Nelson Mandela v Jesus Christ

[Hibbyradge]

It struck me that there are parallels between these 2 lives.

[easty]

Nelson Mandela would win that fight, given that he was real and Jesus is imaginary. :greengrin

May as well got for Jesus Christ versus Sonic the Hedgehog....

[Hibbyradge]

I have little doubt that Christ existed.

[Sir David Gray]

Nelson Mandela would win that fight, given that he was real and Jesus is imaginary. :greengrin

May as well got for Jesus Christ versus Sonic the Hedgehog....

Not even the most ardent atheist will argue that Jesus didn't exist.

[brianmc]

Not even the most ardent atheist will argue that Jesus didn't exist.

As an atheist I'd agree with that comment-but was Mandela's dad a bearded white guy who lives on a cloud?? Nah, who'd believe that hehe

[Glory Lurker]

If ever there was two men that wouldn't fight against each other....

[.Sean.]

Seeing as religion is a load of bollocks, man-in-the-sky pish, Mandela all the way.

[Scouse Hibee]

Show me a picture of Jesus's Dad then!

[Hibbyradge]

I didn't mean to start a competition between them, so I've changed the thread title, although I was wondering which of the 2 men actually achieved the most.

[Hibbyradge]

Show me a picture of Jesus's Dad then!

I don't think cameras were invented until the 16th century, so there won't be any pictures of Joseph for you to see.

However, here's a drawing of him from someone's imagination.

Hope that helps.

http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/1826390906_1356166052.png

[Scouse Hibee]

I don't think cameras were invented until the 16th century, so there won't be any pictures of Joseph for you to see.

However, here's a drawing of him from someone's imagination.

Hope that helps.

http://www.bubblews.com/assets/images/news/1826390906_1356166052.png


Says it all to me, but lets not go there and distract from the point of your OP, for that reason I'm out.

[Hibernian Verse]

Mary clearly wanted full custody of Jesus and convinced him well into his adult life that Joseph had nothing to do with him. I think he must have had a learning difficulty as Mary's story went horribly wrong and ended up with him believing he was the son of God. Joseph was widely known to be gutted by what transpired and only got to see Jesus on weekends.

The end.

[Scouse Hibee]

I didn't mean to start a competition between them, so I've changed the thread title, although I was wondering which of the 2 men actually achieved the most.

Mandela.

[Hibrandenburg]

Not even the most ardent atheist will argue that Jesus didn't exist.

Show me the hard evidence of Jesus' existence and I'll believe he existed. Until then I'm staying an ardent agnostic.

[Pretty Boy]

Mary clearly wanted full custody of Jesus and convinced him well into his adult life that Joseph had nothing to do with him. I think he must have had a learning difficulty as Mary's story went horribly wrong and ended up with him believing he was the son of God. Joseph was widely known to be gutted by what transpired and only got to see Jesus on weekends.

The end.

On the point of Joseph, what happens to him in the Bible?

I know the last time he is mentioned is when Jesus is 12 and gets lost a return journey from Jerusalem. This is pretty much where Jesus 1st makes mention of being the son of God so does Jospeh disown him? Die? Cease to be important to the story?

Something i've always wondered about.

[Hibernian Verse]

There must be a poor god believing soul in here somewhere to answer your question. On another note, I once had an argument with the head of the Christian Union at Uni who tried to convince dinosaurs weren't real and were a ploy from Darwinian sympathisers.

[Hibernian Verse]

Convince me* autocorrect

[Twa Cairpets]

Not even the most ardent atheist will argue that Jesus didn't exist.

I would argue that there is no contemporary, corroborative evidence that he was a real person.
I would argue that there is no evidence whatsoever of his alleged supernatural activity.
I personally suspect that the stories are (loosely) based on some of the actions of an entirely human charismatic preacher, but I equally have no evidence to support this either.

As for the question, it's a bit pointless I think - it can't really be answered. It's like saying who did more, Gandhi or Buddha / Abe Lincoln or Zeus.

[hibsbollah]

This is all sadly reminiscent of the

Sauzee v Gandhi
Konte v Thor

threads. Can't we all just agree that they all had something to offer humankind and stop this tiresome existential pointscoring :grr:

[Killiehibbie]

I would argue that there is no contemporary, corroborative evidence that he was a real person.
I would argue that there is no evidence whatsoever of his alleged supernatural activity.
I personally suspect that the stories are (loosely) based on some of the actions of an entirely human charismatic preacher, but I equally have no evidence to support this either.

As for the question, it's a bit pointless I think - it can't really be answered. It's like saying who did more, Gandhi or Buddha / Abe Lincoln or Zeus.Zeus must be the winner he's The Daddy of them all :greengrin

[easty]

This is all sadly reminiscent of the

Sauzee v Gandhi
Konte v Thor

threads. Can't we all just agree that they all had something to offer humankind and stop this tiresome existential pointscoring :grr:

hibsbollah v tiresome existential pointscoring

[hibsbollah]

hibsbollah v tiresome existential pointscoring

That would be a good celebrity death match :agree:

Right up there with Jean Paul Sartre vs Colin Nish.

[Geo_1875]

If ever there was two men that wouldn't fight against each other....

Exactly. But their followers would put on a show.

[matty_f]

hibsbollah v tiresome existential pointscoring

Tiresome existential pointscoring out, hibsbollah in.

[brianmc]

Did anyone else have a right good chuckle this weekend at the report about a vicar upsetting a class of primary school kids by telling them Santa was just a made up story?

[Hibrandenburg]

Did anyone else have a right good chuckle this weekend at the report about a vicar upsetting a class of primary school kids by telling them Santa was just a made up story?

Just googled that. They don't do irony in the church do they?

[Corstorphine Hibby]

Show me the hard evidence of Jesus' existence and I'll believe he existed. Until then I'm staying an ardent agnostic.


Google Him.

[easty]

Google Him.

Google the Loch Ness monster.

[Hibrandenburg]

Google Him.

Don't you mean hymn?

[Corstorphine Hibby]

Google the Loch Ness monster.


because .....

[Future17]

That would be a good celebrity death match :agree:

Right up there with Jean Paul Sartre vs Colin Nish.

From "the thinking man's footballer" to "the thinking man's fodder".

[easty]

because .....

More interesting, and as real, as Jesus.

[Corstorphine Hibby]

More interesting, and as real, as Jesus.


I disagree

[easty]

I disagree

Each to their own.

Dinosaur living in Loch Ness v immaculately concepted guy, who can turn water into wine, cure lepers and walk on water.

Well....I at least know dinosaurs actually existed.

[easty]

Ignore me, I'm probably being a dick!

[Glory Lurker]

I don't think this is really one that we'll be able to judge until about 2000 years from now.

Perhaps not overly scientific a test, but "Free Nelson Mandela" by Special AKA is a total stormer of a song, but IMHO it's just pipped for aceness by Woody Guthrie's "Jesus Christ".

[Corstorphine Hibby]

I don't think this is really one that we'll be able to judge until about 2000 years from now.

Perhaps not overly scientific a test, but "Free Nelson Mandela" by Special AKA is a total stormer of a song, but IMHO it's just pipped for aceness by Woody Guthrie's "Jesus Christ".


Slightly off topic, but if you have individuals denying that the Holocaust happened merely 60 years after it did, then it's no surprise that 2000 years after his death, there are those who deny the existence of Christ.

[Hibbyradge]

Slightly off topic, but if you have individuals denying that the Holocaust happened merely 60 years after it did, then it's no surprise that 2000 years after his death, there are those who deny the existence of Christ.

http://impruvism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/straw-man.jpg

[Hibrandenburg]

Slightly off topic, but if you have individuals denying that the Holocaust happened merely 60 years after it did, then it's no surprise that 2000 years after his death, there are those who deny the existence of Christ.

That's quite disturbing on several different levels.

[easty]

Slightly off topic, but if you have individuals denying that the Holocaust happened merely 60 years after it did, then it's no surprise that 2000 years after his death, there are those who deny the existence of Christ.

That's ridiculous.

[Andy74]

Not even the most ardent atheist will argue that Jesus didn't exist.

I would.

[Twa Cairpets]

Slightly off topic, but if you have individuals denying that the Holocaust happened merely 60 years after it did, then it's no surprise that 2000 years after his death, there are those who deny the existence of Christ.

In the future, there will be clear evidence of the existence of Nelson Mandela. There is clear evidence of the holocaust.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is little historical evidence of Jesus, none that is contemporary, and none that is corroborative of any supernatural claim. This isn't a contentious view, it's just the way it is.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

In the future, there will be clear evidence of the existence of Nelson Mandela. There is clear evidence of the holocaust.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is little historical evidence of Jesus, none that is contemporary, and none that is corroborative of any supernatural claim. This isn't a contentious view, it's just the way it is.

Time to pull up a chair and sit back with the loaves and fish! :greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

Time to pull up a chair and sit back with the loaves and fish! :greengrin

:agree: And if i could change water into wine, i'd never leave the house. :party:

[lyonhibs]

Slightly off topic, but if you have individuals denying that the Holocaust happened merely 60 years after it did, then it's no surprise that 2000 years after his death, there are those who deny the existence of Christ.

Aye, only ever so slightly. :rolleyes:

[Hibiza]

At least Nelson's stuff was real. :flag:

[da-robster]

It's worth noting that the vast, vast majority of historians of this period are of the opinion that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, and this isn't just some sort of self selecting bias- the vast majority of atheist and agnostic historians, like Bart Ehrman, are of this opinion as well. I'm sure none of you will like this, but in terms of academic support it's the historical equivalent of arguing for ID :wink:.

As well the claim that Jesus did not exist can not just be made in a vacumn. You can't just say it and leave it at that- you need to come up with your own explanation for the historical facts. For example, why did the earliest christian writings we have evidence for (IIRC it's First Corinthians about 50 CE) talk about a historical person? why did christianity rapidly spread across the whole Roman empire in the first century if there was no Jesus? Who wrote the gospels and when? Who started christianity and why? Why do none of the earliest (Roman) anti christian writers doubt Jesus's existence?

[Twa Cairpets]

It's worth noting that the vast, vast majority of historians of this period are of the opinion that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, and this isn't just some sort of self selecting bias- the vast majority of atheist and agnostic historians, like Bart Ehrman, are of this opinion as well. I'm sure none of you will like this, but in terms of academic support it's the historical equivalent of arguing for ID :wink:.

As well the claim that Jesus did not exist can not just be made in a vacumn. You can't just say it and leave it at that- you need to come up with your own explanation for the historical facts. For example, why did the earliest christian writings we have evidence for (IIRC it's First Corinthians about 50 CE) talk about a historical person? why did christianity rapidly spread across the whole Roman empire in the first century if there was no Jesus? Who wrote the gospels and when? Who started christianity and why? Why do none of the earliest (Roman) anti christian writers doubt Jesus's existence?

There is no contemporary, extra-biblical, corroborative evidence that Jesus existed.
You have to go to Josephus and others for any reference, and these are fleeting and (if I recall correctly) around 50 years+ after Jesus' time. There just isn't any other evidence. The considerations of scholars of both theological and secular persuasions cannot change this fact. If there is other historical evidence, I'll happily stand corrected.

There are zero non-Biblical reference to any of the supernatural actions of Jesus of the miracles, resurrection or nativity. There is a rather a lot of contradictory evidence to the early days of Jesus compared to the canonical gospels, never mind the internal contradictions.

You can't claim the existence of Christianity means the existence of Christ, otherwise you need to accept that the existence of believers in the Norse pantheon means that Odin was real, or that the existence of Scientology means Xenu was a genuine being.

I mentioned above that I think there was a charismatic preacher upon whom elements of the NT were based, but I personally believe he would have been an entirely human person. As for why? Power, control, credulity, a need to believe, an offer of eternal life and redemption for sin? All pretty powerful motivations, regardless of their ultimate veracity.

[da-robster]

There is no contemporary, extra-biblical, corroborative evidence that Jesus existed.
You have to go to Josephus and others for any reference, and these are fleeting and (if I recall correctly) around 50 years+ after Jesus' time. There just isn't any other evidence. The considerations of scholars of both theological and secular persuasions cannot change this fact. If there is other historical evidence, I'll happily stand corrected.
It seems to me that you are guilty of setting a ludicrously high standard here. There is obviously not extra-biblical written documents dating from the 30s detailing the life of a homeless peasant in an unfashionable corner of the Roman Empire- but we shouldn't expect there to be. As I said before, the evidence we have quite clearly suggests that Jesus existed. If we look at the facts, which even the most committed sceptic can't deny, they are, by some orders of magnitude, best fitted by there being a historical Jesus. It does not matter that there is not the knock down evidence there is for, say, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, in terms of ancient history, Jesus's existence is almost certain as you can get.

As for your rejection of all biblical evidence, this seems to me philosophically motivated more than anything. I know that you can't believe in the supernatural, but that's only a part of what the Gospel's say, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why would anyone (and not just anyone, clearly an incredibly skillful writer) bother writing a biography of some guy who didn't exist? And if they did, why would they claim this guy was preaching and healing within living memory- surely it would be better to stick it in the ancient past, where no one could contradict you? The Gospel's have historical value independent of the miracles.


There are zero non-Biblical reference to any of the supernatural actions of Jesus of the miracles, resurrection or nativity. There is a rather a lot of contradictory evidence to the early days of Jesus compared to the canonical gospels, never mind the internal contradictions.

This is basically irrelevant to what I was arguing.


You can't claim the existence of Christianity means the existence of Christ, otherwise you need to accept that the existence of believers in the Norse pantheon means that Odin was real, or that the existence of Scientology means Xenu was a genuine being.

As is this.


I mentioned above that I think there was a charismatic preacher upon whom elements of the NT were based, but I personally believe he would have been an entirely human person. As for why? Power, control, credulity, a need to believe, an offer of eternal life and redemption for sin? All pretty powerful motivations, regardless of their ultimate veracity.

There is nothing at all factually wrong with this view. I'm challenging the view, common on this thread, that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure. Whether he was the Son of God is another matter entirely.

Just to finish, the story of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, which I'm sure no one here doubts, comes from one or two accounts, about a 100 years later. I'm certain that at least one of those accounts had a demon or spirit or something like that present at the scene. Does that mean we should, instead of concluding that that demon didn't exist, simply conclude that the Rubicon never existed? or that Caesar never existed?

[hibsbollah]

It seems to me that you are guilty of setting a ludicrously high standard here. There is obviously not extra-biblical written documents dating from the 30s detailing the life of a homeless peasant in an unfashionable corner of the Roman Empire- but we shouldn't expect there to be. As I said before, the evidence we have quite clearly suggests that Jesus existed. If we look at the facts, which even the most committed sceptic can't deny, they are, by some orders of magnitude, best fitted by there being a historical Jesus. It does not matter that there is not the knock down evidence there is for, say, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, in terms of ancient history, Jesus's existence is almost certain as you can get.

As for your rejection of all biblical evidence, this seems to me philosophically motivated more than anything. I know that you can't believe in the supernatural, but that's only a part of what the Gospel's say, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why would anyone (and not just anyone, clearly an incredibly skillful writer) bother writing a biography of some guy who didn't exist? And if they did, why would they claim this guy was preaching and healing within living memory- surely it would be better to stick it in the ancient past, where no one could contradict you? The Gospel's have historical value independent of the miracles.



This is basically irrelevant to what I was arguing.


As is this.



There is nothing at all factually wrong with this view. I'm challenging the view, common on this thread, that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure. Whether he was the Son of God is another matter entirely.

Just to finish, the story of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, which I'm sure no one here doubts, comes from one or two accounts, about a 100 years later. I'm certain that at least one of those accounts had a demon or spirit or something like that present at the scene. Does that mean we should, instead of concluding that that demon didn't exist, simply conclude that the Rubicon never existed? or that Caesar never existed?

Nice analogy about crossing the rubicon, you've made a good point there (I dont know enough to form an opinion about JCs existence.) I have just finished a very good book about ancient Rome, in which it states that the river rubicon isnt mentioned anywhere else, is in no maps and might be apocryphal (although its not unusual for rivers to disappear with droughts and floods over the centuries as well). River crossings have often been used in legend to signify meaningful stuff (Celadon,Styx,) and it could just have been a bit of poetic licence by the roman who wrote the (pro Augustus) history books.

Hijack warning....

[Twa Cairpets]

It seems to me that you are guilty of setting a ludicrously high standard here. There is obviously not extra-biblical written documents dating from the 30s detailing the life of a homeless peasant in an unfashionable corner of the Roman Empire- but we shouldn't expect there to be. As I said before, the evidence we have quite clearly suggests that Jesus existed. If we look at the facts, which even the most committed sceptic can't deny, they are, by some orders of magnitude, best fitted by there being a historical Jesus. It does not matter that there is not the knock down evidence there is for, say, the first day of the Battle of the Somme, in terms of ancient history, Jesus's existence is almost certain as you can get.

Actually, I don't think I am setting any standard here. It's a fairly black and white statement of fact. The fact is that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus until 50 years after he was said to have lived. How much value you put in this fact is up to you. I don't agree with your assertion that the evidence suggests he does exist - I'd be interested to hear what evidence you are referring to. I genuinely don't know what facts I (as a committed skeptic :wink:) have to accept fir with a historical Jesus. Your final sentence is an assertion, and one that is palpably untrue.


As for your rejection of all biblical evidence, this seems to me philosophically motivated more than anything. I know that you can't believe in the supernatural, but that's only a part of what the Gospel's say, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why would anyone (and not just anyone, clearly an incredibly skillful writer) bother writing a biography of some guy who didn't exist? And if they did, why would they claim this guy was preaching and healing within living memory- surely it would be better to stick it in the ancient past, where no one could contradict you? The Gospel's have historical value independent of the miracles.

You're not reading what Im saying. I said there is not corroborating evidence for Jesus' existence. I do philosophically disagree with much of the bible, correct, but this is a different point. If you examine the gospels for historical accuracy, then the necessity for corroboration and the discrepancies become hugely suggestive of it not being true. Never mind the issues with dates and recorded history (Quirinius not overlapping Herod, no record of any census, let alone one requiring millions of people to return to ancestral homes), the lack of record, anywhere, of events such as the dead rising after the crucifixion and the slaughter of the innocents is extremely suggestive that it is not true.

The gospels have a purpose that requires the fulfillment of prophecy from the OT. The NT is written by a whole range of different authors, who often contradict each other and have clearly different agendas. The writing of religious tract is not necessarily an act of divine inspiration. If you believe it is, then you need to give at least equal credence to Mohammed and the Mormons.


This is basically irrelevant to what I was arguing.

As is this.

No. You suggested that the rapid spread of christianity was evidence of Jesus. My examples countered this


There is nothing at all factually wrong with this view. I'm challenging the view, common on this thread, that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure. Whether he was the Son of God is another matter entirely.

Fair enough. If he wasn't the son of God then the biblical evidence is kind of irrelevant though, as presumably all the supernatural stuff is false, and central tenets of the faith such as the crucifixion and resurrection is essentially made up. Again, the only record of Jesus is given in the bible.


Just to finish, the story of Caesar crossing the Rubicon, which I'm sure no one here doubts, comes from one or two accounts, about a 100 years later. I'm certain that at least one of those accounts had a demon or spirit or something like that present at the scene. Does that mean we should, instead of concluding that that demon didn't exist, simply conclude that the Rubicon never existed? or that Caesar never existed?

I cant comment on this, I'm afraid, I don't know enough about it.

[Twa Cairpets]

Nice analogy about crossing the rubicon, you've made a good point there (I dont know enough to form an opinion about JCs existence.) I have just finished a very good book about ancient Rome, in which it states that the river rubicon isnt mentioned anywhere else, is in no maps and might be apocryphal (although its not unusual for rivers to disappear with droughts and floods over the centuries as well). River crossings have often been used in legend to signify meaningful stuff (Celadon,Styx,) and it could just have been a bit of poetic licence by the roman who wrote the (pro Augustus) history books.

Hijack warning....

What was the book Hibsbollah?

[da-robster]

Actually, I don't think I am setting any standard here. It's a fairly black and white statement of fact. The fact is that there is no extra-biblical evidence of Jesus until 50 years after he was said to have lived. How much value you put in this fact is up to you. I don't agree with your assertion that the evidence suggests he does exist - I'd be interested to hear what evidence you are referring to. I genuinely don't know what facts I (as a committed skeptic :wink:) have to accept fir with a historical Jesus. Your final sentence is an assertion, and one that is palpably untrue.

It's true that it takes 50 years for there to be extra biblical references to Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you're doing is taking this fact and then extrapolating this to say that, at best, Jesus's existence is doubtful. What I'm saying is applying this as a standard to determine historicity is silly because were Jesus a person, we wouldn't expect to have these references.

Other facts which I think point to a historical Jesus:
The rapid spread of christianity in the first century implies there was a founder
The fact that no one who would have an interest in stopping christianity (be they jewish or roman) claimed Jesus was not a historical figure.
The fact that all the early christians (e.g Paul) believed Jesus to be a real, live person, and claimed to have known him.
The existence of the Gospels so soon after he is alleged to have lived.

With regard to your last line I'll leave theses quotes from 2 major secular historians:
Michael Grant:

But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

Bart Ehrman

There is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land in a bona fide department of biology.


(BTW there's more of that sort of stuff here:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Quotes_rejecting_such_theories)


You're not reading what Im saying. I said there is not corroborating evidence for Jesus' existence. I do philosophically disagree with much of the bible, correct, but this is a different point. If you examine the gospels for historical accuracy, then the necessity for corroboration and the discrepancies become hugely suggestive of it not being true. Never mind the issues with dates and recorded history (Quirinius not overlapping Herod, no record of any census, let alone one requiring millions of people to return to ancestral homes), the lack of record, anywhere, of events such as the dead rising after the crucifixion and the slaughter of the innocents is extremely suggestive that it is not true.

I'm certainly not asserting that the Gospel in particular and the Bible in General are reliable historical documents in the same way that, say, the 1801 census is. What I am saying is it's a leap to go from saying that parts of them are dodgy to they are all completely useless. Like any historical document they are biased, but that doesn't stop them being useful. Of course I would say the corroborating evidence are the sort of thing I mentioned in my first post.


The gospels have a purpose that requires the fulfillment of prophecy from the OT. The NT is written by a whole range of different authors, who often contradict each other and have clearly different agendas. The writing of religious tract is not necessarily an act of divine inspiration. If you believe it is, then you need to give at least equal credence to Mohammed and the Mormons.

This isn't really relevant to what I'm trying to say.




No. You suggested that the rapid spread of christianity was evidence of Jesus. My examples countered this


No. Christianity is based on the existence of a historical figure called Jesus, correct me if I'm wrong, but both Xenu and Thor were never seen as historical figures. A better comparision would be saying that the rapid growth of any religion shows that there was a founder. For example, Elron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Mohammed etc.


Fair enough. If he wasn't the son of God then the biblical evidence is kind of irrelevant though, as presumably all the supernatural stuff is false, and central tenets of the faith such as the crucifixion and resurrection is essentially made up. Again, the only record of Jesus is given in the bible.


The question of whether he was the Son of God is irrelevant to the question of whether he was an actual person. In the same way Augustus being worshiped as a God is irrelevent to whether he existed.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

da-robster, if the age shown against your name is accurate what caused such an acute interest in religion at such a young age?

[hibsbollah]

What was the book Hibsbollah?

Rome-Biography of a City by Christopher Hibbert :aok:

[Twa Cairpets]

Rome-Biography of a City by Christopher Hibbert :aok:

Cheers. I read Hibbert's book in the Indian mutiny a few years ago and thought it was a good read so I'll give it a go.

[Hibercelona]

Who's to say that Nelson Mandela wasn't the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ?

:stirrer:

[Twa Cairpets]

For clarification, I personally think that the balance of probability lends itself to there being a character upon which Christianity was based. I cant offer evidence for this other than the points you make below - it is likely that a belief system needs a catalyst to start it. I do refute entirely that the Jesus is the bible is historically accurate - I don't believe in any theisitic God therefore I don't believe that there was a "supernatural" Jesus. There may well have been a man who preached that he was the son of God, who could have been a brilliant and charismatic orator, and left enough of a memory in the region to provide the foundation for the religious elements to be added. It doesn't mean that he was the son of God. with the lack of corroboration, the best position to adopt is one of skepticism.


It's true that it takes 50 years for there to be extra biblical references to Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but what you're doing is taking this fact and then extrapolating this to say that, at best, Jesus's existence is doubtful. What I'm saying is applying this as a standard to determine historicity is silly because were Jesus a person, we wouldn't expect to have these references.

What we've reached is a different level of acceptance of evidence I think. If Jesus was a divine being and the events surrounding his existence, as noted above, happened, I think it would be very likely that these events would be recorded or noted elsewhere. To take one example, the slaughter of innocents by Herod one would imagine would have some other contemporary resonance.


Other facts which I think point to a historical Jesus:
The rapid spread of christianity in the first century implies there was a founder
The fact that no one who would have an interest in stopping christianity (be they jewish or roman) claimed Jesus was not a historical figure.
The fact that all the early christians (e.g Paul) believed Jesus to be a real, live person, and claimed to have known him.
The existence of the Gospels so soon after he is alleged to have lived.

The speed of growth of christianity is not linked to the existence of a historical Jesus, certainly not the one who was described within the bible
I honestly dont know if the Romans did or didn't try to deny Jesus' existence, but even the bible reports that they crucified him for the blasphemy of claiming to be King of the Jews...
I dont know if you mean "known" literally, but Paul didn't meet Jesus.
I dont know if I'd agree that being written within 50 years of his death is "so soon after he lived"


With regard to your last line I'll leave theses quotes from 2 major secular historians:
Michael Grant:

Bart Ehrman

(BTW there's more of that sort of stuff here:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Quotes_rejecting_such_theories)

Thanks for the link. I've had a look, and it would be fair to say that the vast majority of quotes (Ehrman notwithstanding) are professional NT scholars, with a fair smattering of reverends, bishops and evangelical academics at seminaries or divinity colleges. Repeated assertion as to "nobody claims that Jesus didn't exist" therefore need to be taken with something of a pinch of salt given the (presumably) default position of christian apologetics. It doesn't take reading to much further to find lots of alternative views. The general view of the "mythicists" is that there is nothing to back the supernatural.


I'm certainly not asserting that the Gospel in particular and the Bible in General are reliable historical documents in the same way that, say, the 1801 census is. What I am saying is it's a leap to go from saying that parts of them are dodgy to they are all completely useless. Like any historical document they are biased, but that doesn't stop them being useful. Of course I would say the corroborating evidence are the sort of thing I mentioned in my first post.
If you look at the gospels objectively, there are significant discrepancies in the historical background which at the very least calls into question all the claims.


This isn't really relevant to what I'm trying to say.
It was absolutely relevant. You asked why anyone would write the gospels if they weren't in some way true. I gave you reasons.


No. Christianity is based on the existence of a historical figure called Jesus, correct me if I'm wrong, but both Xenu and Thor were never seen as historical figures. A better comparison would be saying that the rapid growth of any religion shows that there was a founder. For example, Elron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Mohammed etc.
Fair enough - my point is the same though.


The question of whether he was the Son of God is irrelevant to the question of whether he was an actual person. In the same way Augustus being worshiped as a God is irrelevent to whether he existed.
In the strict context of the discussion, you are correct.

[da-robster]

I should probably clarify as well what I've been arguing in this thread. Basically, I'm saying that Jesus was, almost undoubtedly a historical figure- in this thread I'm making no claim for or against his divinity.


For clarification, I personally think that the balance of probability lends itself to there being a character upon which Christianity was based. I cant offer evidence for this other than the points you make below - it is likely that a belief system needs a catalyst to start it. I do refute entirely that the Jesus is the bible is historically accurate - I don't believe in any theisitic God therefore I don't believe that there was a "supernatural" Jesus. There may well have been a man who preached that he was the son of God, who could have been a brilliant and charismatic orator, and left enough of a memory in the region to provide the foundation for the religious elements to be added. It doesn't mean that he was the son of God. with the lack of corroboration, the best position to adopt is one of skepticism.
I'd argue that it's far more certain than the balance of probability. Apart from that everything else you said is a philisophical objection (God doesn't exist, therefore Jesus could not be God) which isn't really relevant to what I'm arguing.




What we've reached is a different level of acceptance of evidence I think. If Jesus was a divine being and the events surrounding his existence, as noted above, happened, I think it would be very likely that these events would be recorded or noted elsewhere. To take one example, the slaughter of innocents by Herod one would imagine would have some other contemporary resonance.

Most of the miracles actually mentioned in the bible are generally quite low key events. For example feeding the 5000, curing a few people etc- those aren't the type of things that would appear in history books. I'd say you're right about the nativity and that verse in Matthew about all the dead in Jerusalem rising from the dead- those definitely don't seem historical- but then again, they aren't really integral to Christianity. In fact, I'd argue that if Jesus didn't exist, and there was no historical figure upon which the gospels were based, the whole of the gospel would be like those parts. The low key (e.g Matthew 28 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.) nature of the bible seems to me to suggest at least some historical fact the Bible was based on.




The speed of growth of christianity is not linked to the existence of a historical Jesus, certainly not the one who was described within the bible
I'd argue the speed of christianity's growth implies very strongly, as you said, that there was a catalyst. I'd love to see some sort of example from history where a movement grew rapidly without a founder.


I honestly dont know if the Romans did or didn't try to deny Jesus' existence, but even the bible reports that they crucified him for the blasphemy of claiming to be King of the Jews...

The point I'm trying to make is if Jesus did not exist they would be very quick to point it out. That they didn't implies they accepted it as a fact. Although Pontius Pilate gets off very lightly in the biblical account- everyone else thought he was bloodthirsty, even by roman standards :greengrin


I dont know if you mean "known" literally, but Paul didn't meet Jesus.
I know Paul didn't literally meet Jesus, but he does claim to have met people like Peter who did


I dont know if I'd agree that being written within 50 years of his death is "so soon after he lived"
Obviously nowadays that is not soon after he lived, but in terms of the ancient world that is astonishingly quick. For example the first historical document we have about Alexander the Great was written in the first century BC.



Thanks for the link. I've had a look, and it would be fair to say that the vast majority of quotes (Ehrman notwithstanding) are professional NT scholars, with a fair smattering of reverends, bishops and evangelical academics at seminaries or divinity colleges. Repeated assertion as to "nobody claims that Jesus didn't exist" therefore need to be taken with something of a pinch of salt given the (presumably) default position of christian apologetics. It doesn't take reading to much further to find lots of alternative views. The general view of the "mythicists" is that there is nothing to back the supernatural.


Yeah, I deliberately didn't include the quotes from the evangelicals, bishops and theoogians because the inevitable response would be "Well they would, wouldn't they?". Having said that I think the statements from unbiased secular academics like Ehrman and Maurice Casey are more than enough to show that the view that Jesus did not exist is a fringe view. I'd be interested to hear a historian of that period (apart from Carrier) who does claim that Jesus never existed. Also "Mythicist" with regard to Jesus has a very specific meaning, namely that Jesus was a myth. That's a completely different position to that of atheist and agnostic historians (like Casey and Ehrman), who, while denying Jesus's divinity, at least accept he was a person.


If you look at the gospels objectively, there are significant discrepancies in the historical background which at the very least calls into question all the claims.

Which is of course true of any historical document.


It was absolutely relevant. You asked why anyone would write the gospels if they weren't in some way true. I gave you reasons.
The gospels are pretty bizarrely written if they were written simply as a means to win temporal power. Why are the disciples all shown as incompetent? Why does Jesus, supposedly the messiah arrive on a donkey? Why does he cry about God abandoning him on the cross? Why is the son of God tortured and killed as a political prisoner? Why are there lines about people doubting him? Why does Jesus lose an argument? Why does Peter deny him?

[da-robster]

da-robster, if the age shown against your name is accurate what caused such an acute interest in religion at such a young age?

I am actually 17, and I'd probably just chalk it up to nerdiness :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

I should probably clarify as well what I've been arguing in this thread. Basically, I'm saying that Jesus was, almost undoubtedly a historical figure- in this thread I'm making no claim for or against his divinity...

...I'd argue that it's far more certain than the balance of probability. Apart from that everything else you said is a philisophical objection (God doesn't exist, therefore Jesus could not be God) which isn't really relevant to what I'm arguing.

Well, it is relevant, especially if (as below) you go on to reference the miracles as, if I've read it correctly as likely being factual. If I've got this wrong apologies.


Most of the miracles actually mentioned in the bible are generally quite low key events. For example feeding the 5000, curing a few people etc- those aren't the type of things that would appear in history books. I'd say you're right about the nativity and that verse in Matthew about all the dead in Jerusalem rising from the dead- those definitely don't seem historical- but then again, they aren't really integral to Christianity. In fact, I'd argue that if Jesus didn't exist, and there was no historical figure upon which the gospels were based, the whole of the gospel would be like those parts. The low key (e.g Matthew 28 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.) nature of the bible seems to me to suggest at least some historical fact the Bible was based on.

Whether they are or are not central to christianity - and its hard to argue the nativity and the virgin birth aren't - if they did happen as written then Jesus was supernatural/divine. If they didn't then then one surely has to question historicity of the account of Jesus' life as written in the bible?


I'd argue the speed of christianity's growth implies very strongly, as you said, that there was a catalyst. I'd love to see some sort of example from history where a movement grew rapidly without a founder. No. The spread of christianity was a mix of effective proselytizing and maths. The speed of growth - not necessarily the seed of that growth - is unrelated to the historicity or nature of its founder.


The point I'm trying to make is if Jesus did not exist they would be very quick to point it out. That they didn't implies they accepted it as a fact. Although Pontius Pilate gets off very lightly in the biblical account- everyone else thought he was bloodthirsty, even by roman standards :greengrin I think I'll need to agree to disagree on this one...


I know Paul didn't literally meet Jesus, but he does claim to have met people like Peter who did Which doesn't really have much value from a historical evidence point of view.


Obviously nowadays that is not soon after he lived, but in terms of the ancient world that is astonishingly quick. For example the first historical document we have about Alexander the Great was written in the first century BC. I'll need to take your word on the relative speed of reporting.


Yeah, I deliberately didn't include the quotes from the evangelicals, bishops and theoogians because the inevitable response would be "Well they would, wouldn't they?". Having said that I think the statements from unbiased secular academics like Ehrman and Maurice Casey are more than enough to show that the view that Jesus did not exist is a fringe view. I'd be interested to hear a historian of that period (apart from Carrier) who does claim that Jesus never existed. Also "Mythicist" with regard to Jesus has a very specific meaning, namely that Jesus was a myth. That's a completely different position to that of atheist and agnostic historians (like Casey and Ehrman), who, while denying Jesus's divinity, at least accept he was a person.

Rational Wiki lists a wider range of mythicism levels, but I think the general level of denialism is below that of total fiction. I think your standards of acceptance are also a bit flawed, in that you quote 2 secular individuals who are strongly in the pro camp, but do seem to dismiss many of a cointra view. It's not just Carrier, you know, and its hardly surprising that the majority of those investigating are of a theological (and therefore likely to be "pro") bent.


Which is of course true of any historical document. Which is why corroboration is sought by historians to address the anomalies...


The gospels are pretty bizarrely written if they were written simply as a means to win temporal power. Why are the disciples all shown as incompetent? Why does Jesus, supposedly the messiah arrive on a donkey? Why does he cry about God abandoning him on the cross? Why is the son of God tortured and killed as a political prisoner? Why are there lines about people doubting him? Why does Jesus lose an argument? Why does Peter deny him? They are bizarre, I agree. The donkey question (if it was a donkey and not a colt) fulfills Zech 9:9, which if you're a believer shows him to be real or if you're a skeptic to illustrate shoe-horning religious requirements into a story. The canonical gospels disagree hugely with what, if anything, was said on the cross. As for the rest of the points, you're going into detail which relates to theology rather than historicity, I'd suggest.

[da-robster]

Well, it is relevant, especially if (as below) you go on to reference the miracles as, if I've read it correctly as likely being factual. If I've got this wrong apologies.
I don't think I said anything about whether the miracles happened, just that if they did they weren't the sort of things that would turn up in Roman or Jewish sources.



Whether they are or are not central to christianity - and its hard to argue the nativity and the virgin birth aren't - if they did happen as written then Jesus was supernatural/divine. If they didn't then then one surely has to question historicity of the account of Jesus' life as written in the bible?


I don't think I mentioned the virgin birth, but it's worth noting that neither the Apostles nor the Nicene creed mention the nativity, so they aren't that central to christianity. (I take a pretty expansive view of what a christian is anyway, basically I'd say anyone who believes Jesus was God and rose from the dead is a christian). Again, I'd say even if you take out the miracles, the bible still has value as a historical source.


No. The spread of christianity was a mix of effective proselytizing and maths. The speed of growth - not necessarily the seed of that growth - is unrelated to the historicity or nature of its founder.

In it's later years (from about 100 CE I'd say) yes the speed of growth says nothing about whether a Jesus existed. But the evidence suggest in the 70 or so years from Jesus's death Christianity had reached the whole of the Roman world (christians were recorded in Rome either early Nero or late Claudius). Movements don't grow at this speed unless they are organised, and I'd say this strongly implies there was an organiser behind this.



I think I'll need to agree to disagree on this one...


Fine by me :greengrin


Which doesn't really have much value from a historical evidence point of view.

Not really. We have 20 years after Jesus's death someone writing letters claiming to have met people who knew Jesus, as well as confirming (or, if you like, corroborating :P) various parts of the gospels. Basically everything has value as historical evidence. I don't believe the gospels, or paul's letters, or Tacitus, or Josephus is conclusive proof on their own, and each of them can be explained away, but taken together I think the case is unanswerable.


Rational Wiki lists a wider range of mythicism levels, but I think the general level of denialism is below that of total fiction. I think your standards of acceptance are also a bit flawed, in that you quote 2 secular individuals who are strongly in the pro camp, but do seem to dismiss many of a cointra view. It's not just Carrier, you know, and its hardly surprising that the majority of those investigating are of a theological (and therefore likely to be "pro") bent.


The point of the quotes wasn't Historians X and Y who don't believe in God think Jesus was a person. The point of the quotes was Historians X and Y who don't believe in God (so they have no vested interest) say that no one in the actual relevant field, whether they are christian or not doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. If you can find some reputable historians who do actually believe that I'd be very interested.


Which is why corroboration is sought by historians to address the anomalies...


That's of course true, but corroboration can come in many different forms.


They are bizarre, I agree. The donkey question (if it was a donkey and not a colt) fulfills Zech 9:9, which if you're a believer shows him to be real or if you're a skeptic to illustrate shoe-horning religious requirements into a story. The canonical gospels disagree hugely with what, if anything, was said on the cross. As for the rest of the points, you're going into detail which relates to theology rather than historicity, I'd suggest.

What I was trying to do with those questions was highlight the issue of embarrassment. Basically parts of the gospel are deeply embarrassing to write down, and the sort of thing that would only be put down if it was true, not the sort of thing an aspiring entrepreneur might make up to win a few followers. This suggests the gospel is not (wholly anyway)a plot to win whoever wrote it power.

[Twa Cairpets]

I don't think I said anything about whether the miracles happened, just that if they did they weren't the sort of things that would turn up in Roman or Jewish sources.

I don't think I mentioned the virgin birth, but it's worth noting that neither the Apostles nor the Nicene creed mention the nativity, so they aren't that central to christianity. (I take a pretty expansive view of what a christian is anyway, basically I'd say anyone who believes Jesus was God and rose from the dead is a christian). Again, I'd say even if you take out the miracles, the bible still has value as a historical source.

You didn't, but you did mention divinity and miracles/virgin birth/etc are, to my mind absolutely conflated with his divinity. Equally, the resurrection and "Jesus-is-God" story requires a divine nature. I think it was Jefferson who wrote a bible without any of the supernatural stuff. I haven't read it but its and interesting concept.


In it's later years (from about 100 CE I'd say) yes the speed of growth says nothing about whether a Jesus existed. But the evidence suggest in the 70 or so years from Jesus's death Christianity had reached the whole of the Roman world (christians were recorded in Rome either early Nero or late Claudius). Movements don't grow at this speed unless they are organised, and I'd say this strongly implies there was an organiser behind this.
There may have been an organiser, but it wasnt Jesus himself, it would have been his followers. I still contend the existence of followers doesn't necessarily say anything about the thing they follow.


Not really. We have 20 years after Jesus's death someone writing letters claiming to have met people who knew Jesus, as well as confirming (or, if you like, corroborating :P) various parts of the gospels. Basically everything has value as historical evidence. I don't believe the gospels, or paul's letters, or Tacitus, or Josephus is conclusive proof on their own, and each of them can be explained away, but taken together I think the case is unanswerable.
This is the crux of it, for me. The gospels and pauls letters are biblical. Tacitus, Josephus et al are, frankly, pretty limited either within a wider picture or on their own. I do think that they could be argued to point to someone being around, but there is nothing to support the divine claims, which are the elements of Jesus that created christianity.


The point of the quotes wasn't Historians X and Y who don't believe in God think Jesus was a person. The point of the quotes was Historians X and Y who don't believe in God (so they have no vested interest) say that no one in the actual relevant field, whether they are christian or not doubt that Jesus was a historical figure. If you can find some reputable historians who do actually believe that I'd be very interested.
I cant claim to have read much or in some cases any of these guys, but as you asked nicely :wink: G.A. Wells, Alvar Ellegard, Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, DM Murdock, Frank Zindler, David Fitzgerald, and of course Carrier.


What I was trying to do with those questions was highlight the issue of embarrassment. Basically parts of the gospel are deeply embarrassing to write down, and the sort of thing that would only be put down if it was true, not the sort of thing an aspiring entrepreneur might make up to win a few followers. This suggests the gospel is not (wholly anyway)a plot to win whoever wrote it power.
Even as an atheist I'm not sure I agree, certainly relative to the standards of the time. I dont think its necessarily a plot to win power, but I think there is an agenda though. For example John is pretty widely accepted as being anti-semitic

[da-robster]

There may have been an organiser, but it wasnt Jesus himself, it would have been his followers. I still contend the existence of followers doesn't necessarily say anything about the thing they follow.

Obviously the organiser wasn't Jesus, but I'd say that the very fact that the followers were so successful show that it's very likely there was something that they followed, and that something is best explained by there being a historical figure called Jesus.


This is the crux of it, for me. The gospels and pauls letters are biblical. Tacitus, Josephus et al are, frankly, pretty limited either within a wider picture or on their own. I do think that they could be argued to point to someone being around, but there is nothing to support the divine claims, which are the elements of Jesus that created christianity.
It's true that Tacitus and Josephus and the spread of Christianity among other things don't really say anything about whether Jesus was divine, but, again, that's not what I'm arguing.



I cant claim to have read much or in some cases any of these guys, but as you asked nicely :wink: G.A. Wells, Alvar Ellegard, Robert M. Price, Thomas Brodie, DM Murdock, Frank Zindler, David Fitzgerald, and of course Carrier.

Thank you :greengrin. Just going through that list, you have a Professor of German who later accepted there was some sort of historical Jesus, a Swedish English Professor, a slightly eccentric theologian, someone who I can't find information on, an author, 2 atheist activists, and Carrier. The highest any of them seem to have gone (with the exception of Carrier) with history seems to be a bachelors, and it's unclear what periods that is. That doesn't seem to challenge my assertion that the Jesus myth is very much a fringe view not taken seriously by actual historians.



Even as an atheist I'm not sure I agree, certainly relative to the standards of the time. I dont think its necessarily a plot to win power, but I think there is an agenda though. For example John is pretty widely accepted as being anti-semitic

Yeah. I think nigh on everyone (apart from maybe a few crazed Americans) believes there is some sort of agenda or slant behind each of the gospels. For example Matthew is seen as written for Jews, Luke and Mark for gentiles etc. Again that doesn't make them useless as historical documents, or even false in their claims, but it does mean they need to be looked at carefully.

[Bishop Hibee]

Like the small minority of Christians who are creationists, so you get a small minority of atheist who are historical Jesus deniers. Both head in the sand in their own way.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Each to their own.

Dinosaur living in Loch Ness v immaculately concepted guy, who can turn water into wine, cure lepers and walk on water.

Well....I at least know dinosaurs actually existed.

I've seen Dynamo do most of that stuff as well. Maybe this boy Jesus was the original magician/illusionist?

[easty]

I've seen Dynamo do most of that stuff as well. Maybe this boy Jesus was the original magician/illusionist?

You're looking at it from the wrong angle...Dynamo is clearly the son of God. Jesus II.

[Twa Cairpets]

Obviously the organiser wasn't Jesus, but I'd say that the very fact that the followers were so successful show that it's very likely there was something that they followed, and that something is best explained by there being a historical figure called Jesus.

It's true that Tacitus and Josephus and the spread of Christianity among other things don't really say anything about whether Jesus was divine, but, again, that's not what I'm arguing.

Thank you :greengrin. Just going through that list, you have a Professor of German who later accepted there was some sort of historical Jesus, a Swedish English Professor, a slightly eccentric theologian, someone who I can't find information on, an author, 2 atheist activists, and Carrier. The highest any of them seem to have gone (with the exception of Carrier) with history seems to be a bachelors, and it's unclear what periods that is. That doesn't seem to challenge my assertion that the Jesus myth is very much a fringe view not taken seriously by actual historians.

Yeah. I think nigh on everyone (apart from maybe a few crazed Americans) believes there is some sort of agenda or slant behind each of the gospels. For example Matthew is seen as written for Jews, Luke and Mark for gentiles etc. Again that doesn't make them useless as historical documents, or even false in their claims, but it does mean they need to be looked at carefully.

I think you make some good points, and I've gone back to have a quick look at some of the arguments both pro and anti.

There's a couple of things that I think come to light. The majority of those in the "real" camp have strong religious bias, and the majority of those in the "myth" camp are on the far end of the atheist spectrum. There is a consensus of varying shades that some person was the start point for the stories. While I know you've not been pushing the supernatural agenda, this is maybe the crux of it. Whether or not Jesus was real becomes largely moot if he was entirely human, and merely believed himself to be divine. At this point, the evidence of historicity fr miracles etc and the requirement for corroboration becomes greater as the claims becomes greater. There's a guy called Matt Dillahunty - well worth listening to on YouTube as he really knows his stuff coming from a position as former evangelical and I came across this transcript from one of his podcasts. Apologies for the long cut-and-paste, but it pretty much mirrors my position, I think

Link is http://shamelesslyatheist.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/matt-dillahunty-on-the-historicity-of-jesus-and-miracles/


Matt Dillahunty on the historicity of Jesus and miracles
January 20, 2010 – 12:33 pm

Before I really got down and dirty with the history of the New Testament books, I knew that the situation was bad for believing in its veracity. But I was never prepared for just how bad the situation really is, all the while people taking the New Testament as – well, gospel. This is a transcript of part of episode 8.18 of the Non-Prophets podcast (aired in December) in which Matt Dillahunty responds to a letter from a listener who has a friend claiming that the evidence for miracle claims in the bible is irrefutable. I have to say I always enjoy listening to Matt on subjects biblical.

The facts are these – there are no contemporary extrabiblical accounts of any events specific to the life of Jesus. That means no independent sources from any eyewitnesses with regard to his birth, life, miracles, ministry, death or proposed resurrection. The gospels are anonymous; we have no original manuscripts; they do not agree on details; they do not agree with recorded history; and the consensus of New Testament scholarship is that none of them were written by eyewitnesses. The bible has stories about eyewitnesses, but we don’t have a single comment from anyone claiming to be an eyewitness.

The process of canonization included books that doctrinally agreed with those in power, and eliminated and attempted to destroy books that were considered heretical by those in power. Yet those same books were considered inspired by other sects. Books like Revelation barely made it into the bible as many considered them uninspired. Books like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter which have traditionally been considered divinely inspired were excluded. Paul’s epistles, some of which are of questionable authorship, were the first books of the New Testament to be written, and that was decades after the purported life of Jesus. The gospels were written many years later – perhaps even decades later – by unknown authors. Historians from the late first and second century do mention Christians and some refer to Jesus, but none of these were eyewitnesses, and most of them couldn’t even have spoken to someone who claimed to be an eyewitness.

So we have the bible, a collection of stories by largely unknown authors who were unlikely to be eyewitnesses and we don’t have originals of their work. We have copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of copies of anonymous books reporting an oral tradition passed down for decades or centuries after the purported events in a time when myths, superstitions and god-men claims were plentiful; during a time when fact-checking and literacy were rare; and when doctrinal wars prompted forged documents (Paul even mentions this in the bible) in order to prop up competing theologies as orthodox or heretical. And for my money, that means none of it is believable.

Contrast this with, for example, claims of alien abductions. You can – if you like – actually speak to people who claim to have actually been abducted by aliens. If you look around, you’ll find groups of people who tell consistent stories, and might even claim to have been abducted together. There are countless reports of UFO sightings, often by groups of people or, in rare cases, dozens or even hundreds of people in a particular town or area. These reports have been ongoing for decades, reported by countless news sources in addition to specialized periodicals. Many of these people sincerely believe their story. Do you? Does you’re friend?

I don’t, because there isn’t sufficient evidence. Yet the quantity and quality of evidence for these claims is vastly superior to any miracle claims reported in the bible. We have more evidence, and we’re not 2000 years removed from events, and we still don’t believe, and find the most fervent believers to be a little crazy. Yet somehow, millions of largely ignorant, well-meaning, nice people sincerely believe third-hand reports of miracles from thousands of years ago. And they don’t just believe – they strongly believe. They not only consider it not only absurd to disbelieve, but also their sacred duty to convince others – at a minimum – and legislate their beliefs on others – or worse. And yet we do not somehow don’t consider these people a little crazy.

[ancienthibby]

I serve a risen Savior
He’s in the world today.
I know that He is living,
Whatever men may say.
I see His hand of mercy;
I hear His voice of cheer;
And just the time I need Him
He’s always near.

He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!
He walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way.
He lives, He lives, salvation to impart!
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart.


In all the world around me
I see His loving care,
And though my heart grows weary,
I never will despair;
I know that He is leading,
Through all the stormy blast;
The day of His appearing
Will come at last.
Rejoice, rejoice, O Christian,
Lift up your voice and sing
Eternal hallelujahs
To Jesus Christ the King!
The Hope of all who seek Him,
The Help of all who find,
None other is so loving,
So good and kind.






http://www.hymnal.net/images/comments-icon.png (http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/503#)
http://www.hymnal.net/images/excerpt-icon.png (http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/503#)

http://www.hymnal.net/images/tabs-collapse-icon.png (http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/503#)





Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/503#ixzz2oTG7c5lb

[hibsbollah]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/25/burial-box-earliest-reference-jesus

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/25/burial-box-earliest-reference-jesus

That's quite interesting 'bollah. I'd vaguely heard of this but hadn't any real knowledge. I've looked around it and it seems that the major dispute is between the first part and second part of the inscription. If it can be shown that it is real it would be fairly compelling corroborating evidence of the existence of someone called Jesus, brother of James, son of Joseph. It wouldn't however of course say anything about his divinity or the truth of the bible, but it would give a link to a real person.



I serve a risen Savior. He’s in the world today...
...None other is so loving, So good and kind.

This, however, is not interesting in the slightest. In what way does cutting and pasting a hymn add anything to what has been a good discussion, both on the OP and where the thread has developed to?

[hibsbollah]

That's quite interesting 'bollah. I'd vaguely heard of this but hadn't any real knowledge. I've looked around it and it seems that the major dispute is between the first part and second part of the inscription. If it can be shown that it is real it would be fairly compelling corroborating evidence of the existence of someone called Jesus, brother of James, son of Joseph. It wouldn't however of course say anything about his divinity or the truth of the bible, but it would give a link to a real person.



This, however, is not interesting in the slightest. In what way does cutting and pasting a hymn add anything to what has been a good discussion, both on the OP and where the thread has developed to?

Fascinating story about Golan. Bought the ossuary from a antique seller, a specialist from the Sorbonne spots it, puts it on display, causes a sensation until one group of jealous academics call it a fake, there's an investigation, a criminal trial, and after 10 years of squabbling he gets found not guilty in a criminal court.

But there's still no consensus as to whether it's kosher:cb or not. Which is evidence of the impossibility of definitively proving anything when millennia have passed and academic egos are at stake.