New Series on SCI channel (US): Biblical Conspiracies

a reply to: Praetorius

My joining this discussion was based on the claim that there's no contemporary evidence Jesus existed.

Really? Because I'm prettty sure that you said there was not contemporaneous evidence that he DID NOT exist, therefore you are assuming he did.

Based on your input here, such documentation of his existence would also have been subject to editing, redaction, burning, removal from view, etc. (or just the cruelty of history itself to such records).

Exactly.

So...thanks in advance for being willing to believe that there very well WERE contemporaneous historical and third party accounts of the life of Jesus, I suppose? Assuming, of course, that you're intellectually honest enough to apply your own logic impartially.

Of course I am!!
There is neither any contemporaneous evidence available that he DID exist, nor is there any that he did NOT exist.

There may very well have been evidence/writings leading either way!!, but we don't know of them. Perhaps someday we will, but for you to claim that 'since there aren't any writings of the time that say he did NOT exist, then he must have existed' is .... well.....

yeah, lame.

I don't mean to offend, and I apologize if I ruffled your feathers, but seriously - there is no verified writing either way.....

Heh.

If ever there was a more blatant clue as to who the audience for this ridiculous programing was, be it the "History" Channel, "Discovery" Channel, and now the "Science" Channel, one need look no further than this show here.

If anyone watches this crap, let me know if there are any ads for "Gold Buying" or "Gold Coins" or "Alternative Medicine/Cleaning Supplies".

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Of course I am!!
There is neither any contemporaneous evidence available that he DID exist, nor is there any that he did NOT exist.

There may very well have been evidence/writings leading either way!!, but we don't know of them. Perhaps someday we will, but for you to claim that 'since there aren't any writings of the time that say he did NOT exist, then he must have existed' is .... well.....

yeah, lame.

I don't mean to offend, and I apologize if I ruffled your feathers, but seriously - there is no verified writing either way.....

No feathers ruffled friend, so no worries there. And I think we started out on a misunderstanding.

My argument wasn't that the absence of any comtemporary claims against his existence prove he existed (they're one link in that chain for me), but in response to your orignal post to me, was pointing out that this shoots holes in the argument of Tangerine's I was responding to - his claim that (supposedly) no contemporary eyewitness/historical accounts effectively proves that Jesus didn't exist (which I agree with you is lame ).

The absence of any records alluding to doubts of Jesus' existence at the time (until roughly 1800 years later) coupled with the apparent acceptance of his historicity and what his purported followers were willing to live & suffer is enough to leave me comfortable with my belief that he certainly existed. If actual evidence beyond mere supposition based on what I consider overly-wishful inference comes to light otherwise, well and good. And of course, I consider it entirely valid to otherwise question the factuality of the accounts we have otherwise, even if I personally don't see any reason to do so offhand myself.

Thanks for your reasoned response, and be well.

a reply to: Tangerine
You never got around to answering my question regarding our access to all these roman census and other records, or question about us missing any historical documention for Caiaphas and other undisputed players in the jewish religious power structure of the times.

Based on what you've said, we should obviously have at least census records for all the thousands of jewish and roman citizens from the time, and was hoping you could point me in their direction? Historical comtemporary accounts for all accepted historical personages (or are we really left with the glaring - and tragic - assumption simply that NONE of them ever actually existed)? Why fabricate entire social structures and heirarchies; and if all fabrications, what fills the empty spaces in history and true occurrences they apparently displaced?

I've heard that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I've got to agree with it. Just because history might have swallowed some records (among other possible explanations) is no reason to claim people never existed. In two thousand years' time, what extant record will their be of my existence? And what would people of the time make of such - that I was merely a fabrication, if I'm remembered at all?

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: TzarChasm

Wasn't the city of Jerusalem pretty much f'ed up in 70 A.D.? In what form would you expect such a record to last 2000 years?

both tacitus and josephus are credited with having authored authentic references to jesus. go ahead and look it up.

please understand that proof of jesus having existed is only proof of his having existed. supernatural claims are another ball of wax entirely.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Some people on this thread will question both references. I am just surprised we have the little that we do from 2000 years ago. Do you think that my bad short stories will last that long =P

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: TzarChasm

Wasn't the city of Jerusalem pretty much f'ed up in 70 A.D.? In what form would you expect such a record to last 2000 years?

both tacitus and josephus are credited with having authored authentic references to jesus. go ahead and look it up.

please understand that proof of jesus having existed is only proof of his having existed. supernatural claims are another ball of wax entirely.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of contemporaneous documentation. Repeating stories heard about someone neither Tacitus nor Josephus ever witnessed existing and who did not live during their lifetimes is not contemporaneous documentation proving that the person in question ever existed. Only contemporaneous documentation proves that someone existed. Common sense says you can't witness someone living if you didn't live when they allegedly lived. Moreover, the Josephus mention of Jesus is generally considered to be a forgery inserted by the Church in 400 AD, long after even Josephus was dead. One reason it is considered to be a forgery is that it contains language not in use when Josephus was living. I understand that you desperately want to believe that Jesus existed but that doesn't make it fact. You are left with belief.

There are two references to jesus by josephus. One is a whole paragraph.. There are arguments how much of this is a forgery which range from all of the paragraph to just a few words. Just by reading the whole section its easy to see it as the whole paragraph being a forgery. It just doesn't fit there. It interrupts the flow of material and is basically hits everything that's needed to prove jesus the messiah. It also is not quoted by any church father until the fourth century where it is quoted by Eusibius. Most believe he is the forger.

The other quote (james, the brother of jesus...) is not in the earliest manuscript.

As far as Tacitus, the earliest manuscript is from the 11th century. The quote is not mentioned by any church father until Sulpicius Severus, a known forger/myth maker, in the 5th century. The "chrestianos" reference also has been changed to "christianos"...prob in 11th century. They aren't the same. See the link. He also calls Pilate a procurator. He was a prefect.

Edit-for some reason I cant post the link on mobile. Just google Tacitus Chrestianos Changed

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: TzarChasm

Some people on this thread will question both references. I am just surprised we have the little that we do from 2000 years ago. Do you think that my bad short stories will last that long =P

The point is that we have exactly nothing from anyone who lived when Jesus lived who could have witnessed him living and claimed to have done so. Nothing. Nada. Zip. I have to wonder why Christians who claim to highly prize belief are not content to settle for belief and, instead, attempt to claim fact out of whole cloth. Perhaps it's because their clergy are very careful to not bring up the topic and admit that there is no contemporaneous documentation for fear that they would be killing the golden goose (ie. their jobs). It must come as a terrible shock to Christians to find out that they've been profoundly deceived about something so meaningful to them. I do understand that denial is one of the stages of response to such a revelation but, surely, those who want the truth should eventually move on to doing some research for themselves. I find that almost none want the truth.

To me, the deception employed by clergy reveals a great deal about their motivation because all but the most ignorant, uneducated clergy (some of the fundamentalist sort with three months of Bible School as their sole post-high school education) know the truth. It's no wonder that a significant percentage of clergy are closet non-believers even if they didn't start out that way.

As I always say, people are welcome to their beliefs. I only challenge claims of fact.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Of course I am!!
There is neither any contemporaneous evidence available that he DID exist, nor is there any that he did NOT exist.

There may very well have been evidence/writings leading either way!!, but we don't know of them. Perhaps someday we will, but for you to claim that 'since there aren't any writings of the time that say he did NOT exist, then he must have existed' is .... well.....

yeah, lame.

I don't mean to offend, and I apologize if I ruffled your feathers, but seriously - there is no verified writing either way.....

No feathers ruffled friend, so no worries there. And I think we started out on a misunderstanding.

My argument wasn't that the absence of any comtemporary claims against his existence prove he existed (they're one link in that chain for me), but in response to your orignal post to me, was pointing out that this shoots holes in the argument of Tangerine's I was responding to - his claim that (supposedly) no contemporary eyewitness/historical accounts effectively proves that Jesus didn't exist (which I agree with you is lame

).

The absence of any records alluding to doubts of Jesus' existence at the time (until roughly 1800 years later) coupled with the apparent acceptance of his historicity and what his purported followers were willing to live & suffer is enough to leave me comfortable with my belief that he certainly existed. If actual evidence beyond mere supposition based on what I consider overly-wishful inference comes to light otherwise, well and good. And of course, I consider it entirely valid to otherwise question the factuality of the accounts we have otherwise, even if I personally don't see any reason to do so offhand myself.

Thanks for your reasoned response, and be well.

You are misstating my claim. I never said that absence of contemporaneous documentation proves that Jesus never existed. It's impossible to prove a negative (except in math). I have said, here or elsewhere, that for a variety of reasons it is highly unlikely that Jesus ever existed and I stand by that.

You see no reason to question the factuality of the accounts we have (of Jesus existing)? What accounts? No one who lived when Jesus allegedly lived wrote a word about witnessing him living. The lack of accounts is THE point.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: TzarChasm

Wasn't the city of Jerusalem pretty much f'ed up in 70 A.D.? In what form would you expect such a record to last 2000 years?

both tacitus and josephus are credited with having authored authentic references to jesus. go ahead and look it up.

please understand that proof of jesus having existed is only proof of his having existed. supernatural claims are another ball of wax entirely.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of contemporaneous documentation. Repeating stories heard about someone neither Tacitus nor Josephus ever witnessed existing and who did not live during their lifetimes is not contemporaneous documentation proving that the person in question ever existed. Only contemporaneous documentation proves that someone existed. Common sense says you can't witness someone living if you didn't live when they allegedly lived. Moreover, the Josephus mention of Jesus is generally considered to be a forgery inserted by the Church in 400 AD, long after even Josephus was dead. One reason it is considered to be a forgery is that it contains language not in use when Josephus was living. I understand that you desperately want to believe that Jesus existed but that doesn't make it fact. You are left with belief.

me? doesnt matter to me one way or the other. but if those documents were genuine then i am obligated to acknowledge it and so are you. we rely on facts, and if jesus of nazareth was a fact then far be it from either of us to deny it. what i now ask of you is to please review the text in question and tell me why specifically you think it is not authentic. the josephus text you speak of is actually two pieces, one short and one long. you speak of the longer one, the shorter one is widely agreed to be authentic.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: Tangerine
You never got around to answering my question regarding our access to all these roman census and other records, or question about us missing any historical documention for Caiaphas and other undisputed players in the jewish religious power structure of the times.

Based on what you've said, we should obviously have at least census records for all the thousands of jewish and roman citizens from the time, and was hoping you could point me in their direction? Historical comtemporary accounts for all accepted historical personages (or are we really left with the glaring - and tragic - assumption simply that NONE of them ever actually existed)? Why fabricate entire social structures and heirarchies; and if all fabrications, what fills the empty spaces in history and true occurrences they apparently displaced?

I've heard that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I've got to agree with it. Just because history might have swallowed some records (among other possible explanations) is no reason to claim people never existed. In two thousand years' time, what extant record will their be of my existence? And what would people of the time make of such - that I was merely a fabrication, if I'm remembered at all?

Scholars have had two thousand years of access to those records and have never turned up any contemporaneous documentation. It would be world headline news if they had. In the absence of contemporaneous documentation we are left with, should we choose to do so, the BELIEF that someone lived. Would you prefer that we state that lack of contemporaneous documentation serves as factual evidence that Frodo and Gandalf and Odin and Isis lived?

You asked why entire social structures would have been fabricated and real history displaced. The answer is pretty obvious: because it served the interests of those in a position to manage to do such things. If you read the histories of various countries about any significant event affecting all of them you'll find very different accounts of the same events, each tailored to the advantage of those writing the history. You need only watch the news to see the spin on stories and then check other sources to get different interpretations or claims of fact. You're probably familiar with "false flag operations" such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which the Vietnamese were accused by the U.S. of firing on a U.S. ship to justify U.S. military action when, in fact, the ship was never attacked.

Religion is a very powerful social control mechanism. Historically, it has been used to manipulate the population to stay in cowed submission, wage war, and do other things that benefit those in power. It's also a huge business and, in some cases has produced enormous wealth for the church and clergy. On a lower level, it keeps clergy in jobs. Not many people are willing to kill their own cash cows.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: TzarChasm

Wasn't the city of Jerusalem pretty much f'ed up in 70 A.D.? In what form would you expect such a record to last 2000 years?

both tacitus and josephus are credited with having authored authentic references to jesus. go ahead and look it up.

please understand that proof of jesus having existed is only proof of his having existed. supernatural claims are another ball of wax entirely.

You seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of contemporaneous documentation. Repeating stories heard about someone neither Tacitus nor Josephus ever witnessed existing and who did not live during their lifetimes is not contemporaneous documentation proving that the person in question ever existed. Only contemporaneous documentation proves that someone existed. Common sense says you can't witness someone living if you didn't live when they allegedly lived. Moreover, the Josephus mention of Jesus is generally considered to be a forgery inserted by the Church in 400 AD, long after even Josephus was dead. One reason it is considered to be a forgery is that it contains language not in use when Josephus was living. I understand that you desperately want to believe that Jesus existed but that doesn't make it fact. You are left with belief.

me? doesnt matter to me one way or the other. but if those documents were genuine then i am obligated to acknowledge it and so are you. we rely on facts, and if jesus of nazareth was a fact then far be it from either of us to deny it. what i now ask of you is to please review the text in question and tell me why specifically you think it is not authentic. the josephus text you speak of is actually two pieces, one short and one long. you speak of the longer one, the shorter one is widely agreed to be authentic.

Josephus and Tacitus did not live when Jesus allegedly lived and could not possibly have witnessed Jesus existing. It's not contemporaneous documentation of his existence. It doesn't matter an iota whether Josephus or Tacitus wrote those words. THEY DIDN'T WITNESS JESUS EXISTING. How you missed that the first half dozen times I said it or do not understand it is baffling.

a reply to: Tangerine

perhaps josephus may be considered suspect, as he was an excellent lawyer, but tacitus was a jewish historian with access to senate records. you are either saying he was completely useless at what he did, or that he lied. so i want you to clarify and then prove it. show me examples please. this is me playing fair.

a reply to: AgentShillington

Nope, there weren't. Sorry to disappoint you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Just think of the political implications! Jesus would have been the natural heir to not just the kingdom of Israel, but the Roman and Egyptian empires as well! And if we throw in the legends that Jesus' maternal grandmother was a Celtic princess and/or Druid priestess, then we're adding a whole new "kingdom" to Jesus' royal/political inheritance.

If any of this is true, it changes everything... if all of this is true, wow! Just wow!

Brilliant! Send me a u2u.....let's talk about writing!!

a reply to: TzarChasm

both tacitus and josephus are credited with having authored authentic references to jesus

I'm quite sure I have read many times about Josephus's supposed documentation being exposed as fraudulent.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: TzarChasm

both tacitus and josephus are credited with having authored authentic references to jesus

I'm quite sure I have read many times about Josephus's supposed documentation being exposed as fraudulent.

what about tacitus?

a reply to: Tangerine

Repeating stories heard about someone neither Tacitus nor Josephus ever witnessed existing and who did not live during their lifetimes is not contemporaneous documentation proving that the person in question ever existed.

THIS ^^^

a reply to: TzarChasm

what about tacitus?

Honestly, I haven't looked into Tacitus (that I recall). But I shall, and I will!

So - what about the allegations of forgery/fraud in Josephus?