Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[Minimalist]

There is no first century historical references to your godboy. He can post all the apologetic horseshit he wants and it does not change that fact one iota.

[chi pan]

i posted 7. only 1 was considered a fraud

[Minimalist]

Maybe you'll read this now.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[chi pan]

looked at. the accounts of Josephus Flavius cannot be eye witness accounts but that doesn't mean they were hear say. it's possible he interviewed the apostles themselves. news of Jesus spread everywhere. Jesus met Pontius Pilate. Scissor himself probably heard of him because he was such a contraversial man. if he was made up, they would have at least questioned it back then but they didn't. this has never been the arguement. no one has questioned it until recently. you say all these accounts are out of place and therefore not accurate but is a history book about the civil war written in the 1940's not accurate? most historians believe he existed. even Wikipedia says this.

The Shroud of Turin- this was pointed out as a fraud in 1988 by carbon dating tests, however i saw a history channel show talking about this subject. the sample taken out of the corner of the linen was actually found to be a different material of the rest of the shroud. it was different material and woven differently as well. it was deturmined that this sample taken was one of a patch for repairs done to it in the 15th or 16th centuary. a second sample is awaiting on the church approval to be taken.

again, it's in our textbooks. he existed and there shouldn't be a question of this.

[Minimalist]

You are a walking testament to the argument from authority. You'll fall for anything that someone tells you which happens to be what you want to hear.

In Texas, idiots like you wrote Thomas Jefferson out of American history texts for championing the separation of church and state.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educat...texas.html

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

But..fuck....it's in a text book so I guess that makes it true, right asshole?


As far as Josephus and the fucking shroud go, you are simply a lunatic.

[Jackalope]

My advice, Chip, is to go to the library. A librarian can help you find books on precisely what you want to know.

you know at least Cthulhu Dreaming was willing to admit that i knew what i was talking about i just left one thing out. you don't give me any credit reguardless of how many facts i have on my side. and btw, i read wikipedia about the calibration methods and they say they calibrate them but don't say by how much in what situations and how they deturmine how much they need to calibrate them.

No he didn't, he corrected your misconception, as it was obvious to him that you were wrong and he told you so by his correction

That is precisely what I did. His claim that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate for the reasons given was incorrect, for the reasons given. His description of how C14 dating works was mostly correct, what was incorrect was his claims of inaccuracy - and that fact invalidated his argument. I wouldn't characterize that as me admitting that "he knew what he was talking about". In fact, I would think that it would be clear that I was saying quite the opposite.

As far as providing more information goes, I have serious reservations about doing any of his research for him, and I'm not going to do so. He's been given a starting point and sources for doing his own investigation as to the veracity of what he's been told. Radiocarbon dating is a complex discipline, and the amount of information he appears to be seeking is substantial. It is out there if he cares to look, and he's been given enough information to get it on his own.

That in my view, is far more than someone should expect. If I had a misconception about how something worked, I wouldn't expect a stranger on an internet forum to teach me everything there was to know. If they pointed me to an objective website, or suggested a book to read, that would be sufficient.

But please, if chipan chooses to get poor quality information from christian apologetics websites and declare victory when others won't do his research for him, he's welcome to do so. Chipan, this may come as a surprise to you, but what is passed off as science by apologists is very very wrong in the majority of cases - and the refutations are online and available should you care enough to look. Whether the errors in apologetic "science" are a result of ignorance or intentional distortion is left to an exercise for the reader.

On the other had, if he (or any poster, really) has specific questions that he is earnestly seeking answers to, I'm willing to point them in the right direction. What I'm not willing to do is do research for them or act as as teacher / mentor. While I do understand the material in question, I am not qualified to teach it, and I won't.

[chi pan]

well then i correct myself and say that you said i'm mostly right. it's more than they gave me saying i'm all wrong.

[Jackalope]

well then i correct myself and say that you said i'm mostly right. it's more than they gave me saying i'm all wrong.

That wasn't what I said at all. You were right about the the basics behind C14 dating. The underlying argument (that it is inaccurate, and the reasons you gave) were wrong. As that's what you based your argument on, I'd have a hard time saying your argument was "mostly right".

In other words, with respect to the elements of your post that were not in contention, you were correct. Those related to your argument on the inaccuracy of C14 dating were wrong. I'd call that mostly wrong, with respect to the argument of inaccuracy.

Being wrong on that point means your argument falls on it's face.

[KichigaiNeko]

Maybe you'll read this now.

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Thank you Min

[chi pan]

You are a walking testament to the argument from authority. You'll fall for anything that someone tells you which happens to be what you want to hear.

it's not so easy to write someone out of history. i'm giving many good sources of information from good websites. you have now given 2 biased websites. they don't even disclaim the historical documents in your last one, just say they aren't accurate because they didn't see Jesus. every credible historical site will till you Jesus existed physically as a man. if there was any genuine evidence that Jesus did not exist, it would be covered everywhere and there would be headlines "Biggest Conspiracy In History?" and such. but no, you just have a couple biased sites. and by the way, what i said about the shroud is accurate according to the history channel.