Historical Jesus

[angelo]

Can you provide some evidence for any supernatural event?

Yes.
View attachment 10477

Oh I get it! Using a Bible to defend the Bible. That wouldn't get you very far in a Western Court of law. In fact any judge in his/her right mind would throw it out of their Court room.

 

[Lion IRC]

How many judges look at a witness statement to police and say "I'm throwing this out because the only thing this proves is that somebody wrote something on a piece of paper"?

 

[iolo]

The trouble on here, I find, is that people don't discuss history but their dislike of the 'God' notion, which they then mix up with a lot of very cranky conspiracy theories, shifting from the one to the other with gay abandon. This doesn't seem a totally useful activity. An obsession with 'religion' from either side seems to put the stoppers on sense, as does a determination to discuss 'the Bible' as if we were discussing its theological truth rather than what little we know about the origins of particular books. I find conspiracy theories increasingly depressing, since they never seem to think out motive or likelihood in any detail, merely attempting constantly to score off some fundamentalist enemy. Must be American conditions, I fear! .

You've said this over and over, but I, and I'd guess others here, have no idea what you're talking about. And if it's Doherty you're referring to, he's Canadian.

The issue is very simple. There are no contemporaneous sources for Jesus. References to a historical Jesus don't appear until the latter half of the second century.

And it has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of God.

I thought Canada was in America - which continent IS it in? Another thing I've said before is try to find any contemporaneous sources for anything in most of Roman and post-Roman Britain, which is fairly typical. Why do you suppose the Master Race were interested in the details of a provincial carpenter? All you are really interested in is scoring off 'believers', whatever that may mean.

 

[iolo]

Myths evolve over time. The euhemerization of the Jesus myth is nothing new. Lots of gods and supermen have made their earthly lives known in the same way.

The Historical Tooth Fairy

The Tooth Fairy as we know it is a relatively recent creation, like other myths, evolved over time. There are traditions, legends and myths dating back millennia with regards to loosing your baby teeth.

Early norse and European traditions suggest that when a child lost a baby tooth, it was buried to spare the child from hardships in the next life. A tradition of the tand-fe or tooth fee originated in Europe for a child’s first tooth, and vikings used children’s teeth and other items from their children to bring them good luck in battle.

There’s also the more general tradition of a good fairy in Europe that was birthed out of fairy tales and popular literature in more recent times. Ultimately the most popular version of a ‘tooth deity’ is the image of a mouse, who would enter children’s rooms and remove baby teeth. This tradition is prominent in Russia, Spain and many asian countries like China.

Even if one discounts the existence of the tooth fairy as real, one still has to deal with the rise of the legend and the myth. The tooth fairy believer will always ask, "If there isn't really a tooth fairy, why would the story ever arise? Clearly there has to be a reason for all the fuss about a tooth fairy."

As I've said before, read any real myth and compare it with Mark. Chalk and cheese are much more alike.

 

[Juma]

Myths evolve over time. The euhemerization of the Jesus myth is nothing new. Lots of gods and supermen have made their earthly lives known in the same way.

The Historical Tooth Fairy



Even if one discounts the existence of the tooth fairy as real, one still has to deal with the rise of the legend and the myth. The tooth fairy believer will always ask, "If there isn't really a tooth fairy, why would the story ever arise? Clearly there has to be a reason for all the fuss about a tooth fairy."

As I've said before, read any real myth and compare it with Mark. Chalk and cheese are much more alike.

Yes. Choose any real myth... as the Lukas, Johannes or Matteus...

 

[Horatio Parker]

I thought Canada was in America - which continent IS it in? Another thing I've said before is try to find any contemporaneous sources for anything in most of Roman and post-Roman Britain, which is fairly typical. Why do you suppose the Master Race were interested in the details of a provincial carpenter? All you are really interested in is scoring off 'believers', whatever that may mean.

Re Canada: nice dodge.

Many ancient figures are considered mythical or whose existence is in doubt: Homer and Pythagoras are two. So tell me which ancient figures are agreed to have existed without evidence among scholars.

As for believers, my point has always been that the degree of fervor that one believes in supernatural events such as the resurrection has nothing, zero, nada to do with spirituality. IMO Christianity is a stronger belief system without a historical Jesus. Apologetics are a distraction.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Can you provide some evidence for any supernatural event?

Yes.
View attachment 10477

How isn't that like saying that Lord of the Rings prove that dragons exist?

 

[blastula]

How many judges look at a witness statement to police and say "I'm throwing this out because the only thing this proves is that somebody wrote something on a piece of paper"?

Written statements are hearsay.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How many judges look at a witness statement to police and say "I'm throwing this out because the only thing this proves is that somebody wrote something on a piece of paper"?

Written statements are hearsay.

No, no, I'm sure LOTS of legal precedents have been established that absolutely PIVOT on the anonymous written testimony of people who were not eyewitnesses to an event and may or may not have had some interest in the committed crime. Historical analysis being so similar to prosecution and all, it simply must be true.

 

[Lion IRC]

How many judges look at a witness statement to police and say "I'm throwing this out because the only thing this proves is that somebody wrote something on a piece of paper"?

Written statements are hearsay.

Do you know what a sworn affidavit is?

 

[Lion IRC]

Written statements are hearsay.

No, no, I'm sure LOTS of legal precedents have been established that absolutely PIVOT on the anonymous written testimony of people who were not eyewitnesses to an event and may or may not have had some interest in the committed crime. Historical analysis being so similar to prosecution and all, it simply must be true.

Tell that to Julian Assange.

 

[Lion IRC]

Precedents? Are you joking?

Evidence given anonymously has been ruled admissible by The European Court of Human Rights.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conve...lename=003-3928205-4542450.pdf&TID=ihgdqbxnfi

"The trial judge allowed 'Mark Brown' to give anonymous evidence at trial."

 

[Lion IRC]

"Anonymous testimony" doesn't mean it was given by ghosts or imaginary people.
Neither does it mean those people weren't witnesses.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Written statements are hearsay.

Do you know what a sworn affidavit is?

I sat on a jury where witnesses gave completely contradicting testimony about the same event. I was asked specifically before I was chosen how I would handle such things. Do you know what sworn testimony is?

And those gospel tales are anonymous so they're hearsay. And worse they're translated and interpolated, anonymous hearsay.

 

[Lion IRC]

It's funny how bible skeptics want to insist we know nothing about the 'anonymous' Gospel writers
...and then they proceed to lecture folks about how the Gospel writers weren't eye witnesses and how they weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and how they weren't from Palestine and how they weren't alive at the time of the events they reported and how they weren't independent sources and how they weren't the original source but copies.

Those bible skeptics are amazing experts on the absence of evidence.

But if we (allegedly) don't have the original manuscript how do we know that the oldest surviving texts aren't accurate accounts of eye witness testimony?

 

[Lion IRC]

I sat on a jury where witnesses gave completely contradicting testimony about the same event. I was asked specifically before I was chosen how I would handle such things. Do you know what sworn testimony is?

Yes.
Do you know what a contradiction is?
One witness says Jesus gave the beatitudes sermon at location "x" and another witness says they heard the sermon at location "y". Which one is lying?
Answer - neither. Jesus gave the sermon more than once.

And those gospel tales are anonymous so they're hearsay.

That's NOT what anonymous testimony means.

And worse they're translated...

From what?
You think that translation suddenly invalidates the truth of the original?

...and interpolated

No they aren't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's funny how bible skeptics want to insist we know nothing about the 'anonymous' Gospel writers
...and then they proceed to lecture folks about how the Gospel writers weren't eye witnesses and how they weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and how they weren't from Palestine and how they weren't alive at the time of the events they reported and how they weren't independent sources and how they weren't the original source but copies.

Those bible skeptics are amazing experts on the absence of evidence.

But if we (allegedly) don't have the original manuscript how do we know that the oldest surviving texts aren't accurate accounts of eye witness testimony?

What's a "bible skeptic? Is that a person who discounts the accuracy of impossible, magical, religious tales?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What's a "bible skeptic? Is that a person who discounts the accuracy of impossible, magical, religious tales?

I think he means that he's angry at the people who post at Skeptics Annotated Bible.

 

[Lion IRC]

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Written statements are hearsay.

Do you know what a sworn affidavit is?

An affidavit ("sworn" is redundant) is a written statement given under oath (hence the redundancy) to an authorised taker of oaths, such as a commissioner of oaths or a notary public. You'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but I don't think any of the 4 gospels qualifies as such.

It's funny how bible skeptics want to insist we know nothing about the 'anonymous' Gospel writers
...and then they proceed to lecture folks about how the Gospel writers weren't eye witnesses and how they weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and how they weren't from Palestine and how they weren't alive at the time of the events they reported and how they weren't independent sources and how they weren't the original source but copies.

Those bible skeptics are amazing experts on the absence of evidence.

But if we (allegedly) don't have the original manuscript how do we know that the oldest surviving texts aren't accurate accounts of eye witness testimony?

That's not "bible skeptics" who make those claims about the gospels. That's "bible scholars". Most of whom are Xians. And they don't do it on the basis of an absence of evidence, but on the evidence present in the texts themselves.

Yes.
Do you know what a contradiction is?
One witness says Jesus gave the beatitudes sermon at location "x" and another witness says they heard the sermon at location "y". Which one is lying?
Answer - neither. Jesus gave the sermon more than once.

Or different witnesses recalled it differently, and told it differently to different audiences who thus spread different versions which were eventually written down, differently, by different authors, which were eventually collected into the Xian canon by church leaders more concerned about the broad message than the details. Shit happens.

And those gospel tales are anonymous so they're hearsay.

That's NOT what anonymous testimony means.

You're right, that's not what "anonymous testimony" means. "Anonymous testimony" is simply testimony without a name attached, and could be from anybody, including eyewitnesses. "Hearsay", OTOH, is not necessarily anonymous, but is at least secondhand, precluding as it does the possibility of being simultaneously eyewitness testimony, unlike anonymous witness. If the gospels were merely anonymous, there would still be the possibility of their being eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately, close study and the various forms of criticism have definitively shown them to be not eyewitness testimony, but at least secondhand, which qualifies them perfectly as "hearsay".

And worse they're translated...

From what?
You think that translation suddenly invalidates the truth of the original?

As one who has worked in the field of translation, I can assure you that , while it may not invalidate any "truth" present in the original (although it might well do so), any but the simplest, most basic translation is a choice between converting word for word from one language to another and losing a great deal of the flow and poetry of the text, or translating only the general sense while preserving the feel and losing a lot of the detail. Whichever choice the translator makes, something must give and be "lost in translation". This is even more true of texts which undergo several translations from original to translation to translation of translation, etc. This is not to say that underlying "truths" might not survive translation, but it does say that a translated text, and so much more a retranslated text, will never convey the exact same message in the exact same way as the original.

...and interpolated

No they aren't.

Well, yes, they are. Otherwise, for example, the story of the woman taken in adultery (let he who is without sin ...) wouldn't be missing from the earliest versions and present in the later. Interpolation, editing, "corrections" ... they're all present, and detectable, in the gospels.