The Evidence For Jesus' Existence Is Nothing But Hearsay

Originally posted by Iasion
YOU claimed about 60 authors wrote about Jesus.
You were wrong.
Oh bugger it, can't be bothered with this idiot anymore...
Iasion

Dude, you need to choose your words VERY very carefully!

IF you go back you will read:

Originally posted by shearder
Yeah, and i am pretty good at that - trust me. Ok let me approach this from a different angle; let's consider that the bible had 60 odd authors.
Those that did write about Jesus were all smoking something?

I didn't say they ALL wrote about Jesus - did I!?

I respectfully request that you apologies!

[edit on 15/9/2008 by shearder]

Originally posted by Iasion
To which I replied :
"Like where Philo wrote e.g. - Alexandria (and/or Jeruselam.)
You seem to be arguing that a fire in ROME stopped ANYONE ANYWHERE else in the world from writing about Jesus - such as in the region where Jesus allegedly lived !"

Finally he claims :
"Nope, not arguing that at all. You have lost my point. "
And conspicuously FAILS to expand what his point really was, supposedly.

It is clear shearder will say anything, even complete lies, to avoid admittting he is wrong.
Iasion

Once again, you need to choose your words very carefully - go back and read. I mean really read - not scan over and assume anything.

This is what was written; now i am doing you a favour here - read it

Originally posted by shearder
Why do you think that is? Why no roman records of Jesus or OTHER crucified criminals? In fact, why are there no records of almost anything from that time? Here's a clue - Nero, Fire, 64AD.

Now, if you read this it would immediately be apparent that this was about ROME - nowhere else. I have made it even easier by placing those text items that refer to it being in ROME and nowhere else. Then you answer with:

Rubbish.
How does a fire in ROME stop people from ELSEWHERE from writing?
How silly.
We DO have writings from this time which COULD have mentioned Jesus - such as Philo.

So i would say you missed it huh? But i made it clear now for you. The point was there were no records of anyone being crucified at that time because of a fire destroying the records at the time of Nero in 64AD.

So the lack of you reading posts properly you call me an idiot and a liar?? I will accept an apology because i feel you could be better than this.


[edit on 15/9/2008 by shearder]

reply to post by OldThinker


Thing is, many of these 'messianic predictions' that are supposed to have come true with Jesus' life and deeds are either miquotes or complete fabrications.

Sorry. Try again.

Originally posted by shearder
Once again, you need to choose your words very carefully - go back and read. I mean really read - not scan over and assume anything.

I did.
And I quoted the exchange.

So everyone can see how dishonest and ignorant you are.

Now you play the silly ol' game "that's not what I REALLY said".

It's clear you are an ignorant fool.
Keep it up, we are all having a good laugh :-)


Iasion

Originally posted by mhc_70
The critics will go to such absurd lengths; they have effectively labeled every piece of literary evidence of Pontius Pilate, prior to 500AD, a forgery.

You have no idea what we are even talking about any more, do you?
How sad.

No-one EVER said "every piece of literary evidence of Pontius Pilate, prior to 500AD, a forgery" that I am aware of.

We simply pointed out that those Pilate books are known forgeries.

They are known forgeries. But page after page you twist and waffle - 1/2 the time we can't even tell what your claim is anymore.

Originally posted by mhc_70Flavius, Philo, the New Testament, and the New Testament Apocrypha, Thats all that we have of Pilate, did the man even exist?

I have never ever heard anyone claim Pilate didn't exist.


Mate -
what it comes down to is this - to discuss these subjects with any credibilify you have to know the forgeries from the authentic, else you look like an idiot when you cite one as if it was authentic.

Like you did.




Iasion

Originally posted by Iasion
I did.
And I quoted the exchange.

You should then realise your mistake.

So everyone can see how dishonest and ignorant you are.

Now you play the silly ol' game "that's not what I REALLY said".

It's clear you are an ignorant fool.
Keep it up, we are all having a good laugh :-)
Iasion

It is what i said. I didn't change anything. It is blatantly obvious what i said. You just failed to grasp it in your quest to be believed and i appreciate that - we all want to be believed at some stage and if calling people idiots, ignorant and liars gets you to where you want to be that is your choice. Many have followed that route.

That's fine with me. If people are having a good laugh that's also fine. The fact is clear as day. You are trying to save face now by retaining this mind set - i have, like you, also made mistakes in the past but i have been man enough to say i made a mistake i did not fight the issue when i was wrong or mistaken.

Hi all,

Originally posted by shearder
So i would say you missed it huh? But i made it clear now for you. The point was there were no records of anyone being crucified at that time because of a fire destroying the records at the time of Nero in 64AD.

The point started over why there no were no records of Jesus.

You claimed there wouldn't be any, because there was fire in Rome.

I pointed out that this would not stop there being records made in other places.

You made a silly joke.

I pointed out such as : Alexandria - i.e. records COULD have been made in Alexandria or Jerusalem or elsewhere (didn't it HAPPEN in Jerusalem?)

You still didn't seem to get it - your argument that there would be records ANYWHERE because of a fire in ROME is nonsense.

Now you pretend we must ONLY consider Rome, and ignore all other places.

Why?
Because otherwise your point is wrong.

OK, then, let's accept your point - there could be no records of Jesus left in Rome because of the fire in Rome.

I accept your point for the purposes of argument - OK - there would be no records of Jesus left in Rome.


NOW - I would like YOU to explain what stops there being records of Jesus in Jerusalem or Alexandria or Tyre or Bethlehem or Galilee or Nazareth or Jaffa or Acre ?


Iasion

Hi all,

Originally posted by shearder
So i would say you missed it huh? But i made it clear now for you. The point was there were no records of anyone being crucified at that time because of a fire destroying the records at the time of Nero in 64AD.

I saw your point the first time.
It's wrong.

Firstly - it is not possible that the fire destroyed all records - do you really believe ALL Roman history before that fire was lost? All of it? Really?

Secondly - records exist in OTHER places.

Anyway -
We DO have records of people being crucified at that time - in Josephus

Originally posted by shearder
So the lack of you reading posts properly you call me an idiot and a liar?? I will accept an apology because i feel you could be better than this.

You are so ignorant, and so useless at reading comprehension that you still don't realise how comprehensively you've been trounced.


Iasion

reply to post by Iasion

Dude; it's members like you that cannot have civilized discussions that give sites a bad name.

You cannot go on insulting people the way you do. You obviously get very upset when someone goes against what you say. You need to be open to either possibility and the fact that you may very well be wrong.

In place of arguing in a civil manner you resort to insults. There is a saying that goes "do not argue with idiots as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" Do not fall into this category.

You need to deal with people with a little more respect. I don't hold anything against you personally because i do not know you but you really need to observe the T&Cs of this site.

reply to post by Iasion


Dude;

You missed it again.

Ok, try again. You will get it. Think of the little engine that could.

Originally posted by shearder
reply to post by Iasion

 

You missed it again.

i missed it too, but i get it now - you cooked up a straw man argument. sometimes those slip under the radar.

Originally posted by Iasion
I pointed out such as : Alexandria - i.e. records COULD have been made in Alexandria or Jerusalem or elsewhere (didn't it HAPPEN in Jerusalem?)

NOW - I would like YOU to explain what stops there being records of Jesus in Jerusalem or Alexandria or Tyre or Bethlehem or Galilee or Nazareth or Jaffa or Acre ?

OK let me help you with this one... (i wasn't going to but DAMN i could help it.)

Do you remember Jerusalem was liberated from the Romans? The Romans were killed. Do you know that the High Priest was also killed? Am i making this too easy? You do know that the High Priests house was also burned? You knew this - right? Need i go on??

Join the dots...

[edit on 15/9/2008 by shearder]

reply to post by shearder

Do you have any links to that information?
Great job arguing with rude people, btw, you've got a lot of patience.

Originally posted by mmariebored
reply to post by shearder

 

Do you have any links to that information?
Great job arguing with rude people, btw, you've got a lot of patience.

Absolutely: (and thanks)
It is here :

The Upper City was the neighbood of the rich, with large, elaborate dwellings inhabited by the families of the high priests and of the local aristocracy. Here were the palaces of the Hasmonean kings, of King Herod and of the High Priest Caiaphas (who is mentioned in the New Testament). Here, Jesus was arrested and held for a night before he was handed over to the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate, for sentencing. (Matthew 26: 57-75; Luke 22:54-71, 23:1) According to Christian tradition, the palace of the High Priest Caiaphas stood on Mt. Zion, which today is outside the Old City wall, to the south. The walls, the towers and the elaborate palaces of the Upper City are described in detail by the contemporary Jewish historian and native Jerusalemite, Josephus Flavius. He was an eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and he also describes the conquest of the Upper City, where the Roman soldiers plundered the palaces and elegant homes and burnt them to their foundations, on the 8th day of Elul in the year 70 CE, one month after the destruction of the Temple.

and here - lot shorter:

Jerusalem Liberated. The spark of revolt was now fanned into an open flame. The Romans within the city of Jerusalem were slaughtered. In the riot that followed, the High Priest was killed and his house burned along with the official archives in which all public records were kept.

The dots are becoming clearer and easier to join

[edit on 15/9/2008 by shearder]

I sit and ask myself why do i entertain like this? The answer, in short, is that perhaps there are others that are not only searching for proof that Jesus didn;t exist but also proof that Jesus did exist.

This post is for that reason alone.

This, below, can be read here

Though the New Testament has many historical errors, the fact is that many of its points have been proven historically correct. Roman historians, Jewish historians, the finding of the Gnostic materials at Nag Hammadi and now the finding of Caiaphas' burial cave, establishes an historic fact that Jesus lived and died in a time and a place described in the New Testament. Some of the evidence supporting these writings surfaced nearly 2000 years later, adding a strong rule of evidence toward their historic accuracy. Many books were omitted from the compilation of the New Testament, the writings of John and of Mary, for instance, were never included in the scriptures. But the same is true with the Old Testament. It was the early church father, in the case of the New Testament, that made the decisions on the composition of the New Testament.

I will humour you some more Iasion:
I said:

Originally posted by shearder
the evidence found at archaeological digs supports, ACCURATELY, information in the bible. Or, possibly those archaeologists were also smoking something? Same stuff as the guys writing the bible?

And YOU responded with:

Originally posted by Iasion
There is NO archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospels events.
None.
It's you with the smoking problem, methinks.
Iasion

I guess I will put you out of your misery as you obviously have not looked closely enough!! Can i just confirm what you said before i go further?

Iasion said:

"There is NO archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospels events. None."

And then I can play this hand:

In John 5:1-15 Jesus heals a man at the Pool of Bethesda. John gave the precise location and a description of the pool as having 5 porticoes (pillars):

John 5:1 --- After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. Now there is a pool at the Sheep Gate at Jerusalem, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches. In these lay a great multitude of those who were sick, of blind, lame, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and troubled the water. Then whoever first stepped in after the troubling of the water was made whole of whatever disease he had. And a certain man was there, who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying, and knowing that he had spent much time, He said to him, Do you desire to be made whole? The infirm man answered Him, Sir, when the water is troubled, I have no one to put me into the pool. But while I am coming, another steps down before me. Jesus says to him, Rise, take up your bed and walk.

For a long time, skeptics cited this as an example of John being inaccurate because no such place had been found....

The fact is, John did not need to describe the details of the pool (with its 5 pillars) in his gospel, and the fact that he did, made his account vulnerable to contest.

But archaeology has recently vindicated John's testimony and accuracy

You may want to also see it? Yes?



[edit on 15/9/2008 by shearder]

Originally posted by Convex

Originally posted by mhc_70

The powerful personality of Jesus impressed many, and some of his followers must have lived long enough to carry a vivid recollection of him till the end of the first century (just as there are some today who can recall vividly events in which they participated in the First World War or even the Boer War). It was in the second century that the myth-making began, and we can see elements of it in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works of that period. But the real personality of Jesus obviously made a strong impression on his followers, and this personality is apparent in the Gospels, which are by their very quality so easily distinguishable from the legendary material that grew up later.

its an interesting argument, but the same one could be made for any pseudo-historical figure - king arthur, count dracula, santa clause, sherlock holmes, james bond, etc. its only because of modern science that we're pretty sure the latter 2 don't exist.

and alexander (name checked in the essay you quoted), we have some (even if only a little) contemporary evidence of his existance.

Can I ask why you ignored the example of Herodotus? Just like the Bible, archeology has been able to verify the validity of these writings. The skeptics have no issue with the authenticity of Herodotus writings, even though they are 100% hearsay.

what makes socrates (also name checked) different is that he didn't have super powers. so whether he existed or someone created his side of the arguments out of thin air, wouldn't matter. the person who wrote it IS socrates in that case. but you can't say the same about jesus, can you? you can't believe that mark (for example) created what jesus said, came up with his philosophy. that mark IS jesus.

Ofcourse I can say the same about Jesus, the words of the New Testament are the same words Jesus spoke and all the New Testament authors agree on this issue

Besides, You are comparing a historical figure with a few known ancient manuscripts to one who has over 24,000. No other historical figure, from 1000AD and back, has a mere 1000 manuscripts with their name mentioned in them, let alone over 24,000.

if you truly followed what jesus taught it wouldn't matter to you.

Your opinion of what should matter to a follower of Jesus is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by mhc_70
The critics will go to such absurd lengths; they have effectively labeled every piece of literary evidence of Pontius Pilate, prior to 500AD, a forgery.

You have no idea what we are even talking about any more, do you?
How sad.

No-one EVER said "every piece of literary evidence of Pontius Pilate, prior to 500AD, a forgery" that I am aware of.

We simply pointed out that those Pilate books are known forgeries.

They are known forgeries. But page after page you twist and waffle - 1/2 the time we can't even tell what your claim is anymore.

Originally posted by mhc_70Flavius, Philo, the New Testament, and the New Testament Apocrypha, Thats all that we have of Pilate, did the man even exist?

I have never ever heard anyone claim Pilate didn't exist.


Mate -
what it comes down to is this - to discuss these subjects with any credibilify you have to know the forgeries from the authentic, else you look like an idiot when you cite one as if it was authentic.

Like you did.




Iasion

LOL, then Iasion I challenge to provide us with some authentic writings about Pilate from an author that you haven't labeled a forgery.

Originally posted by Iasion
Hi all,

Originally posted by shearder
So i would say you missed it huh? But i made it clear now for you. The point was there were no records of anyone being crucified at that time because of a fire destroying the records at the time of Nero in 64AD.

The point started over why there no were no records of Jesus.

You claimed there wouldn't be any, because there was fire in Rome.

I pointed out that this would not stop there being records made in other places.

You have already attempted to label every record a forgery.

You made a silly joke.

Shearder made his point quite succinctly, the joke is on you.

I pointed out such as : Alexandria - i.e. records COULD have been made in Alexandria or Jerusalem or elsewhere (didn't it HAPPEN in Jerusalem?)

You still didn't seem to get it - your argument that there would be records ANYWHERE because of a fire in ROME is nonsense.

Now you pretend we must ONLY consider Rome, and ignore all other places.

It may be nosense to you, I guess that would be logical though due to the nonsensical basis of your arguements.

Why?
Because otherwise your point is wrong.

OK, then, let's accept your point - there could be no records of Jesus left in Rome because of the fire in Rome.

I accept your point for the purposes of argument - OK - there would be no records of Jesus left in Rome.


NOW - I would like YOU to explain what stops there being records of Jesus in Jerusalem or Alexandria or Tyre or Bethlehem or Galilee or Nazareth or Jaffa or Acre ?


Iasion

Nothing stops there from being records in other places except critics like yourself labeling them forgeries. So the patient debater moves on to explain a possible explanation for it.

All youve got is a derogatory personality that resorts to condescencion when your losing an arguement.

It is really unattractive.

Originally posted by Iasion

Anyway -
We DO have records of people being crucified at that time - in Josephus

Dude, you claimed earlier in this very thread that the records attributed to Josephus Flavius are a forgery.

Oh wait...just the ones that tell of Jesus, right?

Not only are you being intellectually dishonest, but this is a clear proof of an attempt to use your intellect to decieve.

Please put down the shovel and retain what small pieces of credibility you still have.