Italian priest ordered to prove Jesus existed

[FFF]

Ok, this is my last stab. I have to say I think I myself have misunderstood Cowperson's hunger for contemporary evidence. I thought we were talking about contemporary authors in the Roman world not mentioning Jesus. So I haven't brought up the point about Gospels. I only now remembered that Cowperson previously denied that they were written by contemporaries for some reason. Therefore I'll take a quick look at it:

John is considered by most scholars to be the youngest (some think it's the oldest, but they're a minority) Gospel. It's timing isn't certain, but it was written in the nineties or before. 90 AD the disciple John, who the author clearly claims to be, would have been about 80, if he was a youngster during Jesus's death circa 30 AD. If it was written ten years earlier, he would have been about 70. And so on.

The Gospel of Mark, which is by consensus the oldest, is classically dated at about 70 AD, give or take a couple years. Most scholars believe his source was Peter, and that he portrays himself right in the mix in the passion narrative, when there is an odd story of a young man running after the Romans have siezed his clothes.

So two of the Gospel writers claim to have been there. The other two have clearly had other sources, depending on which they at some points challenge the Gospel of Mark. And then there are the other gospels that are not in the Bible.

At some point you have to wonder how much can be just made up without motive. Historians say, "aus nicht wird's nichts", from nothing comes nothing. Clearly there is something behind this all. His opponents, who had either lived there and then or had easy access to people who had, believed it.

I believe the Italian priest has a case, but we'll see which route he takes.

Thank you for the conversation.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Tower

- the doors open and it's Jesus.

What did Jesus look like?

I'm not questioning your beliefs or what you perceived happening to you, its a very valid question that goes a long way to explaining what "happened".

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Tower

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.

Tower...heres what an online dream interpretor has to say about your dream.

Demons... very interesting. The meaning of one in your dream revolves around the power they have on you the other characters in your dream. Demons in dreams usually have supernatural powers which either helped or harmed you in your dream. If a demon is trying to stop you from accomplishing a task, then you may have a subconcious perception that some evil or unfair force is trying to stop you from succeeding in life.
There are two schools of thought about your dreams of a mirror. One is that if you see yourself in a mirror it foretells of a terrible illness or failure, death of a business, and the other school of thought is, to see oneself in a mirror is a sign that you will soon be facing issues within yourself that you have been subconsciously hiding from yourself. Traditionally, if the mirror is broken then will there be news of a 'death' in the family. But again, this is probably not literal, more like an extreme change in the lifestyle of a family member. Maybe even for the better.
If you dream you are talking to or see your grandfather in your dream, listen to him. Look at the other symbols in your dream to see what he is advising you about. Traditionally, dreaming about a grandparent means you are exploring your feelings of love, home and protection.
Like other vehicles, a bus may signify your mind's movement towards achieving significant goals. To wait for a bus in you dream means you may have a temporary set back before attaining them. If you're riding on a bus, it'll be smooth sailing.
Dreaming that you saw Jesus is a pretty heavy dream, my friend. Don't worry, it's not an omen that you're on your way to your grave or anything-- dreaming of Jesus is usually about inner wisdom-- it may be a sign that you need to get some things in order.


So it sounds as if your turmoils are being brought out in your dreams.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by FFF

Ok, this is my last stab. I have to say I think I myself have misunderstood Cowperson's hunger for contemporary evidence. I thought we were talking about contemporary authors in the Roman world not mentioning Jesus. So I haven't brought up the point about Gospels. I only now remembered that Cowperson previously denied that they were written by contemporaries for some reason. Therefore I'll take a quick look at it:

John is considered by most scholars to be the youngest (some think it's the oldest, but they're a minority) Gospel. It's timing isn't certain, but it was written in the nineties or before. 90 AD the disciple John, who the author clearly claims to be, would have been about 80, if he was a youngster during Jesus's death circa 30 AD. If it was written ten years earlier, he would have been about 70. And so on.

The Gospel of Mark, which is by consensus the oldest, is classically dated at about 70 AD, give or take a couple years. Most scholars believe his source was Peter, and that he portrays himself right in the mix in the passion narrative, when there is an odd story of a young man running after the Romans have siezed his clothes.

So two of the Gospel writers claim to have been there. The other two have clearly had other sources, depending on which they at some points challenge the Gospel of Mark. And then there are the other gospels that are not in the Bible.

At some point you have to wonder how much can be just made up without motive. Historians say, "aus nicht wird's nichts", from nothing comes nothing. Clearly there is something behind this all. His opponents, who had either lived there and then or had easy access to people who had, believed it.

I believe the Italian priest has a case, but we'll see which route he takes.

Thank you for the conversation.

You should know better than that FFF.

The gospels are nothing more than hearsay, written well after the crucifixion and in fact are attributed to people who probably didn't write them in the first place.

Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them." [Pagels, 1995]

Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the unknown Gospel authors wrote them during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do these authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.

The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." [Pagels, 1995]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

The biography of Elaine Pagels in case you want to slay her:

http://www.roycecarlton.com/speakers/pagels.html

This is your problem in this entire debate.

The Italian Priest will stand up and attempt to inject Paul into the trial and the lawyer for his opponent will stand up and shout: "Hearsay!!!" and produce a scholar like Elaine Pagels to back it up.

The Italian Priest will also stand up and attempt to inject Mark into the argument but you told us above, in your own words, that the probable source for Mark was Peter . . . . . . and the claim of "Hearsay!!" will be injected again. In fact, there is a lot more than that wrong with the gospel of Mark:

The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the unknown author of Mark wrote it at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor served as his personal follower. Whoever wrote this gospel, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark served as the common element between Matthew and Luke and gave the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]

A biography of Helms

http://www.asu.edu/clas/english/who/helms.htm

Hearsay, hearsay, hearsay . . . .

Even worse, Christian writers themselves appear not to have heard of the Gospels in the early days:

"The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: 'The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him (Justin) - do not occur once in all his writings.'" In A Short History of the Bible, Keeler says, "The books [canonical gospels] are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them."

http://www.truthbeknown.com/footnote.htm

Of the 40 or so Roman historians writing in the first two centures AD, only Tacitus and Suetonius mention a Chrestusus living in the first century AD, both writing almost 100 years after the crucifixion.

And we hear the cry of "Hearsay" once again.

And on and on and on. . . . . second and third hand accounts will be rejected.

As to the incredible claim that "christianity has been around for 2000 years, therefore there must be something to it, I'm surprised yourself and HOZ, given the age you live in, would even bring it up.

The age old term: "That rumour has taken on a life of its own" is still valid even in the age of instant information . . . . . . and you can imagine how valid it was in an age of superstition and hopelessness, where such things were believed out of hand.

An example from this day and age: a Gallup survey of the muslim world in 2001 found something like 90% of Muslims believed "the Jews in the World Trade Center" were telephoned and warned of the impending 9/11 attack which, of course, was a Jewish conspiracy against the Muslim world. A fascinating examination of how that notion took hold:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520768.shtml

I have no problem at all believing Christianity formed out of thin air on the dubious weight of a mythical figure, solidified later on by the interests of power and terrors like The Spanish Inquisition.

The myth is certainly easier to believe. The Italian Priest is going to need a miracle to pull it out of the fire.
Cowperson