about an obscure Jew of Palestine in teh first century wouldn't be written about, then why was so much written about Him and so much of history affected by a guy who didn't live?

Hmm - again, that kind of misses the point. Once you have the 'cult' of Jesus, there's no real relation between Jesus himself and the amount written about him, or the effect he had on history.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 21-11-2007 12:36AM

PDN wrote: »

So maybe the attempts to argue against the historicity of Jesus is also a post-modernism thing? In that case there probably isn't much point in presenting logical arguments since post modernism and logic don't mix.

Quite possibly - after all, post-modernism is deliberately iconoclastic, and it may well be the impetus for questioning the historicity of Jesus. However, that doesn't change the slenderness of the historical evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 21-11-2007 08:26AM

interestinguser wrote: »

Interesting that none of the christain posters have said anything about the links about The Jesus Project that I posted. This could well be a neutral (non-christain) project that might finally put forward good reasons to say that a person named Jesus actually lived. But I suppose Christains already 'know' that he did so they won't be hearing much new. Whether Jesus ever actually lived or not being up for discussion is a good thing for all IMO, people nearly always work from a default position that he did, so it is good to see that has changed.

I'm not quite sure what comment posters could make on the Jesus Project. A group of hand-picked scholars have promised to get together, pool their thinking, and make a pronouncement of whether Jesus really did exist or not.

Of course, the results will depend entirely on the subjective opinion of the person(s) who did the hand-picking of the scholars. For example, if the scholars are people like infidel.org's Robert Carrier, who will happily argue totally contradictory viewpoints so long as they can be used to attack Christianity, then the Project's result will be a foregone conclusion. They will pronounce that Jesus never existed and Christians will dismiss it as a deliberately skewed study group.

If, however, the Jesus Project is composed of scholars more representative of their academic disciplines, then its findings will also be rejected since, according to the atheists, a majority of the scholars come from a nominally Christian background and so are biased in favour of assuming Jesus' existence.

Either way I can't see it as doing anything other than providing one group with a subjective stick with which to beat their ideological opponents.

Hivemind187 · 21-11-2007 08:28AM

PDN wrote: »

Try thinking.

If Jesus didn't really exist in the first place then it would be impossible for his disciples to believe anything about his resurrection since they would have been discipled by a non-existent figure. Therefore the whole basis for Carrier's book depends on the existence of Jesus.

No, I was right. Its YOUR thinking that is flawed.

You ASSUME that they were telling the truth, you ASSUME that THEY all existed and that they really did see something, you assume that the story is not a metaphor nor a piece of spurperstitious propaganda.

And there was no need to get ratty.

Hivemind187 · 21-11-2007 08:33AM

PDN wrote: »

I think what you really mean is that you don't discount historians or scholars providing that their findings agree with your preconceived prejudices.

I think you are realising that you are losing this argument and are resorting to petty name calling.

I havent got a preconception. I dont actually care whether Jesus existed as a person or not. My issue is with the following;

1) assuming that Christs existance is a default that does not need the provision of evidence.
2) assuming that hearsay, conjecture and out-right assumptions based on faith are somehow evidence
3) assuming that if he did exist as a physical person that every event and action ascribed to him is actually true and aactually happened
4) assuming that if he did exist that he really was the son of a deity and not a raving lunatic (as he would be described today).

This list goes on and on in relation to the assumptions made by poeple about Christ based on the original assumption (original sin if you'll forgive the pun) that Christ existed as he is described in the Biblical accounts.

I personally have seen no evidence that conclusively shows whether the jewish-zombie really did exist and as such I consider him to be up their with other fictional super-men like Hercules.

PDN · 21-11-2007 08:39AM

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No, I was right. Its YOUR thinking that is flawed.

You ASSUME that they were telling the truth, you ASSUME that THEY all existed and that they really did see something, you assume that the story is not a metaphor nor a piece of spurperstitious propaganda.

And there was no need to get ratty.

I'm not assuming anything. We're discussing Robert Carrier's book, not my assumptions. :rolleyes:

Carrier (an atheist) argued, in The Empty Tomb, that there really were disciples of Jesus who genuinely believed that their teacher, Jesus, had received some kind of spiritual body in a resurrection, and used that as a basis for preaching a literal resurrection. That theory necessitates the historical existence of both the apostles and of Jesus Himself.

I was pointing this out, not in any way addressing this particular half-baked theory, but simply demonstrating Carrier's inconsistency when he elsewhere tries to argue against the historical existence of Jesus.

As for being ratty, have you ever considered that if you posted using language that was a little more measured then you might attract less rattiness? I actually felt my response was very restrained - I can really do ratty if you want, but then I would probably get banned.

Hivemind187 · 21-11-2007 08:44AM

PDN wrote: »

I disagree. Most historians that I have read agree that Mohammed was a real person, as was Shakespeare, and that a Trojan War really occurred. And I agree with them, not because of any initial position of acceptance or scepticism, but because the weight of the evidence supports these conclusions, as does the evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

There is a difference here.

There is archaeological evidence that a war and a siege occured which resembles some of the details (e.g. the less fanciful ones) given in the Illiad. The Illiad was a heroic epic so you cant take it as a true account (which no one in their right mind would).

On the other hand, where is the archaeological evidence for the Jesus of the bible? Where is the historic accounts of this individual that do not come from the source expounding on his miracles as a basis for their theological position (an un-biased account of his miracles and deeds from a source that has nothing to lose or gain from the story would be a good start)?

The problem, I feel, is that theist try to shift the onus onto us to prove he didnt exist whereas in the ligth of objectivity it is you, who claim that he did and performed miracles, that should be in the position of justifying your claims with the evidence.

PDN · 21-11-2007 09:20AM

Hivemind187 wrote: »

There is a difference here.

There is archaeological evidence that a war and a siege occured which resembles some of the details (e.g. the less fanciful ones) given in the Illiad. The Illiad was a heroic epic so you cant take it as a true account (which no one in their right mind would).

On the other hand, where is the archaeological evidence for the Jesus of the bible? Where is the historic accounts of this individual that do not come from the source expounding on his miracles as a basis for their theological position (an un-biased account of his miracles and deeds from a source that has nothing to lose or gain from the story would be a good start)?

The problem, I feel, is that theist try to shift the onus onto us to prove he didnt exist whereas in the ligth of objectivity it is you, who claim that he did and performed miracles, that should be in the position of justifying your claims with the evidence.

The onus is not on anyone to prove that Jesus didn't exist - unless you are going around making statements that he didn't exist. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to produce evidence to back up a statement that flies in the face of the majority of historians.

As for the argument that most historians are biased because they are Christians - that is nonsense. Most historians do not believe, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine, or even was raised from the dead. Historians are perfectly capable and willing to reach judgments that are opposed to Christian beliefs. Indeed, as the recent documentaries on the Tomb of Jesus and the Gospel of Judas have shown, you can make a lot of money by producing a sensationalist attack on Christian orthodoxy. However, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus historians weigh up the evidence, and as far as it is possible to gather evidence about a non-political, non-aristocratic figure from 2000 years ago, all the evidence points to the fact that a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist.

PDN · 21-11-2007 09:36AM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It was only after the early Christians started to include the religious beliefs of other more popular religions of the time that they began to be noticed, for example taking much from the cult of the sun god Mithras (Mithras was the Son of God and the Lamb of God born of a virgin in a cave on the 25th of December, he and his 12 disciples spread the good word, he died, was buried in a tomb, conquered death and was resurrected on the third day, his followers recieved baptism by water and practiced "The Lord's Day" on a Sunday - the day being named after Mithras, and his followers ate bread and drunk wine to represent the holy body - sound familiar?).

The evidence that the Mitraic cult was introduced to Rome in the 1st Century AD comes from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum - a comprehensive collection of ancient Roman inscriptions. A good account on the later beliefs of Mithracism is in "The Roman Cult of Mithras" by Richard Gordon.

Not this hogwash again?

About the only thing that is true here is that the Christians chose to celebrate Christ's birth on the 25th December, a date sacred in the cult of Sol Invictus (a syncretistic mix of Mithraism with other pagan beliefs). This is hardly earth-shattering since I have never met a Christian over 10 years of age who believes Jesus was born on December 25th.

All the other stuff, despite the claims on various websites, dates from Mithraism in its later forms as practiced in the Roman Empire after the rise of Christianity. Modern scholars doubt whether the Roman cult of Sol Invictus actually inherited any of its beliefs of practices from the pre-Christian Persian mystery religion of a similar name.

The inscriptions you mention all date from the late first century AD, in other words at least 50 years after the rise of Christianity. Therefore the most obvious conclusion is that Mithraism, or more correctly the cult of Sol Invictus, copied many elements from the rapidly spreading Christian religion (a very common pattern observed by sociologists of religion even today).

Imagine someone in 2000 years time discovering film footage of British skinhead gangs from 2007 and saying, "Look! These skinheads used the swastika symbol, the maltese cross, and gave a Nazi salute. Obviously Hitler was not original but copied these things from the British skinheads." Duh! The skinheads came 50 years later.

Of course if you can produce inscriptions, documents etc. proving that Mithraism practiced all these things before 37 AD then that would be different. Can you?

Hivemind187 · 21-11-2007 10:03AM

PDN wrote: »

The onus is not on anyone to prove that Jesus didn't exist - unless you are going around making statements that he didn't exist. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to produce evidence to back up a statement that flies in the face of the majority of historians.

As for the argument that most historians are biased because they are Christians - that is nonsense. Most historians do not believe, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine, or even was raised from the dead. Historians are perfectly capable and willing to reach judgments that are opposed to Christian beliefs. Indeed, as the recent documentaries on the Tomb of Jesus and the Gospel of Judas have shown, you can make a lot of money by producing a sensationalist attack on Christian orthodoxy. However, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus historians weigh up the evidence, and as far as it is possible to gather evidence about a non-political, non-aristocratic figure from 2000 years ago, all the evidence points to the fact that a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist.

And what evidence would that be then? Exactly which non-scriptural or non-affiliated individual points to a miracle working prophet?

I do not doubt that there was a man called jesus living in the general area at the time. In fact I'd say there were dozens if not hundreds of them. Just as many Judas's, Matthews, Paul's etc

My issue is with assuming that this biblically accounted Jesus existed in the absense of facts supporting it. I again ask you to show me his fossil or at the very least a piece of evidence that points to the specific individual in the biblical account (if you can actualy divine who that is) either documentary or physical, that does not come from a biassed source.

It is the assumption of a fact that bothers me. Saying that the majority of historians etc believe it to be true is a flawed argument since it omits the possibility that the majority of these historians either a) are biased in that their christian belief requires the existance of Jesus and therefore take it for granted that he did exist whether he performed mircales or not b) they are not interested enough in whether he existed or not and take the man and the period of time for granted as a general consensus or c) are capable of believing something that is not true even in the face of evidence (see: Scientists who refute evolution or navigators who believe the world is flat).

Scofflaw · 21-11-2007 10:21AM

PDN wrote: »

The onus is not on anyone to prove that Jesus didn't exist - unless you are going around making statements that he didn't exist. In that case it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to produce evidence to back up a statement that flies in the face of the majority of historians.

Not the case at all. One cannot prove someone did not exist, and there cannot therefore be any onus on anyone to do so.

If one is uncertain of Jesus' existence, one looks at the same evidence as everyone else. I do, and I do not find it compelling - although I would say that on balance the simplest explanation is that a Jesus existed. Being alive is nothing either new or startling, after all.

PDN wrote: »

As for the argument that most historians are biased because they are Christians - that is nonsense. Most historians do not believe, for example, that Jesus turned water into wine, or even was raised from the dead. Historians are perfectly capable and willing to reach judgments that are opposed to Christian beliefs.

Those are "extraordinary" claims, which it is not possible to give automatic historical credence to - they represent historically unique claims. That Jesus existed by default, rather than not, is a cultural bias operating on a very ordinary claim that is open to individual judgement.

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, as the recent documentaries on the Tomb of Jesus and the Gospel of Judas have shown, you can make a lot of money by producing a sensationalist attack on Christian orthodoxy. However, when it comes to the historicity of Jesus historians weigh up the evidence, and as far as it is possible to gather evidence about a non-political, non-aristocratic figure from 2000 years ago, all the evidence points to the fact that a historical person called Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist.

"All the evidence" can hardly do anything else - what is evidence for non-existence? The question is whether, taken all together, the evidence is "overwhelming", "compelling", "sufficient", "adequate", or "inadequate". I would consider it "adequate".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 21-11-2007 10:22AM

PDN wrote: »

I was pointing this out, not in any way addressing this particular half-baked theory, but simply demonstrating Carrier's inconsistency when he elsewhere tries to argue against the historical existence of Jesus.

No offense PDN, but what are you talking about?

Firstly what do you mean by "Carrier's inconsistency"? Carrier is a historian, he isn't a priest or pope. Are you honestly suggesting that if a historian puts forward his own historical theories he must doggedly stick to those theories and never change his mind or consider other seriously historical theories? History isn't a religion (I seem to remember saying science isn't a religion on this forum recently as well, this seems to be becoming quite an issue).

Secondly it isn't actually Carrier's theory, it is Doherty's. Carrier is reviewing this theory presented in Carrier's book, "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus" Carrier is saying he finds it a good well constructed and convincing historical theory, and he challenges other historians in his conclusion of the article to present better theories that Jesus was a real person

I appreciate that the theory that Jesus was not a real person offends your religious beliefs, and that you will never consider it seriously. But that fact is actually irrelevant to the theory or those reviewing it. Carrier does consider it, along with other theories, without regard for its religious ramifications, as all good historians should.

interestinguser · 21-11-2007 11:13AM

Of course, the results will depend entirely on the subjective opinion of the person(s) who did the hand-picking of the scholars. For example, if the scholars are people like infidel.org's Robert Carrier, who will happily argue totally contradictory viewpoints so long as they can be used to attack Christianity, then the Project's result will be a foregone conclusion. They will pronounce that Jesus never existed and Christians will dismiss it as a deliberately skewed study group.

A disappointing but unfortunately predictable response.

If, however, the Jesus Project is composed of scholars more representative of their academic disciplines, then its findings will also be rejected since, according to the atheists, a majority of the scholars come from a nominally Christian background and so are biased in favour of assuming Jesus' existence.

If you read the links or listening to the podcast then you would have found out a bit more about the people in the project. There is quite a mixture, from people who think that there probably wasn’t a historical Jesus, to those who believe their was, to actual Christian believers. Everyone brings their own baggage and biases, that is why it is important to have people from different perspectives involved and to have properly set procedures and protocols, so that people are led by the actual evidence, not by their own preconceptions. You should really listen to the podcast I posted a link to, it does into this is detail, I’m sure you would find it interesting. Granted, as Wicknight pointed out, the whole idea probably offends you.

Either way I can't see it as doing anything other than providing one group with a subjective stick with which to beat their ideological opponents.

That is quite a negative and pessimistic view I must say.
:rolleyes:

PDN · 21-11-2007 11:16AM

interestinguser wrote: »

Granted, as Wicknight pointed out, the whole idea probably offends you.

Actually it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I find it interesting that you and Wicknight want to speculate about my feelings.

That is quite a negative and pessimistic view I must say.
:rolleyes:

It is a view based on evidence, such as reading thread after thread on these boards.

Scofflaw · 21-11-2007 11:19AM

Either way I can't see it as doing anything other than providing one group with a subjective stick with which to beat their ideological opponents.

That's the whole point of ideology, isn't it? Let there be beard-pulling!

ecumenically,
Scofflaw

interestinguser · 21-11-2007 11:27AM

Actually it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I find it interesting that you and Wicknight want to speculate about my feelings.

So hypothetically you'd have no problem with people finding evidence that suggested that their was in fact no historical Jesus? Or that the historical Jesus did not resemble the biblical figure? If that is the case, I'd find it very interesting.

It is a view based on evidence, such as reading thread after thread on these boards

Fair enough.

Zombrex · 21-11-2007 11:55AM

PDN wrote: »

Actually it doesn't offend me in the slightest, but I find it interesting that you and Wicknight want to speculate about my feelings.

Well TBH PDN you posts suggest otherwise.

You seem to dismiss as utter nonsense any theory that even suggests that Jesus was not a real person. Your (rather bizarre) attacks on Carrier, rather than the actual historical theory he was discussing, being a case in point.

Pompey Magnus · 21-11-2007 12:28PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why would you expect any of them write about Jesus? Scofflaw mentioned about stone inscriptions of Jesus ala Rameses III. Why would you expect to find any stone inscriptions?

Perhaps historians of the time may not have considered Jesus significant enough to mention, but I would have assumed the mass murder of male children in a Roman province by a Roman client king who was a favorite of the Roman Emperor Augustus, so not a minor character by any standard, might well have been important enough for at least one historian of the time to mention.

Or maybe a highly unusual astronomical event in the region, which was significant enough for the Bible to claim three Magi from Persia travelled to Bethlehem, also should have records.

Then there was the Earth going dark for three hours after Jesus' death - the maximum length of time for solar eclipse totality being seven minutes and thirty one seconds, so a three hour darkness would be something pretty noteworthy. This was followed by an earthquake and the veil of the temple being split in two, followed by the corpses of dead saints coming out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem, might that not have been deemed worthy of mention?

Scofflaw · 21-11-2007 03:27PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Perhaps historians of the time may not have considered Jesus significant enough to mention, but I would have assumed the mass murder of male children in a Roman province by a Roman client king who was a favorite of the Roman Emperor Augustus, so not a minor character by any standard, might well have been important enough for at least one historian of the time to mention.

Or maybe a highly unusual astronomical event in the region, which was significant enough for the Bible to claim three Magi from Persia travelled to Bethlehem, also should have records.

Then there was the Earth going dark for three hours after Jesus' death - the maximum length of time for solar eclipse totality being seven minutes and thirty one seconds, so a three hour darkness would be something pretty noteworthy. This was followed by an earthquake and the veil of the temple being split in two, followed by the corpses of dead saints coming out of their graves and walking into Jerusalem, might that not have been deemed worthy of mention?

There, I think, we are moving on to the historicity of the Gospel accounts - where we are on much more 'popular' ground in rejecting their historical accuracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary · 21-11-2007 05:16PM

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I personally have seen no evidence that conclusively shows whether the jewish-zombie really did exist and as such I consider him to be up their with other fictional super-men like Hercules.

Banned for calling Jesus what you called Him.

Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Comments