[blackshoe]

barmar, on Nov 10 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 10 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

As has been mentioned, a solar eclipse is not possible during a full moon, as the moon is not located between the earth and the sun.

And they can't last 3 hours. The longest possible total eclipse is about 7.5 minutes, and they're usually much shorter (the last one over 7 minutes was in 1973, and the next one won't be until 2150).

Then again, if this is supposed to have beem a miracle, none of the normal rules of astronomy or physics have to apply. God can make an eclipse whenever he damn well pleases. Suddenly moving the moon to the opposite point in its orbit could certainly cause earthquakes.

He wouldn't need to move anything. All he'd need to do is "turn off" the sun for a few hours, and then re-ignite it. As for the earthquakes, I don't think that would be a problem for a being who can turn off a star.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

why can't the same be said for other historical figures? when is the first written evidence for, to beat a dead horse, alex the great? or mark anthony or cleo? Jesus was written of by paul (certainly a contemporary) 5 or 10 years after his death, that seems to be the earliest... there's also a famous letter from pliny to emperor trajan, and trajan's response... the jews of the day even wrote the history of Jesus, at least as it pertained to his crucifixion, the earliest written about 10 years after he died... 

even if one discounts totally the miracles, etc, i see no reason to doubt his existence (not if one wishes to be consistent and not arbitrary)

Is this some kind of sick joke?

Do you have any idea how many primary written records that exist for Cleopatra and Marc Anthony?

Alexander the Great is a trickier case. There aren't many contemporary records extant, however, there are fragments and quotes from the original primary sources. In addition, there's a LOT of primary evidence for Aristotle.

And of course, we have the tomb of Alexander's father, the destruction of the Persian empire, the historical record, all those niggling little details...

Here's a nice little quote from Wikipedia on the Pliny topic

Quote

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

    Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[86]

Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the first century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"[87]

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

Jesus was written of by paul (certainly a contemporary) 5 or 10 years after his death, that seems to be the earliest...

Is this the same Paul who never met Jesus and whose writings were based on stories that other people told him?

Also, the first Epistle is dates at 51 AD which is roughly which is somewhere between 15 and 25 years after the supposed date of the crucifiction

[Winstonm]

Quote

Jesus was written of by paul (certainly a contemporary) 5 or 10 years after his death, that seems to be the earliest... there's also a famous letter from pliny to emperor trajan, and trajan's response... the jews of the day even wrote the history of Jesus, at least as it pertained to his crucifixion, the earliest written about 10 years after he died...

If we are playing Liar's Bridge, then I Double. I do not believe you can produce a single document that dates from 5-10 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

Here is what I understand to be accurate about Paul writings:

Quote

Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth.

I am fairly confident that the earliest mention scholars point to is the one by Tacitus and it was written some 40-50 after the supposed death of Jesus.

My understanding is that the works you refer to as being 5-10 years later are simply second, third, or even fourth hand accounts that refer to earlier writings but nothing from those earlier times remains to collaborate the claims.

[Winstonm]

This quote from Wikipedia is relevant, I think:

Quote

Charles Guignebert, Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne, who does believe that Jesus of the Gospels existed and lived in Galilee during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, discounts the worth of all the non-Christian sources as proof of the existence of Jesus. Thus "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived.

I believe this an accurate assessment. The verification of the life of a man named Jesus comes after the fact from the writings of believers.

That does not prove nor disprove anything.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on Nov 10 2009, 12:07 PM, said:

RE Passedout, Plausablility is a very strange criteria, as it is predicated on assumption. That is, if you assume Jesus was just a man, then it looks very implausable, but if you assume that he was God then it is certain that he would have an unlimited power to reshape reality.

I do indeed consider it implausible that any man was actually a god. (I base this on many years of experience.)

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

Jesus was written of by paul (certainly a contemporary) 5 or 10 years after his death, that seems to be the earliest...

Is this the same Paul who never met Jesus and whose writings were based on stories that other people told him?

Also, the first Epistle is dates at 51 AD which is roughly which is somewhere between 15 and 25 years after the supposed date of the crucifiction

contemporary:
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

so paul was a contemporary... the date of 1 corinthians is disputed, some say as early as 45, but i'll accept what you say as true... we do know that this letter was not actually the first he wrote to the church at corinth, though that first letter has not been discovered - neither has any record of his known visit to the thessalonian christians prior to writing those 2 letters... and of course, it's as arbitrary and inconsistent to dismiss the pliny letter (or the trajan response) for the quoted reason as it is to dismiss the new testament writings

Winstonm, on Nov 10 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

My understanding is that the works you refer to as being 5-10 years later are simply second, third, or even fourth hand accounts that refer to earlier writings but nothing from those earlier times remains to collaborate the claims.

is it necessary? for example, do you dismiss other recordings of eye witness accounts as readily?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

and of course, it's as arbitrary and inconsistent to dismiss the pliny letter (or the trajan response) for the quoted reason as it is to dismiss the new testament writings

I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible

Pliny's letter to Trajan discussed the existence of Christians.
No one is disputing that there were Christians in 112 AD.

The existence of a cult does not mean that its tenets are true. To chose a graphic example, I believe that Tom Cruise and John Travolta exist. This isn't evidence for Xenu...

Here's the Wikipedia entry for Pliny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_o...iny_the_Younger

Quote

[edit] Pliny the Younger
Pliny the Younger, the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ — none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.[86]

Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the first century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence: "Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus"[87]

[Lobowolf]

That raises the question, "What does Guignebert think constitutes good evidence?"

[phil_20686]

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 08:44 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2009, 07:58 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 02:08 AM, said:

Jesus was written of by paul (certainly a contemporary) 5 or 10 years after his death, that seems to be the earliest...

Is this the same Paul who never met Jesus and whose writings were based on stories that other people told him?

Also, the first Epistle is dates at 51 AD which is roughly which is somewhere between 15 and 25 years after the supposed date of the crucifiction

contemporary:
1. existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time
2. of about the same age or date: a Georgian table with a contemporary wig stand.
3. of the present time; modern: a lecture on the contemporary novel.

so paul was a contemporary... the date of 1 corinthians is disputed, some say as early as 45, but i'll accept what you say as true... we do know that this letter was not actually the first he wrote to the church at corinth, though that first letter has not been discovered - neither has any record of his known visit to the thessalonian christians prior to writing those 2 letters... and of course, it's as arbitrary and inconsistent to dismiss the pliny letter (or the trajan response) for the quoted reason as it is to dismiss the new testament writings

Winstonm, on Nov 10 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

My understanding is that the works you refer to as being 5-10 years later are simply second, third, or even fourth hand accounts that refer to earlier writings but nothing from those earlier times remains to collaborate the claims.

is it necessary? for example, do you dismiss other recordings of eye witness accounts as readily?

We are actually breaking one of the primary rules of dating sources here, by assuming that the earliest manuscript that we have is the original source. In practice we know that copies of the epistles were made and it is incredibly unlikely that we found the original, so one should always assume that the documents were written some years earlier than the earliest document we have.

Some other attempts to put lower bounds on the earliest they could have been written involve the establishment of certain churches, but that is actually also very difficult. Certainly from pauls writings it seems that some of the churches he are writing to are already well established that suggests that it is some years after Jesus' death. ad 45-60 is commonly accepted for the writings of most of the epistles, though there are obviously still arguements over them. The gospels are more heavily disputed. Most scholars now think they were all written in the first century, and put mark as the earliest with john around the turn of the century. However John presents particular difficulties, as its is generally thought to have been compiled in stages, and certain passages suggest eyewitness accounts, so its likely that the first stage may have been written as early as the mid fifties.

Generally, if the historian could talk with eyewitnesses then his account is considered contemporary. This definately includes all the pauline epistles and at least the synoptic gospels.

Hrothgar's quote suggests he would not accept a newspaper as a contemporary account, since mostly reporters report stories that other people told them .

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

We've already discussed Josephus and Tacitus, so lets start to work out way through the rest of your list:

Pliny the Younger's 10th book discusses the existence of Christians circa 100 AD. No one is disputing that there were Christians in 100 AD. The original discussion involved contemporary records about Christ.

The Babylonian Talmud was complied in the 6th Century AD

Lucian wasn't born until 125 AD

Thallus: No primary source material extant. Julius Africanus didn't write his account regarding Thallus until 220 AD.

Phelgon: Lived during the 2nd Century AD

Suetonius: Discussed here http://en.wikipedia....Jesus#Suetonius

Celsus: Wrote between 175 and 180 AD

Do I need to go on?

You are putting strange limits on what count's as evidence. If beleif in the existence of Christ was widespread as early as 80-100 ad, then its very unlikely that he couldn't have existed, as people could just go on over to jeruselm and ask the people who lived there about it. If none of them new what they were talking about then you would think people might have noticed or objected.

Re the talmud, you are making a mistake between complied and written. Compiled means they selected passages from already existing documents, many of which date back to well before 0 bc. Some of those generally dated around the first century mention Yeshua, who is generally thoguht to be Jesus. It provides good evidence that the Jews at that time generally assumed that the body of Jesus had been stolen, and they would hardly have assumed that if it wasnt accepted that he had existed.

There is no reason to suppose that the quotes are anything other than genunine quotes. Clearly having the primary source material would be better, but it isn't always possible. For every letter that we have a thousand have perished.

The fact that they wrote a bit later doesnt matter much, clearly at the time they wrote they had access to and quoted many sources that are now lost. Probably many of them primary sources that were well known to the people they were writing to. 100 years really isnt a long time. Long lived people would have lived to around 70, so even in ad 130-140 it would be opssible to find people who had known eyewitnesses. Nearly everyone in their 70's now will know people alive in 1900.

[phil_20686]

hrothgar, on Nov 11 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

The existence of a cult does not mean that its tenets are true. To chose a graphic example, I believe that Tom Cruise and John Travolta exist. This isn't evidence for Xenu...

But it is certainly evidence for the existence of Ron Hubbard.

Put it another way, those facts that people could have checked for themselves, they would have, and the existence of Christ is an obvious example. Accounts of the existence of christians provide no support for the facts that people could not have checked for themselves, eg the resurrection.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on Nov 11 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 11 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

The existence of a cult does not mean that its tenets are true.  To chose a graphic example, I believe that Tom Cruise and John Travolta exist.  This isn't evidence for Xenu...

But it is certainly evidence for the existence of Ron Hubbard.

Put it another way, those facts that people could have checked for themselves, they would have, and the existence of Christ is an obvious example. Accounts of the existence of christians provide no support for the facts that people could not have checked for themselves, eg the resurrection.

Of course if Jesus of Nazareth did not even exist, all of the stories about him must then be fiction. But even if he did exist, the magical portions of those stories cannot be established.

For a more modern parallel, there is much better evidence that Joseph Smith existed and that the angel Moroni directed him to the Book of Mormon inscribed on gold. And Mormon communities sprang up quickly with strong and sincere beliefs about that event.

But despite the eye-witness accounts, I consider the Mormon claims just as implausible as the claims that Jesus was the offspring of a human and a god or that the first Japanese emperor was the offspring of a human and a god (even though I've visited a place in Japan where the latter mating supposedly happened).

Implausible does not mean that magical religious claims are logically impossible. But implausible claims do demand especially strong evidence to overcome the natural resistance to accepting them.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Nov 11 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 11 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

and of course, it's as arbitrary and inconsistent to dismiss the pliny letter (or the trajan response) for the quoted reason as it is to dismiss the new testament writings

I'm going to try to make this as simple as possible

Pliny's letter to Trajan discussed the existence of Christians.
No one is disputing that there were Christians in 112 AD.

The existence of a cult does not mean that its tenets are true. To chose a graphic example, I believe that Tom Cruise and John Travolta exist. This isn't evidence for Xenu...

i appreciate you keeping it simple, but you have said nothing to even shed doubt that Jesus existed... christians existed, you grant (i think)... why? what or whom did they worship and why? i've already addressed the quoted objection to the pliny (and trajan) letters - the same type evidence is accepted for the existence of other ancient historical(?) figures, especially when other evidences are also considered

PassedOut, on Nov 11 2009, 05:56 PM, said:

For a more modern parallel, there is much better evidence that Joseph Smith existed and that the angel Moroni directed him to the Book of Mormon inscribed on gold. And Mormon communities sprang up quickly with strong and sincere beliefs about that event.

Implausible does not mean that magical religious claims are logically impossible. But implausible claims do demand especially strong evidence to overcome the natural resistance to accepting them.

we aren't, at this time, speaking of the claims made by the religions in question but about the existence of the people involved, whether joseph smith or Jesus Christ

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on Nov 11 2009, 02:07 PM, said:

If beleif in the existence of Christ was widespread as early as 80-100 ad, then its very unlikely that he couldn't have existed, as people could just go on over to jeruselm and ask the people who lived there about it.

You're talking about an era in which most people never got more than about ten miles from the place they were born. It's not like somebody could just fly over for the day and check it out.

[Winstonm]

Quote

The fact that they wrote a bit later doesnt matter much, clearly at the time they wrote they had access to and quoted many sources that are now lost.

I agree that it isn't compelling evidence against a real Jesus, but it also means there is no surviving eyewitness account from a contemporary that mentions the human life and activities of Jesus - and there is no physical record of his existence.

Quote

Probably many of them primary sources that were well known to the people they were writing to. 100 years really isnt a long time. Long lived people would have lived to around 70, so even in ad 130-140 it would be opssible to find people who had known eyewitnesses

.

Life expectancy at the time was around 30 years. Long lived might have made it to 45-50.

Quote

Nearly everyone in their 70's now will know people alive in 1900.

Not only is life expectancy greater now so is knowledge, communication, and travel. To compare now to the 1st century is just silly.

Quote

much, clearly at the time they wrote they had access to and quoted many sources that are now lost.

This is quite a bold assumption - nothing has been found to prove my argument so those writings must be lost. I think it is this type assumption that leads you to believe the great amount of documentation that others of us do not consider real contemporary documentation. It would be nice to find a mention of Jesus being swapped out for Barabus somewhere in the Roman records, for example.

To me it appears that some folks look AT the evidence while others look for evidence OF. The first group can admit to probability of reality while at the same time understanding the room for doubt; however, it appears the second group cannot acknowledge the room for doubt created by the "argument from silence" because it undermines faith.

If I were innocent, I'd want the first group as my jury; if I were guilty, I'd fight for the second group to be my 12 peers.

[barmar]

phil_20686, on Nov 11 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 11 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

The existence of a cult does not mean that its tenets are true.  To chose a graphic example, I believe that Tom Cruise and John Travolta exist.  This isn't evidence for Xenu...

But it is certainly evidence for the existence of Ron Hubbard.

But we also have the corroborating evidence of the publication of "Battlefield Earth", and other records of his life.

Furthermore, there are no incredible claims made about Hubbard. He may have founded Scientology, but he doesn't say he himself is supernatural. In Scientology, the claims that require proof are the tenets of the religion, not the existence of Hubbard.

The saying is something like "Incredible claims demand extraordinary proofs."

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Nov 11 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

Quote

much, clearly at the time they wrote they had access to and quoted many sources that are now lost.

This is quite a bold assumption - nothing has been found to prove my argument so those writings must be lost.

I think the argument isn't "nothing has been found to prove my argument, so those writings must be lost," but rather, the assertion is "a lot of stuff (writings) from 2,000 years ago almost certainly has been lost," which in turns undercuts the opposing argument, "no writings support your assertion, so it is inaccurate."

An interesting characterization of the quoted excerpt, though. If I were innocent or guilty, I'd want that sort of facility in my attorney.

[barmar]

While certainly quite a bit of material from 2,000 years ago has been lost, we also know that the Romans kept good records because lots of it survived. That's why it's hard to believe that no contemporary records regarding Jesus survived. Joseph and Mary were supposed to be traveling because everyone was ordered to their home towns for a census, yet there's no record of an empire-wide census taking place, and it was not customary for everyone to go home for census in general.

I just realized something. Opponents of evolution have often cited the lack of intermediate forms as supporting their beliefs. Archeologists respond that they're hard to find, because the fossil record from so long ago is inherently incomplete. Yet religious people don't accept similar arguments regarding the lack of direct evidence of Jesus. And that's only 2,000 years ago, fossils are millions of years old.

[gwnn]

Yet in both cases religious people are the irrational ones that are subject to ridicule.