Historical proof

Originally posted by sonship
I don't know what his objection is. I am open to explore correction of any errors in fact, if he's not just belching hot air.

I did this when very tired and in a hurry and could have made a typo.

The is an error in my chart.

The names of the people in the first column are Authors.
The point of the chart was Who wrote What and the time span between when they wrote and the earliest copy of their writing found.

IE.

Author - Julius Ceasar wrote between the years 100 - 44 BC.
The earliest copy of his writings dates back to about 900 A.D.

The time span between the autographs and earliest obtained copies is 900 years.

That is a time span interval of 1,000 years and there were 10 copies known to exist.

People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.

The double standard exists probably because of the content of the New Testament message is viewed unfavorably. But in the other ancient documents the content is not as similarly so suspicioned.

Far less personal consequences are at issue.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From Pulp Fiction, 1994:

Mia: "You heard Marcellus threw Tony Rocky Horror out of a four story window for giving me a foot massage?"
Vincent: "Uh huh."
Mia: "And you believe that?"
Vincent: "Well.. at the time I was told it sounded reasonable."
Mia: "Marcellus throwing Tony out of a four story window for massaging my feet seemed reasonable?"
...[text shortened]... . Plenty of things go on every day with 'no evidence'.

That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

No I am saying that a historical JC is less likely than a purely mythical JC based
on the evidence we have.

Or rather I am saying that the historians using the most rigorous methodologies
are saying that. Not being an expert on the subject myself.

What you believe in, the theological JC that was the son of god... Didn't exist
beyond all possible reasonable doubt.


Also, while absence of evidence is not necessarily proof of absence... It is invariably
evidence of absence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No I am saying that a historical JC is less likely than a purely mythical JC based
on the evidence we have.

Or rather I am saying that the historians using the most rigorous methodologies
are saying that. Not being an expert on the subject myself.

What you believe in, the theological JC that was the son of god... Didn't exist
beyond all possi ...[text shortened]... sence of evidence is not necessarily proof of absence... It is invariably
evidence of absence.

I am saying that a historical evolution is less likely than a purely mythical evolution based on the evidence we have. Or rather I am saying that the scientists using the most rigorous scientific methods are saying that.

What you believe in, the theory of evolution, has never happened beyond all possible reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am saying that a historical evolution is less likely than a purely mythical evolution based on the evidence we have. Or rather I am saying that the scientists using the most rigorous scientific methods are saying that.

What you believe in, the theory of evolution, has never happened beyond all possible reasonable doubt.

And what YOU believe in, ancient Egyptian mythology, NEVER happened.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And what YOU believe in, ancient Egyptian mythology, NEVER happened.

THE EGYPTIAN CREATION MYTH

YouTube

That is not what I believe.

God's Creation according to Genesis

YouTube

Originally posted by FMF
As you know, his er... 'historical actuality' has been brought into question in some quarters. But his 'theological' influence is something that clearly does exist.

Certainly, humans especially in the West have "run with" the theological Jesus so well and so long that the existence of the historical Jesus is irrelevant, and so, debating it is pointless.

Originally posted by JS357
Certainly, humans especially in the West have "run with" the theological Jesus so well and so long that the existence of the historical Jesus is irrelevant, and so, debating it is pointless.

For some the "historical" and "theological" Jesus coalesce as one and the same; one of the "some" is me.

Originally posted by sonship
Author - Julius Ceasar wrote between the years 100 - 44 BC.
The earliest copy of his writings dates back to about 900 A.D.

This beats Jesus by a long shot.
Author Jesus wrote: never.
Earliest copy of his writings: none.

People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.
I think you will find that historians are skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.

The double standard exists probably because of the content of the New Testament message is viewed unfavorably. But in the other ancient documents the content is not as similarly so suspicioned.

Far less personal consequences are at issue.
Now tell us when the earliest copy of a document about Julius Ceaser was written. Then explain why you were forced to cheat to make your point.

Originally posted by sonship

People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.

The double standard exists probably because of the content of the New Testament message is viewed unfavorably. But in the other ancient documents the content is not as similarly so suspicioned.

What double standard? Are you saying that sceptics are believing in the supernatural and the after life based on "other ancient writings" whilst refusing to believe in the supernatural and after life based on the New Testament, because of how long after event it was written? Is that the double standard you mean?

Originally posted by twhitehead
This beats Jesus by a long shot.
Author Jesus wrote: never.
Earliest copy of his writings: none.

[b]People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.
I think you will f ...[text shortened]... t about Julius Ceaser was written. Then explain why you were forced to cheat to make your point.[/b]

This beats Jesus by a long shot.
Author Jesus wrote: never.
Earliest copy of his writings: none.

Jesus did not a anything is true.

But Paul wrote the earliest information we have about Jesus.
And the time span between his autographs and the earliest copies most historians would kill to have such closeness of a gap of 30 or so years for other ancient writings.

Paul's second letter to the Corinthians is somewhat of his autobiography. Most historians would be elated to have a document copy and widely circulated so close to a prominent ancient figures actual life.

Historians have hit an absolute bananza of attestation when it comes to the New Testament. At that even if Jesus Himself left no written document.

Dr. Gary Habermas on the reliability of the New Testament documents -

The Resurrection Evidence That Changed Current Scholarship"

YouTube

sonship:
People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.

I think you will find that historians are skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.

Name me three prominent historians who doubt the historicity of Alexander the Great.

Name me two prominent historians who doubt that Socrates existed.

Here's an easy one for you. Name me two historians who doubt that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.

The double standard exists probably because of the content of the New Testament message is viewed unfavorably. But in the other ancient documents the content is not as similarly so suspicioned.

Far less personal consequences are at issue.

Now tell us when the earliest copy of a document about Julius Ceaser was written. Then explain why you were forced to cheat to make your point.

By the time you do your homework I will have done mine.

You're going to reply in your next post to demonstrate some historians who doubt that Alexander the Great ever lived.

Now, for "cheating".

I didn't cheat. I took a chart which was laid out in a book in a completely different manner, and I attempted to interpret it and lay it out in a style conducive to this Forum. No Powerpoint here, limitations abound.

And in doing so, I misinterpreted some column headings and being rushed and tired (and yes eager to make a point) I goofed some of the headings.

It is interesting that you always seem to think someone is trying to deceive you. I think you are paranoid because you think everyone is trying to pull the wool over twhitehead's eyes. I think it is because you yourself know how easy it is to do tricks on people.

The pick pocket is the one who is most afraid of his own pocket being picked. He knows it can be done easily from his own practice.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.

The double standard exists probably because of the content of the New Testament message is viewed unfavorably. But in the other a ...[text shortened]... Testament, because of how long after event it was written? Is that the double standard you mean?

I recommend some fair and even and good debates.

Mike Licone verses Bart Erhman for example.

Darrell Bock verses Bart Ehrman for example.

If your interested you can look them up. And you can make up your own mind. This medium is for short posts which do not always explore a problem in depth.

Have I evaded you a little ?
Probably.
But I think you'll get more out of the debates I recommended.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 2)
"The books of the New Testament can be divided into four classifications:

1. The Gospels, or The Books of Grace and Truth. (Part Four)

2. A Book of History.

The Acts of the Apostles introduces us to the ascension of Jesus Christ and the advent of the Holy Spirit to dwell within the believers. It is through the power of the S ...[text shortened]... rein, cleansed from his sin, man rests beneath the leaves of the tree of healing power." (Part Five)

"II. The New Testament Authorship:

1. The Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
2. Mark the companion of the Apostle Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark.
3. Luke the companion of Paul wrote the Gospel of Luke.
4. The Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.
5. Luke also wrote the book of Acts.
6. Paul wrote the epistles of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and possibly Hebrews, (Apollos also may have written Hebrews).
7. James, the half brother of our Lord, wrote the epistle of James.
8. The Apostle Peter wrote the epistle of Peter.
9. The Apostle John wrote 1, 2 and 3 John,
10. Jude, also a half brother of our Lord, wrote the epistle of Jude
11. The Apostle John wrote Revelation.

Remarkably, because every book was inspired by God the Holy Spirit, unity is achieved in spite of the many authors (some 40) and their various occupations, approximately 17.

Psa 68:11 (KJV), “The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those who published it.”

Moses was an Egyptian prince.
Joshua was a soldier.
Samuel was a priest.
David was a king.
Job was a rich farmer.
Amos was a poor farmer.
Ezra was a scribe.
Isaiah was a prophet.
Daniel was a prime minister.
Nehemiah was a cupbearer.

Matthew was a tax collector.
Mark was an evangelist.
Luke was a physician.
John was a wealthy fisherman.
Peter was a poor fisherman.
Jude and James were probably carpenters.
Paul was a tentmaker."
(Lesson Notes from a Pastor/Teacher in New England)

Originally posted by sonship
Have I evaded you a little ?
Probably.

Yes you have evaded my question, which was "What double standard?" If you don't want to explain the "double standard" you were referring to, that's fine.

Originally posted by sonship
But Paul wrote the earliest information we have about Jesus.

Remembering of course that Paul never met Jesus.

Paul's second letter to the Corinthians is somewhat of his autobiography. Most historians would be elated to have a document copy and widely circulated so close to a prominent ancient figures actual life.
And very few historians doubt that Paul existed. I see Wikipedia says about it "there is little doubt among scholars that Paul is the author".

Historians have hit an absolute bananza of attestation when it comes to the New Testament. At that even if Jesus Himself left no written document.
So now we have switched to Jesus have we? To be fair now, please list the earliest documents about Julius Ceasar rather than the ones written by him. And don't forget that we even have statues of him carved during his life time.

People who complain that the writing of the New Testament is too long after the original autographs or the events spoken about, on those grounds, would have to be immediately skeptical of practically all other ancient writings.
I already pointed out that people do tend to be skeptical of all other ancient writings. We first compare different sources and check authenticity by various means before taking any historical claims seriously. If we did not do this, we would still think that a Minotaur once terrorized the ancient Greeks and that Thor still lives in Valhalla.

Name me three prominent historians who doubt the historicity of Alexander the Great.

Name me two prominent historians who doubt that Socrates existed.
You really love your strawmen don't you.

Here's an easy one for you. Name me two historians who doubt that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
Enjoy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

By the time you do your homework I will have done mine.
I will await your results.

You're going to reply in your next post to demonstrate some historians who doubt that Alexander the Great ever lived.
No, I am not. I think there is sufficient evidence to think that Alexander the Great did live. I do not think that scolars that come to that conclusion do so on less evidence than the evidence for the existence of Jesus. You know this which is why you were forced to cheat when you tried to make such a claim with regards to Julius Cesar. If I did demonstrate it with Alexander the Great, you would just jump to some other historical figure in the hope that I will go away.

I didn't cheat. I took a chart which was laid out in a book in a completely different manner, and I attempted to interpret it and lay it out in a style conducive to this Forum.
Did you not know that there were documents about Julius Cesar written at an earlier date? Did you not know that Jesus never wrote anything that we have copies of? Did you read your own chart when copying it? How come I spotted the problem and you didn't?

It is interesting that you always seem to think someone is trying to deceive you.

I think you are paranoid because you think everyone is trying to pull the wool over twhitehead's eyes. I think it is because you yourself know how easy it is to do tricks on people.

The pick pocket is the one who is most afraid of his own pocket being picked. He knows it can be done easily from his own practice.
Once again, you are seeing things in others that are not there. This is like your claims that as a person of faith you can spot other people of faith.
I am neither paranoid, nor think someone is always trying to deceive me.
I do think that you know perfectly well that the case for the existence of Julius Ceaser is far better than the case for the existence of Jesus. If you didn't when this discussion started, then I hope you do now.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Remembering of course that Paul never met Jesus.

[b]Paul's second letter to the Corinthians is somewhat of his autobiography. Most historians would be elated to have a document copy and widely circulated so close to a prominent ancient figures actual life.
And very few historians doubt that Paul existed. I see Wikipedia says about it "there is li ...[text shortened]... for the existence of Jesus. If you didn't when this discussion started, then I hope you do now.[/b]

Remembering of course that Paul never met Jesus.

Paul met Jesus according to Paul.
It was the reason it radically turned him around and caused him to go from a fierce persecutor to a disciple and eventually an apostle.

" ... Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; And last of all He appeared to me also, who am not fir to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church. " (1 Cor. 15:6-8)

Even very liberal scholars grant the authenticity of First Corinthians.

And very few historians doubt that Paul existed. I see Wikipedia says about it "there is little doubt among scholars that Paul is the author".

The scholar who has kept a careful survey on what New Testament scholars accept and do not accept across the whole spectrum is Dr. Gary Habermas.

And Gary Habermas's historical handling of the authenticity of New Testament documents makes no appeal to inspiration of sacredness. Just on the grounds of the tools of the historian he makes a solid case for the early Christians really believed Christ had risen from the dead.

It debunks conspiracy theories developed 1600 to 1800 years latter that this was legend telling or myth making. No, at least within a decade or more the Christians believed that Jesus had risen and had appeared.

Dr. Gary HAbermas

The Resurrecion Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars

YouTube

Historians have hit an absolute bananza of attestation when it comes to the New Testament. At that even if Jesus Himself left no written document.
So now we have switched to Jesus have we?

The point was raised that He wrote nothing. So it is not a switch. It is a reply.

To be fair now, please list the earliest documents about Julius Ceasar rather than the ones written by him. And don't forget that we even have statues of him carved during his life time.

It is not necessary. You go study more if you wish.
My point is that if you doubt things about Jesus based on NT then you certainly should doubt more about information about too many other ancient figures, if long time spans and legend weaving is your issue.

And Habermas explains that better than I could.

The Resurrection - Historical Fact or Religious Invention
A Public Discussion between the Philsophy Society and Christian Union
Ken Humphrey and Gary Habermas

YouTube

I already pointed out that people do tend to be skeptical of all other ancient writings. We first compare different sources and check authenticity by various means before taking any historical claims seriously. If we did not do this, we would still think that a Minotaur once terrorized the ancient Greeks and that Thor still lives in Valhalla.

The explaining of the rise of the Christian belief is well explained historically that early Christians (who were Jews) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead. This does not prove that He rose. But it indicates that it was not a mythology created hundreds of years latter. It was BELIEVED within years of the life of Jesus.

That is why some conspiracy people have said that there was a mass hallucination. Which theory I find unconvincing. The Swoon Theory, that He never died, also I find unconvincing.

Now I am enjoying this debate discussion between Ken Humphrey and Gary Habermas. Humphrey is the skeptic, like you, and is getting some strong points and he is speaking first. I am going to suspend and enjoy the debate.

YouTube

Forget about the homework assignment.
I figure anyone really interested on the truth can study for themselves without being prompted and challenged.

You see I don't want you to think you are being forced to believe the New Testament. If you feel you are being caged and jailed, the door is wide open. Walk right out of the door.

If you really don't want to believe in the New Testament, do not believe it and go your way.

sonship:
Name me two prominent historians who doubt that Socrates existed.
You really love your strawmen don't you.

Strawmen arguments are weak arguments.
They do not insist what is argued is not true.
And your tactic is to always accuse an argument of being either not what you are saying or a strawman.

Don't worry about it. Lost interest.

Here's an easy one for you. Name me two historians who doubt that Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.
Enjoy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

I know about the Shakespeare deniers, a little bit.

Watch the debate. YouTube

Or don't watch it.