Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:58:00 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:epn72316o5ngarjee91kfjslgfm5u0ufq4@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:57:49 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:00r5239o162buhi93luuisoo2ngc1fr73h@4ax.com... >>>> Which is why opinion is worthless. Only evidence counts, and the >>>> evidence is not only that there is none that Jesus existed >>> >>>I'd agree that there is no (historically credible) evidence for Jesus >>>existing. >>> >>>There is evidence of christians who appeared to follow a christ or a >>>Jesus, >>>which does not imply that such a person existed, of course. >>> >>>> but that >>>> there is evidence that he didn't exist. >>> >>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what would >>>such evidence be? >> >> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first >> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called >> Nazareth in the early first century. > >That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the >fictional birth narratives. > >Not evidence that Jesus did not exist That's shifting the burden. There's no evidence (other than assertion) that he DID exist. >Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but >your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional character, >that london does not exist. No, it's like saying that since London doesn't exist (if it didn't), a detective who "lived" there couldn't be a real person. >> As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived >> in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of >> evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't. >No .. there is only evidence that the events depcited (in particular the >description of his birth and death) are fictional. Solar eclipse during the full moon? There's PLENTY of evidence that it never happened. Sheep in the meadows overnight in December? Plenty of evidence it never happened. A man being hanged to death, then falling to his death? >I agree totally that there is lots of fiction in the Gospels etc .. but that >does not necessaril indicate that there was not an historical (as opposed to >biblcal) Jesus upon which the stories are based As I said, it's a certainty that many men named Yeshua lived in that place at that time. We're discussing the Biblical Jesus, not some carpenter or fisherman or stone cutter. >There are other documents that people quote as evidence that are probably >not totally fictional like the Josephus passage That one passage is not something a Jew would have written. The rest of Josephus doesn't mention Jesus. > .. but they are really only >evidence for the existence of christians, not for jesus Evidence of the Chreestos cult - which was a Jewish sect and had nothing to do with a savior. The Chreestos (the anointed ones) were the members of the sect. Christianity has appropriated much - Oestre, Mithras' birthday, the virgin birth ... and a cult that "followed Jesus". Oestre had nothing to do with the resurrection. Jesus, if he was born when the shepherds had their flocks in the meadows, had nothing to do with someone born on December 25th. >> The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been >> uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was. >People can utter all sorts of things. While it's possible that the Pope could say, "Jesus is a fake", I wouldn't bet anything on it ever happening. There are just some things some people wouldn't say. > And you'll note that according to the >stories, the jews were not happy with the things Jesus uttered. Really .. >saying that Jesus cannot exist because he is reported to have said things >that a Jew sjhould not say is not a valid agument at all. You misunderstood. The only thing Josephus ever said that might have sounded like Jesus existed is something a Jew would never have said. >> Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the >> time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no >> longer to be followed? >Jesus didn't claim that. He certainly did. Christianity claims a "new covenant" - at a time when the ONLY "Bible" was the Tanach. The earliest parts of the NT were still being written. >And not everyhintg attributed to jesus in the stories written long after his >death are going to be exactly what he said. If he didn't exactly say that it was now the NT that was to be followed, instead of the OT, then Christianity is Judaism. There's no peace-loving savior in the OT. >>>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE >>>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise be >>>a fairly dull story). >> What we need is solid evidence that they're COMPLETE TRUTH. >I don't suggest they are If the parts that are the bedrock of Christianity aren't, there's no reason for Christianity. >Yes .. the Bible is self contradictory in points of histroy, science nad >theology. >But that does not mean it is ENTIRELY untrue The assumption is that unproven claims are just that, unproven claims. Especially from a book that's wrong on almost every point that can be checked. But they're certainly not to be assumed true until proven false. >It does not mean that there was not an historical Jesus. Until there's actual evidence that there was, the assumption is that claims about him are just claims. > >>>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who was >>>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin >>>birth in bethlehem etc). >> >> We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at >> that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity. > >I didn't say it was .. I'm just saying that the stories in the Gospel can >easily be based around a real person. The "stories" (one, actually) written by someone who was supposedly close to the actual occurrences is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect of God, not a man. If the claims about him as a man, which didn't start until about 140 years later, are based on an actual person, it would be miraculous. Remember, no newspapers, no memoirs, nothing in writing for the most part, except the Tanach. 140 years later someone remembers an itinerant preacher? Without looking it up (they had nowhere to look, and the odds are that there were no more written mentions of Jesus in the late second century, from the early first century, than there are now), tell me who was President 140 years ago. >Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular >Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of >people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished). The time frame, and the record keeping of current events, argues against it. >If you are replying to me, thne that IS what we are discussing . .the >possibility of an historical Jesus (not one that exactly fits the impossibly >contradictory and unrealsitic Gospel descriptions) Then what? Some guy named Yeshua? 140 years back then, to the Jews, was forever. If they had picked someone to tell stories about it would have been someone alive or someone who had died recently, not someone who died 6 generations before and was so unremarkable while he lived that no one at the time noticed enough to include him in a census. >>>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and died >>>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel storied) >>>does make some sense. >> And is totally irrelevant to Christianity. >To christianity as it is today .. yes. If there was a Jesus who taught (at >least) some of the things that he is reported to have taught in the gospels, >then it is really todays christianity that is irrelevant to the 'real' >teachings of Jesus. Maybe, maybe not. Since he wasn't mentioned in writing until 140 years after he supposedly died, we'll never know what he taught, if there was a real Jesus. He may have just 'taught' Judaism, for all we know. >> (Although why we should >> assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the >> Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me. >> Just to pick a name at non-random?) >He probably had nothing to do with the cult itself .. the "chreestos" cult >developed afterwards The Chreestos cult developed before the first century. Christians took it over (like they took a lot of Judaism over) and made it theirs. But it has nothing to do with a savior until Christianity remade it. (that would have most likely been based on Paul's >teachings that put forward the idea of a 'christ'.). > Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:59:58 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:9jo723h3k8gsrr6oojjsh24me4fgeila73@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >>>A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible >>>(as >>>there is conflicting details). >> >> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to >> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible. > >Yes .. I'm not said any different. Buts its more the other way around ,., >Christianity is irrelevant to the teaching of an historical Jesus (if he did >exist) .. What we have today as Christianity is based on the myths and >fables. And we have even less of an historical Jesus, so why presume one? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On 17 Apr 2007 07:56:31 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote: >On Apr 16, 2:38 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >> On 16 Apr 2007 07:30:20 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer" >> >> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote: >> >> Wrong word. It's not as easy. In fact, it's totally beyond your >> >> capability, since you can't read the source materials. >> >The best I can do is the original translations into the Greek. >> >> You're fluent in ancient Greek? > >Fluent? No. > >> I'm impressed. Then you ARE aware of >> the later total screw-up of the Greek word 'alma'. Just more evidence >> that the story is made up. > >No, mistranslations are mistranslations, not evidence of trickery. The claim that Mary was a virgin is a mistranslation and you slough it off? It's one of the "facts" Christianity is based on. Without that, Jesus is pretty much just another guy. >You pretend that is what I am doing, yet all that I claim is that the >mention of a person in the Bible is evidence that that person may have >existed. It's not. An assertion isn't evidence that the assertion "may be true". >I am using the Bible as an instance of historical record Why, when it's consistently incorrect? Superman Comics is MUCH more historically accurate, but you don't base a claim that Superman may exist on that. >It is the same as using >any set of old writings to try to reconstruct a true historical >record. Assertions only build assertions, not "a true historical record". Assuming your conclusion is a logical fallacy, not a valid method of historical research. > Mention of Jesus in the Bible is just that -- mention of a man >in a set of old documents. In documents written generations after the setting. >That is very different from claiming that he must have existed, >because the Bible says so. There's no reason to consider his existence unless there's evidence - not assertion, evidence - that he existed. Unless you already believe it, of course. >> >> >> > That is a completely different approach than that taken by >> >> >> >the literalists. >> >> >> It's EXACTLY the same approach. The interpret, based on exactly the >> >> >> same reasoning that you use, that the Bible is to be taken literally. >> >No. I never made any such statement. >> THEY do. They interpret what they see their way, you interpret what >> you see your way. You say their way is incorrect, they say that your >> way is incorrect. > >Nonetheless, my statement was correct, that I never said the Bible was >to be taken literally. They say it is. You say that your opinion is more valid. They say that theirs is. To an impartial outsider, there's no difference. > Your claim that I take the Bible literally is false I never made the claim. I said that your claim and the claim of the literalists is the same thing to an outsider. It's, "I'm right and they're wrong". And that's ALL it is to us. >> >> You assume that the Biblical Jesus existed, >> >Again, no, I made no such assumtion. You are deliberately distorting >> >my words. >> "It is, in my opinion, more logical to assume that a man with that >> name existed ... than to assume that he never existed." >I'm right That's a claim that you assume that Jesus existed. If all you're claiming is that some man named Yeshua existed in Jerusalem in the first century, no one is arguing with you, and it has nothing to do with Christianity, regardless of what his name was. There were tens of thousands of men living around there at that time. So one of them had the very common name Yeshua. So what? >> If that's your entire argument, that some man named Yeshua lived in >> Jerusalem in the early first century, no one in his right mind would >> argue with you. >It is not my entire argument. My claim is that the Jesus who is the >subject of the New Testament is most probably based on a charismatic >man of that name There no reason to even make a decision about that, since there's no evidence to lead one to make such a decision, unless you already believe that the Bible is factual. >sort of a mini-cult leader What cult? He wasn't even mentioned until 6 generations after the fact. >whose disciples The Chreestos weren't "disciples of the Christ", THEY, THEMSELVES, were the anointed ones. Just another "mistranslation". > subsequently built him up to be larger than life. The people who "subsequently built him up" did so 6 GENERATIONS after he was supposed to have died. Some "disciples". >> There's a difference between a change in pronunciation and a claim >> that Jews lived in a cemetery. The latter never happened, even though >> "Jesus of Nazareth" is exactly that claim. >He may have been called the Nazarene, or some similar thing. He was called, in the Bible, A Nazorite. I thought you said you read the original Greek. (Nazorite isn't "some similar thing" to Nazarene, which you'd know if you were as familiar with the subject as you claim to be.) > Things get bungled in translation all the time. Which is why, of course, George Washington is called the First Queen of the US. (That's more accurate than the difference between Nazorite and Nazarene.) > You are making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm making a speed bump out of the Himalayas. There's not a single claim about Jesus that can be verified that turns out to be correct. NOT ONE. That's not a molehill, and it's not "bungled in translation", it's "made of whole cloth". >> Stories ALL tracing back to a SINGLE source - the books of the Bible, >> which can't be used as evidence that what's in the books of the Bible >> is true. >Sorry, that is not a single source. The canon is ONE source, put together by ONE BODY of people. > It is a compilation of several sources. Learn what "canon" means. One thing it DOESN'T mean is "true". >> > What sort of evidence do you require? >> Something extra-biblical from someone who had no positive axe to >> grind. Roman records. A diatribe by an enemy of his. Something >> written DURING HIS LIFETIME by someone who wasn't a Christian that >> mentioned him by name, and by enough description of his actions that >> we know he wasn't talking about some other Yeshua. > >As far as we know, there are no such records. Then there's nothing but a single body of assertion, 6 generations after the fact. Not very convincing. > All we have is writings by several different sources favorable to their subject. All we have is all the favorable sources having been chosen to be the body of assertion. The fact that 10 people all claimed that an eleventh is telling the truth isn't evidence, it's hearsay. Make that 3 people claiming that a 4th is true and it's even less. Luke 1:1 eliminates Luke as evidence from the first word, so we're left with 2 people claiming that a third is true. Hearsay that hearsay is true. Nothing to base a National Enquirer story on. >I suspect you know of and believe in the existence of several people >only through sources that mention them favorably. Contemporaneous sources. People about whom there are unfavorable sources also. People who are claimed to have done perfectly normal things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there no evidence at all. One piece of so-called evidence even states that it isn't. >> Things like what we have about other historic, and known real, people. >> >Written records from Romans? >> Since they kept meticulous records of everything, why didn't they even >> mention Jesus? Not a single mention in over 3 decades. Pilate was >> scared that the "King of the Jews" was being born, but there's not a >> single mention of any of the things he supposedly did about it. The >> Romans conducted censuses - not a single mention of Jesus of the >> Bible. >I thought you said that there are records of many Yeshuas. None of them having anything to do with a preacher, let alone the only begotten son of God. No "King of the Jews". No savior. No crucifixion that occurred on a day in which there was a total solar eclipse during the full moon. As much "evidence" of the Biblical Jesus as the fact that there are many men named Joe in the US right now. And as relevant to Christianity. >> >> and actual >> >> evidence that he didn't, >> >What is that evidence? >> The census claim. The Nazareth claim. The "darkness" claim (a solar >> eclipse when there was none). The Magi claim (following a star is >> nonsense - stars don't have fixed locations relative to the surface of >> Earth). The birth date claim (the flocks weren't in the fields in >> winter). The impossibility of the events on the morning of the >> resurrection (construct a single time line for that morning). The >> dual claims of Judas' cause of death (as if it was made up by two >> different people, who never compared notes). And on and on and ... >Again, no. You are deliberately distorting my position Your position is that there's a reason to consider that the Bible stories may have been based on a real person who had more going for him than that he had a very common name. If that's all you're claiming, it has nothing to do with Christianity, so why discuss it? Sure there were men in Jerusalem in the early first century named Yeshua. That has nothing to do with a story invented in the late second century. >I claimed that the stories were probably based on a real person Which 1) is nonsense (140 years later, back then?) and 2) totally irrelevant to Christianity. >> >Oh, here you are really stretching. Because his place or origin was >> >mistranslated, you claim he could not have existed. >> Because the entire story is INCORRECT factually. >So you claim. So I posted a few paragraphs above. > If the New Testament Jesus was based on a real man, >and there was evidence enough to convince you, then it would be highly >probable that some of the story was true (say, Jesus traveled to >such and such a place). So the fact that Superman traveled to Los Angeles means that Superman is probably based on a real person? Get real. > In that case some of the story would be factually correct. Any of the assertions that can be verified are false. Using Jesus' travel to a real place as evidence that Jesus existed is assuming your conclusion. >But note how you have claimed that the ENTIRE story is INCORRECT. ALL parts of it that can be verified are. >> But we don't claim that Mithras was real. We don't claim that Horus >> was real. >They don't count. They are gods. I am talking about a man. If all Jesus was, was some man, he's totally irrelevant to Christianity. Christianity isn't based on "a man". >> So either mention in a story is enough to believe that the person >> mentioned is real, or it's not. Both for Jesus and for Superman. (And >> there's absolutely NO incorrect factual evidence in Superman stories, > >Sure there is. He does impossible things all the time. The physics is >wrong. Miracles are wrong too, so I guess that eliminates Christianity. You don't get to have one set of rules for what you want to be true and another for what you want to not be true. >It is not a point against my argument. It is a point against your >argument. You are arguing from emotion here. I am merely pointing out >that barbarism is still common practice, while you claim it has no >place in the modern world. You may not like it, but it certainly >exists and is part of law in many countries. Which doesn't mean that it has a place in the modern world. You're arguing that what is should be. Why should it? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:15:12 -0400, Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote: >But the NT isn't even that, it is a work of religious propaganda in >the same league as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures >etc. It describes what members of the religion are supposed to >believe. Luke 1:1, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us" Not "known". Not "witnessed". "Believed". There goes 1/4 of the Gospel (and anything deriving from it) as evidence. >As a "historical source", both the OT and the NT require >corroboration. For example it turns out that Jericho was already >abandoned And that walled cities hadn't been invented yet. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On 17 Apr 2007 08:04:00 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote: >On Apr 16, 2:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >> >A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible (as >> >there is conflicting details). >> >> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to >> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible. > > >Again, BFD. Your argument that there was no historical character >around which the New Testament Jesus stories grew No one who would have been relevant to Christianity and, considering that the story was invented 140 years after the supposed "historical character" was dead, unbelievable, considering the time. Don't look it up - who was president 140 years ago? Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On 17 Apr 2007 10:02:19 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote: >On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >> On 15 Apr 2007 20:35:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer" >> >> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote: >> >On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >> >> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer" >> >> >> > If so, why does this make >> >> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a >> >> >real person? >> >> >> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually >> >> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible, >> >> didn't, and couldn't, have existed. >> >> >I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of >> >the miracles attributed to him. >> >> It's based on the fact that someone can't come from a place that >> didn't exist. > >That is a very weak argument. Desperately weak, in fact. Someone >mistranslates a place in an oral account No, he "mistranslates" a way of life for a place in a written account. > and you claim this proves >the subject of the story therefore must not have existed? A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that isn't false. Not one. Quote
Guest Baldin Lee Pramer Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2007 10:02:19 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer > > > > <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote: > >On Apr 16, 1:46 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> On 15 Apr 2007 20:35:32 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer" > > >> <BaldinPra...@msn.com> wrote: > >> >On Apr 15, 3:33 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: > >> >> On 14 Apr 2007 20:35:12 -0700, "Baldin Lee Pramer" > > >> >> > If so, why does this make > >> >> >more sense to you than that of a larger than life character based on a > >> >> >real person? > > >> >> Because, again, there's no evidence that such a person actually > >> >> existed. And LOADS of evidence that Jesus, as described in the Bible, > >> >> didn't, and couldn't, have existed. > > >> >I assume your "couldn't have existed" is based on the impossibility of > >> >the miracles attributed to him. > > >> It's based on the fact that someone can't come from a place that > >> didn't exist. > > >That is a very weak argument. Desperately weak, in fact. Someone > >mistranslates a place in an oral account > > No, he "mistranslates" a way of life for a place in a written account. > > > and you claim this proves > >the subject of the story therefore must not have existed? > > A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have > existed. Or can't you understand that? Someone could have heard wrong, or some mistranslation could have occurred... there are many other possibilities other than your conspiracy theory. Baldin Lee Pramer Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1176825055.111301.205640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly >> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if >> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month? >> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him. >> What early 1st century sources? > Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video- > footage"? So .. does your facecious remark, rather than acutally mentioning any sources, mean that you do not know of any? >> > Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st >> > century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct. >> I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various pharasees >> etc, > I would suggest finding out. Why .. don't you know? >> > Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius >> > and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources. >> But again, they are not contemporary .. > They are what exists, tho. Yes .. but unfortunately not contemporary .. and they say little at all about Jesus himself ..only that christians exists and that they had a leader, and about what christains claim to believe. > If the policies of emperors -- masters of > the whole world -- are known from such sources, in what sense is it > meaningful to demand more for minor figures? They are also known from contemporary sources .. that non-contemporary sources corroborate that evidence is a bonus. And there is VERY little information on Jesus even in the sources you claim. I would love there to be some contemporary evidence ofJesus life .. then one could look at the later works (including the Gospels etc), and compare them with the information contains and see if it is consistent and what additional information can be drawn from that. > But in a sense this is detail. The general point is that any event in > antiquity must be documented from what evidence exists, to the > standard that evidence exists for other things. This stuff about > 'contemporary' is borrowed from modern history (where there is so much > data that it is used as a rule of thumb to exclude duplicate info); in > ancient history it's irrelevant, since we frequently have no such > thing. Our only knowledge of events in Britain in 396, for instance, > is Zosimus who lives ca. 530 AD, well after Roman Britain has ceased > to exist. > >> and as I recall only the highly suspect addition to Josephus mentions >> Jesus .. other source mention the 'christians', not Jesus himself. > > You are doubtless aware that there are two passages in Josephus. The > second has never been seriously questioned; today the first is > generally thought corrupt, rather than interpolated as was thought a > century ago. Yeup > But in a sense Josephus is irrelevant. From where comes this huge > movement? Such things always start with a man on a soapbox saying > "follow me". The whole "Jesus myth" idea consists of obscurantism of > one kind or another, by which I mean, just finding excuses to ignore > data in order to argue from a manufactured silence. This is why > scholars reject it without consideration. Sorry.. I don't follwo the point you're triyng to make above >> >> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources >> >> Comprising one work we call "the Bible". >> > Ask him to prove it. >> Are you saying the bible is NOT a compilation of many sources ? > No, that's Al's argument. It seemed worth challenging. On what grounds? Unless you disagree with it .. why challenege it? >> > This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of >> > these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant, >> > to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant >> > buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of >> > people in antiquity! >> >> So Jesus was unimportant and did nothing noteworth in his lifetime? > To a Roman historian? Certainly. No-one in the Roman world takes any > real notice of Christ and Christians until the 3rd century. That's pretty much my opinion as well. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:rhg923hkai8haejogst3qtt6s6ndsom11u@4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:58:00 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> > wrote: >>>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what >>>>would >>>>such evidence be? >>> >>> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first >>> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called >>> Nazareth in the early first century. >> >>That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the >>fictional birth narratives. >> >>Not evidence that Jesus did not exist > > That's shifting the burden. There's no evidence (other than > assertion) that he DID exist. It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did not exist .. and you've not provided any. Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not correct. However, It is ceratinly true that the presence of obviosuly fictional elements in a story makes one suspciuos of the truth of all the other elements of the story whose truth we cannot directly deterine. >>Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but >>your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional >>character, >>that london does not exist. > > No, it's like saying that since London doesn't exist (if it didn't), a > detective who "lived" there couldn't be a real person. Just because someone made up a story about where Jesus was born doesn't mean Jesus wasn't born at all. That is not a logical conclusion. >>> As I said to Pramer, there's no doubt that MANY men named Yeshua lived >>> in Jerusalem in the early first century, but there's plenty of >>> evidence that the one claimed in the Bible didn't. >>No .. there is only evidence that the events depcited (in particular the >>description of his birth and death) are fictional. > Solar eclipse during the full moon? There's PLENTY of evidence that > it never happened. > Sheep in the meadows overnight in December? Plenty of evidence it > never happened. > A man being hanged to death, then falling to his death? Yes .. I've not said otherwise .. indeed , I just said they are fictional. So I take it you are just providing supporting examples for what I was saying .. thanks. >>I agree totally that there is lots of fiction in the Gospels etc .. but >>that >>does not necessaril indicate that there was not an historical (as opposed >>to >>biblcal) Jesus upon which the stories are based > As I said, it's a certainty that many men named Yeshua lived in that > place at that time. We're discussing the Biblical Jesus, not some > carpenter or fisherman or stone cutter. That maybe what you are discussing (or wanting to discuss). . but I was clearly NOT discussing that, >>There are other documents that people quote as evidence that are probably >>not totally fictional like the Josephus passage > That one passage is not something a Jew would have written. The rest > of Josephus doesn't mention Jesus. Yes .. I've not said otherwise .. indeed , I just said those parts of Josephus are fictional. So I take it you are just providing supporting examples for what I was saying .. thanks. >> .. but they are really only >>evidence for the existence of christians, not for jesus > > Evidence of the Chreestos cult - which was a Jewish sect and had > nothing to do with a savior. The Chreestos (the anointed ones) were > the members of the sect. Yes .. I've not said otherwise .. So I take it you are just providing supporting examples for what I was saying .. thanks. > Christianity has appropriated much - Oestre, Mithras' birthday, the > virgin birth ... and a cult that "followed Jesus". > Oestre had nothing to do with the resurrection. Yeup. > Jesus, if he was born when the shepherds had their flocks in the > meadows, had nothing to do with someone born on December 25th. The date of December 25 is not in the bible .. it was (mis)calcalated later >>> The most important of them, to Christians, would never have been >>> uttered by a practicing Jew, which Christianity claims ITS Jesus was. >>People can utter all sorts of things. > > While it's possible that the Pope could say, "Jesus is a fake", I > wouldn't bet anything on it ever happening. > There are just some things some people wouldn't say. If Jesus was out and about preaching new ideas, then I don't see why some of those ideas would not be things a jew would not usually say >> And you'll note that according to the >>stories, the jews were not happy with the things Jesus uttered. Really .. >>saying that Jesus cannot exist because he is reported to have said things >>that a Jew sjhould not say is not a valid agument at all. > > You misunderstood. The only thing Josephus ever said that might > have sounded like Jesus existed is something a Jew would never have > said. Hang on .. from the context you were clearly talking about things JESUS said ... not Josephus .. why are you bringing up Josephus again when both of us are discrediting him as a source already? >>> Is it likely that a practicing Jew of the >>> time would claim that the Bible (the only one at the time) was no >>> longer to be followed? >>Jesus didn't claim that. > > He certainly did. Christianity claims a "new covenant" - at a time > when the ONLY "Bible" was the Tanach. The earliest parts of the NT > were still being written. He said the the existing law and sciprture was to remain and was to be followed. Of course .. the bible is fulll of contradictions . >>And not everyhintg attributed to jesus in the stories written long after >>his >>death are going to be exactly what he said. > If he didn't exactly say that it was now the NT that was to be > followed There was no NT when Jesus was supposedly around .. that came later > instead of the OT, then Christianity is Judaism. Yes .. Jesus was not a christian (there was no such thing until much later) he was a Jew, and his mission was to Jews (and if the stories are true, initially only to the Jews). Much of what he taught was in line with previous Jewish scholars, some of it different interpreations, or new views. > There's no > peace-loving savior in the OT. There's very little peaceful about the OT at all >>>>Unless there is solid evidence that the Gospel stories are COMPELTE >>>>fabrications (rather than major embellishments on what would otherwise >>>>be >>>>a fairly dull story). >>> What we need is solid evidence that they're COMPLETE TRUTH. >>I don't suggest they are > If the parts that are the bedrock of Christianity aren't, there's no > reason for Christianity. Yeup. I didn't say there was. But, if there was an historical Jesus (upon whom the gospel stories were based) then I would love to be able to read what he really DID teach and what things really DID happen. If he did exists, by the time the stories were written down (in the forms we have) the stories were embelished and edited to the point that its very difficult (if not impossible) to determine the truth. >>Yes .. the Bible is self contradictory in points of histroy, science nad >>theology. >>But that does not mean it is ENTIRELY untrue > > The assumption is that unproven claims are just that, unproven claims. I have not said otherwise > Especially from a book that's wrong on almost every point that can be > checked. But they're certainly not to be assumed true until proven > false. I have not said they should be >>It does not mean that there was not an historical Jesus. > > Until there's actual evidence that there was, the assumption is that > claims about him are just claims. Exactly . .claims that he exists and claims that he doesn't .. we don't really know >>>>That doesn't mean that there was not a man that was called Jesus, who >>>>was >>>>born somewhere around the galille region (ignoring the fictional virgin >>>>birth in bethlehem etc). >>> We KNOW that there were MANY men called Jesus (Yeshua) born there at >>> that approximate time. That has nothing to do with Christianity. >>I didn't say it was .. I'm just saying that the stories in the Gospel can >>easily be based around a real person. > > The "stories" (one, actually) four books .. four stories. And quite possibly a common source for the synoptics, as well as much copying of earlier stories in later gospels, and each with its own little variations and embellishments. Many of the sub-stories in the gospels are unique to one gospel only. > written by someone who was supposedly > close to the actual occurrences They are almost ceratinly not written by disiples of Jesus > is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect > of God, not a man. That sounds like you're talking about John, which is the latest of the four gospels .. and probably the furthest from the truth and the one that has much mor e'theolgy' rahter than narrative and appears influences most by Pauline teachings. > If the claims about him as a man, which didn't > start until about 140 years later The earliset gospels are generally dated to end of the first centurey .. though almost certainly not written by jesus disciples. > are based on an actual person, it > would be miraculous. Why? > Remember, no newspapers, no memoirs, nothing in > writing for the most part, except the Tanach. People did write things down, and oral traiditons were strong. And just because we do not have earlier writings does not mean they could not possibly have existed. It doesn't need to be a miracle. > 140 years later someone > remembers an itinerant preacher? Without looking it up (they had > nowhere to look, and the odds are that there were no more written > mentions of Jesus in the late second century, from the early first > century, than there are now), tell me who was President 140 years ago. I don't care .. I'm not a follower of presidents. But if I was a follower of Jesus, then I'd remember who he was. >>Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular >>Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of >>people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished). > The time frame, and the record keeping of current events, argues > against it. In what way? >>If you are replying to me, thne that IS what we are discussing . .the >>possibility of an historical Jesus (not one that exactly fits the >>impossibly >>contradictory and unrealsitic Gospel descriptions) > > Then what? Some guy named Yeshua? 140 years back then, to the Jews, > was forever. If they had picked someone to tell stories about it > would have been someone alive or someone who had died recently, not > someone who died 6 generations before and was so unremarkable while he > lived that no one at the time noticed enough to include him in a > census. Your argument is based on generally unaccepted late datings for the gospels. >>>>But an ordinary historical Jesus that lived, taught some followers, and >>>>died >>>>(though far removed form the embellished mythology of the Gospel >>>>storied) >>>>does make some sense. >>> And is totally irrelevant to Christianity. >>To christianity as it is today .. yes. If there was a Jesus who taught >>(at >>least) some of the things that he is reported to have taught in the >>gospels, >>then it is really todays christianity that is irrelevant to the 'real' >>teachings of Jesus. > > Maybe, maybe not. Since he wasn't mentioned in writing until 140 > years after he supposedly died, I doulbt you have convincing proof of this, as the genreally accepted dating is end of the first century. > we'll never know what he taught, if > there was a real Jesus. Andeven if we do happen to have some genuine quotes .. in the most part we cannot tell them from forgeries. If Jesus did exists, and if there was anything contmporary recorded about him and his teachings .. its a shame we don't have it. I would love to read what Jesus REALLY said and did (if indeed he lived) > He may have just 'taught' Judaism, for all we > know. Yeup >>> (Although why we should >>> assume that some man named Yeshua had anything to do with the >>> Chreestos cult, other than being a member of the cult, is beyond me. >>> Just to pick a name at non-random?) >>He probably had nothing to do with the cult itself .. the "chreestos" cult >>developed afterwards > The Chreestos cult developed before the first century. Christians > took it over (like they took a lot of Judaism over) and made it > theirs. But it has nothing to do with a savior until Christianity > remade it. Yeup >> (that would have most likely been based on Paul's >>teachings that put forward the idea of a 'christ'.). Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:7n3b23pam5df15pshgc35d5arm1urdf05p@4ax.com... > On 17 Apr 2007 08:04:00 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer > <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote: > >>On Apr 16, 2:55 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:34:26 +1000, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >A Jesus that is exactly as described in the Gospels would be impossible >>> >(as >>> >there is conflicting details). >>> >>> A Jesus that was as close to the one described in the Gospels so as to >>> be relevant to Christianity would be just as impossible. >> >> >>Again, BFD. Your argument that there was no historical character >>around which the New Testament Jesus stories grew > > No one who would have been relevant to Christianity and, considering > that the story was invented 140 years after the supposed "historical > character" was dead, unbelievable, considering the time. Don't look > it up - who was president 140 years ago? Who cares Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... > A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have > existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other > "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that > isn't false. Not one. Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On 18 Apr 2007 06:49:51 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPramer@msn.com> wrote: >On Apr 17, 9:25 pm, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote: >> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have >> existed. Or can't you understand that? >Someone could have heard wrong, or some mistranslation could have >occurred... there are many other possibilities other than your >conspiracy theory. What conspiracy? Someone who didn't have a clue "translated" "respected God" (Nazorite) to "came from Nazareth" (Nazarene). I mean, it seems to be such an easy thing to mix up, no? God. The name of a place that doesn't exist. So similar. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:rhg923hkai8haejogst3qtt6s6ndsom11u@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:58:00 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >>>>>I don't believe there is any evidence that he did not exist .. what >>>>>would >>>>>such evidence be? >>>> >>>> Evidence that a man named Yeshua who was born in the early first >>>> century and came from Nazareth didn't exist? There was no town called >>>> Nazareth in the early first century. >>> >>>That is only evidence that he was not born in the town climed by the >>>fictional birth narratives. >>> >>>Not evidence that Jesus did not exist >> >> That's shifting the burden. There's no evidence (other than >> assertion) that he DID exist. > >It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did not >exist .. and you've not provided any. > >Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not correct. Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn out to be false. >>>Yes .. I acknowledge that there is a LOT of fictious elements there .. but >>>your logic is like saying because Sherlock holmes is a fictional >>>character, >>>that london does not exist. >> >> No, it's like saying that since London doesn't exist (if it didn't), a >> detective who "lived" there couldn't be a real person. > >Just because someone made up a story about where Jesus was born doesn't mean >Jesus wasn't born at all. > >That is not a logical conclusion. When every single verifiable claim is false, it's a logical conclusion that the claims were made up. It's also a logical conclusion to not accept the non-verifiable claims without actual evidence. >If Jesus was out and about preaching new ideas, then I don't see why some of >those ideas would not be things a jew would not usually say Jews of the day wouldn't be preaching non=Jewish ideas. Would you expect Pat Robertson to lead a pro-choice demonstration? Or Phelps to come out in favor of teaching sexual diversity in schools? >> You misunderstood. The only thing Josephus ever said that might >> have sounded like Jesus existed is something a Jew would never have >> said. >Hang on .. from the context you were clearly talking about things JESUS said >.. not Josephus .. why are you bringing up Josephus again when both of us >are discrediting him as a source already? No, I was talking about Josephus all the time. >> He certainly did. Christianity claims a "new covenant" - at a time >> when the ONLY "Bible" was the Tanach. The earliest parts of the NT >> were still being written. >He said the the existing law and sciprture was to remain and was to be >followed. Really? Then what's that Christian stuff about the NT laws no longer being in effect because Jesus "fulfilled" them? >Yeup. I didn't say there was. But, if there was an historical Jesus (upon >whom the gospel stories were based) That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to be true. >>>It does not mean that there was not an historical Jesus. >> Until there's actual evidence that there was, the assumption is that >> claims about him are just claims. >Exactly . .claims that he exists and claims that he doesn't Shifting the burden again. Existentially negative claims don't require evidence. They're simply a restatement of "I don't accept your existentially positive claim". >> The "stories" (one, actually) >four books .. four stories. Many more books. The number depends on who you ask. Catholic. Protestant. Gnostic. >> written by someone who was supposedly >> close to the actual occurrences >> is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect >> of God, not a man. >That sounds like you're talking about John Paul. >> If the claims about him as a man, which didn't >> start until about 140 years later >The earliset gospels are generally dated to end of the first centurey The earliest fragment of a Gospel we have dates from around 120, and it consists of about a dozen words. But Jesus the man wasn't mentioned until about 170. >though almost certainly not written by jesus disciples. Since they were dead for decades, no. >> are based on an actual person, it >> would be miraculous. >Why? Because back then, 140 years was like 1400 years now. If there had been an itinerant preacher who died around 35 AD, no one in 170 AD would know about him, unless he was so well known that no one would forget about him for 140 years. >> Remember, no newspapers, no memoirs, nothing in >> writing for the most part, except the Tanach. >People did write things down When a piece of parchment costs about what you spend on food for your family for a week, you don't waste one on writing about someone about whom no one else thought enough to write. > and oral traiditons were strong. Among Jews? Oral traditions concerning the Tanach, yes. Oral traditions concerning some nondescript rabbi? He would have been the only one. Again, the only "evidence" of this is the need, in the minds of some, for there to be some. >And just because we do not have earlier writings does not mean they could not >possibly have existed. No earlier writings, no references to earlier writings, ABSOLUTELY NO evidence other than the need of some people that Jesus be a real person. >I don't care .. I'm not a follower of presidents. But if I was a follower >of Jesus, then I'd remember who he was. Not if no one had heard of him for 140 years. >>>Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular >>>Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of >>>people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished). >> The time frame, and the record keeping of current events, argues >> against it. >In what way? There's about 140 years between the time a plain old itinerant rabbi died and the time people used him as a model for Jesus, according to your premise. No one knew anything about him all during that time, according to all known evidence. Then, all of a sudden, someone - whose grandfather hadn't been born at the time - "remembers" him? Records aren't kept when people can't afford to keep them, and they didn't buy a ream of paper for $3 back them Absolutely no reason to think there was any real Jesus other than the desire for there to have been one. >Your argument is based on generally unaccepted late datings for the gospels. The EARLIEST SCRAP of Gospel we have is dated at about 120 AD, and it has about a dozen words. Jesus the man isn't mentioned for about another 30 years. That's evidence. "The Gospels were written in the first century" is, at very best, educated guessing. >> Maybe, maybe not. Since he wasn't mentioned in writing until 140 >> years after he supposedly died, >I doulbt you have convincing proof of this The earliest document we know of (that we can actually date) in which he's first mentioned. >as the genreally accepted dating is end of the first century. It's also "generally accepted" that he was the only begotten son of God, and it's also "generally accepted" that he's still alive. But there's no actual evidence of any of the three "generally accepted" claims. >> we'll never know what he taught, if >> there was a real Jesus. >Andeven if we do happen to have some genuine quotes .. in the most part we >cannot tell them from forgeries. Sure we can. The ones in the Bible are forgeries. >If Jesus did exist There's no actual evidence that would lead to even making such a conjecture, other than the desire of people for it to be true. Starting with the assumption that Jesus, or Heracles, or Neptune, may have been based on a real person is religion. The SOLE reason to even think about Jesus is because 3 of the 4 Gospels claim that he existed. (Luke doesn't make any claims, except that it's all things people of the time believe.) Mark claims to be the Gospel of Jesus, so we can take that with a few grains of salt. Large grains. If Paul hadn't invented Christianity and you were doing research about the Jerusalem of 2,000 years ago, you'd see no reason to study Abraham the donkey dealer or Yeshua the itinerant rabbi, because there wouldn't be anything to study. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have >> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >> isn't false. Not one. > >Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. Christianity invented Jesus and wrote about him, which is evidence that the invented Jesus might have been based on a real person who lived when the invented Jesus was supposed to have. Uh-huh. Quote
Guest stumper Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Al Klein wrote: > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> > wrote: > >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >> news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have >>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >>> isn't false. Not one. >> Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. > > Christianity invented Jesus and wrote about him, which is evidence > that the invented Jesus might have been based on a real person who > lived when the invented Jesus was supposed to have. > > Uh-huh. Your certainty is troubling. Think for a while. Is the Golden Rule falsifiable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity -- ~Stumper Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> > wrote: > >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have >>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >>> isn't false. Not one. >> >>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. > > Christianity invented Jesus unfounded assertion Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:hgld239n87sn95hqggoiahlut9njq3nm4n@4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:50:40 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> > wrote: >>It is not shifting anything .. you claimed to have evidence Jesus did not >>exist .. and you've not provided any. >>Only evidence that certain events or anecdotes about him are not correct. > > Evidence that ALL the assertions about him that can be verified turn > out to be false. Although that does make a case for Jesus not existing stronger, it does not prove he didn't. >>Just because someone made up a story about where Jesus was born doesn't >>mean >>Jesus wasn't born at all. >>That is not a logical conclusion. > When every single verifiable claim is false, it's a logical conclusion > that the claims were made up. Its a conclusion, but based on fallacious logical arguments > It's also a logical conclusion to not > accept the non-verifiable claims without actual evidence. Yes >>If Jesus was out and about preaching new ideas, then I don't see why some >>of >>those ideas would not be things a jew would not usually say > Jews of the day wouldn't be preaching non=Jewish ideas. Would you > expect Pat Robertson to lead a pro-choice demonstration? Or Phelps to > come out in favor of teaching sexual diversity in schools? So you say noone ever preaches doctrines or ideas different from orthodoxy ? There are never any new ideas .. never anything even midly radical or different? >>> You misunderstood. The only thing Josephus ever said that might >>> have sounded like Jesus existed is something a Jew would never have >>> said. >>Hang on .. from the context you were clearly talking about things JESUS >>said >>.. not Josephus .. why are you bringing up Josephus again when both of us >>are discrediting him as a source already? > No, I was talking about Josephus all the time. Then what you wrote was misleading .. but in that case I agree (and have all along) that the Josephus section on Jesus is a very obvious (and not very good) forgery >>> He certainly did. Christianity claims a "new covenant" - at a time >>> when the ONLY "Bible" was the Tanach. The earliest parts of the NT >>> were still being written. >>He said the the existing law and sciprture was to remain and was to be >>followed. > Really? Then what's that Christian stuff about the NT laws no longer > being in effect because Jesus "fulfilled" them? I think you mean OT .. can you cite the biblical verse that suport that view? If not then it is irrelevant. >>Yeup. I didn't say there was. But, if there was an historical Jesus >>(upon >>whom the gospel stories were based) > That's the whole point - the only "evidence" that they were based on > an actual first century man is the need people have for the stories to > be true. We have the stories of his teachings and of his disciples. Of course, they are not very reliabl evidence .. but there is more "evidence' than wishful thinking. >>>>It does not mean that there was not an historical Jesus. >>> Until there's actual evidence that there was, the assumption is that >>> claims about him are just claims. >>Exactly . .claims that he exists and claims that he doesn't > Shifting the burden again. No .. as there is no good evidence either way there is nothing provable. its something we may just never truly 'know'. > Existentially negative claims don't > require evidence. They're simply a restatement of "I don't accept > your existentially positive claim". >>> The "stories" (one, actually) >>four books .. four stories. > Many more books. The number depends on who you ask. Catholic. > Protestant. Gnostic. Only four christian gospels .. which are what were being discussed AFAIK >>> written by someone who was supposedly >>> close to the actual occurrences >>> is that "Jesus" is a spiritual aspect >>> of God, not a man. >>That sounds like you're talking about John > Paul. So you're now not talking about the gospels stories of Jesus .. you keep chaing subjects so much, its hard to keep up with what you're acutally referring to >>> If the claims about him as a man, which didn't >>> start until about 140 years later >>The earliset gospels are generally dated to end of the first centurey > The earliest fragment of a Gospel we have dates from around 120, and > it consists of about a dozen words. But Jesus the man wasn't > mentioned until about 170. That generally accepted datings are almost a century before that. >>though almost certainly not written by jesus disciples. > Since they were dead for decades, no. That's what I said. >>> are based on an actual person, it >>> would be miraculous. >>Why? > Because back then, 140 years was like 1400 years now. Really .. was there some sort of time warp? > If there had > been an itinerant preacher who died around 35 AD, no one in 170 AD > would know about him, unless he was so well known that no one would > forget about him for 140 years. You're assuming it was a not until 170 AD that anything was written. >>> Remember, no newspapers, no memoirs, nothing in >>> writing for the most part, except the Tanach. >>People did write things down > When a piece of parchment costs about what you spend on food for your > family for a week, you don't waste one on writing about someone about > whom no one else thought enough to write. But if YOU thought it was important enough, you would. >> and oral traditions were strong. > Among Jews? Oral traditions concerning the Tanach, yes. Oral > traditions concerning some nondescript rabbi? He would have been the > only one. Again, the only "evidence" of this is the need, in the > minds of some, for there to be some. >>And just because we do not have earlier writings does not mean they could >>not >>possibly have existed. > No earlier writings, no references to earlier writings As I said .. just because we don't have them doesn't mean that it was impossible for them to exist >>I don't care .. I'm not a follower of presidents. But if I was a follower >>of Jesus, then I'd remember who he was. > Not if no one had heard of him for 140 years. That's your asssertion .. but we do not know that. >>>>Yes .. lots of Yeshua's. That does not mean there was not a particular >>>>Yeshua (or maybe even someone not called Yeshua, or maybe a couple of >>>>people) upon which the Gospel stories were based (and then embellished). >>> The time frame, and the record keeping of current events, argues >>> against it. >>In what way? > There's about 140 years between [snip same assumptions that are contrary to accepted datings] > It's also "generally accepted" that he was the only begotten son of > God, and it's also "generally accepted" that he's still alive. But > there's no actual evidence of any of the three "generally accepted" > claims. Not generally .. only by christians .. so that is not a valid argument >>> we'll never know what he taught, if >>> there was a real Jesus. >>Andeven if we do happen to have some genuine quotes .. in the most part we >>cannot tell them from forgeries. > Sure we can. The ones in the Bible are forgeries. We do not know that .. that is your assertion. How many, if any, are authentic (or at least paraphrased from what had been records) we will probably never know. Unless we ever do get any solid evidence that the gospel stories were completly works of fiction with no basis on fact >>If Jesus did exist > There's no actual evidence that would lead to even making such a > conjecture, other than the desire of people for it to be true. > Starting with the assumption that Jesus, or Heracles, or Neptune, may > have been based on a real person is religion. Only if you attribute god-like attributes to him .. I am not .. otherwise its speculation about history. Quote
Guest Roger Pearse Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On 18 Apr, 16:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:1176825055.111301.205640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >>news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly > >> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed if > >> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month? > >> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him. > >> What early 1st century sources? > > Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video- > > footage"? > > So .. does your facecious remark, rather than acutally mentioning any > sources, mean that you do not know of any? It means that I noticed you shifting your demands for evidence in something you don't want to believe higher still (you'd believe anything if it suited you, of course), and pointed it out courteously. > >> > Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in 1st > >> > century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct. > >> I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various pharasees > >> etc, > > I would suggest finding out. > > Why .. don't you know? You don't, that's for sure. Don't post on topics about which you are ignorant as if you knew something. > >> > Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, Suetonius > >> > and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources. > >> But again, they are not contemporary .. > > They are what exists, tho. > > Yes .. but (reiteration snipped) Read what I wrote. > > If the policies of emperors -- masters of > > the whole world -- are known from such sources, in what sense is it > > meaningful to demand more for minor figures? > > They are also known from contemporary sources .. (etc) I think that you need to document this assertion with regard to the policies of Tiberius... but, in honesty, I don't think you know this. > > But in a sense this is detail. The general point is that any event in > > antiquity must be documented from what evidence exists, to the > > standard that evidence exists for other things. This stuff about > > 'contemporary' is borrowed from modern history (where there is so much > > data that it is used as a rule of thumb to exclude duplicate info); in > > ancient history it's irrelevant, since we frequently have no such > > thing. Our only knowledge of events in Britain in 396, for instance, > > is Zosimus who lives ca. 530 AD, well after Roman Britain has ceased > > to exist. > > >> and as I recall only the highly suspect addition to Josephus mentions > >> Jesus .. other source mention the 'christians', not Jesus himself. > > > You are doubtless aware that there are two passages in Josephus. The > > second has never been seriously questioned; today the first is > > generally thought corrupt, rather than interpolated as was thought a > > century ago. > > Yeup > > > But in a sense Josephus is irrelevant. From where comes this huge > > movement? Such things always start with a man on a soapbox saying > > "follow me". The whole "Jesus myth" idea consists of obscurantism of > > one kind or another, by which I mean, just finding excuses to ignore > > data in order to argue from a manufactured silence. This is why > > scholars reject it without consideration. > > Sorry.. I don't follwo the point you're triyng to make above > > >> >> >No. The Bible is a compilation of many sources > >> >> Comprising one work we call "the Bible". > >> > Ask him to prove it. > >> Are you saying the bible is NOT a compilation of many sources ? > > No, that's Al's argument. It seemed worth challenging. > > On what grounds? Unless you disagree with it .. why challenege it? > > >> > This rhetoric has no factual content. Al knows nothing about any of > >> > these people. Note how he cunningly compares Jesus, a rural peasant, > >> > to emperors and people who issued coins and built huge extant > >> > buildings; hardly the same kind of evidence available for 99% of > >> > people in antiquity! > > >> So Jesus was unimportant and did nothing noteworth in his lifetime? > > To a Roman historian? Certainly. No-one in the Roman world takes any > > real notice of Christ and Christians until the 3rd century. > > That's pretty much my opinion as well. All the best, Roger Pearse Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 "Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1176965775.123952.68500@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On 18 Apr, 16:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:1176825055.111301.205640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >>news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly >> >> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed >> >> >> if >> >> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month? >> >> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him. >> >> What early 1st century sources? >> > Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video- >> > footage"? >> >> So .. does your facecious remark, rather than acutally mentioning any >> sources, mean that you do not know of any? > > It means that I noticed you shifting your demands for evidence in > something you don't want to believe higher still (you'd believe > anything if it suited you, of course), and pointed it out courteously. I made no change .. as I didn't ask before. So .. the question then remains .. are there any contemporary sources that you think Al was ommitting that clearly reference Jesus. or are you referring to biblical texts? >> >> > Al doesn't know any of this. Ask for examples of people living in >> >> > 1st >> >> > century Judaea ca 30 for whom this is correct. >> >> I'm pretty sure we have records of Pilate, and of the various >> >> pharasees >> >> etc, >> > I would suggest finding out. >> Why .. don't you know? > You don't, that's for sure. Really .. you don't know what information I have or do not have >> >> > Our best sources for all first century history are Tacitus, >> >> > Suetonius >> >> > and Cassius Dio, with Josephus for Jewish sources. >> >> But again, they are not contemporary .. >> > They are what exists, tho. >> Yes .. but (reiteration snipped) > Read what I wrote. They are not contemporary sources .. and there is litlte reference at all to Jesus in them anyway. Josephus must be excluded as the passage is regarded my most scholars as at best questionable, and by mane as a forgery >> > If the policies of emperors -- masters of >> > the whole world -- are known from such sources, in what sense is it >> > meaningful to demand more for minor figures? >> They are also known from contemporary sources .. (etc) > I think that you need to document this assertion with regard to the > policies of Tiberius I'll do some research then Quote
Guest Roger Pearse Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On 19 Apr, 08:43, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:1176965775.123952.68500@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > On 18 Apr, 16:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > >>news:1176825055.111301.205640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> >>news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he supposedly > >> >> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually existed > >> >> >> if > >> >> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month? > >> >> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him. > >> >> What early 1st century sources? > >> > Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video- > >> > footage"? > > >> So .. does your facecious remark, rather than acutally mentioning any > >> sources, mean that you do not know of any? > > > It means that I noticed you shifting your demands for evidence in > > something you don't want to believe higher still (you'd believe > > anything if it suited you, of course), and pointed it out courteously. > > I made no change .. as I didn't ask before. > So .. the question then remains .. (Reiteration snipped unread) No video footage? Pah! All the best, Roger Pearse Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 "Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1176988257.997568.312650@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On 19 Apr, 08:43, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:1176965775.123952.68500@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... >> > On 18 Apr, 16:13, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1176825055.111301.205640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On 17 Apr, 08:46, "Jeckyl" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Roger Pearse" <roger_pea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> >>news:1176794394.190825.268780@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> No mention of him AT ALL until over 100 years after he >> >> >> >> supposedly >> >> >> >> died. Would you believe that Abraham Lincoln had actually >> >> >> >> existed >> >> >> >> if >> >> >> >> the first mention of him in writing was from last month? >> >> >> > Note the omission of all the sources that DO mention him. >> >> >> What early 1st century sources? >> >> > Surely you mean "what early first century sources with video- >> >> > footage"? >> >> >> So .. does your facecious remark, rather than acutally mentioning any >> >> sources, mean that you do not know of any? >> >> > It means that I noticed you shifting your demands for evidence in >> > something you don't want to believe higher still (you'd believe >> > anything if it suited you, of course), and pointed it out courteously. >> >> I made no change .. as I didn't ask before. >> So .. the question then remains .. > (Reiteration snipped unread) Obviosuly you are unable to argue against the points I made and so dishonestly snipped them. Typical christian > No video footage? Pah! WTF are you on about video footage for .. I am asking for what contmporary evidence there is of Jesus existence. Obviously you have none and are just too honest to admit it. Typical Christian. Quote
Guest Al Klein Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >> wrote: >> >>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >>>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have >>>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >>>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >>>> isn't false. Not one. >>> >>>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. >> >> Christianity invented Jesus > >unfounded assertion It's the only actual evidence we have so far. Not a single mention in any document we currently can age until around 170 AD. That would be inventing a character. Quote
Guest Jeckyl Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:4nte235s8ue5mmlqaktgjc4d4im9am0je2@4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:02:04 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> > wrote: > >>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>news:jpld23d00c2eguucb8i55gafnnqcdv2nfd@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message >>>>news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... >>>>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have >>>>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other >>>>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that >>>>> isn't false. Not one. >>>> >>>>Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. >>> >>> Christianity invented Jesus >> >>unfounded assertion > > It's the only actual evidence we have so far. Its not evidence, its an assertion. > Not a single mention in > any document we currently can age until around 170 AD. > That would be > inventing a character. No .. that would be saying we don't have enough evidence to prove Jesus did exist .. not that we have evidence that he didn't Quote
Guest R. Steve Walz Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Jeckyl wrote: > > "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message > news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... > > A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have > > existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other > > "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that > > isn't false. Not one. > > Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. ------------------------------- If it isn't verifiable it might as well BE false, because no one should trust it!! Steve Quote
Guest R. Steve Walz Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 stumper wrote: > > Al Klein wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:52:11 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> > > wrote: > > > >> "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message > >> news:gq3b2354pcd25vm9rou0vsmfekb68gku1g@4ax.com... > >>> A man who came from Nazareth when Nazareth didn't exist couldn't have > >>> existed. Or can't you understand that? Add all the other > >>> "mistranslations" and you have NOT ONE SINGLE verifiable claim that > >>> isn't false. Not one. > >> Just because something is not verifiable does not mean it is false. > > > > Christianity invented Jesus and wrote about him, which is evidence > > that the invented Jesus might have been based on a real person who > > lived when the invented Jesus was supposed to have. > > > > Uh-huh. > > Your certainty is troubling. > > Think for a while. > Is the Golden Rule falsifiable? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity > > -- > ~Stumper -------------------- If we're supposed to do unto others as we'd have them do to us, then there are lots of women I want to molest, because if I were a woman I'd want lots of men to molest me. How's that? Steve Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.