<strong>We kind of got into this issue a few pages ago in this thread, but I'm glad you brought it up again. I personally believe a non-Heaven universe is, if anything, more consistent with making the world a better place. This is all there is, so why not try to make the best of it?
If there's an afterlife, getting there is really the goal. This life doesn't matter as much, compared to a universe without an afterlife.
But, it depends on how you get to heaven. If you get to heaven by doing good deeds, then fine. You have to help the homeless and the people with AIDS and be nice to everyone, and then you get to go to heaven.
But my understanding is that in most Christians' view, this is really not the way to get to heaven. You get to heaven by believing in God and Jesus. The good deeds may then follow, but if they don't, it's OK, because you're still going to heaven.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be their view, but only God knows for sure and Jesus did make a big deal about Faith Hope and Love, but the Most Excellent of these is Love...
<strong>We kind of got into this issue a few pages ago in this thread, but I'm glad you brought it up again. I personally believe a non-Heaven universe is, if anything, more consistent with making the world a better place. This is all there is, so why not try to make the best of it?
If there's an afterlife, getting there is really the goal. This life doesn't matter as much, compared to a universe without an afterlife.
But, it depends on how you get to heaven. If you get to heaven by doing good deeds, then fine. You have to help the homeless and the people with AIDS and be nice to everyone, and then you get to go to heaven.
But my understanding is that in most Christians' view, this is really not the way to get to heaven. You get to heaven by believing in God and Jesus. The good deeds may then follow, but if they don't, it's OK, because you're still going to heaven.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What I have found in my own life, the more I align myself with Jesus, the more I want to spend my life serving others. That was Jesus' ministry in a nutshell - we are called to be servants. Christianity is not a matter of "I'm saved so I don't have to care." It's more a matter of "I'm saved, and now I'm even more aware of how desperately miserable most people's lives are."
God's ideal for human society is for us all to live together with peace, freedom, and dignity. Part of my duty as a Christian is to help that come to pass. I have found that the more I serve others, the more joyful I become. The best part of being a Christian is the happiness it brings into my life right now. What comes later can wait. I have a job to do while I'm here.
That may be their view, but only God knows for sure and Jesus did make a big deal about Faith Hope and Love, but the Most Excellent of these is Love... </strong><hr></blockquote>
*cough* (I think that was Paul (1Cor 13), not Jesus)
<strong>Now to Belle and the dating of the NT books:
The Gospels were the last books of the NT to be written. Mark is generally considered to be the first one written, sometime from 65-75 AD. 90% of Mark appears in Matthew verbatim, and about 75% appears in Luke verbatim, so it seems they had Mark as a source. Matt and Luke also share about 250 lines or so that are not found in Mark, so it is generally presumed there was another source, called "Q" (from German "quelle" = "source"), which was apparently a collection of sayings of Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a point I tried to make earlier. The similarity in supposedly first hand accounts should arouse suspicion about the validity of the texts. The "Q" document is merely a fictional catchall for a weight of evidence that cannot be found.
[quote]<strong>The earliest book of the NT is 1 Thessalonians, generally dated to 50 AD. Tacitus writes of Nero's persecutions after the great fire in Rome of 64 AD of the "Chrestianoi" (Christians) who were blamed for it by Nero. So by the early 60s AD, there were enough Christians in Rome to form a group large enough to pick on - and who were distinguishing themselves from the Jews.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Though Tacitus' accounts are dated so early, the earliest source - the earliest manuscript of his "Annales" dates from the 11th century. The date the original text is assigned to makes it a historical account, let alone the fact the only "original" source we have was created more than a millennium later. It's also the only account of the fire of Rome that has any mention of "Christians".
[quote]<strong>Paul's letter to the Romans is dated to the winter of 57/58 AD (that's known pretty accurately), and he addresses a Roman Christian community that is apparently pretty sizable by then. He says he had been wishing to visit them "for many years" at that point. Additionally, Acts 18:1-3 says that when Paul got to Corinth for the first time (~50 AD) there were Jewish-Christian refugees from Rome there already. So the establishment of the Christian community in Rome can be plausibly dated to the mid-40s AD - only about 10 years after Jesus death and resurrection. I can dig out more details if you want them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.
Err, I consider "yes" or "no" to be input. I know he states that his subjects should only answer yes or no. My contention is that his subjects shouldn't have to say anything at all, ie, give no input. The subject should sit there silent. The room should sit there silent.
I played this game a few weeks ago wherein a nametag with the name of something from the beach or ocean (lobster, surfer, starfish, etc.) was stickered on our backs. There was a group of about twenty of us. The object of the game was to find out what thing from the beach or ocean you were by asking questions to other members of the group. Only yes or no answers could be given. Everyone of us figured out what we were. It's not that hard.
When I get home, let's look at the very first reading given in the book.
<hr></blockquote>
I take your point - it is possible to guess single objects through a sequence of yes and no answers. But in the case of Anderson, we are talking about very specific details - names, personal information, methods of death, even things, as mentioned, not known to the subject at the time of the reading - all produced in about an hour. Also, if you think about it, if Anderson was really trying to work things out through a process of elimination, there would be far more nos than yeses in his readings. But most of the the readings quoted seem to be little more than a string of "yes"es. Can you imagine just trying to work out the name of someone's deceased friend or relative through a series of yes or no answers?
"Do you take the name Brad?" No
"Karen?" No
"Bill?" No
"Mike?" No
"Anna?" No
"Todd?" No
"Kate?" No
etc etc You'd be there all week! Instead what seems to happen is that Anderson either gets the names straight off or he gets it letter by letter. Imagine trying to guess a names ? of all the thousands of possible ones ? one letter at a time... And that's just the names. As you'll see if/ when you read the rest of the book, it doesn't stop there.
Perhaps Anderson just uses the yes and nos to focus his statements onto a particular person. They don't seem to effect his readings in any real way.
[quote] When I get home, let's look at the very first reading given in the book.<hr></blockquote>
Never mind the first reading - read the whole book if you want to have a fair debate
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>Fascinating stuff, TJM, but nothing convincing.
Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, never mind. You are setting a higher standard of evidence than the experts in the field. You seem to reject anything that isn't an original manuscript. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions you declare to be irrelevant, biased, or fraudulent. By your reckoning, Aristotle never existed (or someone else forged his work) because we don't have a signed first-edition of Metaphysics.
I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but I've played this game before. There is absolutely nothing I can present that you will accept as valid evidence. I have summarized for you the best scholarship in the field of which I am aware, and you've rejected it all with one sweep of your hand. If I go looking for more, I'm quite certain you will summarily dismiss it, too. So, continuing this is pointless.
Just a couple comments before I go:
1) The Gospels (with the possible exception of John) are not first-hand accounts. No serious Bible scholar considers them to be these days. They differ from one another because each author had a specific audience in mind and wrote specifically to them. Someone who would have been old enough to remember Jesus would have been born ~20 AD. He would only be in his late forties or early fifties by the time the first Gospels came out. There were plenty of original witnesses still around at that time, but the first disciples themselves were largely dead via execution by then. I can give you more detailed analyses of them if you wish.
2) The oldest manuscript of Tacitus' Annals 1-6 dates back to 850 AD; the oldest version of Annals 11-16 dates from about 1050. Check here: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm"; target="_blank">Tacitus and his manuscripts</a>.
<strong>OK, never mind. You are setting a higher standard of evidence than the experts in the field. You seem to reject anything that isn't an original manuscript. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions you declare to be irrelevant, biased, or fraudulent. By your reckoning, Aristotle never existed (or someone else forged his work) because we don't have a signed first-edition of Metaphysics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. While we've argued about the (non)existence of Jesus and other characters in the Bible, my arguments in response to your post were far from metaphysical, and not even theological.
Historical accounts need contemporary collaborative sources to carry any weight, and I've simply asked if anyone can provide any. It's not meant to force you, or anyone else, to fight to defend your theological beliefs. I'm genuinely interested in the subject. I've stated it's my belief that Jesus was a fictional character, and would be intrigued to be handed information to prove my beliefs wrong.
I'm certainly not setting a higher standard of evidence than would be expected by historians.
[quote]<strong>I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but I've played this game before. There is absolutely nothing I can present that you will accept as valid evidence. I have summarized for you the best scholarship in the field of which I am aware, and you've rejected it all with one sweep of your hand. If I go looking for more, I'm quite certain you will summarily dismiss it, too. So, continuing this is pointless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, no need to be so defensive. I'm not attacking your beliefs, merely asking assistance in defining my own. And yes I have rejected it with one sweep of my hand, but not before researching every little bit of evidence you provided. If you do the same, you'll find that "the best scholarship" is divided on exactly the same grounds as us - faith. I'm not looking to be persuaded that my faith is misplaced, just facts that qualify as valid evidence. Outside of theological discussions, the evidence you present from the testaments and Tacitus' Annules would be summarily dismissed by any respectable scholar.
If you like, I'll collate some of the information I've used to summarily dismiss the evidence you've presented - evidence from respected scholars.
[quote]<strong>Just a couple comments before I go:
1) The Gospels (with the possible exception of John) are not first-hand accounts. No serious Bible scholar considers them to be these days. They differ from one another because each author had a specific audience in mind and wrote specifically to them. Someone who would have been old enough to remember Jesus would have been born ~20 AD. He would only be in his late forties or early fifties by the time the first Gospels came out. There were plenty of original witnesses still around at that time, but the first disciples themselves were largely dead via execution by then. I can give you more detailed analyses of them if you wish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No need, I've done some reading. It still doesn't help explain why the accounts are seemingly based on the same source material, especially as you suggest the accounts are not first hand.
[quote]<strong>2) The oldest manuscript of Tacitus' Annals 1-6 dates back to 850 AD; the oldest version of Annals 11-16 dates from about 1050. Check here: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm"; target="_blank">Tacitus and his manuscripts</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
*cough* (I think that was Paul (1Cor 13), not Jesus) </strong><hr></blockquote>
DOH! <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> Consider myself slapped for not checking my sources. I had a feeling I was gonna get into trouble when I did not look it up...
<strong>A quick question for Belle from The Blue Meanie: by "subject" do you mean spirituality of any kind or just Christianity?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any kind. I admit I have a particular interest in Christianity because most theological discussions I've had have been on that subject, and I spent a lot of my spare time over three years of university assisting in a research project relating to Biblical archaeology.
Well, let's go back to what you've written, I'll note what it says to me:
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence, there are any such things as gods, ghosts, werewolves, and that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I consider the fact that one of the world's great religions grew up around him in the 1st century (within a decade or two when he was supposedly around) pretty good evidence in and of itself. Do you doubt the existence of a real Confuscious? Buddha? Zoroaster? Mohammed? Do you assume the founders of all religions were fictitious, or just Jesus?
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
The trouble I have is that the existing evidence comes from the writings of man, and from that alone. There is no corroboratory evidence in nature.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you trust nothing that anybody has ever written? Do you believe all history was invented, or just the parts that make you uncomfortable? If you did not see it with your own eyes did it ever happen? I find this a rather odd stance of yours.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
The reports of the existence of Jesus come from one original source. One. One single source was created by man. And that source has been hugely corrupted over time.
But Jesus was supposedly in our world - within our extent of knowledge. And yet we have one source. No corroboratory evidence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And which ONE source was that? The NT consists of a couple dozen different books and letters, written by different people in different places at different times. They are all related to the same theme, yes, but I find it mind-boggling that you assume that they are all completely fiction. They were eventually gathered together in one binding, but they are still individual documents. Lumping them all together as ONE source is not reasonable.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Josephus' writings are generally agreed to be dated sometime in the late first century, round about the same time most agree the first texts upon which the modern bible is based were written. Neither are contemporary.
There also seems to be a huge amount of skepticism about the authenticity of Josephus' account, specifically that it's based on other writings, and not an independent account of events.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rejecting corroboratory evidence for no particularly good reason I can see. Some of what Josephus wrote has proven unreliable, true. Most of it, however, is quite accurate. Why is it that specifically choose to declare the parts about Jesus unbelievable? What evidence do you have that he was making it up?
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I've said before that I can't allow myself to believe in something without irrefutable evidence.
I'm happy to be open to possibilities without irrefutable proof, but I cannot understand people who are willing to put so much belief into something that has so little proof.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you know darn well that irrefutable proof is impossible - leaving safely in your world of denial forever. For most people it seems there is plenty of proof.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
As for the existence of Socrates, who knows? Perhaps he didn't exist, and the words attributed to him were in fact written by others, intended to offer some guidance. And we now hold those words in high regard. And the name Socrates. But maybe he never lived?
Substitute "Socrates" with "Jesus". It's not an argument that you should not have your faith, just that you've shown why we would perhaps be gullible to simply assume that Jesus was a real person, and that the words of the modern bible are maybe merely a collection of allegories.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is starting to sound like paranoia. You seem unable to believe or trust anything about anybody anywhere at any time. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I currently don't believe Jesus existed. In the future, perhaps evidence will be found that will persuade me that he did. It's one eventuality that I will admit could happen.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And based on what I've seen so far, there's about as much chance of pigs flying as that.
Quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. Not only is the NT multiple texts, there are other sources. You've simply rejected them all. It's easy to have no evidence if you refuse to allow for its existence.
Quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Re: Josephus
But his words are an adaptation of someone else's. His value as a historian is questionable as he offers nothing of value from contemporary records, merely repeats the words of another.
Doesn't matter. It's a collection of texts from authors who also cannot be proven to have existed, and how do you know they were written by those they are credited to?
Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, rejecting all sources that don't fit your preconceived notions. No matter what anyone offers, you find a reason why it is worthless - even though it is deemed quite valuble to scholars other than you. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That sounds almost like a statement of faith. It's also not true. However, if your fundamental assumption is that everything you don't like is a fraud, then I guess it's easier to swallow.
Quote:
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
If you had Roman records of Tiberius' reign that mentioned Jesus, then you'd have some evidence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No we wouldn't. You'd find a reason to declare it invalid.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
What are your sources for this potted history? I've not said the New Testament should be excluded from consideration, just that their value as historical records is very questionable.
The over-abundance of texts to support biblical events was mostly generated centuries after the events, and from very, very limited source material.
We're still digging contemporary stuff out the ground with Caesar's name upon it.
Can you point me towards some of the non-biblical texts and archeological finds supporting the events of the New Testament?
</strong>
How about archeological evidence that a shrine to St. Peter was built in the late 1st century over a grave that dates to around 70 AD. It happens to be directly under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.<a href="http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/96/Curran96.html"; target="_blank">Excavations of St. Peter's tomb</a>. Whether or not Petey's bones are/were ever there, obviously people believed they were back in the 1st century. But I'm sure you'll find a way to reject it, too. Or perhaps an ossuary found in Jerusalem dating to the 1st century with the name "Caiaphas" on it? And an inscripition including the name of Pontius Pilate? <a href="http://www.imj.org.il/christian/english/tachl11.html"; target="_blank">Israel Museum</a>. Although I'm sure you'll find a reason why it's all irrelevant. Those were obviously fictional characters... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Though Tacitus' accounts are dated so early, the earliest source - the earliest manuscript of his "Annales" dates from the 11th century. The date the original text is assigned to makes it a historical account, let alone the fact the only "original" source we have was created more than a millennium later. It's also the only account of the fire of Rome that has any mention of "Christians".
</strong>
OK. Now Tacitus doesn't count either. He's only a highly respected Roman historian. Obviously somebody paid him to mention Christians or somebody else must have inserted it later. It couldn't possibly be actually valid, could it? No, we can't have that.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.
</strong>
Um, that comment is just plain foolish. There are dozens of references to the letters of Paul and the Gospels from writings dated to the early 2nd century. Oh, wait, I forgot. The guys writing them were Christians. They must all be lying. We can't accept anything written by a Christian. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Historical accounts need contemporary collaborative sources to carry any weight, and I've simply asked if anyone can provide any. It's not meant to force you, or anyone else, to fight to defend your theological beliefs. I'm genuinely interested in the subject. I've stated it's my belief that Jesus was a fictional character, and would be intrigued to be handed information to prove my beliefs wrong.
</strong>
This has nothing to do with theology. It's all about intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. Numerous posters have brought you very good evidence repeatedly - and you simply dismiss it. Hence, I sincerely believe that there is something deeper going on that forces you to reject perfectly valid evidence for the historical reality of Jesus. Each individual piece may not mean much, but their total weight is huge. The conspiracy theories that have to be spun to make it all fraudulent are ludicrous.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Like I said, no need to be so defensive. I'm not attacking your beliefs, merely asking assistance in defining my own. And yes I have rejected it with one sweep of my hand, but not before researching every little bit of evidence you provided. If you do the same, you'll find that "the best scholarship" is divided on exactly the same grounds as us - faith. I'm not looking to be persuaded that my faith is misplaced, just facts that qualify as valid evidence. Outside of theological discussions, the evidence you present from the testaments and Tacitus' Annules would be summarily dismissed by any respectable scholar.
</strong>
I have a hard time swallowing that "any respectible scholar" would summarily dismiss Tacitus. Have you any evidence that the bulk of it is fabricated and thus of no value? And I am not being defensive - I'm being frustrated. You pretend you are an honest seeker, yet your mind is in fact completely closed.
I don't expect you to respond to any or all of this. It's just my reflections on the stuff you've written. Of course, you can't prove I exist, either, so none of it means anything anyway. My statements are not meant to be insulting - they're the honest expression of what I was thinking when I read what you wrote.
So I reiterate what I said earlier. You have shown repeatedly that you will not accept the validity of any evidence presented by anyone. My suspicion is that the problem is not with the evidence.
I apologize for the length of this. I've been waiting for a solvent to strip off a reaction and it's taking for-freaking-ever. So I've been killing time writing this. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]<strong>I consider the fact that one of the world's great religions grew up around him in the 1st century (within a decade or two when he was supposedly around) pretty good evidence in and of itself. Do you doubt the existence of a real Confuscious? Buddha? Zoroaster? Mohammed? Do you assume the founders of all religions were fictitious, or just Jesus?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Interesting. I was going to post a request that those discussing the issues here read the texts from other faiths and studied the supporting historical and archaelogical evidence. What's your take on Mohammed?
[quote]<strong>So you trust nothing that anybody has ever written? Do you believe all history was invented, or just the parts that make you uncomfortable? If you did not see it with your own eyes did it ever happen? I find this a rather odd stance of yours.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not. As I've repeatedly stated, valid historical accounts need supporting evidence, evidence that is contemporary and independently collaborative. If the discussion isn't merely theological, this forms the basis of any accurate history. We have no, repeat no contemporary evidence to validate the events of the New Testament, and only very limited support for many of the other texts.
It seems you're now taking the approach NoahJ started on, then rejected - suggesting I'm in some way "uncomfortable" and have ulterior motives for being skeptical. Care to share what you feel my issue may be?
[quote]<strong>And which ONE source was that? The NT consists of a couple dozen different books and letters, written by different people in different places at different times. They are all related to the same theme, yes, but I find it mind-boggling that you assume that they are all completely fiction. They were eventually gathered together in one binding, but they are still individual documents. Lumping them all together as ONE source is not reasonable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As you say, it's a collection of stories written by different people over many, many years. But that collection is the only source of material we have. Events and accounts cannot be independently verified, and as no evidence of previous distinct accounts exists, it's the only source we have.
[quote]<strong>Rejecting corroboratory evidence for no particularly good reason I can see. Some of what Josephus wrote has proven unreliable, true. Most of it, however, is quite accurate. Why is it that specifically choose to declare the parts about Jesus unbelievable? What evidence do you have that he was making it up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never once said he was making it up, I just stated the weight of evidence seems to suggest the passage was adapted from an earlier text, which was also the basis of other accounts of the time. His information therefore seems likely to be secondhand at best. There's also credible evidence that the tone and language of the passage show it's been adapted from its original form. Isn't it also surprising that given Josephus seems to think Jesus worthy of mention, he mentions him merely in passing? One hypothesis is that because the only source Josephus had for this passage was that earlier text.
Josephus' passage is by no means an eye-witness account, nor an independent and supported historical account. Instead of saying I'm rejecting it for no good reason, how about coming up with some reasons why it should be considered a valid piece of corroboratory evidence?
[quote]<strong>And you know darn well that irrefutable proof is impossible - leaving safely in your world of denial forever. For most people it seems there is plenty of proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here we are again. I'm in denial, now? And why am I safe in that denial? Why do you feel that irrefutable proof is impossible, TJM? There are many, many archaeological digs which continue despite the trouble in the Middle East which are hoping to discover new information about early Christianity and the fate of the Jews.
[quote]<strong>This is starting to sound like paranoia. You seem unable to believe or trust anything about anybody anywhere at any time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good grief. Have you actually read my posts? I'm not just talking out my ass when I speak of collaborative evidence and supporting independent accounts. It's something historians and archaeologists tend to rely on. Perhaps they're wrong to be so skeptical?
[quote]<strong>And based on what I've seen so far, there's about as much chance of pigs flying as that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't believe there's a possibility we may find earlier texts? That archaeological digs may turn up new evidence? That's terribly narrow-minded. Or are you suggesting I'll just dismiss any new evidence? Instead of accusing me of being dismissive of the supporting evidence, how about defending its value?
[quote]<strong>Not true. Not only is the NT multiple texts, there are other sources. You've simply rejected them all. It's easy to have no evidence if you refuse to allow for its existence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above. None of the multiple accounts can be independently verified. It's all based on supposition, i.e. you have to have faith to fill in what's missing in history. It's not rejection, TJM, it's asking for collaboration.
[quote]<strong>Again, rejecting all sources that don't fit your preconceived notions. No matter what anyone offers, you find a reason why it is worthless - even though it is deemed quite valuble to scholars other than you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are my preconceived notions, TJM? Once again, instead of defense with accusations of bias, why don't you provide some of the arguments supporting the validity of Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts? And there are very, very few scholars who'd argue Josephus' account is independent verification of events chronicled in the New Testament. Because I'm by no means an expert in the field, nor an historian, I rely on these "scholars" to fill in the details. It's those "scholars" who've led me to my opinion that Josephus' account isn't useful as corroboration.
[quote]<strong>That sounds almost like a statement of faith. It's also not true. However, if your fundamental assumption is that everything you don't like is a fraud, then I guess it's easier to swallow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah ha, now we're getting to my ulterior motives. I don't "like" Christianity, so I'm rejecting any evidence that suggests it has a grounding, right? You're incredibly judgmental. There is no statement of faith there at all, just an acknowledgment that there are no contemporary accounts of events. And if you feel it's an untruth, all I can do is apologize if my timescale seems exaggerated.
[quote]<strong>No we wouldn't. You'd find a reason to declare it invalid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because I'm in denial? It would be contemporary corrobatory evidence, which is all I'm asking for. I find it amusing that you choose to judge my personal motives for disbelieving rather than providing reasoned argument. You make my atheism sound like a mental issue, TJM. Is that your judgment?
[quote]<strong>How about archeological evidence that a shrine to St. Peter was built in the late 1st century over a grave that dates to around 70 AD. It happens to be directly under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.Excavations of St. Peter's tomb. Whether or not Petey's bones are/were ever there, obviously people believed they were back in the 1st century. But I'm sure you'll find a way to reject it, too. Or perhaps an ossuary found in Jerusalem dating to the 1st century with the name "Caiaphas" on it? And an inscripition including the name of Pontius Pilate? Israel Museum. Although I'm sure you'll find a reason why it's all irrelevant. Those were obviously fictional characters...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no archaeological evidence that the shrine unearthed below the Basilica was the burial place of St. Peter. Constantine apparently erected a basilica in memory of St. Peter on that site in the 4th century, but where's the evidence that the basilica was built on the site of Peter's grave? You're making assumptions based on your faith, not on archaeology. The evidence is circumstantial at best, and even the article you reference is incredibly skeptical, TJM.
Why should I reject the evidence of Joseph Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate? I've already said at least once this provides evidence that the texts of the New Testament contain contemporary accuracies. Does evidence that Pontius Pilate was a real man prove that Jesus was also real? There are no direct links. Charles Dickens' novels are also based upon a foundation of historical accuracy, is that proof that Oliver Twist was a real person?
[quote]<strong>OK. Now Tacitus doesn't count either. He's only a highly respected Roman historian. Obviously somebody paid him to mention Christians or somebody else must have inserted it later. It couldn't possibly be actually valid, could it? No, we can't have that.<hr></blockquote></strong>
You're now being dismissive, TJM. The earliest records of Tacitus' account is dated in the 11th century. His is the only account of the burning of Rome which mentions Christians. Two facts, based on our current knowledge. I'm not dismissing his account out of hand, just questioning its value. Come on TJM, you can do better. Tell me why we should trust this account? Tell me why you believe it's valid?
[quote]qb]Um, that comment is just plain foolish. There are dozens of references to the letters of Paul and the Gospels from writings dated to the early 2nd century. Oh, wait, I forgot. The guys writing them were Christians. They must all be lying. We can't accept anything written by a Christian.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
Good stuff, now we're talking. Can you give me some links to the references, or books that I should read on the subject?
[quote]<strong>This has nothing to do with theology. It's all about intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. Numerous posters have brought you very good evidence repeatedly - and you simply dismiss it. Hence, I sincerely believe that there is something deeper going on that forces you to reject perfectly valid evidence for the historical reality of Jesus. Each individual piece may not mean much, but their total weight is huge. The conspiracy theories that have to be spun to make it all fraudulent are ludicrous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is ridiculous, TJM. I have not simply dismissed evidence brought by other posters, I've cited evidence to question the validity of that evidence. However, nobody has countered that evidence, and you most certainly aren't. You're constantly questioning my grounding and my reasons for disbelief rather than providing rebuttals. So how about it? If you want to contribute to the discussion, argue the evidence, not my convictions.
Are the "conspiracy theories that have to be spun" more ludicrous than the unsupported assumptions you have to make, TJM?
[quote]<strong>I have a hard time swallowing that "any respectible scholar" would summarily dismiss Tacitus. Have you any evidence that the bulk of it is fabricated and thus of no value? And I am not being defensive - I'm being frustrated. You pretend you are an honest seeker, yet your mind is in fact completely closed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, questioning my motives. With respect to the supporting evidence for the New Testament, I believe my claim is more than reasonable. Go and read the books on the subject, see how many place a value on Tacitus' account of these events.
[quote]<strong>So I reiterate what I said earlier. You have shown repeatedly that you will not accept the validity of any evidence presented by anyone. My suspicion is that the problem is not with the evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find this insulting. I've repeatedly questioned the validity of evidence, and nobody - including you - have defended the evidence, you've just questioned my motivations.
Tell me why we should trust Tacitus' history of Biblical events, and Josephus' accounts.
Your argument that my objections are not worth discussing is based solely on your belief that my mind is closed, and not on the evidence presented. You're judging me based upon your beliefs, TJM, not the facts based on reason. If you have time, write another post that gives us some reasons to believe the evidence rather than an analysis of my atheism.
<strong>I've stated it's my belief that Jesus was a fictional character, and would be intrigued to be handed information to prove my beliefs wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>I still think you're epistemologically off base by stating that you believe Jesus is fiction. There's a difference between withholding your belief due to a lack of evidence, and affirmatively disbelieving.
But I tried this a few pages ago, and didn't get anywhere...
Never mind the first reading - read the whole book if you want to have a fair debate
</strong>
I only have so much time, but I will try.
<strong>But in the case of Anderson, we are talking about very specific details - names, personal information, methods of death, even things, as mentioned, not known to the subject at the time of the reading - all produced in about an hour.</strong>
They are not that specific. They are generic, then they start to become specific based on the questions he asks and the answers he receives. The other parts of the readings are more difficult to decipher in print, and I'll need to see it to understand how he does it.
If I can't, well, if someone who understands these sorts of things can't figure it out, then yes, than it'll be very interesting indeed.
<strong>Also, if you think about it, if Anderson was really trying to work things out through a process of elimination, there would be far more nos than yeses in his readings.</strong>
That depends on the questions asked. And questions can be couched to be viewed as a question or a statement. By formulating questions thus, it makes him look better.
In my game, it was just a binary tree structure of questions. Am I living? No. Means I'm not an animal or human. Am I man-made? Yes. Am I on the beach? Yes. Am I made out of wood? yes. It's not that hard, and it's not that many question. It's amazing how many questions can be asked in a minute. You don't guess the detail. You frame the questions to reduce your possibilities.
<strong>But most of the the readings quoted seem to be little more than a string of "yes"es. Can you imagine just trying to work out the name of someone's deceased friend or relative through a series of yes or no answers?</strong>
That would be difficult, but Anderson doesn't do that. It a room reading, he starts off with a question like, "I feel a John, anyone familiar with a John?" In a room of 20 people, the odds are pretty good that someone knows a person with that name. John Edward is even worse and starts off with syllables sometimes!
In a one-on-one reading, he doesn't dare start off so specifically. Let's look at the first reading with the John and Barbara Licata (JL and BL):
Introductions are made, and George Anderson (GA) begins.
GA: I see you surrounded in black. A death, a transition, so to speak, a going to the other side.
The Licatas nod.
99.9% of GA's subjects go to him about deaths and people on other other side.
GA: A young person.
BL: Yes
A statement that can be viewed as a question. In fact, BL answers as if it was a question. If GA was specific, he should have started off with "Your son". But in the beginning, he doesn't even specify gender but tries to narrow it down between old or young. A "Yes" would highly indicate a child of the Licatas.
GA: A very unpleasant sort of passing. A sudden form of passing.
BL: Yes.
Two different generic statements that can also be viewed as questions. I would surmise that the death of a young person is quite unpleasant and often sudden so it seems an obvious statement or question to ask. If he knew, he should have said that their son died in a car accident. The generic statements are often there for a reason. It's positive reinforcement.
GA: Does it have to do with the head at all? My head is pounding. It started to pound the minute you came into the room.
BL: Yes
A question. GA can start out with the head or the heart. A young person would have less problems with the heart, so he starts off with the head. If the person was old, he would start off with the heart. The other statements are fluff. If BL says, no, he can divert into a different tack.
GA: This person is related to you?
BL: Yes
A question. He should have said your son, David. The Licatas are traumatized and are going to a medium for serious reasons. A child is highly likely. Yet, he doesn't even ask the specific question of son or daughter.
GA: This person is very, very restless. I feel the person in the room. Just say "yes" or "no". Don't elaborate. Was it some sort of accident?
BL: Yes.
Fluff statements, and finally asks a question to determine whether it was an accident or a disease. He goes with accident based on it being a sudden and unpleasant death which he asked and found out earlier. A disease wouldn't be sudden very often. If BL answers no, GA would simply ask another question to help determine cause of death.
GA: Was there something strange about it?
BL: Yes
GA: Because I'm getting question marks after the word accident.
BL: May I elaborate.
The last is a the classic retelling of something he just asked and got an answer to. Asking if it was strange is question that is generic enough to fit any accident. When is an accident ever "regular" to the loved ones involved? If he was psychic, he should have said "I see question marks after accident. There was something strange about it." But here, he repeats to reinforce his powers to his subjects.
GA: I'd prefer if you didn't. If they want to, they'll come back or will use another approach to clear it for me.
GA: Is this person a child to you?
BL: Yes.
GA: Is there any other physical injury beside the head? Anything in the back at all?
BL: I don't know
I would have asked the child question way earlier, but GA is more experienced and knows how to work the room. He already knows the young person is related to them because he asked earlier, and then asks another generic relationship question. The second set of questions is a fishing expedition to determine what sort of accident it was. If there was a back injury, the odds of it being a car accident increases. If not, it could be a fall.
GA: I'm getting pain in the back as well. Just liston to what I'm saying. Was there a vehicle involved?
BL: Yes.
GA: Okay. I just see a vehicle in front of me. There's a vehicle involved. Is this a son?
BL: Yes.
The first set of statements are again fishing attempts to determine what type of accident it was. Finally asks if it was a car accident. Notice he uses the generic vehicle, which is an umbrella for trucks, motorcycles, cars, even bicycles. If BL says no, GA can ask another question to determine what sort of accident. But BL says yes. GA then replies with more positive reinforcement fluff, and plays the statistics. Young males overwhelmingly are the victims of fatal auto accidents, if not any vehicle accident in general. BL says yes, and GA already has a good idea of how it could have happened, and fishes some more later.
GA: Okay, then it's him I'm speaking with. Was someone with him when this occurred?
BL: Yes
GA: Was a girl with him?
BL: No
GA: Did you ever lose any other children.
BL: No
GA: Do you know somebody in the family that lost a young girl?
BL: No
GA: Do you know a young girl that passed on?
BL: Yes
GA: Okay. Because that's what's confusing me.
BL: Yes
GA: Okay. Did this girl pass on before him?
BL: Yes
GA: Because she was the one who met him when he came over to the other side, and she's standing there with him and that's why I was thrown off for a second... She passed on young as well.
BL: Yes.
[i]GA first asks if there was someone with him. BL says yes. GA gambles 50-50 and asks whether it was a girl, perhaps thinking it was a girlfriend that could have died with him. BL says no. GA asks a more generic question trying to find someone to fit his young girl question and tries to ask if BL has lost any other children. BL says no. GA then asks an even more generic question and asks if anyone in the Licata family (perhaps even friends of the family in BL's mind) has lost a young girl. BL says no. GA than asks the ultimate generic question, whether they knew of any young girl that has died. BL says yes. GA covers himself by saying he was confused. Than asks if the young girl passed before him. BL says yes. Then GA pulls the positive reinforcement routine with the young girl meeting the Licatas son on the other side, and asks a redundant question about the girl passing on young as well. Redundant because he asked 4 questions about the death of young girl.
I don't see one specific question there. Later on in the reading, GA comes up with some interesting statements that I couldn't figure out. Perhaps seeing the reading in person would have made it easier to understand how he did it. The data presented in the book wasn't to my satisfaction, so you understand my skepticism?
<strong>Perhaps Anderson just uses the yes and nos to focus his statements onto a particular person. They don't seem to effect his readings in any real way.</strong>
If he was a psychic medium, he should not need any input from his subjects. He shouldn't even have to ask questions. But every medium does this. The questions are asked because they are fishing for information and only "yes" or "no" are given because they are generic and are enough input to help the medium figure out what happened.
First of all, is Carl Sagan's statement that "Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm not talking about the divinity of Jesus, or His miracles, or anything else "supernatural" about Him. Claiming that "Jesus never existed" is quite an extraordinary claim. You present no evidence to support your contention, only that you don't like any of the evidence out there. I find that problematic.
I question your motives primarily because you seem to be questioning mine, and that of all Christians anywhere at any time. You seem to have assumed, a priori, that the entire New Testament is fraudulent and without merit. You have apparently lumped all 27 books together as though they were one document written by some joker hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived. There is no tenable evidence anywhere to support such a position, yet you claim it is perfectly reasonable. It is not the position of an open-minded, neutral investigator. There is much in the NT that has been verified as historically accurate. The books of the NT are very useful (but not infallible) as references to the goings-on in the early 1st century. Classical historians cite various NT sources all the time in their research - but they are apparently not good enough for you.
Now, to the extra-biblical evidence:
First and foremost for me is "the dog that didn't bark." If Christianity is a complete fraud and Jesus never existed, why is it that none of the people around at the time cried "Foul!"? Those who were in a position to know that it was a fraud (and had a vested interest in it being a fraud) said absolutely nothing. Rather, it seems that even the Christians' most vociferous opponents never questioned His existence. Now, if George Washington had never existed and his role in American history had been completely invented, don't you think someone would have mentioned it by the early 19th century? The early Christians created a powerful social movement that upset a good many people in positions of power. Why is there no claim (of which I am aware - perhaps you have one?) dating to the 1st or early 2nd century that Jesus never existed to try and discredit them?
Now the most direct and obvious corroboration of Jesus' existence comes from Josephus. He mentions Jesus twice, actually. It is the second reference that is actually more telling:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Ant. 20,200).
This passage is present in all extant forms of "Antiquities" (or so I'm told). It is standard Josephus style. It flows smoothly with the rest of the narrative. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it is a later Christian interpolation. In all Christian writing, James is referred to as "the brother of the (or our) Lord". That he is called the brother of Jesus suggests the writer is not a Christian. Without the reference to Jesus, the statement makes little sense - it is only by identifying him as the brother of Jesus that James has any significance at all. I am aware of no serious scholars anywhere who reject this as original Josephus. The few that do (that I have seen, anyway) display a very strong anti-Christian bias in all their writings, so I have a hard time accepting them as objective.
Now the passage above seems to assume that you know who Jesus was - i.e. that Josephus had discussed him earlier. The relevant earlier passage is:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.(Ant. 18,63-64)
Now this passage is generally agreed to be not completely original Josephus. It is accepted that there has been some sort of Christian interpolation or embellishment to this. It simply doesn't read like Josephus: a Pharisaic Jew of the day would hardly describe Jesus in such glowing terms. However, it seems to be built on a core of text that is from Josephus. Jesus is mentioned as having been killed by Pilate (a Christian would have blamed the Jews), and the description of "the tribe of Christians" seems more like Josephus as well. Since the later passage makes no sense without this one, it is very likely to the point of near certainty that Josephus originally referred to Jesus here. Exactly what the precise words were we'll probably never know (although some have tried reconstructions). Clearly, this passage is not as strong of evidence on its own as the Ant. 20,200 passage, but they are consistent with each other which reinforces both.
Now for Tacitus:
Therefore, in order to suppress the rumor, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, those persons who, hated for their crimes, were commonly called Christians. The founder of that name, Christus, had been put to death by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius
Now the importance of Tacitus is not so much in what he wrote, but the way he wrote it. He was a historian, but not in the modern sense - he's closer to what we would call a journalist today (although reporting on the past, not the present). His facts have generally checked out to be quite accurate, but he clearly has a point of view. He does a lot of moralizing and freely injects sarcastic, cynical, or sometimes sympathetic observations of his own. If nothing else, he "calls a spade a spade," as it were. Now, he refers to Pilate as the "procurator" rather than his correct title of "prefect". This suggests he didn't research this on his own through the Roman records (to which he had access), but was relying on the report of someone else - possibly the Christians themselves. The key, however, is that he obviously finds this credible. He was a well-educated, prominent, pagan Roman. He was well-acquainted with recent history (having written extensively about it by this time) and the general rumors and stories circulating about the realm. As of 109 AD, he found no reason to question the reality of the existence of Jesus. He makes no disparaging or snide remarks about any "so-called Jesus", he reports it straight up. His testimony would be hearsay in a court of law, but we're not in court. We're trying to find evidence - and his is pretty good. Not convincing in and of itself, but consistent with all other evidence.
There is one other piece of nonBiblical reference to Jesus I found just recently. It is a letter from one Mara bar Sarapion, a Jew in prison in Syria, written to his son about 73 AD (he appears to have been imprisoned as a result of the Jewish revolts of 69-72 AD). In it he states:
What did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on...
Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law which he has given
Now this does not mention Jesus by name, but I see no other conclusion from his description of "a wise king" whose death predated the destruction of Jerusalem, and who lives on because of "the new law which he has given." If you can come up with another possibility, let me know. In the mean time, here is another reference to Him by a nonChristian who apparently knew who Jesus was and what He was all about - who also seems to be the proper age to have witnessed Him personally.
An area with which I am only passingly familiar is the Jewish literature of the day. From what I understand, there are several writings which speak disparagingly of Christians and Jesus, but none that actually question His existence. I will continue to pursue this avenue.
Now, Belle, I don't really care if you "embrace Jesus" and convert to Christianity (well, actually I do, but it's not germane to this discussion ). I find the denial of His existence to be an untenable position. The burden of proof is clearly on those who choose to deny it. As I have read often in my research in this area (and ancient history in general - a hobby of mine), "The proper historical perspective is to accept documents as truthful until proven otherwise." The denial of Jesus' existence requires you to assume everyone is lying.
There is also more archaeological evidence of people and events of the NT, which we can get into if you like. I hope you find the arguments above satisfactory.
1) Tacitus is not the only historian who mentions the fire of Rome:<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-nero-rolfe.html"; target="_blank">Seutonius - De Vita Caesarum--Nero</a> (c. 110 AD) and a generation later:<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/diocassius-nero1.html"; target="_blank">Dio Cassius - Nero and the Great Fire</a>. The accounts differ significantly from each other, i.e. they're not just copying a common source. They don't mention the Christians, however.
[Edit: Correction: Seutonius does mention the Christians - just a brief line that they got blamed and persecuted for it.]
2. Pliny the Younger, ca. 110 AD to Emperor Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters. These two letters are the most famous, in which P. encounters Christianity for the first time.
Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
This isn't direct confirmation of the existence of Jesus, but belies the claim that Jesus is a myth invented hundreds of years later. In the early 2nd century (when Pliny was governor of Bythnia), there was a large group of people calling themselves Christians who were causing him trouble.
<strong>I still think you're epistemologically off base by stating that you believe Jesus is fiction. There's a difference between withholding your belief due to a lack of evidence, and affirmatively disbelieving.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not binary. You don't have to believe or disbelieve. You take the evidence presented and make a judgment. It's my personal belief that the available information isn't enough to prove his existence, and there is a great amount of information to the contrary. If you feel that I didn't give your posts the attention they deserved, then I apologize.
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>First of all, is Carl Sagan's statement that "Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm not talking about the divinity of Jesus, or His miracles, or anything else "supernatural" about Him. Claiming that "Jesus never existed" is quite an extraordinary claim. You present no evidence to support your contention, only that you don't like any of the evidence out there. I find that problematic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you think that the details in biblical texts (and we'll discount miracles and anything "supernatural" again) also include extraordinary claims? By your, sorry, Carl Sagan's hypothesis, the history presented by the bible also requires extraordinary evidence.
It's an odd thing about history and archaeology - a lack of evidence is as useful a tool as an abundance of it. I haven't wanted to discuss the evidence held within the texts themselves (Our prime source, and one which you've used on more than one occassion to argue your points) because it moves the discussion on to theological issues, and I wanted to try and remain grounded in available facts rather than ideals. I take it from your statement above that you'd rather not argue the more theological issues either? If you like, I'll cite evidence from biblical texts that make me believe it's highly fictitious, but I fear the thread will degenerate. I shall also not make mention of the early Christian church's approach to those who offered alternative views.
[quote]<strong>I question your motives primarily because you seem to be questioning mine, and that of all Christians anywhere at any time. You seem to have assumed, a priori, that the entire New Testament is fraudulent and without merit. You have apparently lumped all 27 books together as though they were one document written by some joker hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived. There is no tenable evidence anywhere to support such a position, yet you claim it is perfectly reasonable. It is not the position of an open-minded, neutral investigator. There is much in the NT that has been verified as historically accurate. The books of the NT are very useful (but not infallible) as references to the goings-on in the early 1st century. Classical historians cite various NT sources all the time in their research - but they are apparently not good enough for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have never questioned your motives. Not once. My worst crime, which I'll apologize for but not retract, is accusing you of filling in large gaps in fact with assumptions based on your faith. Nor have I directly questioned the beliefs of Christians, or ever suggested they're misguided. Since this discussion began, I've made it quite clear I'm discussing my own disbelief (The original point of the thread, albeit about the afterlife and not theism as a whole) and not the belief of Christians. I've never once suggested that the New Testament was written by one individual at one point in history some time later. I've argued that we have no proof that individual texts were written by those to whom they are attributed, that various accounts held therein are apparently based on the same source material, that all available accounts are historical, and that with a very, very small exception which we'll discuss below all, those accounts are attributed to Christians and have been compiled by Christians. This isn't questioning their honesty, but making the observation that other than our few exceptions, there are no independently corroboratory sources.
Historians will often cite events chronicled in biblical texts, because corroboratory evidence has been found in archaeology and independent contemporary sources. Historians have matched timelines of events across Jewish, Egyptian, Roman, and Greek texts and archaeology, and many match events as recorded in biblical texts (The movements of slaves, for example). Unfortunately, Jesus and the birth of Christianity is not one of them.
[quote]<strong>First and foremost for me is "the dog that didn't bark." If Christianity is a complete fraud and Jesus never existed, why is it that none of the people around at the time cried "Foul!"? Those who were in a position to know that it was a fraud (and had a vested interest in it being a fraud) said absolutely nothing. Rather, it seems that even the Christians' most vociferous opponents never questioned His existence. Now, if George Washington had never existed and his role in American history had been completely invented, don't you think someone would have mentioned it by the early 19th century? The early Christians created a powerful social movement that upset a good many people in positions of power. Why is there no claim (of which I am aware - perhaps you have one?) dating to the 1st or early 2nd century that Jesus never existed to try and discredit them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An interesting hypothesis, but your argument relies on there being a large Christian following very, very early in this history, and that said following had an impact which would draw both followers and doubters. Our supporting evidence comes from those same old biblical texts and the questionable sources below. It seems, given the available evidence, that rather than there being potentially "vociferous opponents" who were unquestioning, those who seem likely to have had an interest and recorded it (contemporary or near-history writers and historians) were completely unaware that Jesus ever existed: Plutarch, Apollonius, Judaeus, Dio, Justus, Seneca, Rufus... would you like me to name some more?
[quote]<strong>Now the most direct and obvious corroboration of Jesus' existence comes from Josephus. He mentions Jesus twice, actually. It is the second reference that is actually more telling:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Ant. 20,200).
This passage is present in all extant forms of "Antiquities" (or so I'm told). It is standard Josephus style. It flows smoothly with the rest of the narrative. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it is a later Christian interpolation. In all Christian writing, James is referred to as "the brother of the (or our) Lord". That he is called the brother of Jesus suggests the writer is not a Christian. Without the reference to Jesus, the statement makes little sense - it is only by identifying him as the brother of Jesus that James has any significance at all. I am aware of no serious scholars anywhere who reject this as original Josephus. The few that do (that I have seen, anyway) display a very strong anti-Christian bias in all their writings, so I have a hard time accepting them as objective.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"That he is called the brother of Jesus suggests the writer is not a Christian". Interesting, given Josephus' statement "[ton adelphon Iesou] tou legomenou Christou" is remarkably similar to that in Matthew 1:16 "ho legomenos Christos", repeated in John 4:25. It's also interesting that you reject opinions which have a "strong anti-Christian bias" as being unobjective whilst continually citing those with a strong Christian bias. Make up your mind - either accept and digest all the available evidence or understand that your opinion is also biased.
[quote]<strong>Now the passage above seems to assume that you know who Jesus was - i.e. that Josephus had discussed him earlier.[...]
Now this passage is generally agreed to be not completely original Josephus. It is accepted that there has been some sort of Christian interpolation or embellishment to this. It simply doesn't read like Josephus: a Pharisaic Jew of the day would hardly describe Jesus in such glowing terms. However, it seems to be built on a core of text that is from Josephus. Jesus is mentioned as having been killed by Pilate (a Christian would have blamed the Jews), and the description of "the tribe of Christians" seems more like Josephus as well. Since the later passage makes no sense without this one, it is very likely to the point of near certainty that Josephus originally referred to Jesus here. Exactly what the precise words were we'll probably never know (although some have tried reconstructions). Clearly, this passage is not as strong of evidence on its own as the Ant. 20,200 passage, but they are consistent with each other which reinforces both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it not just as valid to say it deconstructs both? We're agreed that there is something distinctly odd about this passage, and yet you use it as evidence to support the validity of the later passage? Now I realize that this isn't a criminal trial, but you're using evidence that has clearly been tampered with to support another piece of evidence. You genuinely assign this account so much value?
And once again I question the value of data that can only be dated to source as late as the 4th century, when Eusebius quotes the 20 passage, some centuries after the events apparently took place, and Josephus' orginal text was written.
Incidentally, this is the same Eusebius who admits to suppressing all that would be a disgrace to Christianity.
While I applaud you for pointing out some of the flaws in Tacitus' account of events, you miss out one intriguing point that I mentioned previously - that Tacitus' account is the only account of the burning of Rome that mentions Christians. The only account among many. The first subsequent account that mentions Christians is dated to the 4th century, and once again recorded from Serverus' texts by Eusebius. Even more interesting is the fact that subsequent accounts do not associate Christians with the burning of Rome, and given that it's reasonably likely those later historians would have read Tacitus' Annales, gives at least a very small suspicion that the reference to Christians wasn't in the original text.
[quote]<strong>[Interesting stuff about Bar Serapion deleted]
Now this does not mention Jesus by name, but I see no other conclusion from his description of "a wise king" whose death predated the destruction of Jerusalem, and who lives on because of "the new law which he has given." If you can come up with another possibility, let me know. In the mean time, here is another reference to Him by a nonChristian who apparently knew who Jesus was and what He was all about - who also seems to be the proper age to have witnessed Him personally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, here's one: How about if Bar Serapion's account wasn't about Jesus "the wise king" and the destruction of Jerusalem "their land", but events closer to the times of Socrates and Pythagoras when Nebuchadnezzar (a king) abolished the kingdom of the Jews, took them into slavery, and dispersed them across the lands surrounding Babylon? The fact that you "see no other conclusion" suggests to me that your accusations of my bias are unfair.
And quite how you can garner from this account that he may have "witnessed Him personally" is beyond my understanding.
[quote]<strong>An area with which I am only passingly familiar is the Jewish literature of the day. From what I understand, there are several writings which speak disparagingly of Christians and Jesus, but none that actually question His existence. I will continue to pursue this avenue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll be most interested to see what you find.
[quote]<strong>Now, Belle, I don't really care if you "embrace Jesus" and convert to Christianity (well, actually I do, but it's not germane to this discussion ). I find the denial of His existence to be an untenable position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intriguing.
[quote]<strong>The burden of proof is clearly on those who choose to deny it. As I have read often in my research in this area (and ancient history in general - a hobby of mine), "The proper historical perspective is to accept documents as truthful until proven otherwise." The denial of Jesus' existence requires you to assume everyone is lying.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. It's not an accusation of lying, of an untruth, just that they're accepting as fact that which cannot be proven. Of course, by the same this same treatment of documents which you apply, many people assumed the world was flat for a long, long time.
[quote]<strong>1) Tacitus is not the only historian who mentions the fire of Rome:Seutonius - De Vita Caesarum--Nero (c. 110 AD) and a generation later io Cassius - Nero and the Great Fire. The accounts differ significantly from each other, i.e. they're not just copying a common source. They don't mention the Christians, however.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, yes. I specifically stated that my arguments against Tacitus' account was that he was the only one to mention Christian involvement. I can offer you quite a few other accounts of the burning of Rome if you like, but it doesn't take the discussion anywhere relevant.
[quote]<strong>[Stuff about Pliny the Younger deleted]
This isn't direct confirmation of the existence of Jesus, but belies the claim that Jesus is a myth invented hundreds of years later. In the early 2nd century (when Pliny was governor of Bythnia), there was a large group of people calling themselves Christians who were causing him trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't claimed that "Jesus was a myth invented hundreds of years later". I believe he was a myth created contemporary with the events which supposedly occurred to further a cause, and that this myth has been adapted and corrupted with time.
Comments
<strong>We kind of got into this issue a few pages ago in this thread, but I'm glad you brought it up again. I personally believe a non-Heaven universe is, if anything, more consistent with making the world a better place. This is all there is, so why not try to make the best of it?
If there's an afterlife, getting there is really the goal. This life doesn't matter as much, compared to a universe without an afterlife.
But, it depends on how you get to heaven. If you get to heaven by doing good deeds, then fine. You have to help the homeless and the people with AIDS and be nice to everyone, and then you get to go to heaven.
But my understanding is that in most Christians' view, this is really not the way to get to heaven. You get to heaven by believing in God and Jesus. The good deeds may then follow, but if they don't, it's OK, because you're still going to heaven.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That may be their view, but only God knows for sure and Jesus did make a big deal about Faith Hope and Love, but the Most Excellent of these is Love...
<strong>We kind of got into this issue a few pages ago in this thread, but I'm glad you brought it up again. I personally believe a non-Heaven universe is, if anything, more consistent with making the world a better place. This is all there is, so why not try to make the best of it?
If there's an afterlife, getting there is really the goal. This life doesn't matter as much, compared to a universe without an afterlife.
But, it depends on how you get to heaven. If you get to heaven by doing good deeds, then fine. You have to help the homeless and the people with AIDS and be nice to everyone, and then you get to go to heaven.
But my understanding is that in most Christians' view, this is really not the way to get to heaven. You get to heaven by believing in God and Jesus. The good deeds may then follow, but if they don't, it's OK, because you're still going to heaven.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What I have found in my own life, the more I align myself with Jesus, the more I want to spend my life serving others. That was Jesus' ministry in a nutshell - we are called to be servants. Christianity is not a matter of "I'm saved so I don't have to care." It's more a matter of "I'm saved, and now I'm even more aware of how desperately miserable most people's lives are."
God's ideal for human society is for us all to live together with peace, freedom, and dignity. Part of my duty as a Christian is to help that come to pass. I have found that the more I serve others, the more joyful I become. The best part of being a Christian is the happiness it brings into my life right now. What comes later can wait. I have a job to do while I'm here.
<strong>
That may be their view, but only God knows for sure and Jesus did make a big deal about Faith Hope and Love, but the Most Excellent of these is Love...
*cough* (I think that was Paul (1Cor 13), not Jesus)
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>Now to Belle and the dating of the NT books:
The Gospels were the last books of the NT to be written. Mark is generally considered to be the first one written, sometime from 65-75 AD. 90% of Mark appears in Matthew verbatim, and about 75% appears in Luke verbatim, so it seems they had Mark as a source. Matt and Luke also share about 250 lines or so that are not found in Mark, so it is generally presumed there was another source, called "Q" (from German "quelle" = "source"), which was apparently a collection of sayings of Jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a point I tried to make earlier. The similarity in supposedly first hand accounts should arouse suspicion about the validity of the texts. The "Q" document is merely a fictional catchall for a weight of evidence that cannot be found.
[quote]<strong>The earliest book of the NT is 1 Thessalonians, generally dated to 50 AD. Tacitus writes of Nero's persecutions after the great fire in Rome of 64 AD of the "Chrestianoi" (Christians) who were blamed for it by Nero. So by the early 60s AD, there were enough Christians in Rome to form a group large enough to pick on - and who were distinguishing themselves from the Jews.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Though Tacitus' accounts are dated so early, the earliest source - the earliest manuscript of his "Annales" dates from the 11th century. The date the original text is assigned to makes it a historical account, let alone the fact the only "original" source we have was created more than a millennium later. It's also the only account of the fire of Rome that has any mention of "Christians".
[quote]<strong>Paul's letter to the Romans is dated to the winter of 57/58 AD (that's known pretty accurately), and he addresses a Roman Christian community that is apparently pretty sizable by then. He says he had been wishing to visit them "for many years" at that point. Additionally, Acts 18:1-3 says that when Paul got to Corinth for the first time (~50 AD) there were Jewish-Christian refugees from Rome there already. So the establishment of the Christian community in Rome can be plausibly dated to the mid-40s AD - only about 10 years after Jesus death and resurrection. I can dig out more details if you want them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
Err, I consider "yes" or "no" to be input. I know he states that his subjects should only answer yes or no. My contention is that his subjects shouldn't have to say anything at all, ie, give no input. The subject should sit there silent. The room should sit there silent.
I played this game a few weeks ago wherein a nametag with the name of something from the beach or ocean (lobster, surfer, starfish, etc.) was stickered on our backs. There was a group of about twenty of us. The object of the game was to find out what thing from the beach or ocean you were by asking questions to other members of the group. Only yes or no answers could be given. Everyone of us figured out what we were. It's not that hard.
When I get home, let's look at the very first reading given in the book.
<hr></blockquote>
I take your point - it is possible to guess single objects through a sequence of yes and no answers. But in the case of Anderson, we are talking about very specific details - names, personal information, methods of death, even things, as mentioned, not known to the subject at the time of the reading - all produced in about an hour. Also, if you think about it, if Anderson was really trying to work things out through a process of elimination, there would be far more nos than yeses in his readings. But most of the the readings quoted seem to be little more than a string of "yes"es. Can you imagine just trying to work out the name of someone's deceased friend or relative through a series of yes or no answers?
"Do you take the name Brad?" No
"Karen?" No
"Bill?" No
"Mike?" No
"Anna?" No
"Todd?" No
"Kate?" No
etc etc You'd be there all week! Instead what seems to happen is that Anderson either gets the names straight off or he gets it letter by letter. Imagine trying to guess a names ? of all the thousands of possible ones ? one letter at a time... And that's just the names. As you'll see if/ when you read the rest of the book, it doesn't stop there.
Perhaps Anderson just uses the yes and nos to focus his statements onto a particular person. They don't seem to effect his readings in any real way.
[quote] When I get home, let's look at the very first reading given in the book.<hr></blockquote>
Never mind the first reading - read the whole book if you want to have a fair debate
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
<strong>Fascinating stuff, TJM, but nothing convincing.
Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, never mind. You are setting a higher standard of evidence than the experts in the field. You seem to reject anything that isn't an original manuscript. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions you declare to be irrelevant, biased, or fraudulent. By your reckoning, Aristotle never existed (or someone else forged his work) because we don't have a signed first-edition of Metaphysics.
I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but I've played this game before. There is absolutely nothing I can present that you will accept as valid evidence. I have summarized for you the best scholarship in the field of which I am aware, and you've rejected it all with one sweep of your hand. If I go looking for more, I'm quite certain you will summarily dismiss it, too. So, continuing this is pointless.
Just a couple comments before I go:
1) The Gospels (with the possible exception of John) are not first-hand accounts. No serious Bible scholar considers them to be these days. They differ from one another because each author had a specific audience in mind and wrote specifically to them. Someone who would have been old enough to remember Jesus would have been born ~20 AD. He would only be in his late forties or early fifties by the time the first Gospels came out. There were plenty of original witnesses still around at that time, but the first disciples themselves were largely dead via execution by then. I can give you more detailed analyses of them if you wish.
2) The oldest manuscript of Tacitus' Annals 1-6 dates back to 850 AD; the oldest version of Annals 11-16 dates from about 1050. Check here: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm"; target="_blank">Tacitus and his manuscripts</a>.
<strong>OK, never mind. You are setting a higher standard of evidence than the experts in the field. You seem to reject anything that isn't an original manuscript. Anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions you declare to be irrelevant, biased, or fraudulent. By your reckoning, Aristotle never existed (or someone else forged his work) because we don't have a signed first-edition of Metaphysics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. While we've argued about the (non)existence of Jesus and other characters in the Bible, my arguments in response to your post were far from metaphysical, and not even theological.
Historical accounts need contemporary collaborative sources to carry any weight, and I've simply asked if anyone can provide any. It's not meant to force you, or anyone else, to fight to defend your theological beliefs. I'm genuinely interested in the subject. I've stated it's my belief that Jesus was a fictional character, and would be intrigued to be handed information to prove my beliefs wrong.
I'm certainly not setting a higher standard of evidence than would be expected by historians.
[quote]<strong>I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but I've played this game before. There is absolutely nothing I can present that you will accept as valid evidence. I have summarized for you the best scholarship in the field of which I am aware, and you've rejected it all with one sweep of your hand. If I go looking for more, I'm quite certain you will summarily dismiss it, too. So, continuing this is pointless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, no need to be so defensive. I'm not attacking your beliefs, merely asking assistance in defining my own. And yes I have rejected it with one sweep of my hand, but not before researching every little bit of evidence you provided. If you do the same, you'll find that "the best scholarship" is divided on exactly the same grounds as us - faith. I'm not looking to be persuaded that my faith is misplaced, just facts that qualify as valid evidence. Outside of theological discussions, the evidence you present from the testaments and Tacitus' Annules would be summarily dismissed by any respectable scholar.
If you like, I'll collate some of the information I've used to summarily dismiss the evidence you've presented - evidence from respected scholars.
[quote]<strong>Just a couple comments before I go:
1) The Gospels (with the possible exception of John) are not first-hand accounts. No serious Bible scholar considers them to be these days. They differ from one another because each author had a specific audience in mind and wrote specifically to them. Someone who would have been old enough to remember Jesus would have been born ~20 AD. He would only be in his late forties or early fifties by the time the first Gospels came out. There were plenty of original witnesses still around at that time, but the first disciples themselves were largely dead via execution by then. I can give you more detailed analyses of them if you wish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No need, I've done some reading. It still doesn't help explain why the accounts are seemingly based on the same source material, especially as you suggest the accounts are not first hand.
[quote]<strong>2) The oldest manuscript of Tacitus' Annals 1-6 dates back to 850 AD; the oldest version of Annals 11-16 dates from about 1050. Check here: <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/index.htm"; target="_blank">Tacitus and his manuscripts</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My apologies. Thank you for the correction.
[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
A quick question for Belle from The Blue Meanie: by "subject" do you mean spirituality of any kind or just Christianity?
<strong>
*cough* (I think that was Paul (1Cor 13), not Jesus)
DOH! <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> Consider myself slapped for not checking my sources. I had a feeling I was gonna get into trouble when I did not look it up...
<strong>A quick question for Belle from The Blue Meanie: by "subject" do you mean spirituality of any kind or just Christianity?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Any kind. I admit I have a particular interest in Christianity because most theological discussions I've had have been on that subject, and I spent a lot of my spare time over three years of university assisting in a research project relating to Biblical archaeology.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I don't believe, given the weight of evidence, there are any such things as gods, ghosts, werewolves, and that Jesus existed. Why? Because there is very little evidence to suggest this is so, and certainly no proof.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I consider the fact that one of the world's great religions grew up around him in the 1st century (within a decade or two when he was supposedly around) pretty good evidence in and of itself. Do you doubt the existence of a real Confuscious? Buddha? Zoroaster? Mohammed? Do you assume the founders of all religions were fictitious, or just Jesus?
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
The trouble I have is that the existing evidence comes from the writings of man, and from that alone. There is no corroboratory evidence in nature.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you trust nothing that anybody has ever written? Do you believe all history was invented, or just the parts that make you uncomfortable? If you did not see it with your own eyes did it ever happen? I find this a rather odd stance of yours.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
The reports of the existence of Jesus come from one original source. One. One single source was created by man. And that source has been hugely corrupted over time.
But Jesus was supposedly in our world - within our extent of knowledge. And yet we have one source. No corroboratory evidence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And which ONE source was that? The NT consists of a couple dozen different books and letters, written by different people in different places at different times. They are all related to the same theme, yes, but I find it mind-boggling that you assume that they are all completely fiction. They were eventually gathered together in one binding, but they are still individual documents. Lumping them all together as ONE source is not reasonable.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Josephus' writings are generally agreed to be dated sometime in the late first century, round about the same time most agree the first texts upon which the modern bible is based were written. Neither are contemporary.
There also seems to be a huge amount of skepticism about the authenticity of Josephus' account, specifically that it's based on other writings, and not an independent account of events.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rejecting corroboratory evidence for no particularly good reason I can see. Some of what Josephus wrote has proven unreliable, true. Most of it, however, is quite accurate. Why is it that specifically choose to declare the parts about Jesus unbelievable? What evidence do you have that he was making it up?
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I've said before that I can't allow myself to believe in something without irrefutable evidence.
I'm happy to be open to possibilities without irrefutable proof, but I cannot understand people who are willing to put so much belief into something that has so little proof.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you know darn well that irrefutable proof is impossible - leaving safely in your world of denial forever. For most people it seems there is plenty of proof.
[quote]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
As for the existence of Socrates, who knows? Perhaps he didn't exist, and the words attributed to him were in fact written by others, intended to offer some guidance. And we now hold those words in high regard. And the name Socrates. But maybe he never lived?
Substitute "Socrates" with "Jesus". It's not an argument that you should not have your faith, just that you've shown why we would perhaps be gullible to simply assume that Jesus was a real person, and that the words of the modern bible are maybe merely a collection of allegories.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is starting to sound like paranoia. You seem unable to believe or trust anything about anybody anywhere at any time. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
I currently don't believe Jesus existed. In the future, perhaps evidence will be found that will persuade me that he did. It's one eventuality that I will admit could happen.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And based on what I've seen so far, there's about as much chance of pigs flying as that.
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
A tiny amount of evidence from a single source without corroboration (contemporary or historical) is worthless.
Within our current knowledge, Jesus is a character in a single text. Why should we put so much faith into his existence?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not true. Not only is the NT multiple texts, there are other sources. You've simply rejected them all. It's easy to have no evidence if you refuse to allow for its existence.
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Re: Josephus
But his words are an adaptation of someone else's. His value as a historian is questionable as he offers nothing of value from contemporary records, merely repeats the words of another.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that controversy is addressed in the link I provided.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, and that alone is enough to discredit his value.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's back up here a minute. The New Testament is a single text today but in truth it is a compliation of texts by a number of different authors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't matter. It's a collection of texts from authors who also cannot be proven to have existed, and how do you know they were written by those they are credited to?
Every single one of the stories, all of which have been written some time after the events apparently occurred, are based on the same limited sources.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Again, rejecting all sources that don't fit your preconceived notions. No matter what anyone offers, you find a reason why it is worthless - even though it is deemed quite valuble to scholars other than you. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Within our current knowledge, there is no evidence to confirm the events in the modern bible that dates prior to almost a century after those events supposedly took place.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That sounds almost like a statement of faith. It's also not true. However, if your fundamental assumption is that everything you don't like is a fraud, then I guess it's easier to swallow.
Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
If you had Roman records of Tiberius' reign that mentioned Jesus, then you'd have some evidence.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No we wouldn't. You'd find a reason to declare it invalid.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
What are your sources for this potted history? I've not said the New Testament should be excluded from consideration, just that their value as historical records is very questionable.
The over-abundance of texts to support biblical events was mostly generated centuries after the events, and from very, very limited source material.
We're still digging contemporary stuff out the ground with Caesar's name upon it.
Can you point me towards some of the non-biblical texts and archeological finds supporting the events of the New Testament?
</strong>
How about archeological evidence that a shrine to St. Peter was built in the late 1st century over a grave that dates to around 70 AD. It happens to be directly under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.<a href="http://www.ucd.ie/~classics/96/Curran96.html"; target="_blank">Excavations of St. Peter's tomb</a>. Whether or not Petey's bones are/were ever there, obviously people believed they were back in the 1st century. But I'm sure you'll find a way to reject it, too. Or perhaps an ossuary found in Jerusalem dating to the 1st century with the name "Caiaphas" on it? And an inscripition including the name of Pontius Pilate? <a href="http://www.imj.org.il/christian/english/tachl11.html"; target="_blank">Israel Museum</a>. Although I'm sure you'll find a reason why it's all irrelevant. Those were obviously fictional characters... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Though Tacitus' accounts are dated so early, the earliest source - the earliest manuscript of his "Annales" dates from the 11th century. The date the original text is assigned to makes it a historical account, let alone the fact the only "original" source we have was created more than a millennium later. It's also the only account of the fire of Rome that has any mention of "Christians".
</strong>
OK. Now Tacitus doesn't count either. He's only a highly respected Roman historian. Obviously somebody paid him to mention Christians or somebody else must have inserted it later. It couldn't possibly be actually valid, could it? No, we can't have that.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Um, not to be pedantic or anything, but was your source for Paul's letter the, uh, New Testament? We're looking for some evidence that doesn't come from Christian sources dated some years (centuries, millennia) after the events supposedly took place.
</strong>
Um, that comment is just plain foolish. There are dozens of references to the letters of Paul and the Gospels from writings dated to the early 2nd century. Oh, wait, I forgot. The guys writing them were Christians. They must all be lying. We can't accept anything written by a Christian. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Historical accounts need contemporary collaborative sources to carry any weight, and I've simply asked if anyone can provide any. It's not meant to force you, or anyone else, to fight to defend your theological beliefs. I'm genuinely interested in the subject. I've stated it's my belief that Jesus was a fictional character, and would be intrigued to be handed information to prove my beliefs wrong.
</strong>
This has nothing to do with theology. It's all about intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. Numerous posters have brought you very good evidence repeatedly - and you simply dismiss it. Hence, I sincerely believe that there is something deeper going on that forces you to reject perfectly valid evidence for the historical reality of Jesus. Each individual piece may not mean much, but their total weight is huge. The conspiracy theories that have to be spun to make it all fraudulent are ludicrous.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle:
<strong>
Like I said, no need to be so defensive. I'm not attacking your beliefs, merely asking assistance in defining my own. And yes I have rejected it with one sweep of my hand, but not before researching every little bit of evidence you provided. If you do the same, you'll find that "the best scholarship" is divided on exactly the same grounds as us - faith. I'm not looking to be persuaded that my faith is misplaced, just facts that qualify as valid evidence. Outside of theological discussions, the evidence you present from the testaments and Tacitus' Annules would be summarily dismissed by any respectable scholar.
</strong>
I have a hard time swallowing that "any respectible scholar" would summarily dismiss Tacitus. Have you any evidence that the bulk of it is fabricated and thus of no value? And I am not being defensive - I'm being frustrated. You pretend you are an honest seeker, yet your mind is in fact completely closed.
I don't expect you to respond to any or all of this. It's just my reflections on the stuff you've written. Of course, you can't prove I exist, either, so none of it means anything anyway.
So I reiterate what I said earlier. You have shown repeatedly that you will not accept the validity of any evidence presented by anyone. My suspicion is that the problem is not with the evidence.
I apologize for the length of this. I've been waiting for a solvent to strip off a reaction and it's taking for-freaking-ever. So I've been killing time writing this. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Anyway, never mind me. I hope to get back at this again soon.
Interesting. I was going to post a request that those discussing the issues here read the texts from other faiths and studied the supporting historical and archaelogical evidence. What's your take on Mohammed?
[quote]<strong>So you trust nothing that anybody has ever written? Do you believe all history was invented, or just the parts that make you uncomfortable? If you did not see it with your own eyes did it ever happen? I find this a rather odd stance of yours.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course not. As I've repeatedly stated, valid historical accounts need supporting evidence, evidence that is contemporary and independently collaborative. If the discussion isn't merely theological, this forms the basis of any accurate history. We have no, repeat no contemporary evidence to validate the events of the New Testament, and only very limited support for many of the other texts.
It seems you're now taking the approach NoahJ started on, then rejected - suggesting I'm in some way "uncomfortable" and have ulterior motives for being skeptical. Care to share what you feel my issue may be?
[quote]<strong>And which ONE source was that? The NT consists of a couple dozen different books and letters, written by different people in different places at different times. They are all related to the same theme, yes, but I find it mind-boggling that you assume that they are all completely fiction. They were eventually gathered together in one binding, but they are still individual documents. Lumping them all together as ONE source is not reasonable.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As you say, it's a collection of stories written by different people over many, many years. But that collection is the only source of material we have. Events and accounts cannot be independently verified, and as no evidence of previous distinct accounts exists, it's the only source we have.
[quote]<strong>Rejecting corroboratory evidence for no particularly good reason I can see. Some of what Josephus wrote has proven unreliable, true. Most of it, however, is quite accurate. Why is it that specifically choose to declare the parts about Jesus unbelievable? What evidence do you have that he was making it up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never once said he was making it up, I just stated the weight of evidence seems to suggest the passage was adapted from an earlier text, which was also the basis of other accounts of the time. His information therefore seems likely to be secondhand at best. There's also credible evidence that the tone and language of the passage show it's been adapted from its original form. Isn't it also surprising that given Josephus seems to think Jesus worthy of mention, he mentions him merely in passing? One hypothesis is that because the only source Josephus had for this passage was that earlier text.
Josephus' passage is by no means an eye-witness account, nor an independent and supported historical account. Instead of saying I'm rejecting it for no good reason, how about coming up with some reasons why it should be considered a valid piece of corroboratory evidence?
[quote]<strong>And you know darn well that irrefutable proof is impossible - leaving safely in your world of denial forever. For most people it seems there is plenty of proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here we are again. I'm in denial, now? And why am I safe in that denial? Why do you feel that irrefutable proof is impossible, TJM? There are many, many archaeological digs which continue despite the trouble in the Middle East which are hoping to discover new information about early Christianity and the fate of the Jews.
[quote]<strong>This is starting to sound like paranoia. You seem unable to believe or trust anything about anybody anywhere at any time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good grief. Have you actually read my posts? I'm not just talking out my ass when I speak of collaborative evidence and supporting independent accounts. It's something historians and archaeologists tend to rely on. Perhaps they're wrong to be so skeptical?
[quote]<strong>And based on what I've seen so far, there's about as much chance of pigs flying as that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't believe there's a possibility we may find earlier texts? That archaeological digs may turn up new evidence? That's terribly narrow-minded. Or are you suggesting I'll just dismiss any new evidence? Instead of accusing me of being dismissive of the supporting evidence, how about defending its value?
[quote]<strong>Not true. Not only is the NT multiple texts, there are other sources. You've simply rejected them all. It's easy to have no evidence if you refuse to allow for its existence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See above. None of the multiple accounts can be independently verified. It's all based on supposition, i.e. you have to have faith to fill in what's missing in history. It's not rejection, TJM, it's asking for collaboration.
[quote]<strong>Again, rejecting all sources that don't fit your preconceived notions. No matter what anyone offers, you find a reason why it is worthless - even though it is deemed quite valuble to scholars other than you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are my preconceived notions, TJM? Once again, instead of defense with accusations of bias, why don't you provide some of the arguments supporting the validity of Josephus' and Tacitus' accounts? And there are very, very few scholars who'd argue Josephus' account is independent verification of events chronicled in the New Testament. Because I'm by no means an expert in the field, nor an historian, I rely on these "scholars" to fill in the details. It's those "scholars" who've led me to my opinion that Josephus' account isn't useful as corroboration.
[quote]<strong>That sounds almost like a statement of faith. It's also not true. However, if your fundamental assumption is that everything you don't like is a fraud, then I guess it's easier to swallow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah ha, now we're getting to my ulterior motives. I don't "like" Christianity, so I'm rejecting any evidence that suggests it has a grounding, right? You're incredibly judgmental. There is no statement of faith there at all, just an acknowledgment that there are no contemporary accounts of events. And if you feel it's an untruth, all I can do is apologize if my timescale seems exaggerated.
[quote]<strong>No we wouldn't. You'd find a reason to declare it invalid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because I'm in denial? It would be contemporary corrobatory evidence, which is all I'm asking for. I find it amusing that you choose to judge my personal motives for disbelieving rather than providing reasoned argument. You make my atheism sound like a mental issue, TJM. Is that your judgment?
[quote]<strong>How about archeological evidence that a shrine to St. Peter was built in the late 1st century over a grave that dates to around 70 AD. It happens to be directly under the high altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.Excavations of St. Peter's tomb. Whether or not Petey's bones are/were ever there, obviously people believed they were back in the 1st century. But I'm sure you'll find a way to reject it, too. Or perhaps an ossuary found in Jerusalem dating to the 1st century with the name "Caiaphas" on it? And an inscripition including the name of Pontius Pilate? Israel Museum. Although I'm sure you'll find a reason why it's all irrelevant. Those were obviously fictional characters...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no archaeological evidence that the shrine unearthed below the Basilica was the burial place of St. Peter. Constantine apparently erected a basilica in memory of St. Peter on that site in the 4th century, but where's the evidence that the basilica was built on the site of Peter's grave? You're making assumptions based on your faith, not on archaeology. The evidence is circumstantial at best, and even the article you reference is incredibly skeptical, TJM.
Why should I reject the evidence of Joseph Caiaphas or Pontius Pilate? I've already said at least once this provides evidence that the texts of the New Testament contain contemporary accuracies. Does evidence that Pontius Pilate was a real man prove that Jesus was also real? There are no direct links. Charles Dickens' novels are also based upon a foundation of historical accuracy, is that proof that Oliver Twist was a real person?
[quote]<strong>OK. Now Tacitus doesn't count either. He's only a highly respected Roman historian. Obviously somebody paid him to mention Christians or somebody else must have inserted it later. It couldn't possibly be actually valid, could it? No, we can't have that.<hr></blockquote></strong>
You're now being dismissive, TJM. The earliest records of Tacitus' account is dated in the 11th century. His is the only account of the burning of Rome which mentions Christians. Two facts, based on our current knowledge. I'm not dismissing his account out of hand, just questioning its value. Come on TJM, you can do better. Tell me why we should trust this account? Tell me why you believe it's valid?
[quote]qb]Um, that comment is just plain foolish. There are dozens of references to the letters of Paul and the Gospels from writings dated to the early 2nd century. Oh, wait, I forgot. The guys writing them were Christians. They must all be lying. We can't accept anything written by a Christian.[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
Good stuff, now we're talking. Can you give me some links to the references, or books that I should read on the subject?
[quote]<strong>This has nothing to do with theology. It's all about intellectual dishonesty, IMHO. Numerous posters have brought you very good evidence repeatedly - and you simply dismiss it. Hence, I sincerely believe that there is something deeper going on that forces you to reject perfectly valid evidence for the historical reality of Jesus. Each individual piece may not mean much, but their total weight is huge. The conspiracy theories that have to be spun to make it all fraudulent are ludicrous.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is ridiculous, TJM. I have not simply dismissed evidence brought by other posters, I've cited evidence to question the validity of that evidence. However, nobody has countered that evidence, and you most certainly aren't. You're constantly questioning my grounding and my reasons for disbelief rather than providing rebuttals. So how about it? If you want to contribute to the discussion, argue the evidence, not my convictions.
Are the "conspiracy theories that have to be spun" more ludicrous than the unsupported assumptions you have to make, TJM?
[quote]<strong>I have a hard time swallowing that "any respectible scholar" would summarily dismiss Tacitus. Have you any evidence that the bulk of it is fabricated and thus of no value? And I am not being defensive - I'm being frustrated. You pretend you are an honest seeker, yet your mind is in fact completely closed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once again, questioning my motives. With respect to the supporting evidence for the New Testament, I believe my claim is more than reasonable. Go and read the books on the subject, see how many place a value on Tacitus' account of these events.
[quote]<strong>So I reiterate what I said earlier. You have shown repeatedly that you will not accept the validity of any evidence presented by anyone. My suspicion is that the problem is not with the evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find this insulting. I've repeatedly questioned the validity of evidence, and nobody - including you - have defended the evidence, you've just questioned my motivations.
Tell me why we should trust Tacitus' history of Biblical events, and Josephus' accounts.
Your argument that my objections are not worth discussing is based solely on your belief that my mind is closed, and not on the evidence presented. You're judging me based upon your beliefs, TJM, not the facts based on reason. If you have time, write another post that gives us some reasons to believe the evidence rather than an analysis of my atheism.
<strong>I've stated it's my belief that Jesus was a fictional character, and would be intrigued to be handed information to prove my beliefs wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>I still think you're epistemologically off base by stating that you believe Jesus is fiction. There's a difference between withholding your belief due to a lack of evidence, and affirmatively disbelieving.
But I tried this a few pages ago, and didn't get anywhere...
Never mind the first reading - read the whole book if you want to have a fair debate
</strong>
I only have so much time, but I will try.
<strong>But in the case of Anderson, we are talking about very specific details - names, personal information, methods of death, even things, as mentioned, not known to the subject at the time of the reading - all produced in about an hour.</strong>
They are not that specific. They are generic, then they start to become specific based on the questions he asks and the answers he receives. The other parts of the readings are more difficult to decipher in print, and I'll need to see it to understand how he does it.
If I can't, well, if someone who understands these sorts of things can't figure it out, then yes, than it'll be very interesting indeed.
<strong>Also, if you think about it, if Anderson was really trying to work things out through a process of elimination, there would be far more nos than yeses in his readings.</strong>
That depends on the questions asked. And questions can be couched to be viewed as a question or a statement. By formulating questions thus, it makes him look better.
In my game, it was just a binary tree structure of questions. Am I living? No. Means I'm not an animal or human. Am I man-made? Yes. Am I on the beach? Yes. Am I made out of wood? yes. It's not that hard, and it's not that many question. It's amazing how many questions can be asked in a minute. You don't guess the detail. You frame the questions to reduce your possibilities.
<strong>But most of the the readings quoted seem to be little more than a string of "yes"es. Can you imagine just trying to work out the name of someone's deceased friend or relative through a series of yes or no answers?</strong>
That would be difficult, but Anderson doesn't do that. It a room reading, he starts off with a question like, "I feel a John, anyone familiar with a John?" In a room of 20 people, the odds are pretty good that someone knows a person with that name. John Edward is even worse and starts off with syllables sometimes!
In a one-on-one reading, he doesn't dare start off so specifically. Let's look at the first reading with the John and Barbara Licata (JL and BL):
Introductions are made, and George Anderson (GA) begins.
GA: I see you surrounded in black. A death, a transition, so to speak, a going to the other side.
The Licatas nod.
99.9% of GA's subjects go to him about deaths and people on other other side.
GA: A young person.
BL: Yes
A statement that can be viewed as a question. In fact, BL answers as if it was a question. If GA was specific, he should have started off with "Your son". But in the beginning, he doesn't even specify gender but tries to narrow it down between old or young. A "Yes" would highly indicate a child of the Licatas.
GA: A very unpleasant sort of passing. A sudden form of passing.
BL: Yes.
Two different generic statements that can also be viewed as questions. I would surmise that the death of a young person is quite unpleasant and often sudden so it seems an obvious statement or question to ask. If he knew, he should have said that their son died in a car accident. The generic statements are often there for a reason. It's positive reinforcement.
GA: Does it have to do with the head at all? My head is pounding. It started to pound the minute you came into the room.
BL: Yes
A question. GA can start out with the head or the heart. A young person would have less problems with the heart, so he starts off with the head. If the person was old, he would start off with the heart. The other statements are fluff. If BL says, no, he can divert into a different tack.
GA: This person is related to you?
BL: Yes
A question. He should have said your son, David. The Licatas are traumatized and are going to a medium for serious reasons. A child is highly likely. Yet, he doesn't even ask the specific question of son or daughter.
GA: This person is very, very restless. I feel the person in the room. Just say "yes" or "no". Don't elaborate. Was it some sort of accident?
BL: Yes.
Fluff statements, and finally asks a question to determine whether it was an accident or a disease. He goes with accident based on it being a sudden and unpleasant death which he asked and found out earlier. A disease wouldn't be sudden very often. If BL answers no, GA would simply ask another question to help determine cause of death.
GA: Was there something strange about it?
BL: Yes
GA: Because I'm getting question marks after the word accident.
BL: May I elaborate.
The last is a the classic retelling of something he just asked and got an answer to. Asking if it was strange is question that is generic enough to fit any accident. When is an accident ever "regular" to the loved ones involved? If he was psychic, he should have said "I see question marks after accident. There was something strange about it." But here, he repeats to reinforce his powers to his subjects.
GA: I'd prefer if you didn't. If they want to, they'll come back or will use another approach to clear it for me.
GA: Is this person a child to you?
BL: Yes.
GA: Is there any other physical injury beside the head? Anything in the back at all?
BL: I don't know
I would have asked the child question way earlier, but GA is more experienced and knows how to work the room. He already knows the young person is related to them because he asked earlier, and then asks another generic relationship question. The second set of questions is a fishing expedition to determine what sort of accident it was. If there was a back injury, the odds of it being a car accident increases. If not, it could be a fall.
GA: I'm getting pain in the back as well. Just liston to what I'm saying. Was there a vehicle involved?
BL: Yes.
GA: Okay. I just see a vehicle in front of me. There's a vehicle involved. Is this a son?
BL: Yes.
The first set of statements are again fishing attempts to determine what type of accident it was. Finally asks if it was a car accident. Notice he uses the generic vehicle, which is an umbrella for trucks, motorcycles, cars, even bicycles. If BL says no, GA can ask another question to determine what sort of accident. But BL says yes. GA then replies with more positive reinforcement fluff, and plays the statistics. Young males overwhelmingly are the victims of fatal auto accidents, if not any vehicle accident in general. BL says yes, and GA already has a good idea of how it could have happened, and fishes some more later.
GA: Okay, then it's him I'm speaking with. Was someone with him when this occurred?
BL: Yes
GA: Was a girl with him?
BL: No
GA: Did you ever lose any other children.
BL: No
GA: Do you know somebody in the family that lost a young girl?
BL: No
GA: Do you know a young girl that passed on?
BL: Yes
GA: Okay. Because that's what's confusing me.
BL: Yes
GA: Okay. Did this girl pass on before him?
BL: Yes
GA: Because she was the one who met him when he came over to the other side, and she's standing there with him and that's why I was thrown off for a second... She passed on young as well.
BL: Yes.
[i]GA first asks if there was someone with him. BL says yes. GA gambles 50-50 and asks whether it was a girl, perhaps thinking it was a girlfriend that could have died with him. BL says no. GA asks a more generic question trying to find someone to fit his young girl question and tries to ask if BL has lost any other children. BL says no. GA then asks an even more generic question and asks if anyone in the Licata family (perhaps even friends of the family in BL's mind) has lost a young girl. BL says no. GA than asks the ultimate generic question, whether they knew of any young girl that has died. BL says yes. GA covers himself by saying he was confused. Than asks if the young girl passed before him. BL says yes. Then GA pulls the positive reinforcement routine with the young girl meeting the Licatas son on the other side, and asks a redundant question about the girl passing on young as well. Redundant because he asked 4 questions about the death of young girl.
I don't see one specific question there. Later on in the reading, GA comes up with some interesting statements that I couldn't figure out. Perhaps seeing the reading in person would have made it easier to understand how he did it. The data presented in the book wasn't to my satisfaction, so you understand my skepticism?
<strong>Perhaps Anderson just uses the yes and nos to focus his statements onto a particular person. They don't seem to effect his readings in any real way.</strong>
If he was a psychic medium, he should not need any input from his subjects. He shouldn't even have to ask questions. But every medium does this. The questions are asked because they are fishing for information and only "yes" or "no" are given because they are generic and are enough input to help the medium figure out what happened.
First of all, is Carl Sagan's statement that "Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm not talking about the divinity of Jesus, or His miracles, or anything else "supernatural" about Him. Claiming that "Jesus never existed" is quite an extraordinary claim. You present no evidence to support your contention, only that you don't like any of the evidence out there. I find that problematic.
I question your motives primarily because you seem to be questioning mine, and that of all Christians anywhere at any time. You seem to have assumed, a priori, that the entire New Testament is fraudulent and without merit. You have apparently lumped all 27 books together as though they were one document written by some joker hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived. There is no tenable evidence anywhere to support such a position, yet you claim it is perfectly reasonable. It is not the position of an open-minded, neutral investigator. There is much in the NT that has been verified as historically accurate. The books of the NT are very useful (but not infallible) as references to the goings-on in the early 1st century. Classical historians cite various NT sources all the time in their research - but they are apparently not good enough for you.
Now, to the extra-biblical evidence:
First and foremost for me is "the dog that didn't bark." If Christianity is a complete fraud and Jesus never existed, why is it that none of the people around at the time cried "Foul!"? Those who were in a position to know that it was a fraud (and had a vested interest in it being a fraud) said absolutely nothing. Rather, it seems that even the Christians' most vociferous opponents never questioned His existence. Now, if George Washington had never existed and his role in American history had been completely invented, don't you think someone would have mentioned it by the early 19th century? The early Christians created a powerful social movement that upset a good many people in positions of power. Why is there no claim (of which I am aware - perhaps you have one?) dating to the 1st or early 2nd century that Jesus never existed to try and discredit them?
Now the most direct and obvious corroboration of Jesus' existence comes from Josephus. He mentions Jesus twice, actually. It is the second reference that is actually more telling:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Ant. 20,200).
This passage is present in all extant forms of "Antiquities" (or so I'm told). It is standard Josephus style. It flows smoothly with the rest of the narrative. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it is a later Christian interpolation. In all Christian writing, James is referred to as "the brother of the (or our) Lord". That he is called the brother of Jesus suggests the writer is not a Christian. Without the reference to Jesus, the statement makes little sense - it is only by identifying him as the brother of Jesus that James has any significance at all. I am aware of no serious scholars anywhere who reject this as original Josephus. The few that do (that I have seen, anyway) display a very strong anti-Christian bias in all their writings, so I have a hard time accepting them as objective.
Now the passage above seems to assume that you know who Jesus was - i.e. that Josephus had discussed him earlier. The relevant earlier passage is:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.(Ant. 18,63-64)
Now this passage is generally agreed to be not completely original Josephus. It is accepted that there has been some sort of Christian interpolation or embellishment to this. It simply doesn't read like Josephus: a Pharisaic Jew of the day would hardly describe Jesus in such glowing terms. However, it seems to be built on a core of text that is from Josephus. Jesus is mentioned as having been killed by Pilate (a Christian would have blamed the Jews), and the description of "the tribe of Christians" seems more like Josephus as well. Since the later passage makes no sense without this one, it is very likely to the point of near certainty that Josephus originally referred to Jesus here. Exactly what the precise words were we'll probably never know (although some have tried reconstructions). Clearly, this passage is not as strong of evidence on its own as the Ant. 20,200 passage, but they are consistent with each other which reinforces both.
Now for Tacitus:
Therefore, in order to suppress the rumor, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, those persons who, hated for their crimes, were commonly called Christians. The founder of that name, Christus, had been put to death by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius
Now the importance of Tacitus is not so much in what he wrote, but the way he wrote it. He was a historian, but not in the modern sense - he's closer to what we would call a journalist today (although reporting on the past, not the present). His facts have generally checked out to be quite accurate, but he clearly has a point of view. He does a lot of moralizing and freely injects sarcastic, cynical, or sometimes sympathetic observations of his own. If nothing else, he "calls a spade a spade," as it were. Now, he refers to Pilate as the "procurator" rather than his correct title of "prefect". This suggests he didn't research this on his own through the Roman records (to which he had access), but was relying on the report of someone else - possibly the Christians themselves. The key, however, is that he obviously finds this credible. He was a well-educated, prominent, pagan Roman. He was well-acquainted with recent history (having written extensively about it by this time) and the general rumors and stories circulating about the realm. As of 109 AD, he found no reason to question the reality of the existence of Jesus. He makes no disparaging or snide remarks about any "so-called Jesus", he reports it straight up. His testimony would be hearsay in a court of law, but we're not in court. We're trying to find evidence - and his is pretty good. Not convincing in and of itself, but consistent with all other evidence.
There is one other piece of nonBiblical reference to Jesus I found just recently. It is a letter from one Mara bar Sarapion, a Jew in prison in Syria, written to his son about 73 AD (he appears to have been imprisoned as a result of the Jewish revolts of 69-72 AD). In it he states:
What did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on...
Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law which he has given
<a href="http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/323/r_mara_bar_sarapion.htm"; target="_blank">Full Text</a>
Now this does not mention Jesus by name, but I see no other conclusion from his description of "a wise king" whose death predated the destruction of Jerusalem, and who lives on because of "the new law which he has given." If you can come up with another possibility, let me know. In the mean time, here is another reference to Him by a nonChristian who apparently knew who Jesus was and what He was all about - who also seems to be the proper age to have witnessed Him personally.
An area with which I am only passingly familiar is the Jewish literature of the day. From what I understand, there are several writings which speak disparagingly of Christians and Jesus, but none that actually question His existence. I will continue to pursue this avenue.
Now, Belle, I don't really care if you "embrace Jesus" and convert to Christianity (well, actually I do, but it's not germane to this discussion
There is also more archaeological evidence of people and events of the NT, which we can get into if you like. I hope you find the arguments above satisfactory.
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
1) Tacitus is not the only historian who mentions the fire of Rome:<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-nero-rolfe.html"; target="_blank">Seutonius - De Vita Caesarum--Nero</a> (c. 110 AD) and a generation later:<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/diocassius-nero1.html"; target="_blank">Dio Cassius - Nero and the Great Fire</a>. The accounts differ significantly from each other, i.e. they're not just copying a common source. They don't mention the Christians, however.
[Edit: Correction: Seutonius does mention the Christians - just a brief line that they got blamed and persecuted for it.]
2. Pliny the Younger, ca. 110 AD to Emperor Pliny the Younger was governor of Pontus/Bithynia from 111-113 AD. We have a whole set of exchanges of his letters with the emperor Trajan on a variety of administrative political matters. These two letters are the most famous, in which P. encounters Christianity for the first time.
Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.
Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.
Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.
They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.
I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.
Trajan to Pliny
You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.
Copied from:
<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html"; target="_blank">Pliny the Younger</a>.
This isn't direct confirmation of the existence of Jesus, but belies the claim that Jesus is a myth invented hundreds of years later. In the early 2nd century (when Pliny was governor of Bythnia), there was a large group of people calling themselves Christians who were causing him trouble.
[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
<strong>I still think you're epistemologically off base by stating that you believe Jesus is fiction. There's a difference between withholding your belief due to a lack of evidence, and affirmatively disbelieving.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not binary. You don't have to believe or disbelieve. You take the evidence presented and make a judgment. It's my personal belief that the available information isn't enough to prove his existence, and there is a great amount of information to the contrary. If you feel that I didn't give your posts the attention they deserved, then I apologize.
[quote]Originally posted by TJM:
<strong>First of all, is Carl Sagan's statement that "Extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I'm not talking about the divinity of Jesus, or His miracles, or anything else "supernatural" about Him. Claiming that "Jesus never existed" is quite an extraordinary claim. You present no evidence to support your contention, only that you don't like any of the evidence out there. I find that problematic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you think that the details in biblical texts (and we'll discount miracles and anything "supernatural" again) also include extraordinary claims? By your, sorry, Carl Sagan's hypothesis, the history presented by the bible also requires extraordinary evidence.
It's an odd thing about history and archaeology - a lack of evidence is as useful a tool as an abundance of it. I haven't wanted to discuss the evidence held within the texts themselves (Our prime source, and one which you've used on more than one occassion to argue your points) because it moves the discussion on to theological issues, and I wanted to try and remain grounded in available facts rather than ideals. I take it from your statement above that you'd rather not argue the more theological issues either? If you like, I'll cite evidence from biblical texts that make me believe it's highly fictitious, but I fear the thread will degenerate. I shall also not make mention of the early Christian church's approach to those who offered alternative views.
[quote]<strong>I question your motives primarily because you seem to be questioning mine, and that of all Christians anywhere at any time. You seem to have assumed, a priori, that the entire New Testament is fraudulent and without merit. You have apparently lumped all 27 books together as though they were one document written by some joker hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived. There is no tenable evidence anywhere to support such a position, yet you claim it is perfectly reasonable. It is not the position of an open-minded, neutral investigator. There is much in the NT that has been verified as historically accurate. The books of the NT are very useful (but not infallible) as references to the goings-on in the early 1st century. Classical historians cite various NT sources all the time in their research - but they are apparently not good enough for you.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have never questioned your motives. Not once. My worst crime, which I'll apologize for but not retract, is accusing you of filling in large gaps in fact with assumptions based on your faith. Nor have I directly questioned the beliefs of Christians, or ever suggested they're misguided. Since this discussion began, I've made it quite clear I'm discussing my own disbelief (The original point of the thread, albeit about the afterlife and not theism as a whole) and not the belief of Christians. I've never once suggested that the New Testament was written by one individual at one point in history some time later. I've argued that we have no proof that individual texts were written by those to whom they are attributed, that various accounts held therein are apparently based on the same source material, that all available accounts are historical, and that with a very, very small exception which we'll discuss below all, those accounts are attributed to Christians and have been compiled by Christians. This isn't questioning their honesty, but making the observation that other than our few exceptions, there are no independently corroboratory sources.
Historians will often cite events chronicled in biblical texts, because corroboratory evidence has been found in archaeology and independent contemporary sources. Historians have matched timelines of events across Jewish, Egyptian, Roman, and Greek texts and archaeology, and many match events as recorded in biblical texts (The movements of slaves, for example). Unfortunately, Jesus and the birth of Christianity is not one of them.
[quote]<strong>First and foremost for me is "the dog that didn't bark." If Christianity is a complete fraud and Jesus never existed, why is it that none of the people around at the time cried "Foul!"? Those who were in a position to know that it was a fraud (and had a vested interest in it being a fraud) said absolutely nothing. Rather, it seems that even the Christians' most vociferous opponents never questioned His existence. Now, if George Washington had never existed and his role in American history had been completely invented, don't you think someone would have mentioned it by the early 19th century? The early Christians created a powerful social movement that upset a good many people in positions of power. Why is there no claim (of which I am aware - perhaps you have one?) dating to the 1st or early 2nd century that Jesus never existed to try and discredit them?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An interesting hypothesis, but your argument relies on there being a large Christian following very, very early in this history, and that said following had an impact which would draw both followers and doubters. Our supporting evidence comes from those same old biblical texts and the questionable sources below. It seems, given the available evidence, that rather than there being potentially "vociferous opponents" who were unquestioning, those who seem likely to have had an interest and recorded it (contemporary or near-history writers and historians) were completely unaware that Jesus ever existed: Plutarch, Apollonius, Judaeus, Dio, Justus, Seneca, Rufus... would you like me to name some more?
[quote]<strong>Now the most direct and obvious corroboration of Jesus' existence comes from Josephus. He mentions Jesus twice, actually. It is the second reference that is actually more telling:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Ant. 20,200).
This passage is present in all extant forms of "Antiquities" (or so I'm told). It is standard Josephus style. It flows smoothly with the rest of the narrative. There is absolutely no reason to suspect it is a later Christian interpolation. In all Christian writing, James is referred to as "the brother of the (or our) Lord". That he is called the brother of Jesus suggests the writer is not a Christian. Without the reference to Jesus, the statement makes little sense - it is only by identifying him as the brother of Jesus that James has any significance at all. I am aware of no serious scholars anywhere who reject this as original Josephus. The few that do (that I have seen, anyway) display a very strong anti-Christian bias in all their writings, so I have a hard time accepting them as objective.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"That he is called the brother of Jesus suggests the writer is not a Christian". Interesting, given Josephus' statement "[ton adelphon Iesou] tou legomenou Christou" is remarkably similar to that in Matthew 1:16 "ho legomenos Christos", repeated in John 4:25. It's also interesting that you reject opinions which have a "strong anti-Christian bias" as being unobjective whilst continually citing those with a strong Christian bias. Make up your mind - either accept and digest all the available evidence or understand that your opinion is also biased.
[quote]<strong>Now the passage above seems to assume that you know who Jesus was - i.e. that Josephus had discussed him earlier.[...]
Now this passage is generally agreed to be not completely original Josephus. It is accepted that there has been some sort of Christian interpolation or embellishment to this. It simply doesn't read like Josephus: a Pharisaic Jew of the day would hardly describe Jesus in such glowing terms. However, it seems to be built on a core of text that is from Josephus. Jesus is mentioned as having been killed by Pilate (a Christian would have blamed the Jews), and the description of "the tribe of Christians" seems more like Josephus as well. Since the later passage makes no sense without this one, it is very likely to the point of near certainty that Josephus originally referred to Jesus here. Exactly what the precise words were we'll probably never know (although some have tried reconstructions). Clearly, this passage is not as strong of evidence on its own as the Ant. 20,200 passage, but they are consistent with each other which reinforces both.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it not just as valid to say it deconstructs both? We're agreed that there is something distinctly odd about this passage, and yet you use it as evidence to support the validity of the later passage? Now I realize that this isn't a criminal trial, but you're using evidence that has clearly been tampered with to support another piece of evidence. You genuinely assign this account so much value?
And once again I question the value of data that can only be dated to source as late as the 4th century, when Eusebius quotes the 20 passage, some centuries after the events apparently took place, and Josephus' orginal text was written.
Incidentally, this is the same Eusebius who admits to suppressing all that would be a disgrace to Christianity.
[quote]<strong>Now for Tacitus:
[Interesting stuff deleted]</strong><hr></blockquote>
While I applaud you for pointing out some of the flaws in Tacitus' account of events, you miss out one intriguing point that I mentioned previously - that Tacitus' account is the only account of the burning of Rome that mentions Christians. The only account among many. The first subsequent account that mentions Christians is dated to the 4th century, and once again recorded from Serverus' texts by Eusebius. Even more interesting is the fact that subsequent accounts do not associate Christians with the burning of Rome, and given that it's reasonably likely those later historians would have read Tacitus' Annales, gives at least a very small suspicion that the reference to Christians wasn't in the original text.
[quote]<strong>[Interesting stuff about Bar Serapion deleted]
Now this does not mention Jesus by name, but I see no other conclusion from his description of "a wise king" whose death predated the destruction of Jerusalem, and who lives on because of "the new law which he has given." If you can come up with another possibility, let me know. In the mean time, here is another reference to Him by a nonChristian who apparently knew who Jesus was and what He was all about - who also seems to be the proper age to have witnessed Him personally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Okay, here's one: How about if Bar Serapion's account wasn't about Jesus "the wise king" and the destruction of Jerusalem "their land", but events closer to the times of Socrates and Pythagoras when Nebuchadnezzar (a king) abolished the kingdom of the Jews, took them into slavery, and dispersed them across the lands surrounding Babylon? The fact that you "see no other conclusion" suggests to me that your accusations of my bias are unfair.
And quite how you can garner from this account that he may have "witnessed Him personally" is beyond my understanding.
[quote]<strong>An area with which I am only passingly familiar is the Jewish literature of the day. From what I understand, there are several writings which speak disparagingly of Christians and Jesus, but none that actually question His existence. I will continue to pursue this avenue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll be most interested to see what you find.
[quote]<strong>Now, Belle, I don't really care if you "embrace Jesus" and convert to Christianity (well, actually I do, but it's not germane to this discussion ). I find the denial of His existence to be an untenable position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Intriguing.
[quote]<strong>The burden of proof is clearly on those who choose to deny it. As I have read often in my research in this area (and ancient history in general - a hobby of mine), "The proper historical perspective is to accept documents as truthful until proven otherwise." The denial of Jesus' existence requires you to assume everyone is lying.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not at all. It's not an accusation of lying, of an untruth, just that they're accepting as fact that which cannot be proven. Of course, by the same this same treatment of documents which you apply, many people assumed the world was flat for a long, long time.
[quote]<strong>1) Tacitus is not the only historian who mentions the fire of Rome:Seutonius - De Vita Caesarum--Nero (c. 110 AD) and a generation later
Um, yes. I specifically stated that my arguments against Tacitus' account was that he was the only one to mention Christian involvement. I can offer you quite a few other accounts of the burning of Rome if you like, but it doesn't take the discussion anywhere relevant.
[quote]<strong>[Stuff about Pliny the Younger deleted]
This isn't direct confirmation of the existence of Jesus, but belies the claim that Jesus is a myth invented hundreds of years later. In the early 2nd century (when Pliny was governor of Bythnia), there was a large group of people calling themselves Christians who were causing him trouble.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I haven't claimed that "Jesus was a myth invented hundreds of years later". I believe he was a myth created contemporary with the events which supposedly occurred to further a cause, and that this myth has been adapted and corrupted with time.