Did Jesus Exist?

[Guest ConservativePessimist]

What evidence do we have that Alexander the Great existed?

 

I think it's pretty reasonable to think that jesus existed, unless you also think that all historical figures beyond 1000 years ago are all "shrouded in myth" and "never existed." I just find it strange that one of the most written about people in the history of humanity would not exist. Now, I agree that this isn't PROOF that he existed, but I think it's quite a reasonable conclusion seeing the extent that he was written about.

 

Also, if Jesus never existed the people who wrote the gospels would be straight up lying. Unless you think that early Christian persecution is some sort of conspiracy, it just doesn't make sense to me that people would make up stuff just so they get punished for believing it. Plus, what would they have to gain from doing so?

[Lycorth]

What evidence do we have that Alexander the Great existed?

 

Historical evidence, including actual items he possessed and contemporary accounts of his life and deeds.

 

Jebus, on the other hand, only has hearsay on his side. No contemporary accounts, no physical evidence, nothing.

 

No smoke means no fire.

 

I think it's pretty reasonable to think that jesus existed, unless you also think that all historical figures beyond 1000 years ago are all "shrouded in myth" and "never existed."

 

Most ancient historical figures have the evidence I cited above in their favor. We know Hammurabi existed because of the evidence that suggests it. Again, Jebus has nothing to suggest he ever existed.

 

I just find it strange that one of the most written about people in the history of humanity would not exist. Now, I agree that this isn't PROOF that he existed, but I think it's quite a reasonable conclusion seeing the extent that he was written about.

 

Santa Claus has lots of stuff written about him - does he really exist?

 

Also, if Jesus never existed the people who wrote the gospels would be straight up lying. Unless you think that early Christian persecution is some sort of conspiracy, it just doesn't make sense to me that people would make up stuff just so they get punished for believing it. Plus, what would they have to gain from doing so?

 

Early Xians were persecuted because their persecutors weren't entiraly tolerant, clearly. Just because they were persecuted doesn't mean that their beliefs were true.

 

It doesn't make sense that they would make this stuff up - they probably sincerely believed in it. However, the writers of the New Testament probably either knew they were making shit up, or were delusional when they wrote it all down.

 

Millions of Nazis and Soviets died during WWII for their ideology. Not all were forced conscripts. Does this make Nazism and/or Communism right, just because people believed in it enough to die for it?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Jebus has no proof. Hence, Jebus cannot have existed.

 

+ =

[currentchristian]

Early Xians were persecuted because their persecutors weren't entiraly tolerant, clearly. Just because they were persecuted doesn't mean that their beliefs were true.

 

It doesn't make sense that they would make this stuff up - they probably sincerely believed in it. However, the writers of the New Testament probably either knew they were making shit up, or were delusional when they wrote it all down.

 

I agree with you that these are two of the possibilites regarding the writings about Jesus: They were "made up," or those who wrote them were "very delusional." But there is another possibility, much more probable: Those who wrote of Jesus in the first 100 years after his life wrote down what they believed to be true. They made nothing up. They were not delusional.

 

From that third possibility, there are two outcomes: Either they were right or they were wrong.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

What evidence do we have that Alexander the Great existed?

I'm going to quote from Richard Carrier on this one, as he states the difference in quality of record between the history of Alexander the Great as opposed to the Gospel writers:

 

For a good extreme comparison unrelated to the Rubicon question, compare the explicit methods of Arrian with Luke-Acts: Arrian records the history of Alexander the Great five hundred years after the fact. But he does so by explicitly stating a sound method. Arrian says he ignored all works not written by eyewitnesses, and instead only followed surviving ancient texts by actual eyewitnesses to Alexander's campaign. He names them and discusses their connections to Alexander. He then says that on every point on which they agree, he will simply record what they say, but where they significantly disagree, he will cite both accounts and identify the sources who disagree (and he appears to have followed this method as promised, though not always faithfully).

 

Now, this is not the best method--modern methods have improved considerably upon Arrian--but this is among the best methods ever employed in antiquity. And it is considerably different than just writing stories five hundred years later. Quite clearly, if Arrian did what he says, he is almost as good as an eyewitness source (in fact, arguably better). But notice how Luke does none of this (nor do any of the other Gospel authors). We have no idea whom Luke used for what information (he doesn't even tell us he used Mark, even though we can prove he did). We also have no idea how he chose whom to trust or whom to include or exclude.[17] Luke is therefore not even in Arrian's league as a critical historian. He fares even worse when compared with Polybius or Thucydides. Nor does he reach the level of lesser historians like Tacitus or Josephus, either--who, though they do not give such clear discussions of their methods, nevertheless often name their sources and explicitly show critical acumen in choosing between conflicting or confusing accounts.

 

The significance of all this is simple: we know for a fact these historians carried out at least some decent research and critically examined evidence and admitted doubt or conflicting information. We don't trust any ancient historian as much as we'd trust a good modern historian--all ancient historians get things wrong on a variety of points for a variety of reasons (and therefore, by extension, we can be certain Luke did, too). But we do trust ancient historians to the extent that they exhibit the qualities of a trustworthy historian, such as being a critical thinker with an explicit interest in checking claims against documents and eyewitness accounts.

 

Now, Holding claims that for the Gospel authors "there was no dispute over source material," but this is plainly false. All the Gospels disagree.[18] Even Luke, who claims to follow everything precisely, leaves out many things. Luke also recasts what Jesus said or did in a slightly different way than his one known source (Mark) and provides a completely different chronology than John. Obviously, there must have been disagreements. A critical historian would address them and, if possible, resolve them by naming and citing sources. For example, consider current Christian efforts at harmonizing the Gospel accounts. That is exactly what an author like Luke would have done--had he been a critical historian, and not a mere mouthpiece defending an ideology.

 

 

(from here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...on/rubicon.html

)

 

 

I think it's pretty reasonable to think that jesus existed, unless you also think that all historical figures beyond 1000 years ago are all "shrouded in myth" and "never existed." I just find it strange that one of the most written about people in the history of humanity would not exist. Now, I agree that this isn't PROOF that he existed, but I think it's quite a reasonable conclusion seeing the extent that he was written about.

There is a huge difference between writings about historical personages, as opposed to writing of superhuman god-people in the literary context of history, like Homer's Oddesy for instance. When you talk about the fantastical as factual history, you'd better have some pretty stupendous support for it, way beyond what would be generally more believable. It's sort of a common sense thing.

 

Also, if Jesus never existed the people who wrote the gospels would be straight up lying. Unless you think that early Christian persecution is some sort of conspiracy, it just doesn't make sense to me that people would make up stuff just so they get punished for believing it. Plus, what would they have to gain from doing so?

You are falsely framing the argument that the Gospel writers were "straight up lying". There are ton's of other explainations for the things that are in the Gospels, rather than accusing those who don't interpret the events cited in them at face value, as calling the Gospel writers "liars". Hardly. I would never go that low. That would require at least some evidence of malicious intent. They were humans, who had faith, who heard stories passed from story teller to story teller, embleshed, modified, enhanced, believed on through the eyes of faith etc, then put into the mouth of a "larger-than-life" character as a vehicle for the Christian communties inherted teachings. This isnt lying. This is the nature of storytelling.

 

It's not "just making it up". It's the power of belief; it's the evolution of legend. But the power of belief says nothing for the validity of the thing believed in. It only speaks to the power of belief in whatever they choose to have faith in; historically accurate or otherwise.

[currentchristian]

What evidence do we have that Alexander the Great existed?

I'm going to quote from Richard Carrier on this one, as he states the difference in quality of record between the history of Alexander the Great as opposed to the Gospel writers:

 

For a good extreme comparison unrelated to the Rubicon question, compare the explicit methods of Arrian with Luke-Acts: Arrian records the history of Alexander the Great five hundred years after the fact. But he does so by explicitly stating a sound method. Arrian says he ignored all works not written by eyewitnesses, and instead only followed surviving ancient texts by actual eyewitnesses to Alexander's campaign. He names them and discusses their connections to Alexander. He then says that on every point on which they agree, he will simply record what they say, but where they significantly disagree, he will cite both accounts and identify the sources who disagree (and he appears to have followed this method as promised, though not always faithfully).

 

Now, this is not the best method--modern methods have improved considerably upon Arrian--but this is among the best methods ever employed in antiquity. And it is considerably different than just writing stories five hundred years later. Quite clearly, if Arrian did what he says, he is almost as good as an eyewitness source (in fact, arguably better). But notice how Luke does none of this (nor do any of the other Gospel authors). We have no idea whom Luke used for what information (he doesn't even tell us he used Mark, even though we can prove he did). We also have no idea how he chose whom to trust or whom to include or exclude.[17] Luke is therefore not even in Arrian's league as a critical historian. He fares even worse when compared with Polybius or Thucydides. Nor does he reach the level of lesser historians like Tacitus or Josephus, either--who, though they do not give such clear discussions of their methods, nevertheless often name their sources and explicitly show critical acumen in choosing between conflicting or confusing accounts.

 

The significance of all this is simple: we know for a fact these historians carried out at least some decent research and critically examined evidence and admitted doubt or conflicting information. We don't trust any ancient historian as much as we'd trust a good modern historian--all ancient historians get things wrong on a variety of points for a variety of reasons (and therefore, by extension, we can be certain Luke did, too). But we do trust ancient historians to the extent that they exhibit the qualities of a trustworthy historian, such as being a critical thinker with an explicit interest in checking claims against documents and eyewitness accounts.

 

Now, Holding claims that for the Gospel authors "there was no dispute over source material," but this is plainly false. All the Gospels disagree.[18] Even Luke, who claims to follow everything precisely, leaves out many things. Luke also recasts what Jesus said or did in a slightly different way than his one known source (Mark) and provides a completely different chronology than John. Obviously, there must have been disagreements. A critical historian would address them and, if possible, resolve them by naming and citing sources. For example, consider current Christian efforts at harmonizing the Gospel accounts. That is exactly what an author like Luke would have done--had he been a critical historian, and not a mere mouthpiece defending an ideology.

 

 

(from here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...on/rubicon.html

)

 

 

I think it's pretty reasonable to think that jesus existed, unless you also think that all historical figures beyond 1000 years ago are all "shrouded in myth" and "never existed." I just find it strange that one of the most written about people in the history of humanity would not exist. Now, I agree that this isn't PROOF that he existed, but I think it's quite a reasonable conclusion seeing the extent that he was written about.

There is a huge difference between writings about historical personages, as opposed to writing of superhuman god-people in the literary context of history, like Homer's Oddesy for instance. When you talk about the fantastical as factual history, you'd better have some stupendous support for it, way beyond the more believable. It's sort of a common sense thing.

 

Also, if Jesus never existed the people who wrote the gospels would be straight up lying. Unless you think that early Christian persecution is some sort of conspiracy, it just doesn't make sense to me that people would make up stuff just so they get punished for believing it. Plus, what would they have to gain from doing so?

You are falsely framing the argument that the Gospel writers were "straight up lying". There are ton's of other explainations for the things that are in the Gospels, rather than accusing those who don't interpret the events cited in them at face value, as calling the Gospel writers "liars". Hardly. I would never go that low. That would require at least some evidence of malicious intent. They were humans, who had faith, who heard stories passed from story teller to story teller, embleshed, modified, enhanced, believed on through the eyes of faith etc, then put into the mouth of a "larger-than-life" character as a vehicle for the Christian communties inherted teachings. This isnt lying. This is the nature of storytelling.

 

It's not "just making it up". It's the power of belief; it's the evolution of legend. But the power of belief says nothing for the validity of the thing believed in. It only speaks to the power of belief in whatever they choose to have faith in; historically accurate or otherwise.

 

I really like the Richard Carrier excerpt. He is right in terms of the role of the historian and the historical-critical methods of the historian, from our point of view. However, he fails to recognize that the Bible is not a history book in the classical sense of that concept, just as it is not a science book or a psychology book. While I find Luke's gospel to most closely resemble that of a historian, it does not meet the demands of modern historiography. That does not mean, however, that it is fraught with errors.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

I agree with you that these are two of the possibilites regarding the writings about Jesus: They were "made up," or those who wrote them were "very delusional." But there is another possibility, much more probable: Those who wrote of Jesus in the first 100 years after his life wrote down what they believed to be true. They made nothing up. They were not delusional.

 

From that third possibility, there are two outcomes: Either they were right or they were wrong.

-CC in MA

Or a third outcome, there was a kernel of truth buried underneath all the legend of the superman tales, of some simple man who was a religious figure and taught some of the things that the Christian community taught, along with the other things they borrowed from other religious groups of the time. I choose that option as the most likey, if we are to see a historical figure behind the legends.

[Legion]

Or a third outcome, there was a kernel of truth buried underneath all the legend of the superman tales, of some simple man who was a religious figure and taught some of the things that the Christian community taught, along with the other things they borrowed from other religious groups of the time. I choose that option as the most likey, if we are to see a historical figure behind the legends.

I am not all a historian, but I am inclined to agree with Antlerman here.

[Antlerman]

I really like the Richard Carrier excerpt. He is right in terms of the role of the historian and the historical-critical methods of the historian, from our point of view. However, he fails to recognize that the Bible is not a history book in the classical sense of that concept, just as it is not a science book or a psychology book. While I find Luke's gospel to most closely resemble that of a historian, it does not meet the demands of modern historiography. That does not mean, however, that it is fraught with errors.

 

-CC in MA

I don't think Carrier view the Bible as a history book at all. He is applying the critera of history to it because of J.P. Holdings view that it is a book of reliable history. In fact, all fundamentalists do see it as reliable history. They will make wild claims that the Resurrection is the most attested to historical fact beyond anything else. That is what Carrier is punching holes through.

[currentchristian]

I agree with you that these are two of the possibilites regarding the writings about Jesus: They were "made up," or those who wrote them were "very delusional." But there is another possibility, much more probable: Those who wrote of Jesus in the first 100 years after his life wrote down what they believed to be true. They made nothing up. They were not delusional.

 

From that third possibility, there are two outcomes: Either they were right or they were wrong.

-CC in MA

Or a third outcome, there was a kernel of truth buried underneath all the legend of the superman tales, of some simple man who was a religious figure and taught some of the things that the Christian community taught, along with the other things they borrowed from other religious groups of the time. I choose that option as the most likey, if we are to see a historical figure behind the legends.

 

Yes, this most definitely is another possible truth. I do not see, at all, the "Jesus did not exist" possibility. The "kernel of truth" theory you and others have proposed, while not embraced by me, is certainly possible.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

Or a third outcome, there was a kernel of truth buried underneath all the legend of the superman tales, of some simple man who was a religious figure and taught some of the things that the Christian community taught, along with the other things they borrowed from other religious groups of the time. I choose that option as the most likey, if we are to see a historical figure behind the legends.

 

Yes, this most definitely is another possible truth. I do not see, at all, the "Jesus did not exist" possibility. The "kernel of truth" theory you and others have proposed, while not embraced by me, is certainly possible.

 

-CC in MA

That actually is the majority opinion of religious scholars today. I do see some good arguments coming from people like Doherty in the Jesus Puzzle, as it goes beyond just the simple mythicist position and offers some valid and substatial possible ways to interpret the writings of Paul and the evolution of the Gospels, but I find the kernel Jesus man behind the oral tradions an intriguing and good possiblility also. There's no way however I can accept the miracles layers as being anything more that embellishments. It's a book of religious philosophy, not a history book.

[currentchristian]

Off topic, Antlerman. I asked this once before but it probably got lost somewhere. Your avatar: Is that staged or an honest-to-goodness crucifix behind an honest-to-goodness minister?

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

Off topic, Antlerman. I asked this once before but it probably got lost somewhere. Your avatar: Is that staged or an honest-to-goodness crucifix behind an honest-to-goodness minister?

 

-CC in MA

It speaks to me... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46712

[currentchristian]

Off topic, Antlerman. I asked this once before but it probably got lost somewhere. Your avatar: Is that staged or an honest-to-goodness crucifix behind an honest-to-goodness minister?

 

-CC in MA

It speaks to me... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46712

 

Thank you, Antlerman. Hey, while I only post in the "General Theological Issues" section, I do read all over this forum. And just now I came across the link to your music at the Creative Works thread. Very, very nice. Inspirational. Soothing. Peaceful. Loving.

 

"Awakening" was playful and fun, just like a new child must be. I could see the leaves dancing to the ground as I listened to "Autumn." (You'd love a New England fall -- my favorite time of year.)

 

I have no musical talent, that I have found yet, so I envy your gift and commend you for what you have done with it! If others haven't come upon the link, here it is: http://www.talkingtimeline.com/music/

 

Sorry to take us off topic ... but the music is worth it.

 

-CC in MA

 

It speaks to me... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46712

 

BTW, I don't think I've laughed so much in months as I did when seeing that. The Onion is great!

 

-CC in MA

[R. S. Martin]

From Post 86:

 

 

Here's a site that's mainatined on the UC-Santa Cruz campus by a Ph.D. in Physics...who seems also to be interested in NT scholarship. He provides a more "traditional" dating scheme: Dating NT.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

A PhD in physics may be interested in NT scholarship but his education in the topic will be minimal. Unless he took some electives in it, you and I probably have more training in NT studies than he does. I feel concern when I see letters behind a person's name not at all related to the topic of discussion. People tend to give a person a higher standing for the simple sake that they have all those fancy degrees. The degrees tell one thing and one thing ONLY. How much formal education the person has completed in the topic his degrees are for. In this case, it's in physics.

[R. S. Martin]

From Post 88:

 

When you factor in the power of religious belief, and the desire for that bias to support emotional desire, well.... you tell me what happens to a dispassionate evaluation? I think not being a religious believer puts you in a better position to be objective. No?

 

Antlerman, I don't know your story and connection with Christianity, but to be fair and honest, an ex-Christian might also have quite a bit invested in making the Jesus story not-true. I suspect that is one reason we are so engrossed in discussing Jesus to begin with. It's a whole lot easier for me to discount Jesus' statements about hell if I believe Jesus was a fictional character himself. What do you think???

[Antlerman]

Thank you, Antlerman. Hey, while I only post in the "General Theological Issues" section, I do read all over this forum. And just now I came across the link to your music at the Creative Works thread. Very, very nice. Inspirational. Soothing. Peaceful. Loving.

 

"Awakening" was playful and fun, just like a new child must be. I could see the leaves dancing to the ground as I listened to "Autumn." (You'd love a New England fall -- my favorite time of year.)

 

I have no musical talent, that I have found yet, so I envy your gift and commend you for what you have done with it! If others haven't come upon the link, here it is: http://www.talkingtimeline.com/music/

 

Sorry to take us off topic ... but the music is worth it.

 

-CC in MA

Thanks so much for the high compliments. I appreciate it.

 

It speaks to me... http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46712

 

BTW, I don't think I've laughed so much in months as I did when seeing that. The Onion is great!

 

-CC in MA

I love the Onion. This here is my all time favorite article from them: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30800

[Antlerman]

From Post 88:

 

When you factor in the power of religious belief, and the desire for that bias to support emotional desire, well.... you tell me what happens to a dispassionate evaluation? I think not being a religious believer puts you in a better position to be objective. No?

 

Antlerman, I don't know your story and connection with Christianity, but to be fair and honest, an ex-Christian might also have quite a bit invested in making the Jesus story not-true. I suspect that is one reason we are so engrossed in discussing Jesus to begin with. It's a whole lot easier for me to discount Jesus' statements about hell if I believe Jesus was a fictional character himself. What do you think???

I addressed this in post 92: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=236977

 

I agree some might feel invested in making it not true on quite a number of levels, like distancing themselves from a destructive system so they have the freedom to do some self-discovery. In my particular case, I wouldn't say I am interested in it "not being true", rather I am fascinated to find some redeeming value in it, from a philosophical perspective - not on a rational level, but more as an exercise in understanding something about humanity and ourselves: in how people perceive the world and themselves and talk about it through the language of myth.

 

My other motivation would be to stamp out intellectual dishonesty in the religious' mindset to defend their faith through denial. I see that as unhealthy, as I do not believe someone can live in the world today, and be exposed to the knowledge there is today, and live with suppressing this information by acts of rationalizing and denial. I see the end result of that as not fulfilling a desire to experience a "spiritual" life by killing a part of ourselves that makes us human. At the same token, pure rationality doesn't speak the language of the heart. When was the last time we expressed joy or love with math formulas?

[Mr. XC]

I have followed this thread off an on, and I admit that I have not read every single word of it, so forgive me if I am duplicating someone else's argument, but I want to suggest that if the following verse actually did happen, would we not have a record of it outside of the bible? Surely the slaughter of all the two year old boys and under in Bethlehem would not have gone unnoticed by everyone who recorded and preserved the history of the time. And no, the bible does not count as a historical recording of this.

Matthew 2:16 (New International Version)

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

(emphases mine)

 

We seem to have a lot of other stuff that was documented about this time frame that is found outside of the bible. Any omission such as this (and the countless other claims of historical events in the bible) should speak for the unlikelihood of Jesus being historical.

 

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

--old legal aphorism

I think the table is getting worn out by all this pounding. Oh well; carry on.

[Mr. XC]

What evidence do we have that Alexander the Great existed?

 

I think it's pretty reasonable to think that jesus existed, unless you also think that all historical figures beyond 1000 years ago are all "shrouded in myth" and "never existed." I just find it strange that one of the most written about people in the history of humanity would not exist. Now, I agree that this isn't PROOF that he existed, but I think it's quite a reasonable conclusion seeing the extent that he was written about.

You must be new here. Welcome. Please see Russell's teapot.

 

Also, if Jesus never existed the people who wrote the gospels would be straight up lying. Unless you think that early Christian persecution is some sort of conspiracy, it just doesn't make sense to me that people would make up stuff just so they get punished for believing it. Plus, what would they have to gain from doing so?

Not necessarily; the authors of the gospels could have just been writing fiction by essentially remixing every religion that was known to them into a new set of stories. Just because Star Wars never happened, does that make George Lucas a dishonest person? No, we understand Star Wars to be fiction. The creation of new literature inspired from older literature was very common at that time and was considered a good thing to do back then (unlike today). Some of it is called midrash. Other readers, unaware, could have simply assumed that the text was a historical account instead of literature. That is not exactly my view, but just a possibility to consider. We find a ton of stuff in the bible that seems to be inspired by other religions. It is actually very common for religions of that time to be built off of prior religions, either in whole or picking parts from other religions here and there. There is much evidence of this throughout history. But it all seems originate from sun worship. God's sun, the light of the world, giving eternal life (not for you, but for/on the Earth, life throughout the ages). This is a very old story. Anyway, that belongs in another topic. Read up on pagan religions (the ones that existed prior to the birth of Christ), Egyptian religions, and the ages of the zodiac to study the origins of Christianity.

[mwc]

Yes, this most definitely is another possible truth. I do not see, at all, the "Jesus did not exist" possibility. The "kernel of truth" theory you and others have proposed, while not embraced by me, is certainly possible.

Now tell why a jesus HAD to exist. In addition tell me WHICH jesus existed.

 

Just to be fair and this is an ambush type of question I'll elaborate a bit on what I mean. Is it literally the jesus, word for word, that is in the bible but only in the bible? Is it the jesus that is in ALL writings or perhaps SOME writings and if so how do we choose those that describe the TRUE jesus that walked around? Did the real jesus do miracles? Was he a prophet? A god?

 

Do you see where I'm going with all this? I'm not so interested in theology (so don't tell me that the OT says a messiah had to appear and so jesus popped out...we all know that angle) but just from the basic lines of the conversation so far how you can exclude the possibility of myth and include other possibilities.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

When was the last time we expressed joy or love with math formulas?

 

There is an Amy Grant song, with former husband Gary Chapman, with the following mathematical equation used to show wedded love:

 

as long as God's adding it all up

one and one is more than just enough

'cause in love he does something only God can do

he makes one of two

I want to be one of two

Amy, we are one of two

 

 

And if anyone is wondering, I have every album she's ever made, I love her, always will, and you can think that is very strange if you want to -- just as my partner does. He thinks I wasted the entire 1980's and missed all the music of that era listening to Amy Grant. I say, so be it!

 

-CC in MA

 

I have followed this thread off an on, and I admit that I have not read every single word of it, so forgive me if I am duplicating someone else's argument, but I want to suggest that if the following verse actually did happen, would we not have a record of it outside of the bible? Surely the slaughter of all the two year old boys and under in Bethlehem would not have gone unnoticed by everyone who recorded and preserved the history of the time. And no, the bible does not count as a historical recording of this.

Matthew 2:16 (New International Version)

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.

(emphases mine)

 

We seem to have a lot of other stuff that was documented about this time frame that is found outside of the bible. Any omission such as this (and the countless other claims of historical events in the bible) should speak for the unlikelihood of Jesus being historical.

 

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

--old legal aphorism

I think the table is getting worn out by all this pounding. Oh well; carry on.

 

You make a good point and you may be right. But often those who commit crimes try to hide them. The Nazis, for example, bulldozed Sobibor after the October 1943 escape of those in that slave/death camp. As the war ended, they tried to destroy other evidence, but there simply was too much to destroy. It is feasible, seems to me, that the official Roman-Herodian records would conveniently omit this atrocity. We certainly know from extra-biblical sources that Herod was a maniac and cold-blooded killer of many of his own family members. That said, one would think, however, that other Jewish sources would reference the slaughter of the innocents if it were a "in history" event???

 

-CC in MA

P.S. I never heard that legal ditty, but I like it.

[Antlerman]

And if anyone is wondering, I have every album she's ever made, I love her, always will, and you can think that is very strange if you want to -- just as my partner does. He thinks I wasted the entire 1980's and missed all the music of that era listening to Amy Grant. I say, so be it!

Amy Grant??? Can't say I have any of her albums or ever will. Not much of a fan of pop music, other than a few select bands. She's just too comercial for my tastes. As you say your partner says you wasted the entire 1980's listening to that stuff, I can relate. I also wasted much of the 80's listening exclusively to "Christian" music.

 

It was when I was staying at a hotel room in Duluth overnight to be an usher in a friends wedding the next day, that I turned on that forbidden device (T.V.) and saw something I had never seen - a music video! It was the Talking Heads singing "Take me to the River". It was at that moment I became truly "born again" and I realized the world I was missing "out there"! It was fantastic! Creativity, style, music! Not that sappy, crappy doggy poo they played on the Christian radio station, but real art! Yes, that was when the process of moving away from the whole "Christian" world happened for me.

 

I have around 700 albums on vinyl, and still growing every week. And around 100 on CD, (which format I avoid if possible). Music is a huge part of my life, and sorry to say to you... Amy Grant is not a member of that collection.

[trashy]

CC, I heard her in concert somewhere between the first and second albums she recorded. My college roommate had a big crush on her. Then she turned into a sinful divorcee. So disappointing.

 

It was when I was staying at a hotel room in Duluth overnight to be an usher in a friends wedding the next day, that I turned on that forbidden device (T.V.) and saw something I had never seen - a music video! It was the Talking Heads singing "Take me to the River". It was at that moment I became truly "born again" and I realized the world I was missing "out there"! It was fantastic! Creativity, style, music! Not that sappy, crappy doggy poo they played on the Christian radio station, but real art! Yes, that was when the process of moving away from the whole "Christian" world happened for me.

 

I somehow always managed to resist the evil secular music up until my big meltdown/divorce in '87 - somewhere in there. Next thing you know I'm hanging out at strip clubs. I still, to this day, associate Whitesnake's "Still of the Night" to this one particular young lady................

 

Oh wait, where was I? Oh yeah. Next thing you know I'm going to see Motley Crue/Whitesnake in concert and gettin' my groove on in dance clubs. Still associate INXS with that club scene. But then I repented, got back in church and missed most of the '90's music scene. *sigh*

[currentchristian]

And if anyone is wondering, I have every album she's ever made, I love her, always will, and you can think that is very strange if you want to -- just as my partner does. He thinks I wasted the entire 1980's and missed all the music of that era listening to Amy Grant. I say, so be it!

Amy Grant??? Can't say I have any of her albums or ever will. Not much of a fan of pop music, other than a few select bands. She's just too comercial for my tastes. As you say your partner says you wasted the entire 1980's listening to that stuff, I can relate. I also wasted much of the 80's listening exclusively to "Christian" music.

 

It was when I was staying at a hotel room in Duluth overnight to be an usher in a friends wedding the next day, that I turned on that forbidden device (T.V.) and saw something I had never seen - a music video! It was the Talking Heads singing "Take me to the River". It was at that moment I became truly "born again" and I realized the world I was missing "out there"! It was fantastic! Creativity, style, music! Not that sappy, crappy doggy poo they played on the Christian radio station, but real art! Yes, that was when the process of moving away from the whole "Christian" world happened for me.

 

I have around 700 albums on vinyl, and still growing every week. And around 100 on CD, (which format I avoid if possible). Music is a huge part of my life, and sorry to say to you... Amy Grant is not a member of that collection.

 

It's amazing the little things that start personal revolutions. My partner did end up liking late 1990's and early 2000's alternative bands like The Kry, The Waiting, etc., but he just doesn't see the light about Amy Grant! He says that vinyl is much better than CD. He's a stereophile...

 

-CC in MA

 

 

CC, I heard her in concert somewhere between the first and second albums she recorded. My college roommate had a big crush on her. Then she turned into a sinful divorcee. So disappointing.

 

It was when I was staying at a hotel room in Duluth overnight to be an usher in a friends wedding the next day, that I turned on that forbidden device (T.V.) and saw something I had never seen - a music video! It was the Talking Heads singing "Take me to the River". It was at that moment I became truly "born again" and I realized the world I was missing "out there"! It was fantastic! Creativity, style, music! Not that sappy, crappy doggy poo they played on the Christian radio station, but real art! Yes, that was when the process of moving away from the whole "Christian" world happened for me.

 

I somehow always managed to resist the evil secular music up until my big meltdown/divorce in '87 - somewhere in there. Next thing you know I'm hanging out at strip clubs. I still, to this day, associate Whitesnake's "Still of the Night" to this one particular young lady................

 

Oh wait, where was I? Oh yeah. Next thing you know I'm going to see Motley Crue/Whitesnake in concert and gettin' my groove on in dance clubs. Still associate INXS with that club scene. But then I repented, got back in church and missed most of the '90's music scene. *sigh*

 

We all have stories, don't we! It's a trip we're on, and it's a wild and crazy ride.

 

-CC in MA

[NotBlinded]

I love the Onion. This here is my all time favorite article from them: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30800

That's just frickin' sick! Where's my PETA number?????