There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Antlerman]

Unix is just another version of MS-DOS...

Yes, that's correct. All systems are the same. I've built an AD domain at home. I know how to do computer stuff.... (sorry, can't let it go here... )

[Ouroboros]

The Internet, no doubt.

The Internet is just a copy of Bell's telephone, nothing else. There are three tall vertical lines in the word "Bell" and three in "Internet". Bell -> lBel -> Inbenel -> Intenet -> Internet. See? The Internet is nothing but an an analog voice on a copper-wire. And everyone switch from the Bell phone to Internet because it went viral on its own.

[Ouroboros]

Unix is just another version of MS-DOS...

Yes, that's correct. All systems are the same. I've built an AD domain at home. I know how to do computer stuff.... (sorry, can't let it go here... )

And MS-DOS is nothing but a copy of the Babbage's Analytical Engine. No one noticed the steam engine under the power supply yet?

[Antlerman]

The Internet, no doubt.

The Internet is just a copy of Bell's telephone, nothing else. There are three tall vertical lines in the word "Bell" and three in "Internet". Bell -> lBel -> Inbenel -> Intenet -> Internet. See? The Internet is nothing but an an analog voice on a copper-wire. And everyone switch from the Bell phone to Internet because it went viral on its own.

Yes, and like the phone, it is one big party line. So to gain your edukation on the Internet is essentially like picking up all the gossip on the party line. "I know stuff now".

[qadeshet]

I enjoy how you state it "I would like to date Mark's Gospel", as though you are qualified to make this assertion yourself.

 

Why isn't he? Why aren't I, or anyone else?

 

Since no one knows who wrote the Gospels or when they were written, we can do two things. Either choose the dates estimated by our Favorite Authorities(The Argument from Authority), or examine the Evidence for ourselves and come to our best estimation. A Fine Scholar like Ehrman wrote that there are good reasons for dating Mark's Gospel between 70 AD and 80 AD but declined to give these reasons. Most of these reasons start with the assumption of an Historical Jesus. In cases where an issue is undecided, only speculative, we have every right to decide for ourselves-based on our own research.

[Antlerman]

Unix is just another version of MS-DOS...

Yes, that's correct. All systems are the same. I've built an AD domain at home. I know how to do computer stuff.... (sorry, can't let it go here... )

And MS-DOS is nothing but a copy of the Babbage's Analytical Engine. No one noticed the steam engine under the power supply yet?

And the first computer prior to that was essentially the loom. So then where is my foot peddle to run DOS? Oh, that's right, it uses finger peddles that go click, click, click, click.... Now the mouse, that's was borrowed from the Egyptian symbol of a scarab beetle. Please note its split "wings", which we call "left click" and "right click", but we know the truth! I read it on the Interpapyrus.

[Antlerman]

Since no one knows who wrote the Gospels or when they were written, we can do two things. Either choose the dates estimated by our Favorite Authorities(The Argument from Authority), or examine the Evidence for ourselves and come to our best estimation. A Fine Scholar like Ehrman wrote that there are good reasons for dating Mark's Gospel between 70 AD and 80 AD but declined to give these reasons. Most of these reasons start with the assumption of an Historical Jesus. In cases where an issue is undecided, only speculative, we have every right to decide for ourselves-based on our own research.

 

Let me fix your quote below to make my point:

 

Since no one knows how the universe began, or the exact time is began, we can do two things. Either choose the dates estimated by our Favorite Authorities(The Argument from Authority, [such as citing physicists, geologists, astronomers, etc.), or examine the Evidence for ourselves [by doing Google searches] and come to our best estimation.

Sound's like a plan. Let me know how your research works out for you. Do you think you're qualified? What resources do you plan to use? I assume you've booked time at the appropriate observatories to conduct your own research? Or are you just going to go on gut feelings here?

 

A Fine Scholar like Ehrman wrote that there are good reasons for dating Mark's Gospel between 70 AD and 80 AD but declined to give these reasons.

Declined? You mean, refused to say why? Or are you assuming some ulterior motive? Some hiding his biases? Some conspiracy, maybe even?

 

Most of these reasons start with the assumption of an Historical Jesus.

Oh, you know this, right? You know his reasons. That's not very scholarly of you, IMHO. My bet is it actually has to do with internal evidence, you know looking at the tone it writes in, the events its referencing, those sorts of things. But I'm sure you're probably right, this "fine scholar" as you called him is blinded to his biases, where your research and insights into him can expose a better picture to the world.

 

In cases where an issue is undecided, only speculative, we have every right to decide for ourselves-based on our own research.

Sure, what are your qualifications as a researcher?

[LivingLife]

Getting it back to a soundbyte, did Jesus exist? The answer is what does it matter either way. I am not Semitic in origins and they certainly were not our forefathers.

I might be misunderstanding your "what does it matter" statement, but I get the feeling that you think it shouldn't be discussed? This is a discussion forum though, right?

No this is merely how I came to my own conclusion as there really is nothing conclusive out there, opinions vary quite a bit here too. No one can claim a "win" and suggest their opinion is the most likely. This is how I re-framed the conundrum, whether he existed or not, the fact that the other key issues are definitely myth, his existence, real or not, becomes moot.

[Ouroboros]

And the first computer prior to that was essentially the loom. So then where is my foot peddle to run DOS? Oh, that's right, it uses finger peddles that go click, click, click, click.... Now the mouse, that's was borrowed from the Egyptian symbol of a scarab beetle. Please note its split "wings", which we call "left click" and "right click", but we know the truth! I read it on the Interpapyrus.

LOL. Love it.

 

Actually, the first Internet was the clay tablet in Mesopotamia. And the first computer was the Abacus.

 

People went to the public forum at the corner Starbuckius and chiseled a "Like" on the clays that had the funniest comment of the day.

[Ouroboros]

Getting it back to a soundbyte, did Jesus exist? The answer is what does it matter either way. I am not Semitic in origins and they certainly were not our forefathers.

I might be misunderstanding your "what does it matter" statement, but I get the feeling that you think it shouldn't be discussed? This is a discussion forum though, right?

No this is merely how I came to my own conclusion as there really is nothing conclusive out there, opinions vary quite a bit here too. No one can claim a "win" and suggest their opinion is the most likely. This is how I re-framed the conundrum, whether he existed or not, the fact that the other key issues are definitely myth, his existence, real or not, becomes moot.

Ok. Can someone express that they feel that a certain position is more likely to them? If I express that I think a certain position is more likely than another, am I somehow breaking a protocol of allowing other people having a different opinion? The thread is full of people with different opinions and everyone gives examples and explanations to why they have those opinions. That's okay, right?

 

Over the years, we've had 10 to 50 different thread, I don't know how many, about this very same topic. Each and every time it's about how little we know and therefore it's all lies. For once, I take up a little different viewpoint and my reasoning to why... but ouch... I shouldn't have.

[Legion]

If you want solid, go with solipsism.

 

If you desire to have an immature mind, go with solipsism.

 

If you wish to be an adult, then embrace the uncertainty of life.

[Antlerman]

If I express that I think a certain position is more likely than another, am I somehow breaking a protocol of allowing other people having a different opinion?

I tend to think so. Their different opinion is the better opinion which you must respect as such, or expect to be shown how wrong you equal opinion is. (sorry, I'm in a mood today).

[qadeshet]

 

Since no one knows how the universe began, or the exact time is began, we can do two things. Either choose the dates estimated by our Favorite Authorities(The Argument from Authority, [such as citing physicists, geologists, astronomers, etc.), or examine the Evidence for ourselves [by doing Google searches] and come to our best estimation.

Sound's like a plan. Let me know how your research works out for you. Do you think you're qualified? What resources do you plan to use? I assume you've booked time at the appropriate observatories to conduct your own research? Or are you just going to go on gut feelings here?

 

Science doesn't base the Big Bang Theory on baseless assumptions and ask us to believe them. Science requires testing and evidence. I will accept the Big Bang Theory until disproved. I have made no attempt to convice you are anyone else to accept my hypothetical musings on dating the Gospels. And yes, I am perfectly able to examine the Gospel dating arguments and come to my own conclusions. Your willingness to accept the conclusions of "Responsible Scholars", even though based only on hypotheticals, is interresting.

 

A Fine Scholar like Ehrman wrote that there are good reasons for dating Mark's Gospel between 70 AD and 80 AD but declined to give these reasons.

Declined? You mean, refused to say why? Or are you assuming some ulterior motive? Some hiding his biases? Some conspiracy, maybe even?

 

Professor Ehrman gives us the Scholarly opinion for the approximate dates for Mark's Gospel, though admitting it is just an educated guess. Ehrman seems to forget from one line to the next what he's writing, so he may have only forgotten to give these "good reasons".

 

Most of these reasons start with the assumption of an Historical Jesus.

Oh, you know this, right? You know his reasons. That's not very scholarly of you, IMHO. My bet is it actually has to do with internal evidence, you know looking at the tone it writes in, the events its referencing, those sorts of things. But I'm sure you're probably right, this "fine scholar" as you called him is blinded to his biases, where your research and insights into him can expose a better picture to the world.

 

Professor Ehrman is a good Bible Scholar. However, I don't know of a single Bible Scholar who doesn't start with the a priori assumption of an Historical Jesus. If you know of one, I would like to know who it is. Even critical Bible Scholars like Professor Ehrman would find themselves unemployed if they crossed this line. Whether I choose 100 AD for Mark's Gospel or 70 AD makes no difference to anyone but myself. But since Clement I, third Bisop of Rome in 95 AD, knew of no Gospels and never quoted any words of Jesus, I see no reason to place Mark's Gospel any earlier. If Mark really, according to Church tradition, wrote for a Roman audience, Clement should have known of it. And you are right, Bible Scholars base their dates on "internal evidence". Dating the Gospels from the Gospels themselves is a circular argument. Since the last event Mark alludes to is the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, his Gospel must be dated to 70 AD. This is a terrible argument.

[mwc]

How does Ehrman arrive at his date for the gospels? I checked a couple of his books (an old copy of "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" and "Jesus Interrupted") and got no answer. He simply states that "scholars" date them as such and that was that. The one footnote (in the latter) was simply a statement with the gospel names and dates attached but no reference(s) mentioning who any scholars were or how any dates were arrived at ("The Gospels were written much earlier: Mark, possibly around 70 CE, Matthew and Luke, around 80 to 85; John, around 90 or 95.").

 

I know the basic argument but I don't know his argument. The former book that I mention is from the late 90's and the other is from the 2000's sometime and neither do more than mention these "scholars." I searched JSTOR and came up empty handed. I searched Google books and there was nothing of his I could read but things that responded to his writings pointed back to these empty claims. I'm not sure he's actually ever made the argument. If he has I can't find it or get access to it and would like a pointer (or at least a pointer to what argument he's laying claim to with reference to those "scholars").

 

mwc

[qadeshet]

^{In cases where an issue is undecided, only speculative, we have every right to decide for ourselves-based on our own research.}

^{Sure, what are your qualifications as a researcher?}

 

^{I don't need any qualifications to hold an opinion. Evidently, neither do you. Nor do you need any evidence for the Historical Jesus, you have your instincts and intuition. The writer of earlychristianwritings.com gives us "good reasons" for dating the Gospel of Mark.}

 

^{http://www.earlychri...s.com/mark.html}

 

^{Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:}

^{For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.}

 

 

^{None of the writings of Papias survive. Should we really trust the most dishonest Historian in history?}

 

^{Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author.}

 

^{Irenaeus wrote around 180 AD. Big deal.}

 

^{Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE.}

 

^{Circular arguments, late Historians, dishonest Historians, and so on. If you know of really good arguments for the early dating of the Gospels, I would like to hear them.}

[mcdaddy]

And the first computer prior to that was essentially the loom. So then where is my foot peddle to run DOS? Oh, that's right, it uses finger peddles that go click, click, click, click.... Now the mouse, that's was borrowed from the Egyptian symbol of a scarab beetle. Please note its split "wings", which we call "left click" and "right click", but we know the truth! I read it on the Interpapyrus.

LOL. Love it.

 

Actually, the first Internet was the clay tablet in Mesopotamia. And the first computer was the Abacus.

 

People went to the public forum at the corner Starbuckius and chiseled a "Like" on the clays that had the funniest comment of the day.

 

Your humor. I find humorous. Gigglesnort.

[LivingLife]

Ok. Can someone express that they feel that a certain position is more likely to them? If I express that I think a certain position is more likely than another, am I somehow breaking a protocol of allowing other people having a different opinion? The thread is full of people with different opinions and everyone gives examples and explanations to why they have those opinions. That's okay, right?

Why do you think you need my permission? I think I made it clear exactly what you've just stated. There are many differing opinions and that is all they are, opinions. The veracity of the claims also need to be measured with other aspects of the bible.

 

Lets be honest here, everyone departs from the knowledge of the gospels and find other materials and sources. Even so, the gospels on their own are fraught with inconsistencies. Also we have to overcome the bias of gnostic is bad as to the other accounts not included in the canon. Then you realise just how much extra stuff is out there.

[Antlerman]

 

Since no one knows how the universe began, or the exact time is began, we can do two things. Either choose the dates estimated by our Favorite Authorities(The Argument from Authority, [such as citing physicists, geologists, astronomers, etc.), or examine the Evidence for ourselves [by doing Google searches] and come to our best estimation.

Sound's like a plan. Let me know how your research works out for you. Do you think you're qualified? What resources do you plan to use? I assume you've booked time at the appropriate observatories to conduct your own research? Or are you just going to go on gut feelings here?

 

Science doesn't base the Big Bang Theory on baseless assumptions and ask us to believe them.

Nor does estimating the date of Mark. You said "baseless assumptions". They are not baseless. There are stated reasons such as,

 

"The horrors of the war seem to be vivid in the author's memory (v. 19), and the tribulations are probably still ongoing in the aftermath, as the author wishes for an end to them (v. 20). Although the author rejects the claims of others who recently said that the Lord will return during the war (v. 7), he adapts this by saying that the day of the Lord is 'near, even at the door' during this period of tribulation (v. 28-29). He assures his readers that they will see the Parousia before the first Christian generation passes away (v. 30). This indicates that Mark was written shortly after the fall of Jerusalem that occured in 70 CE."

 

That is not a baseless assumption, is it? It is deductive reasoning based on evidence. I love how you just throw about these terms, which are themselves in fact "baseless assumptions" on your part. You don't appear to actually read these things.

 

Whether or not you agree with that reasoning in dating Mark is a matter of scholarly opinion, were you considered qualified as one to enter that debate. But the point stands, this is not "baseless". There is one basis right there.

 

Science requires testing and evidence. I will accept the Big Bang Theory until disproved.

That's wonderful! It's never been proven! It's not a fact of science yet. But yes, I accept it as a good placeholder at this point. Do you disagree and believe its a proven fact?

 

But... again, you cannot do your own research on this. You're not qualified as a researcher. You're just an armchair admirer of science, like I am.

 

I have made no attempt to convice you are anyone else to accept my hypothetical musings on dating the Gospels. And yes, I am perfectly able to examine the Gospel dating arguments and come to my own conclusions.

Oh no, no, no. You're moving the goalposts. You are now saying you can examine the arguments - which would in fact come from qualified researchers - not you or I, and then base your opinions on them. That's nothing different than I do. But you, you said that you are qualified to do the research yourself. Where in the hell did you come up with 90 AD as a date for Mark? You said "YOU" put the date at that, suggesting your own research, independent of these "experts" you consider of no better opinion than your own, has offered this date in challenge to theirs! That is how you speak of yourself in "doing your own research". I'm calling you on that, and now you've moved the goalposts to say what I've been saying all along. Very well, you concede. I accept.

 

Your willingness to accept the conclusions of "Responsible Scholars", even though based only on hypotheticals, is interresting.

I don't see them as simply pulled out of their traditionalist asses as you seem to suggest. I believe they are making educated estimations - not hard facts - based on their insights as qualified scholars. The world is not black and white to me, so try not to project yourself on me.

 

Most of these reasons start with the assumption of an Historical Jesus.

Oh, you know this, right? You know his reasons. That's not very scholarly of you, IMHO. My bet is it actually has to do with internal evidence, you know looking at the tone it writes in, the events its referencing, those sorts of things. But I'm sure you're probably right, this "fine scholar" as you called him is blinded to his biases, where your research and insights into him can expose a better picture to the world.

 

Professor Ehrman is a good Bible Scholar. However, I don't know of a single Bible Scholar who doesn't start with the a priori assumption of an Historical Jesus.

And what the hell does this have to do with dating Mark? Historical Jesus or not, Mark is Mark. Mark is writing about his world at the time. And how he writes about it, the anxieties present within the texts, lends itself to believe it was in fact written either leading up to and shortly after 70 AD, or shortly after. Certainly, I have no idea how a 90 AD date accounts for these things.

 

But again, what does any of them accepting a historical Jesus have anything to do with dating Mark? Those seem entirely independent of each other. Why are you attempting to link them? Red Herring? Though the scent off? "You can't trust them, they're biased!", sort of argument? Please explain.

 

If you know of one, I would like to know who it is. Even critical Bible Scholars like Professor Ehrman would find themselves unemployed if they crossed this line.

Ahh yes, ascribe personal motives so you don't have to pay attention to scholars! Perfect example of anti-intellectualism. "These scientists don't believe in God! How can we trust them?" How is this any different?

[Antlerman]

continued....

 

 

Whether I choose 100 AD for Mark's Gospel or 70 AD makes no difference to anyone but myself.

You chose, based on your research as a qualified scholar? You won't hear me saying "I choose about 85 AD for dating Mark". The reason you won't is because I'm not an expert in dating ancient texts. And neither are you.

 

I hear one thing only in this. You do not wish to listen to other scholars that don't reflect your personal biases. I on the other hand am open to the arguments. I just lean towards one (not conclude anything, like you say of yourself), towards what appears the most reasonably researched and qualified opinions. That is not to say my opinions will not change. But that is why I favor dates like these suggested. They seem to be the most reasonable based on the research of experts in the field. Same thing for my opinions about biological evolution. It's no different.

 

How is this so challenging for you? What are the obstacles to this approach? Why such obvious attempts at detracting from these 'mainstream' views of modern scholarship?

 

Again, though, if they were married to tradition, then they would place Matthew before Mark, making that dated around 50 AD! How come you don't address that?

 

But since Clement I, third Bisop of Rome in 95 AD, knew of no Gospels and never quoted any words of Jesus, I see no reason to place Mark's Gospel any earlier.

That's your only reason?? No other possible explanations for that? As a scholar you should have tried to suggest a few to consider and weighed the possibilities. What were those that you considered? Any?

 

Bible Scholars base their dates on "internal evidence". Dating the Gospels from the Gospels themselves is a circular argument.

What??? How is textual criticism circular reasoning? Good lord, you look at the language used, when it was in use in history, events, tones, etc, all of which can be compared to the world outside itself. You really don't understand these things, do you? Then how can you say you're equally qualified to "do your own research"?

 

Since the last event Mark alludes to is the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, his Gospel must be dated to 70 AD. This is a terrible argument.

And that is the extent of your understanding of the argument. No wonder you end up with such 'far out' ideas.

[mcdaddy]

STOP FIGHTING!!!!!1!1

 

THE KIDS ARE IN THE ROOM!!!

[mcdaddy]

Can't we all just get along? I hate ex-Christian on ex-Christian violence!

[Antlerman]

Do you consider my assailing his position to be personal towards him? Granted, I got a little sarcastic in my response this time, but I try not to make it about his person. If I have, I apologize.

[mcdaddy]

Lol. I'm just joking. It's all good.

 

Honestly I think it's great people can do this without one ending up on a stake.

[Antlerman]

Thanks. I'm really attacking the logic of his arguments, not meaning to hurt him personally. If I were, I'd wonder why I was feeling some need to stoop to personal attacks instead of the obvious facts of the argument. I've hardly exhausted my case yet to resort to that.

[Ouroboros]

Your humor. I find humorous. Gigglesnort.

 

 

Why do you think you need my permission?

Because you said this "No one can claim a "win" and suggest their opinion is the most likely."

 

Did you mean that?

 

1. No one can claim a "win" -- I can agree to that

and

2. No one can suggest their opinion is the most likely -- I don't agree to that. That's you saying that "no one can." Why can't they? I think that's what mythologists do when they argue that it's all mythology and nothing substantial, while the middle-ground-myth/history person also argues it's most likely in his/her opinion.

 

So I assume from your response that you didn't mean it exactly like that.

 

 

Lets be honest here, everyone departs from the knowledge of the gospels and find other materials and sources. Even so, the gospels on their own are fraught with inconsistencies.

Of course they are. That's why I wasn't even considering the gospels as a source of information or history.

 

But it's a fact of history that those gospels were produced by people... and for some reason... and in some environment... and in a certain condition, society, etc. So we can draw some possible scenarios from the things we do know. For instance, is it up for debate that Christianity started at all at some time? If it did, we can guess on the possible reasons, and we can have opinions about what we think (subjectively, personally) might be the more likely path.

 

Also we have to overcome the bias of gnostic is bad as to the other accounts not included in the canon. Then you realise just how much extra stuff is out there.

That's also part of the problem, most definitely. So many different versions of the gospels, yet all of them talk about one single person. Even if you look at other religions that have been made up the last 2,000 years, it's not very common to have so many people fantasize about the same person. The only one that comes close is Islam. Most of the quotes of Mohammad was added by people who "remembered" his speeches/visions up to 150 years later. Still... I don't think any serious historian denies Mohammad's existence.

 

 

---

 

Wut de heck is going on with the board? Everything is bolded now. Bleh. How can you argue if you can't bold properly?