Jesus Vs The Holocaust

[MG1962]

A topic that rattles around this forum from time to time is the historical evidence of Jesus, and the lack of primary documents to support his existence (In whatever guise you choose to see him)

We know from the Bible that the early base of Christianity was in Jerusalem, we also know there was an early split in the Church led by Paul, but not seemingly supported by those who potentially could have known Christ first hand.

The Jerusalem based believers were largly wiped out by the sacking of the city in 70AD, is it reasonable to believe that a large body of primary documents were destroyed at the same time, and the gospels re-constructions years later of this information.

The Holocaust has much the same problem, we have virtually no primary written sources for the Holocaust. We do have a huge amount of secondary sources, witnesses, statistical studies, installations etc. Today a mere 60 years after the event, the evidence is obvious of the terrible injustice visited on the victims. But what will history say in 200 or 500 years.

My point is - Does a lack of primary sources prove an event could not have occured ie the existence of Jesus. And if we apply this rule, should not the Holocaust be viewed with the same level of skeptism?

[Magyar]

outside of the fact that your assumptions about the Holocaust are completely wrong, and I am making an assumption here that you just haven't read enough and you're not one of those scumbag deniers.

Shouldn't the existance of the FATHER, THE SON and the HOLY GHOST of the ENTIRE flipping universe and all in it, come with slightly more proof then a tiny blip - when compared to ALL of creation - of human history???

I'm just asking.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You seem to have a very interesting definition for the term "primary source". Since when did eye-witnesses of the events not constitute a primary source?

What "primary source" are you suggesting does not exist -- blueprints drafted by Hitler's own hands?

[MG1962]

outside of the fact that your assumptions about the Holocaust are completely wrong, and I am making an assumption here that you just haven't read enough and you're not one of those scumbag deniers.

Shouldn't the existance of the FATHER, THE SON and the HOLY GHOST of the ENTIRE flipping universe and all in it, come with slightly more proof then a tiny blip - when compared to ALL of creation - of human history???

I'm just asking.

I'm sorry, where in most post did I attribute any devine powers to Jesus' exisitence?

[MG1962]

You seem to have a very interesting definition for the term "primary source". Since when did eye-witnesses of the events not constitute a primary source?

What "primary source" are you suggesting does not exist -- blueprints drafted by Hitler's own hands?

Feel free to show these "blueprints" In Hitlers own hands. It is well known that Hitler and his glee club went to great lengths to never have any 'Written' records of their plans.

And the eyewitness question is problomatic - The Bible has such eyewitness accounts - dismissed due to a lack of primary sources, so the question remains, in one situation, they are considered primary sources, in another, they are not acceptable

[Ichneumonwasp]

May I ask you a very simple question? What does the term "primary source" mean to you?

Since we have photographs of piles of dead bodies, photographs of the camps, eyewitness testimony of people who survived the camps, eyewitness testimony of people who served in the camps, and even a really cool movie with Spencer Tracy and Captain Kirk recounting the trial after the events, what primary sources do we not have?

The issue with the gospels is that they do not themselves claim to be historical records or primary sources. We do not have anyone writing -- look, my name is John and I saw Jesus stand over there and raise Lazarus from the dead.

Authorial attribution was not provided until nearly a century after the documents were written and the documents themselves were not written for nearly 40 years until after the events in question.

With the Holocaust we have entire libraries of written documents. So, does your entire Holocaust denial amount to "we don't have the written order of Adolph Hitler"? Do you honestly think we are that naive? Are you that naive?

ETA:

Let us be clear about primary sources as well. The gospel accounts are primary source material. They are primary source material of confessional accounts in the early church. What they are not is primary source biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. But, since they don't claim to be, I don't see much controversy.

[MG1962]

May I ask you a very simple question? What does the term "primary source" mean to you?

Since we have photographs of piles of dead bodies, photographs of the camps, eyewitness testimony of people who survived the camps, eyewitness testimony of people who served in the camps, and even a really cool movie with Spencer Tracy and Captain Kirk recounting the trial after the events, what primary sources do we not have?

Because today we understand the context of those photos and eyewitness accounts. The trial is interesting, because no one ever stood up and said yes, I engineered the Holocaust.

The arguement about the Gospels is correct, and I made specific mention of this in my opening post. At best they are a reconstruction of older documents and oral tradition, hence are dismissed by many as a source that Jesus existed. The fact that many eyewitness accounts and other information was potentially destroyed in the early days, does not invalidate they may have existed.

[AkuManiMani]

My point is - Does a lack of primary sources prove an event could not have occured ie the existence of Jesus. And if we apply this rule, should not the Holocaust be viewed with the same level of skeptism?

The main difference between the two is that the Holocaust is still in living memory, caused the deaths of several million people and directly affected the lives of millions more. Even without written records the event left an indelible mark on recent history.

[I Ratant]

Before the word Holocaust was coined, the images of it were widespread.
My father brought back many from his trip thru Europe, June '44 thru late '45 which I saw when he came home.
That a wide spread mass murder occurred isn't contestable.
That it was organized is also fact.
There's no valid way to compare this to the existence of anyone who may or may not have lived in Palestine in the first century.
Any documentation on this is anecdotal.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Because today we understand the context of those photos and eyewitness accounts. The trial is interesting, because no one ever stood up and said yes, I engineered the Holocaust.

The arguement about the Gospels is correct, and I made specific mention of this in my opening post. At best they are a reconstruction of older documents and oral tradition, hence are dismissed by many as a source that Jesus existed. The fact that many eyewitness accounts and other information was potentially destroyed in the early days, does not invalidate they may have existed.

So, let me get this straight, because I may not understand what you are asking.......are you suggesting that if all the original eye witness accounts of the Holocaust disappeared and we were left with say four books about it -- let's choose Night, Schindler's List, Anne Frank's Diary, and Everything is Illuminated -- that we might have the same concerns over historicity of the Holocaust that we have about Jesus?

Well, I'd have to agree with that. If we tried to reconstruct the Holocaust from something like Everything is Illuminated, we'd be up a tree and certainly get the wrong idea. But, of course, that would not make the Holocaust any less of an actual historical occurrence. We would simply be stuck with very imprecise information about it.

But that example doesn't really catch the flavor we have with the gospels either. Since two of them were clearly modelled on and reactions to one of the others, we have one clear account -- Mark -- and two reactions to it. Where to place John, admittedly a very strange account that seems to me based on communion service, is a bit of a problem. There are some who argue that John is derivative of Mark as well, but I don't quite buy that argument. And there is the further issue that much of what happens and what is said in the books is based on knowledge of previous scripture, which places some issues of historicity in doubt -- not a problem with, say, Anne Frank's diary.

I'm not so sure that the analogy works very well. But I'm not one of those people who would argue that Jesus never existed either, so I may not be the one to carry on this conversation.

However, to suggest that there might have been much previous information that was lost is speculation. There was clearly some, but it isn't at all clear how much there was or how it was communicated -- either verbally or in written form.

[Loss Leader]

The Holocaust has much the same problem, we have virtually no primary written sources for the Holocaust.


Here you go:

http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Seite3.jpg

and this:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/images/Jager%20Report%20on%20Executions%20in%20Fort%20IX% 20EK%203%201941%20Executions%20of%20Jews%20from%20 Vienna.jpg

Don't forget this:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/topf/topf-8-9-42.jpg

Here's another:

http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Furn_cap.jpg

Aw, heck, you know what? I'm cheating. I just went to Google Images and wrote "Holocaust documents original." These were my 73,000 results: http://images.google.com/images?q=holocaust+document+original&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7SUNA&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi


Now, these are just primary documentary sources. Let me know if you'd like the primary witness sources. Or, you know, the audio or video sources. And let me know if you'd like to go to a museum and see the actual stuff that was used in the Holocaust. Or if you'd be interested in exhuming the mass graves of people killed in the Holocaust and performing your own set of autopsies. Whatever it takes.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The main difference between the two is that the Holocaust is still in living memory, caused the deaths of several million people and directly affected the lives of millions more. Even without written records the event left an indelible mark on recent history.

But there are written records. Scads of them. I'm still confused about all of this -- is this Holocaust denial? That Hitler and the High Command were not involved because we have no written document proving that to be the case? That the event never happened, or might not have happened? Or is this about the gospel accounts?

No one in her right mind could possibly deny that all those people died. We have pictures of them. Primary source accounts of survivors and prison guards. A huge trial with documents out the wazoo. The event occurred -- the evidence is absolutely and incontrovertibly overwhelming.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Before the word Holocaust was coined, the images of it were widespread.


Minor quibble, but the word existed long before the second world war. It refers to a particular type of burned sacrifice -- a completely consumed sacrifice.

[Magyar]

I'm sorry, where in most post did I attribute any devine powers to Jesus' exisitence?

OH, well I'm SORRY, I somehow didn't realize we were talking about some middle eastern peasant names Jose. MY BAD - but then what is the big deal? I can answer your question with 100% certainty!

YES, there WAS an illiterate peasant of absolutely no consequence in his own time much less ours named Jesus who had a brother named James, a mother named Mary and a father named Joseph that lived in and died in and around what is now Israel in and around 4 to 35 AD. People may have even made up fairly tales about him because he was a nice guy.

This is akin to saying I know a guy named Steve who married Judy and they have a couple of kids named Michael and John.


Without the implied divinity issue what exactly IS the point of your post?
Waist of bandwidth or just the Holocaust denial?

[I Ratant]

Minor quibble, but the word existed long before the second world war. It refers to a particular type of burned sacrifice -- a completely consumed sacrifice.

.
Lower case.
OTOH...
The Holocaust. Europe, 1935 thru 1945.

[MG1962]

So, let me get this straight, because I may not understand what you are asking.......are you suggesting that if all the original eye witness accounts of the Holocaust disappeared and we were left with say four books about it -- let's choose Night, Schindler's List, Anne Frank's Diary, and Everything is Illuminated -- that we might have the same concerns over historicity of the Holocaust that we have about Jesus?

Well, I'd have to agree with that. If we tried to reconstruct the Holocaust from something like Everything is Illuminated, we'd be up a tree and certainly get the wrong idea. But, of course, that would not make the Holocaust any less of an actual historical occurrence. We would simply be stuck with very imprecise information about it.

But that example doesn't really catch the flavor we have with the gospels either. Since two of them were clearly modelled on and reactions to one of the others, we have one clear account -- Mark -- and two reactions to it. Where to place John, admittedly a very strange account that seems to me based on communion service, is a bit of a problem. There are some who argue that John is derivative of Mark as well, but I don't quite buy that argument. And there is the further issue that much of what happens and what is said in the books is based on knowledge of previous scripture, which places some issues of historicity in doubt -- not a problem with, say, Anne Frank's diary.

I'm not so sure that the analogy works very well. But I'm not one of those people who would argue that Jesus never existed either, so I may not be the one to carry on this conversation.

However, to suggest that there might have been much previous information that was lost is speculation. There was clearly some, but it isn't at all clear how much there was or how it was communicated -- either verbally or in written form.

You raise a series of good points - Your comparison of Anne Frank and the Gospels are valid - but the counterpoint suggest we understand the context of what she wrote and the wider context of what she left out.

But in 200 years time, a version of Franks Diary is released with an overview of the war weaved into it - How would historians further on interperate that?

The Holocaust is perhaps a poor choice of analogy because of the Earth shattering importance it has for modern history. Where as Jesus, in whatever guise was a disadent in a backward part of one of the biggest empires our world has seen

[MG1962]

OH, well I'm SORRY, I somehow didn't realize we were talking about some middle eastern peasant names Jose. MY BAD - but then what is the big deal? I can answer your question with 100% certainty!

YES, there WAS an illiterate peasant of absolutely no consequence in his own time much less ours named Jesus who had a brother named James, a mother named Mary and a father named Joseph that lived in and died in and around what is now Israel in and around 4 to 35 AD. People may have even made up fairly tales about him because he was a nice guy.

This is akin to saying I know a guy named Steve who married Judy and they have a couple of kids named Michael and John.


Without the implied divinity issue what exactly IS the point of your post?
Waist of bandwidth or just the Holocaust denial?

The point is - without your level of hysterics - many threads have appeared on this forum and other places arguing the fact he didn't exist in way shape or form.

[Loss Leader]

The point is - without your level of hysterics - many threads have appeared on this forum and other places arguing the fact he didn't exist in way shape or form.


This is a terrible comparison. In order to even pretend to make it work, you've had to ignore the 73,000 results I showed you of actual, first hand documents which support the existence of the Holocaust.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
My point is - Does a lack of primary sources prove an event could not have occured ie the existence of Jesus. And if we apply this rule, should not the Holocaust be viewed with the same level of skeptism?No primary sources the Holocaust occurred? Are you nuts?

What, these (http://images.google.com/images?q=Holocaust+&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) are all photoshopped?

[Skeptic Ginger]

OH, well I'm SORRY, I somehow didn't realize we were talking about some middle eastern peasant names Jose. MY BAD - but then what is the big deal? I can answer your question with 100% certainty!

YES, there WAS an illiterate peasant of absolutely no consequence in his own time much less ours named Jesus who had a brother named James, a mother named Mary and a father named Joseph that lived in and died in and around what is now Israel in and around 4 to 35 AD. People may have even made up fairly tales about him because he was a nice guy.

This is akin to saying I know a guy named Steve who married Judy and they have a couple of kids named Michael and John.


Without the implied divinity issue what exactly IS the point of your post?
Waist of bandwidth or just the Holocaust denial?The actual existence of an historical Jesus is not a supported fact as much as people believe. There are many pieces of evidence one would expect had the events occurred as written in the New Testament that are not there. In other words there is almost no corroborating evidence and the one piece often cited is suspected to have been forged. The text about Jesus was written anywhere from 70-100 years after the fact and some of the facts are not consistent with historical facts like the circumstances of the crucifixion.

The evidence against an historical Jesus is laid out in the film, "The God Who Wasn't There". (http://www.thegodmovie.com/)

[MG1962]

No primary sources the Holocaust occurred? Are you nuts?

What, these (http://images.google.com/images?q=Holocaust+&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) are all photoshopped?

Sorry but you just proved my point brilliantly - of the 20 images in that link, four have nothing to do with the Holocaust. Remove the context and the remaining images could be almost any genocide in our history

[MG1962]

The actual existence of an historical Jesus is not a supported fact as much as people believe. There are many pieces of evidence one would expect had the events occurred as written in the New Testament that are not there. In other words there is almost no corroborating evidence and the one piece often cited is suspected to have been forged. The text about Jesus was written anywhere from 70-100 years after the fact and some of the facts are not consistent with historical facts like the circumstances of the crucifixion.

The evidence against an historical Jesus is laid out in the film, "The God Who Wasn't There". (http://www.thegodmovie.com/)

From the film burb

The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus

This is a very poor start for a film claiming to do to religion what bowling for Columbine did for guns

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Sorry but you just proved my point brilliantly - of the 20 images in that link, four have nothing to do with the Holocaust. Remove the context and the remaining images could be almost any genocide in our history

I'm sorry but you're really not lacking for records or documentation.

I have primary source documents attesting that the Holocaust did indeed happen at home. I'm treasuring them for future generations of our family. So that one day I'll have something to show my nieces and nephews of their great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents and so that I'll have a way to explain what it was and talk to them about it.

You're welcome to have a look.

Edit: Come to think of it, I have also met Survivors outside of my family. One was a Polish gentile child survivor of a forced labor camp where her mother was a forced prostitute in an SS brothel. She was a staff member at my former high school and was kind enough to come into senior history class to talk about it. She showed us her tattoo- that's a record if there ever was one.

[MG1962]

I'm sorry but you're really not lacking for records or documentation.

I have primary source documents attesting that the Holocaust did indeed happen at home. I'm treasuring them for future generations of our family. So that one day I'll have something to show my nieces and nephews about their great-grandparents and so that I'll have a way to explain what it was and talk to them about it.

You're welcome to have a look.

I really do hope you succeed in carrying that legacy. I can't stress enough that I am in no way debating the Holocaust. That is not the point of the thread, and I am sure if people look at my past posting pattern here will see my postion very clearly.

Reverse engineering the problem for a momment - Look at the massacre of the innocent - Herrod's apparent attempt to kill Jesus as a baby. Recently I watched a fascinating documentary that called this event into question. Then presented the amazing statistic that at most a handful of children were killed - simply by actually looking at the probable demographics. But to our context many thought hundreds were killed.

And it can be suprising how fast we can loose history. A couple of years ago a section of the old Allied trenchline from WWl was dug up in France. Why? Because despite the millions of photos, documents and eyewitnesses - No one knew anymore actually how the trenches were constructed - And thats not even a 100 years ago

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, first of all, thank you.

To offer an answer your question, the way I see it is that there's what's questionable, doubtful and what there is reason to be skeptical about- and then there is what isn't.

Urban legend and myth can mask for history and be taken for granted as such. Columbus discovering that the world was round, the Vikings wearing horned hats and the White House being whitewashed after being burned down in the War of 1812 come to mind.

There is reason to question, be skeptical about or reject all of the above based on common sense, logic and historical truth. (Which isn't to say that the truth and nothing but the truth can't sometimes be very hard to believe.)

There's a distinction between what should have a question mark next to it in the history books and what shouldn't and can be reasonably assumed to be fact.

[MG1962]

Well, first of all, thank you.

To offer an answer your question, the way I see it is that there's what's questionable, doubtful and what there is reason to be skeptical about- and then there is what isn't.

Urban legend and myth can mask for history and be taken for granted as such. Columbus discovering that the world was round, the Vikings wearing horned hats and the White House being whitewashed after being burned down in the War of 1812 come to mind.

There is reason to question, be skeptical about or reject all of the above based on common sense, logic and historical truth. (Which isn't to say that the truth and nothing but the truth can't sometimes be very hard to believe.)

There's a distinction between what should have a question mark next to it in the history books and what shouldn't and can be reasonably assumed to be fact.

I agree with you, and I am not asking people to believe that Jesus must have existed. I am simply suggesting that the early base of Christianity was destroyed within about a generation of his life. There is a reasonable explanation for a lack of evidence

Discoveries like the Gospel of Thomas are exactly the sort of early writings we should expect to find. Rather than fully developed narrations, simple documents of sayings and such have a higher probability. Even it is believed to have written at least 30 years after the destruction of Jersuelem

An honest history would point out the lack of primary sources, but recognise there could be something in the strong oral traditions of the early Church.

The confusion about the potential myth and reality of Jesus is not uncommon. King Arthur or Robin Hood both are good examples where a potentially simple reality has been woven into an extensive myth. Even in our day, the legend of Braveheart has been born. The historical William Wallace bares little resemblence to the character in the film, yet the modern perception of the man will be driven by the images from the movie for many generations

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry but you just proved my point brilliantly - of the 20 images in that link, four have nothing to do with the Holocaust. Remove the context and the remaining images could be almost any genocide in our historyI did not say they all did. Use some common sense dude, it was a quick Google images search, not a dissertation. The only point I proved was how absurd you are being claiming there is no primary evidence of the Holocaust. You took the primary evidence, built a straw man and attacked the straw.

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the film burb

The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus

This is a very poor start for a film claiming to do to religion what bowling for Columbine did for gunsMore irrelevant comments. Who cares that you didn't like the trailer. I said the film outlined the evidence and I summarized it for those people who haven't seen the film. And I didn't say the film proved anything. I said it laid the evidence out. There are rebuttals to the film. I happen to think the evidence favors Jesus never existed and is a mythical character but that is a tentative conclusion.

Just what is your point here, Jesus walked but the Holocaust is a lie?

[MG1962]

I did not say they all did. Use some common sense dude, it was a quick Google images search, not a dissertation. The only point I proved was how absurd you are being claiming there is no primary evidence of the Holocaust. You took the primary evidence, built a straw man and attacked the straw.

Not at all - the point you proved is without context, those photos could be from a number of dreadful atrocities visited by man on humanity. With time, that context becomes more and more remote.

We can see the process already begining - How many Holocaust deniers were there in 1950 - I would bet the number was pretty close to zero. It was only in the 60's when Hitler apologist came along that people decided the evidence presented was not good enough. The evidence didn't change from 1945 to say 1970. Only the context. Hopefully people like EeneyMinnieMoe will help to stop the context drifting

[MG1962]

More irrelevant comments. Who cares that you didn't like the trailer. I said the film outlined the evidence and I summarized it for those people who haven't seen the film. And I didn't say the film proved anything. I said it laid the evidence out. There are rebuttals to the film. I happen to think the evidence favors Jesus never existed and is a mythical character but that is a tentative conclusion.

Just what is your point here, Jesus walked but the Holocaust is a lie?

Irrelevant because I drew the first line from the movies blub, that was blatantely incorrect. So how can I trust anything else about the movie if they fail at such a basic point.

And please show anywhere in my posts that I have claimed the Holocaust is a lie. If you want to use throw away lines as an attack, at least use something I have actually said please.

And my point - well in the Gospels there are eyewitness accounts of actions by Jesus. These are dismissed because the Gospels are not primary documents, even though there is a fair chance they are based on the existence of earlier documents, potentially destroyed.

Remove the eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust and we are left with very large gaps in our knowledge of those events. For example without the Zonda Guard, we really have little idea of what occured inside those gas chambers. We can infer a process from their construction. But the Zonda create the true context

There is a lot of archaeology going on around some of these old camps. Not to try and prove the Holocaust didnt happen, but to better understand what actually did happen.

Its the same for those dreadful scenes when the ovens broke down and in some camps, they were reduced to burning mountains of bodies in pits. In theory a human body wont burn that way, nor will the fire maintain it's heat. However, we know from countless eyewitness accounts, from guards and survivors that the process did work.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not at all - the point you proved is without context, those photos could be from a number of dreadful atrocities visited by man on humanity. With time, that context becomes more and more remote.

We can see the process already begining - How many Holocaust deniers were there in 1950 - I would bet the number was pretty close to zero. It was only in the 60's when Hitler apologist came along that people decided the evidence presented was not good enough. The evidence didn't change from 1945 to say 1970. Only the context. Hopefully people like EeneyMinnieMoe will help to stop the context driftingLike I said and you continue to ignore, I posted a link to the obvious, I did not present a dissertation. There is no question about primary sources for the Holocaust. You have no case. Period.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Irrelevant because I drew the first line from the movies blub, that was blatantely incorrect. So how can I trust anything else about the movie if they fail at such a basic point.

And please show anywhere in my posts that I have claimed the Holocaust is a lie. If you want to use throw away lines as an attack, at least use something I have actually said please.Just what is your point here, Jesus walked but the Holocaust is a lie?

See that ? there? Know what it means? It means I am asking you what you are saying. It does not mean I know what you are saying because if I did, I wouldn't be asking, now would I?

And my point - well in the Gospels there are eyewitness accounts of actions by Jesus. These are dismissed because the Gospels are not primary documents, even though there is a fair chance they are based on the existence of earlier documents, potentially destroyed.They are questioned as eyewitness accounts and with lots of reasons to question the accounts not the least of which being they are copies of copies and selectively chosen by the Catholic church which cherry picked texts that were not in agreement with each other.

[Loss Leader]

Remove the context and the remaining images could be almost any genocide in our history


Well that's really all your argument boils down to, isn't it:

If we ignore all primary sources of knowledge about the Holocaust, and if we remove the context from some other sources, and if we generally pretend that videotaped statements of witnesses don't exist, and if we purposefully blind ourselves with knitting needles, then in that case there is no primary proof that the Holocaust took place.

The damage you are doing to logic may be unfixable.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You raise a series of good points - Your comparison of Anne Frank and the Gospels are valid - but the counterpoint suggest we understand the context of what she wrote and the wider context of what she left out.

But in 200 years time, a version of Franks Diary is released with an overview of the war weaved into it - How would historians further on interperate that?

The Holocaust is perhaps a poor choice of analogy because of the Earth shattering importance it has for modern history. Where as Jesus, in whatever guise was a disadent in a backward part of one of the biggest empires our world has seen

The Holocaust is a poor choice of analogy because we have an overwhelming crush of primary source material documenting it.

I do not understand completely what you mean by "understanding the context" of Anne Frank's diary but not the gospel writers. Are you suggesting that we do not understand the underlying context of the early church? There is a huge field of schorlarship devoted to just this issue. It is quite true that most believers around the world do not understand the context and misinterpret the works (especially Revelation), but the context is well-established.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time understanding your point, which appears very bizarre and fairly scary. I'm not up on all the Holocaust denial wackoness, so you'll have to excuse me for not participating past this post.

[Magyar]

Originally Posted by Magyar
OH, well I'm SORRY, I somehow didn't realize we were talking about some middle eastern peasant names Jose. MY BAD - but then what is the big deal? I can answer your question with 100% certainty!

YES, there WAS an illiterate peasant of absolutely no consequence in his own time much less ours named Jesus who had a brother named James, a mother named Mary and a father named Joseph that lived in and died in and around what is now Israel in and around 4 to 35 AD. People may have even made up fairly tales about him because he was a nice guy.

This is akin to saying I know a guy named Steve who married Judy and they have a couple of kids named Michael and John.


Without the implied divinity issue what exactly IS the point of your post?
Waist of bandwidth or just the Holocaust denial?
The actual existence of an historical Jesus is not a supported fact as much as people believe. There are many pieces of evidence one would expect had the events occurred as written in the New Testament that are not there. In other words there is almost no corroborating evidence and the one piece often cited is suspected to have been forged. The text about Jesus was written anywhere from 70-100 years after the fact and some of the facts are not consistent with historical facts like the circumstances of the crucifixion.

The evidence against an historical Jesus is laid out in the film, "The God Who Wasn't There".

[Rufo]

MG1962, I think I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree. Yes, it is true that in the future - especially as far into the future as Jesus is into the past - much of the evidence for the Holocaust may have been lost and there may be as little or even less evidence of it as the evidence for the existance of a historical Jesus today.

But all that means is that those people in that day and age will be right to question the Holocaust. There can be little or no accounts of something that in fact happened, but it will be impossible for those people to tell if it did.

To explain what I see as the problem with this argument, let's compare something else. For instance, in 500 or 2000 years, there will possibly be no evidence left - no evidence, not just slightly lacking - that you ever existed. Now you could argue that this means that since you exist, and there is no reason to question your existence today, there is no reason to question the existence of a guy you read about who lived 500 or 2000 years ago of whom there is no evidence whatsoever either. It would make as much sense as this comparison, which is none.

And for the record, I do believe there was a historical Jesus. I just don't agree with your reasoning.

[Egg]

The actual existence of an historical Jesus is not a supported fact as much as people believe. There are many pieces of evidence one would expect had the events occurred as written in the New Testament that are not there. In other words there is almost no corroborating evidence and the one piece often cited is suspected to have been forged. The text about Jesus was written anywhere from 70-100 years after the fact and some of the facts are not consistent with historical facts like the circumstances of the crucifixion.

The evidence against an historical Jesus is laid out in the film, "The God Who Wasn't There". (http://www.thegodmovie.com/)

It almost sounds like you are suggesting this movie could be considered as some kind of serious scholarly work. You could at least instead cite Earl Doherty, who's arguments Flemming uses, instead of a movie which makes use of some thoroughly debunked writings such as those of Kersey Graves (Beddru?) and spends much of its time trying to show how terrible Flemming thinks religion is. At least Doherty, although going against the majority of mainstream scholarship on the matter, actually works from primary sources, even if his interpretations and conclusions are a bit "out there" in regards to the consensus of scholarship.

In response to the OP, I can see what you're saying, but perhaps there are better examples to use than the holocaust. I would imagine there a lot of historical figures with less evidence than Jesus, who's existence nobody would think to doubt.

[MG1962]

Well that's really all your argument boils down to, isn't it:

If we ignore all primary sources of knowledge about the Holocaust, and if we remove the context from some other sources, and if we generally pretend that videotaped statements of witnesses don't exist, and if we purposefully blind ourselves with knitting needles, then in that case there is no primary proof that the Holocaust took place.

The damage you are doing to logic may be unfixable.

Really - then perhaps you can explain this

http://www.a-w-a.be/eng/index2.html

Are there not millions of primary sources, are there not thousands of eyewitness accounts, photos, film etc of an event less than a hundred years ago.

And then there is this

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ar/modern/archreview.html

From the article

c) The lack of any clear evidence to date locating the second gassing building is intriguing. It may well be the case that the SS deliberately destroyed and removed all evidence of the most incriminating structure in the camp. On examination of the arrangement of all the mass graves and camp structures located during the 1997‑98 investigations, one area stands out as the most likely site of this building: an area devoid of any graves or structures near the north eastern corner of the camp, and today a few metres in front of symbolic tomb No. 2.

A mere 60 years after the event, despite mountains of primary evidence, they are still struggling with the size and scope of this camp. The orginal investigation in 45' uncovered 9 mass graves - the 1997 expedition located over 30

The eyewitnesses of 1945 didn't know where the second (permenant) gas chamber was located. Or the existence of the later pits - Does that invalidate their testimony? Off course not, no more so than the partial evidence of eyewitness accounts in the Gospels.

[ImaginalDisc]

Off course not, no more so than the partial evidence of eyewitness accounts in the Gospels.[/SIZE][/FONT]


What? The earliest Gospel was written thirty years after the alleged crucification, and it is not an eyewitness account.

Whereas the Holocaust, Alexander's the Great conquest of vast swaths of land, John Brown's raid, Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, Gandhi's assassination, and other real historical events have eyewitness accounts from a multitude of sources, written immediately after, and even during the events.

[Loss Leader]

A mere 60 years after the event, despite mountains of primary evidence, they are still struggling with the size and scope of this camp. The orginal investigation in 45' uncovered 9 mass graves - the 1997 expedition located over 30[/SIZE][/FONT]




You should be careful, MG. You're tending towards tr00ther territory now.

The argument you've just made is this: Since some details of an event is not known exactly, we cannot know for certain that the event took place.

That's a horribly illogical statement. We know all sorts of things for certain even without knowing everything about them. I know I am typing on a keyboard even though I do not (and cannot) know the exact position and speed of every electron that makes up the keyboard. I know that a pot of water is boiling even though I have no way of knowing the exact temperature of any given molecule of water at any moment.

I have given you about 73,000 primary documentary sources showing the Holocaust to have taken place. You, on the other hand, have not given even one single primary source showing that Jesus was even a real person, let alone a demigod.

The two events are not similar and you are doing grave violence to the rules of logic by attempting to equate them.

[drkitten]

Really - then perhaps you can explain this

http://www.a-w-a.be/eng/index2.html

What's to explain?

No one, to the best of my knowledge, is challenging the idea that the First World War happened or that Western Flanders was the site of huge-scale military activity. Indeed, it's precisely because it was such a large-scale operation that many details have been lost. Where exactly did the trenches run, and when exactly were they built? Is this particular depression the result of a shell hit, or was it dug by hand -- and when?



Are there not millions of primary sources, are there not thousands of eyewitness accounts, photos, film etc of an event less than a hundred years ago.

More than mere thousands, I should think.

So what's the relevance? WWII --- and the Holocaust -- are equally well-documented, and like any large-scale operation, there are details that are still being worked out or that are not yet known (such as the location of a now-destroyed gas chamber).

In contrast, there are NO eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion. Zero Zip Nada.

[MG1962]

You should be careful, MG. You're tending towards tr00ther territory now.

The argument you've just made is this: Since some details of an event is not known exactly, we cannot know for certain that the event took place.

That's a horribly illogical statement. We know all sorts of things for certain even without knowing everything about them. I know I am typing on a keyboard even though I do not (and cannot) know the exact position and speed of every electron that makes up the keyboard. I know that a pot of water is boiling even though I have no way of knowing the exact temperature of any given molecule of water at any moment.

I have given you about 73,000 primary documentary sources showing the Holocaust to have taken place. You, on the other hand, have not given even one single primary source showing that Jesus was even a real person, let alone a demigod.

The two events are not similar and you are doing grave violence to the rules of logic by attempting to equate them.

So why didn't you address the two examples I gave you. nearly 8% of the Jewish deaths during the Holocaust occured in that camp. The NAZIs were so effiecent in destroying the evidence, that even with eyewitnesses, and archaelogical digs the total scope of what occured there is still not fully known.

So in this instance, eyewitness have proved a valuable resource in showing the fate of nearly 500,000 people.

But witnesses to death of a man 2000 years ago in the backend of one of the greatest empires of history dont count?

Why?

[Loss Leader]

But witnesses to death of a man 2000 years ago in the backend of one of the greatest empires of history dont count?



What witnesses? Name them.

[MG1962]

What witnesses? Name them.

Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus

4 un-named Roman solider

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James The Younger

Mary, mother of Jesus

Mary's sister (un-named

Mary, wife of Clopas

Obviously some of these Marys could be double ups. But I suggest a minimum of at least 6 people is a reasonable number

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

MG- In response to your previous example, I'd tell you that to this day I'm not sure how my great-grandfather died- but I know he's dead and who killed him.

Many things have been lost to history- for instance, there is no 100 percent accurate and definitive list of all 9/11 or Armenian genocide victims. Cause, for many reasons, it is near impossible to know exactly who died and compile a foolproof list of them.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because there's a 1/2 percent to 2 percent margin of error doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[MG1962]

MG- In response to your previous example, I'd tell you that to this day I'm not sure how my great-grandfather died- but I know he's dead and who killed him.

Many things have been lost to history- for instance, there is no 100 percent accurate and definitive list of all 9/11 or Armenian genocide victims. Cause, for many reasons, it is near impossible to know exactly who died and compile a foolproof list of them.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Just because there's a 1/2 percent to 2 percent margin of error doesn't mean it didn't happen.

When I started this thread I will admit I was unaware of the Belzec camp or the archaeology conducted there. When you read the report of the investigations, an astonishing story appears.

There are only a half dozen examples of conditions inside the camp according to this article

http://www.jewishgen.org/Yizkor/belzec/bel001.html


The information given to the orginal Soviet investigation team consisited of information provided by locals employed to build the camp, and a number of escapees who lived long enough to make contact with local villages, before recapture and execution. Initially all thought they were dealing with a few thousand deaths. Even the 1946 investigation had no other evidence than reports from local rail workers of the number of trains entering the area to try and estimate the number of dead.

Historians seem to have settled on a number around 600,000, and this was largely confirmed by the 1997 investigation of the site. Those responsible for the survey remain convinced there are still more pits to be investigated that could push numbers past 800,000.

So in a handful of years, the truth about this place became very uncertain, and ultimately took a well resourced 3 year dig to try and peice most of it together.

So is it so hard to believe that biographic material about Jesus, who lived in a largely illiterate society, and a society almost wiped out within a generation of his death is hard to come by. I would almost go as far to say we are probably lucky to have what we do have

[quixotecoyote]

Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus

4 un-named Roman solider

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James The Younger

Mary, mother of Jesus

Mary's sister (un-named

Mary, wife of Clopas

Obviously some of these Marys could be double ups. But I suggest a minimum of at least 6 people is a reasonable number

You can't just -say- someone witnessed something. The supposed witness has to at least claim it him/herself for it to have the bare minimum of a shot at credibility.

Since I don't see "The Gospel of the 4 Unnamed Roman Soldiers" in my copy of the Bible, I think your witness list needs to be pared down.

[Radrook]

.... The Bible has such eyewitness accounts - dismissed due to a lack of primary sources, so the question remains, in one situation, they are considered primary sources, in another, they are not acceptable

Excellent point! Inconsistency of policy!

[Loss Leader]

Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus

4 un-named Roman solider

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James The Younger

Mary, mother of Jesus

Mary's sister (un-named

Mary, wife of Clopas

Obviously some of these Marys could be double ups. But I suggest a minimum of at least 6 people is a reasonable number

As near as I can tell, somewhere between one and zero of the people on your list actually wrote first-hand, contemporary documents setting forth their observations. Otherwise, all we have is the word of someone who says that these people were witnesses. From that person, we have absolutely no evidence other than his word that the people that he says were witnesses actually were witnesses. We only have his word that they existed at all.

And most of the people on your list can't even be checked out. We aren't told the Roman soldiers' names so we can't look for them. And even you admit that you have no idea how many of these "Marys" are individuals and how many are duplicates.

On the other hand, we have records of 52,000 primary witnesses to the holocaust here: http://college.usc.edu/vhi/cataloguingindexing.php

There is no comparison. Just stop.

[Mobyseven]

Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus

4 un-named Roman solider

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James The Younger

Mary, mother of Jesus

Mary's sister (un-named

Mary, wife of Clopas

Obviously some of these Marys could be double ups. But I suggest a minimum of at least 6 people is a reasonable number

What source are you using other than the bible?

[MG1962]

As near as I can tell, somewhere between one and zero of the people on your list actually wrote first-hand, contemporary documents setting forth their observations. Otherwise, all we have is the word of someone who says that these people were witnesses. From that person, we have absolutely no evidence other than his word that the people that he says were witnesses actually were witnesses. We only have his word that they existed at all.

And most of the people on your list can't even be checked out. We aren't told the Roman soldiers' names so we can't look for them. And even you admit that you have no idea how many of these "Marys" are individuals and how many are duplicates.

Neatly ignoring that Jesus lived in a time of extremely low literacy rates, and that when he died, he was not exactly a mover or shaker in the Roman empire. More importantly why would the Gospels (Seemingly written to sell an idea) Have such a motley group of witnesses. If they were selling a fictious person, would they have not had every man and his dog there. Nashing their teeth and rolling in the dust at the injustice that had occured.

[MG1962]

What source are you using other than the bible?

If you want the history of Led Zeppelin, do you go to a Pink Floyd website?

[Mobyseven]

If you want the history of Led Zeppelin, do you go to a Pink Floyd website?

No. But I wouldn't rely entirely on a book filled with so many mistakes and contradictions it makes homeopathy look downright plausible in comparison.

Your only source for this character Jesus is a book, written by people who weren't there, a minimum of thirty years after the events of the book supposedly took place, that is factually inaccurate in a number of other parts of the book.

Would you believe me if I told you that Moby Dick exists? I know that because there are witnesses: Ishmael, Ahab, Starbuck, and other crewmates on the Pequod!

[I Ratant]

Historical information in the bible is pointed to as proof that all of it is real.
There is a Sinai desert, a Bablyon, etc.
In London, there is a 221 Baker Street, with an apartment labeled "b".
Ergo, the stories of Sherlock Holmes are documentaries.

[Loss Leader]

Neatly ignoring that Jesus lived in a time of extremely low literacy rates, and that when he died, he was not exactly a mover or shaker in the Roman empire.


It's not my problem why Jesus may or may not have generated any historical evidence of his own existence. It's only my problem to examine whether there is any historical evidence of his existence.

All you have offered is the first-hand account of one person. What he claims about others is nothing but hearsay. If he claims there were a thousand witnesses, it only matters to the extent that his claims help me find those witnesses so they can verify his story. Otherwise, this one guy may well have been lying.

There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. It doesn't matter why.

There is no evidence that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. I can tell you that the reason that there's no evidence is that the dragon uses psychic powers to erase the memories of people who learn of him. But that doesn't change the fact that there is still no reason to believe there's an invisible dragon in my garage.


More importantly why would the Gospels (Seemingly written to sell an idea) Have such a motley group of witnesses. If they were selling a fictious person, would they have not had every man and his dog there. Nashing their teeth and rolling in the dust at the injustice that had occured.


It's not more important. It's not important at all.

I don't care what motivations the one guy had. I don't know him, I don't know what he was thinking and I don't have any reason to speculate. Maybe he wrote it that way exactly because he thought it was more believable to make up just a couple of people (who could never be found) instead of every man and his dog (which could easily have been checked). Maybe he realized that one day people like you would make this very argument so he created a lie that seemed less obvious. Maybe he was an early riser and he liked to pack in the morning. And maybe he didn't have any friends. I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the travel habits of William Santiago.

I don't care whether this guy's story seems plausible or not. All I care about is that there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of Jesus other than this one man's word.

The Holocaust, on the other hand, has at least 53,000 witnesses telling their own stories in their words. And it has documentary evidence to back it up. The two events have NOTHING in common.

[Loss Leader]

Would you believe me if I told you that Moby Dick exists? I know that because there are witnesses: Ishmael, Ahab, Starbuck, and other crewmates on the Pequod!



Not only that but I heard Starbuck has been to earth. And she's going to take us there.

[MG1962]

No. But I wouldn't rely entirely on a book filled with so many mistakes and contradictions it makes homeopathy look downright plausible in comparison.

Your only source for this character Jesus is a book, written by people who weren't there, a minimum of thirty years after the events of the book supposedly took place, that is factually inaccurate in a number of other parts of the book.

Would you believe me if I told you that Moby Dick exists? I know that because there are witnesses: Ishmael, Ahab, Starbuck, and other crewmates on the Pequod!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mocha_Dick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaleship_Essex

Unfortunately one of my relatives is claimed to have been a crew member of this vessel

Do you claim that the destruction of Pompei was fiction because we only have one source? Or the fact Pliney never mentions Herculaneum in his account. Does this lack of historical accuracy negate the rest of his account?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

And perhaps the Battle Of Little Big Horn. Where US cavalry witnesses and Indian accounts of the battle conflict with each other, AND the archeology of the site

[I Ratant]

SKEPTIC magazine, Vol 2, No. 4, Micheal Shermer presents a thorough investigation of the items that point to the Holocaust..
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/archives/vol02n04.html

[MG1962]

The Holocaust, on the other hand, has at least 53,000 witnesses telling their own stories in their words. And it has documentary evidence to back it up. The two events have NOTHING in common.

And how many of these 53,000 fit into your hearsay claim. How many of the 53,000 wrote down their accounts? The camp I discussed earlier, has a total of 2 first hand accounts written by survivors.

So tell me - whats the criticical mass for the correct number of witnesses to an event, before you will accept it. And if there is not account - what do you do? It didn't happen.

Drakes voyage of the Golden Hinde contains no mention of what he or the rest of the crew ate. Does this mean they didn't eat, or the voyage is fictious because obviously no one could go that long without food.

You act as if Jesus was some giant of antiquity - that the world knew he would ultimately become the figure head of one the largest religions on the planet.

At the very least he was a second rate disident in a third rate province of the Roman Empire. No wonder no one took much notice

[Mobyseven]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mocha_Dick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaleship_Essex

Unfortunately one of my relatives is claimed to have been a crew member of this vessel

Sorry, I must say I'm a bit confused here. I was talking about Moby Dick. What, pray tell, does Mocha Dick have to do with anything? Do you believe that Moby Dick existed, or do you not?

Do you claim that the destruction of Pompei was fiction because we only have one source? Or the fact Pliney never mentions Herculaneum in his account. Does this lack of historical accuracy negate the rest of his account?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

Why on earth would I claim the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum was fiction, and where on earth did you get the idea that we have only one source for that event? Hell, we've excavated the ruins of both those cities!

You really are grabbing at straws here, and you're failing miserably.

And perhaps the Battle Of Little Big Horn. Where US cavalry witnesses and Indian accounts of the battle conflict with each other, AND the archeology of the site

I don't know a great deal about the Battle of Little Big Horn, but if I understand what you're saying, there are witnesses from both sides of the conflict and we know where it occurred? How is that at all analogous to Jesus? And indeed, why would I suggest it was fiction - the evidence (if I am to go on your word, which for the sake of the argument I will) seems to suggest that the battle did indeed take place...just because we don't know the exact movements of every participant doesn't invalidate the general fact that there were participants, and just because we don't know exactly how the battle unfolded doesn't invalidate the fact that there was a battle.

Compare that to Jesus, where you have one (at most) direct witness, the rest is all hearsay and the book itself is known to be woefully inaccurate in many other places (not to mention that the character of Jesus appears to be based upon the myths of earlier religions and cultures). Jesus doesn't even come close to being established in fact.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

And how many of these 53,000 fit into your hearsay claim. How many of the 53,000 wrote down their accounts? The camp I discussed earlier, has a total of 2 first hand accounts written by survivors.

So tell me - whats the criticical mass for the correct number of witnesses to an event, before you will accept it. And if there is not account - what do you do? It didn't happen.



Well! Now that you mention it, here are 50, 657 fully documented testimonies, all 100 percent reliable and verifiable. Including 63 from the disgusting criminals who did it, themselves:

http://tc.usc.edu/vhitc/(a5qv3ljm0eadavnyww5wnlfw)/menu.aspx

One of those happens to be my father's mother's, who also wrote an account for Israel's Holocaust memorial, as did another person close to me. Three from my family alone...but I guess that's just hearsay.

And if you're still lacking for personal testimony, there's also every document gathered by Yad Vashem, the very existence of Yad Vashem, the existence of the Claims Conference, all the documents gathered by the Red Cross, several Holocaust museums, the camps themselves, several hundred memoirs, millions of books, hundreds of documentaries, trial transcripts of hundreds of war criminals, first hand accounts from the liberators, interviews with participants from all sides involved- you know what, I actually happen to have a personal reason for knowing something about the documentation of it...so don't even talk to me about Holocaust records.

Now, I know you're just trying to hold up a historical event for which there is little documentation as proof of "lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen".

But please- pick something else to hold up as an example of your point, cause this isn't it.

The Holocause is only 100% provable! :rolleyes: is what this thread and your query boil down to, to me.

[AkuManiMani]

The main difference between the two is that the Holocaust is still in living memory, caused the deaths of several million people and directly affected the lives of millions more. Even without written records the event left an indelible mark on recent history.

But there are written records. Scads of them. I'm still confused about all of this -- is this Holocaust denial? That Hitler and the High Command were not involved because we have no written document proving that to be the case? That the event never happened, or might not have happened? Or is this about the gospel accounts?

No one in her right mind could possibly deny that all those people died. We have pictures of them. Primary source accounts of survivors and prison guards. A huge trial with documents out the wazoo. The event occurred -- the evidence is absolutely and incontrovertibly overwhelming.

You're missing my point. I was stating that theres no real comparison between the historicity of Jesus and that of the Holocaust.

[MG1962]

Sorry, I must say I'm a bit confused here. I was talking about Moby Dick. What, pray tell, does Mocha Dick have to do with anything? Do you believe that Moby Dick existed, or do you not?

Mocha Dick is Moby Dick, thats why I posted the link. Mellvile used it as the basis of his story, adding in the elements of the wreck of the Essex


Why on earth would I claim the destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum was fiction, and where on earth did you get the idea that we have only one source for that event? Hell, we've excavated the ruins of both those cities!


Because for nearly 1700 years both cities were completely lost. Both being discovered by accident in the 1700s. Hence we were left with only Pliney the Youngers excellent account of the event.


I don't know a great deal about the Battle of Little Big Horn, but if I understand what you're saying, there are witnesses from both sides of the conflict and we know where it occurred? How is that at all analogous to Jesus? And indeed, why would I suggest it was fiction - the evidence (if I am to go on your word, which for the sake of the argument I will) seems to suggest that the battle did indeed take place...just because we don't know the exact movements of every participant doesn't invalidate the general fact that there were participants, and just because we don't know exactly how the battle unfolded doesn't invalidate the fact that there was a battle.

Because there is a whole section of the battle that is disputed. While the 7th was up on the ridge - The Indians reported a section of troopers attempted a break out down the hill riding hard for a stand of trees intersected by a creek. The Indians said they cornered and eventually overwhelmed this group. To date, despite repeated efforts, no evidence of this phase of the battle has ever been found.


Compare that to Jesus, where you have one (at most) direct witness, the rest is all hearsay and the book itself is known to be woefully inaccurate in many other places (not to mention that the character of Jesus appears to be based upon the myths of earlier religions and cultures). Jesus doesn't even come close to being established in fact.

Because there is information in the Gospels that does fit what we know of the era, and is mundane enough not make a difference. I am not asking you to believe that Jesus walked on water, or rose from the dead or was the son of God, thats a whole new topic in itself. I am arguing that the basic information. A disident, who seems to have gotten a reasonable level of support before first be attacked by the Jewish leadership, then handed to the Roman Governor, before suffering a fairly standard punishment of the time.

The point I am making. Jeruselem was trashed in 70AD and again 40 years later, when the Jews were banned from living there. The first Gospels are believed to post date this event, and no one can doubt they were heavily influenced by the thinking of Paul, a man who never knew Jesus in real life.

We know that there were very heated exchanges between Paul and the surviving Apostles, who had known Jesus. That is why I believe, from a purely historic point of view. There are some elements of truth within the Gospels.

To support my arguement of the destruction of earlier documents, one only has to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls - a delberate effort to rescue sections of temple library before the destruction of 70AD - There is nothing to suggest the early Christian Jews were important enough to either have their scrolls saved, or even to be in the library in the first place.

Now to wind this post all the way back to the begining starting with Melvilles Moby Dick - lets for arguement sake say the novel is the Gospels. The point is, it is based on a true encounter with a cranky white whale. The captains name could be Bart Simpson, and the ship - Tugboat Willy, it doesn't matter. The core theme and story is the whale and human interaction with it

[Reality Check]

MG1962: Your original OP is totally wrong in this:

The Holocaust has much the same problem, we have virtually no primary written sources for the Holocaust. We do have a huge amount of secondary sources, witnesses, statistical studies, installations etc. Today a mere 60 years after the event, the evidence is obvious of the terrible injustice visited on the victims. But what will history say in 200 or 500 years.

There are many primary written sources for the Holocaust as in the previous posts. There are many eyewitness accounts which are primary sources. You should read up about the Wannsee Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_conference) - a well documented primary account of the setting up of the Final Solution.

Are there documents for every detail of the Holocaust? Of course not! The Germans were not interested in preserving records of the Holocaust and there was little thing called the Second World War going on. German bureaucracy however produced such a volume of paper that much survived.

What history will say in 200 or 500 years is probably close to what it says now. Scholars are now adept at preserving documents so the original documents will still be available. The copying of the original documents onto computer media will further preserve the history. It is even likely that this forum will be archived somewhere!

The problem is that you are comparing two different eras:
The early Christian era when there was a low literacy rate and the main preservation of history was oral.
The early twentieth century when there was a good literacy rate and the main preservation of history was written.
Are you really surprised that early Christian history was orally recorded until there was a need to write it down while the Holocaust was written down from the start?
The minor invention of the printing press should have given you a clue.

[Egg]

(not to mention that the character of Jesus appears to be based upon the myths of earlier religions and cultures).
Can you give some examples of what you mean?

[Ichneumonwasp]

You're missing my point. I was stating that theres no real comparison between the historicity of Jesus and that of the Holocaust.

Sorry, I wasn't really responding to you, though I was responding to you. I just wanted to reiterate the degree to which we have primary source material for the Holocaust.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I didn't want the Holocaust denial to continue, didn't want to give it any wiggle room.

[Loss Leader]

And how many of these 53,000 fit into your hearsay claim.


Um ... zero. Each and every one is a firsthand account told by the very person who experienced it. There is not one document by one guy that says, "These people saw this." Instead, there are 53,000 eyewitness accounts.

How many of the 53,000 wrote down their accounts?


I don't know. But they did videotape their accounts. Video of a person telling his story is much better than a written document. You can examine the eyes and face of the individual. You can watch his body language. You can hear the cadence of his speech and appreciate the emphasis that he may place on certain words. All of this helps to determine whether the person seems truthfull much, much better than a simple written account ever could.


The camp I discussed earlier, has a total of 2 first hand accounts written by survivors.


So what? How many videotaped accounts does it have? How much documentary evidence is there to back up these accounts? How does the archeological evidence support or contradict the accounts?

And even if every single story about that one camp were a calculated lie, how would that affect the truth of the Holocaust as a whole? How would it affect the eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust that have nothing to do with that one camp? Just because you cannot nail down every detail, it doesn't mean that you can assign the entire Holocaust a truth value of zero. It is possible to know something exists without knowing every detail of its existence.


So tell me - whats the criticical mass for the correct number of witnesses to an event, before you will accept it.


I don't know. One eyewitness may be sufficient if other evidence corroborates his account. A thousand eyewitnesses may be insufficient if other evidence contradicts their accounts.

On the side of the Holocaust, I have shown you tens of thousands of firsthand witness testimonials and tens of thousands of documents that attest to the truth of the testimonials. There also exists mountains of physical evidence for your investigation. While some details may remain unknown, there is no evidence whatsoever that this didn't happen. Even the Nuremberg defendants didn't deny the essential facts of the Holocaust; they just denied that they had a part in it.


And if there is not account - what do you do? It didn't happen.


if there is no evidence of a thing, the most I can say about it is that I do not know if it is true or not. Whether it happened is a completely different question from whether I can say that I know that it happened.


Drakes voyage of the Golden Hinde contains no mention of what he or the rest of the crew ate. Does this mean they didn't eat, or the voyage is fictious because obviously no one could go that long without food.


You are arguing the exact opposite of your point. You have been the one who has said that confusion about one detail negates our entire ability to decide if an event is true or not. You posted a link showing that there was dissent over the location of a crematorium. Your point was that this dissent proves that the Holocaust cannot be known to be true any more than the bible can because one detail remains unknown. Now, with this Golden Hinde anecdote, you attempt to make the opposite point.

I agree with your new position. The fact that some details are unknown does not mean that the entire event is unknown.


You act as if Jesus was some giant of antiquity - that the world knew he would ultimately become the figure head of one the largest religions on the planet. At the very least he was a second rate disident in a third rate province of the Roman Empire. No wonder no one took much notice


No, I do not act that way. All I say is that there is no evidence except for one firsthand account that jesus even existed. I don't care why there's no evidence. All I care about is that there is no evidence. Without witnesses, documents or archeology, I cannot know whether Jesus existed. It is not my concern that you are now making excuses as to why there is a lack of evidence.

[Ichneumonwasp]

MG1962,

OK, I think I see better what you are driving at, but I think both the form of the argument and the style are wrong, even if your basic point is sound.

I would leave out the Holocaust part, personally. It's not only a bad argument, but it's a dangerous one.

I also do not think that most of the folks who argue that Jesus never existed base this exclusively on the fact that there are details missing from the accounts. It is true that some of the argument begins with Paul's letters leaving out details of Jesus' actual life -- I think that is a very weak argument, personally, since the letters were occasional -- but the entire argument does not rest on that one leg (as you seem to imply). Malachi51, for instance, has developed an elaborate argument based, in part, on the lack of details in Paul's letters, but mostly on the form of the gospels themselves -- they are literary productions full of metaphor, etc. Now, I think he makes far too sweeping of a statement when he uses such evidence to suggest that Jesus never existed. I don't think the argument is that strong.

I think there is pretty good evidence that Jesus did exist, and I think so because of the same evidence that you indicate -- the presence of the early Jerusalem church and the fight with Paul, the independent attestation of James, etc.

I do think that you are correct that anyone who does argue that Jesus never existed simply because details are left out of the accounts (primarily Paul's letters) is over-stating the case.

[ImaginalDisc]

This shoddy historical thinking on the OP's part got me thinking.

If we're going to accept the historicity of Jesus by accepting hearsay some 40 years after his alleged death, in accounts that are rentlessly mutally contradictory despite not a shred of contemporaneous writing or physical evidence, why don't we accept Hercules' historicity?

Hercules too was born of a virgin. Homer describes the narrative of his life - and if we are to losen standards of evidence to assume there was a historical Jesus then there certainly was a historical Homer! Plato discusses Hercules as though he lived, and we can certainly rely on Plato, right? Hercules too was born of a Virgin, so if we accept the virgin birth of Jesus, we must accept the virgin birth of Hercules. Josephus mentions Hercules even more than he mentions Jesus in the same work! Tacitus makes an oblique reference to a "Christus" which Christians assume means Jesus Christ, but he speaks Hercules much more clearly. Those documents provide much more convincing evidence for Hercules than they do for Jesus, if we're admiting hearsay evidence. The ancient Spartans not only believed in a historical Jesus, they believed that large numbers of them were of his bloodline.

Your "point" that we accept other ancient figures on thinner evidence than we do Jesus is simply false. There are no artifacts related to Jesus from that time. There are no contemporary documents penned by Jesus or by anyone claiming to know Jesus within his life. There is no record of the leading religious figures of Jerusalem meeting during Passover of all times to conspire to kill a upstart Messiah so successful that he was given a spontaneous parade through the city. There is no evidence that he fed thousands of hungry, thousands of sick, or raised from the dead anyone as important as Lazarus. John the Batpist has a much stronger historical basis than Jesus, despite being attributed with no such miracles or far ranging success in his ministry. There is no record of Pontius Pilate executing any religious leader during that time. There is no evidence that Herod, villified by writers of his day, ever put the babies of an entire town to the sword.

In addition, the four gospels when they make specific claims about years and time are mutally conflicting, and are inconsistent with the other historical records. We cannot pinpoint a precise date for the death of Jesus because the gospels don't make mutally consistent date claims.

What we do see is a set of hearsay documents mutally cribbed off of one another that tell conflicting stoires in a version of the telephone game, which do not tell a story consistent with reality or eac hother, and cannot even agree about what happened when or where. Compare that to the works writen by Julius Cesar in his own time and writers who spoke about Alexander the Great, we see nothing so convincing about Jesus. He is more like Apollonius of Tyana, a virtually indistinguishable messiah figure of the same era whose historicity is likewise doubtful.

If you choose to compare Jesus to the Holocaust, we have artifacts from the Holocaust, we have eyewitness acounts penned during and after the events. We have documents describing the numbers of Jews deported to this or that location, and records by disturbingly cold pencil pushers about the numer of deaths involved. The body of evidence is vast and overwhelming. We have the surviving minutes of a meeting involving senior level Nazis in which they specifically decided to use gas to exterminate Jews as swiftly as possible, because guns proved expensive, slow, and demoralizing to their troops, and radioactive and surgical sterilization proved costly.

[MG1962]

MG1962,

OK, I think I see better what you are driving at, but I think both the form of the argument and the style are wrong, even if your basic point is sound.

I would leave out the Holocaust part, personally. It's not only a bad argument, but it's a dangerous one.



On reflection you are probably right. The linkage I was trying to establish with the Holocaust was the amount of primary information destroyed by the NAZI inner circle to avoid the event being pinned on them, rather than proving the event itself never happened. That sort of got submerged in the back and forth nature of the thread and thats my fault.

A little off topic, but the thought that occured to me as I was researching some of these camps. Do we really know about all of them, are there potentially Belzic style camps, that there are no witnesses for, that a waiting to be discovered



I also do not think that most of the folks who argue that Jesus never existed base this exclusively on the fact that there are details missing from the accounts. It is true that some of the argument begins with Paul's letters leaving out details of Jesus' actual life -- I think that is a very weak argument, personally, since the letters were occasional -- but the entire argument does not rest on that one leg (as you seem to imply). Malachi51, for instance, has developed an elaborate argument based, in part, on the lack of details in Paul's letters, but mostly on the form of the gospels themselves -- they are literary productions full of metaphor, etc. Now, I think he makes far too sweeping of a statement when he uses such evidence to suggest that Jesus never existed. I don't think the argument is that strong.



The thing is it ignores an historically pattern. In 132AD Bar Kokhba was declared the messiah and led the Jewish people into revolt. There is some evidence the same thing happened in 115AD, but to a lesser extent.

Reading between the lines you can almost see how it unfolded. Jesus is talking it up, the people are getting excited. Suddenly the population realise they are hearing something they dont like, the Jewish leadership, fearing Roman retribution decide to take Jesus out before things get out of hand



I think there is pretty good evidence that Jesus did exist, and I think so because of the same evidence that you indicate -- the presence of the early Jerusalem church and the fight with Paul, the independent attestation of James, etc.

I do think that you are correct that anyone who does argue that Jesus never existed simply because details are left out of the accounts (primarily Paul's letters) is over-stating the case.

And this whole issue has led me to a crisis of faith for sometime. The fact that Paul, who never knew Jesus, seems to have had a definate vision of what Chrisitanity should be. A vision very much at odds with those who knew Jesus in his life.

Most writings of the Church and the appearence of the Gospels all date well after this event and the subsequent destruction of Jersusleum. So there can be a genuine concern that Paul's Jesus never existed, but that the Jesus of James and the Apostles did.

And this I believe is one of the major sources for the inconsistencies many point to in the Gospels. Basic biographical information has been overlayed with a rich narrative to fit the vision expected.

[MG1962]

This shoddy historical thinking on the OP's part got me thinking.

If we're going to accept the historicity of Jesus by accepting hearsay some 40 years after his alleged death, in accounts that are rentlessly mutally contradictory despite not a shred of contemporaneous writing or physical evidence, why don't we accept Hercules' historicity?

Hercules too was born of a virgin. Homer describes the narrative of his life - and if we are to losen standards of evidence to assume there was a historical Jesus then there certainly was a historical Homer! Plato discusses Hercules as though he lived, and we can certainly rely on Plato, right? Hercules too was born of a Virgin, so if we accept the virgin birth of Jesus, we must accept the virgin birth of Hercules. Josephus mentions Hercules even more than he mentions Jesus in the same work! Tacitus makes an oblique reference to a "Christus" which Christians assume means Jesus Christ, but he speaks Hercules much more clearly. Those documents provide much more convincing evidence for Hercules than they do for Jesus, if we're admiting hearsay evidence. The ancient Spartans not only believed in a historical Jesus, they believed that large numbers of them were of his bloodline.

Your "point" that we accept other ancient figures on thinner evidence than we do Jesus is simply false. There are no artifacts related to Jesus from that time. There are no contemporary documents penned by Jesus or by anyone claiming to know Jesus within his life. There is no record of the leading religious figures of Jerusalem meeting during Passover of all times to conspire to kill a upstart Messiah so successful that he was given a spontaneous parade through the city. There is no evidence that he fed thousands of hungry, thousands of sick, or raised from the dead anyone as important as Lazarus. John the Batpist has a much stronger historical basis than Jesus, despite being attributed with no such miracles or far ranging success in his ministry. There is no record of Pontius Pilate executing any religious leader during that time. There is no evidence that Herod, villified by writers of his day, ever put the babies of an entire town to the sword.

In addition, the four gospels when they make specific claims about years and time are mutally conflicting, and are inconsistent with the other historical records. We cannot pinpoint a precise date for the death of Jesus because the gospels don't make mutally consistent date claims.



Yes Heracles legend couldn't possibly be over blown versions of a reali life person. It's not like its never happened before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep#Deification

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes Heracles legend couldn't possibly be over blown versions of a reali life person. It's not like its never happened before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep#Deification

:jaw-dropp

Does the irony not occur to you? Do you not see the utter lack of historical evidence for Jesus, even when compared to Hercules?

[supercorgi]

Like others who have posted here, I'm not really sure what your point is and I'm even less sure of your motivation in trying to make it.


Do you claim that the destruction of Pompei was fiction because we only have one source? Or the fact Pliney never mentions Herculaneum in his account. Does this lack of historical accuracy negate the rest of his account?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm


Um, big difference between the historicity of this event and the cruxifiction. One we have Pliny's very vivid and detailed account, two geologists can tell when and how Vesuvius erupted, three and most important - we've got the freaking buried ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum! Pliny wrote about Pompeii because that's where he was living. Although I couldn't find mention on the web, I'm sure there are other written accounts about Vesuvius exploding because such an event would have been visible from Rome.

And how many of these 53,000 fit into your hearsay claim. How many of the 53,000 wrote down their accounts? The camp I discussed earlier, has a total of 2 first hand accounts written by survivors.

Are you aware of the Shoah Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USC_Shoah_Foundation_Institute_for_Visual_History_ and_Education)? Since 1994 when Steven Spielberg founded it, they've video tapped over 52,000 testimonies from Holocaust survivors. They did this in an effort to preserve these peoples stories before the generation that went through it were all dead.

[supercorgi]

Dup post

[MG1962]

:jaw-dropp

Does the irony not occur to you? Do you not see the utter lack of historical evidence for Jesus, even when compared to Hercules?

Do you see the irony that by your standards, Imohtep doesn't either?

[bignickel]

I'm pretty sure I've seen MG1962 on Holocaust denial threads in the past, posting against the deniers. So, I think he must be well aware of 'methods of history', etc. Based on that and what I've read in this thread, I'm thinking that he's trying to make a discussion on 'how do we know what we know?', but involving the "existence of Jesus" debate.

However, it's not entirely clear, and since holocaust denial is such a red button topic, it tends to cause confusion in threads. Maybe a new thread is in order?

[Ichneumonwasp]

On reflection you are probably right. The linkage I was trying to establish with the Holocaust was the amount of primary information destroyed by the NAZI inner circle to avoid the event being pinned on them, rather than proving the event itself never happened. That sort of got submerged in the back and forth nature of the thread and thats my fault.

OK, good. You didn't really sound like a Holocaust denier, but I couldn't be sure. Got the basic point, though, so we should probably just let the Holocaust thing go.

A little off topic, but the thought that occured to me as I was researching some of these camps. Do we really know about all of them, are there potentially Belzic style camps, that there are no witnesses for, that a waiting to be discovered

I really don't know enough about it to comment.



Reading between the lines you can almost see how it unfolded. Jesus is talking it up, the people are getting excited. Suddenly the population realise they are hearing something they dont like, the Jewish leadership, fearing Roman retribution decide to take Jesus out before things get out of hand



And this whole issue has led me to a crisis of faith for sometime. The fact that Paul, who never knew Jesus, seems to have had a definate vision of what Chrisitanity should be. A vision very much at odds with those who knew Jesus in his life.

Most writings of the Church and the appearence of the Gospels all date well after this event and the subsequent destruction of Jersusleum. So there can be a genuine concern that Paul's Jesus never existed, but that the Jesus of James and the Apostles did.

And this I believe is one of the major sources for the inconsistencies many point to in the Gospels. Basic biographical information has been overlayed with a rich narrative to fit the vision expected.

Yeah, the whole "religion of Jesus" vs. the "religion about Jesus" bit. My way of trying to resolve it -- just my way -- since I grew up in the same tradition and made the conscious decision not to jettison it all, was to focus on the two commandments. But my view of God is just the universe with no personhood involved. Wonderful place.

I realize that I might be using something pushed into the gospel accounts by some Pauline sect, but Hillel said the same thing and it's in Leviticus too. That part seems like it might actually be the religion of Jesus.

[Mobyseven]

Mocha Dick is Moby Dick, thats why I posted the link. Mellvile used it as the basis of his story, adding in the elements of the wreck of the Essex

No, Moby Dick is not Mocha Dick. Moby Dick is a fictional whale, based upon the real whale Mocha Dick. You are (once again, it seems) confusing fact with fiction.

Because for nearly 1700 years both cities were completely lost. Both being discovered by accident in the 1700s. Hence we were left with only Pliney the Youngers excellent account of the event.

So? If you had asked me in the year 1500AD whether Pompeii had really existed, I may well have had good grounds to dismiss it as Roman myth were there only one written account and no corroborating evidence. But the fact of the matter is, we're in the year 2008, and there is a ridiculous amount of evidence - including the cities themselves!

Because there is a whole section of the battle that is disputed. While the 7th was up on the ridge - The Indians reported a section of troopers attempted a break out down the hill riding hard for a stand of trees intersected by a creek. The Indians said they cornered and eventually overwhelmed this group. To date, despite repeated efforts, no evidence of this phase of the battle has ever been found.

So it would be perfectly reasonable to have doubts about a certain part of the battle, but not the battle as a whole (from what you are saying)? Okay, but still not analogous to Jesus.

Because there is information in the Gospels that does fit what we know of the era, and is mundane enough not make a difference. I am not asking you to believe that Jesus walked on water, or rose from the dead or was the son of God, thats a whole new topic in itself. I am arguing that the basic information. A disident, who seems to have gotten a reasonable level of support before first be attacked by the Jewish leadership, then handed to the Roman Governor, before suffering a fairly standard punishment of the time.

The point I am making. Jeruselem was trashed in 70AD and again 40 years later, when the Jews were banned from living there. The first Gospels are believed to post date this event, and no one can doubt they were heavily influenced by the thinking of Paul, a man who never knew Jesus in real life.

We know that there were very heated exchanges between Paul and the surviving Apostles, who had known Jesus. That is why I believe, from a purely historic point of view. There are some elements of truth within the Gospels.

To support my arguement of the destruction of earlier documents, one only has to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls - a delberate effort to rescue sections of temple library before the destruction of 70AD - There is nothing to suggest the early Christian Jews were important enough to either have their scrolls saved, or even to be in the library in the first place.

All of which only serves to rationalise why there isn't any evidence, and none of which serves as evidence in itself.

You are trying to handwave away the fact that you have no evidence for the existence of Jesus by giving reasons as to why evidence and documentation may not exist. What you are not doing is providing any evidence that supports the idea that Jesus existed. Have you considered the possibility that the reason there is no evidence for Jesus is because there was no Jesus to leave evidence?

[LostAngeles]

A topic that rattles around this forum from time to time is the historical evidence of Jesus, and the lack of primary documents to support his existence (In whatever guise you choose to see him)

We know from the Bible that the early base of Christianity was in Jerusalem, we also know there was an early split in the Church led by Paul, but not seemingly supported by those who potentially could have known Christ first hand.

The Jerusalem based believers were largly wiped out by the sacking of the city in 70AD, is it reasonable to believe that a large body of primary documents were destroyed at the same time, and the gospels re-constructions years later of this information.

The Holocaust has much the same problem, we have virtually no primary written sources for the Holocaust. We do have a huge amount of secondary sources, witnesses, statistical studies, installations etc. Today a mere 60 years after the event, the evidence is obvious of the terrible injustice visited on the victims. But what will history say in 200 or 500 years.

My point is - Does a lack of primary sources prove an event could not have occured ie the existence of Jesus. And if we apply this rule, should not the Holocaust be viewed with the same level of skeptism?

If you're looking for primary sources on the Holocaust, my suggestion would be to contact the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation for starters. They maintain an archive of testimonies of people who survived the camps and witnessed what was going on. An actual witness is, in fact, a primary source.

The Survivors of the Shoah's archive is now located at that school across the freeway (Univ. of Southern California.) The website might still be www.vhf.org. I can't imagine when the project was passed to USC that they would have changed the domain name.

[godless dave]

The Holocaust has much the same problem, we have virtually no primary written sources for the Holocaust.

We have a lot more primary sources than that!


My point is - Does a lack of primary sources prove an event could not have occured ie the existence of Jesus.

Prove it? Absolutely not. You can't prove something like that. You should have picked a better example though.

[godless dave]

Simon, father of Alexander and Rufus

4 un-named Roman solider

Mary Magdalene

Mary, mother of James The Younger

Mary, mother of Jesus

Mary's sister (un-named

Mary, wife of Clopas

Obviously some of these Marys could be double ups. But I suggest a minimum of at least 6 people is a reasonable number

Those are eyewitnesses? Where are there accounts? How do you know there were eyewitnesses?


So is it so hard to believe that biographic material about Jesus, who lived in a largely illiterate society, and a society almost wiped out within a generation of his death is hard to come by.

Of course that's not hard to believe. A historical Jesus may well have existed and left no written records of his existence. But because there are no records of his existence, we can't say for sure that he existed.


Neatly ignoring that Jesus lived in a time of extremely low literacy rates, and that when he died, he was not exactly a mover or shaker in the Roman empire.

So why did you claim that those people were eyewitnesses, when you admit that they left no accounts of what they witnessed?

If you want the history of Led Zeppelin, do you go to a Pink Floyd website?

I sure as hell wouldn't use Led Zeppelin's publicist as my only source.


Do you claim that the destruction of Pompei was fiction because we only have one source? Or the fact Pliney never mentions Herculaneum in his account. Does this lack of historical accuracy negate the rest of his account?

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pompeii.htm

In the case of Pompei, we have the actual city. You can go there and see the remains of a city destroyed by a volcano.

If Pliny's account were all we had, I certainly wouldn't put much stock in it.


And perhaps the Battle Of Little Big Horn. Where US cavalry witnesses and Indian accounts of the battle conflict with each other, AND the archeology of the site

In that case we know the battle happened, but not all the details, because of the conflicting accounts you mentioned.


The thing is it ignores an historically pattern. In 132AD Bar Kokhba was declared the messiah and led the Jewish people into revolt. There is some evidence the same thing happened in 115AD, but to a lesser extent.

Reading between the lines you can almost see how it unfolded. Jesus is talking it up, the people are getting excited. Suddenly the population realise they are hearing something they dont like, the Jewish leadership, fearing Roman retribution decide to take Jesus out before things get out of hand.

Yes, that could have happened. But we have scant evidence that it did happen.

You know, there could have been a war leader in the 5th or 6th Century AD who rallied the British against Saxon encroachment. He might even have fought at the Battle of Mons Badonicus. It's even plausible that he was known by the nickname of Artos, the bear. And there are a lot of reasons why records of his existence and deeds do not survive. But that's not evidence that he did exist and do some of the things attributed to him by legend.

[Loss Leader]

I'm pretty sure I've seen MG1962 on Holocaust denial threads in the past, posting against the deniers.


I'm sure MG isn't a Holocaust denier. I don't think his point was that the Holocaust didn't happen.

However, in making his point, he exposed the real danger that we face. As the Holocaust slips into history, we'll encounter more and more relativism regarding it. "Well, the Holocaust was a thing in my history book so it's as likely to be true or false as anything else in my history book."

That type of thinking must be countered at every opportunity. To allow the Holocaust to lose meaning or to fade into the background noise of history is to invite people to repeat it.

[MG1962]

I'm sure MG isn't a Holocaust denier. I don't think his point was that the Holocaust didn't happen.

However, in making his point, he exposed the real danger that we face. As the Holocaust slips into history, we'll encounter more and more relativism regarding it. "Well, the Holocaust was a thing in my history book so it's as likely to be true or false as anything else in my history book."

That type of thinking must be countered at every opportunity. To allow the Holocaust to lose meaning or to fade into the background noise of history is to invite people to repeat it.

Thank you

And yes you make a fair point. Over time one thing the Holocaust history is going to suffer from is a sense of disbelief. The event is so huge and so evil, it is hard for people to comprehend. Even when the first reports from suvivors appeared during the war, people struggled to accept the enormority of the crime.

The secondary problem is time tends to soften the impact of events. In a past life I used to collect Encylopedia. To read entries about Napoleon from the 1840's. The language and vitriol is not dis-similar what we read of Hitler today - Yet today our perception of Napolean is a lot different.

The only thing that has changed in that period is context. And that was the root of my arguement about Jesus. Reaching back 2000 years, we can not truely understand the motives of the Gospel writers or the events surrounding Jesus' life

And sometimes we transplant our own sensibilties over our perception of events. For a time there was a lot of controversy about Ceasar bridging the Rhine river during one of his expeditions. Historians considered the event as a possiblity, but thought it was simply legend buillding.

10 years ago archeologists with a company of Royal Engineers proved Ceaser using the technology as described in the accounts could build the bridge with ease.

So it comes back to balance of probabilites. Jesus' turning water into wine or rising from the dead - well extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Chances are that evidence will never be found.

To consider him a disident who was railroaded by the local leadership, then condemed to death in a kangaroo court. Is both a common and very human story from history.

[drkitten]

To consider him a disident who was railroaded by the local leadership, then condemed to death in a kangaroo court. Is both a common and very human story from history.

Alternatively, to consider him a non-existent entity about whom legends were spun that have a slim if any basis in reality, is also both a common and very human story from history. Probably more common, if you look at the number of "actual" heroes of legend.

My understanding is that most historians today discount the existence of any historical figure corresponding in any meaningful way to King Arthur, Robin Hood, Horatio of the bridge, or William Tell --- and that "Roland" is questionable (there is only one historical reference to him). I could add to that the more clearly "magical" and therefore a-historical characters like Gilgamesh, Hercules, Theseus, and Perseus.

Why should we not include Jesus among their august numbers? The evidence is better for Roland than for Jesus -- at least we have a semi-contemporary reference that we trust, and we know that the events upon which the legend is based (fighting against the Muslims at Roncevaux Pass) were real.

[godless dave]

My personal opinion is that a preacher named Joshua lived from around 3 BC to around 30 AD, that he got a respectably sized following, and the Romans or Jewish authorities executed him. But we can't say for sure that he existed.

But what is sure is that some guy named Paul made up a religion using this Joshua's story as a starting point, whether Joshua existed or not. So ultimately it doesn't really matter if he existed or not.

[Darth Rotor]

A topic that rattles around this forum from time to time is the historical evidence of Jesus, and the lack of primary documents to support his existence (In whatever guise you choose to see him)

We know from the Bible that the early base of Christianity was in Jerusalem, we also know there was an early split in the Church led by Paul, but not seemingly supported by those who potentially could have known Christ first hand.

The Jerusalem based believers were largly wiped out by the sacking of the city in 70AD, is it reasonable to believe that a large body of primary documents were destroyed at the same time, and the gospels re-constructions years later of this information.

My point is - Does a lack of primary sources prove an event could not have occured ie the existence of Jesus. And if we apply this rule, should not the Holocaust be viewed with the same level of skeptism?
The Holocaust is a bit of a red flag that has unfortunately torpedoed your basic question. Self inflicted wound.

The slight problem your question raises is how to come up with a lead on all the things that were wrecked when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, when these possible early primary sources aren't anywhere to be found.

You seem to set yourself, or anyone, a pre failed solution set, don't you?

Paul's success is noteworthy, look at what's still around.

Where would you begin looking for pointers to those early records that you think were destroyed, lots of them being "one of a kind" diaries and doctrinal outlnes?

My brain just erupted with a "Jesus' Diaries" discovery that would be, by some skeptics and any number of others, treated the way Stern Magazine's "Hitler Diaries" were treated.

DR

[MG1962]

The Holocaust is a bit of a red flag that has unfortunately torpedoed your basic question. Self inflicted wound.



LOL - and I have admited that. The linkage I was attempting never came through in the thread, but I have applied a tourniquet around my neck so should be all good.



The slight problem your question raises is how to come up with a lead on all the things that were wrecked when the Romans sacked Jerusalem, when these possible early primary sources aren't anywhere to be found.



Well the Dead Sea scrolls point to the sort of thing I am talking about. Without those we have virtually nothing of religious writings would survive from that period. And yes it is a convenient reason, and I dont argue that. But logic would suggest. If we cant find evidence of something, we should look for possible causes. It doesn't mean the evidence had to exist, it just shows a potential it did



You seem to set yourself, or anyone, a pre failed solution set, don't you?

Paul's success is noteworthy, look at what's still around.

Where would you begin looking for pointers to those early records that you think were destroyed, lots of them being "one of a kind" diaries and doctrinal outlnes?

My brain just erupted with a "Jesus' Diaries" discovery that would be, by some skeptics and any number of others, treated the way Stern Magazine's "Hitler Diaries" were treated.

DR

Well given the nature of random discoveries in the area. The Dead Sea scrolls, the gospels of Peter and Thomas, pretty much anywhere could offer evidence. I think it is unrealistic to think we would find personal journals or diaries. I would suggest that something like an older fragment of Thomas' gospel is about the best to hope for.

[drkitten]

Well the Dead Sea scrolls point to the sort of thing I am talking about. Without those we have virtually nothing of religious writings would survive from that period. And yes it is a convenient reason, and I dont argue that. But logic would suggest. If we cant find evidence of something, we should look for possible causes. It doesn't mean the evidence had to exist, it just shows a potential it did

Well given the nature of random discoveries in the area. The Dead Sea scrolls, the gospels of Peter and Thomas, pretty much anywhere could offer evidence. I think it is unrealistic to think we would find personal journals or diaries. I would suggest that something like an older fragment of Thomas' gospel is about the best to hope for.

Let me turn it around, then. What kind of evidence would you expect to find if Jesus didn't exist? Are you setting yourself up for an unfalsifiable argument-from-ignorance, or is there actually something that might tell destroyed records from nonexistent ones?

That's the key point to all the physical evidence -- the physical evidence of Pompeii validates Pliny, and Pliny validates(somewhat) the physical evidence. In the case of the Holocaust, we have documentary evidence from the archives, the testimony of eyewitnesses, and physical remains, all telling the same story (and mutually reinforcing it).

What do we actually have for Jesus? We have no documentary evidence, no eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence. I don't see any way that Jesus is distinguishable from Robin Hood or Achilles. Why do you accept that Homer is largely fictitious, but not John?

[A Christian Sceptic]

The only thing that has changed in that period is context. And that was the root of my arguement about Jesus. Reaching back 2000 years, we can not truely understand the motives of the Gospel writers or the events surrounding Jesus' life

And sometimes we transplant our own sensibilties over our perception of events. For a time there was a lot of controversy about Ceasar bridging the Rhine river during one of his expeditions. Historians considered the event as a possiblity, but thought it was simply legend buillding.


Hey -

You might find these books interesting:

Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Historians-Gospels-Michael-Grant/dp/0684818671/) by Professor Michael Grant

My Review here on JREF is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104627).

The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Movement-Religious/dp/0060677015/) by Professor Rodney Stark

and

The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology 3rd edition (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-World-Insights-Anthropology/dp/0664222951/) by Professor Bruce J. Malina


You might be pleasently surprised about what we can understand about the motivations of the Mediterranean people of the First Century and specifically the early Christians.

[Egg]

What do we actually have for Jesus? We have no documentary evidence, no eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence. I don't see any way that Jesus is distinguishable from Robin Hood or Achilles.

From my understanding, it is only a tiny minority of scholars and historians who have tried to make any kind of case for Jesus not ever existing as a real human being, Earl Doherty being the only one who has submitted a paper to a respected journal, which has its critics and is yet to be peer reviewed. Most mainstream scholars appear to be satisfied with the evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[ImaginalDisc]

From my understanding, it is only a tiny minority of scholars and historians who have tried to make any kind of case for Jesus not ever existing as a real human being, Earl Doherty being the only one who has submitted a paper to a respected journal, which has its critics and is yet to be peer reviewed. Most mainstream scholars appear to be satisfied with the evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

That's nice. Is there any actual evidence that such a man existed?

[MG1962]

Let me turn it around, then. What kind of evidence would you expect to find if Jesus didn't exist? Are you setting yourself up for an unfalsifiable argument-from-ignorance, or is there actually something that might tell destroyed records from nonexistent ones?

That's the key point to all the physical evidence -- the physical evidence of Pompeii validates Pliny, and Pliny validates(somewhat) the physical evidence. In the case of the Holocaust, we have documentary evidence from the archives, the testimony of eyewitnesses, and physical remains, all telling the same story (and mutually reinforcing it).

What do we actually have for Jesus? We have no documentary evidence, no eyewitnesses, and no physical evidence. I don't see any way that Jesus is distinguishable from Robin Hood or Achilles. Why do you accept that Homer is largely fictitious, but not John?

I have never claimed Homer is largely fictious. As with the Gospels, there is a basic under current of truth in the Illiad. The origins of the Illiad do parrallel the evolution of the Gospels. My understanding is the Illiad appears to be the end result of a long oral tradition, finally committed to paper.

The issue of authorship wether it be Homer or John is not as important as the information contained. And Robin Hood could be a lot closer to reality than we realise. Tony Robinson did an excellent documentary on the topic. He identified a number of people as potential origins of the story, one in particular he was convinced was the real life Robin Hood.

The question of finding proof Jesus didn't exist is an interesting one, and yes I dont know what evidence would be needed. On the other hand I am not claiming definitive proof he did, but that a high level of probability that he did.

[MG1962]

Hey -

You might find these books interesting:

Jesus: An Historians Review of the Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Historians-Gospels-Michael-Grant/dp/0684818671/) by Professor Michael Grant

My Review here on JREF is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104627).

The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Christianity-Marginal-Movement-Religious/dp/0060677015/) by Professor Rodney Stark

and

The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology 3rd edition (http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-World-Insights-Anthropology/dp/0664222951/) by Professor Bruce J. Malina


You might be pleasently surprised about what we can understand about the motivations of the Mediterranean people of the First Century and specifically the early Christians.

Thanks, from your review of Grants book it looks well worth the effort. I particularly like your history teacher's observation. The meaning of Jesus' spiritiuality is the subject of not only a seperate thread, but whole website lol

[Egg]

That's nice. Is there any actual evidence that such a man existed?

Do you have a good reason to suspect that the general consensus of the experts on the subject is not based on any "actual evidence"?

[ImaginalDisc]

Do you have a good reason to suspect that the general consensus of the experts on the subject is not based on any "actual evidence"?

Because there is none. There is nothing writen about him for 30 years until after he is alleged to have died. No eye witness account. No records of Pontius Pilate executing a religious leader such as him. No record of Herod killing all the babies of a town. No mutually consistent timeline between the gospels.

There's nothing.

I'm not interested in the opinions of anyone, only the facts. The facts are that there's no evidence he lived, and if you relax the standards of evidence to accept Jesus, you must accept Hercules under the same standards.

[MG1962]

Because there is none. There is nothing writen about him for 30 years until after he is alleged to have died. No eye witness account. No records of Pontius Pilate executing a religious leader such as him. No record of Herod killing all the babies of a town. No mutually consistent timeline between the gospels.

There's nothing.

I'm not interested in the opinions of anyone, only the facts. The facts are that there's no evidence he lived, and if you relax the standards of evidence to accept Jesus, you must accept Hercules under the same standards.

Second time you have raised this point, second time I have responded. There is no reason to disbelieve that Hercules was not based on an historic figure - As I pointed out earlier - which you also ignored - It has happened before

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

[Mobyseven]

Second time you have raised this point, second time I have responded. There is no reason to disbelieve that Hercules was not based on an historic figure - As I pointed out earlier - which you also ignored - It has happened before

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep

How curious. I'm sure you implied that there was evidence that Hercules existed, and yet the Wikipedia link takes me to some Egyptian chap's page...

I'm dying to know - is this the part where you say, "Haha! Sucked you all in!" and present us with evidence that Jesus existed, or does this special pleading festival go on for another few pages first?

[Egg]

If we're going to accept the historicity of Jesus by accepting hearsay some 40 years after his alleged death, in accounts that are rentlessly mutally contradictory despite not a shred of contemporaneous writing or physical evidence, why don't we accept Hercules' historicity?


Because there is none. There is nothing writen about him for 30 years until after he is alleged to have died.

Down from 40 to 30 years in a couple of posts. Do I hear 20?
The Didache (http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm)
1 Thessalonians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1thessalonians.html)
Both documents commonly dated to around 50 C.E.

This feels a bit like when creationists insist that there's "no evidence" for macro evolution. There's plenty of evidence (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/). It's just that it takes a scholarly approach and a lot of comparing of different texts, and other than one or two fringe historians and a bunch of CTish Christ-mythers, most agree that behind all of the writings was an actual historical figure.

The things you mention which aren't there would only be relevant if the evidence was there that contradicted such things. For instance, it's not like we have Pilate's execution records and Jesus is conspicuously absent. We don't have these records at all.

Check out the links ACS offered. Also, the work of John P. Meier (http://www.amazon.com/Marginal-Jew-Rethinking-Historical-Problem/dp/0385264259/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208597070&sr=1-1), E.P.Sanders (http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/0140144994/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b) and M.A.Powell (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-As-Figure-History-Historians/dp/0664257038/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1) .

[MG1962]

How curious. I'm sure you implied that there was evidence that Hercules existed, and yet the Wikipedia link takes me to some Egyptian chap's page...

I'm dying to know - is this the part where you say, "Haha! Sucked you all in!" and present us with evidence that Jesus existed, or does this special pleading festival go on for another few pages first?

Clearly you didn't read the orginal post either - I used Imhotep as an example of how a legend can out strip a man.

[ImaginalDisc]

Down from 40 to 30 years in a couple of posts. Do I hear 20?
The Didache (http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm)
1 Thessalonians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1thessalonians.html)


Those documents make no reference to a person such as Jesus, they make no reference to his life. The Gospels date from 30 years after his death, at the earliest. The most parsimonious explanation is that Jesus was always an entirely mythological, spiritual figure, such as the holy ghost and Yaweh.


The best explanation to fit the facts - given that there is more evidence for John the Baptist than for Jesus, is that there never was a real Jesus, but that the story of his "life" was created from whole cloth, using common attributes of messiah figures, and that Christianity existed earlier, worshiping Jesus as an entirely supernatural figure. Paul mentions only Jesus's death and rebirth - a common theme in contemporary religions - not a whisper about his being an earthly figure.

Evidence for Jesus (in order of decreasing persuasive power) would consist of physical evidence (lacking), contemporary eyewitness accounts (lacking), later reports of Jesus which would internally consistent (lacking), mutually consistent (lacking), and consistent with what we know about the events of the era derived from other sources (lacking.)

Ergo, we have no evidence that there was ever any such person as Jesus.

[drkitten]

I have never claimed Homer is largely fictious. As with the Gospels, there is a basic under current of truth in the Illiad. The origins of the Illiad do parrallel the evolution of the Gospels. My understanding is the Illiad appears to be the end result of a long oral tradition, finally committed to paper.

... and the best conclusions of scholarship is that the wars with Troy happened --- several times (I think the walls of Troy were burned something like seven times and rebuilt), but there's no reason to believe any of the narrative content in the Illiad. Troy existed --- but did Paris? Helen? Achilles? Odysseus?

The conclusions of scholars is that they probably didn't.


The issue of authorship wether it be Homer or John is not as important as the information contained. And Robin Hood could be a lot closer to reality than we realise.

"Could be." Tony Robinson is one person who found a good angle for a documentary that would catch people's interest. This is the same "public" that buys books like "the science of Harry Potter." The almost unanimous opinion of scholars is that Robin Hood, the outlaw and archer, did not exist.





The question of finding proof Jesus didn't exist is an interesting one, and yes I dont know what evidence would be needed. On the other hand I am not claiming definitive proof he did, but that a high level of probability that he did.

Yes. And your ONLY argument for "high level of probability" is that the story of his persecution and trial is a common one. Based on that, the story of Achilles' death in battle is even more common. The story of Harry Potter being maltreated by his adoptive parents is also even more common. Harry Potter is also set in a world dominated by real places (such as London).

I claim that there is no possible way that you can claim that "there is a high probability that Jesus existed" without being forced to conclude that there is an equally high probability that Harry Potter exists.

[A Christian Sceptic]

Those documents make no reference to a person such as Jesus, they make no reference to his life.

Added because I quoted the wrong section.

Paul mentions only Jesus's death and rebirth - a common theme in contemporary religions - not a whisper about his being an earthly figure.



Paul mentions Jesus having a human birth.

Paul also affirms Jesus lived as a man (human) and then died on the cross. (and then rose from the dead)

[drkitten]

Paul mentions Jesus having a human birth.

Paul also affirms Jesus lived as a man (human) and then died on the cross. (and then rose from the dead)

Tolkien mentions Aragorn having a human birth. Tolkein also affirms that
Aragorn lived as a man (human), became King of Minas Tirith, and then
died in his bed with his (elven) wife at his side.

Rowling mentions Harry Potter as having a human childhood (and presumably a human birth, although that doesn't get mentioned) and affirms that his parents died while he was just a baby and he was raised by his aunt and uncle.

Rex Stout mentions Nero Wolfe having a human birth (in Montenegro). He also affirms that Wolfe lived as a man (human) in New York City and worked as a detective with the hobbies of gourmet cooking and orchid gardening. He also affirms that Wolfe never aged -- he was exactly the same age in 1970 as he was in 1940, which is a miracle up there with rising from the dead.

Why should I believe Paul was telling the truth, when I don't believe Tolkien, Rowling, or Stout?

[A Christian Sceptic]

Tolkien mentions Aragorn having a human birth. Tolkein also affirms that
Aragorn lived as a man (human), became King of Minas Tirith, and then
died in his bed with his (elven) wife at his side.

Rowling mentions Harry Potter as having a human childhood (and presumably a human birth, although that doesn't get mentioned) and affirms that his parents died while he was just a baby and he was raised by his aunt and uncle.

Rex Stout mentions Nero Wolfe having a human birth (in Montenegro). He also affirms that Wolfe lived as a man (human) in New York City and worked as a detective with the hobbies of gourmet cooking and orchid gardening. He also affirms that Wolfe never aged -- he was exactly the same age in 1970 as he was in 1940, which is a miracle up there with rising from the dead.

Why should I believe Paul was telling the truth, when I don't believe Tolkien, Rowling, or Stout?

I was responding to ImaginalDisc's claim he and others make often that Paul never talks about Jesus as a human and as historical.

Whether you think Paul was trustworthy is another matter - you'll have to use whateverr criteria you use to determine peoples trustworthiness.

[MG1962]

Yes. And your ONLY argument for "high level of probability" is that the story of his persecution and trial is a common one. Based on that, the story of Achilles' death in battle is even more common. The story of Harry Potter being maltreated by his adoptive parents is also even more common. Harry Potter is also set in a world dominated by real places (such as London).

I claim that there is no possible way that you can claim that "there is a high probability that Jesus existed" without being forced to conclude that there is an equally high probability that Harry Potter exists.

Then you should have little trouble showing me that the Gospels fit into the conventions of the day for story telling

[Loss Leader]

Then you should have little trouble showing me that the Gospels fit into the conventions of the day for story telling


Perhaps Dr. K would have little trouble doing so. It certainly fits with my understanding of the storytelling conventions back then.

However, I still don't see why anyone should have to.

You are explaining why there is no evidence of a thing.

That's skipping a step. And it's begging the question. Even if there's a good reason why there is no evidence, it still doesn't excuse the fact that there is no evidence. Without evidence, we cannot conclude that a thing is true. Ever.

Coming up with a reason why there is no evidence might stop us from concluding that a thing is definitely not true. But no one is arguing that here. All we are saying is that there is insufficient evidence to determine that it is true.

You can't seriously argue that there is sufficient credible evidence to determine that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God.

[Egg]

Those documents make no reference to a person such as Jesus, they make no reference to his life. The Gospels date from 30 years after his death, at the earliest. The most parsimonious explanation is that Jesus was always an entirely mythological, spiritual figure, such as the holy ghost and Yaweh. Is it common for a mythical person to give extensive teachings?

The best explanation to fit the facts - given that there is more evidence for John the Baptist than for Jesus, is that there never was a real Jesus, but that the story of his "life" was created from whole cloth, using common attributes of messiah figuresWhat sort of common attributes are you referring to?

and that Christianity existed earlier, worshiping Jesus as an entirely supernatural figure.Earlier than what? What evidence is there for this?

Paul mentions only Jesus's death and rebirth - a common theme in contemporary religions - not a whisper about his being an earthly figure.That's just not true, as ACS pointed out.

Evidence for Jesus (in order of decreasing persuasive power) would consist of physical evidence (lacking), contemporary eyewitness accounts (lacking), later reports of Jesus which would internally consistent (lacking), mutually consistent (lacking), and consistent with what we know about the events of the era derived from other sources (lacking.)

Ergo, we have no evidence that there was ever any such person as Jesus.So are you saying that a few inconsistencies between reports means that we should dismiss the reports as no evidence at all?

[Loss Leader]

Is it common for a mythical person to give extensive teachings?


Yes.

Mary Poppins.
That paper clip characted in Windows 98.
Norman Thayer, Jr. (as regards fishing)
Gulliver
Ms. Daisy (as regards reading gravestones)

[Thunder]

Hundreds of thousands of people witnessed the camps and had relatives disapear. Many of these folks are still alive today and can give eyewitness testimony.

How many folks wrote down their eyewitness testimony of Jesus?

[MG1962]

Perhaps Dr. K would have little trouble doing so. It certainly fits with my understanding of the storytelling conventions back then.

However, I still don't see why anyone should have to.

You are explaining why there is no evidence of a thing.

That's skipping a step. And it's begging the question. Even if there's a good reason why there is no evidence, it still doesn't excuse the fact that there is no evidence. Without evidence, we cannot conclude that a thing is true. Ever.

Coming up with a reason why there is no evidence might stop us from concluding that a thing is definitely not true. But no one is arguing that here. All we are saying is that there is insufficient evidence to determine that it is true.

You can't seriously argue that there is sufficient credible evidence to determine that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God.

Feel free to point out in any of my posts where I have claimed he was the son of God

[MG1962]

Hundreds of thousands of people witnessed the camps and had relatives disapear. Many of these folks are still alive today and can give eyewitness testimony.

How many folks wrote down their eyewitness testimony of Jesus?

How many literate people saw Jesus?

[drkitten]

Then you should have little trouble showing me that the Gospels fit into the conventions of the day for story telling

You are right, I would not. I'd start by referring you to the work of Jocelyn McWhirter in The Bridegroom Messiah.

But before I bothered to do that, I would want to know if is any evidence that the Gospels are anything BUT a story. Or more accurately, since i already have an opinion on that, I'd want to know what actual EVIDENCE you have to change my opinion. Uninformed speculation about how the world MIGHT have been, however, doesn't count. Harry Potter MIGHT be based on a pet unicorn of Rowling's, but I see no reason to waste time looking through Scottish stables....

[drkitten]

How many literate people saw Jesus?


The Romans were consummate record-keepers. Are you suggesting that Pilate didn't bother to keep track of the people who came up before him in court? That would have been a capital offense under Roman law.

[Egg]

Is it common for a mythical person to give extensive teachings?


Yes.

Mary Poppins.
That paper clip characted in Windows 98.
Norman Thayer, Jr. (as regards fishing)
Gulliver
Ms. Daisy (as regards reading gravestones)

Perhaps I should have said "mythical figures of antiquity" or maybe "mythical religious figures". I was meaning the kinds of figures that Jesus is being compared to. If you Google "the teachings of", you'll see my point.

[Loss Leader]

You can't seriously argue that there is sufficient credible evidence to determine that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God.


Feel free to point out in any of my posts where I have claimed he was the son of God


Feel free to stop deliberately misreading posts so that you don't have to deal with the parts you don't like. I said, "You can't seriously argue that there is sufficient credible evidence to determine that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was the son of God." So, rather than look for an escape hatch that you hope is buried in my sentence, deal with the actual statement: I believe that you cannot seriously argue that there is sufficient, credible evidence to determine Jesus even existed.

Start there instead of trying to squeeze your way out of the bathroom window of intelectually dishonesty you found half-open in the back.

[Loss Leader]

How many literate people saw Jesus?
Perhaps I should have said "mythical figures of antiquity" or maybe "mythical religious figures". I was meaning the kinds of figures that Jesus is being compared to. If you Google "the teachings of", you'll see my point.


Dear Mssrs. Egg and MG:

This is roughly the seventh time I've written this:

It is not our problem why there is a lack of credible evidence. It is not our place to speculate on what types of non-evidence might have been created instead. It is not our position to wonder what people two thousand years ago may have done.

Our only job is to ask whether there is sufficient credible evidence that a thing is true.

Please stop making excuses. Either present credible, testable evidence of the existence of Jesus or STOP MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT HIM. It really can't get much simpler.

[Egg]

Dear Mssrs. Egg and MG:

This is roughly the seventh time I've written this:

It is not our problem why there is a lack of credible evidence. It is not our place to speculate on what types of non-evidence might have been created instead. It is not our position to wonder what people two thousand years ago may have done.

Our only job is to ask whether there is sufficient credible evidence that a thing is true.

Please stop making excuses. Either present credible, testable evidence of the existence of Jesus or STOP MAKING CLAIMS ABOUT HIM. It really can't get much simpler.
What claims was I making about him?
I was questioning the claim that this well documented (for the time) figure is just a human invented myth - a claim which goes against the general consensus of historical scholarship. I was asking "whether there is sufficient credible evidence that a thing is true".

[A Christian Sceptic]

So - let's take the idea that Jesus was only a myth.

Who specifically started it? The 12 Apostles? Paul? Someone else? Where there Christians before Paul?

Where the people who started it only myths?

Then who started the myths of the original starters of the Jesus myth?

At some point someone real had to be involved - who? why?

Where the people who wrote the gospels friends with Paul? How come people trusted Paul? If they didn't trust Paul how do you know?

How come the early Christians accepted Pauls writings plus the gospels (if they are contradictory i.e. Gospels represent a historical figure and Paul doesn't)? And why even represent him (Jesus) in history - why do something like that when simply putting him into an undetermined time would work just as well? And how come the early Christians didn't believe Jesus was a myth? Or that he hadn't lived as a physical human?

You'd think that the conspirators would have made documents that didn't resemble people remembering things and instead resembled a more organized effort.

Thanks

[Loss Leader]

You'd think that the conspirators would have made documents that didn't resemble people remembering things and instead resembled a more organized effort.



Once again, it is not our problem to try to figure out why anybody behaved in any particular way 2,000 years ago. It is not our problem that there might be motives or reasons for the lack of evidence. Our only problem right now is that there is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Jesus ever existed.

[drkitten]

So - let's take the idea that Jesus was only a myth.

Okay, let's. Any time you're ready.


Who specifically started it? The 12 Apostles? Paul? Someone else? Where there Christians before Paul?

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?


Where the people who started it only myths??

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?



Then who started the myths of the original starters of the Jesus myth??

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?



At some point someone real had to be involved - who? why??

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?



Where the people who wrote the gospels friends with Paul? How come people trusted Paul? If they didn't trust Paul how do you know??

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?



How come the early Christians accepted Pauls writings plus the gospels (if they are contradictory i.e. Gospels represent a historical figure and Paul doesn't)??

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?

And why even represent him (Jesus) in history - why do something like that when simply putting him into an undetermined time would work just as well? ?

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?

And how come the early Christians didn't believe Jesus was a myth? Or that he hadn't lived as a physical human??

We don't know. How does our ignorance make it less credible that Jesus was a myth?


This whole post is one huge argument-from-ignorance. The fact that I can't tell you why Conan Doyle believed in fairies does not mean that fairies are real. The fact that I can't tell you which myths the names Gimli and Gandalf were taken from doesn't mean that they were real people. The fact that I can't tell you why Rowling uses dog Latin for her magical spells doesn't mean that Hogwarts is a real place.

[Mobyseven]

Clearly you didn't read the orginal post either - I used Imhotep as an example of how a legend can out strip a man.

I'm sorry - I must have given you the impression that I genuinely didn't understand, when in fact I meant to convey the fact that I'm well aware of the example you gave in your OP, but that it still doesn't prove the existence of Hercules, nor the existence of Jesus.

If we are discussing Hercules, it is not enough to merely say that it could be that a real man called Hercules existed and that a legend then arose and 'outstripped the man'. One must offer some kind of evidence that the man known as Hercules actually existed - offering information about Imhotep doesn't have any bearing on the situation.

Similarly, if we are discussing Jesus, the onus is upon you to produce some sort of evidence that Jesus actually existed. You can make excuses and rationalisations until you are blue in the face about why the evidence may have been lost or destroyed, but it doesn't change the fact that absent any evidence there is no compelling reason to believe in the existence of Jesus.

[I Ratant]

John Henry... Steel driving man.
Paul Bunyan.. lumberjack, with an odd animal.
Davy Crockett.. self-made hero.
There's fact and fiction in these guys. Time makes them more than they were.
Herc? Why not? Someone can always outdo someone else and be remembered for it, good or bad.
JC?.. A minor street-corner shouter who attracted some interest at the time, and was a handy starting point for a religious movement needing a hero.

[drkitten]

John Henry... Steel driving man.
Paul Bunyan.. lumberjack, with an odd animal.
Davy Crockett.. self-made hero.
There's fact and fiction in these guys. Time makes them more than they were.

In those guys, yes.

But you can't generalize it:


Herc? Why not?

Wrong question. The question is "why"?

We know some heroes are based on fact. We know some heroes (Peter Pan, Frodo Baggins) are made up out of whole cloth. For others, we simply don't know.



Someone can always outdo someone else and be remembered for it, good or bad.

Yes, someone can. But that doesn't mean that someone did.


JC?.. A minor street-corner shouter who attracted some interest at the time, and was a handy starting point for a religious movement needing a hero.

And Frodo Baggins was.... a minor postman who was rather short, but a handy starting point for a down on his luck Oxford prof?

Or was Frodo Baggins simply a creation of someone's fertile brain?

[I Ratant]

Herc? Why not?
Wrong question. The question is "why"?
.
Ona cause some (most?) people like to hear stories about other people larger than life, both to fantasize about and sometimes use as role models.
It can go wrong. I recall reading a film critic eulogizing John Wayne, of all people with "I often ask myself in a situation what would the Duke do?".. Egad!
Smoke a carton of cigs and snort a fifth of booze, most often!
Stories like Hercules have a sense of wonderment and sometimes an undercurrent of "this is the right way to do things" as a moral.
Sugar coating the ethics with something enjoyable and worth remembering.

[pastime]

If I remember correctly, Herodotus traced the lineage of Leonidas of Sparta back to Heracles. Nobody seriously doubts that Leonidas is a historical personage. So there you go. What more proof is needed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas

[Loss Leader]

If I remember correctly, Herodotus traced the lineage of Leonidas of Sparta back to Heracles. Nobody seriously doubts that Leonidas is a historical personage. So there you go. What more proof is needed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas



You remember that? How old are you?

[drkitten]

If I remember correctly, Herodotus traced the lineage of Leonidas of Sparta back to Heracles. Nobody seriously doubts that Leonidas is a historical personage. So there you go. What more proof is needed?


How do you know that Herodotus is a real person, huh?

[pastime]

As I was on my way to lunch today, I was thinking, "I should have used a smiley." :)