$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
$666 for contemporary evidence of Jesus

The Rational Response Squad is proud to announce that we are giving believers of Jesus Christ a chance (again) to provide sufficient proof that he existed.


Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ. This means a single person who wrote about him while he was alive. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and for Jesus: a man who walked on water, turned water into wine, healed the crippled, then died and came back to life to fly into the sky, the proof just isn't there. Our listeners are well aware that there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ. This is your chance (again) to shut us up! Not only will you win $666, but we'll be forced to tell our audience that evidence exists, and our friend Brian Flemming will be forced to completely overhaul his movie.


AWARD FOR CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE: $666
The evidence must reconcile well with what we know of the time from Roman records and other writers of the day. They must also not conflict with cities, governments, places and people we know who actually lived during the time. Keep in mind the New Testament was written well after Jesus died, and serves as no proof of his existence.


What doesn't count as CONTEMPORARY evidence? Lucian, The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Those are the most common proofs, none of which were written while Jesus was alive.


ALL RESPONSES MUST BE POSTED ON RATIONAL RESPONDERS MESSAGE BOARD FOR PUBLIC VIEWING, NONE OTHERS WILL BE CONSIDERED. PASS IT ON!!!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
$666 to first person to prove Jesus actually existed!

[This post reserved for future F.A.Q.'s]

First one:

Q. Are you guys for real? Will you really pay out money?
A. Yes. We will gladly pay out for this evidence. In fact we will gladly join up with you to attain movie deals, book deals, and worldwide fame for the evidence that you find. We'll work together with you to become multi-millionaires!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Horror812
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
$666 to first person to prove Jesus actually existed!

There are physical items that have been purported to support the existence corresponding to Jesus. "The Shroud of Turin" is surrounded by controversy and is the single most studied artifact in human history. Although no piece of physical evidence has been introduced that conclusively proves that Jesus Christ existed, there is a fair amount of historical writing that suggests he did. Many secular historians say Jesus existed. Pontius Pilate (1 BC-AD 37) wrote: "At His coming the lame will leap as a deer, and the stammering tongue will clearly speak: the blind will see, and the lepers will be healed; and the dead will rise, and walk. And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." - First Apology 48

"They pierced my hands and my feet, was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were driven into His hands and feet. And. . . they cast lots for His clothes, and after they crucified Him distributed it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." - First Apology 35

This reference reveals that Christ performed amazing miracles and he died on a cross with his hands and feet pierced by nails. This WAS written while Jesus was living.

Lucian of Samosata lived during the second century. He was a satirist who was scornful of Christians. He wrote: "The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith..." - The Passing Peregrinus

This suggests that Christians worshipped Jesus and Jesus was crucified for what he taught.

Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, making is a history book, which is about Jesus.

Prove that he DIDN'T exist and include your shipping address. If you do, I'll mail you some cookies.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
$666 to first person to prove Jesus actually existed!

Horror812 wrote:
There are physical items that have been purported to support the existence corresponding to Jesus. "The Shroud of Turin" is surrounded by controversy and is the single most studied artifact in human history. Although no piece of physical evidence has been introduced that conclusively proves that Jesus Christ existed, there is a fair amount of historical writing that suggests he did.

No, really, there isn't.

Quote:
Many secular historians say Jesus existed.

This is an apeal to authority, and not necessarily a factual one. Richard Carrier is a very well versed secular scholar and agrees with Doherty.

Quote:
Pontius Pilate (1 BC-AD 37) wrote: "At His coming the lame will leap as a deer, and the stammering tongue will clearly speak: the blind will see, and the lepers will be healed; and the dead will rise, and walk. And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." - First Apology 48

"They pierced my hands and my feet, was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were driven into His hands and feet. And. . . they cast lots for His clothes, and after they crucified Him distributed it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate." - First Apology 35

This reference reveals that Christ performed amazing miracles and he died on a cross with his hands and feet pierced by nails. This WAS written while Jesus was living.

You did no research on this at all. In fact, you copied and pasted from a Christian website without even considering they were wrong!

These two quotes are from a work which never existed, in fact, and they come directly from a late second century source, Justin Martyr. He, himself, did not even have the origional copy of what he proported to have heard these quotes from, and in fact no such record from Pilate to any emporer exists, or is known to have existed in any substantial form or another. Not even Claudius or Tiberius seems to know of these reports you claim he had written, and no other figure in Galilee seems to have known of their existence either.

The ONLY other work attributed to be by Pilate, wasn't even written by Pilate, and is attested to have been written between 155-255 CE, quite a bit longer then 25 years after the supposed death of Jesus, isn't it?

So you have proven here you are more attuned at using other peoples works instead of doing your own research, and you have no desire to cross-reference works you choose to use. Try again when you study up some. These are merely quotes from a second century source without himself providing references other then hearsay. When you can produce the actual documents of Pilate, with these quotes in these writings, then I shall find these quotes acceptable. Happy hunting.

Quote:
Lucian of Samosata lived during the second century. He was a satirist who was scornful of Christians. He wrote: "The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith..." - The Passing Peregrinus

This suggests that Christians worshipped Jesus and Jesus was crucified for what he taught.

I'm just going to repost what I've already said about Lucian here because I'm too short on time to worry about it when I already have shown this to be inadequate more times then one man should:

  1. Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus

    1. 1. Lucian was NOT a contemporary or eye-witness.
    2. 2. Lucian does NOT mention Jesus OR the cult this man who was crucified in Palestine started.

    The whole argument for Lucian is bunk. And the fact that it?s only a slight mention, if but two sentences, really doesn?t help your case.

    Some Christian once wrote:
    ...but Lucian clearly was talking of who the Christians worshipped.

    So it proved the Christians worshipped somebody. Who?s arguing that point? This is irrelevant.

    Some Christian once wrote:
    He was also describing the teachings of Christianity(brothers at the time of conversion) and the conversion involved the denial of Greek gods and living according to His teaching.

    This is as I stated above Lucian?s reference to the Christians reaction to HIS CHARACTER, Peregrines! This is a failure on your part, because you probably just went to some Christian site, copied the butchered text, and pasted it as if that was all Lucian wrote in his entire life. Where in fact these statements you claim are applied to Jesus are actually about a man named Peregrines who, ?for a time in his early life went over to Christianity, practicing it to the point of imprisonment under a very tolerant administration, and after returning to Cynicism became in his old age so enamoured of Indic ideas and precedents that he cremated himself at Olympia, just after the games of A.D. 165, even as Calanus had done at Susa in the presence of Alexander the Great and as Zarmarus had done at Athens, after initiation into the mysteries, in the presence of Augustus.? - H.M. Harmon (Lucian of Samosata : The Passing of Peregrines)

    It should be noted too, that Josephus talks a lot about crucifixion in his works. In the 120 years that passed between Jesus' supposed existence and Lucian, thousands upon thousands were crucified in Palestine. In fact, in just one year, multitudes numbering 500 in one day, sometimes more, were sent to be crucified during the seige in 70 CE.

    "...before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies." (War 5: Chapter 11)

    To claim that the one man who was crucified is your savior is incredulous. So many myth's were flying around the time of Lucian it is impossible really to name them all. So many "saviors" crucified. And since Christ more have followed. Whether they be of the Chrestians and Christians, or of false prophets that are known to us such as Alexander and his followers (Also written by Lucian).

    Incidentally...Alexander was claiming to be the son of Zeus (hm) and he was a sage, and an oracle. He preformed miracles that Lucian mocked.

    "As a matter of fact, this trick, to a man like you, and if it is not out of place to say so, like myself also, was obvious and easy to see through, but to those drivelling idiots it was miraculous and almost as good as incredible."

    "Well, as I say, Alexander made predictions and gave oracles, employing great shrewdness in it and combining guesswork with his trickery. He gave responses that were sometimes obscure and am?biguous, sometimes downright unintelligible, for this seemed to him in the oracular manner. Some people he dissuaded or encouraged as seemed best to him at a guess. To others he prescribed medical treatments and diets, knowing, as I said in the beginning, many useful remedies."

    "By now he was even sending men abroad to create rumours in the different nations in regard to the oracle and to say that he made predictions, discovered fugitive slaves, detected thieves and robbers, caused treasures to be dug up, healed the sick, and in some cases had actually raised the dead. " (sound familiar yet?)

Quote:
Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, making is a history book, which is about Jesus.

If you had bothered to read my thread here about Biblical Contradictions, you'd clearly have seen that the Bile is no more a history book then Moby Dick. I've got a laundry list of historical problems in the Bible, problems that just don't add up with actual historicity. When you can show me where I err in these contradictions, I will take you on your word for it. Until that day however, the Bible remains as invalid and false as any other religious book in extant.

Quote:
Prove that he DIDN'T exist and include your shipping address. If you do, I'll mail you some cookies.

The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Thatr means it is up to YOU, as the alleger, to prove to me that your demi-god existed. Nice try though.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
$666 to first person to prove Jesus actually existed!

According to your challenge, does the believer have to find evidence for

(a) Jesus' existence

or

(b) Jesus' existence plus his performance of certain supernatural actions, e.g. walked on water, rose from the dead, and so on?

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Equilibrium
Equilibrium's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2006-02-13
User is offlineOffline
$666 to first person to prove Jesus actually existed!

Gavagai wrote:
According to your challenge, does the believer have to find evidence for

(a) Jesus' existence

or

(b) Jesus' existence plus his performance of certain supernatural actions, e.g. walked on water, rose from the dead, and so on?

The first one.

"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
$666 to first person to prove Jesus actually existed!

No Equilibrium, actually the second one. We're looking to find the supernatural Jesus. Like we said, the man we're looking for walked on water and healed the crippled. Of course, we'd be interested in evidence for a non-supernatural Jesus as well. We don't see appropriate evidence for either Jesus.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cbenard
cbenard's picture
Posts: 81
Joined: 2006-04-16
User is offlineOffline
I received this from an xian

I received this from an xian friend of mine in response to me reposting one of the $666 bulletins. He posted it as a bulletin and I replied. His posts are in italics; mine are not. Please be nice, as I know you will be, if he does indeed come here. His name is Daniel.
-------------

First, I would advise you to post your replies in our forum regarding the $666. We welcome Christians too, as long as they are civil. If you look on our board, you'll see there are several christians and other theists and we interact with them respectfully and without insult.

I'd like to respond to a few of your points, and I'm going to post it as a reply to the $666 thread mentioned above, and I'd really like you to go there to reply, and I will be monitoring it and replying too.

Proof for the existence of Jesus Christ is not required.

If I had "different" views about Chemistry from you and made claims without proof, you would ask me to prove what I believe. Religion is the only area where we permit people to make claims with absolutely no proof whatsoever and we feel that they cannot question these irrational beliefs. The Rational Response Squad doesn't share this belief.

I guess it is for your very original "rational response team".....which btw I don't understand because I don't understand how there is anything "rational" about trying to disprove what the majority of the world over believes

It is very much required for us. We don't believe irrational things without proof. I'd be the first to admit I was wrong if I was presented with proof that Jesus existed. There just happens to be nothing to support a Jesus figure existing on Earth.

and don't bother giving me any kind of "proof" to debunk that because it really doesn't matter. Like I said proof is NOT necessary, for true Christians who believe that Jesus existed and still exists actually, just in a different place, know that belief in Jesus is all about faith.

The burden of proof isn't on the one disbelieving the claim. It's upon the one making the claim. If I make a claim that there is a tiny teapot revolving around the sun that you cannot see with telescopes, you would have no reason to believe me unless I present you supporting proof.

The guy who posted this knows this WAY down deep in his heart and no matter how many of these pointless teams he joins or how many bulletins he posts with the number 666 in the heading, he can't deny what he knows to be true. But he will never ever let anyone know that he really knows the truth.

I do not know any of this "deep down in my heart". This isn't a "team" that is "against" people. We are a group that supports rational thought. We support people thinking rationally about their surroundings as I personally did. We support people freeing themselves from irrational believes that are completely unfounded. This naturally includes religion. The number 666 is simply the amount of money the Rational Response Squad is offering as a bounty. I just reposted the bulletin. Granted, it is an attempt to garner interest in the project. If I supposedly "knew" this "truth", why wouldn't I follow its teachings? That is also irrational.

But this isn't about Chris, this is about Jesus right?? Well I have no proof and have never seen any physical proof from when He was actually alive, most likely no such thing exists. So to you Jesus will never exist and I guess that's your decision to believe that way. But if you think belief in the Savior of the world requires some kind of physical proof...something you can see and feel and touch....then you've missed the whole point of the existence of Jesus Christ in the first place.

I think you missed the point of the post. The point is that there is no evidence for something that you believe in without proof. Take just a second to think silently to yourself why you believe in this god and this jesus figure. It is because you learned it at church. It is because your parents taught it to you. I know both of these things because I went to church with you for many years. I was definitely a believing, practicing Christian. You know this, since you were in Sunday school classes with me since we were little kids. The only reason you believe this is because people told it to you and you read it in a book.

We BELIEVE in Him and have FAITH that He walked this earth and performed miracles and then yes was killed and rose into the sky, only to return some day in the future, which He will, and the way the world is going now, that might not be too far away. Man I can only imagine what kind of "rational responses" I'm going to get from this thing. It doesn't matter really. One day hopefully you will see that "proof" doesn't matter...BELIEF in something is the only thing that makes this life worth living. Peace guys

All of that was in a book with no basis in reality for the "miracles". I hope you'll consider all of the points I mentioned above sincerely.

Sincerely,
-Daniel-

I sincerely hope you will come and post on the Rational Response Squad site, and this thread in particular. We will welcome you in intelligent dialog. Who knows? We may both learn something.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
That post really should've

That post really should've gone here.

If someone has contemporary proof it goes in this thread, if they want to comment on why they think Jesus shouldn't have contemporary proof or anything other than providing contemporary proof, it goes in this thread.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


sharky
Theist
sharky's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Okay, firstly I understand

Okay, firstly I understand you seem to have made your minds up already about the existence of God, and your question is set up more to make a mockery of Faith rather than a genuine wanting to examine the possibility of God existing. I hope you do give what I have to say a thought.

Firstly, when proving the existence of Jesus, It becomes apparent the Bible is going to be relied upon heavily for literary evidence. This begs the question 'Is the new testament reliable?'

Chinese whispers...
Many people compare the Bible's sources to a big game of Chinese whispers - one statement about Jesus is passed onto the next generation of writers, who then pass it down to the next, and so on. Each generation makes the statement less reliable, as more people have changed it. One verse often used in this theory is the one about Jesus walking on water. The initial writer may have wrote down that Jesus 'paddled across the lake to meet the disciples'. The next person in the chain decides that's far to boring, so changes it to swimming, then the next generation changes it to swimming in a storm, and by the end of the line we get the statement that Jesus walked on water in a storm.

There is one problem with this theory, though. If people kept deciding to change details to make the story more interesting, you'd soon have one final version saying Jesus surfed on water, another saying he hovered above it, another saying he was Jet biking across it - each version with minor differences. This is of course an exaggerated scenario, but the point remains - how come all of the texts we have of the bible agree?

Contradictions?
You may argue that there are minor contradictions with the bible - eg in Mathew 1 and Luke 3, where Jesus' genealogies are listed. Different names are mentioned, so there is a possible contradiction. An explanation of this could be Mathew may give Joseph's side of the family tree while Luke gives Mary's side, or that both genealogies are of Joseph's side, but one gives the biological line and the other gives a legal line (Hebrew laws of inheritance causes differences between the two). Minor variations in texts are often argued by historians to make the text more genuine - if the writers were lying, they'd make sure all their facts and details were correct, in case it was to be tested by someone. Two humans will never regard a situation in exactly the same way as each other.

Early Problems
This brings us to another stumbling block for the Bible's authenticity - what if the problem was at the top of the chain, before or with the first writer?

The question is - would any of these people have a motive or reason to make stuff up about Jesus. Usually people only lie to get themselves out of sticky situations or somehow benefit from lying. Judging that nearly all of the disciples died in painful ways because of the message they tried to sent out, there was little in it for them, fabricating stories about Jesus, if they knew he was a fraud. That leads on to the question of whether the disciples were therefore insane, believing in Jesus, and I'd be happy to discuss that too.

The scholar Craig Blomberg has estimated the time between Jesus' death and the writing of Matthew to 30 years - by then, there would still be hundreds of eyewitnesses around who could have easily denied any of the statements made in that book, completely smashing its credibility, but the book remains.

This has certainly convinced me of the Bible's reliability. If the bible is then reliable, what it says about Jesus must therefore have some truth in it.

Sorry about the length of the post - there's so much to discuss. I'm happy to answer any queries you have about this post - there's loads of conspiracy about Jesus e.g. hypnotizing people etc.

I hope this has been helpful

Sharky


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote:Okay, firstly I

sharky wrote:
Okay, firstly I understand you seem to have made your minds up already about the existence of God

Please stop projecting your dogmatic thinking onto others. We don't believe because there's no good reason to believe. Show us some good reasons, and we'll change our minds. Who wouldn't want to live forever in eternal bliss? If you're right, and you convince me, then that's where I'll be.

But if we're right, then your fantasyland dies... so it's pretty clear that the bias is far, far stronger for your side.

Quote:

, and your question is set up more to make a mockery of Faith rather than a genuine wanting to examine the possibility of God existing.

If you have evidence, present it.

Quote:

Firstly, when proving the existence of Jesus, It becomes apparent the Bible is going to be relied upon heavily for literary evidence.

So, you don't have any actual contemporary historical accounts.

Quote:

This begs the question 'Is the new testament reliable?'

And it is not. Read Rook's posts on this.

Quote:

There is one problem with this theory, though. If people kept deciding to change details to make the story more interesting, you'd soon have one final version saying Jesus surfed on water, another saying he hovered above it, another saying he was Jet biking across it - each version with minor differences. This is of course an exaggerated scenario, but the point remains - how come all of the texts we have of the bible agree?

Actually, this is precisely what we do find. The book of Mark is the first account, and the most sober account of the gospels. There isn't even a virgin birth, nor was there even a resurrection story in the earliest editions.

By the time we get past the synopotic gospels, to the last gospel, John, we have the most supernatural and mysterious account of 'jesus' of all. We do end up with a scenario just like you've presented.

Tell me, do you even read the gospels yourself? If you did, you'd know this already.

Quote:

Contradictions?
You may argue that there are minor contradictions with the bible - eg in Mathew 1 and Luke 3, where Jesus' genealogies are listed. Different names are mentioned, so there is a possible contradiction. An explanation of this could be Mathew may give Joseph's side of the family tree while Luke gives Mary's side, or that both genealogies are of Joseph's side,

Read Rook's refutation of this nonsensical attempt to dodge the problem.

Quote:

Early Problems
This brings us to another stumbling block for the Bible's authenticity - what if the problem was at the top of the chain, before or with the first writer?

Actually, there are many more stumbling blocks than this.

There's the fact that the books are anonymous.

There's the fact that the Matthew author even concedes he was not a witness.

There's the fact that even the earliest version, Mark, is clearly a midrash of the Old Testament and not an eyewitness account of anything.

If you are really so open minded as you imply, you'd read this:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

Quote:

The question is - would any of these people have a motive or reason to make stuff up about Jesus.

Sure. Because to them, 'jesus' was a concept. a teacher. The specifics didn't matter... what mattered was their belief...

Quote:

Usually people only lie to get themselves out of sticky situations or somehow benefit from lying.

They don't need to 'lie', they merely need to believe that what they are doing is right.

Quote:

The scholar Craig Blomberg has estimated the time between Jesus' death and the writing of Matthew to 30 years -

He's wrong, and obviously so, because if Matthew were writing by then, then why didn't Paul cite him?

Clealry even the book of Mark was not ready at that time, let alone the books that copied from mark: Matthew and Luke.

Quote:

by then, there would still be hundreds of eyewitnesses around who could have easily denied any of the statements made in that book,

You're begging the question that 'jesus' existed in the first place.

If there were hundreds of eyewitnesses, then why didn't Paul ask any of them for a description of jesus? Why don't we even learn their names?

Quote:

This has certainly convinced me of the Bible's reliability.

You've not really examined the matter.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


sharky
Theist
sharky's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There's the fact that

Quote:
There's the fact that the Matthew author even concedes he was not a witness.

What's wrong with truthfully admitting you're not a witness. I could write a biography of a guy I haven't met before and still get all the details through eyewitness accounts.

Quote:
There's the fact that even the earliest version, Mark, is clearly a midrash of the Old Testament and not an eyewitness account of anything.

Where is the evidence for that? Matthew is the gospel which often quotes the Old Testament (the reason for this is because it was aimed at a Jewish audience, hence the genealogy at the beginning, and the references to Jewish scriptures to prove the authenticity of Christ). What's supporting your generalised statements?

If you still want the writings of a direct eyewitness, and not a collaboration of eyewitnesses, 1 Peter was written by the apostle Peter, a diciple of Jesus (see http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/1Pet.htm). The 3rd verse in his first letter states
"3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"
So he, a man who witnessed everything first hand, believed in Jesus and the resurrection.

Though you say sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger cannot be used as they are not eyewitness, these non-Christian romans did write between them the following statements:
-Jesus was a Jewish teacher
-Many people believed he performed healings and other miracles
-Some people believed he was the long-awaited Messiah
-He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
-He was crucified under the authority of Pontious Pilate in the reign of Tiberious
Though these do not prove Jesus was the messiah, as the writers did not believe it, it does prove he existed, as these non-believers would have nothing to gain or loose by writing this.

If you are genuinely open minded, a really good book to read is The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel (amazon link is here), an atheist lawyer who set out to disprove Christianity once and for all, but found the evidence for Jesus all going the other way. See what you make of the evidence yourself.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote:Quote:There's

sharky wrote:
Quote:
There's the fact that the Matthew author even concedes he was not a witness.

What's wrong with truthfully admitting you're not a witness.

Where did I lodge that as my complaint?!

Glad you can concede that he was not a eyewitness. 1 down, three gospels to go.

Quote:

I could write a biography of a guy I haven't met before and still get all the details through eyewitness accounts.

Right. You'd have to turn to secondary sources, or tertiary sources... you'd have to get to someone who was an eyewitness.

But what do we know of "matthew's' research methods? We don't even know who 'matthew' is... he's anonymous to us.

So we have an anonymous person, who's not an eyewitness... writing a gospel?

Do you see the problem?

The problem deepens when we realize that matthew, along with Luke, copied a great deal of their 'gospel' from Mark. Yet Mark's work is 'midrash' of the OT.

So what are they actually referencing? Sounds like the 'origin' is really a story, that used the OT to tell it.

Quote:
There's the fact that even the earliest version, Mark, is clearly a midrash of the Old Testament and not an eyewitness account of anything.

Quote:

Where is the evidence for that?

I just gave some of it to you above.

Again: http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_index.html

Take some time and read it.

Quote:

Matthew is the gospel which often quotes the Old Testament (the reason for this is because it was aimed at a Jewish audience, hence the genealogy at the beginning, and the references to Jewish scriptures to prove the authenticity of Christ).

So you say. But here's something specific to matthew that shows that he's not just 'quoting the OT' but in fact building his story from the OT.

Matthew takes from Zechariah and attempts to make this a prophecy about "Jesus"

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Now, this reference to a king cannot be a reference to jesus at all.... for many reasons... but let's leave those aside as there's an even bigger blunder here. And the blunder proves that the matthew author was not just using the OT to 'prove the authenticity' of jesus as the christ, but in fact was creating a story whole-cloth from the OT

The matthew author refers to both references to the same animal (the writing style of repetition) here as if they are actually two animals and he uses the same terms:

21:1 And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

21:2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

Bring THEM both. TWO animals.

21:3 And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them ; and straightway he will send them.

THEM. BOTH.

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"

This verse claims that Jesus ordered that BOTH ANIMALS BE BROUGHT TO HIM SO THAT the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 would be fulfilled:

[B]21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

RIDE THEM BOTH, BECAUSE THEY ARE INTRODUCED AS TWO ANIMALS. BOTH.

But the 'prophet' only refers to one animal.

******The matthew author has commited an error.***********

21:6 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

21:7 And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

So the matthew author is not just 'citing the OT' for the jews... he's taking his story entirely from the OT. The proof is that this ridiculous story could only be born of a confused misreading of the OT, and not an eyewitness account.

This blunder reveals the truth.

Quote:

If you still want the writings of a direct eyewitness, and not a collaboration of eyewitnesses, 1 Peter was written by the apostle Peter, a diciple of Jesus

See Rook's refutation of this claim.

Quote:

Though you say sources from Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger cannot be used as they are not eyewitness,

They can't. They aren't.

Quote:

these non-Christian romans did write between them the following statements:
-Jesus was a Jewish teacher
-Many people believed he performed healings and other miracles
-Some people believed he was the long-awaited Messiah
-He was rejected by the Jewish leaders
-He was crucified under the authority of Pontious Pilate in the reign of Tiberious

Most of that comes from Josephus, and the passage in question is considered a fraudulent insertion!

Please see Rook's refutation for more. You just can't build a case from these writers.

Quote:

If you are genuinely open minded, a really good book to read is The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel

Read it. It's trash. If you're really open minded, go and read this refutation of his nonsense.

http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/

Strobel is pretty ignorant of pretty much everything he argues over.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


sharky
Theist
sharky's picture
Posts: 20
Joined: 2006-12-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Right. You'd have to

Quote:
Right. You'd have to turn to secondary sources, or tertiary sources... you'd have to get to someone who was an eyewitness.

But what do we know of "matthew's' research methods? We don't even know who 'matthew' is... he's anonymous to us.

So we have an anonymous person, who's not an eyewitness... writing a gospel?

Do you see the problem?


At the time of writing, many eyewitnesses were still about, so surely any inaccuracies in the Gospel would be challenged by them. Isn't a collaboration of eyewitness accounts more reliable than a single eyewitness telling his own account of the event?

as for josephus' testimony, http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html seems to give a pretty balanced view. It looks like not all the sources have been tampered with - some are kept in original form and still mention the existance of Jesus.

check out http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_christianity_is_not_false.html for more evidence.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
sharky wrote:Quote:Right.

sharky wrote:
Quote:
Right. You'd have to turn to secondary sources, or tertiary sources... you'd have to get to someone who was an eyewitness.

But what do we know of "matthew's' research methods? We don't even know who 'matthew' is... he's anonymous to us.

So we have an anonymous person, who's not an eyewitness... writing a gospel?

Do you see the problem?


At the time of writing, many eyewitnesses were still about,

You're begging the question here. You can't prove they existed in the first place.

Quote:

so surely any inaccuracies in the Gospel would be challenged by them.

This again begs the question that they existed. How many times do you intend to repeat the same fallacy?

Quote:

Isn't a collaboration of eyewitness accounts more reliable than a single eyewitness telling his own account of the event?

Yes. So you'd think that their would be one. But there are none.

Even Paul, who mentions witnesses, never gives us their names. Nor does he ever interview them, and get info from them.

How odd.

Quote:

as for josephus' testimony, http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html seems to give a pretty balanced view. It looks like not all the sources have been tampered with - some are kept in original form and still mention the existance of Jesus.

No. There's no good reason to believe that there are any jesus references in Josephus

Here's why.

His major work was a history of the Jews.

If he had evidence of jesus, jesus would have dominated his history book.

Instead, jesus gets no mention. None.

That would be like the moon exploding in 1979, and Carl Sagan not mentioning it in Cosmos.

You can stop citing things to me that I read 10 years ago, and instead focus on reading something yourself. If you have any knowledge whatsoever of Josephus, you'd realize the problem I just pointed out. But your sole knowledge of "josephus' probably came from an internet search.

Again, read Rook's posts...... learn something about what you're attemping to debate. Oh, and please at least try to respond to what I say, you tend to just ignore it all.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
What I find interesting, and

What I find interesting, and what proves to the inability of Sharkys to actually read Josephus, is that Josephus gives us so much incredible detail into various cultures and sects, even so much to tell us EXACTLY step by step how an Essene made a bowl movement. Yet he can't provide us with any sort of helpful information into Jesus' life. How interesting...

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Sheeple Files
Sheeple Files's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2006-12-01
User is offlineOffline
Well I mentioned this

Well I mentioned this "contest" too 2 ministers that I work with and they both said Josephus is non biblical proof. Why do I have to remind Christian Ministers that Josephus was not an eye witness? and that out of almost 20 volumes of jewish history written by him, only a couple sentences refer to a "Jesus" ? And this passage below that many christians refer to was written AFTER HE WAS CAPTURED BY THE ROMANS- this is very important as it makes absolutly no sence in his point of view to mention the Jesus character unless he was made to, by force.   


"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."
[Jewish Antiquities, 18.63-64]


And this is still written in a "past" tense.The above passage that Christians are clinging on to is very unaccurate "proof" of anything.Christians- read up on some the history of  Josephus and see that the above sentence is/was written under duress,if it was even written by him at all and not "planted" there .

"When you understand why YOU dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I DISMISS yours"


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Good advertising gimmick.

Good advertising gimmick.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I would not find this to be

I would not find this to be a good contest. Contemporary evidence of Christ exists, but it is not the same as an eyewitness account, which is what you want. Christ was a poor peasant living in Palestine at the time, which means nobody probably cared even if He did make a little stir in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. The only sources we really have that are eyewitness are the Gospels and the other writings of the New Testament (written by eyewitness or those relying on eyewitness accounts).

The contemporary evidence from the authors you cite is not necessarily untrustworthy. We could go into it later.  Lucian, The Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius: the fact is that these writings mention Christ in some capacity, even though it is seconary material. I likewise would then cite early Christians outside of Scripture such as Ignatius of Antioch, Iraeneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and the innumerable other Christians of the early Church. You also have the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and other like writings.

I would also like to point out that the general thesis that Christ was never believed to have been a real man is clearly contradicted by all of these sources. The earliest faith documents of the Church being the documents of Saint Paul in the New Testament (being written in the early 40s AD) likewise indicate the belief of a real man, Jesus Christ, living in Palestine, to say nothing of the Gospels and other letters.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The

StMichael wrote:

The contemporary evidence from the authors you cite is not necessarily untrustworthy.

We didn't cite anything contemporary, and if you feel contemporary evidence exists please bring it forward.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael is not very well

StMichael is not very well informed, Brian.  I don't think he knows what 'contemporary' means.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The sources being Pliny,

The sources being Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Lucian, Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud, among others. These writings are all roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Christian Church. The most clear and earliest written documents concerning Christ would be at least the four great epistles of Saint Paul (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians), giving the earliest look at the beliefs of the early Christians.

It depends what you mean by 'contemporary' as I had pointed out earlier. It would not make a great deal of sense to ask for eyewitness accounts of Christ's life outside of the Gospels, as I highly doubt that Christ attracted much attention from the secular world of the time. We do, however, have accounts shortly after the Ascension with St. Paul and others, and the Gospels coming shortly after that. The other writings of Christ concern chiefly the Christians themselves, which is to be expected; Christ Himself did not cause much disturbance as one man, but Christians in the public square of Rome/Greece are a different matter, making Christianity a more public phenomenon.

Also, it ought to be said that almost all scholars agree that Christ actually lived as a real person. The view that Christ was purely myth is something rather new and unsupported. Even the highly critical "Jesus Seminar" acknowledges that Christ lived, while they would maintain that His Resurrection and doctrine was the fabrication/mythologizing of later people. For one who always asks Christians to provide peer-reviewed essays in order to substantiate their claims, I could likewise hold you to the same standard. For each article that might exist promoting your own view (I doubt there are many favorable articles), there are a great deal more supporting the opposite view.

And, finally, it ought to be pointed out that the view that early Christianity was essentially gnostic is controversial and not agreed upon. I ought to point to at least one of the most recent works on this subject which refutes this position VERY thoroughly, which would be the Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright. I also find the position untenable that Christ's followers imposed or fabricated that Christ rose from the dead in some spiritual sense as opposed to the view that He physically rose, as contradicted by mountains of evidence from both the early Church and the Gospels/New Testament writings themselves.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: The

StMichael wrote:

The sources being Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus, Lucian, Philo, Josephus, and the Talmud, among others. These writings are all roughly contemporary with the beginning of the Christian Church.

contest rules wrote:

Provide one single reference that originated during the supposed lifetime of Jesus Christ.

All further posts from you in this thread that don't provide an attempt at contemporary evidence for Christ will be removed. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


laguna117
laguna117's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
LMAO @ Sharky   just

LMAO @ Sharky

 

just kidding but sincerely (quoting):

"The question is - would any of these people have a motive or reason to make stuff up about Jesus."

 

Why would he make that up? lol watch the mormon episode of south park... what kind of an argument is that. So no one that ever wrote a religious book made it up? You're not very suspicious are you? So are you also a mormon, a muslim and a raelian at the same time?

 

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


Atheist Eye Candy
Atheist Eye Candy's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"It would not make a great

"It would not make a great deal of sense to ask for eyewitness accounts of Christ's life outside of the Gospels, as I highly doubt that Christ attracted much attention from the secular world of the time."

Yet he attracted so much attention that he was crucified? Granted that the men that wanted him crucified, according to the bible, were the Pharisees, not exactly the secular world as you claim the attraction would have come from. However you think that somewhere in history we would have located such a massive event recorded by the Pharisees. And yet still, nothing.  And if indeed he had many followers you would still expect to find something FROM SOMEONE, outside of the disciples and authors of the books of the Bible. That did indeed serve as eyewitnesses. Surely such an account would be recorded. Furthermore, do you really expect some man who is walking on water, turning water into wine, raising people from the dead, and casting out demons would NOT receive some sort of attention from the secular world? Really now? Come on!!

"Also, it ought to be said that almost all scholars agree that Christ actually lived as a real person"

I presume that you know or have contacted ALL the scholars in the world to make such a statement? Or are these the biased ones that you see on TBN? Or the ones that talk about "what if scenarios" on the History Channel? I think that it ought to be said that a scholar is simply someone that has a higher education.(Not even that really just someone with an education) I know plently of crazy looney fundamentalist christians that have a degree. And don't particulary use their noggins. You can see how that point is now moot.

"For one who always asks Christians to provide peer-reviewed essays in order to substantiate their claims, I could likewise hold you to the same standard"

Actually oh wise one the "burden of proof" is on the person making the claim. I can claim that I can transform myself into the flying sea monkey, of course you would say "prove it". How much logical sense would it be for me to retort with "Prove that I can't" and that be a satisfactory answer?

"For each article that might exist promoting your own view (I doubt there are many favorable articles), there are a great deal more supporting the opposite view."

Hmm this is sounding vaguely familiar of a time when 98% of the population believed the earth to be flat (And that it rests on God's four pillars.)

"And, finally, it ought to be pointed out that the view that early Christianity was essentially gnostic is controversial and not agreed upon."

Well welcome to the secret of the church!!! PUH-LEASE baptists and methodists hardly have the same opinions....What part's of religion (and christianity especially) aren't controversial and disagreed upon, even amongst believers?

" I also find the position untenable that Christ's followers imposed or fabricated that Christ rose from the dead in some spiritual sense as opposed to the view that He physically rose, as contradicted by mountains of evidence from both the early Church and the Gospels/New Testament writings themselves. "

Look, see you just made my own point!

Heather
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum,

Welcome to the forum, Atheist Eye Candy.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 I have to respond to this

 I have to respond to this thread because it is a deceptive challenge which gives the impression to readers  that if there is not contemporary evidence for Jesus, that this somehow millitates against the possibility of his ever existing. I have a few things to say here.

1. It has never been a critieria by historians to require contemporary evidence for an ancient personage in order to validate or invalidate their existance. So the challenge/premise of this thread is unwarranted in the first place. Its something that has absolutely no authenticity in terms of historical method. Atheists made this criteria up themselves without any authorization from the historical disciplines to do so.

2. Can the atheist show contemporary evidence for the majority of any ancient persons whoever lived? Of course not. But that doesn't prove they didn't live!

3. The fact that we have anything about Jesus at all not only proves that he lived, but that he was an unsusual person.

4. The standard the atheist has set, is so high that it reduces to absurdity. That is why historians relegate such arguments and challenges from atheists such as this to foot notes. They are not taken seriously.

5. Jesus only appeard on the historical scene (in terms of his ministry) for 3 1/2! This is not enough time for anything to be written about him.

 6. According to the official rulers of Judea/Israel and Jerusalem, Jesus was a false prophet and blasphemer. They did not believe in him. That is why, as the New Testament states, Jesus did not do miracles for them. Therefore, according to the officials of his day, Jesus was a fraud who suffered extreme marginality by being executed. These facts seriously damaged Jesus credibility among the leaders, and reduced him being marginalized and branded as a deceiver and false prophet. THEREFORE, no one would be interested in writing about this alleged "heretic" who only appeard on the historical scene for 3 1/2! The Jews went out of their way to debunk him in every way possible. I believe, though I can't prove, that there might have been more information on Jesus but the Jews destroyed such evidence.

7. The theory that Jesus didn't exist was invented by liberal Protestant thelogians. This hypothesis was born from Protestantism because they deny the historical Church. So we can blame Protestantism for this erroneous movement.

So I have established that a "false prophet" (they were common during that time) who only appeard on the historical scene for 3 1/2 years would not receive anything written on him; especially during those 3 years. 3 years is not enough time anyway.

8. Jesus never told his disciples to write anything. Instead, he told them to preach the Gospel. And that is exactly what they did.

9. Jesus did not come to start a new philosophy, he came to found his CHURCH. This Church was born during Jesus life (Matt.16Smiling and extends to this very day. The Church constitutes contemporary evidence. So this silly challenge has been met anyway. The first localized church and bishop (James) is recorded in Acts 15, though Jesus founded the Church during his own lifetime (Matt.16). We have historical documents showing the churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome being founded by apostles. The apostles were contemporaries of Christ. The Church (Orthodox) was founded by Christ and extends to our own era. This is contemporary evidence. The Protestants denied the historical Church and therefore fell into the error that there was no real contemporary evidence. We have records showing historical lines all the way back to the apostles and Christ. This is called apostolic succession.

10. The apostles were contemporaries of Christ. That they chose to write at a later date, proves nothing. In a court of law you cannot get better evidence then first hand eye witnesses. Matthew was an apostle, and he wrote the Book of Matthew. Mark was written on material taken from the apostle Peter. Luke was a contemporary and an historian, and wrote Luke and Acts. John was an apostle and wrote John. That they wrote a few years after Jesus death and resurrection is completely irrelevant.

11. Scholars date 1Corinthians 15 to four to five years after Jesus execution. It comes from an aramaic creed on the faith which testifies to the death and resurrection of Christ. This is also true of the passion account found in Mark -- four to five years after the execution.

12. Many ancient personages did not have contemporary writers, but historians accept them as real. There are many, but here are a few. Hannibal, the Jewish Macabees, Shamai, Hillel, etc. Alexander the Greats first biographer was not untill 400 years after his death. What may have been contemporary evidence has not survived. Ergo, it does not constitute contemporary evidence. But contemporary evidence would seem probable for a world ruler, not a Jewish peasant who suffered extreme marginality by being discredited through execution.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 How do Jesus deniars

 How do Jesus deniars answer the geneologies in Matthew 1 and Luke, where they show the historical and physical connection of Jesus coming from the line of King David?

We have alot of archaeological evidence for New Testament times. Here is just one example.

PILATE

Coins have been found minted honoring Pontius Pilate who ruled between AD 30-31. (Boyd, Tells, p.183). An inscription containing his name was discovered at Caesarea. (Ibid). There is so much more but I don't want to get into it right now.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:

How do Jesus deniars answer the geneologies in Matthew 1 and Luke, where they show the historical and physical connection of Jesus coming from the line of King David?

Easy, they grossly contradict each other (they don't even match up in number). They are clearly made up.

And don't try saying Luke's geneology is from Mary, because it clearly states that it's supposed to be Joseph's geneology. All the authors are trying to do, is create a history for Jesus.

Besides, even if they matched perfectly, it still wouldn't prove anything. It would simply mean they got it from the same source (like much of the two gospels).

Apotheon wrote:

We have alot of archaeological evidence for New Testament times. Here is just one example.

PILATE

Coins have been found minted honoring Pontius Pilate who ruled between AD 30-31. (Boyd, Tells, p.183). An inscription containing his name was discovered at Caesarea. (Ibid). There is so much more but I don't want to get into it right now.

No body is arguing against the existence of Pontius Pilate (heck, Rook even made a video detailing all the evidence for his existence). But just because a story contains names of real people and places, it doesn't mean the story is real, or all the characters.

I read a book once about aliens visting Toronto, and it contains names of real famous people that actually existed, and Toronto is a real city. Does this mean that the aliens and the characters in the novel were real? Of course not. All it means, is that the author wanted to make a believable story.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 You don't understand how

 You don't understand how Jewish culture worked. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. Yes,  they are different.  Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David.  Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David.   When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons:  Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
     There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph.  It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
     Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced.  Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history.  Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc.  Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph.  In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.  Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies?  Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice?  Not at all.  They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam.  Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph.  The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles.  Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was.  Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David).  Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice
Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph. 
     Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah.  God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (
Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom.  The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate.  But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse.  This is why we need two genealogies:  one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
     Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it.  It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote:

Apotheon wrote:
You don't understand how Jewish culture worked. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. Yes, they are different. Luke's Genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's Genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side) and Solomon (Joseph's side).
There is no discrepancy because one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.
Some critics may not accept this explanation no matter what reasoning is produced. Nevertheless, they should first realize that the Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy is of Mary and the other of Joseph, even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship. Second, do any critics actually think that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies? Does anyone actually think that the Christians were so dense that they were unaware of the differences in the genealogy lists, closed their eyes and put the gospels into the canon anyway hoping no one would notice? Not at all. They knew the cultural context and had no problem with it knowing that one was of Joseph and the other of Mary. Third, notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.
Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.
Again, the early church knew this and had no problem with it. It is only the critics of today who narrow their vision into a literalness and require this to be a "contradiction" when in reality we have an explanation that is more than sufficient.

    Well there's a bunch of nonsense.  Let's now do a proper look at the two genealogies:

Gospel of Matthew Gospel of Luke
  God
Adam
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
Shem
Arphaxad
Cainan
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Reu
Serug
Nahor
Terah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram Arni[1] Admin[1]
Admminadab
Nahshon

Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
Amminadab
Nahshon

Sala[2]
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Jehoram
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amon
Josiah
Jeconiah
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menna
Melea
Eliakim
Jonam
Joseph
Judah
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Joshua[3]
  Er
Elmadam
Cosam
Addi
Melki
Neri
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Akim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Rhesa
Joanan
Joda
Josek
Semein
Mattathias
Maath
Naggai
Esli
Nahum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Jannai
Melki
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph Joseph
  1. Newer manuscripts omit these two names, and replace it with Ram.  There are also many other variations as well between different texts.  It appears that the text was redacted later to match Matthew (the earliest manuscript with the redaction to Ram is from the 6th century)
  2. Another redaction (earliest manuscript with the redaction is from the 5th century) done to correct it to Salmon
  3. Literally Jesu (`Ιησού), which is simply another from of Jesus.  This doesn't have anything to do with the argument, its just an interesting point.

    In the above table, I've bolded the names were the gospels match each other.  First of all, lets look at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, the two names in the middle of the Gospel of Matthew's and the Gospel of Luke's genealogies that match.  The significance of these names, is that these are descendants of David that came back to Israel after the Babylonian exile, and are mentioned throughout the old testament (Ezra, Nehemiah, etc).  Up to this point in the Gospel of Matthew, his genealogy matches up with the one in given in 1 Chronicles 3:5-19 (the only place where this is given).  In the Gospel of Luke on the other hand, it seems completely made up, as the genealogy he gives doesn't appear anywhere in the old testament.  The reason for the discrepancy is probably very simple.  The author of the Gospel of Mathew knew about the genealogy in 1 Chronicles, so he used it.  The author of Luke either didn't know about the genealogy in 1 Chronicles (or didn't have access to the book), but did know about Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (who were mentioned quite often in the old testament), so he made up the names in between.

    So right away, we have a major problem with the apologetic argument that you've given (and we haven't even got to the good stuff yet).  In the argument you gave, you said that the genealogies split at David, with Joseph's lineage being followed through Solomon, and Mary's through Nathan's.  If that's so, then why the link up at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel?  Neither of these names were common, and they appear in the right order (meaning that they are almost certainly the same Shealtiel and Zerubbabel mentioned in Matthew, and throughout the old testament.  You could argue that the genealogies split here instead, but then you are stuck with two new problems.  First of all, your stuck trying to explain why the authors give conflicting genealogies between David and Shealtiel.  Secondly, your own apologetic argument shoots you in the foot:

"...in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate."

    If Shealtiel is a descendant of Jeconiah (which is stated both in 1 Chronicles and in Matthew), then Mary would also be one, and would also inherit this "prophetic curse."

    Another problem with the genealogy in Luke being from Mary is the large difference in the number of generations between the Gospel of Luke's account and the Gospel of Matthew's account.  In Matthew, there are 15 generations between David and Shealtiel , but in Luke, there are 21 generations.  Also, between Zerubbabel and Joseph, In Matthew, there are 10 generations, and in Luke, there are 19, almost twice as much!  For a time span this long, it isn't surprising to see a one or two differences in the number of generations (due to one line having offspring at a younger age then the other), but to see a difference like that is absurd.

    So far, I've only talked about the actual genealogies given in the Gospels, and I haven't even talked about what the authors actually say.  Here's where things get real fun (for me anyways).  Here's where it connects the genealogy to Jesus in Matthew:

    "...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah." Matthew 1:16

    And in Luke:

    "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli..." Luke 3:24

    First of all, you said Mary was mentioned 11 times in the first three chapters (I actually counted 15, at least by name), however not a single one of these occurences has anything to do with genealogy.  Every single reference is part of the Gospel of Luke's telling of Jesus' birth and childhood (and often it is "Joseph and Mary" ).  Not only that, every single one of them is in the first two chapters, chapter 3 (the one that contains the genealogy, which is given after his baptism, when Jesus was about thirty) doesn't contain a single reference to Mary (by name, or any other way).  In fact, these 15 references in the first two chapters are the ONLY references to Mary, in the entire of Gospel of Luke (unless you include Luke 11:27 were some random lady in a crowd shouts out "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." ).  Overall, the author of Luke doesn't seem very concerned with Mary, other then to pump out Jesus during the nativity story (which the genealogy isn't a part of).

    Also, you seem think the designation "supposedly" (or "so it was thought" in the translation here (from the TNIV)) from Luke 3:23 seems to signify some a genealogy from Mary from some how.  However you don't really say how it does, you just say it indicates that its saying Jesus wasn't the biological son of Joseph, and then jump to the claim that that must mean the genealogy here is from Mary.  Let's look at what the concerning part says:

    "ων υιος, ως ενομιζετο" (oon huios, hoos enomizeto) from UBS's 4th edition Greek New Testament

    "ων υιος" simply means "He was the son", but "ως ενομιζετο" is the interesting part.  ως is particle this is used to compare, and be translated as "as, like, as though, as if, on the grounds that, on the pretext of, etc."  ενομιζετο is the aorist (basically past tenst, but not that simple) passive of the verb νομιζω (meaning "I suppose/consider" ), so basically ενομιζετο means "He was considered/supposed."  I would basically the whole phrase as "He was the son, as he was considered" (which is pretty close to what most seem to translate, albeit a bit more word for word).  So basically the author is making a disclaimer, the author is saying is that although he knows that Jesus isn't the physical son of Joseph, he was considered his son, so he is going to use Joseph in the genealogy.  Yet again, you have shot yourself in the foot with the very same proof that you try to use to prove that this was a genealogy through Mary. 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Your argument is based on

 Your argument is based on a redaction theory. But thats all it is, theory. Everytime atheists are shown the blunders in their arguments, they immediately argue "redaction," "editing," or "interpolation," without any evidence to do so.

 

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right, the argument is TOTALLY irrelevant. If Jesus was myth, Matthew and Luke would not have bothered listing his physical geneology. THAT was the issue and argument I raised. Don't confuse it with minute details. How do Jesus deniars account for his geneology? That's my point. Your argument is a red herring.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Easy way to account for the

Easy way to account for the geneology - the Bible is false. Lord of the Rings gives family histories of characters in the story - does that mean Frodo really existed? Anyway, why would it even give the family history of Joseph - shouldn't that side of the family only have 1 entry (Holy Spirit?) :ROTF:

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Your

Apotheon wrote:

Your argument is based on a redaction theory. But thats all it is, theory. Everytime atheists are shown the blunders in their arguments, they immediately argue "redaction," "editing," or "interpolation," without any evidence to do so.

How is it based on redaction theory?  Did you even read the thing?  The ONLY time I mentioned redaction, was when I pointed at that the names Arni and Admin had been changed to Ram in the 6th century, and Sala had been changed to Salmon during the 5th century.

Also, I love how you say "thats all it is, theory."  I demolish your argument, and the best thing you can come up with is this, you might as well say "I don't care about evidence!"

Apotheon wrote:

Lets say for the sake of argument that you are right, the argument is TOTALLY irrelevant. If Jesus was myth, Matthew and Luke would not have bothered listing his physical geneology. THAT was the issue and argument I raised. Don't confuse it with minute details. How do Jesus deniars account for his geneology? That's my point. Your argument is a red herring.

Because the authors were trying to create a history for Jesus, and connect him with characters (namely David) from the Old Testament, and the fact that they differ so much support this idea.  And what are you talking about "minute details?"  There's nothing minute about what I wrote.

So, when are you going to stop whining and post some real evidence? 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Since Apotheon seems to

Since Apotheon seems to think a "Theory" isn't worth very much, he/she/it should reject Newtons theory of gravity and jump off the nearest tall building.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Piper, you are missing or

Piper, you are missing or not understanding my argument. Jesus geneology is traced through the process of historical lineage. If Jesus was mythical, the writer(s) would not have wasted their time listing it. Sure, you could invoke all kinds of theories as to why they listed it, but they are only theories nonetheless. Matthew's whole point was to show that Jesus fulfilled the criteria for Messianic fulfillment by demonstrating his connection to King David. He would not have done this for a mythical figure. You could assert he would, but that assertion doesn't prove anything and there's no evidence for such an assertion.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Matt, a theory of physicis

 Matt, a theory of physicis is not equivolent to a theory in philosophy or history. We have evidence for Newton's laws. Piper has 0 evidence for his assertion.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Evidence isn't required to

Evidence isn't required to prove non-existance, only to prove existance.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Piper, you

Apotheon wrote:
Piper, you are missing or not understanding my argument. Jesus geneology is traced through the process of historical lineage. If Jesus was mythical, the writer(s) would not have wasted their time listing it. Sure, you could invoke all kinds of theories as to why they listed it, but they are only theories nonetheless. Matthew's whole point was to show that Jesus fulfilled the criteria for Messianic fulfillment by demonstrating his connection to King David. He would not have done this for a mythical figure. You could assert he would, but that assertion doesn't prove anything and there's no evidence for such an assertion.

    The author of Matthew didn't believe that Jesus was a mythical person, and as such, he was writing a gospel that would try to show this.  Same thing with Luke.  I'm not arguing that.  What I'm arguing, and what I demonstrated in my post, is that they simply made stuff up.  Just having genealogies doesn't prove historicity, as MattShizzle mentioned, "Lord of the Rings gives family histories of characters in the story - does that mean Frodo really existed?"  And the fact that the genealogies contradict each other so much, proves that they were willing to make stuff up.

Apotheon wrote:
Matt, a theory of physicis is not equivolent to a theory in philosophy or history. We have evidence for Newton's laws. Piper has 0 evidence for his assertion.

    Apotheon, as I said before, did you even read what I posted?  I crushed your argument with tons of evidence.  Also, MattShizzle wasn't talking about physics.  What he said does apply to history and philosophy.  Can you show me a single case in history where we believe in the existence of someone without any evidence?  Of course you can't, because you require solid evidence for a person's existence.


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
 Bron, if you read my

 Bron, if you read my first post in this thread, I stated very clearly that the criteria atheists emply for "contemporary evidence" is not a demand or prerequisite from historians to establish historicity and/or non-historicity. I pointed out that Jesus only had 3 1/2 years of public ministry. I also pointed out that he was officially branded as a heretic and blasphemer. To compound his reputation, he suffered extreme marginality by being executed. Therefore, I concluded that the occurance for contemporary evidence for a man with the above discription, would be highly improbable. For only appearing on the historical scene (in terms of public ministry) for 3 1/2, it is amazing that we have any thing on him at all. Ancient biographers did not occupy their time with executed criminals.

Second, I pointed out that contemporaries of Christ, the apostles, DID infact write about Jesus. That they wrote a few years after his execution is completely irrelevant. They WERE eyewitnesses. I also pointed out that the historical line of the Church can be traced all the way back to the 30's AD. And the very earliest Christin writers knew that Jesus was an historical person. The "myth" theory was never known in history until the 19th century, and it was produced by liberal protestant theologians who denied the existance of an objective and historical Church.

Third, your challenge to prove that we love someone is interesting. I challenged the atheists in another thread to assume I was born blind, and to prove the existance of the Sun to me. At this point the attempts have failed. I am not convinved the Sun exists. In response to your own challenge I would respond by saying that you and I both know love exists. We have both experienced it. I can prove the love I have for someone by my actions for them, the same way you would prove it.

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
No one in history has ever

No one in history has ever died for a nonexistant person that they made up. You can not provide a plausible reason that a Jew would follow a Rabbi that didn't exist or even why they would make up such a Rabbi.

Further more, history records many false Messiah's  of which a large number (or even a small number) or Jews have follwed. They have all been rejected, yet you claim they decided to not only follow a nonexistant Messiah, but some of them actually made this Messiah up.

They wrote about a "Myth" and claimed he was real within one generation of the alleged "Myth" living. They make him out to be popular and then having him die on the exact day that the most people would be in the city of his death.

No contempary or even within 300+ years ever made the claim that Jesus didn't exist.

The Jews claim he was a false Messiah and that the Disciples stole the body. They never once claimed he was a myth or the Christians borrowed from Pagan beliefs. If Jesus was a myth and a borrowed idea, then the Jews would have made that claim. 

 


Apotheon
Theist
Apotheon's picture
Posts: 209
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca wrote:     

Piper2000ca wrote:
     The author of Matthew didn't believe that Jesus was a mythical person, and as such, he was writing a gospel that would try to show this. 

That's a very interesting concession on your part because we have a a very ancient document called "Matthew" which, according to you, affirms the historicity of Jesus Christ. So my question to you is: what material do the Jesus deniars go to in order to establish their hypothesis that he was mythical? They certainly can't appeal to the New Testament. This record demonstrates his historicity. Where are they getting the idea he was a myth from? Also, for your information, there is strong scholarly support that the apostle Matthew was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. ( see Drane, Introducing the NT, chp. 11. There are detailed overviews of the present discussions on this (pp.43-53 [Matthew], pp. 81-84 [Mark], pp. 113-125 [Luke], pp. 252-283 [John]. Also, Habermas lists several contemporary scholars who accept the traditional authoriship of the four Gospels in his work: "Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus", p.63).

Piper2000ca wrote:
  Same thing with Luke.  I'm not arguing that.  What I'm arguing, and what I demonstrated in my post, is that they simply made stuff up.
.

And your proof they made stuff up? I have this problem with atheists all the time, they don't stay with objective historical data. They always resort to conjecture, foul play, interpolations, editing, etc. The fact is that you have no proof they made anything up. You are ASSUMING they did. There is a huge difference between proof and assumption.

Piper2000ca wrote:
  Just having genealogies doesn't prove historicity,

But it does prove that the authors believed the person was historical. This presents a serious problem for the Jesus deniars. Here we have very clear objective data looking you straight in the face, and you dismiss it. YET, you want to buy into a theory that "they made stuff up" inspite of the complete lack of evidence for such a conjecture.

Piper2000ca wrote:
  as MattShizzle mentioned, "Lord of the Rings gives family histories of characters in the story - does that mean Frodo really existed?"

I can't believe you guys made that argument. In the context of the movie, YES he existed.

Piper2000ca wrote:
   And the fact that the genealogies contradict each other so much, proves that they were willing to make stuff up.

That does not follow logically. I think its a non sequitor. The existance of alleged discrepencies does not automatically establish the existance of foul play. Many scholars have noted that the alleged discrepencies actually argue for the validity of the accounts because historical records are often contradictory, and if they made stuff up, they would not be such boneheads to not see the alleged errors. If they wanted to deceive people, they would have gone out of their way to make sure it was perfect, without errors.

Piper2000ca wrote:
     Apotheon, as I said before, did you even read what I posted?  I crushed your argument with tons of evidence.  Also, MattShizzle wasn't talking about physics.  What he said does apply to history and philosophy.  Can you show me a single case in history where we believe in the existence of someone without any evidence?  Of course you can't, because you require solid evidence for a person's existence.
.

I didn't see any "crushing" I'm sorry. And again, there is a difference between general and/or philosophical theories as opposed to scientific theories. And no, history does not require solid evidence to believe a person existed. For example, according to Roman historian Michael Grant stated that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on a few sheets of paper. ( see Meier, John P. "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus", p. 23). The individuals below do NOT have any contemporary writers and/or contemporary evidence of their existance, but they are accepted as real historical persons.

Gamiel, Shammai, Hillell, the Jewish Macabees, Apollonius of Tyana, Honi, etc. The writer Pausanias didn't even mention Seneca.

 

The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur


Ebionite
Ebionite's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-12-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

This comment has been moved here.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: Bron, if

Apotheon wrote:

Bron, if you read my first post in this thread, I stated very clearly that the criteria atheists emply for "contemporary evidence" is not a demand or prerequisite from historians to establish historicity and/or non-historicity. I pointed out that Jesus only had 3 1/2 years of public ministry. I also pointed out that he was officially branded as a heretic and blasphemer. To compound his reputation, he suffered extreme marginality by being executed. Therefore, I concluded that the occurance for contemporary evidence for a man with the above discription, would be highly improbable. For only appearing on the historical scene (in terms of public ministry) for 3 1/2, it is amazing that we have any thing on him at all. Ancient biographers did not occupy their time with executed criminals.

Second, I pointed out that contemporaries of Christ, the apostles, DID infact write about Jesus. That they wrote a few years after his execution is completely irrelevant. They WERE eyewitnesses. I also pointed out that the historical line of the Church can be traced all the way back to the 30's AD. And the very earliest Christin writers knew that Jesus was an historical person. The "myth" theory was never known in history until the 19th century, and it was produced by liberal protestant theologians who denied the existance of an objective and historical Church.

Third, your challenge to prove that we love someone is interesting. I challenged the atheists in another thread to assume I was born blind, and to prove the existance of the Sun to me. At this point the attempts have failed. I am not convinved the Sun exists. In response to your own challenge I would respond by saying that you and I both know love exists. We have both experienced it. I can prove the love I have for someone by my actions for them, the same way you would prove it.

I find it a bit interesting that here you allude to an eariler point that the Jewish Leaders thought Jesus was a fraud. Why do you accept the claims of anonymous authors, and men who admit to have never met Jesus, but not the claims of people who actually (apparently) met Jesus?

 

This is a bizarre way of rationalizing your belief:

"The people who met Jesus said he was a fraud, but people who believed Jesus was the Messiah from second-hand stories, said he was the Messiah... I'll go with the anonymous, second-hand sources!"

 

Also, to say that Jesus was just a minor figure contradicts the Bible: why the Slaughter the Innocents? 

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Firearcher (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Religion

Great website.  I have little to add other than Christians defenses are typically non sensical in nature.  I stopped believing in God as soon as my brain matured and I have never looked back.  I have many reasons to support why I do not believe. Anyway, great website.  Nice to debate the issue in a friendly forum.  Perhaps I will have something substantial to add later.  Cheers! Scott


Firearcher (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Religion

Oh and by the way I have a list of about 150 biblical contradictions in case anybody is interested.  Yes the God written or God inspired book that is incapable of error contains direct biblical quotes that are in direct conflict with one another. - Scott


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Apotheon wrote: That's a

Apotheon wrote:

 That's a very interesting concession on your part because we have a a very ancient document called "Matthew" which, according to you, affirms the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Actually, the Matthew author wasn't writing history. The work is clearly based on Mark, and Mark's gospel is a midrash, a work of fiction based on the Old Testament.

 

Quote:

So my question to you is: what material do the Jesus deniars go to in order to establish their hypothesis that he was mythical?

The phrase 'jesus deniers' is rhetoric, implied in it is that Jesus was real and is being denied. The reality is that there is no historical record of Jesus the Christ, only a gospel of Mark, which, again, is midrash, not history.

 

Quote:

They certainly can't appeal to the New Testament. This record demonstrates his historicity. 

Actually, this is completely backwards. We CAN point to the NT as evidence that the story is a myth. Mark is midrash:

 

Michael Turton writes:

If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=d239f8ccf586656ab7cdeadddb5bb81...

Note: Turton's work also serves a secondary role: it serves to invalidate any argument that Gospel 'prophecies' are supportive of the Gospel's divine origin. It shows that such a claim is based on backwards logic: The Mark author isn't capturing a series of events that 'fulfills a prophecy, he's writing a story built upon Old Testament passages! Seeing as this provides us with a more parsimonious explanation for the purported prophecies of the Old Testament, the claim for Midrash follows the basic rules of valid historiography, whereas 'prophecy claims' violate them.

 

Turton writes:

First, we'll see how much of Mark is based on the OT. The "OT Frame" represents a significant event parallel between the OT and Mark, "(OT parallels)" represents a signficant number of verses with parallels in the OT.

Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)

1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31[color=white]....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)

Let's now group them:

DIRECT OT PARALLELING:

1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37, Num 5:1-2
6:14-29......Esther
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
11:12-14....(OT: Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
------------------
DIRECT PARALLELS 33/71

OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION (built out of individual Verses)

1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:21-28......(many OT echoes) also 1 Enoch, Tobit
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC) (OT parallels)
4:1-20........PARABLE (many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
------------------
plus 12 = 45/71 or 63.3%

CHREIA

2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......CHREIA (OT parallels)
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....CHREIA
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
-------------------

9/71

OUTRIGHT INVENTION

3:7-12........Invention
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
10:32-34....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
----------------
8/71

UNKNOWN or SOURCE NOT OT

9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
5:1-20........Josephus? (OT Parallels=Isa 65:1-7)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:14-21......NONE KNOWN Non-Markan
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN

-------------------
9/71 = 13.8%


Well, about 65% of Markan pericopes are built off of the OT one way or another, sometimes by direct paralleling of events, sometimes by verse inspiration. The rest is either Chreia from the culture or hand of Mark, or obvious invention. Some things are difficult to classify, of course....

Mark is fiction. If there was really a community spurring Mark to write this, where are the traditions? There is nothing in Mark that does not go back to the OT, Paul, or something Hellenistic. Exegetes are found of arguing that Matthew cannot be a disciple, else why would have copied Mark? That is just as true of Mark: if he knew stories about the HJ, why did he bother to parallel the OT?

Vorkosigan

 

 

 

And seeing as the other gospels simply copy from Mark (the synoptic gospels), we can show that the NT is myth, not history.

 

So we not only can, but certainly do point to the NT as clear evidence of a myth!

 

You really don't know what you're talking about.

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:No one

simple theist wrote:

No one in history has ever died for a nonexistant person that they made up. 

 

Correction. You mean to say "died for a person that they didn't believe existed'.

 

All it takes is belief, belief that he existed. Not actual existence.

 

Or do you believe that Muhammad was Allah's last messenger?

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Foodeater133
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Now I am not a theist nor do

Now I am not a theist nor do I project to be one however I have been trying to account for this:

Quote:
Yeishu ha Notzri was considered by the temple authorities of the time to be a troublemaking heretic, and when they had finally had enough of him, they put him on trial. He was convicted of heresy, sentenced to wander the city for 40 days, with a crier going before him, shouting that if anyone had reason why he should not be executed, they should come forward. When no did, he was stoned to death, and his body hung from a tree on the eve of passover, in 88 B.C.E. Note the death on the eve of passover. Note also the hanging of the body from a tree - at the time, a sign of despicability, with its resemblance to the crucifixion myth.

The Essene movement was one based on a very strict asceticism. Followers were expected to live in monastic isolation, eating a rough diet of hard, primitive foods and living in very simple, rough accomodations, in the harsh climate and isolation of the Judean desert. Since not a lot of people had a taste for that kind of harsh, strict living, it was not exactly a wildly popular movement, yet its social ideals had a great deal of popular appeal. The result was that many people began to adopt the social ideals if not the religious asceticism, and began to associate with each other, much like the modern Hippie movement borrowed heavily from Eastern mysticism and spawned a social movement in our own times. Many organized themselves into small groups for social sharing and discussion. By the first century, these movements, known to the Jews of the time as the Notzri, and its follwers the Notzrim, had become widespread, and were found throughout the Eastern Meditteranean region. It is of considerable importance to note here that it is also known from Talmudic sources and elsewhere that the first century Christians also referred to themselves as Notzrim - lending strong support to the Yeishu ha Notzri theory as the source of the Jesus myth.

Scott Bidstrup's website

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

 

Now this is not proof for a Miracle Jesus worker but rather proof of a man with socialistic ideals for his time, similar to those that Jesus was supposed to have. So whilst the bible has much errancy into it I am a skeptic as to Jesus's lack of existance.

The church also denies that this man was Jesus, however that is to be expected if they want to maintain the myth of his godlike powers so the fact that the church rejects Yeishu (ironic if he actually is who the big myth is perpetuated around no?) means nothing in this argument against the existence of Jesus. The church's viewstance on the matter is out of the equation.

Thoughts? Perhaps I made a logical error in my analysis?

If I did I doubt I'd care since I am an atheist. I'd just have more ammo to fire at Christians.

 

I just can't stop loving them, I love them, the way they taste!


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Foodeater133 wrote:Thoughts?

Foodeater133 wrote:


Thoughts? Perhaps I made a logical error in my analysis?

Rook Hawkins already deals with attempts to cite the Talmud as evidence for an actual Jesus (your citation here). Look it up, you'll see why this simply doesn't stand as evidence.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Foodeater133
Posts: 3
Joined: 2008-02-19
User is offlineOffline
(This first quote is here so

(This first quote is here so I don't have to keep checking back for what Rook Hawkins has said about the Talmud)

Quote:

(18) What about other attestations to Jesus like the Talmud?

These references are not only late, but they are conflicting, and are probably based on hearsay (in other words, they got their stories from Christians not historical data).  The Talmud contains some Toldoth Jesu, or Jewish polemics against Christians, which are fictional, and are all very degrading towards the character of Jesus.

The Talmud mainly in circulation right now is known to be heavily edited by Christians in the 16th century, however the Talmud I am talking about is the one Judaism uses.

The Judaist one is the reason, if no other, that Jews do not follow Jesus and the reason Christians heavily edited the Talmud.

Quote:

If he was the Teacher of Righteousness referred to by the Dead Sea Scrolls, as some have suggested, his impact on the movement towards Jewish reform was considerable. And if he was the Teacher of Righteousness, it would answer a lot of interesting questions, such as the scattered first century Christian and Talmudic references to a miracle worker named Yeishu ha Notzri, known to first-century Christians as Jesus or Jesua ben Pantera. Among them are a quote from Origen, saying that his arch-rival Celsus had heard from a Jew in Jerusalem that "Jesus Ben Pantera" was born of Mary as the result of a rape by a Roman soldier named Pantera, and had borne the baby in secret (most scholars now regard this claim to be a first-century legend resulting from misinterpretation of the facts).

That the first century Christians may have feared there was some truth to this rumor is evidenced by the fact of Mark's obvious embarrassment regarding the origins of Jesus; Mark, the first writer of a canonic gospel, never mentions Joseph as the actual husband of Mary. Note also that it was both the Roman custom and the custom of the Jews to include a patrilineal surname as part of a person's full name; yet nowhere in the New Testament does the surname of Jesus, (or Joseph, for that matter) appear. There is at least one Talmudic reference to Jeshu as being the illegitimate son of an adultress named Mary Magdala. There are several interesting references to a Yeishu ha Notzri (note the resemblance of the name to "Jesus of Nazareth&quotEye-wink, who traveled around and practiced magic during the reign of Alexander Janneus, who ruled Palestine from 104 to 78 BCE. As these references are Talmudic (from the Baraitas and the Gemara), and therefore presumed by Christian scholars to be anti-Christian; Christian apologeticists have simply dismissed them as referring to someone else or being fabricated propaganda. But if they are genuine, and they really do refer to the Jesus of whom the Christians speak, they add evidence to the claim that the Jesus of Nazareth story is really based on the life of Yieshu ha Notzri, possibly the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness." Evidence points to him being the founder of the Notzri as the sects were known in first century Palestine, and as the Jesus Movements to modern scholars.

Quote:
It must be noted here is that the version of the Talmud still used by most modern Christian scholars, is normally the version known to have been heavily edited by Christians by the 16th century - presumably to remove the dangerous references to Yeishu ha Notzri and his followers, the Notzrim, the account of which is absent from this version. But the pristine version, still used by Jewish scholars, gives us some rich detail. Yeishu ha Notzri was considered by the temple authorities of the time to be a troublemaking heretic, and when they had finally had enough of him, they put him on trial. He was convicted of heresy, sentenced to wander the city for 40 days, with a crier going before him, shouting that if anyone had reason why he should not be executed, they should come forward. When no did, he was stoned to death, and his body hung from a tree on the eve of passover, in 88 B.C.E. Note the death on the eve of passover. Note also the hanging of the body from a tree - at the time, a sign of despicability, with its resemblance to the crucifixion myth.

Once again from Scott Bidtrup's site.

I'm just saying perhaps that the error in Hawkin's dismissal of the Talmud comes from the fact that it is not using the pristine version as reference and instead the one heavily edited by Christians (known to heavily edit books).

Also it was a fabrication of the Christians that the Talmud was anti-Christian simply because of the mentions of Yeishu and his life. Also because of the Notzri sect. It makes even more sense that the life story of an imperfect man who's stories got out of hand and inflated from the original ones would present a challenge for what Jesus was supposed to stand for.

So whilst this is not evidence for Jesus's miracles it should provide a bit for his existence.

Another note is that I am not after 666$. I just seek to shed a bit of light perhaps on your PoV of the subject or mine.

Have a nice day

I just can't stop loving them, I love them, the way they taste!