Is there even proof Moses really existed as a person? Remember, the Bible doesn't count.

Richard Carrier has written up a little bit on each of the above characters. I am leaving everything intact exactly as he wrote it.

I'm sorry, but I can't allow myself to believe something someone who doesn't use correct grammar while trying to make a point or disprove something says.

Also, explain to me how your thread on "Biblical Contradictions" overrides Archaeological discoveries.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Did you just give us permission to ignore you?

Before you get on your grammar high horse you should make sure your own posting will not make you a hypocrite.

Um, perhaps you weren't paying attention, but it's archaeological discoveries which disprove the Bible and make for the contradictions. If you want me to spell it out for you:

Archaeological Evidence AND Contemporary, VERIFIED HISTORICAL accounts CONTRADICT the Bible. Hense the Bible = Garbage. Get it now?

I am always questing for knowledge, and such things affront me luxuries such as these. You are welcome.

Under what evidence do you base this claim? I appreciate what you are saying, but you are stating two things without any supportable evidence:

1. Jesus lived at some point
2. That somehow he was a criminal if he did, indeed, live

These claims are not only unsubstantiatied, but also feed to the ignorance we are trying to stamp out. Under what contemporary account would you place Jesus Christ and under which law did he break to become a criminal that warranted death? Keep in mind that the Roman courts ruled the day, as Galilee had been conquered in 63 BCE under Pompey, and since that time the Jewish courts would not have had a say in who was sentenced to death or not. Blaspheming their YHWH was not punishable by death and certainly not by crucifixion.

So I ask, which evidence do you bring to the table to back up these claims?

Even if this were the case, Horror812 still can not bring about any extant originals to prove to us Pilate actually said or wrote anything! In fact, all he has done is brought us bias hearsay from somebody who said the following:

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. (First Apology, Chapter XXI; Analogies To The History of Christ)

Claiming that this Justin Martyr, who here admits to knowing that Christ was falsified from earlier Greek myths and later says that - sure they are similar but the Devil did it - that this man has any sort of real authority on Pilat who lived and died a hundred years earlier is a proposterous claim at best.

You know, movie stars would kill to have my hair.

I didn't see anything that limited me to 5, so here's my list:

Thales

Laozi (author of the Tao Te Ching)

Imhotep

Herodotus

Homer (author of the Iliad, not the Simpson)

Zeno of Elea

Pythagoras (somebody mentioned him but he was already in my head)

Rabbi Akiva

Gautama Buddha (again, somebody mentioned him, but was in my head)

Ojin, the 15th Emperor of Japan (The first one in the traditional line thought historical)

Saul (AKA Paul) of Tarsus

Qin Shi Huang (First emperor of Qin)

Ok, Rook was supposed to clarify allowable entries two days ago, but he just recently got engaged and is in lala land. My apologies on his behalf.

I shouldn't have assumed people would realize figures of the bible are not allowed. The bible itself is in question, and figures in which most of what we know comes from the bible are not viable submissions. Clarifications and information on it's way, from Rook, soon.

Just as stated. If they are a character of the bible, they are not admissable in this game.

I never said that, nor is that the idea. I don't doubt many historical biblical figures exist, however for ease of description the only way to wittle it down is to not allow biblical submissions. My apologies this wasn't made clear it was our intention to clarify two nights ago, I'll poke Rook with a stick for you when I see him (and twice for me). :smt064

That's odd, I didn't know that. Interesting, how the bible is so very different with each translation. But back on the point, for purposes of the test, please stay away from biblical figures, in anyones bible.

Is the purpose to "wittle it down" to make sure your bias is served or to really look at what we are likely to find in the historical record? Frankly, this criteria is ridiculous. John the Baptist, the Maccabees, and Judas the Galilean are well established irrespective of any mention by the Bible.

I don't care about the $100, but you are rigging the contest to serve your own bias and agenda. If you admit these guys really existed and admit that there are no writings until 25 years after their death, then why aren't they instructive historical examples?

And I think you misunderstand about 1 and 2 Maccabees. No one disputes their existence and value as historical sources about the Maccabean Revolt (which established the Hasmonean Dyansty). It is just that Catholics decided to count them as scripture and Protestants did not.

Edited to Add: And you must realize that by doing this you are eliminating what are potentially the most instructive candidates. I saw that you were dismissing Confucias in part because the culture was different. Well, by elminating anyone mentioned by any Bible you are eliminating many of the most comparable examples available.

I thought the purpose of the contest was to make a point, not just to avoid giving out any money. If you disqualify known examples of historical figures who existed but for whom there are no writings within 25 years of their lives only to avoid paying out money (and, I guess, because you don't like anyone mentioned by the Bible even if his existence is otherwise established) then what we have learned is that the results of your contest are not likely to tell us anything about the historical record.

So, yeah, I admit you guys can rig the contest in any way you want (though the timing of modifications would be questionable). But you guys have to admit -- which I guess you just did -- that the contest no longer has any real meaning as to the historical record.

I'll stop when you quit changing the rules. First you said that biblical figures were excluded because the Bible was not trustworthy. Then you said that of course biblical figures may exist, but that you wanted to wittle it down so they weren't allowable even if otherwise confirmed. Now you are back to claiming that they are excluded because the Bible is not trustworthy.

Don't blame me for your shifts.

No, you said you'd start a separate thread unrelated to the contest to discuss biblical figures who are attested elsewhere.

And you will have to excuse me for thinking that someone who was running a historical contest of this sort and presumes to know something about the evidence for Jesus would know that John the Baptist, Judas the Galilean, and the Maccabees are all attested by Josephus. Do you really need chapter and verse?

Which BS claim is that? It's my point that many, not just "some," people are believed by most historians to have existed even without contemporary proof. Jesus included for that matter, as most historians believe he existed.

You made and offer and people responded. You changed the rules after they responded. Such rule changes should not apply to anyone who responded before the modifications were posted. But like I said, I don't care about $100 so count me out.

So, basically you don't mind lying as long as I am not doing something completely within my rights. Thanks for that insight into how you're brain operates.

Neither of those statements contradict each other, even if you want to try and make the weak connection.

And now, you got your seperate thread. So go ahead, start proving the existence of afforementioned bible characters without the bible.

1. Rules are only clarified to avoid paying out money.
2. We are only interested in our bias, and not the truth.

I must concede this point, although I've now conceeded it three times, due to your need to get in the last word and reiterate your bullshit.

This is where we differ. The historian who I trust on the issue Richard Carrier, the one who recently showed me how we do have historical figures we accept as true without good contemporary evidence is also one of those notable historians who doesn't believe Jesus existed.

No we didn't. We explained rules that should've gone without saying. We aren't looking for historical people from the bible. Our initial rules were concise and brief so as not to bog down the forum. What I should've done, was ask that no further entries be given until we clarified rules for prize 2. You were notified that clarification for prize 2 were underway before you submitted your response (same goes for Jyo). I figured whoever submitted entries would understand the clarifiications were coming, and wouldn't whine like little kids if their entry didn't adhere to the clarification. I am now changing that, and not allowing entries for #2 until rules can be clarified.

They don't. However you knew clarifications were coming and so did Jyo, BEFORE you posted.

Homers authorship of the Iliad is evidence he existed that arose from his lifetime. Swap him out with someone, at this point, I like where you are in this test.

What the hell are you talking about?!

People also claim that William Shakespeare was just a pen name for someone else, however they readily accept a person existed attributing his/her works to Shakespeare, or else the writings wouldn't exist. I feel the same way on Homer. If Homer is not real, then you can't submit him as a historical figure whom we readily accept exists. Or else we're comparing two people who we don't think existed.

What books did Jesus write? I'm unaware of them.

I didn't know those characters at first glance, and I'm trying to reduce my workload. I did notice that upon looking him up, Laozis' historical existence is still debated, and therefore not a very good candidate to submit.

I really appreciate you working with us, here. It's respectable.

I'm entering some family time here, and didn't want to leave you without an answer. I'll ask Richard Carrier (and Rook) for their thoughts on all the entries, in this final submission, however I'll comment on this one.

I think we'd have to accept Ojins' tomb of proof within 25 years of his existence. However, this is if we accept he existed. Does it seem odd to you that some historians have him living 110 years? Which, by the way would've given them plenty of time to complete that lavish tomb before his death which apparently took about 4 years to build.

Sattelite image of tomb.

My bullshit detector beeps so profusely when I'm near the bible that I doubt every single word in it, moreso than I doubt anyone or anything else in the world. I'm more inclined to believe Paul existed than John and Peter. However this again, is really Rooks category... I'm into philosophy, I hate history.

Aside from that, I'm very impressed with your answers. Do you have a background in history?

King Arthur is not known to be real.

King Arthur is debatable the modern image we have of the whole sword in the stone thing is known to be false but i was talking about was the saxon leader who won the battle of Badon his exsistance is more mysteryious it appears like there was a great leader who is never really mentioned by name in all these reports on battle such as the battle of Badon.

anyway i was not really confident on it Alfred the Great is the by far better one.

All the world's major religions, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, came out of the very same region on the Middle and Near East after the cataclysm of perhaps 7,000 years ago. These religions were designed to imprison the mind and engulf the emotions with fear and guilt. They were usually based on some 'savior-god' figure like Jesus or Mohammed and only by believing in them and following their dictates can we find 'God' and be saved. That is precisely what the Babylonian priests said about Nimrod when the blueprint for control-by-religion was being moulded in Babylon.

To understand the true background to religions, we need to appreciate the basis of all ancient religion going back to the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and beyond. It was the Sun. They understood it true power as an amazing generator of electromagnetic energy which is affecting our lives and behaviour every second of every day. The Sun contains 99% of the mass of this solar system. Just think about that. The Sun IS the solar system and when it changes, we change.

The invented character of Jesus was a Sun god, symbolic of God's 'Sun'...The Light of the World.

Jesus was symbolically crucified at Easter because this is the spring equinox when the Sun (Jesus) enters the astrological sign of Aries, the Ram or... the lamb.

It is at Easter, the equinox, that Jesus (the Sun) triumphs over darkness - the time of year when there is more light than darkness every day.

The Christian religious day is ... SUNday. Christian churches are built east-west with the alter to the east. This means that the congregation face east - the direction of the rising Sun, Horus.

The story about Jesus turning water into wine is a symbolic story (the Wedding at Cana), this was not a real wedding but symbolism for the Sun's warmth and the Earth's water which grow the grapes to make wine.

Mora than 40 writers are known to have chronicled the events of these lands during the alleged time of Jesus, but they don't mention him. A guy who did all the things that he was supposed to have done and no-one records it? Philo lived throughout the supposed life of Jesus and wrote a history of the Judeans which covered the whole of this period. He even lived in or near Jerusalem when Jesus was said to have been born and Herod was supposed to have killed the children, yet he doesn't record any of this. He was there when Jesus is said to have made his triumphant arrival in Jerusalem and when he was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day. What does Philo say about these fantastic events? NOTHING. Not one sentence, not one syllable.

None of this is mentioned in any Roman record or in the contemporary accounts of the writers of Greece and Alexandria who were familiar with what happened there. WHY??? Because it DIDN'T happen.

Please explain how something that's scrupulously written after someone has died is any different than what would be if it were written during the lifetime of that person.

The New Testament contains proclamations of people who saw and conversed with Jesus of Nazareth; why does the fact that they were written after His crucifixion nullify their validity?

What your challenge asks for sounds like the only sort of evidence that will be accepted would be a sort of "lecture notes" testimony; that is, a documentation that was composed while Jesus was teaching (or maybe after the disciples had long left, for example, a mountainside teaching given by Christ [Matthew 5])

Given that the majority of society back then was illiterate, to assume that any "lecture notes" testimonies would even exist seems fatuous in itself.

It's almost as if you'll look for any (and every) reason to dismiss anything that might remotely suggest that the teachings and sayings of Jesus of Nazareth are valid.

Correct me if I'm wrong (i'm pretty sure I'm not on this one; Mark 16:15 confirms my affirmation), but the reason the writers of the New Testament wrote down what they did was because people who had witnessed what had happened (the events recorded in the New Testament) wanted word to spread about it.

In fact, that's pretty much Luke's entire reason for writing down his gospel; he was writing because many had undertaken to write up accounts of the things that had been believed amongst the new Christians, and just as those who were eyewitnesses had handed down their testimonies to Luke and people alike, their corroborating affirmatives were investigated from the very beginning to the end, so that in the end, Luke was able to write, with certainity, a "recap" of what had actually happened, so that he, Theophilus, and all other people alike were able to know with verity that the things they were believing were actually true. (everything i just wrote was a re-wording of how Luke begins his gospel. see: Luke 1:1-4)

So what you're asking for are written documents that corroborate the events stated in already four prime testimonies, during a time when the majority of society was illiterate.

I'm hysterical; your challenge seems more rigged than Hovind's $250,000.00 "evidence for evolution" gimmick.

Rook, have you read any of the debates involving theologian Dr. William Lane Craig?

I'm sure you have, since you're an expert in this field.

Well, in Craig's most recent debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman (a fellow of the Jesus Seminar), he (Craig) can be quoted in in saying,

"We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark's source material for the story of Jesus' suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus' burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus' burial, some of which are extraordinarily early."

-Dr. W.L. Craig [Debate w/Dr. Ehrman. March 28, 2006. College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachussets]

have you researched this claim at all?

I happened to just have read this debate "by chance" recently, and when you made claims that the earliest date for the Markan account is 30 years after Christ's crucifixion, I instantly remembered this dialogue from Craig.

interesting.

-adamryan

Jesus didn't submit any evidence of himself either, adamryan. Unless you're going to me they've just discovered his personal diary or something like that.

You have to register to read the "Unchained radio" one.

Gene's got me on an IP wide ban for having the audacity to question believers in his forums :twisted: