Was Jesus a real person?

[Moontanman]

 

You keep making the same error.

 

If you look at the history of the book 'Forrest Gump' you would find out soon enough that it is a product of fantasy. It is not enough for a text to be placed in a historical context. Every historical novel is.

 

If you look at the history of the NT, then you find that it is based on different sources, written at different times, and at different places. It is a much more probable assumption that different people, at different times, and at different places, base their writings on hearsay stories of a real person, then that based on legends people come to such stories with as well essential core elements, as widely different interpretations around them.

 

The problem in your (and maybe of all mythicists') approach, is that you throw away all hints that Jesus might have lived one for one, but do not take them all together. When all hints to a common core are taken together then they point to a real historical Jesus.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting hearsay as evidence of something?

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting hearsay as evidence of something?

It may not be evidence that could be used in court cases but it certainly is a clue.

Apparently hearsay is evidence that can be used in Court in certain circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

 

 

Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein." In court hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule") unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

It may not be evidence that could be used in court cases but it certainly is a clue.

Apparently hearsay is evidence that can be used in Court in certain circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

 

 

So if Joe Blow and ten of his friends said i had a flying dog you would consider that evidence I have a flying dog?

[Robittybob1]

 

 

So if Joe Blow and ten of his friends said i had a flying dog you would consider that evidence I have a flying dog?

Yes, and I might think you are a genius at robotics.

[imatfaal]

 

 

So if Joe Blow and ten of his friends said i had a flying dog you would consider that evidence I have a flying dog?

 

Yes - cos that is eyewitness evidence (or just a plain old lie) - but it is evidence. Hearsay is when Beau J'leux says that Joe Blow says that Moon has a flying dog.

 

The situation in the bible is a mixture of all three, hearsay (the Author says that the Witness saw Jesus...), possible evidence (I, the Author, saw Jesus... and historically it might be possible), and downright lies (I, the author saw Jesus... but my language shows that I lived a couple of centuries after the story is set). All of it has been written and re-written so many times that it is all just a story now with practically zero historical foundation.

[Ten oz]

 

Yes - cos that is eyewitness evidence (or just a plain old lie) - but it is evidence. Hearsay is when Beau J'leux says that Joe Blow says that Moon has a flying dog.

 

The situation in the bible is a mixture of all three, hearsay (the Author says that the Witness saw Jesus...), possible evidence (I, the Author, saw Jesus... and historically it might be possible), and downright lies (I, the author saw Jesus... but my language shows that I lived a couple of centuries after the story is set). All of it has been written and re-written so many times that it is all just a story now with practically zero historical foundation.

Does the author of a first hand account need to be known? It is not clear who wrote most of the gospels. Surely hearsay from an undetermined source is weaker than that of a known one? Add to it talk of resurrecting the dead along with many other impossible claims and the whole things becomes inadmissible as primary evidence to anything. Edited October 31, 2014 by Ten oz

[Sensei]

 

So if Joe Blow and ten of his friends said i had a flying dog you would consider that evidence I have a flying dog?

 

That's why I think lie detector should be a common way to process what witnesses are saying..

People that ordinary lie, will immediately reject lie detector, sweating on thought of using it..

[Moontanman]

 

That's why I think lie detector should be a common way to process what witnesses are saying..

People that ordinary lie, will immediately reject lie detector, sweating on thought of using it..

 

 

Good luck taking a lie detector back 2000 years..

[Robittybob1]

 

 

Good luck taking a lie detector back 2000 years..

We could hook up the lie detector to you and then get you to read the Gospels and see what happens.

[Moontanman]

We could hook up the lie detector to you and then get you to read the Gospels and see what happens.

 

 

Was this supposed to be humor? It wasn't...

[Sensei]

We could hook up the lie detector to you and then get you to read the Gospels and see what happens.

 

Sorry, but reading book won't show anything..

 

You don't lie while reading any book. You're just reading somebody story.

[Robittybob1]

 

Sorry, but reading book won't show anything..

 

You don't lie while reading any book. You're just reading somebody story.

I thought if Moontanman could tell it was a lie and his skin might tense up.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Sensei]

I thought if Moontanman could tell it was a lie his skin might tense up.

 

That's interesting subject but completely off-topic.

Whether lie detector will start complaining while examination about book/story that we know is not true? I don't think so. (until question "do you know it's not true?")

We are just telling what we learned from the book/story. We didn't make this up. Just spreading knowledge get from that source.

To make lie detector to work, we need to make lie by ourself.

 

Somebody here have lie detector and willing to make experiment? Examine somebody asking for content of fictional book..

Edited November 1, 2014 by Sensei

[yahya515]

That's why I think lie detector should be a common way to process what witnesses are saying..

People that ordinary lie, will immediately reject lie detector, sweating on thought of using it..

you do not need a lie detector people die for their beliefs nobody dies for lies, in addition the idea of believing is a matter of replacing other beliefs, people worshipped gods that they made when Jesus came they just replaced their beliefs , we believe in prophets no matter they are right or wrong , but to have hope in afterlife, and to obtain religion pushing us to do good things, so I ask this question : why do not we believe Jesus was real even if there is not a noticeable evdince ?

[Robittybob1]

you do not need a lie detector people die for their beliefs nobody dies for lies, in addition the idea of believing is a matter of replacing other beliefs, people worshipped gods that they made when Jesus came they just replaced their beliefs , we believe in prophets no matter they are right or wrong , but to have hope in afterlife, and to obtain religion pushing us to do good things, so I ask this question : why do not we believe Jesus was real even if there is not a noticeable evidence ?

"Why not believe Jesus is real even when there is no evidence?" We don't work like that anymore.

[imatfaal]

Does the author of a first hand account need to be known? ...

 

If the author is not personally attesting the validity then it cannot really be evidence. In literary terms I presume that anonymity makes no difference to the appellation "first hand account" - but in evidentiary terms things are more personal; a first hand account must be delivered by the first hand accounter and how can that be anonymous. A first hand account delivered by someone else is basically person B saying I believe the case to be X because person A says it is - this is again hearsay.

 

Does the author of a first hand account need to be known? It is not clear who wrote most of the gospels. Surely hearsay from an undetermined source is weaker than that of a known one? Add to it talk of resurrecting the dead along with many other impossible claims and the whole things becomes inadmissible as primary evidence to anything.

You cannot have hearsay from an undetermined source - or more accurately the place at which it becomes hearsay moves one level higher. At some point there is a person C saying this fact is true because of this... Iff that person C observed the event themselves then it is eye-witness evidence (and only subject to the fact that eye-witness testimony is incredibly bad!) - if Person C is relying on another's observation then, providing he makes this clear, it is hearsay - if Person C is relying on another and he doesn't make it clear then it is a lie

[Sensei]

you do not need a lie detector people die for their beliefs nobody dies for lies, in addition the idea of believing is a matter of replacing other beliefs, people worshipped gods that they made when Jesus came they just replaced their beliefs , we believe in prophets no matter they are right or wrong , but to have hope in afterlife, and to obtain religion pushing us to do good things, so I ask this question : why do not we believe Jesus was real even if there is not a noticeable evdince ?

 

I was talking about ordinary people that witnessed by them self crime, something unnatural, something unexpectable. Not about believing people.

Lie detector obviously won't work with somebody who was not original eye witness. That person didn't made up story, but heard from 3rd party source.

 

I was replying to Moontanman comment about ordinary guy seeing something unnatural.

[Eise]

Are you seriously suggesting hearsay as evidence of something?

 

Not evidence. But making something more probable. One 'hearsay' is of course not worth very much. But many of them, combined with how the reports correspond, and how they differ, how they changed in time, yes, they are strong hints that Christianity is based on a real existing preacher that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It does not mean to take the NT literally: we don't have to believe contradicting stories (how could you? OK, Christians can...), we don't have to believe supernatural stories.

Add to it talk of resurrecting the dead along with many other impossible claims and the whole things becomes inadmissible as primary evidence to anything.

 

Same error again. Unless you prove to me that the history of writings does not reveal at least something about these writings, your statement is empty. Nobody asks you to believe the NT beforehand, or take anything literally. From the history of the 'Lord of the Rings' we know that Frodo did not really exist.

we believe in prophets no matter they are right or wrong , but to have hope in afterlife, and to obtain religion pushing us to do good things

 

Like flying into buildings?

 

If the author is not personally attesting the validity then it cannot really be evidence.

 

We are not talking natural science here, also no judicial case. It is about history. You are simplifying things.

 

I don't think you know much about historians' methods.

Edited November 1, 2014 by Eise

[Moontanman]

you do not need a lie detector people die for their beliefs nobody dies for lies, in addition the idea of believing is a matter of replacing other beliefs, people worshipped gods that they made when Jesus came they just replaced their beliefs , we believe in prophets no matter they are right or wrong , but to have hope in afterlife, and to obtain religion pushing us to do good things, so I ask this question : why do not we believe Jesus was real even if there is not a noticeable evdince ?

 

 

Nobody dies for lies?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

 

909 people died...

[yahya515]

 

Like flying into buildings?

 

 

you can use an elevator , but what is the solution for death? science and technology have not found solution for death until now.

[Moontanman]

you can use an elevator , but what is the solution for death? science and technology have not found solution for death until now.

 

 

Why must there be a solution for death?

[yahya515]

Why must there be a solution for death?

 

people seek for less important matters like flying for their solutions so if a prophet or a religion presents a solution for death I will take that seriously

I was talking about ordinary people that witnessed by them self crime, something unnatural, something unexpectable. Not about believing people.

Lie detector obviously won't work with somebody who was not original eye witness. That person didn't made up story, but heard from 3rd party source.

 

I was replying to Moontanman comment about ordinary guy seeing something unnatural.

I think you changed the subject by talking about lie detectors .

[Ten oz]

If the author is not personally attesting the validity then it cannot really be evidence. In literary terms I presume that anonymity makes no difference to the appellation "first hand account" - but in evidentiary terms things are more personal; a first hand account must be delivered by the first hand accounter and how can that be anonymous. A first hand account delivered by someone else is basically person B saying I believe the case to be X because person A says it is - this is again hearsay.

 

 

You cannot have hearsay from an undetermined source - or more accurately the place at which it becomes hearsay moves one level higher. At some point there is a person C saying this fact is true because of this... Iff that person C observed the event themselves then it is eye-witness evidence (and only subject to the fact that eye-witness testimony is incredibly bad!) - if Person C is relying on another's observation then, providing he makes this clear, it is hearsay - if Person C is relying on another and he doesn't make it clear then it is a lie

Good explanation. By this standard the New Testement doesn't even qualify as hearsay scene authorship is unknown. We know that it can not be relied on as a source based on that alone. Add in miracles, virgin births, and resurrection and it becomes something that is most probably a total work of fiction.

Not evidence. But making something more probable. One 'hearsay' is of course not worth very much. But many of them, combined with how the reports correspond, and how they differ, how they changed in time, yes, they are strong hints that Christianity is based on a real existing preacher that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. It does not mean to take the NT literally: we don't have to believe contradicting stories (how could you? OK, Christians can...), we don't have to believe supernatural stories.

 

 

Same error again. Unless you prove to me that the history of writings does not reveal at least something about these writings, your statement is empty. Nobody asks you to believe the NT beforehand, or take anything literally.

Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark?

Does Luke and Acts have the same author and who is it?

Who wrote Mathew and Canonical?

How many authors does John have and who are they?

How many of the Gospels were inspired Paul's letters?

[Eise]

Good explanation. By this standard the New Testement doesn't even qualify as hearsay scene authorship is unknown. We know that it can not be relied on as a source based on that alone. Add in miracles, virgin births, and resurrection and it becomes something that is most probably a total work of fiction.

 

I reacted already on that here.

 

Did Jon Mark write the Gospel of Mark?

Does Luke and Acts have the same author and who is it?

Who wrote Mathew and Canonical?

How many authors does John have and who are they?

How many of the Gospels were inspired Paul's letters?

 

Relevance?

 

It is possible to distillate a lot of the history of the gospels without knowing the authors. If you are seriously interested in this subject, read Ehrman. He explains very well what one can conclude from different versions of the same stories, of different versions of the same texts, of translation errors, of the historical context, etc. Oh, I forgot, you already put him on the list of believers, so he is not reliable. Funny however, that he is mentioned as one of the strongest critics of traditional interpretations of the Gospel stories.

 

See how his opponents react on him.

[Moontanman]

people seek for less important matters like flying for their solutions so if a prophet or a religion presents a solution for death I will take that seriously

 

 

 

When you have no way of knowing if a prophet is telling the truth or if a religion is just made up how can you take it seriously? Just because it claims to have a solution for death is no reason to take it seriously. Being gullible is not a pathway to anything but being controlled at best and taken advantage of and used at least.

 

I am an atheist, I do not fear death or pine for some way to avoid death, I know death is a natural part of life, I'd like to avoid it as long as possible but I do not worry about what happens after, I see no reason to worry about what happens after any more than i worry about what happened before i was alive.

 

If you live your life desperately trying to avoid death you miss out on life.