For those who claim Jesus did not exist listen to Bart Ehrman - the unbeliever.

[humblebum]

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/11/15/did-jesus-really-exist-bart-ehrman-thinks-so/

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Pfftttt.

[Rabblevox]

2. Very few of us Atheists/Agnostics deny that there was a historical Jesus...

Speaking just for myself, I believe that Jesus existed and preached. The evidence is pretty compelling. I also believe that Jesus was hung on a cross to die. Again, there is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence.

Where I break from you (and most other believers) is that I deny completely that anything supernatural happened after his death.

He died. Period.

[humblebum]

4. I can respect that. nt

[LeftishBrit]

17. The same here.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. um, actually there are quite a few, especially within the skeptic

community as it turns out there is no good historical evidence for a real person matching the name and description of Jesus of Nazereth. You can start with Nazereth itself, for which there is scant evidence of an actual village of that name existing at the appropriate point in time.

Doesn't mean he didn't exist, however in general a clear headed approach to this subject would place Jesus in the same category as other religious myths.

[Deep13]

33. +1 nt

[ChadwickHenryWard]

129. I've heard that before.

I have heard it claimed that Nazareth had not been founded at the time of Jesus's life, and that its inclusion in the Gospels represents a massive anachronism. I haven't been able to find any scholarship on that claim, though. Is there any evidence that that was the case?

[Deep13]

32. Insufficient evidence.

there is no evidence outside of the NT that he ever existed. The story is too derivative to be accepted and contains too many self contradictions. Also, they contradict known facts about the Roman Empire (no empire-wide census, wrong governor). We know for a fact that the gospels were written decades after the fact. The earliest parts of the NT, Paul's epistles, contain no mention of the details of JC's life. He may not even have been writing about a real person by an idealized son of god living in heaven.

So yeah, it may be based on a real person, but that person is not the JC described in the NT.

[aquart]

54. Yeah, don't get hung up on that census thing.

The important part of that story was the stable birth. (Which I agree was fictional but vital to the deification. We really don't have anything before he started preaching and that was old memory.)

There is a crazy book by Robert Eisler that tries to put together a description of historical Jesus from IIRC FORGERIES of Roman arrest warrants. If you're hunting historical Jesus that's an amazing place to look. Honestly, not kidding.

[Deep13]

56. Interesting. I'll try to fit it in. nt

[Taverner]

125. Also - it depends on WHICH JC from the NT

Paul's letters make no supernatural claims of Jesus. The Gospels, written a good 200-300 years later, did.

[Taverner]

124. Although - let me play devil's advocate here

There is evidence to suggest that the historical Jesus may not have died, and that his "death" was more of a Gnostic ritual of rebirth.

Crucifixion had fallen out of favor at the time of the historical Jesus. Also the Flavius Josephus account was most likely forged.

Add to it that all of the supernatural stuff was added to Christianity 200-300 years after the historical Jesus.

Of course, who the heck knows.

[LAGC]

3. You need to watch "The God Who Wasn't There."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455507/

Then tell me Jesus really existed.

[humblebum]

5. I have. It can be dismantled and debunked too easily.

Very shallow.

[LAGC]

6. Please share with the rest of us who aren't as informed as you.

:popcorn:

[Rabblevox]

7. "The God Who Wasn't There" free on youtube...

Love it or hate it, it's worth a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFsmmMTMCHU

[aquart]

9. No, thanks. Deification seems to be a normal human impulse.

If you want to know the process by which Jesus became The Christ, check out what happened after Elvis died, and Princess Diana. Then remember that two thousand years ago they had neither newspapers nor video.

[Rabblevox]

11. Deification might indeed be a "normal human impulse", but your argument is beyond stupid...

(edited for offensive language)

Seriously, did you ever take Anthro 101???


Because right now your argument is just silly and juvenile.

You actually make my case for me (and I thank you for that)

The inescapable fact that the "Jesus Myth" has persisted for 20k years leads to some very serious questions.

Trying to conflate Jesus with Elvis and Di just discredits anything you have to say.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Edit that last word in your subject line

it is not used in this forum

[Rabblevox]

14. edited, and I apologize. I wasn't thinking. /nt

[Angry Dragon]

15. THANK YOU

[Nihil]

37. You might want to change your profile ...

... to include the phrase "Stroppy bullying git who thinks he's a moderator" ...

:eyes:

[Rabblevox]

43. moderator or not, I was called out for using a word I shouldn't have, and stand corrected. /nt

[Nihil]

44. Fair enough - I just thought the tone of the response was out of line. Never mind. (n/t)

:shrug:

[LAGC]

16. The "Jesus myth" has persisted for 20,000 years?

I guess that does lead to some serious questions... like holy time travel!

:evilgrin:

[Rabblevox]

18. That was a case of "happy fingers" or "typing while drunk". Let's say 2k? (which was what I meant)

[LAGC]

19. I think Buddha has Jesus beat by about 500+ years, if I'm not mistaken...

If we're going solely on how long the particular myth has persevered...

[Rabblevox]

20. Closer to 400 years, and I get your point, but Buddhists fucking BORE me...

Navel-gaze all you wish, But Buddhists cannot point to a single advancement in politics, human welfare, or religion.

[eShirl]

21. What do you mean by an advancement in Religion?

[Rabblevox]

22. By "advancement" I mean a religion that has tangibly made it's people more just, loving, tolerant...

Buddhism fails, Christianity fails, Hinduism fails. Islam and Judaism are complete fucking epic fails.
Not one single time in history has religion of any variety led to an overall improvement in the lives of the people.

Not fucking once.

[aquart]

40. Oh, good grief. Now that is both ignorant and silly.

And what on earth do you mean by "improvement'?

Although I'd be fine if you said patriarchal-reinforcement religions are past their sell by dates.

The pomposity of atheism annoys the hell out of me.

[Rabblevox]

42. It is neither ignorant nor silly. Do you have anything better than "ad hominem" attacks...

to bring to the table? I stand by my statement.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

100. Once upon a time, I was returning from a Rainbow Gathering,

I was out in the middle of nowhere on Calif. 99 heading South. I had been there a very long time. As a car approached I was compelled to fall to my knees and press my palms together in the sign of prayer. The car drove on by, then slowed, then backed up. The first thing the father with his young son said to me was something like, " I would never have picked you up, but I'm a Christian, and couldn't pass you up." I was very thankful for the help in moving along, and the spirit that moved me.

I think there is a great value in the help many Christian communities give each other. And I think there are those who use the religion for their political agenda and have not developed a truly mutually beneficial relationship with their fellow man.

I posted this link in this forum a day or so ago, and though 171 seemed to take the time to look at the thread, no real discussion has stirred, from any perspective. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x301267

ADW

[Odin2005]

30. That is ignorant horeshit.

Buddhists never engaged in mass persecutions of non-Buddhists or Buddhists of different sects. Buddhism isn't even a theistic belief system, that is certainly an advance over believing in a big sky daddy.

[Rabblevox]

41. Actually, the ignorance is yours, read your history, son. Myanmar, Thailand, Sri Lanka, WW2 Japan..

The list goes on and on and on with Buddhist atrocities towards fellow Buddhists.

And to say that Buddhism is not Theistic is supremely ignorant. Whether you are talking Theraveda or Mahayana, or Tibetan Buddhism, you are talking Gods, Demi-Gods, demons, etc. It is only Zen Buddhism that takes an "A-Theistic" view. (and lets all pause to remember just how loving, just, and tolerant that religion has been practiced in Japan.

[aquart]

36. Well, if you consider Jesus a name of the dying and reviving god like Tammuz

and Dumuzi, and there is linguistic evidence that he is, then 20,000 years could be a conservative estimate. Christians always act like they came up with a new idea...and they did. Their dead god stays dead after the initial reappearance, he's just outta there. Makes for wild pretzeling in the mythmaking.

[Deep13]

34. What makes you think it's any different?

You are assuming Christianity is somehow beyond that kind of comparison because it's old (2k, not 20k BTW). But so what? Human nature was the same then as it is now. The evidence in existence really does not get you past the threshold of credibility. I understand you are reluctant to thing that for 2000 years people have been wasting their time and killing each other over a myth that has no more to recommend it than the cults of Elvis and Diana, but wishful thinking is not proof. In fact, unlike JC, we know that Elvis and Diana really existed. It is similar to people who get pissed off when god is compared to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. But why are they on any better footing than children who believe in Santa? Yes, it's insulting, but that's only because it is accurate.

[aquart]

35. Anthro 101?

That course where the professor insisted we became bipedal so we could carry spears and stuff while running over the Savannah chasing (and being chased by) four-legged game? That course? Yikes. If you think the religious believe six impossible things before breakfast, you should look at the anthropologists. My PBS is running their latest offering in which they abandon the discredited Savannah theory but still cling to it by claiming it was genius idea to sweat a lot while running four-legged game into heat stroke but not once attempting to count the calories involved in that effort. Seriously, it was simply awesome for blind faith.

[edhopper]

39. You are confusing

conjecture with evidence. Anthropologist might argue and theorize about why humans developed as they did. But that is different than the compelling evidence about the course of human progress.

[aquart]

45. Uh,no I'm not.

You seem to be assuming I reject evolution. Are you? Where did I say anything of the kind? The latest idiotic theory is positing that we developed as lake dwellers which ignores (like the calorie expense of Savannah hunting) that we come equipped with salt water adaptations. And NONE of the theories explain where we could have been that made it safe to become completely physically defenseless with children that take a decade or more to be safe on their own.

NOTHING in that silly series explains how, while we were running gazelles or whatever into heat stroke, why lions and other pack-hunting predators weren't doing exactly the same with us. Because, when this great advantage was supposed to have started, there were a whole lot more of them. And there is compelling evidence that we were so desperate for food that we were scavenging AFTER the jackals and hyenas (I totally mix those two up. Scavenging after the scavengers. That is pathetic.) Spear hunting was featured. Net hunting was ignored. But EVIDENCE says we were eating a hell of a lot more we caught with nets and snares than spears.

Which leads us straight into religion because nets were enshrined in early religion. Spears, not so much.

[edhopper]

49. Not assuming anything

You implied, or I inferred, that you think anthropology is a joke with no foundation. I was differentiating between speculative causes of early human behavior and the well founded views of human development.
Either that or you are referring to popular press accounts or PBS shows and not scientific journals. Or you are inflating the speculation of some anthropologist into accepted notions by the field.
You did say Anthro 101 is a joke, did you not?

[Deep13]

48. Most so-called primative people deify their ancestors.

I don't see how the Elvis or Diana examples are that different.

[aquart]

53. Well, because they aren't relatives of most of us, for one thing.

And the process involved a stunning amount of fervor. VERY different from routine, calm, ancestor reverence.

Also, after-death Elvis sightings were notorious.

[Deep13]

57. Yeah, but their images were everywhere...

...and the tributes that followed their demise. If the steps for deification are 1-100, just turning on the TV gets you to 50 or 60.

[darkstar3]

59. I'd like to see that debunking as well,

especially considering how supported that documentary was by written information.

[Skittles]

8. he existed

he just wasn't a magic man and his mama DAMN sure wasn't a virgin

[aquart]

10. Sigh.

[Skittles]

12. very articulate

I understand COMPLETELY

[aquart]

38. Probably not.

The virgin gotcha is such an off-ramp for me. Kindergarten skepticism. Not even fun to argue.

[moobu2]

24. Jesus was the personification of the Sun

Just like all Gods and Goddesses were personifications of some object, usually the sun, moon, planets or constellation, but Gods could be volcanoes or other earthly objects as well. The Jesus character was originally invented to commemorate the onset of the age of Pisces, (the fish) and the end of the age of Aries (the ram) and his story was simply an allegorical tale of the suns birth and subsequent travels through the 12 signs of the zodiac over the period of a year, then the suns death. Jesus was said to have been born in a cave and died and was placed in a cave because at one time people thought the sun exited a cave on the horizon in the morning and entered a cave in the evening then traveled through the underworld and reentered our world from the cave again etc… (the idea is well documented in Egyptian hieroglyphs) in any case at the time the stories were made up people had no idea they lived on a planet and that our planet orbited the sun along with all the other planets. so they simply made up stories and passed them on. At some point people saw the advantage in writing the stories down and arranging and editing other documents to form the Bible to give the impression that the characters and events were real.

Gods do not exist in reality, sorry, it isn’t my fault.

[MineralMan]

25. Someone whose name was changed to Jesus from Joshua or something

similar to that by the Romans probably did exist. In fact, there were a number of "messiahs" in those days. Only one of them, however, became the basis of a religion. The mythology built around that particular messiah-figure is remarkable in its pervasiveness and longevity.

[edhopper]

26. Without the conversion

of Helen and Constantine, it would be a dead or minor religion.

As for whether a historical figure named Joshua (later renamed Jesus) existed, probably. I have also read conjecture that several figures were combined into the Jesus myth.

But just as there was probably Kings in Israel named David and Solomon. Their relation to the characters in the Bible are tangential at best.

[MineralMan]

27. Probably so. Christianity worked well for the Romans.

In fact, they fine-tuned it, and that process continued for centuries. Christianity was carefully adapted for use by the Romans and that made it suitable and preferable for adoption as the Romans expanded their empire into Europe. It was a great replacement for the complicated pagan religions, due to its simplicity and shortcut process eschatology. Brilliant!

[Odin2005]

31. Doubtful. Christianity was spreading like wildfire in the mid-200s AD.

In the mid 200s in Rome was in a state of near anarchy and people looked to something beyond this word to console themselves.

[darkstar3]

60. That is contrary to everything I've ever read about Constantine.

Constantine is credited with turning the tide of Christianity and beginning its rise to dominance in Western culture. The Edict of Milan decriminalized Christianity in the empire, and the Council of Nicaea finalized it for distribution (for lack of a better term).

So how do you figure that, without Constantine, Christianity would have grown?

[Odin2005]

61. Christianity grew faster than all the other Eastern cults during the 3rd Century, IIRC.

IMO the East and Italy would have become majority Christian eventually.

[darkstar3]

62. I'd like a source on that,

because everything, and I mean everything, I've read states that Christianity didn't start growing, and was even in a precipitous decline, before Constantine. In much of the known world, being a Christian was illegal, and the message was so garbled that people had trouble even knowing what "Christian" meant.

[Odin2005]

65. It is mentioned in a book I'm reading right now.

The Columbia History of The World, published in 1970. it says that Christianity boomed because of the mid-3rd century anarchy.

[darkstar3]

67. After which it was squashed, resurrected, and then squashed again,

most notably by Diocletian, Constantine's predecessor. Had Constantine not come to power and ceased the ass beating the Romans had been giving Christianity, the landscape would have been very different, and that doesn't even get into the fact that Constantine defined what Christian would mean for the next millennium or so...

[Odin2005]

94. the persecutions actually strengthened the religion.

[darkstar3]

95. Under Diocletian?

No. Another few decades of rule like his and Christianity would have disappeared. People converted from this fledgling religion to the Roman pantheon en masse to avoid harsh penalties, especially after their shit was taken and their houses of worship razed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. That's highly speculative, and not what a typical history says

Persecution of Christians came and went several times in the Roman Empire, but overall, it continued to grow. For instance, from the Encyclopedia of World History (pub Houghton Mifflin):

In Rome, Christians were executed under Nero, Domitian, and Marcus Aurelius; in the provinces persecutions of Christians were equally sporadic. Whether Christianity was illegal per se or whether Christians were persecuted for alleged criminal behavior is problematic. Well-organized Christian communities provided its members with benefits both social - burial; care for orphans, the sick, and the poor - and psychological - institutional identity and protections from demons. Their successes in urban centers around the Empire left these Christian churches poised to assume more important social roles when the civic institutions of the Roman Empire were shaken by the crisis of the 3rd century.
...
Christian churches flourished in the third-century crisis that affected the civic institutions of the Empire (see related events). The extent of Christian belief at the end of the century is controversial, however. While some Christians held positions in the government and army, and some were well-to-do, the great majority were uneducated, poor city-dwellers. Nevertheless, Christians were sufficiently conspicuous for them to be perceived as a threat and to be officially and systematically persecuted by Decius in 250, by Valerian in 257-260, and, finally, from 303 to 311 by Diocletian and Galerius. The persecutions, which entailed the burning of sacred books, the destruction and confiscation of church property, the loss of high status (honestiores) for Christians, and the arrest of the clergy, failed to curtail the growth of Christian communities.

Constantine, whose mother, Helena, was a Christian, and who described himself as a Christian after 312, is the pivotal figure in Christianity's rise. As emperor he ended all persecution and restored church property, and in 313 with his Edict of Milan, he granted toleration and legal recognition to Christian churches.

[darkstar3]

117. The problem with the claim

that the Diocletian Persecution didn't curtail the growth of Christian communities is three-fold:

1. The term of intense persecution was very short, and the rebound incredible under Constantine. Therefore, a phrase like "failed to curtail the growth of Christian communities" wouldn't be out of line, even if there were a short-lived drop.
2. There is often a push by Christians to claim that those who converted back to the Roman gods, and sacrificed to them in public, did so only under false pretense to save their lives, property, and freedom, and that these large groups didn't actually convert.
3. Many claims that the Diocletian Persecution was horrible but ineffective are based on the death toll. The problem with that basis is that Diocletian himself decreed that this process should be "bloodless", because he wanted conversion more than martyrdom or extermination. There were executions that were carried out by overzealous local governors, but that wasn't what Diocletian had in mind when he issued his edicts banning Christianity. He wanted the Christians to come back to the Roman gods, to sacrifice to them publicly, and to demonstrate that Rome would be unified. According to Eusebius, he mostly got what he wanted.

I will agree, though, that Constantine is the pivotal figure in the rise of Christianity. That's really what my whole point has been: Without Constantine to decriminalize, support via the state, and redefine Christianity, it never would have reached as far as it did.

[Lost-in-FL]

55. … something like Brian

:+

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua

just as Juan is the Spanish form of John.

By that era, there were already populations of Greek-speaking Jews in the Mediterranean region, the population for whom the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) was compiled.

[Odin2005]

28. I think there was a popular preacher at the time period named Yeshua ben Yosef, but that is it.

No virgin birth, no resurrection or any nonsense of that sort, that stuff was added on when stories of him got mixed up with popular eastern mystery cults. The whole Eucharist thingie is pure Eastern Mystery Religion in origin. Baptism was already growing in popularity because of the Essene Jewish sect.

[edhopper]

29. Let's face it

Biblical Jesus is to the actual person who might have lived then, what Walt Disney's Davey Crockett was to the real man.

[Silent3]

46. Neither guy came prepared for that little debate they had...

...in those audio clips at your link. They were painful to listen to. I get the impression that neither Ehrman or The Infidel Guy ( Idon't know his real name) thought they were going to be arguing about the historicity of Jesus before the interview started. If they did know that subject was coming up, doing some homework first and bringing a few notes would have helped immensely.

At any rate, how unbiased a source is the world of New Testament historians on the historicity of Jesus? While not all such historians are Christians, I suspect most are, and that they get into that field of study assuming there is a Jesus to begin with, trying to learn more about the man they already assume exists.

One could also ask, "What do you mean by Jesus?"

If you don't simply mean some itinerant preacher named Yeshua (or something close to that) born sometime around 3 CE who may or may not have approximately said a few of the things attributed to Jesus in the Bible, but rather "that guy who was the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who was crucified but then rose from the dead three days later", then the historicity of Jesus is very much tied up with the historicity of those miracles, and the historicity of those miracles certainly is highly debatable, even if some think the historicity of the more prosaic version of Yeshua is not.

You say later in another post that the argument against a historic Jesus presented in the movie "The God Who Wasn't There" is easily refuted. So please, easily refute for us.

[humblebum]

47. The real question should be:

How unbiased are the sources who are these two guys - Bart Ehrman and The Infidel Guy? I believe they are both either atheists or agnostics. NOT,

"How unbiased a source is the world of New Testament historians on the historicity of Jesus?"

They are certainly as qualified as anyone to speak on the subject.

[cleanhippie]

50. Full of confirmation bias and assumptions. -1.

[humblebum]

51. And totally logical. Bart Ehrman has been arguing the point for years. nt

[cleanhippie]

64. When you already believe the conclusion, is easy to create the storyline.

When you already believe the conclusion, is easy to create the storyline.

[humblebum]

68. I never thought I would see the day when Bart Ehrman was

so roundly criticised on this forum. I was asked to name an historian who believes that Jesus ever existed, and I chose an atheist. Go figure. That must be why atheists know so little about their own history.

[darkstar3]

69. A professor of Religious Studies does not a historian make.

And BTW: When did you start recognizing that a self-styled agnostic could be an atheist? Weren't you adamant not so long ago that atheism is a religion with a strong belief that no gods exist?

Will you ever break from your theme of intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation?

[humblebum]

70. He is also an historian. So those who have studied a specific area

are the least likely to understand that particular topic? Now I have heard it all?

[darkstar3]

71. Historians don't generally focus on one particular book.

His credentials at his own website show him as a theologian with a focus on the New Testament, and I don't see any credentials that would earn him the title of historian.
http://www.bartdehrman.com/curriculum.htm

If he's a historian, than so am I.

And BTW: Harping on the fact that Ehrman said it is still fallacious.

[humblebum]

72. Most PhD's have one area to which they devote most of their efforts and are experts in that area. nt

[darkstar3]

73. Which means he's an expert in theology, not history.

The two ARE mutually exclusive, wouldn't you say?

[cleanhippie]

78. Well bum, as you like to say, where you see contradiction, I see confirmation.

:rofl:

[humblebum]

80. Except I am the one seeing confirmation here, not contradiction. nt

[cleanhippie]

105. Oh, of course you are.

You always see just what you want to see.



Psst...It's called confirmation bias.

[laconicsax]

75. No, you were asked to cite a historical journal that affirmed the ressurection of Jesus.

My exact words to you were:

Cite, if you will, a reputable historical journal which discusses Jesus' alleged rise from the dead and concludes that it happened. Surely if there are thousands of historians in your ad populum fallacy, the majority opinion among the historical community should be that Jesus literally rose from the dead (a Biblical literalist view).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=300848&mesg_id=301015

In response, you named Bart Ehrman as someone who believes in a historical Jesus and then you started this thread. Don't think you can get away with pretending that you were "asked to name an historian who believes that Jesus ever existed." That's not what you were asked and you know it.

[laconicsax]

52. "My response has been to point out that Jesus is the most well attested historical figure..."

By none of his contemporaries. Isn't it odd that there are no records of any of the events in Jesus' life?

[darkstar3]

58. Completely fallacious

One person, no matter their position, stating that they believe something does not make that something true.

I'd like to see Ehrman's source material, and yours. Anything contemporary with Jesus' supposed time of life should be a sufficient start.

[Goblinmonger]

63. So why don't we have names of these historians?

Ehrman claims there are many but never gives us someone to look to. Saying "every historian I know" sounds a lot like a load of bullshit to me.

[Odin2005]

66. Like when RW pundits go "some people say".

If it was Wikipedia it would get a big CITATION NEEDED label

[Manifestor_of_Light]

74. We don't know if Jesus actually existed.

We know that Buddha lived, that Julius Caesar lived, that Alexander the Great lived.

[humblebum]

76. Atheists are funny when their nonbeliefs are threatened.

The only way you can positively rule out the life of Jesus is to discredit or disqualify every bit of documentation ever written about him. The chances of you being right are slim.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

77. No corroboration in outside sources from the NT

No records outside of the Bible of his existence.

NT was all written fifty or more years after his alleged life.

What Beliefs? I'm talking hard evidence. There is none.

Jesus is the same Sun God as Mithra, Apollo, Osiris and many others.

They were all born of a virgin on December 25th as supernovas flared and wise men came to see them.

There is NO documentation outside the N.T.

Christianity is a syncretic religion with no new information. It's just recycled mystery cults from earlier.

[cleanhippie]

79. Its funny how believers will use ANY writing about jesus as "historical" evidence...

even the all of the "writings" were supposition and speculation created AFTER reading the bible.

Humblebum, knows that. He knows that there is no historical evidence at all to support the existence of jesus. I think its called cognitive dissonance. :shrug:

[humblebum]

81. No, I do not know anything of the sort.On the contrary, I feel that much

of the writing was completed within the lifetime of those who were witnesses. Don't tell me what I know. This I do know - that the believers case is every bit as strong as that of the non-believer. The difference is that the validity of Christianity does not rely on total objectivity.

[cleanhippie]

82. And that is what makes it invalid.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

[humblebum]

83. If that is the case, then every court decision based on anything but

on scene, multiple eyewitness testimony should be considered bogus, as well as, every scientific hypothesis put forth without absolutely objective, empirical evidence.

[edhopper]

84. Scientific hypotheses are put forth

but then they need objective, empirical evidence to prove them correct or incorrect.
Actually eyewitness testimony is the most inaccurate evidence in a courtroom. Forensics is much more reliable.
But if you want the analogy, all the NT is hearsay and wouldn't even be allowed in court.

[humblebum]

85. Bingo!

"then they need objective, empirical evidence to prove them correct or incorrect."

"Actually eyewitness testimony is the most inaccurate evidence in a courtroom." many varibles there, but multiple eyewitness definitely strengthens a case.

"But if you want the analogy, all the NT is hearsay and wouldn't even be allowed in court." - yours is subjective opinion at best. And all ancient writings are heresay but they can certainly reach a higher degree of objectivity when any kind of physical evidence is introduced or those ancient stories are cooroberated by other ancient writings.

[edhopper]

86. And since there is no ancient writing

to corroborate the NT? No writing contemporaneous with events? No non-Christian writing until well into the 2nd century?

[LAGC]

87. Lots of ancient Greek myths are "corroborated" by other ancient writings...

Doesn't make them any more true.

I find it telling that you haven't provided any sort of rebuttal to "The God Who Wasn't There" documentary up-thread. If it was so easy to refute, why haven't you?

You'd think if Jesus really existed and was really performing all these miracles, SOMEONE would have wrote about it right there during his life-time, not waited decades after his death to report on it.

But that's the problem with hearsay... most of the time its just falsehoods, exaggerations, and embellishment.

[humblebum]

99. How many people during that time were even literate? And how many

wrote anything, to say nothing about the availability of writing material and utensils. The bulk of narratives during that time were written about royalty or upper-class citizens, or about major events, such as wars and great warriors. I think it is completely logical to assume that the incidents of Jesus life affected the ordinary people much more than those of any social status. Jesus had no such status. There were no newspapers, and word of mouth was the most prevalent form of mass communication. That these accounts were written down a while after the fact should be no surprise.

[laconicsax]

101. There are significant events in the Gospels which never happened.

Herod's baby-killing order, the earthquake and subsequent rising of the dead at the time of the crucifixion, and Augustus'/Quirinias' census never happened.

Since there's just as much evidence for these anything-but-trivial events as there is for the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, why believe the that it happened? The three events I named are outright fabrications; why should the sources containing them be considered valid?

[humblebum]

102. Well I'm sure glad you told me those things never happened. You must be

very old, because that's only way you would possibly know with any certainty. You must have been there. I'll bet the Guinness Book people would love to meet you.

[LAGC]

103. The point you're missing humblebum...

Is that THERE IS NO CORROBORATING HISTORICAL RECORDS outside of the Bible for many of the events detailed in the Gospels. Events so huge that surely SOMEONE would have independently recorded them.

What you're left with is circular logic: the Bible is true because the Bible says so! :crazy:

[humblebum]

108. That is a VERY common atheist retort and a logical fallacy.

When something was recorded 2000 years ago, and that record only exists in one place, I would say that the chances are quite good that there is only a single record or only one left. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially for the reasons stated previously. The Bible BTW is a collection of independent writings. The fact is that you have no grounds but your own opinion to make your statement.

[laconicsax]

111. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist – and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

-Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World.

IOW, an example of an appeal to ignorance is the expression, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Well done, humblebum.

[humblebum]

113. Sad but true. nt

[laconicsax]

104. I found a shirt you may like:

It fits you to a t.

[cleanhippie]

106. That is one serious case of denial of the facts you have there.

Facts are facts are facts.

How can you seriously not take these facts into consideration? WTF?

[laconicsax]

107. C'mon, cleanhippie. You know that where you see contradiction, he sees confirmation.

It's a fascinating cognitive disorder.

[humblebum]

109. "Facts are facts are facts" And facts recorded 2000 years are

what they are and can neither be proven nor disproven by the fact that they are recorded in no other place.

[laconicsax]

110. Did Herod order the 'massacre of the innocents'?

Was there a census as described by Luke?

How about the earthquake in Matthew?

[humblebum]

112. Like I said, you can neither prove nor disprove those events. My answer is

I don't know, and neither do you. Earthquakes have always been common occurrences. Nothing strange there. And mass murders for retribution or many other reasons were very common in the Roman Empire. One huge problem critics of the bible (or any other manuscripts of the day) have is that when quibbling about dates and time, they neglect the fact that one year equaled 360 days back then, and was subsequently changed to 365 days, later on. The problems this can cause when claiming a certain date for an event is obvious.

[cleanhippie]

114. No, those events cannot be PROVEN. Period.

there is no need to dis-prove anything.

[humblebum]

115. Well at least you got it half right. Next time I need to find a definitive

answer to an historical enquiry, I'll just check with cleanhippie. No need to go any farther.

[cleanhippie]

118. I don't care where you get it, as long as it's accurate, and what I stated is. Period.

[humblebum]

119. Hardly. nt

[laconicsax]

120. You're absolutely right--the Romans were notorious for shoddy record keeping.

[humblebum]

121. It has little to do with how the records were kept and everything to

to do with time/event translation, and what was considered to be worth recording. When there is confusion over specific dates, especially when it involves a difference of only a few years, the 360 day year v. the 365 day year can make all the difference in the world.

[laconicsax]

122. Like I said, the Romans rarely recorded what was done and who was involved.

For example, it's nothing short of a miracle that we know that Julius came before Augustus.

[laconicsax]

88. If you want to go that route, we can use the same rigorous standards to determine that:

The prevalence of flood myths means that the Noah story is true.

The prevalence of myths with giants means that the bit in Genesis about giants is true.

The prevalence of dragons and unicorns in varying myths means that they're real creatures.

The prevalence of birther myths means that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen.

The prevalence of UFO abduction stories means that they're all true.

The prevalence of creation myths means that evolution is false.

And so on...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. Actually, one theory about the mention of giants in Genesis

is that they're based on an ancestral memory of the time when Neanderthals and modern humans coexisted in the Middle East. Neanderthals were not gigantic, but the traces of their musculature on their bones indicate that they would have been physically much stronger than a modern human.

Those early chapters of Genesis are full of all kinds of weird fragments obviously patched together from an earlier oral tradition, and not all oral traditions are wrong. For example, when the first European settlers came to southern Oregon, the local Native Americans gave them a more or less accurate account of the formation of Crater Lake (the result of a massive volcanic explosion, if you're not familiar with the story), an event that had happened thousands of years before.

(And no, I don't believe that all of Genesis is literally true. In fact, most of it isn't.)

As for the flood myths, their universality is probably an ancestral memory of the period when the oceans rose after the Ice Age (which occurred within modern human times, for example, burying a lot of potential archeological sites from ancient Japan). If the earth warmed fairly quickly (and I've heard that it did), it would have caused the kinds of rainstorms that we're seeing now and a rise in ocean levels.

This doesn't mean that there was an actual Noah who brought animals onto a boat, just that it was an embellishment of an ancestral memory.

[laconicsax]

127. That's quite a stretch.

A distant memory of somewhat bulky people led to "and there were giants in those days"?

The thing about flood myths is that they're most prevalent in areas with a geological history of significant and/or regular floods. People tend to settle in areas that flood from time to time.

The most compelling argument I've heard is that the Biblical flood story is an amalgam of a Semitic oral history containing the filling of the Black Sea and the Utnapishtim story in Sumerian mythology which was, in turn, influenced by the regular flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates. (Really just a retelling of the Sumerian story, but there was probably already an oral history about the Black Sea.)

[humblebum]

128. Very insightful, honest, and perceptive. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

89. Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence.

Eyewitnesses are unreliable.
Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence, because it follows the laws of science. Whether medicine or physics or chemistry.

The evidence for Jesus is third or fourth hand half-baked hearsay.

And yes i am a lawyer but I do not play one on TV. :D

[humblebum]

90. Circumstantial evidence is also subjective evidence, And you also

know that there is much variation in the reliability of eyewitnesses, as well as circumstantial evidence. The evidence for Jesus is circumstantial and possibly based upon eyewitnesses. In any case after 2000 years, it is clearly impossible arrive at any truly objective assessment.

[laconicsax]

91. Hearsay isn't even circumstantial evidence.

The 'evidence' for Jesus is hearsay AT BEST.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

96. Circumstantial evidence when scientific is NOT subjective.

As in blood testing and DNA testing. There is no ambiguity in the results.
Autopsy results as to cause of death, etc.
Pretty much anything with clear results. However, experts can be subjective if there are differing opinions in the field.

[humblebum]

98. The Amanda Knox case is a good example where DNA results

are, indeed, being used as circumstantial evidence. Had there been eye witness accounts to corroborate the DNA evidence, it would be an open and shut case.

[NMMNG]

97. Vampires exist

Just look at all of the historical evidence; Anne Rice, Stephanie Meyer, Charlaine Harris, Bram Stoker....

[Goblinmonger]

92. There's an awful lot of writing about Jay Gatsby.

He wasn't real, either.

[laconicsax]

93. No...I went to school with someone who knew the friend of a friend of Jay's

Pretty sure he's real.