I honestly can't see any comparison at all. Absolutely none."But we would know for sure that these propagandists didn't invent the fact that the Nazis had got as far as Smolensk. That bit must be true! "
Promise me, Craig B, that you'll never commit yourself to helping an orphan claiming to be in a Red Cross refugee camp in Dakar.
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed
- Thread starter Kapyong
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david fitzgerald
- Status
It's not like Gallio is a major part of the story who is necessary for anything. Like Aretas, he gets an incidental mention in part of a larger story. Those stories change over time, but the named characters remain. Mostly.
We're discussing the date of composition of various ancient works, which claim to refer to particular events. It has been stated that there is no internal evidence of the dates of composition. I have indicated identifiable people and places known from the historical record. So there is evidence.
Your statement is rather bizarre. It is those who argue for an historical Jesus who MUST first discredit the Gospels almost in its entirety.
For example, Let us examine gMark
The following is some of the information DISCREDITTED by HJers.
1. HJers reject the talking cloud and the Holy Ghost bird at the baptism.
2. HJers reject the Devil's Temptation of Jesus.
3. HJers reject the sea water walking episode.
4. HJers reject the Transfiguration.
5. HJers reject ALL the miracles.
6. HJers reject the drowning of the 2000 swine.
7. HJers reject the Triumphal entry.
8. HJers reject the Barabbas exchange.
9. HJers reject the Resurrection.
10. HJers reject that Jesus was the Son of God.
It is most fascinating that the very HJers who virtually discredit the entire gMark with the other Gospels almost entirely and label the authors of the Gospels as Liars [embellishers] are now attempting to put the blame on MJers.
It is clear to me the HJ argument has run its course. All they have left is just total confusion and mis-guided accusations.
HJers seems to have had no idea that the HJ argument was initiated to discredit the NT as a Pack of Lies [ a pack of Embellishments]
The very fundament claim that HJ was an obscure man completely DISCREDITS the claim in the NT that Jesus was the Son of God, God Creator, the Christ and was WELL KNOWN in Galilee and Jerusalem.
Last edited:
Was it indeed?
That's right. Speaking for myself, I believe none of these things.
Well, first of all I am not using any unusual definition of the term “evidence”. See the typical dictionary definition below for example.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
Evidence.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.Idiom:
in evidence
1. Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2. Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.
Note that all these dictionary definitions, although they do not always spell it out in their ultra brief single line explanations, actually require that what is claimed as “evidence”, always implies that a physical examination of the claimed information is available to be checked & confirmed at least in principle.
For example, above where the definition talks of a broken window - the assumption is that a jury (or anyone) could, if they wished, check the claim of that “evidence”, ie check the “testimony”, by verifying that it was actually true that the window was indeed broken. If you cannot check and confirm that, at least in principle, then that testimony offered as “evidence” is not reliable in any credible way at all.
The same applies to seemingly less directly tangible things such as a witness saying (for example, as in the definition above) a claim or testimony saying there were few pedestrians on the streets at the time of the incident. That is only a claim of a particular item of evidence, but it is a claim which has to be supported by external confirmation where others can confirm that they too were present at that time and agreed that the streets were clear. If you cannot confirm such claims, even in principle, then what is offered as “evidence” is not reliable in any known measure at all. In court (for example), you might be allowed to claim such evidence before a jury, but in that case the jury consider it only as an unconfirmed unsupported claim, and the opposing lawyers will always emphasise that to the jury.
If a witness (such as Tacitus or the bible writers) offers unsupported and unconfirmed claims like that (ie offers it to us as his “jury“ trying to decide what is reasonable, reliable and credible evidence of that which is being claimed in respect of Jesus), but only offers it, not as what he himself ever saw or knew, but instead only as hearsay obtained from someone else, then as you should know, that is rarely allowed to be presented to a jury, precisely because it has been proved in past legal cases to be extremely unreliable and likely to mislead a jury (ie us in this case) into seriously mistaken conclusions. However, if in addition, that hearsay comes from unknown unnamed anonymous sources that are never produced and even cannot be produced (eg because of a passage of time by which any such person, if they were ever real at all, would be long since dead), then any suggestion of that being fit to put as claim before any jury is never allowed, for the very obvious reason that such claims, far from being truly evidence of what they say, are not remotely credible or reliable in any measure at all … ie, absolute zero credibility as the claimed evidence“, and absolutely never admissible as a claim of any such evidence at all.
And before anyone makes the very silly objection that we are not in a court and that different rules apply either here on this forum, or that different rules apply to bible historians when they make claims of having evidence - nobody has said that we are in court! … but the same rules of “evidence” most certainly do apply. And the reason for that is - what is allowed in a jury trial as admissible “evidence” (ie testimony offered for the jury to consider whether it is actually evidence of that which is claimed), are rules that have been very carefully established over more than a century of extremely detailed examination at the highest and most expert level possible, to decide what truly is presentable as genuine “evidence” for anyone’s consideration in the act of deciding what is the likely truth of anything. And certain types of testimony are most definitely NOT admissible before any jury in any such case of anyone trying to decide what is reasonable to accept as “evidence” of the witness claims about anything the witness says … and those types which are so unreliable and so likely to mislead and jurors (ie us in this case) inc. hearsay in general (which is rarely allowed, and never without clear warnings from the judge), and anonymous hearsay which is absolutely never allowed.
If anyone here continues to say that sort of legal precedent and legal finding will not apply to us when we act as jurors tying to asses the testimony offered as evidence by a book such as Tacitus or a book such as the bible, then what they are claiming is that special rules and special pleading now apply in the case of bible-scholars and their subject of the historicity of Jesus. Rules already “proven” in court to be wholly and completely unreliable, to such an extent that they must never be put before the jury at all … because it is not, and cannot be, really “evidence”! What it is, and what the courts have established it to be as a matter of legal ruling, is unsupported and unconfirmed claim and testimony (not “evidence”, but claim and testimony) of a type so inherently unreliable as to be of no use at all in any responsible consideration.
That’s not to say you cannot rely on such testimony as the bible and Tacitus, Josephus etc. You most certainly can claim that as your evidence if you wish. Because there is no judge here to rule it out of consideration. But what it means is that you are relying upon a type of testimony which has already been proved by the courts to be so unreliable as to be unworthy of any responsible consideration at all.
And if you say (as I think others have done) that ancient history only ever has that sort of “evidence” to work with, and hence if we ruled that out of consideration then all of ancient history would collapse, then first of all that is not true - it would not all be collapse at all. And secondly, that is not, and never could be, any sort of excuse for attempting to draw positive conclusions from such completely discredited wholly unreliable testimony as anonymous hearsay presented only centuries after the claimed events by even more anonymous self-interested religious copyists.
dejudge said:
Craig B said:
You don't know how the QUEST for an historical Jesus started over 200 years ago.
You had no idea that people are still looking for HJ and can't find him since the 18th century.
Please, just go and do some research on the QUEST for HJ because it was ALREADY confirmed that the Jesus in the NT was a Jesus of Faith--a Myth.
dejudge said:
Craig B said:
Exactly. It is the same HJers who DISCREDIT the Gospels who openly turn around and use the very same DISCREDITED Gospels for the history of their own obscure man.
But it was PREDICTED since the 3rd century.
Origen successfully predicted that those who did NOT believe that Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost would INVENT their own story.
Origen's Against Celsus 1
Last edited:
What do you think it is "evidence" of?
What does that inscription say about Jesus?
We are talking about Jesus, remember?
Belz...
Fiend God
I think skeptics on this site and elsewhere have, through debates with woo-woos, come to label as "evidence" only the "convincing" evidence that we usually want in order to draw a positive conclusion (or, in IanS' case, genuine actual awesome evidence.) But in truth "evidence" is much broader. I do wish the word "proof" hadn't become such a no-no in skeptical circles. If it was used to mean "convincing evidence" outside mathematics, it could be of some use in discussions like this.
Belz...
Fiend God
Oh, for ****'s sake, STOP talking about courtroom evidence and standards.
At the moment we're talking about the chronology of the Pauline corpus, a subject very relevant to the question of Jesus' existence, as I'm sure you will readily agree.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
IanS, do you question the existence of the Buddha? Do you question the existence of Confucius? Do you question the existence of Socrates? Do you question the existence of Plato? I ask because the evidence for the existence of each of these men is of comparable quality to that for the existence of Jesus, that is, nothing exists from their own hands; what we know of them is passed down from their associates, "disciples" if you will. Do you question the historicity of all of these figures, or is Jesus a special case somehow?
Yes, I was just saying that a second century forger wouldn't have to include those details, if he didn't want to. Unless there was already a tradition which linked these names together.
They add nothing to the credibility of the story itself, they just help us to place it on a timeline.
But the forgers in the second or fourth century, obviously knew that they had to fake all the letters, so that we in the future would think that Paul lived in the first century and preached all over the place. Apparently it was important for us to think that, because...
I have no idea why. The "dejudge scenario" just makes no sense to me at all.
How many times do you think that exact same comparison has been attempted with various historical figures, and answered here in these various HJ threads. I'll give you a clue, it's upwards of many dozens of times already.
I am not going to keep answering that same question round and around in endless circles of deliberate diversion and obfuscation.
Just post any reliable credible evidence of anyone knowing the biblical Jesus as a human person in the 1st century.
If you cannot do that, then you have no such evidence.
Where is the claimed evidence please?
Last edited:
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Please don't try and turn my question back on me, IanS. I asked you if you questioned the historicity of those other figures on the same grounds you use to question the historicity of Jesus. It's a yes-or-no question.
You've said we wouldn't have to toss out all ancient historical figures if we used your standard of evidence; so why wouldn't we have to toss out Buddha, Confucius, Socrates or Plato if we used your standard of evidence?
Well firstly I did not say "You've said we wouldn't have to toss out all ancient historical figures". What I said is that we would not have to toss out the history associated with the names of those figures. Just as we do not have to toss out the historical existence of Christianity and the biblical writing of religious belief in Jesus. That all remains as known history. What would be lost however, is any reality in the figure of Jesus - it would in that case be just a religious belief based on a figure who was in fact only fictional … but the historical fact of Christianity and the biblical writing would all remain as actual history of peoples religious beliefs.
In respect of philosophers like Socrates or Plato, the question has been answered in detail before in these threads. They are important in history only for the philosophical ideas & practices perused in their names, regardless of whether any person of that name ever actually existed and/or did any of things claimed for them.
As far as Buddha and Confucius are concerned - they are not people I have ever taken any interest in, but they are not Jesus. And this thread is only about Jesus ... it is not a debate about whether there is good evidence or not for other figures like Confucius or Buddha.
The fact that people may believe in all sorts of other figures without good evidence does absolutely nothing to help the case of absent evidence in respect of Jesus. The other figures, whether real or fictitious, are completely irrelevant here - the question here is what is the claimed evidence to show that Jesus lived as the human figure described in the bible ...
... so what is that evidence for Jesus?
If you want to start a similar thread about Buddha or Confucius, arguing either way that there is, or is not, good evidence to believe they existed, then by all means start another thread. Though it's probably not a question that many people here would be interested in. But whether either of those figures existed or not, and whether or not people are right or wrong to believe in them today as real historical figures, is quite irrelevant to the question of whether there exists any reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus …
… just because people may believe in other religious historical figures without good evidence, is NOT a valid reason to believe that Jesus was real.
The only relevant question here is what is the claimed reliable credible evidence of Jesus as a human person that was described in the bible?
No one is asking for proof. Have you forgotten? HJers ALWAYS say that they cannot prove their HJ existed yet you now want proof that he did not.
You have exposed your double standard.
The HJ argument is not only riddled with logical fallacies but also with double standards.
At one time their HJ is NOT the Christ but a NAZARITE Preacher.
But, at another time, the same NAZARITE Preacher is the CHRIST in Josephus.
A little later he is a Zealot, then before that he was Apolcalyptic, then a Rabbi...then a Cynic....THEN........HE WAS NOT from Nazareth....
It is clear that the very same people who want proof from others have NO EVIDENCE for their MULTIPLE versions of HJ.
There may be more versions of HJ than NT Jesus.
I only ask because you guys seem so certain that Jesus didn't exist that you must have proof, otherwise you wouldn't be saying these things. Not if you are honest.
So where is this proof that makes you so certain that a HJ didn't exist?
You are exposing that you are "addicted" to double standards. You are asking for proof to divert attention that you have been asked for evidence for your obscure dead NAZARITE preacher and is unable to do so.
The HJ argument is simple dead--nothing else is left but accusation after accusation of dishonesty.
You know that there are hundreds of manuscripts, Codices and Apologetic writings with the stories that Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator but still ask for proof.
If Jesus was believed to be the Son of God and born of a Holy Ghost what would Honest Christians write?
Honest Christians would be expected to write he was the Son of God and born of the Holy Ghost.
If Jesus was believed to be God Creator what would HONEST Christians write?
Honest Christians would be expected to write he was God Creator.
That is exactly what the Honest Christians wrote.
See Matthew 1, Mark 5, Luke 1, John 1, Acts 1 , and Galatians 4.
The stories of Jesus in the NT are what Christians HONESTLY Believed.
This is confirmed by Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Optatus, Arnobius, Lactantius, Minucius Felix, Augustine, Rufinus, Ephraem, Hippolytus, Severus and others.
We have PROOF of what Christians claimed about Jesus.
We have recovered NT manuscripts of the Jesus story.
We have the BIRTH NARRATIVE for Jesus in pristine condition
The Parents of Jesus was the HOLY GHOST and a VIRGIN.
You need more proof--See THE RECOVERED NT Papyri.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri
Now, show us the proof that your HJ was a NAZARITE PREACHER who was not from Nazareth.
Last edited:
- Status