Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is interesting, but it doesn't say that these were proven to be forgeries. It just states that as a theory. Why are people claiming that they have been proven to be forgeries?
I have emboldened the words above to make a point. Belief, acceptance etc is not physical proof of the existance of any historical figure.
Actual (not faith or acceptance) proof is what's required, so contrary to what you say, the thread is still wide open.
I dont understand what your all wanting ? A polaroid ? His John Hancock ?
I think james ussher did a perfect of job of collecting and supporting history.
Jesus disciples wrote first hand about him and his life. Regardless of when the documents came, the fact is they exist. If they exist, then the writers exist, if the writers exist, then their writings should compliment each other, and they do.
You have first hand witnesses of christ, and still people want to disprove he existed.
What i find surprising is, there is first count evidence for his existence, and yet we try to debate his existence, but yet we have men and women today who have all kinds of theories of origins of existence, and were all so eager to jump on the wagon of agreeance as long as it doesnt include a creator.
So we have scientists today who think they got it all figured out, and atheists ( reknowned richard dawkins ) who argue for no existence of god, but not one of them were there from the beginning to present to account or disprove anything. Yet we will believe anything that is tossed before our eyes as long as it doesnt include a God or even jesus for this matter.
I dont understand what your all wanting ? A polaroid ? His John Hancock ?
I think james ussher did a perfect of job of collecting and supporting history.
Jesus disciples wrote first hand about him and his life. Regardless of when the documents came, the fact is they exist. If they exist, then the writers exist, if the writers exist, then their writings should compliment each other, and they do.
You have first hand witnesses of christ, and still people want to disprove he existed.
What i find surprising is, there is first count evidence for his existence, and yet we try to debate his existence, but yet we have men and women today who have all kinds of theories of origins of existence, and were all so eager to jump on the wagon of agreeance as long as it doesnt include a creator.
So we have scientists today who think they got it all figured out, and atheists ( reknowned richard dawkins ) who argue for no existence of god, but not one of them were there from the beginning to present to account or disprove anything. Yet we will believe anything that is tossed before our eyes as long as it doesnt include a God or even jesus for this matter.
The Disciples would have had to be well over 150 years old to have written the book of the bible named after them. They were the works of early Christians well after the time listed for Jesus, and written to support the goal of forming a one god religion.
There is NO proven first hand witnesses of his existence. There is more evidence that he did not exist than there is he did.
You go to the bible to gain data and references to his existence, but the bible is so full of forgeries, and adjustments that it is not acceptable as a reference material, and any reference material which uses the bible as its source is thus by association no longer acceptable as a reference.
Your problem is you are willing to accept anything written in the bible and over look the fact that is was originally written by man, overseen by a political ruler, adjusted anytime a government or church needed to add control over humanity, and distorted beyond it usefulness as a reference.
Acceptable Proof is just that, it has to stand the test of examination from the many who question the veracity of the document or subject being reviewed. If it can not hold up to that, than it will take a lot more than faith to support the lies.
The Disciples would have had to be well over 150 years old to have written the book of the bible named after them. They were the works of early Christians well after the time listed for Jesus, and written to support the goal of forming a one god religion.
There is NO proven first hand witnesses of his existence. There is more evidence that he did not exist than there is he did.
You go to the bible to gain data and references to his existence, but the bible is so full of forgeries, and adjustments that it is not acceptable as a reference material, and any reference material which uses the bible as its source is thus by association no longer acceptable as a reference.
Your problem is you are willing to accept anything written in the bible and over look the fact that is was originally written by man, overseen by a political ruler, adjusted anytime a government or church needed to add control over humanity, and distorted beyond it usefulness as a reference.
Acceptable Proof is just that, it has to stand the test of examination from the many who question the veracity of the document or subject being reviewed. If it can not hold up to that, than it will take a lot more than faith to support the lies.
That is such an easy cop out. Saying the Bible is so full of forgeries and fallacy and inaccuracies.
Most people goto this tactic because its the easiest one to say. Which might work with people who dont know any better, but I see through it.
The bible has the most targetted book and scrutiny in history, and it has always held water and stood its ground.
I dont fall prey to other peoples quick assumptions, and regurgitate it over and over again.
Most people goto this tactic because its the easiest one to say.
Be that as it may, I prefer Occam's Razor: entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity and Einstein's: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler over any religious dogma.
That is such an easy cop out. Saying the Bible is so full of forgeries and fallacy and inaccuracies.
Most people goto this tactic because its the easiest one to say. Which might work with people who dont know any better, but I see through it.
The bible has the most targetted book and scrutiny in history, and it has always held water and stood its ground.
I dont fall prey to other peoples quick assumptions, and regurgitate it over and over again.
I don’t blame you for the fallacies, or the forgeries, but regardless of how much it offends you the facts are there and the Bibles accuracy is gone if it ever existed. It has rendered the Bible as a questionable source and thus not acceptable as a reference.
This thread is STILL going? Geez, wiz! Get over it, the majority of contemporary scholars (consisting of skeptics, agnostics, etc) agree that Jesus was a historical figure. Tons of links have already been posted throughout this thread.
"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."~Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.
"Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion."
~Bruce, FF (1982). New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? InterVarsity Press, ISBN 087784691X
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
End this thread already! Please! If you want to discuss a more controversial topic, why don't we discuss the existance of God, origin of morality, existance of miracles, prayer, etc.
This thread is STILL going? Geez, wiz! Get over it, the majority of contemporary scholars (consisting of skeptics, agnostics, etc) agree that Jesus was a historical figure. Tons of links have already been posted throughout this thread.
"Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death."~Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.
"Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion."
~Bruce, FF (1982). New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? InterVarsity Press, ISBN 087784691X
"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
End this thread already! Please! If you want to discuss a more controversial topic, why don't we discuss the existance of God, origin of morality, existance of miracles, prayer, etc.
I will say this one more time. The bible is not an acceptable reference, and the works you list use the bible as their main if not only reference.
He is not listed in the Roman records, which would be strange as he was suppose to have been a problem to them. His execution was not listed in the Roman records again something they would have not omitted from their records. There is nothing in an acceptable format which can confirm he was more than a myth.
I find it strange the only documents you list are all backed from a book we have already listed as an unacceptable source due to its fraudulent past. If it is all you have to show than you really have nothing.
I will say this one more time. The bible is not an acceptable reference, and the works you list use the bible as their main if not only reference.
He is not listed in the Roman records, which would be strange as he was suppose to have been a problem to them. His execution was not listed in the Roman records again something they would have not omitted from their records. There is nothing in an acceptable format which can confirm he was more than a myth.
I find it strange the only documents you list are all backed from a book we have already listed as an unacceptable source due to its fraudulent past. If it is all you have to show than you really have nothing.
Sir, take a closer look and you'll see that they used more than the Bible. Also, I think I'll put my stock in their consensus as they study this for a living and have doctorates in this kind of scholarship. The consensus is in: Jesus was a historical figure. Does this mean he was really the son fo God? Does this mean he really did resurrect? Does this mean he said who he says he was? No one can say for sure, but they can agree that he was a historical figure. Also, contemporary debates and reviews are way past this stage. Currently, the most controversial topics are in the resurrection and claims of divinity by Jesus. in other words, no one is really writing papers anymore questioning his historical status. Sure, you can find a few from the fringe, though.
If the reason why you are having a tough time accepting the above consensus, it may be due to your skeptical view of the historicity of the Bible. This is a valid concern. There are two camps right now: Biblical maximalist and Biblical minimalist. Generally those giving more weight to the text of the Bible, assuming its correctness unless proven otherwise, and tending to interpret it literally, are called Biblical maximalists, while the opposing view is Biblical minimalists. The debate between the two sides is inextricably tied to how one views historiography: they disagree over how much weight documentary and indirect evidence should be given. Biblical maximalists view the Biblical narrative as a starting point for constructing the history, and correct or reinterpret it where it is contradicted by archaeological evidence. Biblical minimalists start purely from the archaeological evidence, and only consider Biblical accounts of value if they are corroborated by the archaeological evidence.
Personally, I'm in the camp somewhere along the lines just below a maximalist. The reason is because I believe that the overwhelming majority of archeaological evidence has yet to be found. According to the book Stones and Scriptures, only 1/1000 of the archeological evidence as told in the Bible has been found (I may be off a little on the exact wording). The reason I find this to be compelling is because if you look at history, you'll see that a lot of the most important finds of archeaology were recent. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were barely found in the late 1940s and took over 60 years to translate. Also, it was generally beliefed that Pontius Pilate did not exist ....and then someone dug in a Roman theater and found a limestone rock that contained the name of Pontius Pilate and ECTVS IUDA (governor) and dating right at the time of Jesus' supposed life. These are just a few samples.
There's so much information out there and lots of confusion. At some point you will have to make your own decisions.
Last edited by doss1; 07-05-2008 at 04:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Be that as it may, I prefer Occam's Razor: entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity and Einstein's: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler over any religious dogma.
