Italian priest ordered to prove Jesus existed

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FFF

Palestine was a dreaded, distant periphery, where the failures of the government were sent as a punishment. It was constantly in state of tumult, there was a lot of blood being shed and a lot of spiritual leaders executed. Why should Seneca, a Roman who was in the very centre of government, teaching the young emperor, occupy himself with what wasn't even out of the ordinary in Palestine? Do you think he cared about what went on in Palestine? Don't you think he had more pressing matters to cover in Rome? Same goes for Pliny. It's like saying that since the great thinkers of the French revolution say nothing about Finnish events, it proves whatever was supposed to happen in Finland didn't. That's just silly.

Yet here's a guy trying to say that Seneca did indeed not only hear about Jesus but actually wrote a drama about him which became the basis for one of the Gospels.

http://www.metrum.org/gosen/fromtraggospel.htm

As the other author of my earlier link noted, the Gospels are telling us that Jesus was a particularly famous individual of his time, drawing multitudes and performing miracles . . . . . yet neither his contemporary friends or enemies mention him directly anywhere, although there are attempts, as with the link in this post, to put him in the minds of noted scholars of the time.

People are searching for that contemporary context . . . . but it doesn't exist.

Trying to marginalize the goings on in the region in the big picture puts you at odds with guys like the author above. In fact, our friend HOZ started out this debate trying to tell us there were all kinds of records on both sides from the time of Jesus given what a famous guy he was.

You two should put your heads together to get your strategy straight.

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

you at odds with guys like the author above. In fact, our friend HOZ started out this debate trying to tell us there were all kinds of records on both sides from the time of Jesus given what a famous guy he was.

Cowperson

I don't think I made this inference at all. As a matter of fact quite the opposite given Rome's status at the time.

Did i?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Hey nice university, lack of real world argument! No they haven't. As a matter of fact more often than not many misguided young native men due to the fact that they have no other reference to their own culture assume long hair or braided hair of the plains indians, a minority of NA native americans, though occupying a massive TV image of natives. Other natives have, like the "mohawk" tribes have hung onto their tradition because they have been able to adapt.

Yet a majority of these indians have become Chrtistian in one form or another.

So I don't care how many Teepees you put up....Un-PC yet very true....like the Gauls their culture has disappeared.

Wow. I can barely comprehend this one. Were you drunk?

Anyhow, your point seemed to be that since Jesus has stuck around so long, he can't be a myth. My point is that other gods and deities and whatnot have also stuck/stick around for thousands of years under some pretty trying circumstances. I'm not an expert (like you) on the religious habits of every native person in North America, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that some of them still hold onto the old beliefs. By your standards then, those old beliefs must not be myths.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I don't think I made this inference at all. As a matter of fact quite the opposite given Rome's status at the time.

Did i?

You are right. Someone else made that inference earlier and I should have used their name. Got you twixed up with Thunderball and Jonesy.

Cowperson

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Wow. I can barely comprehend this one. Were you drunk?

Anyhow, your point seemed to be that since Jesus has stuck around so long, he can't be a myth. My point is that other gods and deities and whatnot have also stuck/stick around for thousands of years under some pretty trying circumstances. I'm not an expert (like you) on the religious habits of every native person in North America, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that some of them still hold onto the old beliefs. By your standards then, those old beliefs must not be myths.

1) Yes I was...too much wine.

2) You are nitpicking on one small point of my argument as though the whole premiss of my argument relies on it. Not only that you are twisting it to mean something far different than what was originally meant.

so again...
I find it difficult to believe (notice 'I' in the sentence) that the Christian faith, with all it's different sects (yet amazingly similar beliefs) and billions of followers in different cultures, is based on a mythical person.
- I didn't mean this to be some kind of undeniable evidence that Jesus existed. Just my person belief.


As for your example of the Natives holding on to their beliefs...really? You said yourself you are no expert. Are you sure they have hung on to them like the Christians and Jews have? Do you really think that the plight of North American Natives can be compared equally to the plight of Jews and Christians under the Roman Empire? There are certain similarities....but if the Romans came to NA....do you think there would be any natives left to talk to? Look what they did to Gaul.

Anyways....my point about the Roman Empire wasn't about how horrible the persecutions were. But that lack of documentation of the times would be scarce due to the persecutions, oral tradition and lack of importance of Israel to the Roman Empire.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

1)
I find it difficult to believe (notice 'I' in the sentence) that the Christian faith, with all it's different sects (yet amazingly similar beliefs) and billions of followers in different cultures, is based on a mythical person.
- I didn't mean this to be some kind of undeniable evidence that Jesus existed. Just my person belief.

Fair enough. I don't find it difficult to believe. If the native example doesn't wash, how do you feel about Islam? There are more than a billion people in different cultures that believe in that business. Do you think that makes it "non-myth"?

And I noticed you concede that in the Noah's Ark story, his age might have been an embellishment. Very perceptive. So, do you think anything else in that story might be an embellishment?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough. I don't find it difficult to believe. If the native example doesn't wash, how do you feel about Islam? There are more than a billion people in different cultures that believe in that business. Do you think that makes it "non-myth"?

And I noticed you concede that in the Noah's Ark story, his age might have been an embellishment. Very perceptive. So, do you think anything else in that story might be an embellishment?

Islam....or Mohammed? Mohammed existed. No doubt about it. Do I believe that Mohammed was a prophet? Obviously not.

As for your second point I'll bring up Troy again. Was Zeus an embellishment or fact? If he was an embellishment....does Troy now stop existing?

Noah and his Ark. 600 years old, 2 of each species on the planet (considering that we now know that you need 150+ of one species to be viable) and all of mankind dying.....sounds a bit difficult to swallow. So does that mean that the geological evidence for a massive flood stop existing?

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Yet here's a guy trying to say that Seneca did indeed not only hear about Jesus but actually wrote a drama about him which became the basis for one of the Gospels.

http://www.metrum.org/gosen/fromtraggospel.htm

I'll quote this guy:

The gospels themselves contain evidence that the creator of this tragedy was someone imbued with the cultural values of the early Roman Empire, a playwright of unusual abilities, who used drama as a vehicle for expressing specific philosophical concepts. The gospels of Mark and Luke originated in Rome in the late fifties or early sixties A.D., a period that coincided with the last great flourishing of Roman tragedy in the work of Lucius Annaeus Seneca (3 B.C.–65 A.D.). Seneca was the author of at least nine tragedies, all modeled on other, more ancient dramas. His philosophical writings are still admired for their elegant exposition of the Stoic view of life. Was it Seneca who wrote the tragedy on the passion of Jesus that the evangelists used in constructing their narratives? A question such as this can never be answered with certitude. It can be, however, adopted as a working hypothesis, whose success can be judged by the extent to which it helps solve the innumerable enigmas of the passion narratives.

Soo... I wonder if this guy has ever read Seneca? His drama plays are considered to be among the most dry plays ever written. His talent lay elsewhere. (This is of course irrelevant to the topic, I just wonder how much this guy knows about Seneca at all.) Besides he is making HUGE leaps. First he claims there was a tragedy behind one of the gospels, a view certainly not approved by many scholars. Then he assumes the gospel writers knew Latin - again, a view opposed by vast majority of scholars (Seneca wrote in Latin, whereas the gospels are in Greek - Latin wasn't commonly known in the East, certainly not among the Jews. But hey, there are similarities in the plot lines (somebody dies in both of them), so let's not let the facts get in the way.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As the other author of my earlier link noted, the Gospels are telling us that Jesus was a particularly famous individual of his time, drawing multitudes and performing miracles . . . . . yet neither his contemporary friends or enemies mention him directly anywhere, although there are attempts, as with the link in this post, to put him in the minds of noted scholars of the time.

People are searching for that contemporary context . . . . but it doesn't exist.

Well, I have to disagree with you here (a shocker I know). Gospels tell that Jesus was somewhat famous in Palestine for three years. A short look at the history of Palestine at the time offers a picture full of miracle-workers, preachers, uprisings and violent clashes. Thus, Jesus's three years weren't really that much out of the ordinary - at least for non-Jews. For Jews it was obviously of more importance to have somebody who claimed he was the Messiah.

However, if Jesus was famous in Palestine, that doesn't mean he was famous in other parts of the empire. The world is so much smaller now with all the modern inventions of travelling which have rendered distances almost non-existant. Data moves all around the world. Moreover, people are more interested in what is going on around the world than they were. During the first centuries AD this wasn't the case. Rome was the center of the universe. I honestly doubt if Seneca and co had any idea what was going on in Sicily, let alone Palestine. I think the fair comparable to Palestine of that day today is Southern Ossetia. Who knows what is going on in there in the West, other than that they're fighting (probably) each other and some neighbouring nation? Who even cares? Now, you could say that it isn't a part of our empire, as Palestine was part of Rome. But that again doesn't take into account the nature of Rome. Rome was the center, that feasted on the resources of the periphery. Its powers were limited to sending a governor (procurator, prefect, whichever) and his staff there with close to unlimited power.

Trying to marginalize the goings on in the region in the big picture puts you at odds with guys like the author above. In fact, our friend HOZ started out this debate trying to tell us there were all kinds of records on both sides from the time of Jesus given what a famous guy he was.

Oh, I'm completely ok with being at odds with the author above.

I'll try to clear up what I'm saying. There is no omission. There are no records or books where Jesus should be. Somebody brought up Philo of Alexandria, who was a scholar. 95% of his writings are teachings of the 5 books of Moses. He lived in Alexandria, about modern Egypt, and doesn't write contemporary history. He only mentions Palestinians a couple of times and then it's the people who took part in one set of negotiations. Jesus wasn't there.

Really, you can see that with comparables, of which there are many. For example, we know that there was a scandal that shook the Jews in the twenties which involved Pilate murdering Galileans in the temple of Jerusalem (where Romans weren't allowed to go). No author mentions this, we only have a hint of what happened. Why? Because a) people didn't know because it happened in Palestine b) people didn't care because it happened in Palestine. Same goes with Jesus. His life and death became important only later.

[FFF]

Sorry, I don't mean to flood the discussion, but I just found (or rather, a friend of mine did) a link which discusses the same topic.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Does the "Jesus-myth" (ie. myth of him never existing) have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven.

There is also an answer to the claim "If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers". The author makes a point of quoting non-Christian scholars.

Quite simply, one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed. Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Charlesworth has written that "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that "We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11]

[Cowperson]

"We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place." On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: "It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world." [Harv.JesC, 11]

Uh, like what?

The only thing I've gathered from your posts above is the mind-blowing contradiction of insisting Palestine was a vast backwater where nothing of importance was coming out of or recorded and then the simultaneous claim in the reference above to "the vast amount of evidence."

And mixed in there is your open admission that the evidence "emerged" after the passing of Jesus . . . . . which simply plays into my hand that there is nothing from the contemporary life of Jesus.

By the way, I provided the Seneca link above merely because you brought it up when you said the guy had never heard of Jesus - which I would agree with. the link demonstrates there are lots of dubious attempts to put Jesus in the minds of contemporaries.

One thing we know for sure out of all of this . . . . . that Italian priest at the start of this thread hasn't a hope in hell (sic) of proving in a court of law that Jesus existed.


Gospels tell that Jesus was somewhat famous in Palestine for three years.

Actually, the Gospels claim he was rip-roaring famous.

By the way, attempting to marginalize Doherty, who does a pretty thorough job, isn't the way to go. There are plenty like him who make the same clinical argument of the evidence or lack therof. By your own admission, you point to evidence emerging after the passing of the alleged Christ and that is his primary point.

Also, its pretty hilarious to attempt to debunk Doherty as "biased" by using a link from an author writing for "Tekton, Building Blocks For Christian Faith."

Those who want Jesus to exist - and their are armies of them - push the envelope hard the other way, attempting to link him up with contemporaries . . . . . but they've really got nothing. OR, the other tactic seems to be to admit that nothing contemporary exists but then blame it on the times.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FFF

Sorry, I don't mean to flood the discussion, but I just found (or rather, a friend of mine did) a link which discusses the same topic.

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html


There is also an answer to the claim "If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers". The author makes a point of quoting non-Christian scholars.

wow...is that the best this Christian Minister can do to support evidence that Jesus was a historical person?
The dialogue that Justin and Trypho have takes place in the 2nd century!

That is like someone taking a conversation I have today about an alleged person, let's call him "Pumpkinhead," who I'll claim for my religious motivations allegedly existed in 1900 ... and then people 1800 years from now producing it as evidence of Pumpkinhead!

Where are the records from 1900????

How can my statement 100 years after an alleged existence be considered any sort of evidence?

What a joke.

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Uh, like what?

Well I can't talk for him, but I'd assume he means we can date him pretty well, put him on map, we know a lot what he taught (assuming you accept the tradition in and behind the Gospels) and we know how he died. That is a lot said.

The only thing I've gathered from your posts above is the mind-blowing contradiction of insisting Palestine was a vast backwater where nothing of importance was coming out of or recorded and then the simultaneous claim in the reference above to "the vast amount of evidence."

Maybe I need to be clearer. I will present my case later, now I'll just say that I'll stand behind that comment that "Palestine was a vast backwater where nothing of importance was coming out of or recorded" - when looking from Rome or any other Romanized part of the empire. That is a point where all the scholars agree in Judaism. As for the contradiction... I don't see it. When he says "vast amount of evidence", it has to be understood in context. What we have of Jesus from the aforementioned authors (Tacitus and co) is a huge amount when compared to what we have about other people and other goings-on in Palestine. That's how I understand it.

And mixed in there is your open admission that the evidence "emerged" after the passing of Jesus . . . . . which simply plays into my hand that there is nothing from the contemporary life of Jesus.

I have said all along that there is nothing contemporary. My point is, that's not surprising. There shouldn't be. Look at the comparables. Nothing of them either.

By the way, I provided the Seneca link above merely because you brought it up when you said the guy had never heard of Jesus - which I would agree with. the link demonstrates there are lots of dubious attempts to put Jesus in the minds of contemporaries.

It is true and sad that there are all kinds of people trying to argue for Jesus' existence. On both sides of the debate you see people blatantly ignoring the facts, just blindly throwing stuff out there.

One thing we know for sure out of all of this . . . . . that Italian priest at the start of this thread hasn't a hope in hell (sic) of proving in a court of law that Jesus existed.

I don't know anything of the law, much less about the Italian law... but at least he can march there any number of scholars of History, Judaism, Theology and Classics to speak for his case. I'm not sure if his opponent can bring one competent scholar with him.


They say he was rip-roaring famous.

I will give you that. But please consider that it really was a fifteen minutes of fame: three years beginning from scracth with a climax of one week. In a small area in the Southern Ossetia of the day.

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cheese

wow...is that the best this Christian Minister can do to support evidence that Jesus was a historical person?
The dialogue that Justin and Trypho have takes place in the 2nd century!

That is like someone taking a conversation I have today about an alleged person, let's call him "Pumpkinhead," who I'll claim for my religious motivations allegedly existed in 1900 ... and then people 1800 years from now producing it as evidence of Pumpkinhead!

Where are the records from 1900????

How can my statement 100 years after an alleged existence be considered any sort of evidence?

What a joke.

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood that passage. It was about Drews trying to prove Jesus didn't exist by saying Trypho, a Jew, while trying to attack Christianity, made that argument in the conversation already in the 2nd century. The passage merely proves Trypho didn't make the argument.
It is curious that Jews, who fought Christianity bitterly during the early years, didn't choose to bring up the fact that Jesus didn't exist in their fights. On the contrary, their main line of defense was that Jesus was an illegitimate son of Maria. Would've been all too easy for the good folks that lived during the time Jesus allegedly lived in Palestine just to say "hey guys, I was here then, he wasn't here then".

In fact it is even more curious that people converted to Christianity shortly after Jesus's death in Palestine. There wasn't one single Jew who thought "blimey, I don't remember this guy dying in Jerusalem"? Lucky, that, since it would've been a disastrous strike to the Early Church.

Add to this the net of tradition, ripples in the pond if you will, different versions of what Jesus had said or done, appearing all of a sudden in Palestine... then being put to the letter by some later, when it was started to be considered important (early Christians thought Christ would come back very soon, so why write it down?).

Then you have the few non-Christian quotes (I don't see anyone challenging Tacitus anymore? anybody?) and a lot of people "deceived" all around the known world quickly... I believe it's a good case.

Lastly, it is a clear-cut consensus among the historians and theologians. Even atheists and agnostics among the scholars (of this area of expertise) admit there was a man named Jesus. Almost to a man. Those among the theologians who like to attack Christianity every chance they get still admit Jesus existed. Not because they want to but because they have to.

Frankly, there are so many ways to attack the church and the Christianity that you might as well pick some of the more succesful ones. This one ain't gonna cut it.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by FFF

Sorry, but I think you misunderstood that passage. It was about Drews trying to prove Jesus didn't exist by saying Trypho, a Jew, while trying to attack Christianity, made that argument in the conversation already in the 2nd century. The passage merely proves Trypho didn't make the argument.
It is curious that Jews, who fought Christianity bitterly during the early years, didn't choose to bring up the fact that Jesus didn't exist in their fights. On the contrary, their main line of defense was that Jesus was an illegitimate son of Maria. Would've been all too easy for the good folks that lived during the time Jesus allegedly lived in Palestine just to say "hey guys, I was here then, he wasn't here then".

In fact it is even more curious that people converted to Christianity shortly after Jesus's death in Palestine. There wasn't one single Jew who thought "blimey, I don't remember this guy dying in Jerusalem"? Lucky, that, since it would've been a disastrous strike to the Early Church.

Add to this the net of tradition, ripples in the pond if you will, different versions of what Jesus had said or done, appearing all of a sudden in Palestine... then being put to the letter by some later, when it was started to be considered important (early Christians thought Christ would come back very soon, so why write it down?).

Then you have the few non-Christian quotes (I don't see anyone challenging Tacitus anymore? anybody?) and a lot of people "deceived" all around the known world quickly... I believe it's a good case.

Lastly, it is a clear-cut consensus among the historians and theologians. Even atheists and agnostics among the scholars (of this area of expertise) admit there was a man named Jesus. Almost to a man. Those among the theologians who like to attack Christianity every chance they get still admit Jesus existed. Not because they want to but because they have to.

Frankly, there are so many ways to attack the church and the Christianity that you might as well pick some of the more succesful ones. This one ain't gonna cut it.

OK...the FACT that there is no proof whatsoever that Jesus lived. Nothing.
He attacks Wells proof as just a Professor of German, yet Wells makes his living teaching German literature so he can support his hobby, biblical studies. He is an accomplished writer in the subject, and I have yet to hear a good response to the objections he raises. One need not be a "Biblical Scholar" in order to sort through the various arguments invoked in favor of the Gospel accounts.
I call Holdings approach on Shattering the Christ-Myth the Straw Man Fallacy: Heres what that represents

The Straw Man fallacy is a rhetorical technique that caricatures the opponent's position to make it easier to attack. The metaphor is of someone who builds a straw man or scarecrow and then knocks it down and gloats over his accomplishment. This is not much of an accomplishment, though, because the idea attacked is not the idea the opponent held in the first place. The one using the straw man ploy attacks his own understanding of his opponent's opinion -- not his opponent's actual position. Creationists often make false claims about what the theory of evolution states, saying, according to Carl Sagan, that scientists "suppose that living things simply fell together by chance." This formulation, says Sagan, "willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't." One that we hear often in our Letters section suggests that "there is no real support for the idea that once upon a time there was only hydrogen gas and then became people. The straw man approach is often used in conjunction with other logical and rhetorical fallacies. If someone describes his opponent's position in a way that sounds patently absurd (something that no one in their right mind would believe), making his own position sound too good to be true, check to see if that is the opponent's actual position. If not, we have an example of the straw man.

[Cowperson]

I don't know anything of the law, much less about the Italian law... but at least he can march there any number of scholars of History, Judaism, Theology and Classics to speak for his case. I'm not sure if his opponent can bring one competent scholar with him.

The opponent in a court of law doesn't have to prove that Jesus didn't exist. That's not what the trial is about.

The weight will be on the priest to prove that Jesus DID exist. That is what the trial is about.

And that is also the point in this debate. I'm not here to prove that Jesus didn't exist. I think it would be keen if he did. I'm simply answering the points of people who insist he did. One by one, the dominos are falling until the naked truth emerges.

As Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes once observed, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

This is a classic example of that Sherlockian doctrine.

In fact, there is NO evidence Jesus existed. You keep admitting it yourself as per the comment below in your last post.

I have said all along that there is nothing contemporary. My point is, that's not surprising. There shouldn't be. Look at the comparables. Nothing of them either

You know, you're not helping yourself by admitting there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus then miraculously saying that in itself explains everything.

What is there to say after that? You can't be serious. Sherlock Holmes would not approve.

You've destroyed the case of the Italian priest yourself. He can't prove Jesus existed. Period.

Meanwhile, the opponent in the Italian case can certainly present reams of people who will agree with yourself that there is no contemporary record confirming the existence of Jesus while others will testify to the origins and timing of the Gospels, etc, etc. In fact, there should be no shortage of credible witnesses to the facts.

The priest, meanwhile, will apparently speak to the lack of facts as a good sign that Jesus did indeed exist and then address the broad origins of mythology.

The entire argument in favour of Jesus seems to rest not on facts but, as HOZ said, the likelihood that a myth couldn't have survived 2000 years. A circumstantial case if you will versus the counterargument pointing to a lack of facts, a lack of facts that reveals a truth.

By the way, I can't believe you attempted to debunk Doherty as 'biased" by providing a link to an essayist writing for "Tekton, Building Blocks For Christian Faith."

Then you have the few non-Christian quotes (I don't see anyone challenging Tacitus anymore? anybody?)

Tacitus was born somewhere between 56 and 64 AD . . . . well after the alleged life of Jesus.That's simply a fact. He mentions "Christus" in the Annals, a publication in 109 AD, also a fact. Given the dates, its obviously hearsay, written at a time when Christianity was gaining hold but well after the life of Jesus.

Though his work is the most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned: the Annals are based in part on secondary sources of unknown reliability,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus

Lastly, it is a clear-cut consensus among the historians and theologians. Even atheists and agnostics among the scholars (of this area of expertise) admit there was a man named Jesus. Almost to a man.

That is a remarkably bald faced overstatement of your position. The noble beliefs link I provided earlier, at the end, has dozens of quotes objecting to your position.

I'm going out to the mountains . . . . back later today or tomorrow.

Cowperson

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cheese

He attacks Wells proof as just a Professor of German, yet Wells makes his living teaching German literature so he can support his hobby, biblical studies. He is an accomplished writer in the subject, and I have yet to hear a good response to the objections he raises. One need not be a "Biblical Scholar" in order to sort through the various arguments invoked in favor of the Gospel accounts.

Ok. I'm sorry, my time is running short as I will tomorrow move to a new city, where I won't have an internet connection or a computer until I get one. So I'm out of this shortly. I will address some of your points.

I indeed believe Professor Wells is very good at German, and he might be even quite competent at Classics (or Ancient history, or whatever that deals with the time we're talking about). However, it is his hobby, as you said. Ice hockey is my hobby, but I would look completely out of place in the NHL. And you don't have to be a Biblical Scholar to have an opinion on the matter, you can also be a Historian, a Classician (sp?) or something similar. Even if you're not, you are entitled to your opinion - but I personally am inclined to hold that of a true professonial over it. Honestly, I'm not making stuff up here: this is not an on-going debate among the professonials. There might be some professonials that are of the opinion Jesus didn't exist, but really, they aren't many. I have yet to encounter any of them in the books we have to read from the studies. It's the common opinion among the professionals, approved by majority, that Jesus existed. That is a fact that you can check from any professional.

[FFF]

Originally Posted by FFF

Ok. I'm sorry, my time is running short as I will tomorrow move to a new city, where I won't have an internet connection or a computer until I get one. So I'm out of this shortly. I will address some of your points.

I indeed believe Professor Wells is very good at German, and he might be even quite competent at Classics (or Ancient history, or whatever that deals with the time we're talking about). However, it is his hobby, as you said. Ice hockey is my hobby, but I would look completely out of place in the NHL. And you don't have to be a Biblical Scholar to have an opinion on the matter, you can also be a Historian, a Classician (sp?) or something similar. Even if you're not, you are entitled to your opinion - but I personally am inclined to hold that of a true professonial over it. Honestly, I'm not making stuff up here: this is not an on-going debate among the professonials. There might be some professonials that are of the opinion Jesus didn't exist, but really, they aren't many. I have yet to encounter any of them in the books we have to read from the studies. It's the common opinion among the professionals, approved by majority, that Jesus existed. That is a fact that you can check from any professional.

EDIT: Here's an opinion of Mr Wells from the link I provided earlier. This is by "a hardened skeptic".

Finally, let's seal the coffin on consenus with these words from a hardened skeptic and an Emeritus Professor of History, Morton Smith [Hoff.JesH, 47-8] . Of Wells' work, this historian and skeptic of orthodox Christianity wrote:
"I don't think the arguments in (Wells') book deserve detailed refutation."
"...he argues mainly from silence."
"...many (of his arguments) are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space."
"(Wells) presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels."

[FFF]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In fact, there is NO evidence Jesus existed. You keep admitting it yourself as per the comment below in your last post.

I have said all along that there is nothing contemporary. My point is, that's not surprising. There shouldn't be. Look at the comparables. Nothing of them either

You know, you're not helping yourself by admitting there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus then miraculously saying that in itself explains everything.

I try to be honest. There is no contemporary evidence, and as I've stated, there shouldn't be, for the reasons I've stated. So it's a moot point. I'm not going to make things up here and point to a play by Seneca. That's not my strategy.

What is there to say after that? You can't be serious. Sherlock Holmes would not approve.

This is the crucial point. You talk of contemporary evidence all the time. With all due respect, Mr Cowperson, it's not important. The Ancient world wasn't like that, it didn't work that way. That sounds funny, but it just plain old didn't. News got around way more slowly than they do today. There were no BBC in-depth looks at the goings-on in the region. Nobody just cared what happened out there.

It's actually a modern thing, curiousity just for curiousity's sake. It comes with peace, freedom and boredom. In the ancient world, people cared about staying alive, getting food, making money and themselves. The great interest in news as such is a modern thing. Especially when the news was nothing out of ordinary going on in Palestine.

The entire argument in favour of Jesus seems to rest not on facts but, as HOZ said, the likelihood that a myth couldn't have survived 2000 years. A circumstantial case if you will versus the counterargument pointing to a lack of facts, a lack of facts that reveals a truth.

In an earlier post today, I outlined my position. You have yet to attack it from anywhere else than the lack of contemporary evidence.

Then you have the few non-Christian quotes (I don't see anyone challenging Tacitus anymore? anybody?)

Tacitus was born somewhere between 56 and 64 AD . . . . well after the alleged life of Jesus.That's simply a fact. He mentions "Christus" in the Annals, a publication in 109 AD, also a fact. Given the dates, its obviously hearsay, written at a time when Christianity was gaining hold but well after the life of Jesus.

No, it isn't obviously hearsay. Historians actually did research, as I pointed out earlier.

Though his work is the most reliable source for the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned: the Annals are based in part on secondary sources of unknown reliability,

How is that helping your position? That says Tacitus is the most relieble source for the history of his era. And he mentions Jesus.

Oh, you mean the part that factual accuracy is occasionally questioned. By this you mean to render the whole book unreliable? Sorry, now you have to show me that the passage in question is questioned in a serious work by a scholar (other than by professor of Germany or a Mathematician, please).

Lastly, it is a clear-cut consensus among the historians and theologians. Even atheists and agnostics among the scholars (of this area of expertise) admit there was a man named Jesus. Almost to a man.

That is a remarkably bald faced overstatement of your position. The noble beliefs link I provided earlier, at the end, has dozens of quotes objecting to your position.

Sorry, but I don't think that's a bald faced comment, whatever that means (I think I get the gist). The fact remains, that a vast majority of scholars agree on this matter... be they atheists, agnostics or Christians.

I might be able to stab at the issue tomorrow morning, but other than that, this discussion is nearing its end for me. If you can attack my main line of defense

[Tower]

I have something to add. Take it for what it is worth.

I have been a non-believer almost all my life. Even as a child I didn't believe the stories. I still don't.
2005 has been the hardest year of my life and I'm very proud of how I have handled myself and how I have grown. I'd say I've found something - it's not concrete - it's not proven and perhaps it was in me all along. I still don't believe in whole organization of Christian views. I do believe there is something there.

Okay a flakey story will be inserted here --> I was probably at my lowest point in my life early/mid 2005 - I lost just about everything - family (divorce)/friends (due to divorce - that pesky choosing side crap), I saw my kids very rarely and affording a lawyer is pretty much a no go at my wage. (Insert violin here) - The reason I'm saying this is just a brief incite to where I was.
One night I had an awful nightmare with demons - and I was battling them alone. I was getting tired and run down and they started defeating me. I woke up and in the mirror right next to was my great grandfather who passed away when I was 13. He had a smile on his face and then disappeared. I believe he was there helping me. The next dream I remember I was walking down the sidewalk and a bus stops - the doors open and it's Jesus. He said "Get on" And I did. After that night I started to do everything differently - it was a slow change but by Sept I became #1 in my company over 1050 employees.

Maybe I just saw something that my mind created. I like to think I'm being helped by the people who love me and want to see me reach my potential with my children and my goals. Something was there, and I saw my great-grandfather - I didn't have a great relationship with him. I did, however, with my grandfather. I think if it was to have been from my mind I'd have seen my grandpa instead.

Since I have opened my heart more to a belief, even if it's not the bibles teachings, and not believing in fact (because what happened to me can't be proven) good things have been happening. If it was not a good thing that was happening to me I spun it to become a good thing. I can write a story about it. Does it make it any less powerful like the stories in the bible? Can we just use them as stories to teach a lesson? Maybe we are being too much like adults and looking into Jesus too much. Jesus to me is a tool to use and aid us in love, forgiveness, and respect.

[shizzaster]

why?