|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Existence of Jesus Christ | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 643 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Did he? Do you have any evidence of this beyond his claims? Paul also admitted that he stretched the truth, and made some claims about being a student of Rabbi Gamiel, which is odd , since all his theology is in direct conflict with what Gameil would have taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
This wiki article goes well beyond anything that I would have knowledge of, so if any of you are genuinely interested here it is. It is very interesting by the way.
Historicity of Jesus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
From the wiki you mention.
\ quote: Notice that there is nothing contemporary.. The New testament can't be used as evidence to prove itself. Everything else is decades or centuries later. Again I ask. Where is all of this evidence you mentioned in the other thread? Are you willing to admit you have none? You are not providing any as of yet. Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The vast majority of folk did not believe Paul.
It really is that simple. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Theodoric writes: Notice that there is nothing contemporary.. The New testament can't be used as evidence to prove itself. Everything else is decades or centuries later. To the best of my knowledge newspapers weren't around back then. I don't know of anything that was wriotten except what was written after the fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
jar writes: The vast majority of folk did not believe Paul.It really is that simple. Where is the evidence for that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
I don't know of anything that was written except what was written after the fact.
Decades and centuries after the fact. I will take this as your admission that you spoke incorrectly when you stated the following
GDR writes:
Message 102 I believe that the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is much stronger than for the argument against it... I also contend that there is at least as much empirical evidence about Jesus, (if you call historical literature as empirical evidence), as there is for any other historical figure. It seems you have no evidence at all. Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Where is the evidence for that? How popular is Christianity in the Middle East these days?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Where is the evidence for that? That Christianity was a minor cult for generations should be evidence enough. Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You guys define the rules for what constitutes evidence and you don't follow them yourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
If you have a problem with the evidence presented you need to clearly articulate what that problem is. I and I am sure others are unable to read your mind and know what your objections are. So quit being cryptic and tell us what is wrong with the evidence presented.
If the majority of people in the years after 36 C.E. believed Paul, then there would have been a groundswell of christianity at this time. This is not seen. There is no historical record of this happening. Also, there would have been some sort of mention in chronicles of the time. If the majority of people believed Paul there would have been huge social and political ramifications. We see none. That is the evidence. Care to refute it? Evidence is presented. The ball is in your court. Edited by Theodoric, : spelling Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The evidence is that until Christianity became a State Religion it remained a minor Jewish Sect.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Oh, come on. What you're talking about is hearsay at best and second-hand or third-hand hearsay at that. The "evidence" that you've suggested would be laughed out of any court in the land. You guys define the rules for what constitutes evidence and you don't follow them yourselves. I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
If nothing else the Bible is an historical document which you can either accept as evidence or reject in the same way. It exists. You can say that you don't believe there is justfication for accepting it or not. Frankly it doesn't matter to me if you do or you don't; I am interested in discussion and am not really concerned with scoring debating points.
There are all sorts of things in life that we can consider and decide what it is we believe. I accept certain things in life as do all of us. Faith in nothing is still faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If nothing else the Bible is an historical document which you can either accept as evidence or reject in the same way. So is Time Magazine. But a claim in Time Magazine that something happened in 33 AD isn't evidence. The Bible is a historical document, to be sure, but it's not a contemporary document to the events that it claims to describe. That's its critical weakness, and the reason that it can't reasonably be taken as evidence for any of the events it describes.
I am interested in discussion and am not really concerned with scoring debating points. So let's discuss the evidence for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which you led us to believe was "overwhelming." You accepted that the resurrection of Christ would surely be an "extraordinary" event. Doesn't such an event require extraordinary evidence to support it? To say that Jesus Christ existed is not at all the same as saying Julius Caesar existed, because nobody claims Caesar as lord and savior, or claims he did miracles on the floor of the Roman Senate. But there's mountains more evidence for the existence of Caesar than for the existence of Jesus. For instance, Caesar's face is on the money printed during his reign. His name appears in all manner of records and contemporary writings, just as Obama's name appears all over the news, now. That's what it looks like when revolutionary, influential figures actually exist - the overall curve of "name-checking" is highest during the period where they're alive, active, and prominent, and then drops off as they fade from the public eye. That's true now and it was true in AD 33's largest bureaucratic society. But for mythical figures, it's exactly the opposite. During the time they're supposed to have lived there's nothing - because they didn't exist yet. It's only at a decades'-remove from the supposed time of their existence that word begins to spread. And that's precisely the pattern we see with Jesus - the earliest accounts of his ministry are decades after he died, and years after any potential disconfirming witnesses have fallen into obscurity or death. The earliest accounts of his miracles are eight decades after he supposedly did them. That's not a historical pattern that supports existence. It's a pattern that is most consistent with mythical figures, like Merlin and the knights of the Round Table, the Greek heroes of myth, or Kilroy, of the famous "Kilroy was here."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024