[Joel]

[QUOTE] I don't have any emperical evendece or secular eye witnesses to support that the events in the Gospels are actual.

But you have no empirical evidence or secular eye witness documents to say these writings are intentional fruads either. The evidence that has already been given was by a biased historian who gives philosophical reasons instead of physical reasons why the New Testament is unreliable

[JerryLove]

Matthew, Mark and John wrote as eyewitnesses. Peter wrote his epistles as an eyewitness. Yes they borrowed heavy from letters that were circulated, but also from interviews (such as talking to Mary) fropm those directly involved in the 31/2 year ministry of Jesus.

And wouldn't it be neat if you had any evidence to support those claims?

[quote]As far as extant manuscripts, unfortunately there are none known to exist. but this should not trouble asny so. The closest we have is the John Ryland papyri which is dated c.100ad. It is a portion of the gospel of John if I remember correctly and this would put it as the closest source document historically speaking of any document in existence.[/qoute] So the closest, choronologically speaking, document we posess of the events is 70 years after the events when pretty much everyone involved would neccessairily have been dead? That's not very helpful to your case.

But you have no empirical evidence or secular eye witness documents to say these writings are intentional fruads either.

Yea, and?

The evidence that has already been given was by a biased historian who gives philosophical reasons instead of physical reasons why the New Testament is unreliable

What would you call "phyical reasons"? Claims of events which do not fit with observed reality? The NT is full of them.

[Joel]

One quick thing while I think of it (this is Joel now, not my dad, who has been talking so far. I wish we could resolve this problem, but who knows how we can!!!!!!!):

If Jesus was a hoax, it is just simply illogical to believe that such a large lie would have survived through expansion and large-scale scrutiny. The religious leaders of that day who would obviously oppose such a heresy would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER disproving Jesus. And through all the expansion and development, if Jesus was a hoax, it seems very hard to believe that NO ONE would pick up on this. Yet there is nothing, to my knowledge anyway, to disprove the existence of Jesus save 21st century speculation. Did anyone doubt the existence of Jesus earlier than our modern era??

Sorry if I am rehashing old ground. Just thoughts..............

[phats]

Ok, I've just skimmed this thread, and I'd like to make one point. As evidence for the existence of Jesus we not only have the scriptures, which are extremely historically accurate, but we also have the other pieces of outside references (Josephus, a Jewish historian, etc). Now, there are well over 10000 copies of the mauscripts about Jesus. This is compared to under 50 for people like Caeser and many other greek figures, yet noone denies tehy exist. To deny the existence of Christ is to deny history itself, since there is much historical data in his favour. You cannot deny Jesus was, but feel free to - no serious historian would, Christian or not.

[JerryLove]

If Jesus was a hoax, it is just simply illogical to believe that such a large lie would have survived through expansion and large-scale scrutiny.

This is an appeal more than support. Considering the number of religions with longer histories than Christanity which claim actual physical events it's also a non-starter. Unless the issue was delt with at the time there were still good records, there is no way to deal with it later... So once it reached "critical age" the odds of a false history of this sort being disproven are poor.

The religious leaders of that day who would obviously oppose such a heresy would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER disproving Jesus.

Let's imagine for a moment that they did, just as we could easly disprove the claims of Sung Yun Moon, or Da, or Korresh, or Manson. So what? That did not stop any of them from having followers; and the fact that you can't find evidence of people disproving all the Korresh's of the world that we don't know about because they didn't get in a standoff with thte FBI doesn't mean they are right.

And through all the expansion and development, if Jesus was a hoax, it seems very hard to believe that NO ONE would pick up on this.

On what do you base the assumption that no one did?

Yet there is nothing, to my knowledge anyway, to disprove the existence of Jesus save 21st century speculation. Did anyone doubt the existence of Jesus earlier than our modern era??

I'll say with probible certainty that someone did; and no, I am not trying to "disprove" Jesus; your problem is a lack of compelling support for the positive claim of his existance.

Ok, I've just skimmed this thread, and I'd like to make one point. As evidence for the existence of Jesus we not only have the scriptures, which are extremely historically accurate, but we also have the other pieces of outside references (Josephus, a Jewish historian, etc).

Josephus gives us no witnesses or witness testemony to the event. Josephus who was not a conteporary of Jesus writes on Christian beliefs. I've pointed this out over and over and over and over and despite the fact that no one has rebutted this point, every weewk someone else reitroduces Josephus or Tactius like I didn't already deal with them 50 times... I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Now, there are well over 10000 copies of the mauscripts about Jesus.

Name 10.

This is compared to under 50 for people like Caeser and many other greek figures

Your ignorance is showing... Ceaser is a Roman (and therefore Italian) figure.. Greece is an entirely diferent country.

yet noone denies tehy exist.

Which Ceaser are you referrin to (you do know there are many don't you?). As to weather there are other well-known people in history who are suspected to have not existed, there are (Socrates for example, who may have been an invention of Plato's).

To deny the existence of Christ is to deny history itself

Dealing with Christ is an entirely different issue, though one that requires the historical existance of Yeshua bin Yoseph.

since there is much historical data in his favour.

Which you have failed to present any of here why?

You cannot deny Jesus was, but feel free to - no serious historian would, Christian or not.

This statement is:
A. an appeal to authority,
B. untrue,
C. unsupported, or
D. all of the above.

The correct anser is "D".

[phats]

I'll say with probible certainty that someone did; and no, I am not trying to "disprove" Jesus; your problem is a lack of compelling support for the positive claim of his existance.

a)How much of the gospels have you read?
b)How much more proof do you want than 4 seperate historically accurate documents written by Jesus' close contempories, one of whom placed very high importance on detail, and the backing of many, certainly most historians?

Josephus gives us no witnesses or witness testemony to the event. Josephus who was not a conteporary of Jesus writes on Christian beliefs. I've pointed this out over and over and over and over and despite the fact that no one has rebutted this point, every weewk someone else reitroduces Josephus or Tactius like I didn't already deal with them 50 times... I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

Most of the people who wrote about Jesus in the gospels were his contempories, however. Many secular historians back up the historical reality of the Bible, which you will I'm sure gleefully discount. A.N. Sherwin-White, Sir William Ramsey, B.W. Henderson, F.F. Bruce, C.F.D. Moule, Ethelbert Strauffer, C.H. Dodd, and many more all support the fact that Christ existed, and most of them are not Christians.

Name 10.

That's ridiculous. You are, almost literally a fool if you assume that I know the names of the manuscripts, since I'm not a scholar. A quick look-up on a site such as www.bible.org should find you something, I'm not going to do that for you, I mean, how ridiculous can you get? If there weren't manuscripts, there would be no Bible.

Your ignorance is showing... Ceaser is a Roman (and therefore Italian) figure.. Greece is an entirely diferent country.

Don't be cocky and assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Re-read the quote. Caesar and/(Talking now about figures such as socrates, sophacles, aristotle). I did classics for two years. Thanks for jumping to conclusions, feel free to do it some more. Any twit knows that caesar wasn't a Greek, but since Greek culture had such a huge influence on the Romans anyway, you could argue that in some ways he was. Satisfied, or do you want to "Show my ignorance" some more?

Which Ceaser are you referrin to (you do know there are many don't you?). As to weather there are other well-known people in history who are suspected to have not existed, there are (Socrates for example, who may have been an invention of Plato's).

Augustus. And I think that's pretty spurious, about made-up people. You may as well doubt all of history, bud.

Which you have failed to present any of here why?

The historical data in the Bible, plus the secondary sources you so scornfully dismiss.

I'm also not going to answer your last statement. You doubt, good for you! Why come here then?

[JerryLove]

a)How much of the gospels have you read?
b)How much more proof do you want than 4 seperate historically accurate documents written by Jesus' close contempories, one of whom placed very high importance on detail, and the backing of many, certainly most historians?

a) all
b) There are not 4 seperate accounts, there are 2. Three of the accounts are based on the same begining work. The authorship of these accounts is not certain, and all are self-serving. I can find more than four seperate and unrelated eye-witness accounts to bigfoot, aliens, and the lock-ness monster... I doubt their existance as well. finally, weather most historians question it or not (and I don't agree with your assertion) is an appeal to authority... *You* need to *show* the perponderance of evidence, not appeal to someone elsels conclusion that "it's sufficient"

Most of the people who wrote about Jesus in the gospels were his contempories, however.

The oldest of the Gospels dates to (IIRC) 70ADm 35 years after Jesus's supposed death (in a time when life expectancy was not mush more than 40).

Many secular historians back up the historical reality of the Bible, which you will I'm sure gleefully discount. A.N. Sherwin-White, Sir William Ramsey, B.W. Henderson, F.F. Bruce, C.F.D. Moule, Ethelbert Strauffer, C.H. Dodd, and many more all support the fact that Christ existed, and most of them are not Christians.

Then you should have no trouble coming up with support for Jesus's existance, since I'm sure they have already done the work for you... Please post it.

That's ridiculous. You are, almost literally a fool if you assume that I know the names of the manuscripts, since I'm not a scholar. A quick look-up on a site such as www.bible.org should find you something, I'm not going to do that for you, I mean, how ridiculous can you get? If there weren't manuscripts, there would be no Bible.

Are you saying that the contents of thousands of different manuscripts are in the Bible? They must be rather short manuscripts. Are you saying that everyone knows thousands but you can't name ten?

I think you are talking about thousands of copies of the same couple of documents. If a newspaper prints 20 copies of a story, that does not indicate 20 seperate accounts... number of copies is irrellevent.

Don't be cocky and assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Re-read the quote. Caesar and/(Talking now about figures such as socrates, sophacles, aristotle). I did classics for two years.

"people like Caeser and many other greek figures"
OK reread, you are still calling Caeser a Greek figure.

Thanks for jumping to conclusions, feel free to do it some more. Any twit knows that caesar wasn't a Greek, but since Greek culture had such a huge influence on the Romans anyway, you could argue that in some ways he was.

If this is an example of your logical skills (the Romans based their culture heavily on Greek unfluence therefore Romans are Greek), then I understand our problem.

Augustus. And I think that's pretty spurious, about made-up people. You may as well doubt all of history, bud.

We know historically, arrcheologically, and from the accounts of his victims of events which are directly attributed to Agustus. We have statues of him made during his life, coins with his face made durning his life, and a neccessairy person (Emperor of Rome) for which we have no other candidates.

If you had a few dozen accounts of the making for bread and fish, then you woul dhave a better case for Jesus even if none of the new accounts mentioned who did it.

The historical data in the Bible, plus the secondary sources you so scornfully dismiss.

The Bible has already been addressed. Show me the other witness acounts.

I'm also not going to answer your last statement. You doubt, good for you! Why come here then?

You already have your mind made up? Why do *you* come here when you are closed minded?

[Joel]

I do realize all my points were assertions. I was just curious as to what your thoughts were on them.

Let's imagine for a moment that they did, just as we could easly disprove the claims of Sung Yun Moon, or Da, or Korresh, or Manson. So what? That did not stop any of them from having followers; and the fact that you can't find evidence of people disproving all the Korresh's of the world that we don't know about because they didn't get in a standoff with thte FBI doesn't mean they are right.

Indeed I agree. But my point is that there is no dispute to their existence. Let's avoid the false prophet scenario for a moment and just determine whether he existed or not. My problem logically with the "Jesus never existed" idea is that the Religious Leaders of the day would have thrown a cow over it. They were losing converts to this rapidly growing cult left and right. Yet nowhere do we find any disputes over the existence of Jesus (not to my knowledge anyway).

And, if Jesus was a hoax, why are there no Roman records about it?? After all, they are the ones who crucified Him, and after only about 30 years they started persecuting Christians rigorously. Would there not be some records somewhere that would contend against the existence of Jesus?? Yet all we find is Roman historians (Tacitus, Pliny) who do not contend with the Jesus' existence but merely assume that it is true.

I do realize my argument is of silence, but I would still like your thoughts, Jerry. Sometimes silence can speak volumes.

And also, does anyone know anything of Philo? He was contemporary to Jesus, and was alive around the time of His crucifixion. Was he Jewish, Roman, Greek, Other???? Did he write anything on Jesus??

[Joel]

What would you call "phyical reasons"? Claims of events which do not fit with observed reality? The NT is full of them.

Such as???



On what do you base the assumption that no one did?

And on what do you base the assumption that someone may have claimed Jesus never existed?

And wouldn't it be neat if you had any evidence to support those claims?[[


And it would be a whole lot neater if yoyu had evidence to refutre these claims and support your accusation that these writings were just simply self serving documents with the direct intention to promote a fraud.


/QUOTE]The oldest of the Gospels dates to (IIRC) 70ADm 35 years after Jesus's supposed death (in a time when life expectancy was not mush more than 40).


Actually that is incorrect--scholarship puts JOhns gospel as the oldest and written c.88-95AD.

b) There are not 4 seperate accounts, there are 2. Three of the accounts are based on the same begining work.



And you rproof of this is???? If you understood how different the synoptics are you wouldn't so readily agree with that poorly conceived idea.

Three of the accounts are based on the same begining work. The authorship of these accounts is not certain, and all are self-serving.[QUOTE]

And where is your evidence that these writings are self serving? where is YOUR preponderance of evidence of the massive, intentional cruel hoax these men foisted first upon Israel, then the Romnan Empire???

[Joel]

last post was by Loels dad--technology is wonderful yill it fouls up.

[JerryLove]

Indeed I agree. But my point is that there is no dispute to their existence. Let's avoid the false prophet scenario for a moment and just determine whether he existed or not.

No one argues weather Da existed, we argue weather his claims to have seen aliens are accurate. We don't have the writings fo Jesus, we have the writings of Paul and his contemporaries. I do not dispute that Peter lived, I question his claims of Jesus existing.

My problem logically with the "Jesus never existed" idea is that the Religious Leaders of the day would have thrown a cow over it. They were losing converts to this rapidly growing cult left and right.

Messianic cults and new religions were a dime a dozen in 30AD. Weather there were nay-sayers or not is not known. Just because records of dissent did not survive to the present day does not mean they did not exist.

And, if Jesus was a hoax, why are there no Roman records about it?? After all, they are the ones who crucified Him

If Jesus was a hoax, there is no need for Roman records (and how do you know none existed anyway)? If Jesus was *real*, then how-come there are no Roman records of him?

Would there not be some records somewhere that would contend against the existence of Jesus??

Mayby, maybe not. Maybe the record would survive, maybe it would not.

Yet all we find is Roman historians (Tacitus, Pliny) who do not contend with the Jesus' existence but merely assume that it is true.

He makes no comment either way, and long after the events are history.

I do realize my argument is of silence, but I would still like your thoughts, Jerry. Sometimes silence can speak volumes.

If he was real, why don't the Jews comment on him so as to make sure no one thinks he is the messiah? Why isn't there any Roman record of his existance? Why didn't anyone witness him and write about it other than the people who wrote the bible 40 years later? Silence speaks volumes.

Such as???

you can't walk on water.

On what do you base the assumption that no one did?

I said it conflicts with observed reality. It has been observed that people sink, it has not been observed that people walk on water.

And on what do you base the assumption that someone may have claimed Jesus never existed?

It's not an assumption to say something may have happend.

And it would be a whole lot neater if yoyu had evidence to refutre these claims and support your accusation that these writings were just simply self serving documents with the direct intention to promote a fraud.

I've made no positive claim to support, and have no burden to refute your positive claims which you have not supported.

Actually that is incorrect--scholarship puts JOhns gospel as the oldest and written c.88-95AD.

Then you improve my case for me. The *first* writing was more than two generations after Jesus's death.

And you rproof of this is???? If you understood how different the synoptics are you wouldn't so readily agree with that poorly conceived idea.

Since you have failed to support that claim, I'll simply appeal to the authority here. It's a generally accepted belief by Biblical scholors.

And where is your evidence that these writings are self serving?

That's logical nor evendenciary. The writings of jesus by people attemting to spread a belief in jesus serve to spread a belief in jesus... hence self-serving.

where is YOUR preponderance of evidence of the massive, intentional cruel hoax these men foisted first upon Israel, then the Romnan Empire???

I have not claimed that such an event is true, therefore I do not have a need to prove it occured (having not claimed it occured).

[Joel]

Let's imagine for a moment that they did, just as we could easly disprove the claims of Sung Yun Moon, or Da, or Korresh, or Manson. So what? That did not stop any of them from having followers; and the fact that you can't find evidence of people disproving all the Korresh's of the world that we don't know about because they didn't get in a sta

ndoff with thte FBI doesn't mean they are right.[/QUOTE]

And you just proved our argument. There are historical documents from Judaism refuting Jesus claims to deity and His Messiahship but we have none refuting His existence. No historical records dispute the existence of Jesus, just His claims.

If Jesus was a hoax, there is no need for Roman records (and how do you know none existed anyway)? If Jesus was *real*, then how-come there are no Roman records of him?

Well looking backwards from 2,000 years and seeing how large Christianity has grown and the influence it has had on the world that is an apparent legitimate question, but if kept in its historical context it is very irrelevant. First Israel was a backward posting for Rome and more of a nuisance than important. Second Jesus was executed as a common criminal not as a powerful political adversary. As a matter of fact Jesus bar Abbas (the barabbas who was freed to execute Jesus) was more important a figure to Rome thean Jesus was for he was a political rabblerouser.

Messianic cults and new religions were a dime a dozen in 30AD.

Unfortunately that is very inaccurate, there had been only a few messianic cults in the 30 years prior to Jesus ministry. However from about 40 AD on many many false messianic movements sprang up in Israel. Jesus had drawn the attention of The Sanhedrin for it was a very powerful and growing movement,just as John the Baptist had as well.

If Jesus was a hoax, there is no need for Roman records (and how do you know none existed anyway)? If Jesus was *real*, then how-come there are no Roman records of him?

The Roman records come in to existence when the Christian faith began growing very powerfully amongst the gentiles in tyhe empire and became a threat to caesar worship. The writings from that point do not question the existence of jesus, just downplay his importance as the Sanhedrin did.

Mayby, maybe not. Maybe the record would survive, maybe it would not.

And that is like saying a person accussed of a crime is guilty because we can find no evidence to prove he is guilty. With the massive amount of historical records we have of Rome--and considering how powerful a threat that Chrisitanity was deemed (remember Nero in the 60's slaughtered Christians) then some records somewhere would have survived. And given the intensity of those oppossed to Jesus is, those records would have found the light of day and published long long ago.

If he was real, why don't the Jews comment on him so as to make sure no one thinks he is the messiah? Why isn't there any Roman record of his existance? Why didn't anyone witness him and write about it other than the people who wrote the bible 40 years later? Silence speaks volumes.

The Roman issue has been deaslt with now about 5 times. As for the Jews- you have rejected the survivng historical records of the day as too biased so the evidence that nearly all historians accept bears no weight with you.


[QUOTE]I've made no positive claim to support, and have no burden to refute your positive claims which you have not supported.

Once again Jerry, this thread exists because a long time ago you asserted Jesus may never have existed. You have not brought any support to your claim that he is a ficticious character. You reject the support given by many many people and give no support to give credence to your hypothesis that Jesus was a made up figure and the writers of the NT were bogus malicious men (for they would be that and we all know trhat). Jerry, why don't you give some support to your assertions here for a change.

Then you improve my case for me. The *first* writing was more than two generations after Jesus's death

Wrong again OH Might Confused One. If you were a careful reader you would have seen that Johns gospel is the oldest gospel not the "first". Matthew (aka Levi) being written to Jews was the first written and it is beleived to have been first written in Hebrew or Aramiac by 60 AD.

Since you have failed to support that claim, I'll simply appeal to the authority here. It's a generally accepted belief by Biblical scholors.

Well seeing how it is only liberal "biblical scholars" and the most accepted and recognized scholars reject the quelle manuscript theory (as there to date has been no evidence of a quelle manuscript for the synoptics) you are just blowing smoke and unable to substantiate your accusations AGAIN!!!

Once again BAR(biblical archeology review) as well as other powerful para church historical research bodies reject the "Q' theory, just simply for the synoptics, though they report many of the same events in the life of Jesus- do so in a very differing style and manner given they were written to different ethnic groups.

I have not claimed that such an event is true, therefore I do not have a need to prove it occured (having not claimed it occured).[QUOTE]

In a sense you are correct Jerry-- you only are dubious that Jesus exists, doubt the historicity of the NT writings, reject the writings of the first century historians as inadequate but have not made any "real" assertions or accusations. Well Jerry prove your counter Hypotheticals. I ask for only one. You have positively asserted that the writewrs of the New Tesatament were too biased to be trusted historically There record is clouded by their "faith". Well support that accusation. Not just the generalizations you throw out, but specifically agasinst Matthewe, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James and Jude. Also you have hypothesized that this group made upi the charater " Jesus" for their own gain. Well show some support for this hypothesis. You have a keen scientific mind--You know that if you cannot bring empirical support for your hypothesis then it needs to be discarded. Well support your theoretical charges.

[Joel]

Last post was by nolidad, signed on as nolidad but when submit button was hit- it posted it again as Joel.

[JerryLove]

And you just proved our argument. There are historical documents from Judaism refuting Jesus claims to deity and His Messiahship but we have none refuting His existence. No historical records dispute the existence of Jesus, just His claims.

You are making an appeal to ignorance to support an assertion that is not inherently reasonable even if you could support it propery (which obviously you cannot)

Well looking backwards from 2,000 years and seeing how large Christianity has grown and the influence it has had on the world that is an apparent legitimate question, but if kept in its historical context it is very irrelevant.

So then you feel that Jesus would have been considered historically unimportant until decades after his supposed life?

Unfortunately that is very inaccurate, there had been only a few messianic cults in the 30 years prior to Jesus ministry.

And you base this on what? You have a contemporary record of a well-travelled scholar saying "messianic cults are rare"?

The Roman records come in to existence when the Christian faith began growing very powerfully amongst the gentiles in tyhe empire and became a threat to caesar worship. The writings from that point do not question the existence of jesus, just downplay his importance as the Sanhedrin did.

So we are back to "functionally no one noticed Jesus"? This doesn't seem to be helping your case.

And that is like saying a person accussed of a crime is guilty because we can find no evidence to prove he is guilty.

Actually, you are the one claiming events occured because you cannot find disproof. I'm claiming they might or might not have occured. Your analogy, while appropriate, apples to your case not mine.

With the massive amount of historical records we have of Rome--and considering how powerful a threat that Chrisitanity was deemed (remember Nero in the 60's slaughtered Christians) then some records somewhere would have survived.

because?

And given the intensity of those oppossed to Jesus is, those records would have found the light of day and published long long ago.

Find the records proving that Mithras did not exist.

The Roman issue has been deaslt with now about 5 times. As for the Jews- you have rejected the survivng historical records of the day as too biased so the evidence that nearly all historians accept bears no weight with you.

I'm still waiting for eye-witness #1 who is not from the Bible... You've offered exactly 0.

Once again Jerry, this thread exists because a long time ago you asserted Jesus may never have existed. You have not brought any support to your claim that he is a ficticious character.

You just straw-manned your own paragraph. "Jesus may be fictitious" and "Jesus is fictitious" are dofferent claims. The fact that you seem incapable of understand this is why this conversation never goess anywhere.

You reject the support given by many many people and give no support to give credence to your hypothesis that Jesus was a made up figure and the writers of the NT were bogus malicious men

I've said that the NT is self-serviing and of unknown authorship; and therefore insufficient to prove the case. You don't like that, tough.

I've said that no other texts actually cite witnesses to the events (except by citing the Bible); none do nor claim to. You don't like that standard, tough.

I've said that there is no non-biblical [or biblically derived] record of Yesus Bin Yoshua. There is not. You don't like that? provide some.

I've said that there is no non-biblical [or biblically derived] record of the events attributed to Jesus (you'd think someone would take notice of thousands of fish or a man walking on water). You don't like that, provide some.

With all this, I've never claimed that Jesus is definately fictional; I've claimed that the story is suspicious and the case is weak. These are true statements. You don't like it, tough.

Jerry, why don't you give some support to your assertions here for a change.

My assertation is that the story is suspicious (it claims events which are unevidenced in emperical reality, it sounds a lot like other stories that predate it) and that the support is weak (there is a complete lack of non-biblical accounts which corrorborate any part of the claim Jesus lived). I have backed both of those assertations (just did here); though the second claim is negative.

It is you who have entirely failed to deal with those two problems, preferring instead to heap appeals to authority and ignorance which were tired months ago when you started. In short, you can't prove Jesus existed.

Wrong again OH Might Confused One. If you were a careful reader you would have seen that Johns gospel is the oldest gospel not the "first". Matthew (aka Levi) being written to Jews was the first written and it is beleived to have been first written in Hebrew or Aramiac by 60 AD.

So Johns, while being 20 years *younger* than Matthews is *older* than Matthews at the same time? I think you need to work on your math skills.

Regardless, my "around 70AD" statement stands correct and actually acknowledged by you.

Well seeing how it is only liberal "biblical scholars" and the most accepted and recognized scholars reject the quelle manuscript theory

Yea, I wonder if Conservative Christians might be disinclines to reasonably consider that they stories are copied as they have already presupposed they are not?

you are just blowing smoke and unable to substantiate your accusations AGAIN!!!

LOL, your double standard would be funny if I didn't know you were so dense that you actually don't see what you are doing wrong.

In a sense you are correct Jerry-- you only are dubious that Jesus exists, doubt the historicity of the NT writings, reject the writings of the first century historians as inadequate but have not made any "real" assertions or accusations.

So then you were blowing smoke when you said I ddi in about every other sentance?

Well Jerry prove your counter Hypotheticals. I ask for only one. You have positively asserted that the writewrs of the New Tesatament were too biased to be trusted historically There record is clouded by their "faith". Well support that accusation.

And how, exactly, would you like me to "support" a judgement?

Not just the generalizations you throw out, but specifically agasinst Matthewe, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James and Jude. Also you have hypothesized that this group made upi the charater " Jesus" for their own gain. Well show some support for this hypothesis.

Supporting that concretely would move me to "Jesus did not exist". Since I don't *know* that he was created as fiction (hence why I've never claimed to know he was), I cannot prove he was. That's rediculious.

You have a keen scientific mind--You know that if you cannot bring empirical support for your hypothesis then it needs to be discarded.

You have a stunning inability to grasp definitions I've told you time and time again. A hypothessi must fit all known facts, and must not be disprovable. "Jesus may be fiction" does.

[rainoflove]

Been busy at work for a little while, so haven't been able to partake in this one. Anyway, here we go!

Jerry had said, on page 1:
But if I start talking about this big bru-ha-ha that occured in Acron Ohio back in 1920; there's not gonna be a lot of people standing up across the nation disputing it.

You're talking 83 years, and if your claims were big enough - yes, they WOULD contest it. Now, the dating issue.

I see a lot of dating going around here. Has anyone actually done any research on the topic? A search on the net has brought out a lot of discussion on this topic.

Jesus is estimated to have died anywhere from 30-33AD, which is when all this started.

(I found this website interesting - http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html#codsin)

We have manuscripts here, like P64 (The 'P' stands for papyri) that according to the dating system dates to anywhere between 30AD and 70AD (it seems 50AD is the most proper date.)
Also, according to a long time discussion 7Q5, although still under debate, is thought to perhaps date back to 40AD (according to some other sources, not just this site)
P64 is a copy of matthew 26.

7Q5 is supposedly Mark 6: 52-53.

When we're dealing with these manuscripts, we're dealing with what are thought to be copies of the original... so often, the original could date earlier. So, when we have a copy of the gospel dating to 80AD for instance, we find smaller fragments of it dating earlier. Thus, we can only assume that the gospel was copied from the originals- which date earlier.

Previously i had said:
No evidence of Hercules whom Zeus appeared to either... as far as i know. Mythical God's appearing to mythical people is hardly a good argument.

Jerry's response:
The people in question are not mythical... Several Roman emperors claim to have been visited by their dieties.

Here is another problem. Were there any witnesses to support their claims? Or was it a 'i was the only one there.'

Take a look at the astronomical claims the Christian creed in 1 Cor 15 says. It talks about Jesus appearing to 500 people. 500?? That's a huge nr!

Now, the date for 1 Cor is agreed to be anything from 50AD-55AD. Only 20 years after the death of Jesus (if Jesus died 30AD for example.) If the average lifespan was 40 as you say, then any 18 year old guy at the time would still be very much alive. In fact, even if anyone who didn't actually see the resurrected Jesus (which is what the creed is about) could still concur whether Jesus was crucified or if he actually existed.

There is no SUFFICIENT evidence to come to the conclusion that Jesus was a mythical figure. Please provide some sort of evidence that would concur this - even a logical argument. If we compare the gospel story (non-apocryphal accounts) and the time period we see that there wasn't sufficient time for legend to develop, we have claims of many witnesses - in the SAME lifetime of the actual events. This goes against the way mythical stories are made.

Just because records of dissent did not survive to the present day does not mean they did not exist.

Although I hardly want this to turn into a 'who must provide the burden of proof' debate, i could easily use the same logic and say "just because there are no secular eye-witness accounts of Jesus, does not mean they did not exist."

Here's a simple rule : if you make a statement, provide the proof or some sort of reference. These debates never come to a conclusion because everyone is arguing who must provide the proof.

Take care ya'll
Rain