Please give me so-called "proof" of Jesus or God.

No one thinks Acts was written by Paul (it was written by the same author as the gospel of Luke). Of the epistles attributed to Paul, Hebrews is obviously not Pauline, the pastorals (I & II Timothy, Titus)are unlikely to have been written by Paul, and Colossians and Ephesians are debatable (and debated). II Thessalonians is also disputed, but I don't remember how the evidence stacks up -- it isn't interesting enough to worry about. Romans, I&II Corinthians, I Thess and Galatians (and I think Philemon) are essentially undisputed. Most are simply ignorant. Yes, I'd classify the others as crackpots. Not in the foaming at the mouth sense, but in the sense that they have adopted a position for reasons other than the available evidence. In this sense, for example, Fred Hoyle held several crackpot ideas. That didn't keep him from being a brilliant and inventive scientific thinker. In order to support a mythicist position, however, you have to adopt highly strained readings of what very early material is available, including the synoptic gospels, Paul and Hebrews. In addition, the early church left records not only of their official version, but of their controversies with other positions. The shift from a nonphysical to a historical Jesus, taking place within a single Christian community, would have produced tremendous theological controversy, and yet we find no trace of that contoversy (except by highly strained readings of polemic directed against Docetists). That's a completely different kind of issue. Billions of people have lived and died without having fulfilled prophecies. In fact, the argument goes the other way: some of the gospel-writers' attempts to portray Jesus as fulfilling prophecies are quite strained, and suggest that they were trying to force a fit between the awkward facts known about Jesus (e.g. that he was from Nazareth) and the prophecies they were deploying. Creating a mythical figure to match prophecy is easy; getting a historical figure to do so is harder.

I don't know how to quote in the light blue box, so I use the standard quoting."No one thinks Acts was written by Paul".Well, there are inerrantists and fundamentalist posting on this list who represent some number of people who do think that. I was asking to see if you were arguing from an inerrantist position that since the bible said it it's true."Most are simply ignorant. Yes, I'd classify the others as crackpots. Not in the foaming at the mouth sense, but in the sense that they have adopted a position for reasons other than the available evidence."Let's just disqualify ignorance and set those aside. Doherty however is not ignorant but is well studied on the texts in the original language. The issue then comes down to the available evidence, how good it is, and how it is interpreted.I'd like to understand the basis of your objections. Are you simply arguing that there is historical evidence of a teacher named Jesus who was crucified for his activity, or are you arguing further that this Christ was the Messiah, a supernatural entity?"In order to support a mythicist position, however, you have to adopt highly strained readings of what very early material is available, including the synoptic gospels, Paul and Hebrews. In addition, the early church left records not only of their official version, but of their controversies with other positions. The shift from a nonphysical to a historical Jesus, taking place within a single Christian community, would have produced tremendous theological controversy, and yet we find no trace of that contoversy""Highly strained" is your opinion. I'm not saying you are wrong to say that but I don't know why you feel that it more highly strained than a supernaturalist acceptance of the Gospels as literal history for example. It seems to me that gnosticism, Marcion, and many other heresies and struggles of interpretation point to controversy. Whether you consider it "tremendous" or not I don't understand how you can say
"no trace of that controversy". There are at least some traces. No?lfen

You can see how a post is done if you click the blue "raw text" button at the bottom of the post.When you are creating a post the UBB Code is On link on the left will tell you how to do most everything.The tags to use are [ qs ] and [ /qs ] with the blanks taken out.

sfs,I'm picking up a few tricks here. I finally clicked on your name and have read a few of your many posts. I find this site a very interesting place but I'm also frustrated by the fragmentation of discussion. The Yahoo jesusmysteries group has an advantage of the discussions being in one long thread but to pull that off the focus is much narrower.You are far better informed in this subject than I am, and I find your argument to be rational, but I say the same about Earl Doherty. I'm not sure this is the forum to define the problem, but I appreciate reading rational criticism of the mythicist viewpoint as opposed to those who object based on their faith and literal reading of the bible.I'm wondering if you agree with any of the problems that the mythicists see in early christianity? For example do you find Paul's silence on the crucifiction having taken place in Jerusalem when he visits there puzzling? Do you see any of the evidence of mystery religions such as Mithras or other hellenistic ideas in early christianity? Or does it seem to you that Christianity is a straight forward outgrowth of Jewish religion of that time?lfen

sfs,I've found the much richer ongoing discussion in the thread titled:Eyewitness To Jesus? The Gospel AuthorsI'm going to switch over to that thread. This is the fragmentation that I find frustrating here. Redundancy is mostly a good thing but sometimes it gets irritating to shuffle around in threads so much.edit: corrected a typo of the word "fragmentation" by inserting the dropped "g"
lfenThis message has been edited by lfen, 07-05-2004 12:49 AM

Yeah, there indeed is paltry little evidence for a man who allegedly did such great things. And what puny evidence there is is so highly questionable that it more probably is negative evidence, e.g., Josephus and its obvious interpolations. A truly lame attempt to manufacture evidence after the fact.Verzem

I find it sad that there are so many ignorant people on this board - I had assumed that intellegent people would be more reverential to the beliefs of others (eps religous beliefs).
Clearly there are enough historical texts to prove that a MAN named Jesus (described as a prophet) existed during that time. Perhaps you have a discussion if you want to question his Christlike stature..perhaps..I am NOT a true Christian but let me throw one at those bashing Christianity.When you are brainwashed in school about Christians persecuting others and committing genocide .. ask yourself why. (why mass genocide is authorized by governement, religous authorities etc.)
It is blind obedience to an ideology that leads to the worst homicides.. E.g the dark ages of Communism in Russia - the largest mass murder in modern history..
Jesus is much more of a historical fact than many other events that you read about in history book. Of course if you are debating his miracles etc. then you have to take that on faith..

STA Care to reference one outside of the Bible?This message has been edited by sidelined, 07-05-2004 12:33 AMThis message has been edited by sidelined, 07-05-2004 12:34 AM

SkepticToAll,The first thing I need to ask is who you are aiming your comments at when you say there are ignorant people in here, and what do you think they/we are ignorant about?I thiink it might be safe to say that the only belief that the people I believe you are addressing your post to have is that ultimately science will give us most of the answers we seek.I think it is also fairly safe to say that we have no problem in believing that a bunch of guys named Yeshua lived and died in that area back in the first century CE. That any of them were any more special or unique than any other people is something we won't embrace.Like sidelined, I challenge you to substantiate your claim that Jesus (with all that is claimed about him) is a historical FACT.Verzem

Yes, but that wasn't my point.Alcoholics are all different too, even though they all drink by choice.
Some drink more, some drink less. Some are responsbile, some aren't.You get my point?
Can you understand that not all Christians are the same?
If you do not agree with one Christian, or a whole group of Christians, should you there for hate all Christians, or not belive in God?

Interesting that your comparison is between being Spanish, an alcoholic or a Christian.But alcoholics are not so by choice. They may have chosen to drink, but the addiction is a physical dependency that removes their choice and compels them to engage in destructive behavior. It is also a strange proposition that there are "responsible" alcoholics. You mean those who are able to refrain from drinking I assume.

quote:

---

If you do not agree with one Christian, or a whole group of Christians, should you there for hate all Christians, or not belive in God?

---

Where does Chiroptera state that he hates all christians? And what does not liking a christian, specific christian groups or christianity in general have to do with believing in a god/gods/ or any other mythological being?

The shorter reference in Josephus (the one about the death of James, which mentions in passing that he was the brother of Jesus) is probably not an interpolation.

My point was actually a bit of irony. Conservative Christians (and many non-religious conservatives) object to comparing discrimination against homosexuals to racial discrimination on the grounds that one has no choice as to one's race, but homosexuality is a choice.It seems strange, therefore, that someone would compare certain statements against Christians with analogous statements against racial minorities, seeing how one has at least as much choice about one's religion and its activities as one does about one's sexual preference and acting on those preferences.

Such as...?

---

The Laminator

​

You are right, it is hard to prove evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, but the evidence lies in the changed lives of the people around Jesus at that time. The diciples were all for going back to their original work (IE fishing!) when Jesus appeared to them. Mass hallucination? Unlikely as that has never happened. The reusult? 12 guys who dropped everything to spread the news of Jesus' resurrection even to the point of death. Their gain? Nothing in a wordly sense..I let you work out the rest!