Prove Christ exists, judge orders priest

[Darth Wong]

I thought the suit was triggered by a public attack made upon the historian by the priest, not the historian just deciding to launch a lawsuit against anybody who says Christ is real.

[Lord MJ]

I thought the suit was triggered by a public attack made upon the historian by the priest, not the historian just deciding to launch a lawsuit against anybody who says Christ is real.

In either case the suit is lame.

If you write something that you know is going to be controversial and attacked by other people, it is low to go "Ahhhhhhh someone's denouncing me!!! Slander, Libel!!! Lawsuit, Lawsuit, Lawsuit!!!!"

[tharkûn]

More seriously: Notice that we know about these popular figures. We know because they were not little-known figures, word got around. Why? Because people loved a show! We'll not tackle the problem that the Mount is not capable of handling the claimed multitudes while one man can speak(It's not an amplitheatre, natural or constructed..).

What we know about Musonius Rufus mainly from the written works of his followers. Apollonius of Tyana was written up a century after he allegedly didn't die. As far as "word getting around", would that not be exactly what happened when a bunch of people called Christians told their neighbors during prosetylization?

I thought the suit was triggered by a public attack made upon the historian by the priest, not the historian just deciding to launch a lawsuit against anybody who says Christ is real.

I could well be wrong, but it appears that the historian is suing anyone who stands to receive finicial gain from saying Jesus was real. It looks to me like the historian is accusing the priest of perpetuating fraud for saying an historical Jesus of Nazereth (not Son of God) existed. Which should then place the burden upon him to provide superior historical evidence to the Gospels, Tacticus, Josephus, and oral tradition.

[SirNitram]

I thought the suit was triggered by a public attack made upon the historian by the priest, not the historian just deciding to launch a lawsuit against anybody who says Christ is real.

In either case the suit is lame.

If you write something that you know is going to be controversial and attacked by other people, it is low to go "Ahhhhhhh someone's denouncing me!!! Slander, Libel!!! Lawsuit, Lawsuit, Lawsuit!!!!"

It is low. Sadly, lawsuit-culture is apparently spreading the world over. I vote immediate headsmacks for all involved.

[SirNitram]

More seriously: Notice that we know about these popular figures. We know because they were not little-known figures, word got around. Why? Because people loved a show! We'll not tackle the problem that the Mount is not capable of handling the claimed multitudes while one man can speak(It's not an amplitheatre, natural or constructed..).

What we know about Musonius Rufus mainly from the written works of his followers. Apollonius of Tyana was written up a century after he allegedly didn't die. As far as "word getting around", would that not be exactly what happened when a bunch of people called Christians told their neighbors during prosetylization?

A century later? This isn't the fossil record or an illiterate culture, Tharkun.

[tharkûn]

A century later? This isn't the fossil record or an illiterate culture, Tharkun.

No but it is a culture whose historical records went through 2000 years of storage and multiple sackings to get us. Our main source about Apollonius is by Philostratus who wrote almost a century after the original date. A collection of alleged laters was published decades after, but several are glaringly incosistent (Apollonius would have to have lived from 10 BCE to 140 CE). Philostratus lists several "sources" however no known copies survived to even late Roman history and they are acknowledged to be contradictory by Philostratus.

My point is we don't have all the many surviving historical texts. Those which did survive, did so because they were copied in massive numbers and preserved for reasons other than history. Thucydides was promoted by Xenophon and later Greek philosophers. Apollonius had his own cult. Musonious Rufus was preserved by the Stoics. The routine crap - revolts, demonstrations, mob violence, plagues, famines, etc. is hit and miss. Hell in India we have entire dynasties which are known because they are listed on metal land grants that were buried on the property - and those were in regions with advanced literate culture. The fact that contemporary documentation about yet another speaker managed to succomb to the ravages of time, looting, and fire in 2000 years shouldn't be all that suprising.

[Darth Wong]

Perhaps not, but you don't have entire bloated institutions collecting monies, publicly slandering critics, and influencing government policies on the basis of Xenophon's writings, do you? When people suggest that Shakespeare might not have been a real person, they don't get immediately attacked and slandered in public as liars; it's an academic curiosity.

[Surlethe]

Wait, is tharkun saying there were lots of historical texts regarding Jesus because they didn't survive 2000 years of famine?

[SirNitram]

Wait, is tharkun saying there were lots of historical texts regarding Jesus because they didn't survive 2000 years of famine?

He's stating that there well could have been, and we shouldn't take the complete and total silence of the Roman Empire on the subject of Jesus and his apparent multitudes as a sign against his existance. It's essentially 'Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense!'.

[tharkûn]

Perhaps not, but you don't have entire bloated institutions collecting monies, publicly slandering critics, and influencing government policies on the basis of Xenophon's writings, do you?

Bloated institutions, well I count half my university's antiquities department as such so I'm going with yes.

Publicly slandering critics, oh hell yes, I know profs I need only mention the position another holds to get an earful about how they are idiots.

Influencing government policies, well yes actually Xenophon is still read by military historians and thus gets into government




In all seriousness, it looks like our historian friend is accusing our priest friend of fraud, and picked this particular priest (the actual documents allege other clerics may have committed this fraud) because he was the one who denounced the historian. I just don't see how he can hope to prove that John of Gamela = Jesus given that virtually all sources from back then are crap.

Wait, is tharkun saying there were lots of historical texts regarding Jesus because they didn't survive 2000 years of famine?

No tharkûn is saying that some philosopher/teacher/mystic hold mass oratory wasn't uncommon at the time period in question. From John the Baptist to Apollonius to Musonious Rufus people went out to listen to orators. The Roman governor may well have had a scribe file a report or twelve on each of Jesus's gatherings, but the likelihood that such clerical work survived is almost zero.

The lack of contemporary Roman evidence does not invalidate the evidence, whatever its quality, of oral tradition and partisan accounts.

I'm further saying that the historian has made a claim requiring him to make a positive proof. If he discounts the gospels as being partisan, Tacticus and Josephus for being too long after the fact, and oral tradition as being unreliable ... then he faces an EXTREME dearth of reliable sources with which to make his case. One I do not see how he can overcome.

[SirNitram]

I'm further saying that the historian has made a claim requiring him to make a positive proof. If he discounts the gospels as being partisan, Tacticus and Josephus for being too long after the fact, and oral tradition as being unreliable ... then he faces an EXTREME dearth of reliable sources with which to make his case. One I do not see how he can overcome.

If there's no evidence, then one assumes something doesn't exist.

[Mange]

The Gospels are admissable as historical evidence. Sure the earliest surviving copies date two or three centuries after the fact, were written by partisans, and mythologized; but that is true of most historical figures from the period. The earliest surviving documentation of Buddha's life dates centuries after his death. All the evidence of Socrates we have as surviving manuscripts attributed to his disciples, all of which are attributed to dates far after original composition.

Oh please. We don't know who the people were that wrote the gospels. The gospels aren't eyewitness accounts, there are no handwritten originals and they're shock-full of internal inconsistencies. For example, when was Jesus Christ born? According to Matthew (2:1) and Luke (1:5), Jesus was born during the reign of king Herod who died in 4 B.C., while a later chapter of Luke (2:1) places the birth at 6 A.D. when Quirinius became governor of Syria. Contemporary historians, such as the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberia (a place located near Capernaum which Jesus often visited according to the Bible), doesn't mention Jesus. No contemporary sources mentions any earthquakes etc. The Bible is an amalgamation of various beliefs that existed in the Middle East with elements of Mithraism and other religions. Simply put: The New Testament isn't an historical record.

[tharkûn]

If there's no evidence, then one assumes something doesn't exist.

But there is evidence; oral tradition if nothing else. Crappy evidence > no evidence.

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't see what the big deal. Frankly, Tharkun is right. I've heard accounts of Greek history prior from their Dark Ages and prior, which the historian in question makes careful to note that the only evidence they have that it's true is because later Greeks insist it and people have wrote plays about it (like Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and [/i]Antigone[/i]). They note that such accounts aren't very good, but if nothing else, they tell us about the people who wrote them.

A Jesus of Nazareth may very well exist. Does that mean he's got magic superpowers? Absolutely not. Untitled unauthored accounts written a couple centuries after the fact that were then picked through by a heavily biased source and assigned to certain figures aren't exactly convincing when it comes to accuracy. It doesn't say anything about his divinity, just that there is historical evidence of the possibility of the dude actually walking about.

[SirNitram]

If there's no evidence, then one assumes something doesn't exist.

But there is evidence; oral tradition if nothing else. Crappy evidence > no evidence.

There's no evidence for a global flood, but there is an oral tradition through the Hebrews. Because crappy evidence is better than no evidence, we must assume there is a global flood in history. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Try a real one.

[tharkûn]

SN do you beleive oral history has any evidentiary value at all? Even something as simple as we give the benefit of the doubt that they weren't lying and this dude called Jesus of Nazereth EXISTED?

[General Zod]

SN do you beleive oral history has any evidentiary value at all? Even something as simple as we give the benefit of the doubt that they weren't lying and this dude called Jesus of Nazereth EXISTED?

There may have very well been a Jesus of Nazareth. As I recall, Jesus was quite the common/popular name back in those days, so there may have very well been dozens of such people. One of them may have very well actually been from Nazareth. Whether he was actually the son of God who worked miracles is another issue entirely, however.

[SirNitram]

SN do you beleive oral history has any evidentiary value at all? Even something as simple as we give the benefit of the doubt that they weren't lying and this dude called Jesus of Nazereth EXISTED?

Hey, you're the imbecile who made the claim that crappy evidence should be taken over no evidence. Don't blame me for your own stupid bullshit.

Frankly, I'll accept he existed, and perhaps had a small cadre of followers. But the fact of the matter is all evidence of the world he lived in contradicts claims of the gospels(The Mount not being able to accomodate multitudes, as I earlier mentioned), and that therefore rather harpoons the claim we should take them as read.

Perhaps if you stopped directly contradicting the logical methods of deducing something's existance in your posts, you'd get insulted less. But you never seem to, so.

[Gil Hamilton]

There's no evidence for a global flood, but there is an oral tradition through the Hebrews. Because crappy evidence is better than no evidence, we must assume there is a global flood in history. Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Try a real one.

I think the difference is that geological/scientific evidence > crappy evidence. We know for basically certain the impossibility of pretty much all of Genesis, including the Great Flood, which overrules oral tradition. Human accounts, particularly ones passed orally hundreds and hundreds of years while playing the telephone game, tend to be bottom feeders on the evidence food chain. We can dismiss the Great Flood largely on the basis of physical evidence and the fact that we know that there were plenty of civilizations at the time it supposely happened that were positively dry when they were supposed to be being smited by the Lord's Flood, like Egypt.

However, just because oral tradition produces incredible amounts of garbage, it doesn't mean it's completely worthless, which is what Tharkun seems to be arguing. In the absence of any other evidence for or against, historians tend to give such things the benefit of the doubt, even with a healthy spoonful of salt to go with it.

[SirNitram]

However, just because oral tradition produces incredible amounts of garbage, it doesn't mean it's completely worthless, which is what Tharkun seems to be arguing. In the absence of any other evidence for or against, historians tend to give such things the benefit of the doubt, even with a healthy spoonful of salt to go with it.

Oh, I know. I just point out that there is evidence against it, in the manner that there's no 'footprint', and that a number of the events can't have happened, see above. So it's never 'oral history vs. nothing'.

[Surlethe]

Wait, is tharkun saying there were lots of historical texts regarding Jesus because they didn't survive 2000 years of famine?

No tharkûn is saying that some philosopher/teacher/mystic hold mass oratory wasn't uncommon at the time period in question. From John the Baptist to Apollonius to Musonious Rufus people went out to listen to orators. The Roman governor may well have had a scribe file a report or twelve on each of Jesus's gatherings, but the likelihood that such clerical work survived is almost zero.

But shouldn't absence of evidence be taken as evidence of absence?

The lack of contemporary Roman evidence does not invalidate the evidence, whatever its quality, of oral tradition and partisan accounts.

Oral tradition is incredibly unreliable; I'm pretty sure there actually wasn't a blue ox named "Babe" who created the Grand Canyon with a plow, but that's an American oral tradition.

I'm further saying that the historian has made a claim requiring him to make a positive proof. If he discounts the gospels as being partisan, Tacticus and Josephus for being too long after the fact, and oral tradition as being unreliable ... then he faces an EXTREME dearth of reliable sources with which to make his case. One I do not see how he can overcome.

The historian has made the negative claim: he says there was no historical Jesus. How does that require positive proof?

[tharkûn]

Frankly, I'll accept he existed, and perhaps had a small cadre of followers. But the fact of the matter is all evidence of the world he lived in contradicts claims of the gospels(The Mount not being able to accomodate multitudes, as I earlier mentioned), and that therefore rather harpoons the claim we should take them as read.

Hmm let's look back:

It isn't enough to say the evidence supporting their account (that a Jesus of Nazereth existed in the 1st centuray AD) is crap, the litigant needs to have better evidence showing his account (that Jesus was actually John of Gamela) to be true. I'd be interested in seeing what evidence meets the reliability standards that disqualifies the Gospels as well as Jewish, Christian, and Islamic oral history.

Nowhere have I said they should be taken as read, oh Vanquisher of Strawmen.

There may have very well been a Jesus of Nazareth. As I recall, Jesus was quite the common/popular name back in those days, so there may have very well been dozens of such people. One of them may have very well actually been from Nazareth. Whether he was actually the son of God who worked miracles is another issue entirely, however.

Precisely.

Oh, I know. I just point out that there is evidence against it, in the manner that there's no 'footprint', and that a number of the events can't have happened, see above. So it's never 'oral history vs. nothing'.

The lack of a footprint exists for virtually ALL antiquitious accounts. We have no surviving records of the crowds by Musonius Rufus, even though he was alleged to have been a companion to frigging EMPERORS. Seriously what type of footprint should we expect to have survived 2,000 years?

[Gil Hamilton]

Oh, I know. I just point out that there is evidence against it, in the manner that there's no 'footprint', and that a number of the events can't have happened, see above. So it's never 'oral history vs. nothing'.

I don't know about that. The Romans didn't make records of Jesus particularly, but then again, they didn't bother making records of virtually all the various guys preaching in Judea. If the Romans made important official documents of every crazy Jew claiming to be the Messiah and drawing a crowd, the Judean office would have ran out of parchment.

[tharkûn]

But shouldn't absence of evidence be taken as evidence of absence?

There is partisan evidence to the contrary. Given that moderately popular philosopher would draw crowds is logical I give his partisans the benifit of the doubt.

Oral tradition is incredibly unreliable; I'm pretty sure there actually wasn't a blue ox named "Babe" who created the Grand Canyon with a plow, but that's an American oral tradition.

Of course not, conversely the entirety of civilization in the Americans prior to 1492 was illiterate. Should we ignore their edidact oral traditions of the Incan conquests or the exploits of various Mexica kings? Granted one may need a large dose of salt when dealing with oral tradition, but I'm confident that Monco Capac existed at least.

The historian has made the negative claim: he says there was no historical Jesus. How does that require positive proof?

There historian has claimed that all accounts of Jesus are actually misrepresented accounts of John of Gamela. That is a positive claim, requiring positive proof. In order to get his "impersonation" charge he HAS to make a positive claim.

[tharkûn]

I don't know about that. The Romans didn't make records of Jesus particularly, but then again, they didn't bother making records of virtually all the various guys preaching in Judea. If the Romans made important official documents of every crazy Jew claiming to be the Messiah and drawing a crowd, the Judean office would have ran out of parchment.

Even they did, do recall that the Judean office would have been sacked once by Jewish Zealots, again by Roman Legionaires, then by Arabs, Crusaders, Arabs, Mamelukes, and Ottomans.

Even if for some inexplicable reason they stored copies in Rome or better still Cyprus/Byzantium, you still have the fact that such reports would have 100 copies or less. Statisticly the odds of any one those surviving is nil. We have only a few thousand early copies of the Bible which was the most copied book in the world at the time, revered (so it was given special handling) and holy (so both Christians and Muslims didn't intentionally burn it). Survival rates for anything that wasn't prolificly copied are next to zero.