[JerryLove]

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

Assertion wihtout support.

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.

And to appeal to that state of ignorance would be which logical fallacy?

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

Many claims of dieties appearing were made by more than one person. If you want a specific example, I'd refer you to the Salem witch trials and the multiple witnesses (or bigfoot, or the loch-ness monster, or aliens).

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!

And I can talk about Zeus appearing to 5,000 people.. but without some corroboration, it's just words on a page.

There is no SUFFICIENT evidence to come to the conclusion that Jesus was a mythical figure.

I'm not looking for evidence that Jesus was fictional, I'm looking to see of there is a eprponderance of evidence to establish he was real... I don't find it.

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."

Go ahead. If Jesus was real, then there were plenty of eye-witnesses. Unfortunately, there are no records to support that speculation.

Here's a simple rule : if you make a statement, provide the proof or some sort of reference.

As far as anyone has presented, there is not a sufficient perponderance of proof for me to conclude that Jesus was likely a real figure. He may have existed, but it's far from established.

[Joel]

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

NOt in the least. My feelings are not in question here. It is the historical record of Rome and there import of Jesus and the Christian movement you questioned and I answered.

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

No just history that shows very few "cults" prior to Jesus but far more after Him.

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.

No, you have claimed that there is no evidence they did occur. Many have provided the evidence from history (the largest body of evidence of course being the New Testament). You have rejected the historical evidence as being too biased and self serving, but fail to produce any evidence that these documents were just self serving and "possibly" ficticious accounts of the ficticious "Jesus". You offer no prrof that Jesus--may not have existed.

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

Philo of Alexandria

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.

Yeah they are and yet you offer no support for either of these claims.

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

Right you have claimed that Jesus only "may be " fictional. If you are now calling into question whethter the events recorded are ficticious or not that is a different matter altogether.

As far as anyone has presented, there is not a sufficient perponderance of proof for me to conclude that Jesus was likely a real figure. He may have existed, but it's far from established.

Thats because your standard is an impossible burden anywhere.

1. Jesus never spoke out against any political institution outside of Israel to overthrow it. Thus would not have been noticed by Rome

2. Jesus never raised an army to challenge Rome. Thus would not have been noticed by Rome.

3. His was a religious mission. Thus He would not have been noticed enough by Rome to warrant writing.

4. When His movement (Christianity) grew large in the Empire- Rome noticed, then we have written records that were posted in an earlier thread by Roman figures, who do not call Jesus into question. They were within a generation of Jesus death, these Roman figures had full access to Pikates jurisdiction, still had access to eyewitnesses, and yet not one of these accounts call Jesus a myth. They all just question His deity not His realityu.

3. The gospels show Jesus to be quite apolitical.

[JerryLove]

There may or may not have been a Yesua Bin Yoseph to whom the Bibles refer. I don't find compelling evidence to conclude that there was. All I really have is what appear to be 2 first-hand accounts, written far later than the events, and which make extremely dubious claims regarding the figure (son of God and all) and which are self-serving.

Because I have no evidence other than these 2 dubious and self-serviing accounts; I do not see a reason to conclude that there was a Yesua... got any more emperical or eye-witness data?

[Joel]

Because I have no evidence other than these 2 dubious and self-serviing accounts; I do not see a reason to conclude that there was a Yesua... got any more emperical or eye-witness data?

You have yet to establish that the 4 gospels by the 4 gospel writers are self serving. You have failed to produce any evidence to substantuiate your charge that these 4 accounts are dubious. You have failed to produce any evidence to even casually charge that the 4 gospel writers, Peter, James, Jude, Paul and the many other first century writers were involved in a hoax and were able to mass seduce tens of thousands of Jews who would have been able to say there was no Jesus to convince them their really was a Jesus. You still need to show the conspiracy evidence to deceive and defraud.

[JerryLove]

Since just blathered argumentitively rather than offer up any more evidence to support your case, my conclusion remains... there is insufficient proof to determine that Yesua bin Yoseph was an historic figure. Let me know if you manage to come up with any accounts or emperical evidence other than the Bible.

[rainoflove]

Assertion wihtout support.

Your assertion was 'no one would contest it' - which you asserted without support. You're just dodging my point now.

And to appeal to that state of ignorance would be which logical fallacy?

You've not adressed the papyri and manuscripts found dating 40AD at all, but just avoided it. If I see you saying something about '70AD' again whenever we talk about this, i will be rather disappointed.

I made the statement of the copied documents (aka my 'logical falacy') so we could move to an interesting point. Alot of documents copied which are considered to be absolutely true were only copied 5 gens down the line or something- and there is only one or two copies. Yet the copies of many of the letters and the gospels are exceptionally numerous (more than secular docs,) and CLOSER to the actual events than any other mythical document. You're not adressing the point here. THERE IS NO WAY that a myth is written 6 or 7 years later AFTER the actual event occured. This just doesn't happen. These gospel accounts are too close to the actual events.

Many claims of dieties appearing were made by more than one person. If you want a specific example, I'd refer you to the Salem witch trials and the multiple witnesses (or bigfoot, or the loch-ness monster, or aliens).

500 people? You can't even begin to compare the gospel accounts with your examples. We're not even talking about one appearance either, we're talking about a lifetime here. Jesus walked the earth for 30 odd years. he didn't appear once to someone, or even 5 people, and then disappear. He lived and related to people every day.

Never knew big-foot and lochy were dietys

And I can talk about Zeus appearing to 5,000 people.. but without some corroboration, it's just words on a page.

You've not adressed the point that the appearances were claimed too close to the actual events, and by too many people. I can claim Zeus appeared to 5000 people 200 years ago. Not 7 or 8.

I'm not looking for evidence that Jesus was fictional, I'm looking to see of there is a eprponderance of evidence to establish he was real... I don't find it.

You're simply dont come across as being open minded enough to accept the evidence already laid.

If there were secular-eyewitness accounts, what would they say? Why would someone write them? Who would bother copying them? If someone wrote 'i met Jesus bar Joseph' today in his journal, who's going to copy that? Roman historians had better things to do, the Jews simply hated him (and never recorded his non-existance,) the average Joe of the day (if he could actually write) would only make a mere mention of him. Who would bother copying his document? The only other people left are the Christians, and then of them how many could write? Who would copy their personal journals as well? Or their history accounts? Why would they bother if the apostles were already doing it? Besides, in that time people were more concerned with what someone SAID than what they DID, and thats how history was mainly recorded. The apostles would know that better than anyone. Why would someone else make another gospel recording, when Luke was already doing it? Would any of these documents actually last the test of time if no one made any copies of them? (No, they wouldn't.) WHO could actually write??

Now, you're probably going to lay the same accusations on me about accounts of Jesus being fictional. But, the problem there is we're dealing with 1st century stuff here, and if there were accounts of Jesus being fictional - someone WOULD bother copying it, AND would include it in their history. That would be the Jews. This is way before the church and state merged and so the Christians were FAR less powerful than the Jews. In fact, they had no political power at all. But seeing as the Jews make no mention of a fictional claim in their history, you've no evidence to support he was fiction.

Please adress these points.

Ciao
Rain

[JerryLove]

Rather than interact with your inability to follow burden of proof, or your attempts to reverse burden of proof to the negative claim; I simply refer you back to my statement.

There is no eperical support for the existance of Jesus, and the only eye-witness accounts are in 2 (4 if you want to argue it) tales which are both qeustionable due to their detail, and from partial sources (self-serving).

Because of the lack of emperical support, and the lack of impartial eye-witnesses; as well as the lack of any reference from historians to first-hand experience with official records or witnesses; I faild to find that a persuasive case has been made that Jesus was a real person.

[Joel]

There is no eperical support for the existance of Jesus, and the only eye-witness accounts are in 2 (4 if you want to argue it) tales which are both qeustionable due to their detail, and from partial sources (self-serving).

There is loads of empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus-just not the kind you wish toi accept. You have failed to establish your charge that the four gospels and their writers are dubious, yo9u have failed to substantiate your charge that the New Testament and its writers are just self serving, and you have failed to substantiate with any evidence your hypothesis that Jesus may not have existed with any proof. Also in light of the fact that you beleive Jesus "may be" just a myth-- You have failed to prove how the apostles and disciples in the 15 years after the death, resurrection and acsencion of the "mythman" Jesus, could persude tens of thousands of their countrymen to convert to a religion whose head they would have had first hand knowledge of the fact that Jesus did not exist. We are talking Israel here-which is smaller than New Jersey, and the accounts of the life of Christ as documented in the gospels have him travelling through more than a third of Israel and being in Jerusalem at a time when approximately half the Jews living in Israel would have been there to celebrate the Passover. They have crucified by the Roman Procurator and denounced by as large crowd. If you cannot find one historical writing that rebuts these events then your just blowing smoke, and grasping at straws with your futile attempts to avoid substantiating your charges. In any court of lawe, the one making the charges (which in this court of opinion is you) has to make his case.

You demanded that the defense present its case which many have here. We have produced our witnesses and our evidences and rested our case. All you have done is laid charges about the writers of our documents without substantiating your charges, rejected their writings, rejected 2nd hand testimony and yet want to convict Christ as mythical wothout producing any evidence of your own to rebut the historical documentation. sorry it doesn't wash!!!!

[JerryLove]

There is loads of empirical evidence for the existence of Jesus

I'm sure you will eventually get around to showing emerical support for the historical character... I'll wait.

The rest of your post completely fails to interact with mine. You offer no emperical or eye-witness data beyond the affor-mentioned Gospels. I therefore presume you have no other such support. I find the Gospels insufficient for establishing the likelyhood of an historic figure having existed, but look forward to any other emperical or testimonial support you may be able to provide in the future... until then... good luck.

[Joel]

The rest of your post completely fails to interact with mine. You offer no emperical or eye-witness data beyond the affor-mentioned Gospels. I therefore presume you have no other such support. I find the Gospels insufficient for establishing the likelyhood of an historic figure having existed, but look forward to any other emperical or testimonial support you may be able to provide in the future... until then... good luck.

Well we shall wait until you die, then you shall have all the proof you need, hopefully as a Christian and not one condemned to the lake of fire for eternity. But as to your point on this qoute-- gave ya Philo, gave you writings from israel, If you want I can give you the email address of a Jewish/Christian scholar by the name of Arnold Fruchtenbaum who can show you many websites of Jewish history that speaks ot the existence of Jesus, but of course you want me to do the work for you cause I don't thinkl many people here really beleive that you are that interested in knowing of the historical reality of Jesus.

You r standards of proof fall well out of the bounds of reasonableness. You lay claims and charges against the writings and the writers and offer not even token proof of your charges. Well it was fun, but now you are tiring. For if we could plead with the Lord to leave heaven and come down and walk past your front door, like Carl Sagan said about Noah sArk if was presented to him you and him still wouldn't beleive.

It is obvious you know little of the Jewish faith and life in Israel at the time of Christ. To get tens of thousdands of devout jews to accept a myth man (for they would have known as we all know) is beyond beleif.

[JerryLove]

Well we shall wait until you die, then you shall have all the proof you need

An appeal to consequence that, yet again, does not interact with my position at all..

gave ya Philo

Oops, mised you regiving me Josephus / Philo of Alexandria. Can you reference a specific portion of his work? None seems to be as a witness (unless he's been alive since Cain).

If you want I can give you the email address of a Jewish/Christian scholar by the name of Arnold Fruchtenbaum who can show you many websites of Jewish history that speaks ot the existence of Jesus

I want you to reference emperical data, or eye-witness accounts (or recordings thereof) outside the Bible. I've asked for this over and over and you cannot provide any.

DO you have any emperical data establishing Jesus's existance? Do you have any eye-witness accounts outside the gospels? Do you have any official records, or eye-witness accounts of official records?

No? Then I don't find compelling evidence to believe Jesus likely existed.

[rainoflove]

There is absolutely no compelling evidence that Jesus is a mythical figure/made up by the apostles or that he didn't exist. As you've failed to produce any evidence, nor actually provide any form of hypothesis in light of the evidence produced, we would have to pretty much say that it is a FACT that Jesus is not a myth and that there is NO evidence to show otherwise.

The fact that there are no known/found documents from secular-eye witnesses really proves nothing in light of what HAS been found, and the evidence provided.

Jerry, if you just don't WANT to believe, thats an entirely different story. But until you actually produce something concrete to prove your conspiracy theory the 'Jesus existed' attorneys win the case. You have not provided any rebuttal evidence, and so there is nothing here that would make your case win in a court of law.

Unfortunately, the case for the existance of Jesus does not have to match up to your criteria and standard to prove its case. Especially when you've provided not a single thing to defend yourself. I'm sorry.

Rain

[JerryLove]

There is absolutely no compelling evidence that Jesus is a mythical figure/made up by the apostles or that he didn't exist.

Nor is there compelling evidence that Hercules or Zeus are made up... but that's not the standard.

The burden for proof has not been met to establish that Jesus was a real figure. Hey *may* have been, but it's far from reasonably certain. There is, at present, far too little support (the only direct support being the gospels). If you have any other eye-witnes accounts, official documentation, or recountings of interviews with witnesses, let me know. Until then, your entire assertive case rests upon the Gospel, and it is insufficient.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Jerry, Hitler could not be proven to your satisfaction. Jesus' death is mentioned by a few historians as a sidenote. I will find the info for you if you so desire. All it will prove is that there was a founder of a sect named Jesus who was crucified.

The strongest evidence I see historically is a distinct lack on the Jews part.

Say I set up a religion based on the worship of a man. Johann Vaulfner, claim he was publicly executed under Bill Clinton, on may 17th 1997 with thousands of people watching who could be called on as eyewitnesses. How hard would it be to disprove that 10 yrs from now?

Say the cult of William Vaulfner is getting a following. Would not any government show by record this man did not exist, call the thousands of wittnesses forward to investigate their claim. The death of Jesus would have been common knowledge if it occurred in scripture.

If it was a myth, why immediately following his death didn't the people out where this should have been create an uproar that either nobody was executed that day, or point out who was? There seems too be sufficient evidence that there was a man named Jesus who died.

This is no evidence for the truth of his claims, merely his existence. But what you are proposing would involve conspiracy theories as bad as the illuminati-trilateral commision-skulls-masons-mob killed jfk.

It is too complex a scenario to believe he was a mythical figure.

[JerryLove]

Jerry, Hitler could not be proven to your satisfaction.

That's just a damn lie. We have thousands of recorded accounts, hundreds of hours of film, thousands of emperical events attributed to him, living relatives, actual emperical material from him (clothing, house, etc). We have a tremendously overwhelming amount of proof of his existance.

But if a lie like this is the extent to which you will go to sraw-man my position, I'm probibly wasting time even talking with you

The strongest evidence I see historically is a distinct lack on the Jews part.

Do you have any eye-witness accounts or interviews with eye-witnesses (other than the gospels). Do you have any emperical evidence? Do you have any accounts of the events attributed to Jesus actually occuring (someone who was at the fish and bread thing, but maybe doesn't say who did it). Do you have any Roman, Jewesh, (or anyone else) documentation regarding enay of the events involving Jesus? Did any fo the wise men write it down? Do you have *ANYTHING* other than the Gospel which *DIRECTLY* testifies to Jesus? Because if you do you should stop hiding it.

That is what evidence is, everything in your post is conjecture and does not interact with my argument.