Proof....?

[GreenLantern]

Is there any proof that Socrates existed?

Oh and Greek sources don’t count because he was made up by Greeks.

I say that since there is no non-Greek evidence for Socrates’ existence, we should automatically assume he never existed.

/sarcasm

 

[Mersenne]

Can you explain this, please?

You point out one example yourself, but the gospels talk about things that happen in private, events too far apart for one person to have witnessed, etc.

Certainly they don’t appear to have been written contemporaneously with the events they describe, but most historians seem to place them within the lifetime of people who could have known Jesus.

Most of the gospels were written past 60 AD, outside a timeframe where we could realistically believe these were eyewitness accounts.

 

[Mersenne]

Is there any proof that Socrates existed?

Oh and Greek sources don’t count because he was made up by Greeks.

I say that since there is no non-Greek evidence for Socrates’ existence, we should automatically assume he never existed.

/sarcasm

A lot of people think Socrates is a character invented by Plato.

 

[Mersenne]

Did you read my posts? Who do you think Matthew and John were, if not eye witnesses?

I skimmed over it, but I wasn’t responding to you, so I don’t know why you act like that’s so intolerable.

Me, and most historians, don’t think matthew and john wrote matthew and john, so maybe you should rethink that question.

 

[NotWorthy]

I skimmed over it, but I wasn’t responding to you, so I don’t know why you act like that’s so intolerable.

Me, and most historians, don’t think matthew and john wrote matthew and john, so maybe you should rethink that question.

Maybe you, and most historians, should rethink your reasoning?

What scholarly work claims that someone other than John and Matthew wrote their historically credited Gospels? Either the writer of John’s Gospel is a witness, or he is a liar, for he claims to have witnessed these events numerous times in the Gospel.

 

[MarkBrown]

Are there any eyewitness testimonies of Jesus during his own time period? Is there any evidence for Jesus’ existence at all?

Yes.

 

[Ailina]

Me, and most historians, don’t think matthew and john wrote matthew and john, so maybe you should rethink that question.

Which historians? And why do they not think those gospels were written by Matthew and John? Do they have other historical sources to base their thoughts on? Are they speculating? Or do they really know?

How many people in those days had an oral tradition rather than a written tradition? How many people could actually read and write regularly? Not many, I would guess.

 

[GreenLantern]

A lot of people think Socrates is a character invented by Plato.

How do they explain Xenophon and Aristophanes?

 

[MarkBrown]

“Paul doesn’t even claim to have ever met Christ physically.”

Paul in the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 9 v 27 tells the Apostles in Jerusalem that he met, saw and spoke with the Lord. Lord and Christ are interchangeable in the NT.

“You point out one example yourself, but the gospels talk about things that happen in private, events too far apart for one person to have witnessed, etc.”

The Gospels are eyewitness accounts of actions and events that occur over a 3 to 31/2 year period. Plenty of time for all to have happened. The area Jesus operated in was geographically small.

“Most of the gospels were written past 60 AD, outside a timeframe where we could realistically believe these were eyewitness accounts.”

A statement not backed up with facts, just supposition and assumption. This statement is nothing but opinion that is trying to be past off as fact.

“Me, and most historians, don’t think matthew and john wrote matthew and john, so maybe you should rethink that question.”

Again not a factual assertion. An opinion based upon…?

“not eye witness accounts by any means. Not written in a way that eye witnesses could have written, and too far after the events to be eye witness accounts.”

By what standard do you think an eyewitness account should be written? How quickly should it be written to qualify as an eyewitness account? Does a period of time automatically invalidate facts/information? If so, what is the arbitrary limits in your opinion as you have yet to provide anything other than opinion and references to nebulous other people. Also, do all the eyewitness accounts have to match for them to be true and authentic?

“There are two main reasons why historians believe in the existence of Christ.”

Only two. Your credibility is now on the window sill and almost out the window.

“References to a “Brother of Christ” that historians interpret as an actual sibling. If you maintain the Catholic view that Jesus had no siblings then this evidence goes out the window.”

Are you serious? (That whistling sound is your credibility falling off the window sill and out the window) How does holding to this Roman Catholic belief invalidate the existence of Christ. If Christ had siblings or not does not invalidate his existence.

"Jesus behaves like a con man. If someone were telling a myth, or even exaggerating a real story, there’s no reason to make him behave obviously like a con-man. The “I can’t use my powers when skeptical people ask” is a common ploy, and there’s no reason to write your mythological figures as resorting to such obvious flummery. He also references many towns who saw his biggest and best miracles, but yet still didn’t believe, and coincidentally these towns were always backward out of the way towns where no one would be able to easy verify that what he was saying was false. "

Jesus refused to act for the Pharisees, but He did perform miracles in their presence. Matt 12:9-14 and 22-30. He refused to give them a third sign in v30. Mark 2:6-12 records a miracle in the presence of the skeptical Pharisees. John 9:1-12 Jesus heals a blind man who did not ask for it. John 11, Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. No one really thought He could do it, hence the caution the sisters of Lazarus gave Jesus about opening the grave. The crowds reaction was astonishment.

The towns you are referencing are Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, the cities of woe in Matt 11:20-24. They are not backwater towns and are less than 75 miles from Jerusalem. What a couple of days by messager? Easily verified by the authorities. He also performed miracles in and around Jerusalem where it was easy to verify if He was a false Messiah. His greatest miracles occured there and Jerusalem rejected Him. It is nonsensical to use this line of “reasoning” to prove Christ did not exist.

“So you have to except those two things to except Christ as a real historical figure. Otherwise the evidence is slim.”

If we accept your parameters, such evidence is slim. Unfortunately for you, your parameters are rejected as they are not based on fact and are outlandish opinions based upon generalities and second rate hypothesis and are not based upon any perceived scholarship.

 

[Mersenne]

Maybe you, and most historians, should rethink your reasoning?

Any particular reason why? Or are you simply declaring the opinion of the majority of historians wrong because you say so?

What scholarly work claims that someone other than John and Matthew wrote their historically credited Gospels?

The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, 2001.

So do you think that Matthew witnessed the birth of Jesus then?

Either the writer of John’s Gospel is a witness, or he is a liar, for he claims to have witnessed these events numerous times in the Gospel.

And? John especially is written far far too late to think it might have been written by a witness.

 

[Mersenne]

How do they explain Xenophon and Aristophanes?

I have no idea. That’s a bit off course for this thread though.

 

[Mersenne]

Paul in the Acts of the Apostles Chapter 9 v 27 tells the Apostles in Jerusalem that he met, saw and spoke with the Lord. Lord and Christ are interchangeable in the NT.

But not physically. He didn’t see him while alive.

The Gospels are eyewitness accounts of actions and events that occur over a 3 to 31/2 year period. Plenty of time for all to have happened. The area Jesus operated in was geographically small.

So it was 3 years between Jesus’ birth and death? And you didn’t respond to the other problem I pointed out.

A statement not backed up with facts, just supposition and assumption. This statement is nothing but opinion that is trying to be past off as fact.

Nope. Fact. Deal with it.

Again not a factual assertion. An opinion based upon…?

Nope, factual assertion.

By what standard do you think an eyewitness account should be written?

They shouldn’t write about things they couldn’t have possibly witnessed.

How quickly should it be written to qualify as an eyewitness account?

Before they would be dead, I would assume.

Does a period of time automatically invalidate facts/information?

A period of time tends to kill mortal people, if long enough.

If so, what is the arbitrary limits in your opinion as you have yet to provide anything other than opinion and references to nebulous other people.

Apparently “the sky is blue” and “2+2=4” would qualify as opinion by your standard.

Also, do all the eyewitness accounts have to match for them to be true and authentic?

It helps. The gospels don’t. So that means one of them, at least, most likely all of them, are wrong, and so the bible is not the result of divine revelation.

Are you serious? (That whistling sound is your credibility falling off the window sill and out the window) How does holding to this Roman Catholic belief invalidate the existence of Christ. If Christ had siblings or not does not invalidate his existence.

I didn’t say that it did.

 

[thistle]

But not physically. He didn’t see him while alive.

So it was 3 years between Jesus’ birth and death? And you didn’t respond to the other problem I pointed out.

Nope. Fact. Deal with it.

Nope, factual assertion.

They shouldn’t write about things they couldn’t have possibly witnessed.

Before they would be dead, I would assume.

A period of time tends to kill mortal people, if long enough.

Apparently “the sky is blue” and “2+2=4” would qualify as opinion by your standard.

It helps. The gospels don’t. So that means one of them, at least, most likely all of them, are wrong, and so the bible is not the result of divine revelation.

I didn’t say that it did.

 

[foundthelight]

Let’s see. AD 30 to AD 60…30 years. let us say that an eyewitness was 30 in AD 30. That will make him 60 in AD 60.

Are you saying that everyone in that day and age was dead by the age of 60? Are you also saying that people couldn’t have interviewed the actual eyewitnesses and accurately recorded the events?

Your whole supposition is based on a house of cards.

Now, if you are seriously seeking answers I will gladly help. If you are trying to cast doubt and cause trouble you aren’t going to get very far with this group.

May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[NotWorthy]

Any particular reason why? Or are you simply declaring the opinion of the majority of historians wrong because you say so?

I simply question the fact that a majority of historians don’t think Matthew and John wrote their respective Gospels. I would assert maybe a small minority.

The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, 2001.

So do you think that Matthew witnessed the birth of Jesus then?

So, do you think I asserted this. If Matthew didn’t witness 100% of Christ’s life, doesn’t mean he’s not a reliable witness to Christ’s Gospel. This part was only over a 3 year period.

John, however, only covered those 3 years and he claims to have been there.

And? John especially is written far far too late to think it might have been written by a witness.

Yes, John. If his Gospel was written in the 90’s, as is widely held, then that would place him in his 70’s to 80’s. I wasn’t aware that people in the 80’s couldn’t write letters.

You still didn’t respond to the point that the author of John’s Gospel repeatedly reports that this is eye witness accounts. Are you claiming that the author is a liar?

 

[Mersenne]

Let’s see. AD 30 to AD 60…30 years. let us say that an eyewitness was 30 in AD 30. That will make him 60 in AD 60.

Are you saying that everyone in that day and age was dead by the age of 60?

60 is past dead in the first century. Especially someone who is living a beggar’s life traveling the countryside.

Are you also saying that people couldn’t have interviewed the actual eyewitnesses and accurately recorded the events?

Of course I’m not saying that.

Your whole supposition is based on a house of cards.

My supposition is based on a house of cards? Excuse me, I think you need to review where the onus of proof lies. YOU must produce the proof that jesus existed, and YOU are the one providing all the “could haves” The historical existence of Jesus is suspect, the claims of divine nature are a joke. If you think otherwise, where is YOUR proof.

 

[Ailina]

Isn’t it possible that witnesses to Jesus’ life could have been interviewed by the gospel writers? Surely some of those witnesses would have known Jesus in his youth and later. How about his mother? Isn’t it possible that she would talked about her son and the events of his life when he was young. And his aunts, uncles and cousins? Not to mention neighbours and friends? Just because each of them may not have written about him, doesn’t mean he didn’t exist.

How about you or I? Will anyone be able to prove we existed, five hundred years from now in the future, let alone one hundred years from now? Only if those records don’t get lost. How well were records kept in those days? How many of those records have survived to today?

How is any book about anyone else written? Usually by talking to people who knew the subject being written about. Apparently Jesus wasn’t the stay-home-and-whittle type, so it is quite likely many people knew about him and had something to say about his life.

 

[Mersenne]

I simply question the fact that a majority of historians don’t think Matthew and John wrote their respective Gospels. I would assert maybe a small minority.

Then you are ignorant of the reality of the situation. I would suggest you look into it.

So, do you think I asserted this.

You are asserting that Matthew wrote about the birth of Jesus and that his writings are an eye witness account. I’m pointing out how ridiculous that is. He couldn’t have eye witnessed what he wrote about.

If Matthew didn’t witness 100% of Christ’s life, doesn’t mean he’s not a reliable witness to Christ’s Gospel. This part was only over a 3 year period.

It means that the single document was not intended to be an eye witness account. You cannot simply declare a wall between one half of the document and the other, and simply declare that one was intended to be a eye witness account and the other was not, when all the evidence points to exactly the opposite. You are simply believing what you want to believe.

John, however, only covered those 3 years and he claims to have been there.

So John witnessed Marry Magdalene coming to the empty tomb?

Yes, John. If his Gospel was written in the 90’s, as is widely held, then that would place him in his 70’s to 80’s. I wasn’t aware that people in the 80’s couldn’t write letters.

In the first century? His children would be likely dead by that time.

John, however, only covered those 3 years and he claims to have been there.
Yes, John. If his Gospel was written in the 90’s, as is widely held, then that would place him in his 70’s to 80’s. I wasn’t aware that people in the 80’s couldn’t write letters.

You still didn’t respond to the point that the author of John’s Gospel repeatedly reports that this is eye witness accounts. Are you claiming that the author is a liar?

 

[Ailina]

60 is past dead in the first century. Especially someone who is living a beggar’s life traveling the countryside.

Of course I’m not saying that.

My supposition is based on a house of cards? Excuse me, I think you need to review where the onus of proof lies. YOU must produce the proof that jesus existed, and YOU are the one providing all the “could haves” The historical existence of Jesus is suspect, the claims of divine nature are a joke. If you think otherwise, where is YOUR proof.

Just because the average age of life was 30 in those days doesn’t mean it’s impossible that a small number of people could have lived to be much older. Some did, poor or not. Heck, the average age in 1900 was what? 70? Yet I have relatives who lived to be nearly 100 years old at that time. And no, they weren’t rich, but just got by, like most people. Statistically, they didn’t exist then, even though they lived to be 99.

Your suppositions are not based on faith, but material fact. The trouble with material fact that is so old, is that lots of physical evidence has been lost over the thousands of years since the events occurred. It doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen just because we don’t have conclusive proof today.

Think about science. I read about it, but I have personally never conducted the experiments to prove all the scientific facts of this or that. I have to take what I read with a grain of faith, don’t I, because I haven’t personally seen the evidence with my own eyes. I am just going by what some scientist somewhere has published. Heck knows there has been fraud in the scientific world, because sometimes even scientists can make faulty assumptions, especially where egos are involved.

 

[mercygate]

Just because the average age of life was 30 in those days doesn’t mean it’s impossible that a small number of people could have lived to be much older. Some did, poor or not. Heck, the average age in 1900 was what? 70? Yet I have relatives who lived to be nearly 100 years old at that time. And no, they weren’t rich, but just got by, like most people. Statistically, they didn’t exist then, even though they lived to be 99.

Your suppositions are not based on faith, but material fact. The trouble with material fact that is so old, is that lots of physical evidence has been lost over the thousands of years since the events occurred. It doesn’t mean those events didn’t happen just because we don’t have conclusive proof today.

Think about science. I read about it, but I have personally never conducted the experiments to prove all the scientific facts of this or that. I have to take what I read with a grain of faith, don’t I, because I haven’t personally seen the evidence with my own eyes. I am just going by what some scientist somewhere has published. Heck knows there has been fraud in the scientific world, because sometimes even scientists can make faulty assumptions, especially where egos are involved.

We know that Anna was 86. (I think it was 86) According to Tradition, John lived to something like 90 A.D., and may have been perhaps in his mid-seventies at the time of his death. A fragment of the Gospel of John has been discovered that dates not later than 90 A.D.