Historical evidence of Pontius Pilate and Jesus...

You think that we believe because we fear death and need assurance. That isn't true.

Many so-called Christians believe that way, and that is not true belief. That is showing up on Sundays to hedge the bet...gain a little insurance against hellfire, as it were.

I have always known God exists, apart from any education I received from family (and that wasn't much with a Catholic dad and Baptist mom who kind of shied away from all of that). I know God exists from many personal experiences. I also know his Son and what he is capable of in people's lives and my life.

 

i didnt say that either and i explicitly stated that is not what i think.

 

I really have a hard time understanding what type of proof you are looking for. The people that witnessed Jesus's death and believed in him did not put the events immediately on paper (or papyrus, whatever). At least none that have survived to this day. Ok, I concede that. Let's say they did, just for a moment. Wouldn't you just say they were part of the conspiracy? That they were brainwashed. That just because the charlatans put their story immediately on paper, what difference does that make? Who is it you expect to have documented these facts, anyway?

I think most of the behavior of the early Christians made a lot of sense. They traveled around, avoided persecution when possible and told people about what they had seen or heard from others. Some people believed them and some didn't. Most of them seemed to believe that Jesus would come back within their lifetimes. When the organization had developed after a few years and the early eye-witnesses started dying off or were killed off by the authorities, then hell, they decided to put the story on paper to keep it as accurate as possible. All of that behavior seems reasonable to me. What seems rather unreasonable to me is that a con-man/magician could start a movement that would, within a remarkably short period of time in that era, come to be widely accepted as the religion of the land, lead to tremendous advances in society, concepts of justice, and contribute substantially to the developoment of the most successful, powerful, advanced culture the world has ever seen. Then after all that they decide that it was all a myth. That this con-man never even existed. Not that he was just a con-man mind you. That I can understand. Reasonable people can disagree. There are plenty of intelligent Muslim/Jewish scholars who dispute the divinity of Jesus. No one is really obstinate enough to claim that the man never existed though. The scoffers have even given up on that. If you'll notice they reserved their attacks on Jesus to his divinity now. The Davinci Code is a good example. Anyway, I'm at work so I gotta lay low for a while.

 

OK. If I have, let's say, an argument with my boss. I tell my son about it, and 40 years later he tells his son about it. Does that make it any less true? What other historical evidence do you need?

I'm not labeling anything as stupid. I'm using martin's words there, I'll admit.

I contend that there is historical evidence of the existence of Jesus. I contend that there is historical evidence of some of the "magic acts" (flood, ark) that happened in the Bible. You contend that there is no historical evidence. Being that you are scientifically minded and seem to need historical proof for everything, I further argue that if there is no God and no Jesus (without historical proof, the rationalists use that to argue) there is no need to live your life by the doctrines of God and Jesus according to the Bible.

I never said that the Bible was 100% historically accurate, I just made claims that there is historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. I believe that the miracles attributed to him happened, and there can be no real historical proof of that.

 

There is no "maybe he did, maybe he didn't". He did, bottom line. Whether or not he's God made flesh is another argument.

From that statement alone and your previous posts about the subject I am persuaded that you don't think he existed.

 

you can be "persuaded" to know that i think he didnt exist? thats weird, because i really don't know if he existed or not and havent researched it or anything.

yes, and as for my previous posts indicating to you what i think:

(from this thread: http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=22611)

you are wrong. you claiming the opposite of what i have said. i dont recally anyone here EVER saying jesus didnt exist.

 

This (I'm pretty sure) was the cause of this entire thread. You may say he doesn't say Jesus never existed but I would argue that is the impression he is try to make. It definitely seems implied. Anyway, for you reading pleasure:

Here are a few more lines:

I'm taking bits and pieces from earlier discussions. I'm pretty sure they are all from Red; Martin seems to be a little slippery when it comes to taking a stand...... :grin:

Anyway, doesn't the Jewish Historian's description of Jesus fit the bill for your demand of a contemporary, independent source. Or the Babylonian Talmud.....they clearly refer to a Jewish man that was given the death penalty by the Roman governing authority. I don't see how that doesn't pass the test......? The reason I'm so suprised/adamant about the thing is that the atheistic/agnostic crowd gave up this line of arguing several decades ago. They don't deny Jesus's existence anymore, they deny his divinity. You guys need to get up to speed on the "agnostic" playbook. It seems to me you are still running the wishbone. The "Fun and Gun" has been in use for at least thirty years now. :hihi:

 

Martin-

-I wish you wouldn't make statements like these. It makes it hard to have a credible debate with you. Some of the popes have been exceedingly brilliant people, as have some catholic theologians. Some priests have done wonderful things and healed people and performed miracles of their own. Western Civilization owes so much to Christianity it is impossible to divorce the two. I wonder if people realize that the cherished seperation of church and state is a result of the papacy and Holy Roman Empire. The idea that there is "Caeser's domain and God's domain".......there is a reason that didn't originate in an Islamic culture or in Buddhism, etc.

gotta run.