Jesus Christ and the Resurrection (what does the evidence reveal?)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



JesusIsAlive

JesusIsAlive

RocasAtoll
God damnit, I thought we said no more copy/paste threads.

debbiejo
Josephus never mentioned it! Now there certainly could of been a great man named Jesus, but I'm sure a great historian would of devoted some time to the subject of the resurrection.

Alliance
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
God damnit, I thought we said no more copy/paste threads.

Honestly, cant we get a warning or something...and then JIA can make a thread on how we persecute Christians.

fini
instead of complaining, JUST leave the thread alone
especially this one, just let it die quickly....... and then some fool will resurrect it.

JesusIsAlive

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by fini
instead of complaining, JUST leave the thread alone
especially this one, just let it die quickly....... and then some fool will resurrect it.


Some fool just did. roll eyes (sarcastic)

debbiejo
I wish the posts were longer......

Deano

Alliance
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...(edited for space)

laughing

laughing Hooray for Christian apologetics!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
...(edited for space)


I got to use this more often. laughing

debbiejo
http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astro-theology3.html#new%20test%20and%20zodiac This is good too Deano.

http://www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/astro-theology3.html

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
One: The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is Airtight

Ahhhh, not really.



Typically historians these days don't base their histories on a single source (like "Biblical manuscripts) - they like corroborative evidence from other sources. To my knowledge the is not an abundance of "Greek Documents" that show he actually lived. In fact that is a sticking point - the fact in an age in love with biography and history and memoir that it is light on detail regarding the "King of the Jews" - considering some of the things that got written about.



There is something known as "Historical fiction." And fiction in general. Both pieced make reference, usually, to real life people, places events etc. - Doesn't actually make them real. The fact the Bible mentions real places and people does not actually verify its claims.



See above. And things like the Walls of Jericho falling - that seems to have happened, but there is not indication it occurred as the Bible claims it did. And where did the Garden of Eden go? And where did all these mysterious old Testament cities disappear to?



Wait... when did they go unchallenged? Rational explanation is that they are no more likely to have occurred then the tasks of Heracles, or the things in Ovid's poetry. Jesus may have done something, but if so it has likely been exaggerated by the Bible.



Ah, so once again it is the Bible validating the Bible's claims. The Bible says the Jews didn't dispute the miracles. Remember of course he would have lived in a time of myth - were a person could pop down and hear about Zeus and Trojans and the like... did the Jews dispute them?



Yes, it was ok for Jesus in the past to make extreme claims and offer extreme proof, but today you claim one is unreasonable for asking for similar. Hypocrisy.

And so on and so on in that vain. What this article is essentially doing is saying "The Bible said Jesus rose from the dead. The Bible can be trusted as it refers to things we know exist. Now let me talk about crucification. If crucification was real then obviously the Bible is telling the truth."

Lord Urizen
If Jesus Christ truly suffered that much, then I am sorry for his suffering, as I would be sorry for anyone's suffering be it that intense.

I know what it's like to have my shoulder dislocate, it is EXCRUCIATINGLY painful, and crucifixion DOES cause your shoulders to dislocate.....

However, Jesus Christ's suffering in no way compensates for the pain that every single human being throughout history has suffered...

If you pile on the pain of what everyone in the Holocaust suffered, pile on the pain of every single person who lost loved ones, who has been tortured by war, disease, etc....

The pain will be much more intense than that of any crucifixion. Sorry Jesus....you suffered yes, but do not minimize the suffering everyone else goes through by claiming that your suffering was greater....


And also...it is said that Jesus died to save us from our own evil, but I look around and see that not that many people are actually "evil"....yes, there are lot of people who are cruel, nasty, prejudice, sadistic, etc.

But many people do not fall under this category, so for Jesus to say he is saving me from "my own" evil is absurd, since I do not consider myself "evil"...am I flawed? Hellz yeah im flawed, and i make mistakes all the time, but i am not evil, as many people are NOT evil....

I do not beleive that Good people, people who are filled with love, empathy, kindness, and compassion, need Christ to erase thier "evils" as they are fully capable of erasing thier own evils.

Alliance
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
One: The Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is Airtight

If by airtight you mean air.

docb77
Ok, now I'm gonna open up a can of worms. Secularly speaking there is strong evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. We know that there were Christians at Pella at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus mentions him twice. Most historians think that later scribes embellished his comments there, but the root is likely authentic. True most of the extra biblical evidence is second or third hand (Christian writings from the second and third century, Pliny the younger, etc).

No, you could argue the historicity of the acts described in the Gospels, but you're on shaky ground arguing his existence.



Urizen,

As far as Christ's suffering goes, Crucifixion was pretty much the worst form of torture ever created. And if that was all that He suffered he could definitely empathize with with all the pains you listed. Thing is, in Christian belief the crucifixion was the least of the pain Jesus endured. The real pain came from taking on Himself the punishment for all the sins in the world, past, present, and future. In Mormon belief we even believe he took upon himself all the other pains and infirmities of everyone who will ever have lived. In other words, he know intimately every pain you mentioned. He doesn't downplay others pain, He empathizes perfectly.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by docb77
Urizen,

As far as Christ's suffering goes, Crucifixion was pretty much the worst form of torture ever created. And if that was all that He suffered he could definitely empathize with with all the pains you listed. Thing is, in Christian belief the crucifixion was the least of the pain Jesus endured. The real pain came from taking on Himself the punishment for all the sins in the world, past, present, and future. In Mormon belief we even believe he took upon himself all the other pains and infirmities of everyone who will ever have lived. In other words, he know intimately every pain you mentioned. He doesn't downplay others pain, He empathizes perfectly.

Crucification was a highly unpleasant form of execution, but I don't believe the claim it is the "worst form of torture" ever created. It perverse notoriety is a product of the Bible and why people see it so.

docb77
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Crucification was a highly unpleasant form of execution, but I don't believe the claim it is the "worst form of torture" ever created. It perverse notoriety is a product of the Bible and why people see it so.

What would you say was the worst form of torture? The rack?

Darth Kreiger
JesusIsAlive, you seem to think without God we have no Morals, I am more Moral than 90% of the Religous people I know, yet I have none, why do you keep insisting that?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by docb77
What would you say was the worst form of torture? The rack?

Not especially, but history is full of forms of torture that either aim to lead to death or extract information - using techniques of physical and mental pain that could be swifter then or last considerably longer then crucifiction.

The crucification is a two stage thing - the prestage portion that did considerable damage to the body and the later stage where one is actually attached to the cross, nor was it exclusively Roman, certain Eastern cultures prior to it, and after the Empire used it. Some did is in a similar fashion, others changed what happened before the actual attaching to the cross.

No one denies it was painful, but some suggest it might have been too painful - leading to unconsciousness or coma from loss of blood and heat in a quick fashion - depending on the time of the crucification and the degree of punishment the body had received. One of the things missing if Jesus was indeed killed in such a fashion is the religious belief. One of the reasons why Crucification was so terrible was that it involved damage to the body, which was bad as it affected their beliefs of the after life. It was comparable to the crusaders who fed Muslims to Pigs or the Indian Braman who led rebels who would covered in cows blood before being blown from the guns or whipped to death.

Darth Kreiger
Originally posted by docb77
What would you say was the worst form of torture? The rack?

The song Tiny Bubbles played over and over in differant ways, with Bubbles flying around, and no way to sleep, or cover your ears

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
JesusIsAlive, you seem to think without God we have no Morals, I am more Moral than 90% of the Religous people I know, yet I have none, why do you keep insisting that?

I want the thread and post where I allegedly "insist" that you (you said "we"wink have no morals without God.

What I did say (but it perhaps was misconstrued) is that God (the Creator of the conscience) is the Source of all knowledge of right and wrong. God gave each person an innate knowledge of right and wrong via conscience. This is a God-given mechanism that you had nothing to do with having. You don't lose your conscience when you grow up. It just becomes more or less sensitive to morality. Some have ignored their conscience for so long that it has become what the Bible calls "seared with a hot iron." In other words, it has been rendered useless, null and void. I believe people who commit violent crimes or those who sin without any qualms fit this description.

I acknowledge that all of us have been taught morals and ethics from others as well. But I am talking about the inborn feature for morality that we have inherently from God, and that did not come to us through learning or teaching. We all have this from the beginning. Although our minds or understanding are not as developed when we are young (from the time we are infants until we are say five) we know when we have done something wrong. Our discernment of right and wrong is just not as keen.

Alliance
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The song Tiny Bubbles played over and over in differant ways, with Bubbles flying around, and no way to sleep, or cover your ears

Its a great song to sing the Spanish alphabet to.

JesusIsAlive
.

JesusIsAlive

Alliance
Why? You never quit. His claims are more credible than yours.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by docb77
What would you say was the worst form of torture? The rack? The Pear is up there.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Chokepear2.JPG

docb77
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The Pear is up there.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Chokepear2.JPG

definitely one of the more disgusting anyways.

JesusIsAlive

xmarksthespot
Is there a Santa Claus?


I am pleased to present a scientific inquiry into the existence of Santa Claus.

1. No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2. There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world.
* But since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau.

* At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3. Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).
* This works out to 822.6 visits per second.

* This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to:
o park,
o hop out of the sleigh,
o jump down the chimney,
o fill the stockings,
o distribute the remaining presents under the tree,
o eat whatever snacks have been left,
o get back up the chimney,
o get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

* Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

* This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second. A conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4. The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.
* On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" could pull ten times the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.

* We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5. 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere.
* The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.

* The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

* Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.09 times greater than gravity.

* A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the backof his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever did deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

fini
eek!

Brilliant, simply brilliant

docb77
no expression

... but also absolutely irrelevant.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by docb77
no expression

... but also absolutely irrelevant.

I actually think he made an excellent point...the validity in the existance of Santa Clause is pretty similiar to the validity of the resurrection.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are still spouting this nonsense?

laughing

HYPOCRISY the most common of Christian crimes. sad

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Is there a Santa Claus?


I am pleased to present a scientific inquiry into the existence of Santa Claus.

1. No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2. There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world.
* But since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau.

* At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3. Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).
* This works out to 822.6 visits per second.

* This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to:
o park,
o hop out of the sleigh,
o jump down the chimney,
o fill the stockings,
o distribute the remaining presents under the tree,
o eat whatever snacks have been left,
o get back up the chimney,
o get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

* Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

* This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second. A conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4. The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.
* On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" could pull ten times the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.

* We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

5. 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere.
* The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.

* The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.

* Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.09 times greater than gravity.

* A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the backof his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever did deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.


clapping Good job xmarksthespot.

Alliance
thumb up

Lord Urizen
thumb up yes droolio

docb77
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I actually think he made an excellent point...the validity in the existance of Santa Clause is pretty similiar to the validity of the resurrection.

Not really, there aren't any eyewitnesses to flying reindeer (although who would really be able to see them if they were flying as fast as was indicated). There is no evidence for a magical Santa Claus (St. Nicholas however, could very well have existed)

Biblically there were many witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. You can doubt or even disbelieve the evidence, but you can't say that there isn't any.

RocasAtoll
Originally posted by docb77
Not really, there aren't any eyewitnesses to flying reindeer (although who would really be able to see them if they were flying as fast as was indicated). There is no evidence for a magical Santa Claus (St. Nicholas however, could very well have existed)

Biblically there were many witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. You can doubt or even disbelieve the evidence, but you can't say that there isn't any.

Yes, there is. My cousin who's six says he saw Santa. And so do thousands of little kids. Does that mean Santa's real? No.

It isn't what you think you saw, it's what you can PROVE.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by docb77
Not really, there aren't any eyewitnesses to flying reindeer (although who would really be able to see them if they were flying as fast as was indicated). There is no evidence for a magical Santa Claus (St. Nicholas however, could very well have existed)

Biblically there were many witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. You can doubt or even disbelieve the evidence, but you can't say that there isn't any.

I can say that there isn't any proof. The story of the resurrection of Jesus was most likely made up to attract followers. There is safety in numbers.

Which is more likely, a human arose from the dead, of people made up stories to increase their power in a new religion. I know how people are; they make things up all the time. They take a story that is true and by the time it gets through a hundred people, it has very little resemblance to the truth.

JesusIsAlive
Introduction

One of the most common objections to the existence of God comes from arguments about the existence of Santa Claus and invisible pink unicorns. Although it is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist, we tend to reject their existence, since none have ever been detected. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

God created by mankind?

Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4

It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.

Invisible pink unicorns?

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus

Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the next 100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been discussed above. The existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical being.12 In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14 which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and unicorns are contingent beings, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?

Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as a result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

Conclusion

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

Deano
seeing as christianity is a renamed sun religion. i would say the ressurection was a myth.

docb77
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I can say that there isn't any proof. The story of the resurrection of Jesus was most likely made up to attract followers. There is safety in numbers.

Which is more likely, a human arose from the dead, of people made up stories to increase their power in a new religion. I know how people are; they make things up all the time. They take a story that is true and by the time it gets through a hundred people, it has very little resemblance to the truth.

nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by docb77
nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

Happy Dance

Shakyamunison
JIA Your post above is amazing. The logic is so circular, that it is almost impossible to understand. Basically what you are saying is that god exists because.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by docb77
nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

Ok, poor evidence does exist, but as JIA has just said above, there is also evidence for invisible pink unicorns, although very poor evidence.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


Introduction

One of the most common objections to the existence of God comes from arguments about the existence of Santa Claus and invisible pink unicorns. Although it is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist, we tend to reject their existence, since none have ever been detected. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

God created by mankind?

Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4

It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.

Invisible pink unicorns?

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus

Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the next 100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been discussed above. The existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical being.12 In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14 which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and unicorns are contingent beings, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?

Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as a result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

Conclusion

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

This article was not written by me it was written by Richard Deem.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This article was not written by me it was written by Richard Deem.

I figured so. big grin

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I figured so. big grin

Yes...JIA does have problems thinking for himself.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
Yes...JIA does have problems thinking for himself.

How would you know? He never writes anything. wink

Alliance
Its called deductive logic, you Buddhist stick out tongue.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by docb77
nope, sorry to argue semantics, but you just proved my point. The evidence of the resurrection is there in the form of eyewitnesses. The reliability of those witnesses is a separate issue. What you're arguing isn't that there is no evidence, just that you don't believe or trust said evidence.

Probability doesn't denote fact or truth. it is highly improbable for a coin to land and stay on edge, but if it were to happen the improbability of the occurrence doesn't change the fact of the occurence. Likewise the resurrection being beyond present human understanding doesn't change that it allegedly happened nor lend weight to it not having happened.

So evidence does exist.

PS. How likely is it that men would make up stories likely to get them killed? How likely is it that Paul would give up his position within the pharisees and join a religion where most of the adherents likely hated him? Probability doesn't really help anyone in this case.

jump notworthy pile thumb up

rolling on floor laughing

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by docb77
Not really, there aren't any eyewitnesses to flying reindeer (although who would really be able to see them if they were flying as fast as was indicated). There is no evidence for a magical Santa Claus (St. Nicholas however, could very well have existed)

Biblically there were many witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. You can doubt or even disbelieve the evidence, but you can't say that there isn't any.

"Biblically" - that is the sticking point it would seem. We once again have the Bible validating its own claim that what is says is true because it says it is.

In legal terms this would not be considered eye witness testimony. It is far closer to hearsay:

"Your honor, I have hear a book that claims over five hundred people saw the incident. No, none of them are available for to offer testimony. No, other then Biblical sources we don't have any independent correlation with other sources. Yes, essentially you will have to take the Bible's word for it."

That is not eye witness proof. Otherwise you would have to give equal consideration to the Greek plays and myths that have people going down and getting loved ones from Hades. After all, those stories claim there were eye witnesses - should we actually believe that occurred just because a scroll says "Such and such came back from the dead. Hundreds saw him. Thus it is true." And I mean - he chose not to parade up to the Roman authority it seems. He chose not to let writers see him. You don't have Roman historians, who loved weaving myths and omens into their works writing "And then one of the Crucified men was seen walking about." No. You have the Bible claiming he was seen by 500 people, and the Disciples, who would indubitably have had ulterior motives.



Don't forget early Christians had a persecution complex. Many wanted to be killed while proudly declearing their love for God and Jesus because they thought it was a fast track to heaven.

docb77
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
"Biblically" - that is the sticking point it would seem. We once again have the Bible validating its own claim that what is says is true because it says it is.

In legal terms this would not be considered eye witness testimony. It is far closer to hearsay:

"Your honor, I have hear a book that claims over five hundred people saw the incident. No, none of them are available for to offer testimony. No, other then Biblical sources we don't have any independent correlation with other sources. Yes, essentially you will have to take the Bible's word for it."

That is not eye witness proof. Otherwise you would have to give equal consideration to the Greek plays and myths that have people going down and getting loved ones from Hades. After all, those stories claim there were eye witnesses - should we actually believe that occurred just because a scroll says "Such and such came back from the dead. Hundreds saw him. Thus it is true." And I mean - he chose not to parade up to the Roman authority it seems. He chose not to let writers see him. You don't have Roman historians, who loved weaving myths and omens into their works writing "And then one of the Crucified men was seen walking about." No. You have the Bible claiming he was seen by 500 people, and the Disciples, who would indubitably have had ulterior motives.

Partially correct. However the Gospels of Mark and John are firsthand accounts and would be considered firsthand accounts. Likewise we have firsthand accounts by Paul of his experience. Many witnesses have "ulterior motives". That doesn't mean that their testimony is disregarded out of hand. It is weighed against opposing evidence. In order to accept the ressurection as a hoax you'd have to believe the apostles to be liars and thieves. The closest you could get from what is known about them is Paul (He was accessory to murder during his persecution of the early christians). Then you've got Matthew who was *gasp* a tax collector. Sorry, but the witnesses of the ressurection are about as good as you're going to get from 2000 years ago. Why would Jesus appear to the people who crucified Him rather than those who were devastated by his death? That would be more ridiculous than a resurrection by far.



Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Don't forget early Christians had a persecution complex. Many wanted to be killed while proudly declearing their love for God and Jesus because they thought it was a fast track to heaven.

That complex didn't really show up until a few decades later. The apostles for the most part ran for their lives on the night Jesus was arrested.

-edit-

as far as corroboration, your forgetting Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and a few books mentioned in the NT and later extrabiblical writings that didn't survive to our day. Of course they're also hearsay, but that can be used for corroboration of testimony.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
"Biblically" - that is the sticking point it would seem. We once again have the Bible validating its own claim that what is says is true because it says it is.

In legal terms this would not be considered eye witness testimony. It is far closer to hearsay:

"Your honor, I have hear a book that claims over five hundred people saw the incident. No, none of them are available for to offer testimony. No, other then Biblical sources we don't have any independent correlation with other sources. Yes, essentially you will have to take the Bible's word for it."

That is not eye witness proof. Otherwise you would have to give equal consideration to the Greek plays and myths that have people going down and getting loved ones from Hades. After all, those stories claim there were eye witnesses - should we actually believe that occurred just because a scroll says "Such and such came back from the dead. Hundreds saw him. Thus it is true." And I mean - he chose not to parade up to the Roman authority it seems. He chose not to let writers see him. You don't have Roman historians, who loved weaving myths and omens into their works writing "And then one of the Crucified men was seen walking about." No. You have the Bible claiming he was seen by 500 people, and the Disciples, who would indubitably have had ulterior motives.



Don't forget early Christians had a persecution complex. Many wanted to be killed while proudly declearing their love for God and Jesus because they thought it was a fast track to heaven.

So then your history book that claims that George Washington did thus and so must be treated with the same skepticism that you have for the Bible. Question: were you there to witness all of the historical events surrounding George Washington? All you have are "claims" from other people (who are not alive by the way) that he did thus and so.

http://www.sirlook.com/blog/entry.php?u=dgilch&e_id=1026

Alliance
Except that historical documents surroundin most other people, including Washington, are well documented.

Historical records of Christ at or near the time of his existance are non-existant.

Your logic sucks and all yo do is present re-hashed talking points from factually incorrect creationist websites.

JesusIsAlive
Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7796/biblejosephpb5.jpg

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus , from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link)

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by docb77
Partially correct. However the Gospels of Mark and John are firsthand accounts and would be considered firsthand accounts. Likewise we have firsthand accounts by Paul of his experience. Many witnesses have "ulterior motives". That doesn't mean that their testimony is disregarded out of hand. It is weighed against opposing evidence. In order to accept the ressurection as a hoax you'd have to believe the apostles to be liars and thieves. The closest you could get from what is known about them is Paul (He was accessory to murder during his persecution of the early christians). Then you've got Matthew who was *gasp* a tax collector. Sorry, but the witnesses of the ressurection are about as good as you're going to get from 2000 years ago. Why would Jesus appear to the people who crucified Him rather than those who were devastated by his death? That would be more ridiculous than a resurrection by far.

Tell me. I write a book today, off my own back, claiming something extraordinary (it didn't actually happen, I am just claiming it did.) To verify it I give the statement in the book "Close to five hundred people other then myself saw this extraordinary thing." I put a stipulation on it that it wont be published until, say, 500 years later.

There is no archaeological or other documents evidence to support it, and the so called witnesses, if they ever existed, are long gong, none of them having thought "hey, this was really something, I better record it for posterity" - now is this valid evidence? Does it constitute as eye witness accounts? No. Which is why historians these days don't base an entire theory on some line in a ancient text "Such and such saw this" - they will mention it, look around for something to corroborate it. If such a thing doesn't exist for something really important... well that says something.

Because let us face the cold hard truth - ancient historians were quite liberal with interpretations, sources, motives and all the rest. And you forget - you make it sound as if the Disciples wouldn';t have had any reason to lie. Maybe they actually believed it. But remember - they lived in a time of thousands of gods and claims and the like. Thousands of religions with followers making all sorts of claims. Either it is possible all those claims might be true, or none are - or all are merely exaggerations of actual occurrences.



Tacitus who was writing some period after Jesus and the Christians were a growing movement - it is easy to reference something that people talk about.

Josephus who also wrote after the fact.

Pliny the Younger who was writing even later and who was one of those in charge of dealing with Christians, who were now an even larger movement with a history.

Texts that don't exist any more? Unfortunate, but it happens. Generally an argument can't be based upon no longer existent texts.

None of them were exactly contemporaries of Jesus. None of them were eye witnesses. Most used sources derived, it is believed of other sources. Christians start saying "Our God came back from the death" - then it is only natural for the historians above to say "The people who worship Christ" - it doesn't exactly prove anything. Unless you are saying Heracles actually did all those mythological feats, and that Fortune herself spoke to Alaric or that the founding of the Roman people was exactly as Virgil implied in the Aeneid.



Actually you shoot yourself in the foot there, and hight light the whole issue - evidence. The amount of documented, literal evidence for Washington is massive. As is archaeological evidence the things happened. As is record not derived from a single source. And so on and so on. Washington is to Jesus in evidenced terms as an Elephant is to a flea.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7796/biblejosephpb5.jpg

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus , from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link)

1st - Roman historians were not generally favorable sources regarding Christians.

2nd - Just because they mention Christians does not make Christian claims true - unless you Christians are prepared to give equal weight to Islam. And the Pagan religions. And Asiatic religions. And all the rest since they wrote about them to.

3rd - Most do not give much credibility to Biblical claims. They work on the Christians themselves - Tacitus mentions how the fire in Rome was blamed on the Christians (or the people who follow Christus - since Christ is not actually Jesus name, but rather a title.) Pliny talking about how they were breaking the law. They are not babbling about how "Christus rose again on the third day"

4th - So they mention Christian persecutions. That does not prove Biblical claims, if anything it shows they are false. The Romans were happy to believe most things, but note they clearly didn't recognise the things the Christians reckoned Jesus and God did. You'd think that if Roman's had documented the powers of "God" they'd be reluctant to persecute his followers - yes?

5th - Most of the writers above wrote some years after the theoretical events of Jesus and his resurrection. It doesn;t mean Jesus didn't exist, but it doesn't verify the exceptional claims made about him - since Christians were spreading and building their own religious mythos. They says "Christus was crucified" - which likely happened. Doesn't offer a shred of evidence hw rose again.

JesusIsAlive
'

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
'

Rendered you speechless I see. I will take that as vindication and hereby declare a parade in my honor of my victory.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Tell me. I write a book today, off my own back, claiming something extraordinary (it didn't actually happen, I am just claiming it did.) To verify it I give the statement in the book "Close to five hundred people other then myself saw this extraordinary thing." I put a stipulation on it that it wont be published until, say, 500 years later.

There is no archaeological or other documents evidence to support it, and the so called witnesses, if they ever existed, are long gong, none of them having thought "hey, this was really something, I better record it for posterity" - now is this valid evidence? Does it constitute as eye witness accounts? No. Which is why historians these days don't base an entire theory on some line in a ancient text "Such and such saw this" - they will mention it, look around for something to corroborate it. If such a thing doesn't exist for something really important... well that says something.

Because let us face the cold hard truth - ancient historians were quite liberal with interpretations, sources, motives and all the rest. And you forget - you make it sound as if the Disciples wouldn';t have had any reason to lie. Maybe they actually believed it. But remember - they lived in a time of thousands of gods and claims and the like. Thousands of religions with followers making all sorts of claims. Either it is possible all those claims might be true, or none are - or all are merely exaggerations of actual occurrences.



Tacitus who was writing some period after Jesus and the Christians were a growing movement - it is easy to reference something that people talk about.

Josephus who also wrote after the fact.

Pliny the Younger who was writing even later and who was one of those in charge of dealing with Christians, who were now an even larger movement with a history.

Texts that don't exist any more? Unfortunate, but it happens. Generally an argument can't be based upon no longer existent texts.

None of them were exactly contemporaries of Jesus. None of them were eye witnesses. Most used sources derived, it is believed of other sources. Christians start saying "Our God came back from the death" - then it is only natural for the historians above to say "The people who worship Christ" - it doesn't exactly prove anything. Unless you are saying Heracles actually did all those mythological feats, and that Fortune herself spoke to Alaric or that the founding of the Roman people was exactly as Virgil implied in the Aeneid.



Actually you shoot yourself in the foot there, and hight light the whole issue - evidence. The amount of documented, literal evidence for Washington is massive. As is archaeological evidence the things happened. As is record not derived from a single source. And so on and so on. Washington is to Jesus in evidenced terms as an Elephant is to a flea.

http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/reliable.htm


"...It is obvious that the New Testament is far better preserved than any other ancient text, yet, people have no problem believing in Caesar, Plato, and Aristotle.

The New Testament documents fall into three categories: 1) Greek manuscript copies, 2) other language copies, and 3) citations in early church writings. The NT was written in Greek and we have more than 5000 different Greek Manuscripts from which to compare. Additionally, there are another 19,000 manuscripts of ancient origin that are translations. That is, we have 19,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in Latin, ..... And finally, all of the NT (except for 11 verses) can be reconstructed from quotes of early church writings. It is very well preserved.

Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God. It is reliable. For more information on textual manuscripts please see: Papyri, p1 through p76; 200 AD to 700...."

debbiejo
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7796/biblejosephpb5.jpg

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus , from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link) If you look at the paragraphs before and after the one THAT WAS INSERTED...You will see Josephus was in the middle of describing the Jewish wars, and all of a sudden this one paragraph was inserted, then it goes back to talking about the wars....also, there are earlier copies that do not have that one paragraph.....The one paragraph was also speaking from a Christian view, yet Josephus was NOT a Christian........

Why the Jews don't believe in Jesus..

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. CRUCIFIXION

The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet."

C. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel"wink are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus.

From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: "A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire."
http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by debbiejo
If you look at the paragraphs before and after the one THAT WAS INSERTED...You will see Josephus was in the middle of describing the Jewish wars, and all of a sudden this one paragraph was inserted, then it goes back to talking about the wars....also, there are earlier copies that do not have that one paragraph.....The one paragraph was also speaking from a Christian view, yet Josephus was NOT a Christian........

What?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/reliable.htm


"...It is obvious that the New Testament is far better preserved than any other ancient text, yet, people have no problem believing in Caesar, Plato, and Aristotle.

The New Testament documents fall into three categories: 1) Greek manuscript copies, 2) other language copies, and 3) citations in early church writings. The NT was written in Greek and we have more than 5000 different Greek Manuscripts from which to compare. Additionally, there are another 19,000 manuscripts of ancient origin that are translations. That is, we have 19,000 manuscripts of the New Testament in Latin, ..... And finally, all of the NT (except for 11 verses) can be reconstructed from quotes of early church writings. It is very well preserved.

Therefore, we can see that the Bible is an ancient document that has withstood thousands of years of transmission with remarkable accuracy and clarity. We can trust it to be what it says it is: the word of God. It is reliable. For more information on textual manuscripts please see: Papyri, p1 through p76; 200 AD to 700...."

How on earth does that change anything? You are arguing quantity of a single source over the quality of sources. So there are a lot of Bibles - but they are still that - Bibles.

The examples you gave may not have had as quite as many numerous sources of the same text found - but you see it isn't necessary for 50,000 copies of Caeser's works to be found. Half a dozen are enough - especially when we have:

A. Other sources that referance it.
B. A mass of other sources that support the things that are being said with in it.
c. Archaeological evidence supporting the claims.

Alliance
Not to mention Josephus's passage is HIGHLY (and I cannot emphasise HIGHLY enough) controversial.

Its surprising that your ignorant article doesn't mention that Josephus also says that Jesus had a brother, James. smile

docb77
Originally posted by Alliance
Not to mention Josephus's passage is HIGHLY (and I cannot emphasise HIGHLY enough) controversial.

Its surprising that your ignorant article doesn't mention that Josephus also says that Jesus had a brother, James. smile

Sorry I don't have more time to deliberate on the previous quotes, but in the meantime, here's a short bit about the "testimonium flavium" controversy.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

JesusIsAlive

Alliance
Originally posted by docb77
Sorry I don't have more time to deliberate on the previous quotes, but in the meantime, here's a short bit about the "testimonium flavium" controversy.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Yes.

xmarksthespot
Sally Struthers
If a man is pictured chopping off a woman's breast, it only gets a R rating, but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman's breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness?

debbiejo
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Sally Struthers
If a man is pictured chopping off a woman's breast, it only gets a R rating, but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman's breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness? blink Jesus would be much happier with the kissing.....

Alliance
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Sally Struthers
If a man is pictured chopping off a woman's breast, it only gets a R rating, but if, God forbid, a man is pictured kissing a woman's breast, it gets an X rating. Why is violence more acceptable than tenderness?

Because Christians say nudity is BAAAAADDDDD.

They much prefer blood. smile

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by docb77
Sorry I don't have more time to deliberate on the previous quotes, but in the meantime, here's a short bit about the "testimonium flavium" controversy.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

Which is exactly why this source is far from solid in supporting Biblical claims.

Alliance
Infact...its rather doubtful.

xmarksthespot
Walter Cronkite
Dan Rather and I just aren't especially chummy.

Alliance
HAHA! CHUMMEANSGARBAGEGIVENTOFISH

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Infact...its rather doubtful.

I would say most certainly doubtful.

JesusIsAlive
The god of atheists?

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/589/evolutionpostersv1.jpg

Alliance
Or just a flat out lie.

Alliance
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The god of atheists?


Isn't that Chick there at the end?

Honestly, there is no word for your ignorance.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What?

Surprised t see the truth, but you will reject it.


Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The god of atheists?

By definition atheists cannot have a god.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
By definition atheists cannot have a god.

JIA seems to have issues understanding anything about athiests or sicence.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
jump notworthy pile thumb up

rolling on floor laughing


What ? What ? What ?!?!

Did you finally lose your Virginity ?????!?!? droolio


See...I told you....once you get laid, you'll start feeling better.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What ? What ? What ?!?!

Did you finally lose your Virginity ?????!?!? droolio


See...I told you....once you get laid, you'll start feeling better.

But he was alone. laughing

RZA
More evidence of miracles performed by Jesus...Yey...praise his name...

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7098/673imageyv2.jpg

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by RZA
More evidence of miracles performed by Jesus...Yey...praise his name...

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7098/673imageyv2.jpg

Indeed, one suspects at least once Jesus would have had some fun.

And tell me JesusIsAlive - what if Jesus had got to earth and gone "You know what father, I don't think I want to do this. I don't accept this plan"...

Would God have forced him to do it? Did Jesus have free will?

Alliance
If there is an all powerful god, none has free will.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
If there is an all powerful god, none has free will.

True, true, just the mere illusion of it.

As shown by the whole "original sin" - be damned if I will accept the double think that I am completely free if I can be defined by the actions of two people thousands of years ago.

Or more importantly condemned for it.

Alliance
My favorite part about that whole myth is the snake and the tree of knowledge.

The snake is an ancient symbol of intellectualism. Fruit is not only a sexual symbol, but one could take the fruit of the tree of knowledge to be something like eternal wisdom.

When "Adam" and "Eve" start to wisen up, they're kicked out and condemned to die.

laughing Its ovbious that this god wants us to remain stupid. Give me the fruit.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
My favorite part about that whole myth is the snake and the tree of knowledge.

The snake is an ancient symbol of intellectualism. Fruit is not only a sexual symbol, but one could take the fruit of the tree of knowledge to be something like eternal wisdom.

When "Adam" and "Eve" start to wisen up, they're kicked out and condemned to die.

laughing Its ovbious that this god wants us to remain stupid. Give me the fruit.

For some reason it makes me think of God as a great big Morlock or something, just waiting for ignorant, simple souls to answer the call... at which point he eats them.

Alliance
Thats where the blond people are dumb idea started.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats where the blond people are dumb idea started.

To be fair some of the blood people of the world today deserve to be eaten by subterranean beings.

Paris Hilton for one.

Alliance
yes

And I'd rather be a Morlock than be blond and stupid.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
yes

And I'd rather be a Morlock than be blond and stupid.

I agree.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


Introduction

One of the most common objections to the existence of God comes from arguments about the existence of Santa Claus and invisible pink unicorns. Although it is not possible to prove absolutely the non-existence of Santa Claus, most people cease to believe in his existence by age 10. Although the existence of Santa Claus has not been disproved, the weight of evidence suggests that he does not exist. Likewise, although we cannot prove invisible pink unicorns do not exist, we tend to reject their existence, since none have ever been detected. Shouldn't the same logic apply to the existence of God?

God created by mankind?

Most skeptics believe that humans invented God as a means of comfort against an uncertain world that is filled with peril and disappointment. However, if people were to have invented the God of Christianity, it is unlikely that it would be the demanding God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is described as holy1 - without sin and without the ability to commit sin.2 The holiness of God is described as being above anything that humans can attain, such that no human can stand before Him as holy.3 Behaving more morally upright than most other people is not sufficient to escape the punishment of the God of the Bible.4

It also seems unlikely that people would believe in the existence of a being who is known not to exist. For example, most of us believe in Santa Claus as small children, but give up that belief by age 10.5 People do not believe in false things, even if those things make them feel better. If people routinely believed in things just to make them fell better, we would all continue to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

In addition to the above problems, believing a lie contradicts the beliefs and teachings of the Bible. In fact, Luke, in the introduction to his gospel, says that he has carefully investigated everything so that the truth may be known.6 Christians are told to believe and practice only truth,7 and warned against believing and practicing lies.8 So, the idea that they would violate their conscious and beliefs just to feel better makes no sense.

Invisible pink unicorns?

Can we determine the existence/non-existence of invisible pink unicorns? Actually, the answer is "yes." Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term "invisible pink unicorn" is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don't know who invented the term "invisible pink unicorns," but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

However, for the sake of argument, let's change the term and drop the "pink" part. Is it possible to determine whether or not invisible unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Technically, it would be very unlikely that any organism would be invisible. The only reasonable chemical basis for living organisms in this universe is carbon-based life. This would ensure that unicorns would always be visible. Although possible that unicorns might be invisible due to being made of anti-matter, such existence would be problematic, since their interaction with ordinary matter would result in their immediate and spectacular destruction. Could unicorns be made of exotic matter? While possible, there is no evidence from physics that any creatures could be made of exotic matter. At present, it is possible to detect exotic matter only indirectly through particle physics and through its ability to bend light (only detectable through gravitational lensing of distant galaxies). At this point, we would be unable to detect a unicorn made of exotic matter. So, although we can be fairly certain that invisible unicorns do not exist in the universe, we could not take the strong aunicornist stance.

Is it possible that pink unicorns might exist somewhere in the universe? As of today, we don't know if life exists outside of our Solar System. No rocky planets have been discovered outside of our Solar System, although the ability to easily detect such planets will not be available until later this decade. Some scientists believe that life is common throughout the universe, while others think that all life or only advanced life is rare in the universe. The origin of life by naturalistic means seems extremely improbable. In addition, the earth seems to exhibit unusual design, since the existence of tectonic activity on such a small planet for such a long period of time is probably the result of an extremely unlikely collision early in its history. Without tectonic activity, the earth would be a waterworld, since continents would not form. Advanced life (beyond fish) cannot exist on such a planet.

Atheism requires that abiogenesis (a naturalistic origin of life) is at least possible, if not likely, and that habitable planets are common throughout the universe. Such a scenario, if true, would make it likely that pink unicorns do exist somewhere in the universe. Therefore, an atheist would be illogical to assume a strong aunicornist stance. The unicorn argument as an argument against the existence of God fails logically, since it is not possible to definitively show that unicorns do not exist somewhere in the universe.

God vs. unicorns and Santa Claus

Is the existence of God comparable to the existence of Santa Claus or unicorns? According to tradition, Santa Claus is a man who lives at the North Pole on planet earth. Explorers and satellite images have failed to detect the dwelling place of Santa Claus, so we can be fairly certain that he does not exist. Since the polar ice cap is likely to melt within the next 100 years, we will have further evidence that nobody actually lives at the North Pole.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns has been discussed above. The existence of such creatures has been hypothesized to occur within our universe. However, the God of the Bible is transcendent to the universe, since the universe cannot contain Him.9 The Bible says that no one can see God in His glory,10 since He is invisible.11 God is a non-physical being.12 In addition, God created the entire universe,13 including time itself,14 which did not exist prior to God creating it. Both Santa Claus and unicorns are contingent beings, whereas God is non contingent. Therefore, to make an analogy between God and either Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns is logically flawed from the outset.

No evidence for God's existence?

Skeptics love to claim that there is no proof or evidence that any kind of God actually exists. However, such claims represent mere hand waving to avoid critically examining the evidence. I was raised as an agnostic, but became a deist in a secular college (University of Southern California) as a result of my training in biological sciences. It was obvious to this honors student that the "scientific" explanation for the origin of life was completely unreasonable. Since those days (the early 1970's) the evidence contradicting a naturalistic origin of life has become much stronger. Even more compelling than the evidence against abiogenesis is the evidence for the design of the universe. The scientific evidence shows irrefutably that the universe had a beginning. In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century. Although it is possible that the universe could arise by itself, the level to which it is fine tuned is contrary to this hypothesis. In fact, the degree of fine tuning is up to one part in 10120.

Further evidence for divine design can be found in our own species. We are the only species of mammal that exhibits consciousness, the ability to appreciate art, and the ability to make moral judgments.

Conclusion

The idea that God is a made-up concept to soothe our fears makes no sense, since we reject the existence of other made-up figures that might, likewise, make us feel better. A comparison between the existence of God (a non-contingent being) and the existence of Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns (contingent beings) fails on many levels, not the least of which is that their fundamental natures (non-physical vs. physical) are vastly different. The idea that there is no evidence to support the existence of God is clearly false. The evidence was clear enough for me to convert from agnosticism to deism in the absence of efforts by theists. Anthony Flew, a lifelong proponent of atheism recently became a deist on the basis of evidence for design. In subsequent interviews, Flew stated that he "had to go where the evidence leads." Philosophical arguments like invisible pink unicorns are great ways to avoid examining evidence, but such an approach is ultimately dishonest.

What say you Imperial Samura about this article?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What say you Imperial Samura about this article?

Absurd perhaps?

Alliance
Why do we have to read JIA's shit when he does not read ours.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Why do we have to read JIA's shit when he does not read ours.

Because it gives us the excuse to use the word "absurd?"

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
To be fair some of the blood people of the world today deserve to be eaten by subterranean beings.

Paris Hilton for one.

Why are you hatin' on Paris?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by RZA
More evidence of miracles performed by Jesus...Yey...praise his name...

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7098/673imageyv2.jpg

Reminds me of Chick Tracts sick

Shakyamunison

docb77
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one disputed the miracles because they were made up, and added to the gospels ~100 years later, to boaster the claims the Jesus was divine.

Most scholars agree that the gospels were written between 60 and 100 years AD. With the Crucifixion being around 34 AD that leaves plenty of time for someone to say, "Hey, that's not how I remember it".

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by docb77
Most scholars agree that the gospels were written between 60 and 100 years AD. With the Crucifixion being around 34 AD that leaves plenty of time for someone to say, "Hey, that's not how I remember it".

Just think about the JFK assassination and how many conspiracy theories there are out there. But I give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and I do believe that he did heal people.

docb77
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just think about the JFK assassination and how many conspiracy theories there are out there. But I give Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and I do believe that he did heal people.

True, Biographies written right now about JFKwould be comparable to the first written gospels. You could still manage to find a few eyewitnesses.

And while there are conflicting views on whodunnit with JFK, There isn't anyone disputing that he was president or that he got shot.

JesusIsAlive

RocasAtoll

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Your allegations have zero merit or credibility.

The scribes (teachers of the Mosaic Law) and the Pharisees (a Jewish, religious sect) never disputed the fact that Jesus performed miracles...

Strictly speaking that doesn't prove it. Unless you give credence to miracles related to pagan religions which were equally undisputed. And who is writing that the these people didn't question the miracles but rather disputed them?

The people that claim the miracles in the first place. It comes back to that "claim proving a claim because it claims it is true" - Jesus performed miracles? How do we know? Because someone wrote as such. How do we know they didn't make them up? Because they wrote that people at the time didn't say they were false.

It is shaky ground.



Which casts doubt on it in my eyes - they accept miracles, but attribute it to another. Clearly that implies miracles weren't uncommon and could be attributed to other sources.



The Bible claimed that Jesus stated.



Bible claim - does not prove that this actually happened. As I have said before it is easy to claim such, and put words in peoples mouths, when one writes years after the supposed event. Certain historians were famous for making up speeches for individuals - which they could do because they were writing years after the event.

I don't see how the Bible which is, in terms of historicity, on fairly shaky ground, might not have done similar.

Question - is all the wondrous stuff portrayed in the myths of Greece etc. true or not?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't see how the Bible which is, in terms of historicity, on fairly shaky ground, might not have done similar.
Usually, in terms of reputablility a historic document would need multiplicity of documents, outside references, archaelogical backup, and a short distance between events and recording. The Bible is extremely accurate historically speaking and dependable because of all documents of antiquity there is not a single document with as much historical reliability as the Bible in these terms.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
Usually, in terms of reputablility a historic document would need multiplicity of documents, outside references, archaelogical backup, and a short distance between events and recording. The Bible is extremely accurate historically speaking and dependable because of all documents of antiquity there is not a single document with as much historical reliability as the Bible in these terms.

Ok, in order of what you listed:

Reputability - Questionable in Biblical terms. Religious texts must be taken with a grain of salt since they tend to become reputable through mass support of followers rather then due to the validity of what they are stating.

Multiplicity of Documents: In what sense? The Bible does not fully fit in with other narratives of the time, or those after, it has numerous cases of historical events, places and people put within a religious context that does not often work. There are few documents outside of the Bible itself that supports the claims it makes.

Outside references - Oh yes? One of the problems that many scholars have in declaring the Bible a reliable "historical document" is that the events it portray are not supported by outside reference. Typically something such as the works of Homer has just as much outside reference - more in fact. Doesn't make the events they portray historically accurate.

Archaeological Back up - Oh really? No archaeological evidence of the flood. No archaeological e vidence of the garden. Or of some of the cities mentioned in the old testament. Or of the Crucification of Christ. Or of the walls of Jericho coming down as described. Or of the exodus of the Jews being in anyway as serious as implied. Typically there is a great gulf between those who claim the Bible is "archaeologically supported" and the actual archaeological evidence.

Short distance between events and recording: Oh really? OT that isn't true. New Testament slightly truer, but still questionable due to the motives of religious promotion that would have been inherent.

I can tell you that every ancient text has some value historically - whether that was the purpose or not. They mention things, places, social attitudes etc - they teach. But there is a difference between picking out the valuable historical information, and claiming the text is historically reliable. The Bible is not the most reliable historical text of all time. Nor the most useful.

I can pick up any number of histories on WWII that are more reliable/accurate. Or biographies. And there are plenty of ancient texts with greater reliability simply because the contents are not mixed in with religious matters that most probably had no place in the historical event in question.

Alliance
What he said ^^^.

Shakyamunison

docb77
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ok, in order of what you listed:

Reputability - Questionable in Biblical terms. Religious texts must be taken with a grain of salt since they tend to become reputable through mass support of followers rather then due to the validity of what they are stating.

Multiplicity of Documents: In what sense? The Bible does not fully fit in with other narratives of the time, or those after, it has numerous cases of historical events, places and people put within a religious context that does not often work. There are few documents outside of the Bible itself that supports the claims it makes.

Outside references - Oh yes? One of the problems that many scholars have in declaring the Bible a reliable "historical document" is that the events it portray are not supported by outside reference. Typically something such as the works of Homer has just as much outside reference - more in fact. Doesn't make the events they portray historically accurate.

Archaeological Back up - Oh really? No archaeological evidence of the flood. No archaeological e vidence of the garden. Or of some of the cities mentioned in the old testament. Or of the Crucification of Christ. Or of the walls of Jericho coming down as described. Or of the exodus of the Jews being in anyway as serious as implied. Typically there is a great gulf between those who claim the Bible is "archaeologically supported" and the actual archaeological evidence.

Short distance between events and recording: Oh really? OT that isn't true. New Testament slightly truer, but still questionable due to the motives of religious promotion that would have been inherent.

I can tell you that every ancient text has some value historically - whether that was the purpose or not. They mention things, places, social attitudes etc - they teach. But there is a difference between picking out the valuable historical information, and claiming the text is historically reliable. The Bible is not the most reliable historical text of all time. Nor the most useful.

I can pick up any number of histories on WWII that are more reliable/accurate. Or biographies. And there are plenty of ancient texts with greater reliability simply because the contents are not mixed in with religious matters that most probably had no place in the historical event in question.

Pre-establishment of Israel as a kingdom you have a good argument. After that? The Bible starts getting some outside support. Egyptian documents, Persian, etc.

Basically the Biblical accounts of the patriarchs and the New testament texts area about as reliable as my private journal(talking about my life) will be in a couple thousand years.

The parts that deal with the government of Israel are more supportable because a government would be likely to have contact with other governments.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by docb77
True, Biographies written right now about JFKwould be comparable to the first written gospels. You could still manage to find a few eyewitnesses.

And while there are conflicting views on whodunnit with JFK, There isn't anyone disputing that he was president or that he got shot.

Yes, you are right, some issues about the past will survive into the future. However, let us continue with our parallel example of JFK. There are many books about the death of JFK just like there wear many books about Jesus some 100 years after his death. What if someone selected only the conspiracy books and destroyed the rest, just like the other gospels of the Gnostics? 2000 years from now what would the people then think about JFK?

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by docb77
Pre-establishment of Israel as a kingdom you have a good argument. After that? The Bible starts getting some outside support. Egyptian documents, Persian, etc.

Ah huh. But it still comes back to relating historical events and figures in a religious context. Which is exactly the same thing historical fiction does (only the aim isn't religious conversion.)

And some of the Christian texts after the Roman Empire fell are mad - real events so squashed into religious support it isn't funny. Angel flying about, etc - the only thing missing is a giant Monty Python foot dropping down from the sky.

It is not accurate when they usurp motivations, dates and all the rest in order to fit it into a Biblical narrative.



A journal being viewed as a different kettle of fish all together..

Page after page of the New Testament dealing with the life of Jesus - lacks any verifying support.

Old Testament - Historically shaky. Mentions many real events but exaggerates them, misplaces them, or misconstrues them. Everything before the creation of Israel is way off.

The stuff in revelations - Hasn't happened, and I doubt ever will.



Don't see how that changes the fundamentally flaws with claiming the Bible is the most accurate and reliable historical text ever. It is a religious text, which has fundamental differences and problems that set it apart from, say, a Roman history or Imperial biography.

Differences and problems that make it unreliable to use it as a "historical text" - to teach history from the Bible would be madness.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Multiplicity of Documents: In what sense? The Bible does not fully fit in with other narratives of the time, or those after, it has numerous cases of historical events, places and people put within a religious context that does not often work. There are few documents outside of the Bible itself that supports the claims it makes.

Outside references - Oh yes? One of the problems that many scholars have in declaring the Bible a reliable "historical document" is that the events it portray are not supported by outside reference. Typically something such as the works of Homer has just as much outside reference - more in fact. Doesn't make the events they portray historically accurate.

Archaeological Back up - Oh really? No archaeological evidence of the flood. No archaeological e vidence of the garden. Or of some of the cities mentioned in the old testament. Or of the Crucification of Christ. Or of the walls of Jericho coming down as described. Or of the exodus of the Jews being in anyway as serious as implied. Typically there is a great gulf between those who claim the Bible is "archaeologically supported" and the actual archaeological evidence.

I was referring mostly to the NT. Multiplicity, as in it had more than 5000 copies of itself made and spread throughout the known world by 200 AD meaning that any editing to any of these documents would cause it to disagree with others from different parts of the world. This simply did not happen, therefore, the text has been unchanged. Since there is evidence that Mark was written within 5 years of the resurrection that would mean an incredible accurate document for those days.

Documents supporting the existence of Jesus and the major events of this lifetime include the Jewish Talmud, Josephus's antiquities, and Tacticus the Roman historian. All are extremely reliable sources by standards. This is also more reference than is given to most other ancient documents. Therefore, the Bible is historically accurate. Example: the tomb was empty- but it is up to you to decide whether or not Christ rose from the dead or was stolen away.

There is no ancient middle eastern document that contains the wealth of archaelogical knowledge portrayed in the Bible. Most of the cities have been excavated, which should make one believe the few that are yet to be found will be eventually. Archaelogical and cultural evidence exists for the flood, I have no idea what you're saying otherwise for. And the walls of Jericho fell outwards as described the Bible. Only and earthquake could knock the walls down the way they were, but the rest of the city was unaffected by this apparent earthquake.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was referring mostly to the NT. Multiplicity, as in it had more than 5000 copies of itself made and spread throughout the known world by 200 AD meaning that any editing to any of these documents would cause it to disagree with others from different parts of the world. This simply did not happen, therefore, the text has been unchanged. Since there is evidence that Mark was written within 5 years of the resurrection that would mean an incredible accurate document for those days.

Actually that is a faulty premise - merely being wide spread does not lend itself to giving a text a stamp of accuracy. There were a lot of Bibles - it was a religious text founded in the biggest Administrative empire of the day that liked nothing better then documentation. It was something new - a single, state religion. Never before had such a text been needed to be spread. There is nothing strange or exceptional about there fact a lot of Bible's appeared.

Simply because there were a lot of Bible's does not mean they are historical texts.



I have dealt with all those texts in the history at one point or another:

Tacitus - written sometime after the events of the Bible. He does not confirm the existence of validity of Jesus or the like. He refers to the Christians - followers of Christus. Just as any Roman historian might refer to the temple of such and such, were the followers of Jupiter went. Christianity had been around for some time by this point - they had their mythos. It was known. The fact Tacitus mentions it is not unusual. Unless, once again, you are prepared to give equal weight to the other religions and myths he mentions - all those cults whose acts are refereed to. No?

Josephus is viewed with extreme caution, as it is seen that his texts have been "edited" over the years, and are no longer verifiable. Though once again he is like Tacitus - mentioning the common belief of a growing religious group.



Technically when a document talks of a real place that is not archaeological knowledge.

And the Bible is full of real events - in a religious context.

There is no proof for a world drowning flood as the Bible describes. It would be impossible for the narritve of Noah to have happened like that. The archaeological evidence you mention? The likelihood the Jews merely appropriated a normal flood from Sumerian history. The Bible is not historically accurate in this case.

The exodus? Believed to have occurred during the reign of Ramesses II - this is the only time it could have occurred Historians believe - but the way it is portrayed in the OT in no way jells with Egyptian history. So it would be a case of the OT taking an actual event (maybe) and hideously exaggerating it. Not historically accurate.

The walls of Jericho? They feel all right, but there is not evidence that it was in any way divine in nature. Walls fell - earth quakes, enemy undermining, poor construction, shifting water tables etc etc. Once again an example of the Bible taking a real event and totally reimagining it.

The point that Christian advocates seem so resistant to is the fact that just because a text references a real place or a real event does not actually make it historically accurate - especially when that thing is taken and shoehorned into a religious story. The Bible is not a "historical text" in the sense Livy's histories are, or Tacitus or Herodotus - it is a religious text that can provide insight into the time, reference things of interest. But it is not something that can be looked at and said "this is a completely accurate history. No other text of the time comes close to providing such historical accuracy" - because, simply, that is not the case.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was referring mostly to the NT. Multiplicity, as in it had more than 5000 copies of itself made and spread throughout the known world by 200 AD meaning that any editing to any of these documents would cause it to disagree with others from different parts of the world. This simply did not happen, therefore, the text has been unchanged. Since there is evidence that Mark was written within 5 years of the resurrection that would mean an incredible accurate document for those days.

Documents supporting the existence of Jesus and the major events of this lifetime include the Jewish Talmud, Josephus's antiquities, and Tacticus the Roman historian. All are extremely reliable sources by standards. This is also more reference than is given to most other ancient documents. Therefore, the Bible is historically accurate. Example: the tomb was empty- but it is up to you to decide whether or not Christ rose from the dead or was stolen away.

There is no ancient middle eastern document that contains the wealth of archaelogical knowledge portrayed in the Bible. Most of the cities have been excavated, which should make one believe the few that are yet to be found will be eventually. Archaelogical and cultural evidence exists for the flood, I have no idea what you're saying otherwise for. And the walls of Jericho fell outwards as described the Bible. Only and earthquake could knock the walls down the way they were, but the rest of the city was unaffected by this apparent earthquake.

As Imperial pointed out, you are very wrong.

Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

Correct, but as I implied that is far from unusual. The Christians were a growing movement by that point in time, with there own established history - the Christians believed in Christus, and believed he was killed by Pilate. Plenty of Roman historians, and Greek historians, were more then happy to weave mythology and divinity into their narritives, but in those cases it is not actually believed as proof of Fourtune popping down to advise some Vandell chief on how best to conquar.

Thus it comes down to interpretation - does simply mentioning something in a way of defining a group show that he believed it true, even though it is doubtful he would have accessed the documents that said "Jesus was executed?" Did he merely assume it true since it was so accepted by Christians so many years after the actual event? And while it is more then possible Jesus did live and die at Roman hands that still leaves a substantial gap in proving the claim he is the son of God. Tacitus states he was killed - he leaves out all those details that Roman historians and biographers love to include- the mythic aspects. Omens. Godly works. No mention of the resurrection.

In fact it is rather summery - "executed by" seems rather final, that is Jesus died and remained dead. And he refers to it, depending on the translation, as a "destructive/insidious superstition." Of course he might have thought the execution factual. But even in that case it seems to speak more of Tacitus finding no factual basis behind Christian claims. And of course Tacitus, due to the aims behinds his works, can be seen as biased. His dealing with Germanicus and Tiberius, the fire of Rome and Nero (in which the Christian's were mentioned) and various other aspects have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Alliance
Originally posted by Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

Yes, it does lend credibility. However, its not well duplicated in other sources of the same period. Personally, I don't think Tacitus has malicious purpouses, i think he is either correct of ill informed.

However, sources like Josephus have no scholarly credibility as a historically accurate work.

Its my position that the Bible is a mythological sort of historical fiction. I don't think events and excetera were fabricated, I think its a gross overdramatization.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Yes, it does lend credibility. However, its not well duplicated in other sources of the same period. Personally, I don't think Tacitus has malicious purpouses, i think he is either correct of ill informed.

However, sources like Josephus have no scholarly credibility as a historically accurate work.

Its my position that the Bible is a mythological sort of historical fiction. I don't think events and excetera were fabricated, I think its a gross overdramatization.

I concur. The Bible is not "true history"- nor is there any light where it can be viewed as the "most accurate and reputable historical document" of the ancient world. And of course Tacitus wrote before the Bible was put together, and some scholars question whether all the NT texts had even been written by this point in time - it lends credibility that Jesus actually lived and died like numerous other people at the time. That he had followers. But it doesn't support Christian claims of his divinity, or Biblical/OT claims.

It jusr doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and any realistic historical situations are usually buried in narratives with historical dramatisations which, unless one is a steadfast believer, have no proof to there validity.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Ushgarak
To be fair, Tacitus does directly state that the Christian's founder was put to death by Pilate, and Tacitus was not the sort of historian who would mention that just because it is something they said; he would have throught that factual.

That is absolutely correct. I tried to tell Imperial that. What the Bible doesn't stand up to is human denial. If you do not give the Bible the same fair scrutiny that you give everything else then you can never see the Truth. I have told you before that all you do is discount and deny the incontrovertible evidence contained in the Scriptures. I will wager that you have never read the gospel according to John from beginning to end. As I have aforestated, anyone that does will become a follower of Jesus.





Did ancient historians also write about Jesus?

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7796/biblejosephpb5.jpg

Yes. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), an historian of first-century Rome, "is considered one of the most accurate historians of the ancient world." 2 An excerpt from Tacitus tells us that Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class...called Christians. ...Christus , from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."3 (In contrast, the Muslim Quran, written six centuries after Jesus lived, reports that Jesus was never crucified, though it is a fact confirmed by numerous secular historians.4)
Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian (A.D. 38-100+), wrote about Jesus in his Jewish Antiquities. From Josephus, "we learn that Jesus was a wise man who did surprising feats, taught many, won over followers from among Jews and Greeks, was believed to be the Messiah, was accused by the Jewish leaders, was condemned to be crucified by Pilate, and was considered to be resurrected."5
Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus also wrote about Christian worship and persecution that is concurrent with New Testament accounts.
Even the Jewish Talmud, again not a favorable source regarding Jesus, concurs about the major events of his life. From the Talmud, "we learn that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, gathered disciples, made blasphemous claims about himself, and worked miracles, but these miracles are attributed to sorcery and not to God."6
This is remarkable information considering that most ancient historians focused on political and military leaders. Yet ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans (who themselves were not ardent followers of Jesus) substantiate the major events that are presented in the four Gospels.

http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html (above article taken from this link)

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
That is absolutely correct. I tried to tell Imperial that. What the Bible doesn't stand up to is human denial. If you do not give the Bible the same fair scrutiny that you give everything else then you can never see the Truth. I have told you before that all you do is discount and deny the incontrovertible evidence contained in the Scriptures. I will wager that you have never read the gospel according to John from beginning to end. As I have aforestated, anyone that does will become a follower of Jesus.

And you have failed to listen to anything I have said.

The Bible has been given the same "fair scrutiny" as any ancient text, be it religious, biographical, philosophical or whatever.

What do we get from it?

1st - Religious doctrine
2nd - Mention of historical events in line with that religious doctrine.

This IS NOT considered historically accurate. No more then Iraqi school books from the Saddam period are - they mention real events, real places and all that jazz, but in an incorrect and non-verifiable time line - real events doctored to fit in with image the regime wants to present.

The Bible mentions this city or that person. They existed. But the Bible puts them in a Christian context, with God behind things - it is not right, now does it make it accurate. Unless you a firm believer that is prepared to discount all the historical and archaeological evidence that does not support the Bible's view of history or the world. As Alliance said - over dramatisation. Exaggeration. Pure fictions. And all the rest. The Bible is a useful text, that can tell us a lot, but to claim it is the most "accurate and reputable" historical text of the ancient world is so funny it hurts.



And I've been over this before.

Historians mention the Christians - because they were a group seen as causing trouble. They were facing opposition - it is not proof of Biblical claims that Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about identifying Christians. It is not proof that God exists or Jesus did anything but die that Tacitus mentions Jesus.

One of the only historians to refer to Jesus in anything approaching recognition of Jesus "doing miracles" was Josephus - a historians whose account is doubted by the historical community - because it as seen as being doctored later by people trying to validate Christianity.

You seem incapable of recognising this. Tacitus mentions Jesus - OH MY GOD clearly all the claims in the new testament are correct despite the fact Tacitus only mentions Jesus as a way of defining Christians. Yet Livy mentions the Great Mother coming to Rome, others mention omens and miracles and the like - but this doesn't validate pagan religion - does it? Shows that people followed them, but the divine claims - ignored.

It is the height of hypocrisy that you are committing, claiming that a mention of Jesus, one that doesn't even support the claim he is divine, proves beyond a doubt that everything in the Bible is true (when there is plenty of evidence that isn't the case), yet similar mentions of other religions, mentioned in the same fashion, doesn't make them real.

JesusIsAlive

JesusIsAlive

FeceMan
Stop trying to prove that God exists.

siriuswriter
JIA - you can't use the bible to prove the bible. If the people you are trying to convince don't believe the bible, it is not likely to be a credible source in proving itself. Neither are writers who are so very obviously for what you believe.

The bible, as you are talking about it, is not a historical document. The atmosphere is historical, the original languages of Greek and Hebrew are historical, the parchment on which the bible was written is historical. That's where you make the leap of faith, I believe, to actually believe what's put on the parchment.

However. The people you're trying to convince aren't Christians, so the arguments that you're using (from Christian sites, backed up by the bible) don't work. If you're in a historical argument, you have to use historical evidence. The bible, as in its stories, are not, they haven't been proven. Otherwise, what would faith be about? If you knew it was history, well history, you know is real. You can't have faith about something that you know is real, you know that for a fact... so where would the whole mystery of God have gone?

mr.smiley
So true.Not to mention the many prophets and godmen who supposedly roamed earth before Jesus is even said to existed.When you discover stories from the Bible are in fact,part of much older tradition on top of the fact that their is very little to lend any historic evidence in defence of earily Christianity,it's easy to see why trying to prove the bible with the bible realy holds no water.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by docb77
Urizen,

As far as Christ's suffering goes, Crucifixion was pretty much the worst form of torture ever created. And if that was all that He suffered he could definitely empathize with with all the pains you listed. Thing is, in Christian belief the crucifixion was the least of the pain Jesus endured. The real pain came from taking on Himself the punishment for all the sins in the world, past, present, and future. In Mormon belief we even believe he took upon himself all the other pains and infirmities of everyone who will ever have lived. In other words, he know intimately every pain you mentioned. He doesn't downplay others pain, He empathizes perfectly.





1) Crucifixion is not the worst form of torture in History. People throughout history have been skinned alive, burnt alive, eaten alive, dismembered, quartered, castrated, etc.


There are forms of torture far more intense than crucifixion.




2) Your beleif that Jesus felt all the pain and suffering of the past, present, and future is simply your beleif. If you can prove it to me that what you beleive is true, then I will take back what I say...but until then, as far as I know, Jesus Christ was just a man who suffered like any other tormented person had before or since.

FeceMan
Crucifixion is pretty bad. I wouldn't be able to tell if it's worse than being skinned alive, but the Romans had it down to an art.

Devil King
Originally posted by docb77
Secularly speaking

You really think you can?

FeceMan
Originally posted by Devil King
You really think you can?
That's what the girl at the cannery said.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
1) Crucifixion is not the worst form of torture in History. People throughout history have been skinned alive, burnt alive, eaten alive, dismembered, quartered, castrated, etc.


There are forms of torture far more intense than crucifixion. Being ate alive, burnt alive, dismembered, quartered, or castrated really aren't as painful or tormenting as crucification. The nail through the ulnar nerve is the where the phrase "excruciating pain" come from... skinning alive sounds worse to me however...

lord xyz

FeceMan
Originally posted by lord xyz
JIA, what do you have to say to the evidence that people have not died from a crucifixion, instead become into a coma and then healed?
Ah, the classic "Swooning Christ" scenario.

With a Christ who survived the crucifixion, one has a Christ who is alive but not raised. He's wounded, bleeding all over, and in considerable pain. Supposing that he managed to summon the strength to move the stone, his followers wouldn't have been like, "Lord, Lord! You have returned!" They would have been like, "Holy shit, let's get this guy to a hospital."

lord xyz
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ah, the classic "Swooning Christ" scenario.

With a Christ who survived the crucifixion, one has a Christ who is alive but not raised. He's wounded, bleeding all over, and in considerable pain. Supposing that he managed to summon the strength to move the stone, his followers wouldn't have been like, "Lord, Lord! You have returned!" They would have been like, "Holy shit, let's get this guy to a hospital." It is possible to survive crucifixion. As for the stone, it could've worn away, after all we don't know what it was made of.

FeceMan
Originally posted by lord xyz
It is possible to survive crucifixion. As for the stone, it could've worn away, after all we don't know what it was made of.
For one thing, I never said it wasn't impossible to survive crucifixion. For a second, do you realize just how much reaching you did? The stone "could have worn away"? That's...that's not a valid argument.

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by Nellinator
Being ate alive, burnt alive, dismembered, quartered, or castrated really aren't as painful or tormenting as crucification.


How would you know ? erm


Originally posted by Nellinator
The nail through the ulnar nerve is the where the phrase "excruciating pain" come from... skinning alive sounds worse to me however...


Being eaten alive sounds worse than crucifixion to me

FeceMan
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
How would you know ? erm
Generally, death would result from exsanguination fairly quickly in the cases Nellinator listed. Being burnt alive usually took, at the most, an hour, and, while very painful, was not the same as enduring for days at a time. And, though castration is painful, it doesn't necessarily result in such a degree of agony. Think, for example--God, I can't believe I'm discussing this with you--if you your penis was lopped off. Which would hurt more: a cut made at the base, or a cut made at the head (the medical term eludes me at the moment)?

Nellinator
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
How would you know ? erm

Being eaten alive sounds worse than crucifixion to me Research. Its not hard. I also have some medical background and a lot of background in nerves and pain centers as the nervous system is a large part of psychology. Like I said, the ulnar nerve is perhaps the most pain sensitive nerve in the body. Eaten alive might be worse, depends on how it's done.

lord xyz
Originally posted by FeceMan
For one thing, I never said it wasn't impossible to survive crucifixion. For a second, do you realize just how much reaching you did? The stone "could have worn away"? That's...that's not a valid argument. I know but still, you can't accept the first story told.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Crucifixion is pretty bad. I wouldn't be able to tell if it's worse than being skinned alive, but the Romans had it down to an art. So did the Spanish Armarda.

ushomefree

debbiejo
Why didn't Josephus write about it?

Shakyamunison
A lot more people have seen UFOs.

debbiejo
Well you would think a great Jewish historian would of at least mentioned it...Hmm

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
Well you would think a great Jewish historian would of at least mentioned it...Hmm

Also, the Romans would have said something about it, but they didn't.

Devil King
Maybe Paul should have spent less time bashing people over the head with his opinions, and more time recording the eye witness accounts, names of the people who saw him, and recording the dates they saw him.

ushomefree
Secular Authorities on Jesus' Historicity:

(By secular I mean "pagan" - non-Christian, non-Jewish, and generally anti-Christian. Many ancient secular writers mention Jesus and the movement He birthed. The fact that they are usually antagonistic to Christianity makes them especially good witnesses, since they have nothing to gain by admitting the historicity of the events surrounding a religious leader and His following, which they disdain.)

1) Cornelius Tacitus

2) Lucian of Samosata

3) Suetonius

4) Pliny the Younger

5) Thallus

6) Phlegon

7) Mara Bar-Serapion

Jewish References to Jesus' historicity:

1) The Babylonian Tulmud

Christian Sources for Jesus' Historicity (Post-Apostolic Writers):

1) Clement of Rome

2) Ignatiius

3) Quadratus

4) The Epistle of Barnabas

5) Aristides

6) Justin Martyr

7) Hegesippus

Additional Sources for Christianity:

1) Trajan

2) Macrobius

3) Hadrian

4) Antoninus Pius

5) Marcus Aurelius

6) Juvenal

7) Seneca

8) Hierocles

Shakyamunison
Please provide what they had to say. That should keep you busy for a week or two.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>