Mythical Christ

[TruthInCatholocism]

Events in the Bible..Including the Gospels have accured >.<

Up until 1961 Atheist and other Sceptics argued...Pontious Pilot Never Existed..But when faced with Fact backed down...In 1961 Caesarea Maritima ( a itlaian Historian expedidioner) found a Stone S TIBERIEUM PONTIUS PILATUS PRAEFECTUS IUDAEAE.(Tiberium Pontius Pilate,Prefect of Judea)

Nailing to the Cross.....
In 1968(or 69..O_O dont remeber) a man that was crucified Mid 1st century AD
was discovered

"The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels...the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm."
(Expeditioner)

"...an inscription has been found from the time of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37) that names Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus."

Refernce Luke 3:1 for above statment

Was Nazereth a real city....
Michael Avi-Yonah at Caesarea in 1962 unearthed a tablet with the name "Nazareth" contained on it.

and in the early 1950's Archeologists Idenified A settlement were Nazereth "would have been" that was in existiance atleast 900 years before Christ

Jospehus (only one scholars remotly Question)
Thallus
Phlegon
Pliny the Younger
Cornelius Tacitus
Suetonius
Mara Bar-Serapion


Now Historical Facts as well

John The Baptists Lived....
John baptized with water for remission of sins.......
John was put to death by Herod .......
Jesus was called Christ
Jesus lived
Jesus was a teacher
Jesus had Gentile followers
Jesus Was Condemened
There were earthquakes at the death of Jesus
Jesus as King of the Jews

all these things are found in Ancient Historian DOcuments dating back before 70 AD

Early Church Fathers dating back to 30 AD
(obviously Talk about Jesus' Life)

Clement Of rome
Ignatius
Epistle of Barnabas
Aristides
Justyn Martyr

You are aware that no Credible Contemparary Scholar still Holds the Claim that there was no historical Jesus.... Last century it was big... But now the Evidence has become overwhelming

So stop Questioning the Historical Christ... The Claim that he didnt exist is Pointless

Searching for the Spirtual Christ.....

Continue that search

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence.

I've never understood that idea, it seems totally illogical to me.

We have no evidence of planets in the Andromeda galaxy, does that mean planets are absent from the Andromeda galaxy?

< -- snip -- >​

But the probative value of that 'evidence' is fully a function of the improbability of such absence. I have no way of knowing what, if anything, you know about 2nd Temple Period Judaism. I suspect very little. But the fact is "the nearly totally lack [sic!] of any record" of a circa 30 CE Jewish sect leader is far, far from atypical or noteworthy.

So i totally agree with this, i guess i just dislike that sentence. It seems rather unscientific to me.

With all due respect to Carl Sagan, I would distinguish between ...

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.​

and

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.​

While I agree with the second formulation, I find the first to be at best problematic.

What if we were to start by loosely defining 'evidence' as facts/information gathered to support or undermine a proposition? The absence of evidence for planets in the Andromeda galaxy is relevent information - relevant in that it is a fact that warrants consideration and response. The absence of references to Jesus in the works of Philo is relevant information - relevant in that it warrants consideration and response.

As hinted at above, the assertion that "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is attributed to Carl Sagan. I find a bit of irony in this. When I was much younger, I read Intelligent Life in the Universe, co-authored by Sagan and I. S. Shklovskii. I recall enjoying it immensely. Among other things, the authors do a wonderful job debunking the UFO craze. They note that hundreds upon hundreds of astronomers closely monitor and photograph every segment of the night sky on a daily basis, and that the total absence of scientific evidence supporting alien visitation is more than sufficient to render such claims qualitatively unlikely. And why? Because one would fully expect such evidence to exist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Events in the Bible..Including the Gospels have accured >.< ...

Good grief ...

Up until 1961 Atheist and other Sceptics argued...Pontious Pilot Never Existed..But when faced with Fact backed down...

Absolute nonsense! Pilot is mentioned by both Josephus and Philo. Please cite those "Atheist and other Sceptics [who] argued...Pontious Pilot Never Existed..But when faced with Fact backed down".

 

[PureX]

Myths exist because they represent some significant truth for a whole culture. Most myths also have some grounding in actual events, though the accuracy of the retelling of these events is subservient to the story serving as a convayance for a significant concept of "truth", and so the facts of the original events are very often altered to better convey that truth.

The key is to remember that myths are convayance mechanisms for ideas that people consider significant truths. The relative factuality of the myth is basically irrelevant, just as the factuality of any story-lesson is irrelevant.

None of this tells us much about Jesus, though. Probability and reason would suggest that Jesus did actually exist, but that the stories of his life and death have been altered and exaggerated to better convey the ideals and truths of the cultures that use them.

 

[Halcyon]

What if we were to start by loosely defining 'evidence' as facts/information gathered to support or undermine a proposition? The absence of evidence for planets in the Andromeda galaxy is relevent information - relevant in that it is a fact that warrants consideration and response. The absence of references to Jesus in the works of Philo is relevant information - relevant in that it warrants consideration and response.

Indeed.

As hinted at above, the assertion that "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is attributed to Carl Sagan. I find a bit of irony in this. When I was much younger, I read Intelligent Life in the Universe, co-authored by Sagan and I. S. Shklovskii. I recall enjoying it immensely. Among other things, the authors do a wonderful job debunking the UFO craze. They note that hundreds upon hundreds of astronomers closely monitor and photograph every segment of the night sky on a daily basis, and that the total absence of scientific evidence supporting alien visitation is more than sufficient to render such claims qualitatively unlikely. And why? Because one would fully expect such evidence to exist.

I see what you are saying, however, while i am willing to ignore one possibility in favour of another with supportive evidence, i am unwilling to jump to the further conclusion that the possibility lacking evidence is an impossibility - which is how i read the statement "The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence."

This quote from wikipedia explains my position, possibly better than i ever could (emphasis mine);

An adage regarding this fallacy [argument from ignorance] from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case&#8212;it is simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I see what you are saying, however, while i am willing to ignore one possibility in favour of another with supportive evidence, i am unwilling to jump to the further conclusion that the possibility lacking evidence is an impossibility - which is how i read the statement "The absence of evidence is always evidence of absence."

Then let us both accept the fact that what you read into the statement is not what was intended.

 

[Halcyon]

Possibly. But evidence is an observable aspect of a phenomena, it's existence supports the reality of said phenomena.

Lack of evidence is not evidence, it's lack of evidence. Evidence is a positive not a negative, no-one has ever proven anything through a lack of evidence because we cannot run statistical analysis on a lack.
To scientifically show an absence of something, we need to find evidence of the absence i.e. something observable that directly opposes the phenomena's existence.

To go back to the apple in the box again.
If we shake the box, a rattle is evidence of the apple, no rattle is evidence of no apple. Looking in the box and seeing the apple is evidence in favour of it's existence, observing the box empty is evidence of its non-existence, its not a lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence is having literally nothing to base your conclusion of absence upon. It is not evidence in itself.

 

[Booko]

ALso damning for the historicity of the supposed Jesus is the nearly totally lack of any record of his supposed life from his birth to age 30, except for the one highly dubious engagement with temple scholars. What was the son of god doing all these years - twiddling his supernatural thumbs?

Reading the quote Jay put out there from scepticwiki (thanks, Jay) and it's mention of Jesus' brothers reminds me that there are descendents of those brothers living in Israel right now.

Perhaps you should pop in and ask about their family tree. I don't know about your family tree. In mine, I'm sure there are tales that have been embroidered over the years, but I've not yet found that we've invented ancestors out of whole cloth.

People in that part of the world are terribly serious about ancestry. Please explain how they could've gotten their own family so wrong as to add a completely fictional figure.

 

[Booko]

re: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I've never understood that idea, it seems totally illogical to me.

Only if you take the next leap and assume that absence of evidence is proof of absence, which is what I've seen a couple of people do here.

We have no evidence of planets in the Andromeda galaxy, does that mean planets are absent from the Andromeda galaxy?

No, it means it's possible that there actually are no planets in Andromeda. Given the nature of what we've found in our own galaxy though, is that probable?

So i totally agree with this, i guess i just dislike that sentence. It seems rather unscientific to me.

Meh. Language is not especially scientific.

 

[Booko]

Events in the Bible..Including the Gospels have accured >.<

Erm...a little off topic here, but there's an inverse relationship between the amount of contrast the font color provides with the background color and my liklihood to actually read the post.

You might want to try something a little darker, if your intent is to have your posts read.

 

[Halcyon]

Only if you take the next leap and assume that absence of evidence is proof of absence, which is what I've seen a couple of people do here.

No, i mean it's illogical to take a lack of evidence as evidence supporting a lack, it's totally unscientific and unreasonable.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

Erm...a little off topic here, but there's an inverse relationship between the amount of contrast the font color provides with the background color and my liklihood to actually read the post.

You might want to try something a little darker, if your intent is to have your posts read.

I Appologize... This is a discussion of about Christ... and the search for the Historical Christ... Right? ;D

If it is..then I dont see why Proving through Historical Research That Events of the Bible occured... Wouldnt that Credit The Gospels...Crediting The main Point of the Gospel Jesus?

And Orange yellow is my Favorite Color..If i wanted my Posts read id use Red
I always assumed my posts were read

 

[Halcyon]

And Orange yellow is my Favorite Color..If i wanted my Posts read id use Red
I always assumed my posts were read

She's just saying that orange script on a tan background is not easy on the eyes, and that perhaps out of courtesy you may wish to change the colour of your text for the benefit of other forum users.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Possibly. But evidence is an observable aspect of a phenomena, it's existence supports the reality of said phenomena.

Lack of evidence is not evidence, it's lack of evidence.

I'm not interested in playing sophomoric word games with you, Halcyon. If you don't like my formulation, reject it and move on ...

 

[logician]

The invisible Jesus:



"

They Should Have Noticed​

John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived: Josephus
Philo-Jud&#230;us
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Ph&#230;drus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity."

 

[PureX]

The invisible Jesus:



"

They Should Have Noticed​

John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

The problem is that every one of these people can attest only to a Jesus that they heard about from other people, or read about in early gospels. They can't attest to Jesus the actual man.

As far as I know, there is no actual evidence of the existence of an actual human being named Jesus who went around preaching, or who was killed by the Romans. We all can attest to the existence of the mythic character named Jesus. But no evidence of an actual man, exists.

 

[TruthInCatholocism]

I'm not aware of any historical events recorded within The Bible. As far as I know it's all mythology with the exception of the epistles which are letters.

Discoveries Of the Bible Or Links to THe Bible From Discoveries

THE HOUSE OF DAVID INSCRIPTION
A GALILEE BOAT
OSSUARY OF CAIAPHAS
PONTIUS PILATE INSCRIPTION
EKRON INSCRIPTION
MOUNT EBAL ALTAR
UGARIT
DEAD SEA SCROLLS
ABRAHAMS NAME APPEARS IN BABYLONIAN TEXTS
THE PHAROH SHISHAK MENTIONS THE FIELD OF ABRAM
BENI HASAN TOMB DISCOVERED
THE DOORS OF SODOM DISCOVERED
JERICHOS EXCAVATION DISCOVERED
ELBA ARCHIVES CONTAINING MENTION OF THE EARLY CANON
RECORDS OF HITTITES DISVOCERED
574 MANUSCRIPTS FOUND IN A CAVE
THE BIBLES REFERENCE TO CEASSOR (WHO WE KNOW EXISTED)
THE TOMB OF THE PATRIACHS
TOMBS OF DAVID AND SALOMON
TOMB OF CYRUS THE GREAT
TOMB OF DARIUS THE GREAT
THE PALACE OF JERICHO
GATE OF SECHEM
THE POOL OF GIBEON
POOL OF HES(h)BON
ROYAL PLACE OF SAMARIA
PALACE OF BABYLONIA
HOUSE OF PETER
TRIBUNAL AT CORINTH
HERODS PALACE
The List Go's On...(Just cant remember Most..And Im Moving Most of My Theological and Apologetics Text Books and Study Guides are Packed .......).... O_O Theres Plenty of Archeological Discovers Pointing To Places or Events in the Bible as Accurate... Just to help out.. O_O

So To Claim There is No Historical Fact Behind The Bible.....Needs a little more research

The problem is that every one of these people can attest only to a Jesus that they heard about from other people, or read about in early gospels. They can't attest to Jesus the actual man.

As far as I know, there is no actual evidence of the existence of an actual human being named Jesus who went around preaching, or who was killed by the Romans. We all can attest to the existence of the mythic character named Jesus. But no evidence of an actual man, exists.

There Are Thousands Of Ancient People That are mentioned only in Hyroglyphs or in Ancient Texts... That are mentioned in a vague way.. Or were there is no way to prove there actual existance.. we discover (same as Biblical Archeological Discoveries) Places were we belive this person lived and such.... But no COnvincing EVidence....Yet no one really argues them.... Its not the Historical Christ That Bothers Atheists...Its the Spirutual Christ..... To try and Disprove a historical Christ (Which can never be done--Seeing as Our Arguments are as Yours) Can Potentionally Disprove a Spritual Christ (which as well can never be done)

Sorry Not trying to offend

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The invisible Jesus:

"

They Should Have Noticed​

John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

< -- snip -- >​

Dion Pruseus

< -- snip -- >​

Just to grab one at random ...

So, tell us why one would expect to read of Jesus in the works of Dion Pruseus. For example, how many other messianic claimants did he discuss?

 

[dogsgod]

TruthInCatholicism
So To Claim There is No Historical Fact Behind The Bible.....Needs a little more research

Rural Kansas farm country is well depicted in The Wizard of Oz, so what's your point?

 

[PureX]

There Are Thousands Of Ancient People That are mentioned only in Hyroglyphs or in Ancient Texts... That are mentioned in a vague way.. Or were there is no way to prove there actual existance.. we discover (same as Biblical Archeological Discoveries) Places were we belive this person lived and such.... But no COnvincing EVidence....Yet no one really argues them.... Its not the Historical Christ That Bothers Atheists...Its the Spirutual Christ..... To try and Disprove a historical Christ (Which can never be done--Seeing as Our Arguments are as Yours) Can Potentionally Disprove a Spritual Christ (which as well can never be done)

Sorry Not trying to offend

There are logical criteria that historians apply to such references to ancient figures, that lead them to believe that they actually existed, or that they were mythical characters, or perhaps some combination of both. And the same logical criteria has been applied to Jesus as to the others. And according to such criteria, the most likely scenario would be that someone who has come to be called Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and probably did something to become the focus and exemplification of a new theological ideal that arose at that time. But the reality of that person soon became secondary to his being the icon of this new spiritual ideology, and so the stories about him soon began to morph into mythology to better represent these ideals to expanding numbers of people and to succeeding generations.