Jesus - good or evil?

[Lion IRC]

Historical records for the existence of other figures in history.

Gauis Julius Caesar 100-44 B.C
(Manuscript evidence 900 A.D. 1000 years later)

Homer 900 B.C.
(Manuscript evidence 400 B.C. 500 years later)

Plato 427-347 B.C.
(Manuscript evidence 900 A.D. 1200 years later)

Jesus of Nazareth 4 B.C. - 33 A.D.
(Manuscript evidence 50-100 A.D. < 100 years later)

What an embarrassing poll result showing so many Jesus mythers.

Yip, 'cause I remember all those people claiming to be the son of God too... oh wait, they made no such extraordinary claim... it's a wonder we even care whether they existed or not.

The ''fact'' you seem not to care about in this case is His actual existence in history.

Your apathy/ignorance of this fact might be better remedied by talking to atheists who accept His historicity - many of whom are far more widely read on the subject than most Christians.

...for some reason.

[FallentoReason]

I think that typical comparison you've just made between other people in history should be considered some sort of fallacy. Before you can even claim that Jesus' accounts were written less than 100 years after, let's first establish a few things, namely, the fact that not one NT writer claims to have met the man.

The most extraordinary events in the existence of humanity are nowhere mentioned in the epistles. The luckiest men in the world (12 apostles, but more specifically Matthew and John) are not spoken about (in terms of the Gospels they supposedly wrote) until the end of the 2nd century. What can we gather from that? The Gospels were all anonymously written and were slapped a name by people ~140 years after they were written.

You want to talk proximity between writers and the events they speak of? What writers and which events?? There's no evidence for the 'ideal' case where Apostles of the Son of God witnessed something...

You have quite a bit of work before it's anywhere near rational to say the gap between event and author was less than 100 years.

[Lion IRC]

...let's first establish a few things, namely, the fact that not one NT writer claims to have met the man.

FALSE

...The most extraordinary events in the existence of humanity are nowhere mentioned in the epistles.

FALSE

...The luckiest men in the world (12 apostles, but more specifically Matthew and John) are not spoken about (in terms of the Gospels they supposedly wrote) until the end of the 2nd century.

Ambiguous claim.

...What can we gather from that?

See what I mean about ambiguity? We can *cough* gather lots ot things as we see fit.

...The Gospels were all anonymously written and were slapped a name by people ~140 years after they were written.

False.
See Luke 1:1-4
Theophilus knows exactly who it is that is writing to him.

[FallentoReason]

...let's first establish a few things, namely, the fact that not one NT writer claims to have met the man.

FALSE

why?

...The most extraordinary events in the existence of humanity are nowhere mentioned in the epistles.

FALSE

why?

...The luckiest men in the world (12 apostles, but more specifically Matthew and John) are not spoken about (in terms of the Gospels they supposedly wrote) until the end of the 2nd century.

Ambiguous claim.

Please explain.

...What can we gather from that?

See what I mean about ambiguity? We can *cough* gather lots ot things as we see fit.

Agreed. Let's no avoid the issue here though. Explain the best conclusion we can gather from this please.

...The Gospels were all anonymously written and were slapped a name by people ~140 years after they were written.

False.
See Luke 1:1-4
Theophilus knows exactly who it is that is writing to him.

I was specifically talking about Matthew and John because they're the critical ones; the ones that 'tradition' say witnessed a thing or two.

[Lion IRC]

...let's first establish a few things, namely, the fact that not one NT writer claims to have met the man.

FALSE

why?

Because Paul is one such NT writer.

Because John of Patmos is one such NT writer.

Because to claim that the NT was not ‘’written by” eye witnesses is no more than to say that a court stenographer is not an eye witness, or the guy working in the newspaper printing factory
wasn’t an eye witness to the event reported on the front page.

If the only person who can "write” is a translator who didn’t see what happened but speaks both languages – that of the eyewitness giving testimony and that of the draft manuscript – why should we assume that they aren’t recording eyewitness testimony?

---

Ambiguous claim.

Please explain.

See what I mean about ambiguity? We can *cough* gather lots ot things as we see fit.

Agreed. Let's no avoid the issue here though. Explain the best conclusion we can gather from this please.

[/quote]


When you say they are ''...not spoken about (in terms of the Gospels they supposedly wrote) until the end of the 2nd century" it isnt clear what that assertion amounts to.

Not spoken about by whom?
What does it mean to say...''in terms of the Gospels''?

[FallentoReason]

...let's first establish a few things, namely, the fact that not one NT writer claims to have met the man.

FALSE

why?

Because Paul is one such NT writer.

Interesting... how did he meet a man who died some years ago and 'went to heaven'?

He claims to have had a spiritual encounter. That's no different to what a Christian will say today. He never met the man.

Because John of Patmos is one such NT writer.

Because to claim that the NT was not ‘’written by” eye witnesses is no more than to say that a court stenographer is not an eye witness, or the guy working in the newspaper printing factory
wasn’t an eye witness to the event reported on the front page.

A Synoptic understanding shows us that Matthew and Luke used Mark as the basis for their work. There's no room there for a witness in the case of Matthew.

Something I've always wondered is how Matthew and John could be witness accounts in the first place? Take Matthew for example. Was he having a coffee with Joseph while Mary gave birth to Jesus? Was he at the edge of the river looking on as Jesus was baptised? None of the Gospels read like a genuine history account. That's why allegorical allusions to the OT makes sense, because you can explain why they sound like a story as opposed to genuine history like Josephus.

If the only person who can "write” is a translator who didn’t see what happened but speaks both languages – that of the eyewitness giving testimony and that of the draft manuscript – why should we assume that they aren’t recording eyewitness testimony?

Yeah, that's definitely plausible. See above.

---

When you say they are ''...not spoken about (in terms of the Gospels they supposedly wrote) until the end of the 2nd century" it isnt clear what that assertion amounts to.

Not spoken about by whom?
What does it mean to say...''in terms of the Gospels''?

Yeah, sorry, that was bad wording on my part. So the Gospel of Matthew and John aren't called by name when they make reference to them, if ever. That only started happening at the end of the second century.

[Cato]

To the OP:

You have so much working against you:

A novel paints Jesus in a more acceptable way. Cato suggests that Jesus was an escaped clown from a first century slave circus that convinced a few gullible people to follow him in the hope that there would be a plethora of fish, loaves and wine. Which is more believable?

A dude on YouTube? Don't get me wrong here, I love YouTube. YouTube is a great means of exchanging ideas through video. What I abhor are those, like yourself, that think everything on YouTube is reality. What if I pointed a camera at myself and proclaimed that Christ was an escaped slave clown? Would you then use this as a source for some bullshit argument?

Your last point means that you are not in any manner familiar with Gibbon (no, I am not talking about the species of monkey).

---

I almost forgot. If Lion IRC has come to your defense in this forum, your argument can most assuradely be considered bullshit.

[Minimalist]

The ''fact'' you seem not to care about in this case is His actual existence in history.

Hey, asshole..... I've yet to see anyone here argue that Homer, Caesar or Plato existed or didn't exist. This is a strawman that fools throw up when they realize their asses are in the wind with their "god."

In either case it does not relieve you of the duty to demonstrate that your resurrecting fraud of a god existed too. You are making the claim. Let's see what you've got....if anything.

I don't suppose your "god" issued coins, though?

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s13...Cohen_0002

[Lion IRC]

The ''fact'' you seem not to care about in this case is His actual existence in history.

Hey, asshole..... I've yet to see anyone here argue that Homer, Caesar or Plato existed or didn't exist. This is a strawman that fools throw up when they realize their asses are in the wind with their "god."

In either case it does not relieve you of the duty to demonstrate that your resurrecting fraud of a god existed too. You are making the claim. Let's see what you've got....if anything.

I don't suppose your "god" issued coins, though?

Right, nobody here argues that Homer or Plato or JC (Julius Caesar) existed. They would look stupid if they did.

People would wonder what sort of ulterior motive they had for trying to deny the historicity of same.

Likewise, athest versus atheist, in those Jesus myther threads, highlight the same issue.

Atheist "A" telling atheist "B" that they make atheism as a whole look stupid and insecure by going to such great lengths concocting all those Jesus myth theories
rather than simply saying who cares what Jesus said.

Guess what the longest running, highest post count thread is over at rationalskepticism.org

Yep you guessed it.

1,415 pages

28,000 posts

201,000 views.

---

I like Jesus' response when people asked Him about paying tax to that demi-god caesar.

He gets them to empty their pockets, then low and behold, those pious, holier-than-thou, non-idolaters reveal that in their pockets they have what?

- a graven image of a false god.

[FallentoReason]

I learnt two weeks ago in my history unit at university that Homer most likely didn't exist. Oral tradition in the form of bards seems to have given rise to the poems we attribute to 'Homer'. Does this affect me eternally? Not really. Jesus' existence on the other hand does. Maybe that's why this topic gets debated so much.