[veritas]

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:



Greetings, Veritas!

In addition to primary sources of documentation, I would also be open to actual physical artifacts that were demonstrably made by or belonged to Jesus Christ as proof of his existence. Living human beings, after all, leave behind artifacts.

Alas, those are nowhere to be found either, and Jesus was supposed to have been a carpenter's son and to have known a thing or two about boating and fishing.

There are no "JC" engraved or monogrammed tools, no signs in the Holy Land saying "This Deck Made By Joseph & Son Carpentry"...not even an autographed fishing lure or a *ahem!* Christ-ened sailboat.

Moreover, the fragments of wood supposedly belonging to his cross have been found to be fakes, And 23 years ago, I read that the so-called "Shroud of Turin" was found to have been a 13th Century forgery made with red ocre and vermillion.

No hard feelings, but somebody has to come correct somewhere to get me to know for sure.

Once again, we see how the standards that skeptics apply to Jesus are no where comparable to those that they apply to other figures of history.

[TheUnboundOne]

Dear De Maria,

Hello, De Maria! You wrote:

I'm sure it won't get that bad. But it sounds like you like to debate.

You can call debating my weakness, but I do promise to try to keep things logical and fun and friendly. I had enough of reading and jumping into knock-down-drag-out stuff from another forum, so I'm trying to take a different approach for the coming New Year.

Does that seem likely considering that the Apostles died for what they believed? Is there a record of any other group of people suffering persecution and dying for a lie?

Sadly, people can and do die all the time over falsehoods, both accidental falsehoods and deliberate falsehoods.

If you ask me, those 19 Islamofascist hijackers on 9/11/2001 and the Islamofascist murder-suicide bombers in the Middle East, Madrid, and London did and do kill themselves and murder innocent people over a falsehood, for an afterworld that doesn't exist. They kill themselves and murder the innocent over nothing; they are consummate Nihilists.

Apparently He was a child who didn't do anything noteworthy. Do we have the childhood histories of any other personages of Jesus time?

Do we have the tax records of any other persons of Jesus time?

True. But if we have no one else's records from first century Bethlehem or Jerusalem, why would you expect to have Jesus alone?

Good questions. If we did have childhood records, individual tax records, or birth certificates, those would go a long way toward establishing the existence of Jesus. They're used by Private Investigators, Skip Tracers, Bounty Hunters, and News Reporters all the time. You can't say with certainty that someone exists until you can say with certainty who they are, what they are, where they are, and when they lived in time.

Not necessarily. Most historians of that era were interested in their own countrymen's accomplishments. And no one seemed interested in Jewish history except Jews. Jesus had four historians who wrote about Him. Apparently, no one else was interested.

Ah, but the Holy Land was and is a hub area between Roman Europe, Saharan Africa, The Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, and Central Asia. People traded, travelled, and shared stories in this very spot and still do. Surely more than four historians would have known about this great miracle-worker and spread the word if he truly existed.

In all fairness, I may have misheard or misunderstood the exact amount of time Dr. Elliot Lesser gave as the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I'll try to check again.

Nevertheless, the source you gave said that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and got their information second-hand from Peter and others. Also the span of time given for the Gospels is still long enough for a lot of failed memory, exaggeration, or even embellishment, to put it nicely.

You have the right to do so, but it certainly makes it hard to explain the existence of the Church, Her Scriptures and Traditions for the past 2000 years.

I wonder if you hold every 1st century historical figure to the same stringent standards? If you do, which 1st century figure do you believe actually existed?

Although I play rough, I try to be fair. Please don't think I'm picking on Jesus or Christianity exclusively.

In all fairness, the last I heard, archeologists and antropologists have found no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Aaron, or the presence of Hebrew people in the land of Egypt, or of an Exodus or 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of Sinai.

Also, there is controversy over the historical existence of Lao Tzu, the patriarch of Taoism.

Scholars also don't know the exact date of the birth and death of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the patriarch of Buddhism, nor do they know much about historical facts of his life or his teachings.

According to ex-Muslim Apostate Ibn Warraq, the first biography of Mohommed wasn't written until about 120 years after his death, The Qu'ran may have had multiple authors, and the contents of The Haddith were hobbled together from many suspect sources, so many things about the life of Mohommed are open to rational scrutiny and criticism.

And, of course, Hinduism and Paganism go so far back, they pre-date writing, so their history is subject to questioning.

Now see? That didn't hurt so bad, now did it?

]; -{)>

[TheUnboundOne]

Dear Veritas,

You wrote:

Once again, we see how the standards that skeptics apply to Jesus are no where comparable to those that they apply to other figures of history.

That's not true. There's no physical or documentary evidence of the existence of Paul Bunyon and Babe The Blue Ox, so I don't believe in their historicity either.

By contrast, we can acknowledge the historicity of Thomas Jefferson because there exists family records, the estate of Monticello, copies of Notes on the State of Virginia, The Declaration of Independence, a burial site, and other physical and documentary evidence that he existed.

I am nothing if I am not consistent here.

[ordinaryguy]

"Learning is not compulsory...neither is survival."
--W. Edwards Deming, Consultant, Statistician, and Educator (1900 C.E.--1993 C.E.)

Love the quote, UBO. Deming was a cool guy.

[ordinaryguy]

Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers beleif.

Sounds a lot like The Bible to me. I'm still laughing too, and you're right, everyone knows.

[De Maria]

You can call debating my weakness, but I do promise to try to keep things logical and fun and friendly. I had enough of reading and jumping into knock-down-drag-out stuff from another forum, so I'm trying to take a different approach for the coming New Year.

Ditto.

Sadly, people can and do die all the time over falsehoods, both accidental falsehoods and deliberate falsehoods.

If you ask me, those 19 Islamofascist hijackers on 9/11/2001 and the Islamofascist murder-suicide bombers in the Middle East, Madrid, and London did and do kill themselves and murder innocent people over a falsehood, for an afterworld that doesn't exist. They kill themselves and murder the innocent over nothing; they are consummate Nihilists.

Ok, lets not pass this up too quickly. I agree that these folks died for a falsehood. But did they believe it was a falsehood? Or did they believe it was true?

I would say they sincerely believed it was true.

My question is more to the point of, is there any group of people who have been known to die for a "lie", without coersion?

It is alleged, for instance, that Mafiosos will die for a lie. But they will be killed if they reveal the truth. So I'm not speaking of a group like that.

And there are individuals who have died for a lie. Probably hoping they will be believed even at the last moment.

But have entire groups ever died for centuries at a time, to conceal a lie. I'm not aware of any.

Good questions. If we did have childhood records, individual tax records, or birth certificates, those would go a long way toward establishing the existence of Jesus. They're used by Private Investigators, Skip Tracers, Bounty Hunters, and News Reporters all the time. You can't say with certainty that someone exists until you can say with certainty who they are, what they are, where they are, and when they lived in time.

But, my question is, do we have that for anyone in the first century? If we don't then do we say that all those houses which were built during that time were inhabited by nonexistent people?

Ah, but the Holy Land was and is a hub area between Roman Europe, Saharan Africa, The Horn of Africa, the Levant, Arabia, and Central Asia. People traded, travelled, and shared stories in this very spot and still do. Surely more than four historians would have known about this great miracle-worker and spread the word if he truly existed.

How many historians wrote about the conquests of Alexander the Great? How many wrote about the Caesars?

The fact is, the times were harsh, few people were learned or wealthy enough to take time to put pen to paper even if they cared to do so.

In all fairness, I may have misheard or misunderstood the exact amount of time Dr. Elliot Lesser gave as the time between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels. I'll try to check again.

Nevertheless, the source you gave said that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses to Jesus' life and got their information second-hand from Peter and others. Also the span of time given for the Gospels is still long enough for a lot of failed memory, exaggeration, or even embellishment, to put it nicely.

Although I play rough, I try to be fair. Please don't think I'm picking on Jesus or Christianity exclusively.

In all fairness, the last I heard, archeologists and antropologists have found no historical evidence for the existence of Moses or Aaron, or the presence of Hebrew people in the land of Egypt, or of an Exodus or 40 years of wandering in the wilderness of Sinai.

Also, there is controversy over the historical existence of Lao Tzu, the patriarch of Taoism.

Scholars also don't know the exact date of the birth and death of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha, the patriarch of Buddhism, nor do they know much about historical facts of his life or his teachings.

According to ex-Muslim Apostate Ibn Warraq, the first biography of Mohommed wasn't written until about 120 years after his death, The Qu'ran may have had multiple authors, and the contents of The Haddith were hobbled together from many suspect sources, so many things about the life of Mohommed are open to rational scrutiny and criticism.

And, of course, Hinduism and Paganism go so far back, they pre-date writing, so their history is subject to questioning.

Now see? That didn't hurt so bad, now did it?

]; -{)>

That is my point. Who do you believe actually existed during that period. Since we have little if any documentation even of great secular figures of that time. Do you believe that no one existed before the first century?

Or do you place your faith in certain historians as opposed to others?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TheUnboundOne]

Dear Fr_Chuck,

Hello, Friar Chuck. I guess every Robin Hood needs a foil with a quarter-staff to try and keep him in line. Fret not, Friar; the creek's not too deep for either of us, so no real harm will be done in our duel.

]; -{)>

You wrote:

Did not notice that someone actually refereced WIKI as a scholarly reference.
Still laughting everyone knows it has not true reference value for true facts, since it is easily alters and written to fit a writers belief.

I agree that you have to be careful with Wikipedia, just as you have to be careful with any written work. That is why I specifically chose an entry that contained external references and links for corroboration.

Here's a big difference and an advantage of Wikipedia over texts held up as dogma:

If someone puts either an accidental or a deliberate untruth in Wikipedia, it can be refuted and corrected by anyone else in minutes or even seconds. Everyone learns something new and nothing is hurt except maybe someone's unearned bravado.

But, if someone puts an accidental or deliberate untruth into a text that is held up as irrefutable dogma, that untruth stays there for hundreds or even thousands of years, perpetuating untold ignorance, suffering, and even death. (Observe how many millions died from leeching, which was founded on Church-instituted dogma about Alchemy and "balancing of humours.")

And the death wrought by uncorrected untruth too often includes the murder of those who disbelieve or who try to correct untruth and this numbers into the millions throughout history.

Needless to say, I'll take my chances with the free-flowing creek of open-source media over a stagnant swamp of holy writ that can't be questioned.

[Fr_Chuck]

Your wording gives away a lot, I see all may not be what it seems and one may be know by many names perhaps.

[De Maria]

If, as you claim, we become 'partakers of the divine nature'... since divinity cannot exist in finite nature, we automatically become divine!

Is that something you researched scientifically? Or theologically? Because I made my claim based on Scripture and Catholic Teaching:

2 Peter 1 4 By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible / Search

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":"For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 460

Was that REALLY your intention?

No. So, if you provide your source, I'll compare the reasoning and see if it makes sense.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[terraluu]

Jusus is loard .I think we shoud respeckt that .He gave evrey thing for you me and all . Loves you even if you don't love him .So have that in mind . terraluu

[De Maria]

desidario disagrees: No source necessary.

In which case, the source of your statement is obvious. It is you.

Fact: Divinity precludes a finite nature.

Not so. It is simply your opinion as you have revealed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TheUnboundOne]

Dear De Maria,

You wrote:

Ok, lets not pass this up too quickly. I agree that these folks died for a falsehood. But did they believe it was a falsehood? Or did they believe it was true?

I would say they sincerely believed it was true.

My question is more to the point of, is there any group of people who have been known to die for a "lie", without coersion?

It is alleged, for instance, that Mafiosos will die for a lie. But they will be killed if they reveal the truth. So I'm not speaking of a group like that.

And there are individuals who have died for a lie. Probably hoping they will be believed even at the last moment.

But have entire groups ever died for centuries at a time, to conceal a lie. I'm not aware of any.

A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.

People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.

But, my question is, do we have that for anyone in the first century? If we don't then do we say that all those houses which were built during that time were inhabited by nonexistent people?. [clipped for brevity]

Do you believe that no one existed before the first century?

Or do you place your faith in certain historians as opposed to others?

To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.

To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication, but can also include houses, burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. Tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.

The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.

In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.

Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.

[Fr_Chuck]

1. Of course most of the records from the time of christ do not exist, the idea that the complete tax record would be there is beyond silly

2. and no all people esp of that time frame do not leave behind remains, but in the case of Jesus there was, there were writings, of the many people that knew him and told of his works, And each wrote at various times, from varoius view points.

The real issue is that people don't want to believe in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself. Man does not wish to, and I can accept that issue that you don't. So why are you so firm to be on the Christian board to fight against him, a person who don't believe, should not care if others do,

It would appear you have more motive to attack the faith, in which actually shows many more true colors, since a true non believe has no interst in discussion, But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in their actions.

[ordinaryguy]

The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself.

The number of people in the world who already accept a power higher than "thierself" is certainly much larger than the number of people who believe in Jesus' historicity and divinity, so that can't explain why those people don't accept him.

But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.

If you can't conceive that anyone could reject your belief except out of evil motives, then you'll see the Devil in everyone who disagrees with you.

[De Maria]

Dear De Maria,
A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.

I guess the key words here are "could be". If we think about it, anyone could be deluded into thinking their beliefs are true. Atheists might be deluded. Hindus, Hebrews, Buddhists or Christians might be deluded. But the point I'm making is that we believe our beliefs are true. Is there a record of a group of people who, have died and will die for something they know to be false? And again, I'm not including people who are commanded to lie on pain of death as certain people in the criminal element are alleged to do.

People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.

In this statement, you allege that faith is opposed to reason. In my opinion, reason is a subset of faith. As I understand reason, it is only faith in ones cognitive powers.

So, lets compare faith and reason.

For instance. I have faith that my car will start every morning. I have reason for that faith. My car starts every morning. But one day, my car doesn't start. Did my faith fail me? Or did my reason fail me?

Again, Scientists told me that coffee was bad for me. So, I had faith in their research. I had reason to have faith on their research. My teachers told me that Scientists were good people who would not make irresponsible comments without making certain they were correct. That sounded reasonable to me. So I placed my faith in my teachers and in the Scientists in which they placed their faith.

Twenty years later, Scientists are now saying that people who drink coffee regularly are healthier than the ones who don't? What failed me? My faith in Scientists? My faith in my teachers? Or my reason based on what allegedly reasonable people of science told me?

So, tell me, how do you distinguish reason from faith?

To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.

My question is, are there such records for anybody else? And if there aren't, does that mean that first century Nazareth didn't exist?

To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication,

Such as the Scriptures.

but can also include houses,

Such as the house of Nazareth, traditional sites of Jesus' birth, major events and passion, death and resurrection.

burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. Tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.

There are many 1st century personages for which we have none of these. Is it mandatory that we have these or otherwise they didn't exist?

The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.

Disputations which came much later in history. Not by His contemporaries.

In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.

But we aren't speaking of apes. We're speaking of 1st century personages. One in particular. We also have specimens of prehistoric dogs, horses and elephants. So what?

Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers

Nor I to you or anyone else who is willing to exchange ideas in a civil tone.

and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.

Thanks. Perhaps. Where else do you post? I mostly post in the religious sections.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tertullian]

1. of course most of the records from the time of christ do not exist, the idea that the complete tax record would be there is beyond silly

2. and no all people esp of that time frame do not leave behind remains, but in the case of Jesus there was, there were writings, of the many people that knew him and told of his works, And each wrote at various times, from varoius view points.

The real issue is that people don't want to beleive in Jesus, since it would require them to accept a power higher than thierself. Man does not wish to, and I can accept that issue that you don't. So why are you so firm to be on the Christian board to fight agaisnt him, a person who don't beleive, should not care if others do,

It would appear you have more motive to attack the faith, in which actually shows many more true colors, since a true non beleive has no interst in discussion, But those that take too much time to study it, but reject it, nomally have motives for beyond this world in thier actions.

Why do you impute Evil motives to those who do not accept Jesus as GOD. More than two thirds of the world's people reject the notion of Jesus being God, and many reject the idea that he even existed. Are they ALL evil?? My undestanding of this board is that it is a question and answer venue regarding Christianity, NOT a Christian apologetics page. Are we to assume that you are an evil person because you reject the notion that Krishna or Mithra or Atum were GOD?? Is it a Christian notion to impute evil motive to those who do not agree with your beliefs. Certainly not among the Christians that I know.

[Tertullian]

Dear De Maria,

You wrote:



A notion wouldn't have to be a known lie to motivate people to endure torture or persecution, (or for that matter, to inflict torture or persecution.) It could just be a delusion that's passed on from one generation to another, that people are so mentally "invested" in, that they won't pull out their "shares," even in the face of contrary evidence.

People have a strong mental and biological need to be consistent, but if consistency isn't tied to reason and instead latches onto faith or "visions," or "intuition," it can lead people into all kinds of fatal directions.



To answer the first question, there were census and tax records. There has to be a name attached to tax-booty for rulers to collect taxes on a consistent basis and to trace down those who keep the fruits of their labor from the ruler. Hence, there would have to be some census and tax records of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus if they existed and if Roman tax collectors had any efficiency.

To answer your second, third, and fourth questions, not at all. We know that people existed by the biological and artifactual remains they leave behind, which can include recorded communication, but can also include houses, burial sites, bones, hair, mummified flesh. tools, entertainment items, objects for worship, etc.

The problem with establishing the existence of Jesus is that the only artifacts we have to go on are recorded communications not written by the person in question, that are second-hand, with disputed meanings and/or disputed authenticity.

In fact, "Lucy," the Australopithicus specimen found in the Olduvai Gorge left behind more remains and artifacts than Jesus, and she was not only pre-literacy, but probably pre-lingual as well.

Until there are further developments to the evidence for story of Jesus, I have to assume it is just a story and go with that. Fret not, I bear no ill will to you or your fellow believers and I think you ask some thought-provoking questions. Perhaps we can have some common ground on secular topics elsewhere on the forum.

The basic flaw in the 'lack of records' argument is that there ARE records of the period and place in which Jesus was alleged to have lived and taught. One of these, Philo Judaeus was living in Jerusalem when Jesus performed his miricles, yet mentions not one word about him. As Remsburg points out in "The Christ":
"Philo was born int he beginning of the Christian era, and lived long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occured. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the Crucifixion with it's attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place.........These marvelous events must have filled the world with wonder.....but Philo saw it not." If eyewitnesses to the time and place have nothing to say about Jesus, how can we ever arrive at a consensus regarding his historical existence. We are back to faith and belief in the bible... nothing else is possible for believers, yet impossible for non-believers.

[NeedKarma]

...is nothing but another rediculous conspiracy theory writen by crazy people who are almost as crazy as the people who believe them.

You mean like people who talk to unseen beings and report that the unseen being talks to them?

[NeedKarma]

Versus this:
Family Guy - Theory Of Evolution Video

[Tertullian]

Is this a little consiparcy theory you coppied of the internet?..lol FYI For every major historic event there is a conspiracy theory. I can find 5K websites that will argue that the Holocaust never happened and another 10K that will say the US never landed a man on the moon on the first mission. So to me your little blurb about Christ bearing no Historical evidence is nothing but another rediculous conspiracy theory writen by crazy people who are almost as crazy as the people who believe them.

You seem to be trying to juggle apples and bananas. The Holocaust was witnessed by millions of people throughout the world... many of whom left vivid accounts of their suffering, and the deaths of millions of Jews, Poles, Catholics, Lutherans... etc. Those who deny ACTUAL evidence are, indeed, crazy! There are NO such records regarding JESUS OF NAZARETH. Although the massacre of the children by Herod, the earthquake, dimming of the sun, raising of the dead at the Crucifixion, the entry into Jerusalem, THE MIRACLES... etc. etc. etc... should have been noticed by SOMEONE!! There are records and artifacts from every civilization and religion that existed contemporaneously with Jesus... but NONE from Jesus, or Mary, or Joseph.
There are, all told, SEVEN alleged references to a 'Christ' or 'Chrestus' that are used to establish the existence of Jesus... none of which are of value in establishing the existing of Jesus of Nazareth, but only of the existence of Christianity in the 2nd Century after the alleged Resurrection of Jesus.
Your belief in the existence of Jesus is based on FAITH, not Fact. That is commendable, but not an argument to be used in trying to convince others of the viablitiy of Christianity. To resort to trying to prove the unprovable weakens your proselytizing efforts.