Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 03:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

We have the same for this. The witnesses are better educated, and FAR FAR better evidence :

The Governor of the state in question became involved.
A court was established.
Witnesses were carefully examined and cross-examined, by the best experts of the day.
Evidence was gathered.
Many people confessed in public to the officials of the court.
The entire proceeding was documented with thousands of sworn affidavits, court documents, interviews and related proceedings.
Sufficient evidence was established by intelligent men and women of good faith, that the declarations of the witnesses were true, and that these declarations should in all reasonableness result in the established legal consequences that reasonable good adult men and women thought were perfectly legitimate.

What evidence did they have that the assertions concerning what they said they saw and were convinced of were really true ?

1. Hundreds if not thousands of people were involved in concluding that what they said they saw and concluded was actually true.
2. The witnesses provided sworn testimony in court, sworn affidavits which we can look at today, and affirmed they were completely utterly convinced that what they were saying was totally completely true.
3. The witnesses came from all social strata, and every diverse background, including the most highly educated of the day.
4. These witnesses included judges, magistrates, the governor of the state, and family members of those about whom the assertions were made.
5. Many involved had much to lose if the assertions were to be found true. The consequences would impact many in very personal ways, if found to be true, thus had no conflict of interest, or reasin to lie. Many could lose beloved spouses and family members and friends about whom they cared a great deal.
6. The proceedings were thorough, exhaustive investigations. They deliberately gathered evidence. They made every effort to sort out truth from fallacy. They went to every possible length to actually discern the facts.
7. There are numerous artifacts from the time, and many documents from the proceedings we can review in person today.
8. These proceedings happened, not 2000 years ago, but a mere few hundred years ago. The literacy rate was far far higher than in ancient Israel.
9. For claimed events from 2000 years ago, there are no actual original documents of any kind. None at all. Only copies from centuries later.
10. For the events in question we have sworn documented court testimony, not just word of mouth transmission.
11. A truck full of documents from the proceedings exist at the University of Virginia Library. You can go see the testimony of the eye-witnesses for yourself, today.
12. By any measure or method, the quantity and quality of the evidence for the events in question FAR FAR FAR outweigh the quality of the evidence for the events in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
13. Anyone who claims they have good evidence to support belief in Jesus, his death, and resurrection, or any miracle thought to have happened today, IF they are in any way a consistent, honest, logical and a reasonably thoughtful person, they MUST also accept : That of the 250 people accused, 19 women in Salem Massachusetts, including Sarah Goode, and Rebekah Nurse, The Witches of Salem, really were actually witches, and were justly condemned and executed for performing demon magic.

Too bad. You lose GoingDown.

Completely false analogy.

You cannot make a fair comparison between something as benign as the mere existence of a person (Jesus) to a radical belief system by superstitious people who were convinced that witches existed.

Jesus as a mere man is not unreasonable. People being actual witches IS unreasonable.

Your analogy is false because there is no similarity between the two.

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Firstly, you haven't even shown they are similar. Secondly, there is no common property P between them. Thirdly, One speaks of the mere existence of someone, and the other speaks of a superstitious belief system.

There is no analogy there at all. It's false.


And this is what your belief system- Mythicism- does to your mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:08 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 09:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  My position is quite simple. I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists.

The position is incoherent, and there is no evidence for it.
It's as worthless as positing that someone accepts that pink sparkly unicorns are
responsible for what is observed.

A being, ... superior or not, that "exists",
participates, (and always would have had to) in a Reality that remains unexplained.

It can't "cause" Causality, unless Causality already exists.
Physical reality is not the problem. A god that "exists" *found* itself in an already extant Reality. It can't be the creator of a Reality in which it is required to exist, only partially.

I thought you said you were an old hand at this.
Apparently you're a REALLY REALLY OLD hand at it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 01:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 11:36 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  Of course it does. And specifically to the point, multiple authors provide attestation to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pontius Pilate.

When you have multiple attestations referencing the mere and benign existence of a person it most certainly is worthy of rational consideration, especially when those attestations have varying degrees of contradictions.

If all those attestations were identical, we would have excellent reason to just burn them all as rubbish. But the reality is that because no two attestations are identical in regards to specific events surrounding this man, but ALL attestations are in agreement about the simple existence and execution of this man, we need to step back and examine this with a truly critical eye.


Perhaps by some it is, but not by those of us with an excellent working knowledge of its history.


It's not a non sequitur when it concisely addresses the point, and it does. Multiple attestations verses a singular testimony is a no contest in any position of judgment.

If you have 10 witnesses to an event verses 1 witness to an event, which group gives you a greater sense of credibility?

Point made.


Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?

Please try to stay on point.


I think you are beginning to misrepresent my position.

1. I am not a Christian.
2. I do not have faith in the bible.
3. I belong to no organized religion, or any other religion for that matter.

Please work from that position instead of making assumptions.


Even if they were (some are not btw) it does not account for how all these different people, whom we have very little evidence that any of them knew each other, all claim the existence and crucifixion of this same Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate.


You don't understand "shifting the burden of proof." That can only happen when- in the context of this point- you asked me for proof, and then I shift the burden upon you.

You asked me for nothing.


And your evidence for this fiasco is ... where?


If mere words can indicate a conclusive truth, no one could prove anybody wrong about anything.

So are you telling me that because you alone have said something that ... by golly ... it must be true?

Now I understand how you think ... which is definitely lacking in rationality.


The mythicist position gets dredged up from the bowels of stupidity every few decades or so, then gets flushed down the toilet again until another sewage backup occurs.

That position is only supported by irrational militant atheists who have too many bones to pick with Christianity.


Prove the strawman accusation.


Yes ... you are. Here's your quote that I responded to:


You mentioned nothing else.


Not in the context of the preceding post, you didn't, and it is in that context that you cherry picked only the gospels in an attempt to discredit the multiple attestations.

I'm old hat at pointing out and exposing these tiresome militant atheist tricks.


You certainly have all the hallmarks, yes.


I have heard all those ideas and find them wanting for credulity.


But if you don't believe he existed, how could he have any languages? And if you do believe he existed, then why are you arguing with me?

You are sitting on the fence, aren't you?

You really don't know what to believe, but you cannot say silly things such as he spoke Aramaic, and then question his existence.



You are aware that none of the gospels have proven authorship by anyone, right?

No authors were considered until almost 100 years after they were written, and even then they were calculated guesses.


Irrelevant. The point is all about his existence as a mere human being. If you want to bring the religious aspects surrounding his existence, that is another discussion.


It does when your intention is to avoid the collective of evidence to support a given position by picking out what only works against it, instead of acknowledging the collective as a whole.


Paul's letters indicate that he met Jesus, but Acts are not Paul's own words in regards to Damascus.

So the reality is that Paul never actually said he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, in his own words.

You are seeing what the Christians think they see, and not what is actually there.

"Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?"

???????????????????????????????????????????????

Consider a hypothetical analogy.

In 1650, a publishing house writes a short novel about a magic man, let's call him Mervin the magician, who supposedly did magic things 40 years earlier. Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel, and write their own versions. Ten years later the act is repeated. One hundred odd years down the track names are attached to the four authors....let's call them Huey, Louie, Dewey and John. Two hundred odd years later, in 1950, all the stories are rewritten by the Constantine publishing house and they develop a cult following.

Were there " multiple personal attestations" of the existence of Mervin the magician?

FUCK NO. Mervin was, and is, and always will be, a comic book character.

Did Huey, Louie, Dewey and John exist?

FUCK NO. They too were fictitious.

Did "Huey," "Louie," "Dewey" and "John" attest independently?

FUCK NO! They all copied "Huey," and Huey, who had a very active imagination, had never met Mervin, and had a political agenda of his own.

Conclusion? "Jesus of Nazareth," as per the gospels, is a fiction, a construct, a tool used to control a gullible public.

Here endeth today's lesson.

And here comes the correction to your reasoning.

The first mistake you made was this:

"Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel,"

"Ten years later the act is repeated."

Your analogy fails because it incorporates nothing more of a re-writing of an original story as decades and centuries passed.

It does not compare to The Gospels, Paul's Letters, the rest of the NT, and other documents written as a close contemporary to Jesus by multiple persons, and in which many of these documents do not share much in common other than the existence of this same Jesus.

We all know how vastly different Paul's experience with Jesus is from the Gospel records, and from other records. Yet, ALL these different records point at one commonality; Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

Explain that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Contemporary account of Jesus, yes he and Elvis were seen walking into a Mall in Knoxville last year. The tabloid newspaper said so. I never read the article, just saw the headline! Need anything more contemporary than that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2016 10:33 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:08 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Completely false analogy.

You cannot make a fair comparison between something as benign as the mere existence of a person (Jesus) to a radical belief system by superstitious people who were convinced that witches existed.

Jesus as a mere man is not unreasonable. People being actual witches IS unreasonable.

Your analogy is false because there is no similarity between the two.

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

Firstly, you haven't even shown they are similar. Secondly, there is no common property P between them. Thirdly, One speaks of the mere existence of someone, and the other speaks of a superstitious belief system.

There is no analogy there at all. It's false.


And this is what your belief system- Mythicism- does to your mind.

Totally FALSE.
Fail
The analogy is not about what, to you, appears to be reasonable.
It's about the evidence.
YOU used "multiple attestations" /accounts to show belief in Jesus is reasonable.
There was the same or better, evidence for witches.
You missed the entire point.

The evidence is BETTER for the witches, than your Jebus.
You don't get to say LATER what "appears reasonable" to you. It's about what THEY believed, not you. You've moved the goal posts.
Jesus is totally unreasonable, in light of all the bullshit they said about him, (rising from the dead). That is no more unreasonable than witches.
Witches in that culture were TOTALLY reasonable. It's not about what is reasonable to US, it's about what was reasonable TO THEM.
The witnesses who believed in witches did not think it was "superstitious". Miracles and Jesus are just superstitious. You're just a biased presupositionalist.

Sorry. You failed here. Very badly. Your "multiple accounts" is invalid, IF you don't buy THE SAME thing about witches.
The people AT THE TIME thought they were witnessing things they deemed reasonable. It's not about what you later think is reasonable.
They said they saw witches, and they were far far more educated that those that said they saw a Jebus.

Still not seeing any of Carrier's or Price's or Scott's points addressed. You don't seem to be able to, gramps.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2016, 10:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  My position is quite simple. I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists.

The position is incoherent, and there is no evidence for it.
It's as worthless as positing that someone accepts that pink sparkly unicorns are
responsible for what is observed.

A being, ... superior or not, that "exists",
participates, (and always would have had to) in a Reality that remains unexplained.

It can't "cause" Causality, unless Causality already exists.
Physical reality is not the problem. A god that "exists" *found* itself in an already extant Reality. It can't be the creator of a Reality in which it is required to exist, only partially.

I thought you said you were an old hand at this.
Apparently you're a REALLY REALLY OLD hand at it.

The point is, we do not know.

However, we cannot rule out possibilities when reason enables us to accept that which may be possible.

For example, we do not know how existence came into being with any degree of certainty. Some people adhere to a First Cause effect, while others adhere to a sense of Randomness.

It`s a case of Determinism vrs Indeterminism, and neither has yet been ruled out.

Therefore, if Determinism is a reality, then possibilities for First Cause are endless, and because of that all remain possible. In order for First Cause to be valid, there absolutely would need something to exist that was never created, and can never not exist. This clearly indicates something eternal, which may exist outside of natural laws.

Now the question here is whether or not this something "eternal" could possibly represent something that could be understood as some kind of a god. Not so much the god of the bible or any known religion, but a god of some sort nonetheless.

Therefore, for a First Cause to be what originates all that exists, it must be eternal. It doesn't necessarily mean that the First Cause is, in fact, a god, but rather only gives one to pause that very possibility.

And until we can conclusively rule out that possibility, then that possibility remains as valid as any other because none of the others have been confirmed or ruled out either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 10:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The point is, we do not know.

However, we cannot rule out possibilities when reason enables us to accept that which may be possible.

I would refine your statement a bit.

We should give precedence to reasonable possibilities when considering what may or may not be possible. The more unreasonable a possibilities the more evidence needed to support it.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
01-07-2016, 10:55 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:18 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:59 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Because the other holy books and religions don't have multiple person attestations of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, do they?"

???????????????????????????????????????????????

Consider a hypothetical analogy.

In 1650, a publishing house writes a short novel about a magic man, let's call him Mervin the magician, who supposedly did magic things 40 years earlier. Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel, and write their own versions. Ten years later the act is repeated. One hundred odd years down the track names are attached to the four authors....let's call them Huey, Louie, Dewey and John. Two hundred odd years later, in 1950, all the stories are rewritten by the Constantine publishing house and they develop a cult following.

Were there " multiple personal attestations" of the existence of Mervin the magician?

FUCK NO. Mervin was, and is, and always will be, a comic book character.

Did Huey, Louie, Dewey and John exist?

FUCK NO. They too were fictitious.

Did "Huey," "Louie," "Dewey" and "John" attest independently?

FUCK NO! They all copied "Huey," and Huey, who had a very active imagination, had never met Mervin, and had a political agenda of his own.

Conclusion? "Jesus of Nazareth," as per the gospels, is a fiction, a construct, a tool used to control a gullible public.

Here endeth today's lesson.

And here comes the correction to your reasoning.

The first mistake you made was this:

"Ten - twenty years later, another 2 publishers pinch the ideas and themes from the novel,"

"Ten years later the act is repeated."

Your analogy fails because it incorporates nothing more of a re-writing of an original story as decades and centuries passed.

It does not compare to The Gospels, Paul's Letters, the rest of the NT, and other documents written as a close contemporary to Jesus by multiple persons, and in which many of these documents do not share much in common other than the existence of this same Jesus.

We all know how vastly different Paul's experience with Jesus is from the Gospel records, and from other records. Yet, ALL these different records point at one commonality; Jesus of Nazareth existed, and was executed by Pilate.

Explain that.

Mark's analogy is quite applicable to the Gospels. The three synoptic Gospels share many passages that are word-for-word identical -- not just speaking of the same events, but doing so in the exact same words. This means that they either copied from each other, or they all copied from a common source, or both. And that fits Mark's analogy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
01-07-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 09:59 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  My position is quite simple. I accept as reasonable that a superior being of some sort may exist, and this being may be responsible for all that physically exists.

(01-07-2016 09:57 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  Yes, this tired argument again which has absolutely 0% evidence for support.

Consider

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
01-07-2016, 10:58 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(01-07-2016 10:46 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 10:34 AM)GoingUp Wrote:  The point is, we do not know.

However, we cannot rule out possibilities when reason enables us to accept that which may be possible.

I would refine your statement a bit.

We should give precedence to reasonable possibilities when considering what may or may not be possible. The more unreasonable a possibilities the more evidence needed to support it.

Okay, so tell me what is unreasonable for a First Cause to be a being of some sort?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: