^ he's an academic scholar. What other person is better qualified to comment on the topic? Come on man...quit being stubborn and ignorant and just acknowledge that everything logically proves to Jesus' existence. His diety is clearly debatable, but to deny Jesus' existence is simply ignorant.

1/24/2006 10:07:41 AM

ok, listen, I just typed up several pages worth of proof that it's difficult if not impossible to prove jesus' existence, and then you come back with a quote from a scholar that contains absolutely no evidence. I'm not doubting hte man knows what he's talking about, but considering he's a catholic and is in church history, I'd have to say he's likely a bit biased. I won't laugh off any evidence you can give me that jesus existed, from this guy or otherwise.

as for his spiritual nature, I don't think that's debatable at all, since it's completely nuts to me to believe that a guy was born of a virgin and died and came back to life, but that's a matter of faith. that absolutely is not debatable at all.

if you want to prove jesus existed, just that the guy talked about in the bible existed, then prove it. you can't just say "it's ignorant to say he didn't exist" and completely ignore everything I just pointed out. what's ignorant is to make a statement about a historical figure about whom there is no actual evidence and then call anyone who doubts his existence ignorant.

again, as I said earlier to isaac, if someone is trying to prove something existed, the burden of proof is on him. you can't prove something DIDN'T exist. that's impossible. the best I can do is provide evidence that there is no evidence he existed.

can you, as I challenged isaac, show me something closer than ad 93 that even mentions jesus' existence?


[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2006 10:28:15 AM

Just curious, guys: Why have I been under the impression that Bibleman Jesus definitely walked the Earth, and that history/science proves this fact?

1/24/2006 12:02:48 PM

probably because so many people accept it. they might question his divinity, but you hear so much about "the man jesus" that you don't even question it

just like how people think coke actually eats away at nails and that cops actually use it to wash blood off of the street

1/24/2006 12:48:51 PM

Quote :

"ok, listen, I just typed up several pages worth of proof that it's difficult if not impossible to prove jesus' existence, and then you come back with a quote from a scholar that contains absolutely no evidence. I'm not doubting hte man knows what he's talking about, but considering he's a catholic and is in church history, I'd have to say he's likely a bit biased. I won't laugh off any evidence you can give me that jesus existed, from this guy or otherwise."

salisburyboy can drum up pages worth of "proof" to support nearly any point he wants to make, but we know to take it for what it is worth. I think its funny you consider the personal web page of a gradute student at Penn to be "proof" yet rely on ad hominem retorts to shove off counter points.

Quote :

"well, damn. I guess that if a professor of church history makes a comment in a news article with absolutely no backing evidence, I should just give up"

The article in no way is trying to supply backing evidence but simply stating the viewpoint of an established and well respected authority on the subject. Its a logical assumption that evidence for his point of view are available if needed. Simply because this news source doesn't list them does not invalidate the viability of the individual.

Quote :

"And this is from AD 93! Jesus supposedly died in AD 33. This is the first written account we have of Jesus the man."

First written account from outside sources, sure. You have to think this is about a half century from the crucifiction and Christianity was still a blip on the radar in terms of global scale.It is going to take time for word to spread, especially given the fact that it took some time to get a written text to assist in spreading of the gospels. You also have to take into account that the public life of jesus barely covers a year. Its not like he was on a 30 year tour or anything.

Quote :

"according to virtually all biblical scholars, the gospels were written from about 70 AD (40 years after jesus supposedly died) to about 105 AD (70 years after he supposedly died), because mark mentions the destruction of the temple, which happened in 70 AD."

Its funny how using terms like "virtually all", "most", "some", and "few" change the importance of a point tremendously. Anyways, the camps are pretty split on the dates of the various gospels. Quite a few believe them to be written before 70AD because there is no mention that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple was fulfilled (a pretty big point). The range for the earliest written accounts go from 50-70AD. The earliest estimations place the first written gospel within 17 years of the crucifiction of Jesus but most range from 20-40 years. Simply because there is a time gap in the written record and the event does not eliminate its validity. The earliest known physical fragment of John's gospel is I believe about 125 or so which is much better than can be said more most historical texts.

Quote :

"there's no problem with that time difference. What I'm saying is that as far as the divinity/born of a virgin/died and rose again stuff, that was slowly pieced together and written in different books, which weren't officially cannonized until the council of nicea, which constantine organized."

To say such a thing is a logical fallacy. Simply because similar generalities existed prior does not mean they are stolen/copied. Also, simply because there are stories that clearly are not the Messiah but with similarities to the Christian story of Christ you cannot say that it invalidates the claim that there was the historical Jesus that is talked about in the Gospels.

Quote :

"there are many books that weren't included in the bible for different reasons ranging from talking about jesus' wife and children to the fact that he didn't die to the idea that he wasn't divine or, in some cases, was purely mythical. The new testament was officially put together and officialized at the council."

You dramatically over exaggerate the differences in biblical texts, even the gnostic texts, and you neglect the fact that the gospels and epsitles of Paul are the most concrete in historical evidence. If any of the texts are likely to have had alterations or serious revisions its the gnostic texts. There multitudes of physical ancient texts with portions of the new testament written in various languages and found in various locations that all are consistent. The lack of variance only supports the notion that the gospels we know today are not a result of revisionist history. Keep in mind that the texts I am talking about are dated well before Constantine and the Council of Nicea (by a good 100-200 years).

Quote :

"you're right. i'm so biased that i go to the point of using proof to support my theories!"

I didn't realize the personal webpage of a grad student at Penn and vague references were proof.

Quote :

"can you, as I challenged isaac, show me something closer than ad 93 that even mentions jesus' existence?"

I guess the gospels written within years of his crucifiction aren't enough. Survival of ancient texts is not exactly a common thing. Most well known ancient texts are usually only available in physical texts dated several hundred if not thousands of years after they were believed to be written, even Julius Caesar's works. Even if not written by the apostles themselves they were still written in the living memory of Jesus's lifetime and therefore have some worth in regards to historical context.

Your approach to this subject is strikingly similar to that of our resident conspiracy theorist and its troublesome.

1/24/2006 7:35:44 PM

Quote :

"ts a logical assumption that evidence for his point of view are available if needed. Simply because this news source doesn't list them does not invalidate the viability of the individual."

absolutely true. I wasn't implying that the guy was stating facts without ever having proof, I was just saying that his statement was just being used as proof in this thread with no backing. If you want to use the guy's evidence, show it to me.

Quote :

"First written account from outside sources, sure. You have to think this is about a half century from the crucifiction and Christianity was still a blip on the radar in terms of global scale.It is going to take time for word to spread, especially given the fact that it took some time to get a written text to assist in spreading of the gospels. You also have to take into account that the public life of jesus barely covers a year. Its not like he was on a 30 year tour or anything."

All very true. However, that doesn't make it any more likely that Jesus existed. You're saying that it's more possible that he existed because christianity hadn't spread quite as far yet? There are still no first-hand bits of evidence, at all. No letters, no books, nothing. Not a single first hand account of Jesus's life exists.

Quote :

"Quite a few believe them to be written before 70AD because there is no mention that Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple was fulfilled (a pretty big point). The range for the earliest written accounts go from 50-70AD. The earliest estimations place the first written gospel within 17 years of the crucifiction of Jesus but most range from 20-40 years. Simply because there is a time gap in the written record and the event does not eliminate its validity. The earliest known physical fragment of John's gospel is I believe about 125 or so which is much better than can be said more most historical texts."

Again, this is interesting if it's true, and I'd like to see proof of it.

Quote :

"Simply because similar generalities existed prior does not mean they are stolen/copied. Also, simply because there are stories that clearly are not the Messiah but with similarities to the Christian story of Christ you cannot say that it invalidates the claim that there was the historical Jesus that is talked about in the Gospels."

No, I can't. I guess the fact that there are at least 5-10 stories that are almost exactly the same doesn't mean Jesus' was stolen or copied. What DOES make it even more interesting is that the only defense of those stories was that satan created them in preparation for Jesus. Not a very scientific argument, and so far, the best one that christianity has. Either way, that wasn't meant to be a statement against jesus' historical existence,that was meant to be a statement against his being the son of god, etc. It's very possible that if the real jesus DID exist, he was just a revolutionary who later had those attributes added to his life to fit the normal godman paradigm.

Quote :

"survival of ancient texts is not exactly a common thing."

That's true, and I question the validity of any ancient text that isn't an original. I mean, why would you, except because it's commonly accepted as being real?

Quote :

"I didn't realize the personal webpage of a grad student at Penn and vague references were proof. "

That grad student posted the text of Josephus, which you can find in a gazillion places on the internet. If you don't like that reference, google for it.

Quote :

"Your approach to this subject is strikingly similar to that of our resident conspiracy theorist and its troublesome. "

that's not true at all, and I'm sure you know that, but even if you do think that, you're not prooooooooving it. You just posted a huge rebuttal to my argument (which had references, even though you don't deem all of them worthy) with absolutely NO references of your own... and I'M acting like salisburyboy? In truth, neither of us is, but at least I have references.

Thank you, however, for FINALLY giving me something to argue with and research and add to my list of "to study" points

[Edited on January 24, 2006 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2006 8:17:07 PM

You'll both probably find the following links useful:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible2.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html

Cecil Adams digs in to find out who wrote the Bible and when.

1/24/2006 8:24:11 PM

ugh! Gamecat, you're linking to a website called the straight dope? Your methods are similar to salisburyboy's and that is disturbing!!!11

1/24/2006 8:25:34 PM

I'm pretty sure the Jewluminati hasn't corrupted Cecil Adams, yet.

1/24/2006 8:28:28 PM

Quote :

"#3: Paul boastfully claims he was the "father" of his followers: "I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me." (1 Corinthians 4:14-16) The truth from "Jesus": "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) "

Quote :

"#3: Paul boastfully claims he was the "father" of his followers Not much I can say to this one. It's the strongest of your examples, and since I know nothing of the Bible and am not really religious, I can't make a case against it. Maybe someone more familiar with scripture could."

I will try. Actually this is the very weakest of all his arguments. This shows how anti-Catholicism (this "call no man father" argument is used all the time to ask "Why do you call your priest father?") is really anti-Biblicalism.

OF COURSE you can call men "father" who are not God. The Bible is replete with examples.

When JESUS was found in the temple teaching the doctors, Mary came to Him and said "Son, why hast thou done so to us? Behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Was she referring to God The Father here? No, God the Father, being all knowing, knew EXACTLY where JESUS was, He was not seeking Him nor sorrowing. She is referring to the great St. Joseph. Who was Jesus 'father' in a sense.

Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark" (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, "Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children" (2 Cor. 12:14); and, "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!" (Gal. 4:19).

John said, "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1); "No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth" (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as "fathers" (1 John 2:13–14).

In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and addressed him as "Father Abraham", Abraham's response was not, "Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father?" Rather, he replied, "Son, remember..". Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be "fathers".

1/25/2006 3:43:53 AM

Socrates didn't exist. It was a jewish platonist conspiracy.

2/2/2006 1:21:16 AM