Happy birthday Jesus

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

so we're sighting lack of evidence against as evidence for now? although I guess that's basis of all religions.

I am the wrong guy to be arguing this because frankly I don't care one or the other what anyone believes. Or, come to think of it even, whether or not Jesus did or did not exist. But Byrnzie stated that there was zero evidence. Tacitus, to my mind, counts as evidence so there is not zero evidence.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JimmyV wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

so we're sighting lack of evidence against as evidence for now? although I guess that's basis of all religions.

I am the wrong guy to be arguing this because frankly I don't care one or the other what anyone believes. Or, come to think of it even, whether or not Jesus did or did not exist. But Byrnzie stated that there was zero evidence. Tacitus, to my mind, counts as evidence so there is not zero evidence.

neither do I, but I personally don't think that counts as evidence. it's 1500 year old hearsay. that's not "evidence".

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

so we're sighting lack of evidence against as evidence for now? although I guess that's basis of all religions.

I am the wrong guy to be arguing this because frankly I don't care one or the other what anyone believes. Or, come to think of it even, whether or not Jesus did or did not exist. But Byrnzie stated that there was zero evidence. Tacitus, to my mind, counts as evidence so there is not zero evidence.

neither do I, but I personally don't think that counts as evidence. it's 1500 year old hearsay. that's not "evidence".

But by that same token we could then say there is no evidence that Julius Caesar or Augustus existed either. Roman historians - and Roman histories that survived antiquity and still exist in the modern age - are never going to live up to our standards of evidence and/or scholarship.

I say it is evidence. If you want to argue it is not "proof", that is a different story.

mysticweed

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

...and up until a few hundred years ago the whole World's population believed the World was flat. Just sayin.

What does that have to do with the fact that there's zero evidence Jesus ever existed?

i do believe jesus existed
but research has indicated he was born in the spring/summer of about 4-5 BC

Hugh Freaking Dillon

mysticweed wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

...and up until a few hundred years ago the whole World's population believed the World was flat. Just sayin.

What does that have to do with the fact that there's zero evidence Jesus ever existed?

i do believe jesus existed
but research has indicated he was born in the spring/summer of about 4-5 BC

link?

DS1119

Byrnzie wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

There's not zero evidence.

Provide it then.

I don't have to. You're the person questioning it's validity and it's your right to do it. On the other hand millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and million and millions, etc of people worldwide believe in a higher power and certainly you on a PJ message board is not going to convince myself or anyone else that believes into not believing. I can guarantee you that.

cp3iverson

Having a huge huge majority of experts/historians of that time period believing 100% that he truly existed is enough for me. The miracles and the other stuff is a more reasonable argument to scholars i would think. Most experts believe that he existed. I think this thread turned silly.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Fair enough.

But even if Tacitus was writing after the fact, if his account cannot be proven to be a fraud then it does indicate at least one bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Read my last post.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

But by that same token we could then say there is no evidence that Julius Caesar or Augustus existed either. Roman historians - and Roman histories that survived antiquity and still exist in the modern age - are never going to live up to our standards of evidence and/or scholarship.

I say it is evidence. If you want to argue it is not "proof", that is a different story.

Yes we can, because there is contemporary evidence of Julius Caesar's life, and Augustus's life. Contemporary, concrete evidence. Whereas in the case of Jesus there is none. Zilch. Not one mention of him, including no mention of him in the comprehensive 'Histories' of the period by Josephus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
You would have thought that someone, somewhere would have noticed Jesus at the time of his supposed existence, right? But there was no mention of him. And many people believe he was simply an invention by certain Christian sects, an invention based largely on the already ancient Mediterranean mystery religions which recognized a similar, almost identical figure: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144037&hilit=+tacitus

Still, It makes perfect sense why Americans living in the 21st Century would base their beliefs and outlook on life on 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, right? :think:

Whatever gets you through the day.

usamamasan1

Bless you Mr. President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCeuNUWJzmk&sns=em

Byrnzie

usamamasan1 wrote:

Bless you Mr. President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCeuNUWJzmk&sns=em

I wonder if Jesus would have approved of Reagan committing genocide in Latin America?

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But by that same token we could then say there is no evidence that Julius Caesar or Augustus existed either. Roman historians - and Roman histories that survived antiquity and still exist in the modern age - are never going to live up to our standards of evidence and/or scholarship.

I say it is evidence. If you want to argue it is not "proof", that is a different story.

Yes we can, because there is contemporary evidence of Julius Caesar's life, and Augustus's life. Contemporary, concrete evidence. Whereas in the case of Jesus there is none. Zilch. Not one mention of him, including no mention of him in the comprehensive 'Histories' of the period by Josephus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
You would have thought that someone, somewhere would have noticed Jesus at the time of his supposed existence, right? But there was no mention of him. And many people believe he was simply an invention by certain Christian sects, an invention based largely on the already ancient Mediterranean mystery religions which recognized a similar, almost identical figure: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144037&hilit=+tacitus

Still, It makes perfect sense why Americans living in the 21st Century would base their beliefs and outlook on life on 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, right? :think:

Whatever gets you through the day.

Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.

And what source would that be? I've already shown that Tacitus used second-hand hearsay, and was written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also, the first copy of the book by Tacitus that contains mention of Jesus was published in the 11th century, and it's possible the mention of Jesus contained in it was added by the early Church scribes desperate to try and prove the existence of Jesus due to there being zero evidence from any other source.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... jesus.html
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.



So what evidence do you have?

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Again, this is not getting me through the day. I am not religious in any way. I just don't agree that there is "zero" evidence Jesus existed. It seems there is at least one source. To me that does not equal zero.

And what source would that be? I've already shown that Tacitus used second-hand hearsay, and was written at least 70 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Also, the first copy of the book by Tacitus that contains mention of Jesus was published in the 11th century, and it's possible the mention of Jesus contained in it was added by the early Church scribes desperate to try and prove the existence of Jesus due to there being zero evidence from any other source.
So what evidence do you have?

I'm not particularly concerned what Tacitus used for a source. Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics. I don't know whether the guy lived or not, but saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.

JC29856

I believe he existed because I was taught of his existence at a young age, as I grew older my beliefs were confirmed by most scholars and historians. Its "easy" for me to believe since it was drilled into my young mind and since I am neither a scholar nor historian I'll take their word on him.

thanks be to thee, my lord jesus christ

Byrnzie

JimmyV wrote:

Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics.

I think your mind's playing tricks on you. I've already explained my original comment about the mention of Jesus in Tacitus being a fraud, and how I initially thought you were referring to work of Josephus. No big deal. I then corrected it and pointed out that the mention in Tacitus is not evidence anyway, and was written at least 70 years after Jesus death, e.t.c - read my post above.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.

JimmyV wrote:

saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.

There is zero evidence. And if you have any then go ahead and provide it, instead of just talking about it.

Byrnzie

JC29856 wrote:

I believe he existed because I was taught of his existence at a young age, as I grew older my beliefs were confirmed by most scholars and historians. Its "easy" for me to believe since it was drilled into my young mind and since I am neither a scholar nor historian I'll take their word on him.

thanks be to thee, my lord jesus christ

I thought you were talking about Santa Claus there for a second.

JC29856

Byrnzie wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

I believe he existed because I was taught of his existence at a young age, as I grew older my beliefs were confirmed by most scholars and historians. Its "easy" for me to believe since it was drilled into my young mind and since I am neither a scholar nor historian I'll take their word on him.

thanks be to thee, my lord jesus christ

I thought you were talking about Santa Claus there for a second.

i can see that...until "most scholars and historians"

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Remember, this all started when you claimed his account had been proven a fraud. When that turned out to not be true you changed tactics.

I think your mind's playing tricks on you. I've already explained my original comment about the mention of Jesus in Tacitus being a fraud, and how I initially thought you were referring to work of Josephus. No big deal. I then corrected it and pointed out that the mention in Tacitus is not evidence anyway, and was written at least 70 years after Jesus death, e.t.c - read my post above.
2nd hand hearsay 70 years after the event does not constitute evidence.

JimmyV wrote:

saying there is zero evidence is just not true. There might be little evidence, and that evidence might be flimsy, and it may not equal proof, but there is not zero evidence.

There is zero evidence. And if you have any then go ahead and provide it, instead of just talking about it.

I could repost the link to Tacitus, then you could say it is not evidence, then I could say you are wrong, then you could again say whatever gets me through the day, or we could just agree to disagree. I know what my vote goes to.

Byrnzie

JC29856 wrote:

i can see that...until "most scholars and historians"

And how did these so-called scholars and historians convince you of his existence in the absence of any evidence?