Help me.

[DaisyDay]

I read once about a very eminent scholar who spent most of his life trying to prove that the Odyssey and the Iliad were not written by Homer, but by another man of the same name.

That's cute, but Homer was supposed to be a blind poet who never wrote a thing - the Iliad and Odyssey were passed down orally. Homer may have been a man who composed those epics or he may be a legend. There is not enough evidence to say either way.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

what I am saying is that compared to the evidence that could possibly still exist, it is overwhelming. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Consider yourself, what evidence exists that you exist? How much of that evidence will still exist in a thousand years? My grandmother needed to prove her "existance" once, she didn't have a birth certificate, hall records had burnt, witnesses to her birth were all dead, what evidence remained? Lots of people claim lack of evidence for something without ever considering that the only evidence we leave behind in this world, is the witnesses and memories that we leave behind, especially after all or most of the records are destroyed by time, or before records were even kept. The evidence that Jesus did exist is pretty extensive considering what evidence is possible to collect on anyone's existance from the time.

Well, the evidence for my existence doesn't help your argument. There's photographs, audio, video and the written word. All of these in both physical and digital form I'm in the archives of several radio and TV stations, and my words are in the Library of Congress. And the thing is, I don't claim divinity and I haven't started a religion. If I had, I'd think there'd be even more permanent evidence of my existence. I think in a thousand years, there will still be overwhelming evidence of Sun Myung Moon's existence.

In terms of Jesus, there's no description of him in the Bible that I know of. No contemporary paintings or sculptures, nothing written by him. No extra-biblical first hand reporting of the "Went to a wedding today. This guy turned water into wine." kind.

That to me is hardly overwhelming. But again, I'm not out to try and convince you otherwise. Whether he lived or not isn't relevant to me.

Evidence is a funny thing, it requires premise to understand it's significance. For example, I watched a documentary on the scientists that were looking for signs of water on Mars. They were so convinced that there was water on Mars that the evidence that they were wrong was dismissed as inconclusive, time and time again. We do the same thing with anything we want to dismiss, and find evidence where it is not for anything we want to accept, the key to knowing truth is somewhere in the middle.

As a natural born skeptic (I stopped believing in Santa Claus at the age of 3), I don't believe in anything without really good reasons. And yes, a "really good reason" is completely and totally subjective. Some people view pictures of UFO's as evidence, even after it's shown how they could be something else entirely. I used to believe that Socrates was a real person, because there was good reasons. My teachers taught he was a real person and there were writings "by" him. Now I don't believe because there's evidence he might have been invented by Aristotle.

It also works the other way. I used to believe that King Arthur was a completely mythical figure. No there's evidence that the legend is based on a particular Arthur in history, with obvious embellishments. For me, Jesus might fall into this same camp. C.S. Lewis made a mistake when he said that Jesus had to be a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He left out "legend".

 

[Nooj]

There is a Jewish man, who never believes in Christ, and never will.

Is there any particular reason why you chose a Jewish man as an example and not say, an atheist or a Wiccan?

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, the evidence for my existence doesn't help your argument. There's photographs, audio, video and the written word.

not only will these things vanish over time, but they do not prove your existance, only the existance of someone. Take my grandmother, we had pictures of her, things she wrote, even her name written in a family bible under (I forget, I think marriage) but none of that proved her existance, it proved the existance of someone that looked like her, talked like her, etc, but not her existance which is the problem with the accusation that there isn't enough evidence to say Jesus existed. In order to prove His existance by the terms provided, no one existed 2000 years ago. Only thing is, we know that people did, and we don't question it because of the evidence they left behind. We as skeptics must be careful not to take things too far down the road of doubt. Just because Jesus isn't standing before us with birth certificate in hand and photo id showing all the right paperwork, including SSN, doesn't mean there is no evidence of his existance.

All of these in both physical and digital form I'm in the archives of several radio and TV stations, and my words are in the Library of Congress. And the thing is, I don't claim divinity and I haven't started a religion. If I had, I'd think there'd be even more permanent evidence of my existence. I think in a thousand years, there will still be overwhelming evidence of Sun Myung Moon's existence.

You might be surprised by what does still exist and someone will be sitting there saying, I can't believe this dude ever existed because anyone could have spoken on the radio, or written those words, or had their photo taken, and that doesn't prove it was Sun Myung Moon's existance, if only there was evidence.... and that is if all this evidence survives, and btw, 2000 years ago, we couldn't record voices, take photos, etc. So you are limited to remove those things from your existance and still asked to evidence your existance 1000 years from now. Still haven't seen any way you plan to do so that will stand up to the skeptics that don't want you to exist.

In terms of Jesus, there's no description of him in the Bible that I know of. No contemporary paintings or sculptures, nothing written by him. No extra-biblical first hand reporting of the "Went to a wedding today. This guy turned water into wine." kind.

Start by reading Isaiah 53, it is a discription of his appearance along with some other things about Him.

That to me is hardly overwhelming. But again, I'm not out to try and convince you otherwise. Whether he lived or not isn't relevant to me.

but you have made up your mind which is why you claim there is a lack of evidence. Now that is your right to believe as you want, but the evidence of His existance is there and is strong for a person who lived 2000+years ago. What you do with the evidence is yours alone.

As a natural born skeptic (I stopped believing in Santa Claus at the age of 3), I don't believe in anything without really good reasons. And yes, a "really good reason" is completely and totally subjective. Some people view pictures of UFO's as evidence, even after it's shown how they could be something else entirely. I used to believe that Socrates was a real person, because there was good reasons. My teachers taught he was a real person and there were writings "by" him. Now I don't believe because there's evidence he might have been invented by Aristotle.

I myself am a skeptic, and if I told you some of my beliefs because of my skeptism, I would be taken out and flogged, but I am also a natural born thinker and as such, I know that just because there cannot be 100% guarentee of anything doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. For example, science does not know truth, dropping a pencil on the floor, though I can repeat the experiment and get the same results infinately number of times, doesn't make it a fact, because science deals in what will happen the next time. But to think things through, it is unreasonable to think that the next time I drop my pencil it will float to the ceiling. Everything in life pretty much fits this profile. As a skeptic, I look at the evidence and say, it's not conclusive, but as a thinker, I look at the evidence and say, what is the logical conclusion. When we look at the evidence of Jesus existing as a person 2000 years ago + or -, we have to logically conclude, yep, there was a guy, named Jesus who was an important figure of the day, that lived at that time period in history. We also have to logically conclude that there was a controversy at the time, that he was somehow a part of, that was based on religious issues of the same time period. We might even logically conclude that he was a Jew. Those are the logical conclusions of the evidence available on anyone that existed during that time period. As a skeptic, we can dismiss all the evidence as inconclusive, just as we can assume that when I drop my pencil it will float to the ceiling....opps, I dropped my pencil, wait, I have to pick it up off the floor....

It also works the other way. I used to believe that King Arthur was a completely mythical figure. No there's evidence that the legend is based on a particular Arthur in history, with obvious embellishments. For me, Jesus might fall into this same camp. C.S. Lewis made a mistake when he said that Jesus had to be a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He left out "legend".

I've thought for most of my life, that King Arthur was based on a real person of the day, but that is a different story, what evidence that would be from 2000 years ago, would identify a person from that time period as existing? At least in your mind....remember, no photos, no recordings, no birth certificates existed....there are no bones to exist today, they were risen...you don't accept eye witness accounts, you don't accept witnesses, or writings of the time....so what would constitute evidence in your mind? Not what evidence you have seen, but what could possibly exist that you would accept as evidence of an individuals existance some 2000 years ago? When you answer this, we can look for the evidence and together discover whether or not evidence exists. What do you call evidence that could possibly exist?

 

[Gracchus]

I've seen enough evidence to convince me that Jesus was the Christ. So we now have two theories, any more?

You may be convinced, but without evidence, it is just personal claim as far as other are concerned. Without any evidence it might be a guess. If it can be tested it might be a hypothesis. If the hypothesis has stood up to repeated testing without being falsified, it may be accepted as a theory. A theory is an explanation for observations of fact that anyone can make.
There is no evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus are true. It is not possible to do replicable testing.
There are some very wise sayings attributed to Jesus, sayings that make sense. Whether he actually lived is irrelevant to me. I put miracles on the same shelf as ufo's, bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster.
It would be a miracle if Christians actually lived by the precepts that Jesus taught.

 

[razzelflabben]

You may be convinced, but without evidence, it is just personal claim as far as other are concerned. Without any evidence it might be a guess.

the funny thing is that you and others who don't want to believe continue to claim this, but it is the evidence that convinces me. So it's kind of like saying, "because I don't agree with your conclusions of the evidence, I'll claim you have no evidence and that way you will look stupid, and I will look intelligent." Not saying that is what you intend, saying that is what the argument sounds like. If I base my conclusions on the evidence and you base your conclusions on the evidence, and the conclusions are difference, the difference is in the premise, not the evidence. You would be better served to say, our premises bring us to different conclusions rather than to claim the evidence doesn't exist. Even the lack of evidence is evidence we use to draw conclusions.

If it can be tested it might be a hypothesis. If the hypothesis has stood up to repeated testing without being falsified, it may be accepted as a theory. A theory is an explanation for observations of fact that anyone can make.

and....that is the point, after going through the process of evaluating the evidence, I find only one viable conclusion...that Jesus is the Christ. You can test it, in fact, I have asked many people to test it, most refuse, a few accept, and those that accept, usually find me to be right.

There is no evidence that the Biblical accounts of Jesus are true. It is not possible to do replicable testing.

and you would be wrong on that account. But again even lack of "evidence" is evidence. In other words, even if there are not bones in a tomb that is suppose to be Jesus, there is evidence of the claims....even if the written accounts are suspect, there is evidence to review...that is the point, the who bible is evidence, (along with a lot of other stuff, but we are using an example) doesn't mean you have to believe it or hold it as truth to see that it is indeed evidence.

There are some very wise sayings attributed to Jesus, sayings that make sense. Whether he actually lived is irrelevant to me. I put miracles on the same shelf as ufo's, bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster.

many people do until they come face to face with a miracle.

It would be a miracle if Christians actually lived by the precepts that Jesus taught.

Which is why christianity is no different than any religion, they are based on man's understandings not God's...it is also why we need to make distinctions between the religious and the followers of Christ. It is the followers that will evidence the Christ.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

not only will these things vanish over time, but they do not prove your existance, only the existance of someone. Take my grandmother, we had pictures of her, things she wrote, even her name written in a family bible under (I forget, I think marriage) but none of that proved her existance, it proved the existance of someone that looked like her, talked like her, etc, but not her existance which is the problem with the accusation that there isn't enough evidence to say Jesus existed. In order to prove His existance by the terms provided, no one existed 2000 years ago. Only thing is, we know that people did, and we don't question it because of the evidence they left behind. We as skeptics must be careful not to take things too far down the road of doubt. Just because Jesus isn't standing before us with birth certificate in hand and photo id showing all the right paperwork, including SSN, doesn't mean there is no evidence of his existance.

You might be surprised by what does still exist and someone will be sitting there saying, I can't believe this dude ever existed because anyone could have spoken on the radio, or written those words, or had their photo taken, and that doesn't prove it was Sun Myung Moon's existance, if only there was evidence.... and that is if all this evidence survives, and btw, 2000 years ago, we couldn't record voices, take photos, etc. So you are limited to remove those things from your existance and still asked to evidence your existance 1000 years from now. Still haven't seen any way you plan to do so that will stand up to the skeptics that don't want you to exist.

If you have multiple sources of similar physical evidence, from multiple places that corroborate each other, as a logical person you have the choice of either believing in a worldwide conspiracy to dupe people, or you believe the evidence is credible. If I see a hundred photos from a hundred separate sources, all labeled “Sun Myung Moon”, as long as the photos depict the same person I would count the evidence as credible. But we’re going off topic…

You’re right in saying that in that place at that time, proving any individual person who wasn’t “famous” is difficult, if not impossible. I don’t see that as a problem. It’s silly to suggest that it follows that people didn’t exist, it’s just that you can’t pinpoint individuals in the light of a lack of evidence.

Start by reading Isaiah 53, it is a discription of his appearance along with some other things about Him.

Just went through it. It doesn’t mention how tall he was, how stocky he was, how long his hair was, if he had facial hair, how dark his hair was, how large his nose was, etc. In other words, unless I’m missing something, I see no physical description at all.

But you have made up your mind which is why you claim there is a lack of evidence. Now that is your right to believe as you want, but the evidence of His existance is there and is strong for a person who lived 2000+years ago. What you do with the evidence is yours alone.

Now, now, let’s not start painting with a broad brush. I haven’t “made up my mind”. With any claim, I’m always open to new, credible evidence. The ossuary doesn’t count in my mind since it’s thought to be a forgery. You never answered my question. What do you think about the ossuary now that you’ve read the link I posted?

I myself am a skeptic, and if I told you some of my beliefs because of my skeptism, I would be taken out and flogged, but I am also a natural born thinker and as such, I know that just because there cannot be 100% guarentee of anything doesn't mean truth doesn't exist. For example, science does not know truth, dropping a pencil on the floor, though I can repeat the experiment and get the same results infinately number of times, doesn't make it a fact, because science deals in what will happen the next time. But to think things through, it is unreasonable to think that the next time I drop my pencil it will float to the ceiling. Everything in life pretty much fits this profile. As a skeptic, I look at the evidence and say, it's not conclusive, but as a thinker, I look at the evidence and say, what is the logical conclusion. When we look at the evidence of Jesus existing as a person 2000 years ago + or -, we have to logically conclude, yep, there was a guy, named Jesus who was an important figure of the day, that lived at that time period in history. We also have to logically conclude that there was a controversy at the time, that he was somehow a part of, that was based on religious issues of the same time period. We might even logically conclude that he was a Jew. Those are the logical conclusions of the evidence available on anyone that existed during that time period. As a skeptic, we can dismiss all the evidence as inconclusive, just as we can assume that when I drop my pencil it will float to the ceiling....opps, I dropped my pencil, wait, I have to pick it up off the floor....

What’s this “we have to logically conclude” stuff

Some scholars have logically concluded that Jesus is an amalgam of previously existing myths (the water to wine story comes form Dionysus, etc.), perhaps, or perhaps not, laid on top of someone that existed.

I've thought for most of my life, that King Arthur was based on a real person of the day, but that is a different story, what evidence that would be from 2000 years ago, would identify a person from that time period as existing? At least in your mind....remember, no photos, no recordings, no birth certificates existed....there are no bones to exist today, they were risen...you don't accept eye witness accounts, you don't accept witnesses, or writings of the time....so what would constitute evidence in your mind? Not what evidence you have seen, but what could possibly exist that you would accept as evidence of an individuals existance some 2000 years ago? When you answer this, we can look for the evidence and together discover whether or not evidence exists. What do you call evidence that could possibly exist?

I’ve never said that writings or witnesses couldn’t be credible evidence. Do you have any extra-biblical first hand witnesses that wrote about their experience? Any sculptures, paintings?

Anyway, I’m getting kind of tired of this. Like I’ve said, the historicity of Jesus doesn’t mean much to me either way. Let’s assume that I believe there was a person named Jesus who was some sort of holy man 2,000 years ago.

I’m sure you have evidence of his divinity. Let’s talk about that instead.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I find only one viable conclusion...that Jesus is the Christ. You can test it, in fact, I have asked many people to test it, most refuse, a few accept, and those that accept, usually find me to be right.

Ooooo ooooo. Over here!

I'll take your test.

 

[Gracchus]

the funny thing is that you and others who don't want to believe continue to claim this, but it is the evidence that convinces me.

What evidence? (Remember, experience is not evidence unless everyone can have the same experience in the same conditions.

So it's kind of like saying, "because I don't agree with your conclusions of the evidence, I'll claim you have no evidence and that way you will look stupid, and I will look intelligent."

First of all, you have not presented any evidence. Secondly, if I am intelligent I can't claim credit for it, and if I were stupid, it would be better for all involved to understand that. Only a very stupid person would pretend to be smart. (Although sometimes it might be smart for a smart person to pretend to be stupid.)

Not saying that is what you intend, saying that is what the argument sounds like.

"Plum" sounds like "plumb". You have to examine context and details like spelling to discern the difference.

If I base my conclusions on the evidence and you base your conclusions on the evidence, and the conclusions are difference, the difference is in the premise, not the evidence.

The evidence is the premises, so if we reach different conclusions from the same evidence, then we are not using the same rules of inference.

You would be better served to say, our premises bring us to different conclusions rather than to claim the evidence doesn't exist.

So, trot out your evidence for examination. A lawyer can't win his case, he can't convince judge or jury, by claiming evidence that he won't present.

Even the lack of evidence is evidence we use to draw conclusions.

If the lawyer makes speeches but presents no evidence, I may indeed draw a conclusion.

and....that is the point, after going through the process of evaluating the evidence, I find only one viable conclusion...that Jesus is the Christ. You can test it, in fact, I have asked many people to test it, most refuse, a few accept, and those that accept, usually find me to be right.

Present the evidence to be evaluated. That should be simple enough.

and you would be wrong on that account. But again even lack of "evidence" is evidence. In other words, even if there are not bones in a tomb that is suppose to be Jesus, there is evidence of the claims....even if the written accounts are suspect, there is evidence to review...

Bring on this evidence.

that is the point, the who bible is evidence, (along with a lot of other stuff, but we are using an example) doesn't mean you have to believe it or hold it as truth to see that it is indeed evidence.

The Bible is not evidence. It is inadmissable hearsay, because it has no provenence and its authors are not available for cross-examination.

many people do until they come face to face with a miracle.

Faced with the inexplicable, I have seen no reason to assume Jesus did it.

Which is why christianity is no different than any religion, ...

Thank you!

they are based on man's understandings not God's...

And maybe even God got it wrong! Let him present his evidence.

it is also why we need to make distinctions between the religious and the followers of Christ.

No true Scotsman ...

It is the followers that will evidence the Christ.

So if a bunch of people are heading in the same direction they must have a divine leader, even if they are thousands of years and thousands of miles behind?

"Blessed are the cheese-makers." --- Transmitted to Brian Cohen, who had a back row seat at the "Sermon on the Mount"

 

[razzelflabben]

If you have multiple sources of similar physical evidence, from multiple places that corroborate each other, as a logical person you have the choice of either believing in a worldwide conspiracy to dupe people, or you believe the evidence is credible. If I see a hundred photos from a hundred separate sources, all labeled “Sun Myung Moon”, as long as the photos depict the same person I would count the evidence as credible. But we’re going off topic…

And what of those with pen names? Does the man, Mark Twain exist, just because we can corroborate physical evidence of his existance? A true skeptic, not just a person wanting to discredit specific things, applies the skeptism equally accross the board.

You’re right in saying that in that place at that time, proving any individual person who wasn’t “famous” is difficult, if not impossible. I don’t see that as a problem. It’s silly to suggest that it follows that people didn’t exist, it’s just that you can’t pinpoint individuals in the light of a lack of evidence.

Put we have evidence and it is evidence that pinpoints the individual, Jesus.

Just went through it. It doesn’t mention how tall he was, how stocky he was, how long his hair was, if he had facial hair, how dark his hair was, how large his nose was, etc. In other words, unless I’m missing something, I see no physical description at all.

Hum, my son once had long curly blonde locks, now he has very short hair, does that make him nonexistant? The physical description does not do him justice. Once, he had a shaggy beard, now he is clean shaven....etc. Point is, the things you are asking for are not consistants. These are the things that would not identify him as an individual. Now scars, faicial features, etc. these would identify him. He was a Jew, so we know his basic skin color, we know his general facial features from Isaiah 53 and we know His scars from Thomas....that is how we identify one person from another...hair color, length of hair, etc. can change, leaving who we think one person is, actually someone else. Those things that seperate Him from the other people of the day, are provided for us.

Now, now, let’s not start painting with a broad brush. I haven’t “made up my mind”. With any claim, I’m always open to new, credible evidence. The ossuary doesn’t count in my mind since it’s thought to be a forgery. You never answered my question. What do you think about the ossuary now that you’ve read the link I posted?

I have not changed my mind, the ossuary is not the only line of evidence, so even if you want to throw it out of the discussion, it does not change anything. In fact, I still can't figure out why you are so into this, being that I provided links to several lines of evidence, and you ignore all but ossury.

What’s this “we have to logically conclude” stuff

see scientific methods.

Some scholars have logically concluded that Jesus is an amalgam of previously existing myths (the water to wine story comes form Dionysus, etc.), perhaps, or perhaps not, laid on top of someone that existed.

Some conclude that Christianity borrows thier beliefs from other religions, but the evidence suggests otherwise, and the testing of that evidence shows otherwise, so I don't see the problem..Theories are meant to be tested.

I’ve never said that writings or witnesses couldn’t be credible evidence. Do you have any extra-biblical first hand witnesses that wrote about their experience? Any sculptures, paintings?

I provided 3 different sites which gave us an opportunity to cross reference a lot of sources, but you ignore them to focus on one that you think you can discredit. When you are ready to address all those presented, we can move on to some more if you like. Point is, at this point in the discussion, I don't know of a single person that doubts that Jesus did exist, but many who doubt that He was the Christ. Well, that is, until you. I know it is a growing belief, but one without basis if we consider some of the following
Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

The Bible - Its Evolution, Contradictions and Inconsistencies - Page 8

The Historical Jesus

Extra-Biblical Historical Evidence of Jesus

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to be convinced by this evidence, but to deny that it exists is a lie.

Anyway, I’m getting kind of tired of this. Like I’ve said, the historicity of Jesus doesn’t mean much to me either way. Let’s assume that I believe there was a person named Jesus who was some sort of holy man 2,000 years ago.

I’m sure you have evidence of his divinity. Let’s talk about that instead.

Critical Evidence for the Deity of Christ

Ground-breaking dig backs Jesus? divinity | News stories | Sydneyanglicans.net

Again, I don't expect this to convince you, but I wasn't asked to convince you, only to provide evidence. The beginning premise makes the conclusions different.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ooooo ooooo. Over here!

I'll take your test.

test away, just make sure you know what tests for Christ and what tests for religion....

 

[razzelflabben]

What evidence? (Remember, experience is not evidence unless everyone can have the same experience in the same conditions.

just provided several evidences in a post

First of all, you have not presented any evidence. Secondly, if I am intelligent I can't claim credit for it, and if I were stupid, it would be better for all involved to understand that. Only a very stupid person would pretend to be smart. (Although sometimes it might be smart for a smart person to pretend to be stupid.)

I provided lots of evidence, read the posts.

"Plum" sounds like "plumb". You have to examine context and details like spelling to discern the difference.


The evidence is the premises, so if we reach different conclusions from the same evidence, then we are not using the same rules of inference.

If we start with different premises, the rules can and should be the same, it's the premise that differs.

So, trot out your evidence for examination. A lawyer can't win his case, he can't convince judge or jury, by claiming evidence that he won't present.

It has been presented several times now, and again yet today, read the post. I can't read it for you.

If the lawyer makes speeches but presents no evidence, I may indeed draw a conclusion.

but the evidence has been presented many times now, all you have to do is read it.

Present the evidence to be evaluated. That should be simple enough.

simple and done, try reading it, especially since all you can do is claim it wasn't provided, I know your not reading what I write.

Bring on this evidence.

read it when it is provided.

The Bible is not evidence. It is inadmissable hearsay, because it has no provenence and its authors are not available for cross-examination.

your missing a lot by making that claim, but no matter, I presented non biblical evidence as well, try reading it.

Faced with the inexplicable, I have seen no reason to assume Jesus did it.

Thank you!



And maybe even God got it wrong! Let him present his evidence.

again, done.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And what of those with pen names? Does the man, Mark Twain exist, just because we can corroborate physical evidence of his existance? A true skeptic, not just a person wanting to discredit specific things, applies the skeptism equally accross the board.

Since Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens, of course he existed. People who change their names don't suddenly become another person. And I am Todd, but I also am called daddy by my 2 year old. Since we are the same person, we both exist. This has nothing to do with skepticism.

Put we have evidence and it is evidence that pinpoints the individual, Jesus.

Hum, my son once had long curly blonde locks, now he has very short hair, does that make him nonexistant? The physical description does not do him justice. Once, he had a shaggy beard, now he is clean shaven....etc. Point is, the things you are asking for are not consistants. These are the things that would not identify him as an individual. Now scars, faicial features, etc. these would identify him. He was a Jew, so we know his basic skin color, we know his general facial features from Isaiah 53 and we know His scars from Thomas....that is how we identify one person from another...hair color, length of hair, etc. can change, leaving who we think one person is, actually someone else. Those things that seperate Him from the other people of the day, are provided for us.

Isaiah doesn't give details about his facial features. I just reread it. Did he have an exceptionally wide nose or a narrow nose? I'm pretty sure they didn't have rhinoplasty back then. What was his exact height? I'm pretty sure that didn't change. Was his skin dark for a Jew, or light for a Jew?

The point is this. If you saw a painting or a statue of someone and it was claimed to be of Jesus, you have no description in the Bible such that you could say it was or was not Jesus.

I have not changed my mind, the ossuary is not the only line of evidence, so even if you want to throw it out of the discussion, it does not change anything. In fact, I still can't figure out why you are so into this, being that I provided links to several lines of evidence, and you ignore all but ossury.

What I'm doing is seeing if you'd continue to claim it as credible evidence, even though there's plenty of evidence to conclude it's a fake. I've see a lot of dishonest Christians in my day. Christians who send along that stupid "NASA finds missing day of Bible" email, even after they've been told that NASA says they've never said such a thing and it's a big hoax. I've never understood why some Christian are willing to lie to promote their faith. May be a good topic for the "Ethics and Morality" section.

And, as I've already pointed out. I'm not trying to change your mind...

Some conclude that Christianity borrows thier beliefs from other religions, but the evidence suggests otherwise, and the testing of that evidence shows otherwise, so I don't see the problem..Theories are meant to be tested.

You can say that, but it doesn't mean anything until you show evidence that Christianity doesn't borrow from other religions. And I'm not sure how you would do that, unless Christianity shares no traits with other religions, and we both know that isn't the case.

I provided 3 different sites which gave us an opportunity to cross reference a lot of sources, but you ignore them to focus on one that you think you can discredit. When you are ready to address all those presented, we can move on to some more if you like. Point is, at this point in the discussion, I don't know of a single person that doubts that Jesus did exist, but many who doubt that He was the Christ. Well, that is, until you.

When did I say I disbelieved in the existence of Jesus? I've already said that I'm willing to accept it.

I know it is a growing belief, but one without basis if we consider some of the following

Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

I've already addressed Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus. Lucian has the same problem as Tacitus. He doesn't cite his sources, and wasn't a contemporary of Jesus.

As for the Talmud, scholars suggest that the passages were written no earlier than the second century and is simply a reaction to the then-current Christian accounts.

And Thallus? The only thing we have of Thallus (if he was even a real person) is something that Africanus (who lived in the third century) reportedly said that he said. What is that... hearsay of hearsay? That's beyond shaky.

The Bible - Its Evolution, Contradictions and Inconsistencies - Page 8

I'm glad you included this link. It concludes with "In sum, the evidence for the historical evidence for Jesus is non-existent". Oops.

Tell me the truth, are you just giving me links without looking at them? That wouldn't be terribly honest. And since I'm looking at your links, did you do the same courtesy and examine the links I sent you? You haven't given me your opinions on them.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to be convinced by this evidence, but to deny that it exists is a lie.

Critical Evidence for the Deity of Christ

Ground-breaking dig backs Jesus? divinity | News stories | Sydneyanglicans.net

Again, I don't expect this to convince you, but I wasn't asked to convince you, only to provide evidence. The beginning premise makes the conclusions different.

The first link has no extra-biblical arguments at all that I can see. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that won't fly as credible evidence.

The second link only indicates that archeological evidence suggests that ancient Christians worshiped Jesus as a deity. Well... yeah... I agree with that...

 

[razzelflabben]

Since Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens, of course he existed. People who change their names don't suddenly become another person. And I am Todd, but I also am called daddy by my 2 year old. Since we are the same person, we both exist. This has nothing to do with skepticism.

No, a skeptic would say that Samuel Clemens existed, Mark Twain did not. That is the way skeptics think. Prove you exist...this discussion is about evidence that Jesus existed...we have no evidence that Mark Twain existed nor that you or I exist, and yet we accept that they did. So why question Jesus existance when there is so much evidence that He did? Most question His existance because you don't want Him to exist, what would your reason be?

Isaiah doesn't give details about his facial features. I just reread it. Did he have an exceptionally wide nose or a narrow nose? I'm pretty sure they didn't have rhinoplasty back then. What was his exact height? I'm pretty sure that didn't change. Was his skin dark for a Jew, or light for a Jew?

Isaiah says He was uncomely....not someone we would desire to look at. Homely as it were. Actually hight does change over the years, but again that is off topic, the topic is what did Jesus look like, and in Isaiah we see that He was homely looking, not pretty, kind of ugly as it were.

The point is this. If you saw a painting or a statue of someone and it was claimed to be of Jesus, you have no description in the Bible such that you could say it was or was not Jesus.

If the guy looked handsome and beautiful, we would know right away it wasn't Jesus. But you've read it, and still don't accept it, so we move on. If I describ my son as handsome, which he surprisingly is, and you show me a picture of a homely guy and say, is this your son, it would be easy to tell, wouldn't it? The opposite is true as well.

What I'm doing is seeing if you'd continue to claim it as credible evidence, even though there's plenty of evidence to conclude it's a fake. I've see a lot of dishonest Christians in my day. Christians who send along that stupid "NASA finds missing day of Bible" email, even after they've been told that NASA says they've never said such a thing and it's a big hoax. I've never understood why some Christian are willing to lie to promote their faith. May be a good topic for the "Ethics and Morality" section.

I have never forwarded that email, nor do I forward most emails I get. I will tell you this however, since you feel compelled to question my honesty, there are two sides to every story. I have provided lots of referenced sites to the evidence of Jesus existance, just because you or someone else can make an argument and yes, make it sound logical against the evidence doesn't make the argument sound. In order to know if it's just propaganda or not, we have to study it, explore, test the answers of all sides. When I study your "side" I find some glaring flaws, but what is even more interesting is that when I study the side of Jesus was real and is the Christ, I not only see evidence to support but test in the modern day and find consistance to suggest that He is. Now that much evidence is pretty dog gone convinceing, but I would never expect you to agree, much less look at the evidence collected, your too busy trying to prove that all "christians" are closed minded, liars to take the time to see or listen to the evidence that has convinced them that Jesus is the Christ. Just like this argument about whether or not Jesus existed. The evidence is greater than Aristotal that there was a guy named Jesus, of the day, of Jewish heritage, etc. that did live, yet you go on and on about the lack of evidence. If you want to take the evidence and dismiss it for one reason or another, that is yours, but to deny that the evidence does not exist, is to lie about it, the same "crime" you attribute to the "Christians" you are fighting against.

And, as I've already pointed out. I'm not trying to change your mind...

good, because I've seen enough evidence to not be willing to change my mind at this point, there was a time and point in my life when I could have been convinced, but the evidence in my life, has now been so overwhelming it would be like trying to convince me that my husband or kids don't exist....good luck on that one, I see them, taste them (not in a nasty way), hear them (would appreciate quiet at the moment) smell them (some need some deoderant), etc. The evidence of thier existance is so overwhelming that I would be an idiot to deny their existance, the same is true with God at this point in my life, I have so much evidence, see, taste, hear, smell, etc. that I would be crazy to deny His existance.

You can say that, but it doesn't mean anything until you show evidence that Christianity doesn't borrow from other religions. And I'm not sure how you would do that, unless Christianity shares no traits with other religions, and we both know that isn't the case.

well, the very first clue is that "Christianity" is the Jewish religion with an extension so to speak, in other words, it is one of if not the oldest religion in the world. It is hard to borrow something from someone else, when you are the first to do it. But I think this is off topic, so let's finish it somewhere else, shall we?

When did I say I disbelieved in the existence of Jesus? I've already said that I'm willing to accept it.

You kept asking for evidence that Jesus existed, if you believe He did, why keep asking for evidence that He did? I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but the logical conclusion is that you don't yet have enough evidence that Jesus existed.

I've already addressed Tacitus, Pliny and Josephus. Lucian has the same problem as Tacitus. He doesn't cite his sources, and wasn't a contemporary of Jesus.

As for the Talmud, scholars suggest that the passages were written no earlier than the second century and is simply a reaction to the then-current Christian accounts.

What you are doing is making sweeping accusations and complaints without evidence to back up your claims. It is a common technic, one I find distasteful, which is why I like The Case for Christ, because it explains in depth why the belief is held and offers us an opportunity to accept the explaination or dismiss it. In other words, all the evidence is laid bare, and not just, you better believe what I am saying because I am right and you are wrong like you are doing here.

And Thallus? The only thing we have of Thallus (if he was even a real person) is something that Africanus (who lived in the third century) reportedly said that he said. What is that... hearsay of hearsay? That's beyond shaky.

and we are back to what do you call evidence? Let's look at all these writers for a moment. Each mention a guy named Jesus that fits the description we are currently working with. (short hand for Jew, time period, etc). Now, if there was not a person living in the day that fit that description, why would all of them mention this one guy. Consider this, how many book are written today with the hero having the same name and basic characteristics? If this guy was made up by each of these sources, then there is something fishy going on, that they all have the guy having the same name, the same basic issues, etc. So explain away, and see how believable you can be...

I'm glad you included this link. It concludes with "In sum, the evidence for the historical evidence for Jesus is non-existent". Oops.

no ooops, in order to find truth, we need to look at all evidence, and all conclusions then examine and test and draw our own conclusions, it wouldn't be a fair look at the evidence to just provide one side, oops, that is what you are doing....

Tell me the truth, are you just giving me links without looking at them? That wouldn't be terribly honest. And since I'm looking at your links, did you do the same courtesy and examine the links I sent you? You haven't given me your opinions on them.

I'm still waiting for the balance, like I gave you. When we look for truth, we can't hope to find it if our minds are already made up ahead of time. When all we ever look at is one side of the issue, we burn our own bias into our brains, rather than look objectively at the evidence and draw conclusions based on logic not bias.

The first link has no extra-biblical arguments at all that I can see. I shouldn't have to explain to you why that won't fly as credible evidence.

The second link only indicates that archeological evidence suggests that ancient Christians worshiped Jesus as a deity. Well... yeah... I agree with that...

so we are making progress...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, a skeptic would say that Samuel Clemens existed, Mark Twain did not. That is the way skeptics think. Prove you exist...this discussion is about evidence that Jesus existed...we have no evidence that Mark Twain existed nor that you or I exist, and yet we accept that they did. So why question Jesus existance when there is so much evidence that He did? Most question His existance because you don't want Him to exist, what would your reason be?

Not true at all. I’m a skeptic, and I know that both Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain existed as the same person. There’s physical evidence (photographs, handwriting, etc.) of that. This doesn’t exist for Jesus. You’re not helping your cause at all going down this road.

And I’ve never met a skeptic that questioned something because they didn’t want it to exist. That’s silly. I’m open to changing my mind on any issue at any time if credible evidence suggests I should.

Isaiah says He was uncomely....not someone we would desire to look at. Homely as it were. Actually hight does change over the years, but again that is off topic, the topic is what did Jesus look like, and in Isaiah we see that He was homely looking, not pretty, kind of ugly as it were.

Homely to who? There’s no way to tell what that even means. What’s homely to one person isn’t homely to another.

I have never forwarded that email, nor do I forward most emails I get. I will tell you this however, since you feel compelled to question my honesty, there are two sides to every story. I have provided lots of referenced sites to the evidence of Jesus existance, just because you or someone else can make an argument and yes, make it sound logical against the evidence doesn't make the argument sound. In order to know if it's just propaganda or not, we have to study it, explore, test the answers of all sides. When I study your "side" I find some glaring flaws, but what is even more interesting is that when I study the side of Jesus was real and is the Christ, I not only see evidence to support but test in the modern day and find consistance to suggest that He is. Now that much evidence is pretty dog gone convinceing, but I would never expect you to agree, much less look at the evidence collected, your too busy trying to prove that all "christians" are closed minded, liars to take the time to see or listen to the evidence that has convinced them that Jesus is the Christ. Just like this argument about whether or not Jesus existed. The evidence is greater than Aristotal that there was a guy named Jesus, of the day, of Jewish heritage, etc. that did live, yet you go on and on about the lack of evidence. If you want to take the evidence and dismiss it for one reason or another, that is yours, but to deny that the evidence does not exist, is to lie about it, the same "crime" you attribute to the "Christians" you are fighting against.

Have I ever said there’s no purported evidence? No, and saying I did is putting words in my mouth. And I’m not “fighting against” Christians. You assume my character without knowing me. And you keep implying that I deny Jesus’ existence, when I’ve said that’s not the case.

I think it would be best to stop this right here, since you don’t seem to be interested in an honest discussion. I sincerely hope you’re not the kind of person that paints people with a broad brush, like you seem to be doing. And I hope as a self-reported skeptic, you don’t close your mind off, because that’s the antithesis of what a skeptic really is.

 

[razzelflabben]

Not true at all. I’m a skeptic, and I know that both Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain existed as the same person. There’s physical evidence (photographs, handwriting, etc.) of that. This doesn’t exist for Jesus. You’re not helping your cause at all going down this road.

you are wrong, the man that we know as Mark Twain, never existed, only Samuel Clemens existed, and he often called himself Mark Twain, but there were not two seperate people that existed, only one man...that is the point. when we pretend to dismiss evidence because it is inconclusive, we miss the bigger picture. We can dismiss the notion that Mark Twain existed because he is from recent history. But without that recent history, do we know if Mark Twain was real? No we don't. Yet we believe...why?

What you are insisting on missing, and your smart enough to get this, so I am quite convinced it isn't your lack of intelligence but rather your desire to be difficult that is stopping you from progressing in this discussion, is that if modern history limits our ability to positively identify someone as in the case of my grandmother or Mark Twain (remember your discussion about historical people you question the existance of) then the evidence we have about the existance of someone 2000+ or - year ago when some of these things did not exist, will not be proof positive unless your premise is one of the best we can know, X existed...or if your premise is, based on the available evidence we are convinced that if X existed then Y had to have existed. This premise is important to any historical person in pre modern times. [/quote]

And I’ve never met a skeptic that questioned something because they didn’t want it to exist. That’s silly. I’m open to changing my mind on any issue at any time if credible evidence suggests I should.[/quote] wow, I've known a lot of them. Even on occassion, myself, though it is rare for me, it is human nature, and nothing to be ashamed of.[/quote]



Homely to who? There’s no way to tell what that even means. What’s homely to one person isn’t homely to another.[/quote] the text says nothing that man should desire him....in other words, man has a set of things that they look to for beauty, I remember one such (in way of scientific exploration) was symatry. When we see someone whose features are not symetric, we do not find them appealing. It is these types of things that marked our Jesus as a man. He wasn't what man thinks of as beautiful. He was not the pretty boy of the time or today. None of the feature man finds attractive. Check out this sight for a first step toward man's idea of beauty...Looking Good: The Psychology and Biology of Beauty

Have I ever said there’s no purported evidence? No, and saying I did is putting words in my mouth. And I’m not “fighting against” Christians. You assume my character without knowing me. And you keep implying that I deny Jesus’ existence, when I’ve said that’s not the case.

I think it would be best to stop this right here, since you don’t seem to be interested in an honest discussion. I sincerely hope you’re not the kind of person that paints people with a broad brush, like you seem to be doing. And I hope as a self-reported skeptic, you don’t close your mind off, because that’s the antithesis of what a skeptic really is.

the mischaracterization of me is noted....moving on.

 

[Gracchus]

What evidence? (Remember, experience is not evidence unless everyone can have the same experience in the same conditions.

just provided several evidences in a post

All I could find was two links, and a recommended book. Neither of the links was much more than Bible commentary. I am not going to spend money on the book. What evidence did the book provide?

Perhaps I missed something. In which post did you provide evidence?

First of all, you have not presented any evidence. Secondly, if I am intelligent I can't claim credit for it, and if I were stupid, it would be better for all involved to understand that. Only a very stupid person would pretend to be smart. (Although sometimes it might be smart for a smart person to pretend to be stupid.)

I provided lots of evidence, read the posts.

You made assertions. You posted two links, which provided no arguments, and cited one book without summarizing the evidence you said it contained.

"Plum" sounds like "plumb". You have to examine context and details like spelling to discern the difference. The evidence is the premises, so if we reach different conclusions from the same evidence, then we are not using the same rules of inference.

If we start with different premises, the rules can and should be the same, it's the premise that differs.

How do our premises differ? If our evidence differs, what evidence are you considering that I am not?

So, trot out your evidence for examination. A lawyer can't win his case, he can't convince judge or jury, by claiming evidence that he won't present.

It has been presented several times now, and again yet today, read the post. I can't read it for you.

Which post?

If the lawyer makes speeches but presents no evidence, I may indeed draw a conclusion.

but the evidence has been presented many times now, all you have to do is read it.

Present the evidence to be evaluated. That should be simple enough.

simple and done, try reading it, especially since all you can do is claim it wasn't provided, I know your not reading what I write.

Please cite the post(s). That should not be too strenuous.

​

 

[razzelflabben]

All I could find was two links, and a recommended book. Neither of the links was much more than Bible commentary. I am not going to spend money on the book. What evidence did the book provide?

which one did you look at? the last one I offered was #210 (I think, I looked it up then forgot and need to finish and go for a few minutes, if that isn't the right post, it's nearby and if you can't find it, let me know. BTW Dr. Witherington comes very highly recommended as a biblical scholar. Hy husband knows him and studied under him.

Perhaps I missed something. In which post did you provide evidence?
You made assertions. You posted two links, which provided no arguments, and cited one book without summarizing the evidence you said it contained.
How do our premises differ? If our evidence differs, what evidence are you considering that I am not?

review the evidence provided first then we can talk more intellegently on the differences.

 

[Gracchus]

which one did you look at? the last one I offered was #210 (I think, I looked it up then forgot and need to finish and go for a few minutes, if that isn't the right post, it's nearby and if you can't find it, let me know. BTW Dr. Witherington comes very highly recommended as a biblical scholar. Hy husband knows him and studied under him. review the evidence provided first then we can talk more intellegently on the differences.

"Here is extraordinary physical evidence from the century before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea that Christians, including Roman officials, were worshipping Jesus as divine," Dr Dickson explains. "
"Lead archaeologist Yotam Tepper from the Israeli Antiquities Authority has dated the mosaic floor to AD 230 but he admits he is being deliberately conservative.
‘Tepper is confident of the date and told me there is evidence it might be even earlier, late second century,’ Dr Dickson says."

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/ground_breaking_dig_backs_jesus_divinity/

Have I suggested that some of the early Christians did not worship Jesus as divine? That doctrine was widely accepted by the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. Indeed, the Council was called to settle disputes that were leading to violence and rioting over points of Christian dogma, like whether Jesus was of the same insubstantial substance as the Father (homousioun) or of a similar insubstantial substance (homoiusioun). Christians were killing each other over an iota, a jot, a disagreement over the nature of an indetectable and insubstantial substance! It was decided that Jesus was of the same insubstantial substance. They took a vote! Soon after that of course, by about 370 CE, it became heresy and treason to believe otherwise.

The mosaics on the floor of a Christian meeting house is not evidence that Jesus was divine, any more than the remains of a Mormon temple in Missouri dating to the 1850’s is evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

As for the second link we find Witherington’s "evidence" to be as follows:

"1. His independent approach to the law."
This was the approach of the school of the Pharisees, and can be summarized as the opinion that the law was made to free man, and not to enslave him, to serve man, and not to be his master. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus can hardly, if at all, be distinguished from those of the Pharisees, of his time.

"2. His feeding of the 5,000."
The evidence is just as good that Superman came from the planet Krypton. In fact their are more publications attesting to his existence, super powers, and extraterrestrial origin than there are attesting to Jesus and his miracles.

"3. His interpretation of His miracles."
Superman could bend steel in his bare hands, fly faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall buildings in a single bound, and see through walls (and skirts!). All this is well attested by comic books, movies, television shows, and radio programs. There is even a real book about him! It must be true.

"4. His proclamation of the kingdom of God as present and inbreaking in His ministry."
Mohammed and Joseph Smith both proclaimed themselves prophets. David Khoresh proclaimed himself the messiah.

"5. His choosing of 12 disciples."
Had he chosen three, six, or seven, it makes no difference, because you could argue with equal inanity that thouse were meaningful numbers. But Judas was replaced, and then Paul also claimed to be an apostle, so there were at least thirteen.

"6. His use of ‘the Son of Man.’"
In Hebrew that would be "ben Adam". It means "son of Adam", which is to say "a man". In New Testament Greek it would be "huios anthropos", with the same meaning. Now Greek had no definite article as such but " ‘os huios anthropos" would best translate as "this son of man".
In any case, this is not evidence of divinity, but at best, with a considerable stretch by someone of tendentious intent, a claim of divinity.

"7. His use of ‘amen’."
This is like saying, "Truly", or "For sure". It is not evidence of anything.

"8. His use of ‘Abba.’"
He called God father. He also told his followers to pray to God as "father". And the fellow chosen to let off when when Jesus was condemned was "Bar Abbas", Aramaic for "Son of a Father", probably indicating that his paternal lineage was unknown. This is not evidence. It isn’t even clear.

"9. His distinguishing Himself from his contemporaries, including John the Baptist, the Pharisees, Jewish revolutionaries, and the disciples."
Well, I could just as validly lay claim to be me, and no one else. And again, even granting that he claimed some special relationship with God, that is not evidence that such a claim is true.

"10. His belief that one's future standing with God hinged on how one reacted to His ministry."
Almost all religious leaders make such a claim. It is not evidence.

"11. His understanding that his death was necessary to rectify matters between God and His people."
He may have thought so, although that is not clear to me. And as doctrine that makes little sense. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient God, have such a requirement? It is as though it were not the people who were guilty but God who must pay for his own misdeeds.

"12. His sense of mission to the whole of Israel, especially to sinners and outcasts, which led to table fellowship with such people."
You don’t try to sell Model T Fords to folks driving Rolls Royce’s. The fact that he was preaching and catering to hoi polloi is not evidence of divinity, it is a marketing strategy.

"13. His raising messianic expectations in a repeated pattern of controversy with his contemporaries."
So he was claiming to be a messiah, one who was sent from God. Many made that claim. A claim is not evidence.

"The beliefs of the early church cannot be explained unless Jesus claimed to be God."

Critical Evidence for the Deity of Christ

And here is the crux. (Pun noted!)
Witherington is not even trying to present evidence that Jesus was God. He is trying to present evidence that Jesus was claiming to be God.

You or I could make the same claim, and I could certainly make a better argument for such a claim than Jesus, or Witherington did.

In short, Razzleflabben, you have presented no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Bear in mind, I don’t claim he didn’t. I think he is a conflation of at least two would-be messiahs, one executed in the first century BCE, another a wandering preacher of the first century CE, and a number of savior gods worshipped in the Mediterranean world about that time. (e.g. Tammuz, Osiris, Bacchus, Sol Invictus, Mithras, et al.)

Neither of the links you posted is evidence of anything but that claims were made. There is no evidence of the validity of such claims.

Comments?

 

[razzelflabben]

"Here is extraordinary physical evidence from the century before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea that Christians, including Roman officials, were worshipping Jesus as divine," Dr Dickson explains. "
"Lead archaeologist Yotam Tepper from the Israeli Antiquities Authority has dated the mosaic floor to AD 230 but he admits he is being deliberately conservative.
‘Tepper is confident of the date and told me there is evidence it might be even earlier, late second century,’ Dr Dickson says."

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/ground_breaking_dig_backs_jesus_divinity/

Have I suggested that some of the early Christians did not worship Jesus as divine?

my inicial response to this, and I mean no disrespect by this, was duh!!!! If all the early Christians worshiped Jesus as divine, they would not have crucified Him, or turned Him over to the authorities.

That doctrine was widely accepted by the time of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. Indeed, the Council was called to settle disputes that were leading to violence and rioting over points of Christian dogma, like whether Jesus was of the same insubstantial substance as the Father (homousioun) or of a similar insubstantial substance (homoiusioun). Christians were killing each other over an iota, a jot, a disagreement over the nature of an indetectable and insubstantial substance! It was decided that Jesus was of the same insubstantial substance. They took a vote! Soon after that of course, by about 370 CE, it became heresy and treason to believe otherwise.

nice history lesson, thanks

The mosaics on the floor of a Christian meeting house is not evidence that Jesus was divine, any more than the remains of a Mormon temple in Missouri dating to the 1850’s is evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

but it is evidence that he existed.

As for the second link we find Witherington’s "evidence" to be as follows:

"1. His independent approach to the law."
This was the approach of the school of the Pharisees, and can be summarized as the opinion that the law was made to free man, and not to enslave him, to serve man, and not to be his master. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus can hardly, if at all, be distinguished from those of the Pharisees, of his time.

"2. His feeding of the 5,000."
The evidence is just as good that Superman came from the planet Krypton. In fact their are more publications attesting to his existence, super powers, and extraterrestrial origin than there are attesting to Jesus and his miracles.

"3. His interpretation of His miracles."
Superman could bend steel in his bare hands, fly faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall buildings in a single bound, and see through walls (and skirts!). All this is well attested by comic books, movies, television shows, and radio programs. There is even a real book about him! It must be true.

"4. His proclamation of the kingdom of God as present and inbreaking in His ministry."
Mohammed and Joseph Smith both proclaimed themselves prophets. David Khoresh proclaimed himself the messiah.

"5. His choosing of 12 disciples."
Had he chosen three, six, or seven, it makes no difference, because you could argue with equal inanity that thouse were meaningful numbers. But Judas was replaced, and then Paul also claimed to be an apostle, so there were at least thirteen.

"6. His use of ‘the Son of Man.’"
In Hebrew that would be "ben Adam". It means "son of Adam", which is to say "a man". In New Testament Greek it would be "huios anthropos", with the same meaning. Now Greek had no definite article as such but " ‘os huios anthropos" would best translate as "this son of man".
In any case, this is not evidence of divinity, but at best, with a considerable stretch by someone of tendentious intent, a claim of divinity.

"7. His use of ‘amen’."
This is like saying, "Truly", or "For sure". It is not evidence of anything.

"8. His use of ‘Abba.’"
He called God father. He also told his followers to pray to God as "father". And the fellow chosen to let off when when Jesus was condemned was "Bar Abbas", Aramaic for "Son of a Father", probably indicating that his paternal lineage was unknown. This is not evidence. It isn’t even clear.

"9. His distinguishing Himself from his contemporaries, including John the Baptist, the Pharisees, Jewish revolutionaries, and the disciples."
Well, I could just as validly lay claim to be me, and no one else. And again, even granting that he claimed some special relationship with God, that is not evidence that such a claim is true.

"10. His belief that one's future standing with God hinged on how one reacted to His ministry."
Almost all religious leaders make such a claim. It is not evidence.

"11. His understanding that his death was necessary to rectify matters between God and His people."
He may have thought so, although that is not clear to me. And as doctrine that makes little sense. Why would an omnipotent, omniscient God, have such a requirement? It is as though it were not the people who were guilty but God who must pay for his own misdeeds.

"12. His sense of mission to the whole of Israel, especially to sinners and outcasts, which led to table fellowship with such people."
You don’t try to sell Model T Fords to folks driving Rolls Royce’s. The fact that he was preaching and catering to hoi polloi is not evidence of divinity, it is a marketing strategy.

"13. His raising messianic expectations in a repeated pattern of controversy with his contemporaries."
So he was claiming to be a messiah, one who was sent from God. Many made that claim. A claim is not evidence.

"The beliefs of the early church cannot be explained unless Jesus claimed to be God."

Critical Evidence for the Deity of Christ

And here is the crux. (Pun noted!)
Witherington is not even trying to present evidence that Jesus was God. He is trying to present evidence that Jesus was claiming to be God.

So what you are arguing is that if I claim to be a monkey, evidencing that I can't make that claim if I am a monkey, is not going to help us know if I am a monkey or not....okay...I don't agree, but okay... your opinion doesn't have to be logical in order to be your opinion.

You or I could make the same claim, and I could certainly make a better argument for such a claim than Jesus, or Witherington did.

In short, Razzleflabben, you have presented no evidence that Jesus ever existed. Bear in mind, I don’t claim he didn’t. I think he is a conflation of at least two would-be messiahs, one executed in the first century BCE, another a wandering preacher of the first century CE, and a number of savior gods worshipped in the Mediterranean world about that time. (e.g. Tammuz, Osiris, Bacchus, Sol Invictus, Mithras, et al.)

all you are doing is dismissing the evidence as I said you would do....no problem, that is your right, we all base our conclusions on the premises we bring...when asked repeatedly for what you would call evidence, you gave nothing that would be possible for the time period we are talking about, so showing you evidence would never satisfy you, since you can't even tell us what you consider evidence.

Neither of the links you posted is evidence of anything but that claims were made. There is no evidence of the validity of such claims.

Comments?

see above, without knowing what you would classify as evidence, no one can provide evidence to you. What I presented is the evidence that most people accept and use to determine their beliefs. You dismiss it all but provide nothing that you would accept as evidence from the time period. In other words, you set yourself up to dismiss all evidence by not being forthright and telling us what you would accept as evidence. If you do a quick websearch, you will see that the things I presented to you are evidences that are available from the time period, for the existance of anyone from the time.