ARCHIVE: Knight and Lion from TOL are Back to Answer Your Questions

[Servo]

Can you identify writings in history written during his time? Contemporaneous accounts of Jesus by an eyewitness?

And how do you write about him "before" his time?

(Oh, wait. The messianic prophecies that aren't, you know, messianic. Got it.)

There are several writings that mention Jesus right after He died. Paul’s letters would probably be the first. And of course the gospels. Written by people who, I don’t know, did they exist?

There are some Roman historians that mention Christ and Christians in the first century.

Why does there have to be a writings written during His life? Would that make Him real to you?

If no one had written about George Washington until after he died, would that mean that he never existed?

 

[Servo]

BTW:

http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/video/mountmoriah.html

 

[soothsayer]

BTW:

http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/video/mountmoriah.html

I'm intrigued by this DVD. I'll yours if you watch mine:

The God Who Wasn't There

 

[Granite]

There are several writings that mention Jesus right after He died. Paul’s letters would probably be the first. And of course the gospels. Written by people who, I don’t know, did they exist?

There are some Roman historians that mention Christ and Christians in the first century.

Why does there have to be a writings written during His life? Would that make Him real to you?

If no one had written about George Washington until after he died, would that mean that he never existed?

Oh. So you'll admit you made a mistake and misspoke when you said: "He is a historical figure written about before, DURING [emphasis added] and after His time."

Based on your most recent post you are admitting nothing was written about Jesus until after he was dead.

Do you know when the Pauline epistles were written? I do. And they were not "right after" Jesus was said to have been crucified. Neither were the gospels. Unless by "right after" you mean "decades."

By your own implicit admission no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts exist of Jesus and anything mentioning him, or claiming to mention him as a figure who existed in history, was written well after the fact.

 

[jeremiah]

Sorry to kick up a dead horse folks, but...

I can't remember Doherty saying that the four canonical gospels can't or shouldn't be used, it might be at his website or I may have overlooked it in his book on the subject, The Jesus Puzzle. Have you read it?

I don't think I'd agree that the gospels shouldn't be used. The basis for the JM argument are Christian documents, to exclude any is unnecessary and would defeat the argument, perhaps not in its entirety, but it would contradict the purpose. I think the gospels could, potentially be of just as much use as the epistles in the JM argument.

To Allsmiles; I think you misunderstood me! What I was saying is in response to your request for proof that Jesus ever existed was this: According to Doherty the Gospels are NOT evidence that Jesus existed, neither are the Epistles. In fact he uses the Epistles as strong evidence for his Jesus myth hypothesis.

He excludes the mention of a Jesus in the aforementioned secular writings for a variety of reasons. He also excludes secondary evidence from the Talmud, such as the great Earthquake of ~30 A.D. which destroyed part of the Temple.

Since everyone knows you will reject all this evidence as an advocate of Doherty, no one is willing to take the bait. I did answer your question "in kind" in Post 171 when I listed the rebuttal to Doherty on Tektonics and suggested you pay particular attention to the argument from parsimony, concerning the Gospels and, in general, historical documents.

Since Doherty's hypothesis is a multi headed monster which is not worth the time and energy to refute. I simply let the websites of Holding do it for me!

Let people read Doherty's Jesus puzzle and sites and Holding's sites and all the historical evidence is there, to accept, or reject!

I accept the historical evidence of the Gospels Acts, the Epistles, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and the numerous writings of the 1st and 2nd century Church Fathers as well as many other secondary witnesses, such as the Talmud. Doherty gives his reasons to reject every single one which then perfectly "fits" his hypothesis.

I am not going to take the time to personally refute his myth argument and or support historicity of Jesus. Holding has already done that laborious legwork.

Most non- believers take the position that Jesus was a somewhat wise teacher with a Messiah complex who was made into God in the years and centuries that followed.

Doherty's hypothesis that a man was made up out of thin air, to make the myth real, "after" it had become so wildly and successfully believed, is a very weak hand that not even the harshest critics of Christianity are willing to play.

Is this what you really think happened, and is therefore reality to you?

 

[fool]

BTW:

http://www.kgov.com/store/detail/video/mountmoriah.html

Hmm.
Interesting, it says it's free to non-Chistians if ya write.
I don't see how one could pass on that, other than the fact that I might feel guilty if the dog chews it up before I get to watch the entire thing. Crash sent me that "Focus on the strategy" DVD and while it was interesting watching Bob stand in front of a camera and give a power point presentation it didn't exactly keep me riveted.
Is this "Mt. Moriah" any good? Are there pictures?

 

[Servo]

Hmm.

Is this "Mt. Moriah" any good? Are there pictures?

Certainly!

 

[Servo]

Oh. So you'll admit you made a mistake and misspoke when you said: "He is a historical figure written about before, DURING [emphasis added] and after His time."

Based on your most recent post you are admitting nothing was written about Jesus until after he was dead.

Do you know when the Pauline epistles were written? I do. And they were not "right after" Jesus was said to have been crucified. Neither were the gospels. Unless by "right after" you mean "decades."

By your own implicit admission no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts exist of Jesus and anything mentioning him, or claiming to mention him as a figure who existed in history, was written well after the fact.

There may not be any known writings written while Christ was alive. If that is so, then I retract the statement that says there is. But so what? That does not change the fact the He is a part of recorded HIStory. Eyewitness accounts are recorded by His followers and Roman historians alike. He came from a country that still exists today. The geographical locations where He walked are still there. And people are certainly still talking about Him and what He did!

But something tells me that even if they had video cameras back then, you still wouldn’t believe.

 

[CRASH]

Right allsmiles. Starting with the country where the man was born. Did the place ever even exist? Why would anyone ever ask that?

Did the writers of the gospels who mentioned Him ever exist? How silly to wonder.

Did people at the time of Christ who mentioned Christ in some way exist? Who cares!

I think the pagans are avoiding your questions.:chuckle:

 

[CRASH]

Its not true that Doherty doesn't have widespread support for the Jesus-myth. If you actually take the time to look at his website (www.jesuspuzzle.org) you'll see that Pepper, Karen, Bill, and Ian all agree with him.

:rotfl:

 

[eisenreich]

I am not going to take the time to personally refute his myth argument and or support historicity of Jesus. Holding has already done that laborious legwork.

Yes. Holding (a.k.a. Robert Turkel) has taken up Doherty's thesis and written at length in his critiques/rebuttals. Holding is also well known for setting up strawmen for himself and sidestepping key points. Here is an excellent example.

Second. Holding lists Josephus at the top of his "Highly reliable sources" list. Because everyone knows that a Jew would make the following statement when referring to another man: "He was the Christ". Do we have any Jewish members of the forum who would use a similar description? The Testimonium Flavianum is almost universally accepted as an interpolation, most likely by Eusebius. The fact that Holding uses this rank forgery as his best evidence for the existence of Christ, shows that maybe you, Jeremiah, should take a few days and research the subject for yourself, rather than sitting back and letting Bobby Turkel do your thinking for you.

Doherty's hypothesis that a man was made up out of thin air, to make the myth real, "after" it had become so wildly and successfully believed, is a very weak hand that not even the harshest critics of Christianity are willing to play.

Maybe you should read his book before making a decision on the 'strength of his hand'.. It would be akin to a young, foolish atheist saying, "I don't need to read the bible myself, all of the critiques I find on the net say it's rubbish"..

There may not be any known writings written while Christ was alive. If that is so, then I retract the statement that says there is. But so what?

"But so what..?" -- That, in a nut-shell, is why no Christian could even consider Doherty's hypothesis. Your individual identities are so entwined with the concept of Jesus as God-man that you could no more concede evidence for a fictional Christ than admit that you don't exist either..

That does not change the fact the He is a part of recorded HIStory. Eyewitness accounts are recorded by His followers

First-hand eyewitnesses or second/third/fourth-hand accounts retold through oral tradition over decades? Could you please be more specific on this point? Who were some of the people who walked with Jesus, took a break and wrote of his exploits, then went back and started speaking with him again?

By the way, Mithras is also a "part of recorded history", predated Christianity, and had more followers in the first century. Does this mean that Mithras was also a flesh-and-blood man..?

and Roman historians alike.

Which Roman historians are you referring to? I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but I can tell you don't know who these people are. Names are good, quotes from these historians that describe Jesus, not "Christians" or "those who call themselves Christians" are best. Do you think that's setting the bar too high..?

He came from a country that still exists today.

So did Sherlock Holmes. I'll bet you could walk up to the flat of 221B Baker Street, London and knock on the door to this very day.

The geographical locations where He walked are still there. And people are certainly still talking about Him and what He did!

I won't stretch the Sherlock Holmes analogy (that would ironic if you didn't get the clue, wouldn't it?)

So far we've seen willfull ignorance and garden variety ignorance; what else you expecting on this thread, AS? :think:

 

[allsmiles]

There are several writings that mention Jesus right after He died. Paul’s letters would probably be the first. And of course the gospels. Written by people who, I don’t know, did they exist?

Mark was the earliest written gospel, circa 70 CE. Matthew and Luke borrow much from him and that's unfortunate for you because eyewitnesses would not have had to do this, especially from Mark who, according to tradition was not an eyewitness to Christ either. Non-eyewitnesses copying a non-eyewitness. Not very reliable. At this point their existence is trivial. Obviously someone did exist to write the book I'm holding in my hand right now, stop with this infantile nonsense and think for a moment.

As for Paul's letters, I'll get into those when I have more time.

There are some Roman historians that mention Christ and Christians in the first century.

Find me an instance where one of these references hasn't been reliably demonstrated to be a fraudulent interpolation or merely a reference to belief in Christ. I'll make this easy for you: you can't.

Why does there have to be a writings written during His life? Would that make Him real to you?

More realistic.

If no one had written about George Washington until after he died, would that mean that he never existed?

Can't you stick to the point? We're talking about Jesus, you're all over the place. Take a deep breath or something.

 

[Carpaint]

:kiss:

Can anyone tell me why allsmiles doesn't want to give me a name of a person he believes existed around the same time as Jesus???

I know, do you?

To give you a name of a historical figure around the time of christ - One would first have to belive in christ's existance. otherwise there is no time line in question!


:kiss:
:kiss:
:kiss:
:kiss: :think:

 

[Granite]

There may not be any known writings written while Christ was alive. If that is so, then I retract the statement that says there is. But so what? That does not change the fact the He is a part of recorded HIStory. Eyewitness accounts are recorded by His followers and Roman historians alike. He came from a country that still exists today. The geographical locations where He walked are still there. And people are certainly still talking about Him and what He did!

But something tells me that even if they had video cameras back then, you still wouldn’t believe.

There is no "may not be" about this, Shimei; no such writings exist, period.

What eyewitness accounts by Roman historians are you referring to? I assume you mean the accounts Rome has of Christians and the legend of Christ--because no Roman historian, certainly, was ever a witness to Jesus himself.

Why do you keep on mentioning "a country that still exists today"? What difference does that make? Especially because the nation state of Israel that Jesus lived in is certainly not the same continuous state of Israel that we know today?

People are still Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, too. The length of a religion doesn't mean it's true. Christianity is young compared to many faiths out there.

 

[Servo]

If only someone had written something about Christ while He walked the Earth and before His crucifixion and resurrection! Then some of you might believe that He actually existed. They you all might believe.

Hmmm, well instead maybe we could find a majestic rock and carve out a pretty stone idol, something we could all worship. Well, at least allsmiles might.

 

[GuySmiley]

"But so what..?" -- That, in a nut-shell, is why no Christian could even consider Doherty's hypothesis. Your individual identities are so entwined with the concept of Jesus as God-man that you could no more concede evidence for a fictional Christ than admit that you don't exist either..

Pssst, eisenreich, I'll let you in on a secret . . . non-Christians don't even consider his hypothesis. Maybe if he could convince people who have no stake in the game, he might be taken seriously by people 'in the game.' But for now, he's a joke. Maybe his website should quote respected historians rather than Pepper, Bill, Karen, and Ian. If only the support from respected historians was there.

So far we've seen willfull ignorance and garden variety ignorance; what else you expecting on this thread, AS? :think:

You mean the type of ignorance where people won't admit that they believe that anyone existed who wasn't an author at the time of Jesus? Is that the willful or garden variety? But I'm not sure we could expect any different.

 

[Granite]

If only someone had written something about Christ while He walked the Earth and before His crucifixion and resurrection! Then some of you might believe that He actually existed. They you all might believe.

Hmmm, well instead maybe we could find a majestic rock and carve out a pretty stone idol, something we could all worship. Well, at least allsmiles might.

It would make your case that much more persuasive. Nice way to dodge the rest of my post, by the way.

 

[eisenreich]

Pssst, eisenreich, I'll let you in on a secret . . . non-Christians don't even consider his hypothesis. Maybe if he could convince people who have no stake in the game, he might be taken seriously by people 'in the game.' If only the support from respected historians was there.

I noticed you didn't offer any evidence on why you believe Jesus to be a flesh and blood man. Seems to be a recurring theme in this thread.

As to your criticism about Doherty, here's my thoughts: 1. Historians already have a great deal invested in the concept that Jesus was a real person through their books/essays. This, in itself, could begin to explain the reluctance of other professionals in the field. 2. Doherty's hypothesis is becoming more mainstream in the sense that formal critiques are being done on his book. Richard Carrier reviewed his book and came to the following conclusions:

First of all, let me say this: having read the entire book carefully, and having checked those facts I did not already know, I can honestly say as an expert that Doherty's facts are generally all in line. He does not make anything up or fudge the truth. And as far as I could tell, he doesn't leave out anything significant. Where he puts his own spin on things, he is usually explicit about that, and argues for his particular interpretation rather than asserting it as given. ... This book must be taken seriously. It is not a quack theory, it is not shoddy work, it is not amateurish. [source]​

Carrier also addresses the failure of the so-called experts to develop a precise criteria for determining historicity:

I think the fault is more with historicists who have stubbornly failed to develop a good theory of historicity. By simply resting on the feeble laurels of prima facie plausibility ("Jesus existed because everyone said so") and subjective notions of absurdity ("I can't believe Jesus didn't exist!"), the existence of Jesus has largely been taken for granted, even by competent historians who explicitly try to argue for it. The evidence is selectively mined for confirming evidence, and all challenging evidence is ignored, especially when it is weird. But Doherty deals with the weird evidence in a way few historicists ever have. In fact, I have never seen any historicist case made by comprehensively explaining all the evidence in this way. At present, historicists "can" account for all the evidence, but they do so at great cost to their theory's merits, building ad hocness, or diminishing scope, power, or plausibility. Worse, each problem by itself would not be serious, but to have to resort to such excuses for hundreds of such problems is very serious indeed, a problem DMT avoids. [source]​

You mean the type of ignorance where people won't admit that they believe that anyone existed who wasn't an author at the time of Jesus? Is that the willful or garden variety? But I'm not sure we could expect any different.

This is a blatent strawman of what I said here. Turbo challenged that he would match any criteria for existence of an individual living in the first century with "similar evidence" for Jesus. I pointed out that Apollonius wrote several books, which is one of the better criteria for determining historicity. Turbo then back-peddled and admitted that, no, Jesus never wrote anything.

I never said that 'someone had to be an author, otherwise they didn't exist'. Nice try, though. :down:

By willfull ignorance, I was referring to the bizarre self-righteousness from people like Knight: he mocked the Jesus myth theory for several pages but for the life of him couldn't produce any evidence that his lord and savior even existed. He also got snippy with me because I wouldn't point-blank state my position on an issue I'm still learning about. I guess whenever your religion calls solely for absolutes, you begin to forget how the real world operates.. People continue to learn throughout their lives, it's called "forming a position". The fact that Knight demanded my absolute position up front shows that he is entirely biased and would only get in the way of a rational discussion.

 

[GuySmiley]

I noticed you didn't offer any evidence on why you believe Jesus to be a flesh and blood man. Seems to be a recurring theme in this thread.

I do have evidence though, its awsome, you should see it! But I think you've already seen it and rejected it.

 

[Granite]

Gee, Guy, the suspense is killing me.

How about you cut the coy routine and just say what you mean?