Artful Dodger:

> read this book then make your points. As it is, you speak out of ignorance. http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testament-Documents-Reliable/dp/0802822193

I am not asking for a book written by a Christian scholar.

'Frederick Fyvie Bruce (12 October 1910 – 11 September 1990) was a Biblical scholar and one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible. His first book, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1943), was voted by the American evangelical periodical Christianity Today in 2006 as one of the top 50 books "which had shaped evangelicals".'

I am asking for a direct literary source contemporary to Jesus that states unequivocally that he existed. There is no such source. The earliest mention outside the New testament is in a brief paragraph in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, and that as written in 93-94 AD. Many scholars disagree on the interpretation of a brief paragraph written by a rather obscure Jewish scholar in the Roman empire.

The Gospels themselves are based on one, possibly two documents written at around 75 AD. That leaves us with no contemporary sources.

Was Jesus a historical figure? Most scholars think that Jesus did exist and see sources as Josephus and Tacitus as either brief mentions of the historical Jesus, or reflections of events that those historians heard among early Christians. However, the mythology around Jesus (the virgin birth, the miracles, etc.) are considered to be non-historical (in other words, they have no concrete historical proof of their having occurred.)

Do we really believe that a man would do all those miracles and go unnoticed by all the Roman and Greek historians of the era? If somebody did all those miracles, that person would not have gone unnoticed, specially when those miracles gave rise to the dominant religion in the Roman empire. Matthew clearly states that Jesus was followed by "multitudes", and yet nobody in the Roman world noticed him enough to write anything of him? Romans noted inconsequential people, but ignored Jesus in spite of his miracles?

Artful Dodger: [ read this book then make your points... ]

There's load of evidence verifying Old Testament people and events as well. Documentation in the form of clay tablets and cylinders recording the local history of peoples and events count as documentation, as well as corroborating documentation (verification) found in nearby cultures and localities. Evidence of cities previously thought nonexistent have been unearthed within the last few years... more and more evidence in various forms are unearthed as time goes on.

It's been convenient to say in the absence of any evidence that something didn't happen or a place didn't exist, until that place or some recorded history is found. And then after evidence is found, ignoring it is what it is... willful ignorance.

By the way, the word "ignorant" is another one of those magic words liberals love to toss out... it's intended to have the same effect as words like "birther" or "conspiracy nut". Personally, I like the term "double standard"... that pretty much says it all.

I've been through a debating cycle at least twice within that last 10 years for this particular topic, and for evolution as well. Both cycles lasted for months, during which time I did a lot of research and accumulated loads of information. I don't have that information at my fingertips now, and I certainly don't have the time or interest (or desire) to repeat another cycle. Life is too short to spend trying to convince someone of something they don't want to know.

Iamon lyme: I agree. This topic has been discussed before. The atheist argument fails on so many levels. Nothing said will make any difference. So, ok Jesus is a myth. Next topic please. How about SETI? Or Sasquatch ? Lochness?

Artful Dodger: LOL Yeah, no kidding! Someone really did a bang up job of getting the funding (tax dollars?) for building radio dishes and installing monitoring equipment and paying salaries to people to monitor the monitoring equipment and etc etc and computer experts and etc etc and Joe the janitor/handyman/toilet unplugger/ window washer and etc etc... Hey, come on, it takes money to run ANY kind of operation!

Where was I? Oh yeah, and all of this for the sake of maybe picking up intelligently designed (what, intelligent design?) signals from an alien race some scientists are hoping exists. So you see, even hope costs money. You didn't really think all that hope and change crap was going to save you any money, did you? Foolish peons! Money doesn't just grow on trees ya know.

If we want to find those aliens, we had better darn well be ready to spend the money for it. We can't assume the aliens will come to us... who do we think we are, anyway? If we are going to find the aliens, any aliens, even the stupid and technologically primitive ones, then we might have to be the ones who go looking for them.

So as you can see, this has been money well spent.

Iamon lyme: Not one tax dollar.. a myth it's paid for by government money.

Just like that 47% of Americans pay no income tax, as Mitt Romney did state a few days back when stating he has no intent of appealing to them.

... but they do pay.."61% of those who pay no federal income tax do pay payroll tax at 15.3%.

Another 22% of the non-income tax-payers are elderly, according to the Ezra Klein article. If that is correct, 83% of those who do not pay income tax don't really fit Mr Romney's characterisation, except in so far as his argument is that people who don't pay income tax aren't impressed by promises of income tax cuts."

(V): It's bout 49% that don't pay Federal taxes.

Artful Dodger: Not the same as paying no tax.. just one specific tax out of how many? Sorry but we have a straight forward system, one income tax system. Not one from the gov and another going to the local 'state'/county. Local level taxes are collected through 'council tax' (ie property rates) and any such system used to generate extra revenue.. car parking fines as an example.

(V): The reason it's mentioned is due to the liberal claim that the "rich" don't pay their fair share of income taxes. We know they pay more taxes as they buy more things and more expensive things at that. But the comparison being offered has to do with federal income taxes. On that we know it's a fact that nearly 50% do not pay federal income taxes. So clearly there is a problem with the "fair share" as it applies to the bottom 50%. They contribute nothing but suck off the governments tit endlessly.

Artful Dodger: *** sigh *** "the governments"

I asked a point of reference. Us UK people can get confused by the myriad of tax systems in the USA.


... How many different taxes at any level may a person of working age pay in the USA .. as an average?

You have Federal Income tax, state payroll tax?? Now.. this is want to know. straight info on HOW MANY fingers are there in the pie.

(V): Depends on where you live!
There's federal income taxes
Some states have income taxes (I live in a state that doesn't)

Some states have sales taxes (I live in a state that doesn't)

Then of course there are "Property Taxes" (Mostly to towns/cities ? But I rent, so I don't know how it goes, honestly. Maybe some goes to the State?)

And then also there is registering your car - some of that goes to state, some to town/city.

And of course any local fines, etc, which of course is quite avoidable.

But again. The thing AD is talking about with that stuff about 49% has to deal ONLY with the Federal Income taxes.

It's ridiculous that anyone can say the "rich" don't pay their fair share, when half the country pays NO federal income taxes

rod03801: exactly

rod03801: But that is only one tax, and the rich have many many ways of skipping paying tax that our bent accountant firms drool over. This is what is generally meant when not paying their fair share.

N' when some American companies are being given money to stay in business.

By the looks of it, you all pay taxes in some form, to someone.

(V): The rich pay the bulk of taxes. Around 70%

(V): The quote, and the controversy is ONLY about Federal Income tax. No one else is talking about the other taxes.

rod03801: Ok.. It would be (using my accountant head) a fair statement if only one tax existed. You yourself have told me this is not the case.

It would be fair if the the fed gov is the only giver of 'gifts' and the setting thereof. I've heard this is not the case. It would be fair if most 'rich' people just paid fed income tax. this is not the case.

Therefore the statement is in itself misleading.

(V): Yeah, what Rod said.

Iamon lyme: I hate to break the news to them but there's nobody out there.

Iamon lyme: "It's been convenient to say in the absence of any evidence that something didn't happen or a place didn't exist, until that place or some recorded history is found. And then after evidence is found, ignoring it is what it is... willful ignorance."


but...where is this "evidence"? thats really the big issue.
talking in circles..making jokes..changing the subject...still doesnt provide ACTUAL evidence.
so please...just 1 FACT that Proves Jesus of Nazareth truley existed. I would like to see it,because I've spent many years off and on..(one whole year exclusively) trying to find just ONE fact.
Can you provide this ONE fact,without belittling?

Bwild: [ so please...just 1 FACT that Proves Jesus of Nazareth truley existed. I would like to see it,because I've spent many years off and on..(one whole year exclusively) trying to find just ONE fact. ]

If you've put in that much time and effort and found nothing then for you the issue should be settled, shouldn't it? I think it's interesting that critics can make broad sweeping statements with nothing to back it up, but then insist I do the research and collect the information they are unable to find.

I asked Uber not to insult my intelligence by asking me where evidence can be found, because he has the same access to information as I do. He asked anyway, and so have you. As for your comments on hypocrisy and asking not to be belittled, do you think I don't know what you meant by "Bible thumpers"?

Iamon lyme: so there are no real facts...no true evidence.

Bible thumpers was not directed at you personally.
As I stated before...it's not up to the atheist to provide the proof.
I believe we have reached a conclusion in this debate.

Bwild: I think it really depends on what constitutes evidence in your mind. That and compelling arguments for the case of the historical Jesus (not to mention His claims to being God)

Bwild: Uber said he didn't want to read any books by Christian scholars. If he includes truly impartial scholars along with them, then I'm not surprised he has found no evidence to support what is written about people and events chronicled in the Bible.

I'm not telling you what sources you should or shouldn't look at, but relying on information from people who have already made up their minds is what it is. It is selective ignorance... selectively ignoring anything that contradicts a predermined conclusion.

Bwild: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/149462376/did-jesus-exist-a-historian-makes-his-case

just offering as an interesting read

Iamon lyme: These guys I like to watch on youtube.. They are funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g1KhvF9nJg

No-one has been able to call them up and prove to their level of 'proof' that God, as written in the Bible .. just with Jesus, does/did exist.As written.

So much stuff was destroyed.. The Vatican has so much hidden...

Iamon lyme:

> There's load of evidence verifying Old Testament people and events as well.

If that were true, we would be hearing it to the four winds. The reality is that there is archelogocal data, as you say, clay tablets, etc. Yet none of them prove conclusively that any of the main people in the Old Testament existed. Scholars can't agree on the interpretation of that data because the data is weak and in many cases not concrete enough.

> It's been convenient to say in the absence of any evidence that something didn't happen or a place didn't exist, until that place or some recorded history is found. And then after evidence is found, ignoring it is what it is... willful ignorance.

But where is the evidence? To me it is not willful ignorance, it is lack of evidence plain and simple.

> By the way, the word "ignorant" is another one of those magic words liberals love to toss out... it's intended to have the same effect as words like "birther" or "conspiracy nut". Personally, I like the term "double standard"... that pretty much says it all.

This has nothing to do with "liberals", it has to do with backing your claims with concrete evidence.

> Life is too short to spend trying to convince someone of something they don't want to know.

But I WANT to know. I want to see the evidence, rather than have you make excuses for presenting none. I love to read the evidence. It is interesting and important. So why say that we don't want to know?

It seems to me that you are making a lot of excuses since you are unable to back up your claims that there is "loads" of evidence out there.

mckinley: dead sea scrolls:
http://www.fwweekly.com/2012/09/11/southwest-seminarys-exhibit-dead-sea-scrolls/


http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

Bwild: Nag Hammadi library...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library#Complete_list_of_codices_found_in_Nag_Hammadi

mckinley: I think it would be fair to say that most if not all the major events when 'earthquakes' and 'floods' happened, happened. Even, to some extent the Garden of Eden, thanks to new evidence that the Sahara desert is not a desert, but a cyclic environment that fluctuates between a lush and desert state.

The stories in the OT were more about carrying on wisdom and knowledge then the actual person. The aborigines use a similar system to tell their children how to survive in the bush, as did many early civilisations.

eg... the Greek and their Gods, The Norse with Odin and Loki.

Truth is hidden behind the story, just the story makes it easier to absorb.

mckinley: It is about faith but it goes farther than that.

Übergeek 바둑이: [ But I WANT to know. ]

So did I, that's why I did not limit my search by refusing to look at what Christian (or impartial) scholars historians and archaeologists had to show. I've also looked at what some former atheists who set to disprove Biblical claims have said.

I don't know why you are unable to access the same information I had found, but I suspect nothing short of a functional time machine can satisfy your thirst for knowledge. Time travel is not something I can not help you with... so my guess is you are happily out of luck finding any proof that may contradict your claim.

Iamon lyme: ~ coffee... need drink more coffee ~ reboot brain in 4, 3, 2, 1, ...

I meant to say [ I've also looked at what some former atheists who set out to... ]

...and [ Time travel is not something I can help you with.. ]

Iamon lyme: Don't waste your time with the atheists. They wouldn't believe it unless they saw it with their own eyes and God Himself would have to appear (which would kill them instantly). Even after that they'd blame it on bad pasta. ( Yet they will beleive in theories based on speculation as long as God isn't part of the equation. )

Übergeek 바둑이: well there you have it. A little soft shoe and ropeadope,mixed generously with insults disguised as humour. But the fact remains...there is no actual proof.
It's all blind faith.

Bwild: It's not blind faith. It's much more but what we view as evidence others reject. An atheist (former) who rejected the argumets for the Christian faith came to be a believer and began using the same arguments he once rejected. It's a matter of belief and perspective and proper interpretation.

Artful Dodger: your talkin Paul? Paul was Saul and pagan I think.
But I understand belief.I have my own beliefs..you have yours..LL has his..so on. Its what makes our lives so interesting.

Bwild: Not Paul. He was a Pharicidic Jew turned Christian.

Artful Dodger: Not Paul. He was a Pharicidic Jew ....thats it.

dealing with the far left.....

Bwild: I never disquise my insults with humor. The humor is seasoning.

Artful Dodger: The humor is seasoning......lol right.....

Bwild: Without insults, it's not politics. Especially true when dealing with the far left. They speak fluent insult.

Artful Dodger: [ They speak fluent insult. ]

They also speak fluent double speak. When they say ignorant they want us to believe it's meant as a point in fact. But when we say it they believe it's meant as an insult.

By the way, I wasn't the first to cast stones. I never call anyone ignorant unless that word is first directed toward me. So the complaint is less than worthless... it is hypocritical for anyone to complain that someone is tossing the very same word they use back to them.

Artful Dodger: [ I used the word "ignorant" freely. But only as a descriptor. ]

Oh, well, that's different. Using ignorant as a descriptor is always an appropriate utilization of that word... or could be, if I knew what a descriptor was.

Have you heard of Amos and Ig? Of course not, because I just now made them up... they are inventions of my mind, and only (V) can tell you that it sounds almost exactly like something he's heard before.

Anywho, Amos was always telling Ig that he didn't know what he was talking about, and then Ig would shoot back that Amos was a spiteful no-nothing [epletive] polecat. Fact is, neither Ig nor Amos knew what he was talking about.

Iamon lyme: I know guys like that!

Artful Dodger:

> duh! He lives in my heart!

Exactly! The ONLY way one can see Jesus as a historical figure is if one has faith. Without faith the New Testament could never be considered a historical document. It is faith that makes people see the New Testament as a document that reflects true historical events. Without faith other historical sources would fail to corroborate any events described there.

Übergeek 바둑이: Actually that's not true and I was being silly. The New Testament documents are historically reliable. FF Bruce is a leading authority on the New Testament documents and he's not alone in his assessment that they are a reliable source for eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. There is more documented evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure than there is evidence for many other historical figures. It's not that the evidence isn't there; you just reject everything that's offered.