• Jesus Part II March 07 - 5:16 pm

Seems everybody's afraid to touch this one... Can't say I blame them...

What would we discus?

Was he real? - There's historical and Archeolical evidence for that.

Was he who he said he was? - That's covered on another board, I'm sure.

Who was he? - What rock have you been living under?

So, my question is, what exactly is the point of this board?

I did see a documentry billed as 'A Carpenter's son who founded an obscure cult which went on to become a world religion' I didn't get too see it though. It's interesting that the Romans tried to squish christianity like a fly, but ended becoming some the strongest believers.

I wish I could remember the title, but I read a book a few years back about the "Historical Christ." Basically, it said the guy was real (supported by archeological evidence), but that the stuff written about him in the Bible is mostly B.S. and that the real deal would NOT approve of a lot of the •••• done in his name such as hate ctrimes, holy wars, the 700 Club, etc. The author compared him to Ghandi and MLK, and that a lot of the poeple who invoke his memory today (the Falwells of the world) are lousy hypocrits. The author came to these conclusions using the same archeological evidence IIRC.

Well, it's true that while archeological evidence can prove that Jesus Christ lived on Earth, they can't prove that he was who the Bible said he is. That is a matter of faith.

I believe that Jesus Christ is indeed who the Bible says he is. But I also believe that he would not approve of many of the things you mentioned, like holy wars, hate crimes, etc. The Bible doesn't endorse these either. While I can't claim to have read that book, but I don't believe that Jesus being the Messiah, Svaior, and Son of God means that he approves of everything done by people who believe that he is. (Since humans are sinners, even the ones that believe in him, we're all bound to do something wrong sometime. Jesus forgives us, and continues to offer eternal life, but that doesn't mean he aproves of what we did.)

It would be rather revealing to know the theology
of the person who wrote that book.What anyone
believes or thinks about Jesus will always be
centered around their own theological beliefs.

RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! HIGHLY FLAMABLE MAERIAL!!

The best place to learn about Jesus is the
Gospel of St.Mark.
Besides being the shortest of the Gospels it
has traditionally been considered the earliest
written.

To paraprase Worf, The son of Mogh of the House of Martok.

"If you belive Jesus Christ was the Son of God, then he was as the gospels protray him, if you do not, it doesn't matter who he was."

This is a continuation of a discussion from the Prejudice Against Christians? board.

WIT: I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there is no evidence for Christ's existence.
Luigi Novi: Some particular reason you dropped the word "contemporary" from my original statement?

WIT: That a figure named Jesus lived and preached in the first century A.D. is almost never disputed by experts, Christian or not.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. It has been disputed quite a bit.

There were many people named Jesus, as it was a commmon name. There was Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus, Jesus ben Gamaliel, Jesus ben Saphat, etc. Josephus mentioned 19 different men named Jesus/Yeshua, about half of which were contemporaries of the alleged Christ. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, to whom he refers as “another Jesus.”

There is also no evidence of a 1st century city named Nazareth, nor any contemporaneous evidence that any of the people so named performed miracles, or that any of them were called The Christ. There may have been a real guy named Jesus, but much as with Robin Hood, and King Arthur, the person on whom the Jesus myth was based probably bore no resemblance to the idealized person Christians worship, and there was likely nothing supernatural about his birth, his life, or his death.

WIT: What we know about Jesus does not just come from the Bible, but from other historic records of the time, including Josephus, the historian by which we get much of our history from that time.
Luigi Novi: Hearsay. Josephus didn't witness the events in question, and the passages in question in his Antiquities are heavily disputed, owing to their placement, their length, and their inconsistency with what he know about Josephus. They are thought to be either interpolations, or outright forgeries.

WIT: There are other references that I don't remember off the top of my head, but I will be more than happy to look them up for you, if you wish.
Luigi Novi: Like Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger, etc.? They're all hearsay accounts too. None of them witnessed the events they described, as they were all born decades after the alleged Crucifixion.

And yet, we accept their historical accounts of other things they mention in hearsay. As Constanze pointed out on the other board, a LOT of historical figures are only noted through hearsay accounts and sketchy direct evidence. I'd be more skeptical of Jesus if suddenly more "direct" stuff started popping up.

Regarding Nazareth, several archaeologists have noted that Nazareth was a small and insignificant Jewish settlement during the Roman period (Jack Finegan, Ian Wilson, James Strange).

Go to http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm to read about Jesus from Josephus's point of view. It's very interesting, to say the least.

There seems to be a wide spectrum of scholarship concerning the authenticiy of the Testimonium Flavianum, but it looks like no reputable scholars accept the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him," as original to Josephus.

From Jewish Views of Jesus:

The so called Testimonium Flavianum. This is the only direct discussion of Jesus to be found in the writings of Josephus. Unfortunately, the text as we have it in extant copies of Josephus' Antiquities appears to have been dramatically re-written from a Christian point of view. (The writings of Josephus were brought down to us from antiquity not by the Jewish community, but by the Christians). The second column contains an Arabic quotation of the Josephus passage that has a much less Christian flavor. Some scholars have argued that the Arabic version has a more likely claim to originality.

Some modern historians reject the passage as an interpolation (i.e. forgery), on other grounds, for several reasons inherent in the text. In its context, passage 3.2 runs directly into passage 3.4, and thus the thread of continuity, of "sad calamities," is interrupted by this passage. The context, without the testimonium passage reads:

"...So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition. <insertion> About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome..."

The deepest concerns about the authenticity of the passage were succinctly expressed by John Dominic Crossan, in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Peasant (1991): "The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish." Three passages stood out: "...if it be lawful to call him a man... He was [the] Christ... for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." These seem directly to address Christological debates of the early 4th century. Consequently many secular historians dismiss the Testimonium as an interpolation.

Lastly it should be noted that the entire passage is also found in one manuscript of Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War. Lower Criticism has shown this to be an interpolation as other manuscripts are extant that do not contain it including the modern standard text of The Jewish War.

"The Case for Christ" even admits that the more blatantly Christian-esque passages in Josephus are likely later additions/forgeries.

MikeC: And yet, we accept their historical accounts of other things they mention in hearsay.
Luigi Novi: Oh, "we" do?

I don't. And neither do historians. Events and people are only accepted as historical by the historical community if they're independently corroborated.

MikeC: Regarding Nazareth, several archaeologists have noted that Nazareth was a small and insignificant Jewish settlement during the Roman period (Jack Finegan, Ian Wilson, James Strange).
Luigi Novi: The area that would become the village of Nazareth around the second century was used as a graveyard or burial area. No remains of habitations contemporary with Jesus have turned up, though excavations in 1955 revealed pre-Christian human remains, which would have made the immediate area uninhabitable to observant Jews.

Moreover, the sentiments expressed by committed Christians (Jack Finegan was actually a preacher as well as an archaeologist) might be a tad influenced by their faith. There's little dispute over what is actually at Nazareth. What's in dispute is how that evidence is interpreted. Not even a Christian archaeologist has the gall to maintain that there was the gospel “city” of Nazareth, which, in itself, is sufficiently damning of the Jesus saga. Dr Strange once suggested a maximum population of 480 - a guess, nothing more. A family farm is just as likely.

Ian Wilson is a journalist and writer, not an archaeologist. He says little about Nazareth other than mentioning the doubts which surround its existence. He is a self-confessed “skeptical, practicing Catholic.”

WIT: Go to http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm to read about Jesus from Josephus's point of view.
Luigi Novi: As I stated earlier, (along with others on other boards a long time ago) those passages, which I've already read, are likely not from his point of view, as Josephus was born years after the alleged Crucifixion, the passages are hearsay, and they are likely forgeries, for a variety of reasons, most notably the inconsistency of an orthodox Jew like Josephus considering a heretic like Jesus to be “the Christ.”

Last November, TomM posted a passage from a critique that explains the problems with the Joesphus passages here.

And back in August 1999, Todd Pence also listed the problems with both the Josephus passages and the Tacitus passages here.

Mike,

... As Constanze pointed out on the other board, a LOT of historical figures are only noted through hearsay accounts and sketchy direct evidence....

Please don't misrepresent/misunderstand me. I didn't say/mean that historians accept that people lived based on hearsay, but that they want (as Luigi pointed out) more than one source, so they can corrobate and verify. They also prefer objective accounts (though these are difficult to get in historical times).

Sorry if I misrepresented you; I was just taking your observation and using it for my own purposes (devious, aren't I? ). My general point was that direct evidence is extremely difficult to find in historical times, not just for Jesus but for lots of historical figures. Jesus, who was only on this earth for 33 years and for the most part, confined his ministry to a fairly obscure part of the world, would most likely not have a lot of direct evidence.

Nazareth is never said to be anything but a fairly small and dumpy "city" in the Bible. The Case for Christ actually uses Dr. Strange's conclusion as proof that the Bible is correct (it gives the same conclusion of 480 people).

Luigi, I guess that didn't come out right about history. We accept secondary sources in the absence of primary sources, noting that it is admittedly not as convincing as direct evidence. In this case, you would hope that Tacitus used some primary sources for his secondary source, etcetera. We don't know. What is for certain is that a pretty big movement of people calling themselves Christians started around this time who evidently believed that Jesus was a real person. That's not historical evidence, no, but you would think that if Jesus never existed in any form, this movement would have a serious handicap. At the very least, Mohammad and Buddha were real people. In any event, it eventually becomes a pointless exercise: Even if archaeological and historical evidence backed up Jesus' existence, it still doesn't confirm his divinity or resurrection. In that case, it is still a matter of faith. As it should be.

The fact that there were a group of people who believed in a Christ doesn't mean that there was one, any more than the self-flagellation of those who believed in Cybele means that Cybele existed. Yes, there may have been someone on whom our modern image of Jesus the Christ was based. But he likely bore no more resemblance to this character we are familiar with then the real people on whom King Arthur and Robin Hood were based.

"Likely" how? What exactly does that mean?

Isn't it obvious? We all know how myths spring up around initial strings of truth, and I pointed out two other examples of mythological characters that likely (and some cases, we know) are nothing like the people on which they were based. With Christ, we know that he was likely not Caucasian, that the Last Supper looked nothing like Da Vinci's depiction of it, and that much of the Gospels, if not most or all of it, is more mytho-religious narrative than a historical account.

Like I said, it all comes down to faith.

History has nothing to do with faith. If you want to argue that the historicity of Jesus the Christ, and that this and other such Biblical stories are historical rather than mythological, as so many insist on doing, like WIT, then it all comes down to evidence.

In this case, history has everything to do with faith. From what you have shown me, I have not seen evidence that proves that Jesus never existed or that the Gospels could not have been true. As you correctly point out, there is little direct evidence to support it historically. That is true. But not having direct evidence (and there is certainly secondary evidence and some supporting evidence) does not mean that the Bible is wrong. I put my faith in that it is true.

In this case, history has everything to do with faith.
Luigi Novi: Only if you create your own definition of the word. True history requires evidence. Faith doesn't make a given event or person historical.

From what you have shown me, I have not seen evidence that proves that Jesus never existed or that the Gospels could not have been true.
Luigi Novi: It is the person making the claim that must provide evidence for the positive. It is not the burden of the skeptic to provide evidence of the negative. I was surprised to see you say this, Mike, because I figured you by now understood enough about this fallacy to employ it.

That is true. But not having direct evidence does not mean that the Bible is wrong.
Luigi Novi: No, it just means that we don't know if it's true, which is how the process truly works.

(and there is certainly secondary evidence and some supporting evidence)
Luigi Novi: (I wanted to respond to this comment separately.) What is this secondary or supporting evidence?

"It is not the burden of the skeptic to provide evidence of the negative."

I don't think you're understanding my point. I am not suggesting you should. We do not have direct evidence that the Bible is "true," as you say. Can I give you said evidence? No. Because there is no direct evidence, you choose not to believe. I have faith and believe it is true. That is all my point is. I wasn't trying to utilize a logical fallacy here. Sorry.

As for secondary evidence, I was just referring to the things already mentioned above--the hearsay accounts, some of the archaeological findings. As you have already pointed out, it is not really direct evidence. That's all I meant.

In this case, history has everything to do with faith.
Only if you create your own definition of the word. True history requires evidence. Faith doesn't make a given event or person historical.

No, Established or proven history requires evidence. If there is no eveidence, we don't know the truth. We don't know whether a claimed historical event occurred or not. It could be historically true or it could not be. We just don't know. You even admit to this later when you say "No, it just means that we don't know if it's true, which is how the process truly works."

From what you have shown me, I have not seen evidence that proves that Jesus never existed or that the Gospels could not have been true.
It is the person making the claim that must provide evidence for the positive. It is not the burden of the skeptic to provide evidence of the negative. I was surprised to see you say this, Mike, because I figured you by now understood enough about this fallacy to employ it.

But Mike is not making the claim that "History" shows the "truth" of the gospels, only that it does not explicitly disprove them. He then adds that he has reasons outside the sciences of history and archaeology to believe in their truth. Reasons that he does not insist that you must accept.

Fine, Tom, replace my word "true" with "established or proven." Same point. Sorry if my choice of words was less precise. But I think it's fairly obvious what I was talking about, especially to you and Mike, with whom I've had discussions of this nature before.

If Mike wants to say that these people and events are "historical," argue that there is "evidence" for them (regardless of whether he uses the "direct" qualifier or not), and generally use reason to support his position, then he's arguing with the language of empiricism, which has nothing to do with faith.

And when we talk about "evidence," we're obviously talking about material that is either conclusive, or at the very least, points to one explanation more than another. Putting the word "indirect" or "secondary" in front of the word doesn't mean that it is empirically or factually true, nor does having "faith" that it is mean that it is. The question is what can establish that it is true. Not what fails to disprove it.

True and established are not the same things at all, certainly not in a religious sense. You cannot "establish" God's existence. I can certainly believe it to be "true." You cannot "establish" Jesus-as-the-Bible-portrays-Him. I can certainly believe it to be "true."

As Tom pointed out, established and proven are not equivalent to truth.

"If Mike wants to say that these people and events are "historical," argue that there is "evidence" for them (regardless of whether he uses the "direct" qualifier or not), and generally use reason to support his position, then he's arguing with the language of empiricism, which has nothing to do with faith."

That would be true if that was what I was doing. In re-reading my posts, I don't see myself doing that. I mentioned there was "evidence," but I candidly admitted I was using my own definition for that and in another post, I pointed out that yeah, there probably isn't direct evidence for Jesus-as-the-Bible-portrays-Him.

"Putting the word "indirect" or "secondary" in front of the word doesn't mean that it is empirically or factually true"

Correct. When did I say otherwise?

"nor does having "faith" that it is mean that it is"

Correct. When did I say otherwise?

"The question is what can establish that it is true. Not what fails to disprove it."

If one could establish Truth scientifically, one would have very little use for faith.

Again, I think you know what I meant by my use of the word "true," and we weren't talking about a "religious sense." We were talking about history. Again, please pick a context, and stick with it. What one has faith in vis a vis their religion does not make a person or event historical.

How was I to know what you meant by "true"? True and established are very different concepts. I'm sorry for not realizing that you were using them in the same way, but I disagree with your usage.

Aside from a few brief mentionings of historical concepts (Nazareth, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus), I have been in a religious context throughout this thread. It's tough for me to completely divorce my religious and historical contexts: For me, yes, my religious context assures me that Jesus was completely historical. Does that make Him historical in a historical context? No, I guess not. I don't know how simpler I can state that.

What about any evidence that supports the associates of Jesus?
Did the Apostles & other disciples really exist?
Did most of the Apostles die believing that Jesus arose from the dead?
If there is evidence that there was a Jew named Simon Peter who was killed by being crucified, then I would consider that one piece of supporting evidence.

As far as evidence for God, can I offer Exhibit A: The Earth?

You mean that ball of rock that coalesced out of a dust cloud?

Tomato, tom-ato.

(from the Prejudice Against Christians board)
“How in the world can anyone say that Jesus did or did not die of whatever cause, given that we have zero contemporary evidence for his existence, let alone his crucifixion?“-Luigi Novi

Honestly, Luigi, this is getting tiresome. Can you offer me proof that Napolean existed? How about George Washington? Or Julius Ceaser? Sure, you’ve found bodies, and have historical records, pictures, recordings, etc., but how do you know that they’re really authentic?

Okay, maybe that’s going a bit overboard, but Luigi, like WIT said, you’re the only sane, rational person I’ve ever met that has tried to claim that Jesus didn’t exist. That He wasn’t God, sure. That He didn’t do what Christians believe He did, sometimes. But that He didn’t exist? Where’s the proof AGAINST His existence, besides your grudge against Josephus?
(And yes, I know the whole burden of proof situation, but it seems to me that numerous hostorical proofs have been offered for hundreds of years at the very least, so now it's your turn.)
I'm not asking you to debate Jesus' divinity, miracles, etc. I understand the difficulty is scientifically proving those. But trying to repeatedly discredit Jesus as not having existed? I'm going to need some more proof from your side before I can swallow that one.

Mike, what I'm asking is how is a ball of rock coalesing out of a dust cloud evidence for G-d?

You'd have to ask Terik what he (or she, sorry) meant by that. For me, I look at the Earth and I see something amazingly beautiful and complex that had to be created by a God. YES, that does not necessarily imply a Christian God. YES, that is nowhere near scientific proof. But it is evidence for me. Not necessarily you or anybody else. Note: I am not arguing in a scientific context. I am not arguing in a scientific context. I am not arguing in a scientific context.

Okay, maybe that’s going a bit overboard, but Luigi, like WIT said, you’re the only sane, rational person I’ve ever met that has tried to claim that Jesus didn’t exist. That He wasn’t God, sure. That He didn’t do what Christians believe He did, sometimes. But that He didn’t exist? Where’s the proof AGAINST His existence, besides your grudge against Josephus?
(And yes, I know the whole burden of proof situation, but it seems to me that numerous hostorical proofs have been offered for hundreds of years at the very least, so now it's your turn.)
I'm not asking you to debate Jesus' divinity, miracles, etc. I understand the difficulty is scientifically proving those. But trying to repeatedly discredit Jesus as not having existed? I'm going to need some more proof from your side before I can swallow that one.

Luigi did not say Jesus did not exist, he said that there is no reliable (extra-Biblical) evidence that he did. (Granted, he also says or implies that the Gospels are not considered reliable documents in the historical sense, but since he does not deny the possibility of Jesus existence, only the proof of it, he chose not to comment on the Gospels.)

To save him the trouble of repeating himself I'll quote his reply to WIT. (Strange how you apparently missed it.):

"There were many people named Jesus, as it was a commmon name. There was Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus, Jesus ben Gamaliel, Jesus ben Saphat, etc. Josephus mentioned 19 different men named Jesus/Yeshua, about half of which were contemporaries of the alleged Christ. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, to whom he refers as 'another Jesus.'

"There is also no evidence of a 1st century city named Nazareth, nor any contemporaneous evidence that any of the people so named performed miracles, or that any of them were called The Christ. There may have been a real guy named Jesus, but much as with Robin Hood, and King Arthur, the person on whom the Jesus myth was based probably bore no resemblance to the idealized person Christians worship, and there was likely nothing supernatural about his birth, his life, or his death."

Mike, I supposed that I hoped (or perhaps wrongly assumed would be the correct phrase) that you would understand that I meant factually true or empirically true or even historically true. I'm willing to concede that maybe I should've spent another moment or two in going over my post, but since I've had so many discussions with you and TomM on the nature of empiricism vs. faith, and was familiar with your own demeanor, I figured you'd understand what I meant. Just what permutation of the word “true” did you think I intended, may I ask?

As for having been in a religious context throughout this thread, I thought we were talking about the historicity of Jesus, which means that we were speaking in the language of empiricism and the Scientific Method. I don't see how a religious context assures one of one's historicity, or how you can then talk about whether it makes “historical in a historical context”-what other context would we be talking about, given the very nature of the word? The phrase itself seems redundant.

Aside from a few brief mentionings of historical concepts (Nazareth, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus), I have been in a religious context throughout this thread. It's tough for me to completely divorce my religious and historical contexts: For me, yes, my religious context assures me that Jesus was completely historical. Does that make Him historical in a historical context? No, I guess not. I don't know how simpler I can state that.

Terik: As far as evidence for God, can I offer Exhibit A: The Earth?
Luigi Novi: In order for the Earth to function as evidence for God, you have to show how the Earth can only be explained by God, or how other, conventional explanations have been excluded.

Zarm Rkeeg: Honestly, Luigi, this is getting tiresome. Can you offer me proof that Napolean existed? How about George Washington? Or Julius Ceaser? Sure, you've found bodies, and have historical records, pictures, recordings, etc., but how do you know that they're really authentic?
Luigi Novi: Why would they not be? They left letters, books, busts, coins, manuscripts, and all manner of artifacts. Where else would they have come from? There are methods by which such things can be authenticated, which such items have. When multiple lines of evidence converge upon the conclusion, it is reasonable to offer agreement to it. Since the consensus in the historical community is that these people most certainly existed, then it is reasonable to accept this-unless you have a specific argument or line of contradictory evidence that may disprove it (evidence that can actually account for all the confirmatory evidence, and provide an alternative explanation to replace it). Has anyone come forward to provide any? Do you have any such material to which you can refer us? If not, then this question is irrelevant.

It also has nothing to do with Christ, and does nothing to mitigate the status of contemporaneous evidence for him. After all, what's the reasoning being employed here? Because you want to question the authenticity of the evidence for these people, that means that therefore, ipso facto, the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for Jesus the Christ can be glossed over? Those figures at least did leave contemporaneous evidence behind, and we can explore and discuss the qualities of those various artifacts and lines of evidence. By contrast, the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth, did not.

But if you really feel it's getting tiresome, why then post here? What exactly is it that you find tiresome? Someone with a position that you don't share? Or the fact that they express it? I'm not sure I understand the position of someone who claims that the discussion is getting tiresome (assuming I'm understanding you correctly), while simultaneously participating in it.

Zarm Rkeeg: Okay, maybe that's going a bit overboard, but Luigi, like WIT said, you're the only sane, rational person I've ever met that has tried to claim that Jesus didn't exist.
Luigi Novi: LOL. Thank you for the compliment (I think!), so perhaps I can set your mind at ease slightly by pointing out to you that I do not claim this. Read the third exchange in my Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:01am post to see for yourself.

Zarm Rkeeg: That He wasn't God, sure. That He didn't do what Christians believe He did, sometimes. But that He didn't exist? Where's the proof AGAINST His existence…
Luigi Novi: You don't need proof against his existence. You need proof for it. The burden is on the claim to be proven. Not on others to disprove it. I've pointed this out to you on the EvC boards, and I've pointed it out recently here. You should understand by now that the Prove the Negative Argument is a logical fallacy.

Zarm Rkeeg: …besides your grudge against Josephus?
Luigi Novi: I don't recall claiming to have a grudge against Josephus. I believe I stated (and I think this is the third time during this current incarnation of this discussion) that A. Josephus was born after the alleged Crucifixion, so his accounts are heresay, and B. The two passages in his Antiuqities that mention Jesus are totally inconsistent with everything we know about him. I even posted some detailed elaborations on this, and even links to more detailed ones. Didn't you read this? How does this amount to a “grudge”?

Zarm Rkeeg: (And yes, I know the whole burden of proof situation, but it seems to me that numerous hostorical proofs have been offered for hundreds of years at the very least, so now it's your turn.)
Luigi Novi: You're mistaken. There has not been a single contemporaneous bit of evidence to support the existence of Jesus the Christ, and thus his historicity is vigorously debated within the historical community. To be certain, there are many things that Christian apologists choose to regard as proofs, but that doesn't mean that they are, and it certainly does Christian belief affect historicity. His existence has not been confirmed. Hence, it is not “my turn.”

MikeC: You'd have to ask Terik what he (or she, sorry) meant by that. For me, I look at the Earth and I see something amazingly beautiful and complex that had to be created by a God.
Luigi Novi: You're saying it could not have happened through natural processes known to science, even though we know so much (though not all) about them? You're saying it simply could not have happened as science tells us? Yes, I know you said you weren't arguing in a scientific context, but then what are you saying vis a vis such a context? (That it did happen according to natural processes, and that your religious view is that God caused them? Just asking.)

Luigi, what I am saying is that I believe God created the Earth as He said He did in the Bible. I am willing to accept that God used His natural processes to create the Earth under certain caveats (which I have stated elsewhere).

Regarding the "true/truth" comment, I guess I just took umbrage at the word "truth"--I apologize, but truth has a very loaded connotation in a religious sense. I should have realized what context you usually use it in. May just have been a lack of concentration on my part.

Terik: As far as evidence for God, can I offer Exhibit A: The Earth?

Oh? And what about Exhibit B?
Earth's bigger cousin

MikeC: You'd have to ask Terik what he (or she, sorry) meant by that. For me, I look at the Earth and I see something amazingly beautiful and complex that had to be created by a God.

Even if that's true and you belive that some sort of God created the Earth how does that prove the bible correct? Every religion has a story about how their God created the world and made them the chosen people, how do you know which is right?

I never said it proves the Bible correct. All I said that is that the Earth's beauty and complexity is proof (to me) that there is a God, which is proof for part of what God has promised. The Bible's veracity I find elsewhere.

"I'm not sure I understand the position of someone who claims that the discussion is getting tiresome (assuming I'm understanding you correctly), while simultaneously participating in it."-Luigi Novi


Maybe I was a little unclear, there. I've been going back through and getting re-aquainted with the discussions in the RM board after leaving for a while. And it seems like half of the threads keep reconverging back to this one. What I find tiresome is the argument, not the discussion. If you'll forgive me, it seems to me that the new "in vogue" method to dismis the claims of Christianity is to try and discredit their base on the ridiculous notion that Jesus Christ can't be proven historically. (If this is not the case, then I'm afraid I still can't understand the distinction in your arguments.)

(P.S. Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:01am of which board?)


"Zarm Rkeeg: Honestly, Luigi, this is getting tiresome. Can you offer me proof that Napolean existed? How about George Washington? Or Julius Ceaser? Sure, you've found bodies, and have historical records, pictures, recordings, etc., but how do you know that they're really authentic?
Luigi Novi: Why would they not be? They left letters, books, busts, coins, manuscripts, and all manner of artifacts. Where else would they have come from? There are methods by which such things can be authenticated, which such items have. When multiple lines of evidence converge upon the conclusion, it is reasonable to offer agreement to it...
...Because you want to question the authenticity of the evidence for these people, that means that therefore, ipso facto, the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for Jesus the Christ can be glossed over? Those figures at least did leave contemporaneous evidence behind, and we can explore and discuss the qualities of those various artifacts and lines of evidence. By contrast, the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth, did not."-Luigi Novi


This is why I classify these arguments as prejudice or attacks, because of some sort of willful blindness.
I have no intention of attacking the credibillity of Washington, Napolean, or Ceaser. My point is that you find to reason to doubt or discredit every piece of historical data or record that they leave behind.
It seems to me that suggesting there is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus Christ is ridiculous and absurd.
Leaving aside the writings of the Bible itself and the eyewitness reports of his existnace (many of the non-Jesus passages of which have been confirmed historically as well), and the works of Josephus (who I am NOT convinced is anything less than authentic,) and Tacitus, (all of which should not be left aside in the first place) and the world-wide traditions that have existed for centuries, what about finds such as the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus? What about the writings of others, not just those that refrenced Christianity from it's startm such as Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger, but those historians who wrote about the events of Christ's crucifixtion itself, such as Thallus, Phlegon, and Mara Bar-Serapion?
Certainly, you could claim that all of these were fakes, frauds, or populations of a cultural myth. But as I was trying to suggest above, why do other historical figures like Ceaser not bear this kind of doubt and scrutiny? What makes historians who spoke about Napolean in less doubt than those who spoke about Christ?


"Zarm Rkeeg: That He wasn't God, sure. That He didn't do what Christians believe He did, sometimes. But that He didn't exist? Where's the proof AGAINST His existence…
Luigi Novi: You don't need proof against his existence. You need proof for it. The burden is on the claim to be proven. Not on others to disprove it. I've pointed this out to you on the EvC boards, and I've pointed it out recently here. You should understand by now that the Prove the Negative Argument is a logical fallacy."

And I'm saying that the evidence has been historically provided for centuries. When it comes down to 2,000 years of Christianity vs. Luigi Novi, it seems to me that you're the one with something to prove (or at least disprove) here.


"Zarm Rkeeg: …besides your grudge against Josephus?
Luigi Novi: I don't recall claiming to have a grudge against Josephus."

Sorry, once again I forget to turn off my sarcasm mode for non face-to-face conversation. My point is that Josephus, like many other Biblical sources, is considered to be a lack of proof for flimsy reasons at best. Just because the only writings about Christ that have survived are written after His death, they suddenly don't constitute historical evidence? I'm not saying that this position is technically unarguable, but it seems to be really stretching for a reason NOT to believe it that historical accounts of other individuals do not recieve.


"Luigi Novi: You're mistaken. There has not been a single contemporaneous bit of evidence to support the existence of Jesus the Christ, and thus his historicity is vigorously debated within the historical community. To be certain, there are many things that Christian apologists choose to regard as proofs, but that doesn't mean that they are, and it certainly does Christian belief affect historicity. His existence has not been confirmed. Hence, it is not “my turn.”"

Again, I dissagree. I would say it is a more a matter of many things skeptics choose to regard as non-proofs, but my challenge still stands: the 'pro' evidence has been presented and confirms the biblical accounts. Just because you choose not to believe them doesn't mean that you can say 'they're not true' without presenting facts to support that.
Maybe it would help to clarify: I'm not asking you to prove a negative statement (Christ didn't exist) based on a positive one (Christ did exist), I'm asking you to defend your own positive statement (The proof of your statement doesn't count.) The burden is therefore on you to prove that statement to be correct.


"Terik: As far as evidence for God, can I offer Exhibit A: The Earth?

Oh? And what about Exhibit B?
Earth's bigger cousin"-Influx

Um, so? The planet does not appear to support life, leaving Earth unique (so far as we know) in the universe.
(Sorry, pet peeve coming though again. I just don't get the fuss about finding another planet simply because it's smaller than all the rest. we have plenty of closer-to-Earth-sized planets here in the solar system, but that doesn't make Earth any less unique. Anyway, back to the topic at hand...)

..., what about finds such as the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus? - Zarm Rkeeg

Last I heard, that was determined to be a fake. There was a report on 60 Minutes about it.

"Imagine there's no heaven...And no religion, too."

And if you want, you can read a transcript of that 60 Minutes segment here.

"Imagine there's no heaven...And no religion, too."

Zarm Rkeeg: Maybe I was a little unclear, there. I've been going back through and getting re-aquainted with the discussions in the RM board after leaving for a while. And it seems like half of the threads keep reconverging back to this one. What I find tiresome is the argument, not the discussion. If you'll forgive me, it seems to me that the new "in vogue" method to dismis the claims of Christianity is to try and discredit their base on the ridiculous notion that Jesus Christ can't be proven historically. (If this is not the case, then I'm afraid I still can't understand the distinction in your arguments.)
Luigi Novi: Where has anyone here ever argued that Christ cannot be proven historically? What I have pointed out is that he hasn't been. Not that he can't be. If you cannot understand the distinction between these two things, that's your problem, not mine, and does nothing to diminish the consistency and solidity of the argument, regardless of whether you find it tiresome.

Luigi Novi: Why would they not be? They left letters, books, busts, coins, manuscripts, and all manner of artifacts. Where else would they have come from? There are methods by which such things can be authenticated, which such items have. When multiple lines of evidence converge upon the conclusion, it is reasonable to offer agreement to it... ...Because you want to question the authenticity of the evidence for these people, that means that therefore, ipso facto, the fact that there is no contemporaneous evidence at all for Jesus the Christ can be glossed over? Those figures at least did leave contemporaneous evidence behind, and we can explore and discuss the qualities of those various artifacts and lines of evidence. By contrast, the alleged Jesus the Christ of Nazareth, did not.

Zarm Rkeeg: This is why I classify these arguments as prejudice or attacks, because of some sort of willful blindness. I have no intention of attacking the credibillity of Washington, Napolean, or Ceaser. My point is that you find to reason to doubt or discredit every piece of historical data or record that they leave behind.
Luigi Novi: This statement of yours is arbitrary, and bears no substantial relationship with the statement of mine that preceded it.

First, the use of the word “find” implies a contrivance on my part, as if the above statements I made are not reasonable, and that I am forced to resort to rationalization because there no rational arguments to support my position. This is not so. I have not “found” reasons to doubt the alleged evidence of Christ, I've simply pointed to the ones that others have pointed out, none of which you have successfully refuted. By talking about “finding reasons” you are simply evading the question of whether the points I brought up in response to yours are valid. Well? Is it not true that Washington, Napoleon and Caesar left behind contemporaneous evidence? Is it not true that there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ? Is it therefore unreasonable to point out that an analogy between Christ and those is inaccurate? If so, why don't you just explain why? Instead, you simply respond rhetorically. I don't have to find reasons to call the historicity of Christ into question. Others have already done so. You want to refute those reasons, you have to show why they're not valid. By not doing so, your use of the word “find” appears to be simply your way of saying you jolly well don't feel like accepting them.

Willful blindness? To what? The “evidence” you mention? I've addressed that by pointing out that none that is contemporaneous with his alleged life exists, and that the only accounts we do currently have are hearsay accounts written by people born years or even decades after the alleged Crucifixion, the most commonly cited of which is inconsistent with what we know of its author, and believed by many to be forged. Hard to be willfully blind to something while simultaneously refuting it, don't you think?

The same goes for the accusation of prejudice, the second time such that accusation has been leveled against me in less than a month, and the second time that the accuser has failed to even try proving it. Let's say for the sake of argument that one or more of my statements about Christ's historicity is actually wrong. Being wrong on a given issue doesn't mean that you're biased. It could simply mean that you're wrong, and that the reasoning you employed to arrive at your conclusion fails to convince your opponent, who sees things differently. That's not the same thing as being biased. To show this, or to conclude that my position is motivated by prejudice, or “willful blindness,” you have to illustrate that I am somehow not being objective, and that I am entirely influenced by predisposition. You have not done this. Hence, your accusation is without merit. I think I've demonstrated over the past four years that I am able to put aside personal feelings and biases when evaluating a given idea, and I find it amusing that this is the second time within a month or so that someone has accused me of bias not because they've actually illustrated it via a pattern of behavior, but solely because they disagree with my position on a given issue. My position on the historicity of Christ is based on as much information on the issue as I've been able to read on it. When I was a Catholic, I naturally believed that Christ was not merely a mythological figure, but regarded as historical outside of religious belief, because that's what I read and heard and seen in books and TV shows, which I had no reason to doubt. Even after I became an agnostic, I continued to believe that Christ was a historical fact (I was simply more skeptical of his alleged supernatural feats), since every documentary on the subject I saw on A&E, The Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, etc., regarded him as such. That program that gets repeated every Christmas and Easter that's narrated by Avery Brooks cites Josephus. Because of the trust that we place in the printed word and on the screen, and the power that those media have over the human mind, I had no reason to doubt that documentary, since no mention was ever made that anyone disputes those two passages. Only after I began to study skepticism and the Scientific Method, and read more critical sources on the subject, did I discover what all mainstream sources never mention about the dispute over such sources. If I were the type to simply argue according to unchanging, long-held beliefs, and never question and revise my positions and conclusions, then I'd still be a Catholic believer, and in agreement with you. That I correctly point out that there is no contemporaneous evidence for Christ doesn't show that I am influenced by prejudice, but the opposite. By the same token, it is a reasonable statement to say that there is no evidence for the Battle of Troy, and that the city of Troy itself was also unproven until discovered recently. Am I operating from an anti-Homer bias here, Zarm?

If you want to show that my position on this issue is not made in good faith, but entirely by predisposition, then kindly illustrate that accusation with evidence, kind sir.

By attacking me ad hominem with rhetorical accusations of prejudice and contrivance that you refuse to elaborate or illustrate with any bit of evidence, by refusing to address refutations of your own statements that I have provided, and by asserting something true (contemporaneous evidence for Christ) without elaborating on it one bit, you again reveal yourself as the one proceeding from bias and willful blindness, something that's been long established on your part when it comes to discussions with religious ramifications.

Zarm Rkeeg: It seems to me that suggesting there is no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus Christ is ridiculous and absurd.
Luigi Novi: I am not interested in how things “seem” to you, only in facts and evidence, and the manner in which we look at them. I can only ask you to explain to me what this contemporaneous evidence is, because unless I've missed it, you haven't mentioned what it is yet. Your only attempt to cite evidence that is actually contemporaneous is the ossuary, which was discredited, as mentioned below. The only other items you mention are from the manuscript tradition, which are obviously not contemporaneous, unless you change the definition the word.

Zarm Rkeeg: Leaving aside the writings of the Bible itself and the eyewitness reports of his existnace (many of the non-Jesus passages of which have been confirmed historically as well)…
Luigi Novi: What “eyewitness” reports are these? Where are they? Have they been corroborated?

Zarm Rkeeg: (many of the non-Jesus passages of which have been confirmed historically as well)…
Luigi Novi: What do non-Jesus passages have to do with confirming the historicity of Jesus?

Zarm Rkeeg: …and the works of Josephus (who I am NOT convinced is anything less than authentic)
Luigi Novi: And how exactly do you explain the inconsistencies of those passages with what we know of Josephus?

Zarm Rkeeg: and Tacitus, (all of which should not be left aside in the first place)
Luigi Novi: Tacitus was born in 55CE, about 35 years after the alleged Crucifixion. Hence, he was not an independent witness to Christ, and his accounts are hearsay. Was the average lifespan in 1st century Palestine even long enough for alleged witnesses to have spoken to Tacitus when he began his career in the first place?

Zarm Rkeeg: …and the world-wide traditions that have existed for centuries…
Luigi Novi: Traditions? You think traditions are evidence for the existence of something? Religions all over the world have “traditions” pertaining to their beliefs. So what? Does that mean all the gods of those religions exist too?

Zarm Rkeeg: What about finds such as the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus?
Luigi Novi: It was found to be a fake.

As it is explained by various sources, such as the ones here and here, long after the natural processes of a damp cave environment had coated the ossuary with "biovermiculation" and patina, someone carved a series of letters through this natural varnish. He then covered the freshly cut letters with an imitation patina made from hot water and ground chalk - a sort of baked on "soup", microfossils and all. It was identified belonging to Oded Golan, a forger posing as a collector. While the ossuary was exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Canada in November 2002, the Israeli Antiquities Authority published a report in June 2003 concluding that the inscription is a modern forgery based on their analysis of the patina. Specifically, it appears that the inscription was added recently and made to look old by addition of a chalk solution. Oded Golan has since been arrested and his forgery equipment and partially completed forgeries have been recovered. On December 29, 2004, Golan was indicted in an Israeli court along with three other men - Robert Deutsch, an inscriptions expert who teaches at Haifa University; collector Shlomo Cohen; and antiquities dealer Faiz al-Amaleh. They are accused of being part of a forgery ring that had been operating for more than 20 years.

Again, believers hold up whatever can remotely be construed as evidence of their position, while deliberately ignoring or obscuring that which may disprove it. By mentioning the ossuary, but not the fact that it was deemed a forgery (for which numerous sources can easily be found with a Google search), you again demonstrate your own bias and willful blindness.

Zarm Rkeeg: What about the writings of others, not just those that referenced Christianity from it's startm such as Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger
Luigi Novi: Lucian is not an independent witness to Jesus. He was born c.120 or 125CE, a century after alleged Crucifixion. He may have relied upon Christian sources and anecdotes, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus). Since he never specified his sources, we cannot confirm his accounts. Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified.

Suetonius and Pliny weres born in 75AD and 63AD respectively, about 45 and 34 years after the alleged Crucifixion respectively, and therefore, were not independent witnesses to the alleged Jesus the Christ.

Suetonius is cited for his mention of “Chrestus”, which believers allege is a misspelling of “Christ,” which at most is a guess for which they offer no evidence. Even if Seutonius had meant “Christ,” it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus.

Pliny does not offer any independent evidence for Jesus. Christian historian Robert Wilken concludes, Pliny's "knowledge of the new movement must have been slight and largely second-hand." And New Testament scholar R.T. France writes, "for our purposes, looking for evidence about Jesus, [Pliny's letter] has nothing specific to offer. ... Pliny seems to have discovered nothing about him as a historical figure." Thus, Pliny's letter cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Zarm Rkeeg: …but those historians who wrote about the events of Christ's crucifixtion itself, such as Thallus, Phlegon…
Luigi Novi: As it states here:

We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems. Scholars since the 18th century have even invented facts about him, and some of these groundless notions-like the idea that he was a Samaritan-are repeated even today. Claims are also made, mainly but not exclusively by modern Christian apologists, which make Thallus into the earliest literary witness to the gospel tradition.

If you scroll down to (or use your browser's Find feature to get to the first appearance of the word) “Phlegon”, you'll find problems with Phlegon as well.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia says in regards to Thallus:

The 9th century Christian chronologer George Syncellus cites Julius Africanus as writing in reference to the darkness mentioned in the synoptic gospels as occurring at the death of Jesus:

Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me.

Africanus then goes on to point out that an eclipse cannot occur at Passover when the moon is full and therefore diametically opposite the sun. But no other author who mentions Thallus before Syncellus makes any mention of Thallus' supposed reference to the darkness. One would expect Christians to make a great deal of such a reference on the part of a well-known chronographer and historian if it supported Christian belief. Africanus may here be in error or Thallus may have only put forth the idea that the darkness that Christians claimed occurred at the death of Jesus was a normal eclipse of the sun, perhaps referring to the eclipse of the sun that occurred in AD 29.

Another source for problems with Thallus can be found here, and Phlegon here.

Zarm Rkeeg: …and Mara Bar-Serapion?
Luigi Novi: Bar-Serapion's letter to his son is worthless in showing the historicity of Jesus, as it does not provide independent confirmation.

For one thing, we do not know if the “Wise King” to which Serpion referred in the letter he wrote to his son was a reference to Jesus the Christ. Moreover, given that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews, Bar-Serapion's choice of words is inexplicable unless we assume that he received his information about this “wise King” from Christians. (Remember that the Christians held the Jews at least partially responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.) However, if Bar-Serapion received his information from Christians, two conclusions follow. First, it is highly likely that this “wise King” was Jesus. Second, Bar-Serapion does not provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

The value of Bar-Serapion's letter as an independent witness to the historical Jesus is further decreased by our uncertainty concerning its date. The conservative scholar F.F. Bruce has stated that the letter was "written some time later than A.D. 73, but how much later we cannot be sure." Archibald Robertson-who accepted the historicity of Jesus-reported that “such authorities as Cureton and M'Lean date it in the second or even third” century. Of course, as McDowell and Wilson point out, "the letter could be as early as the first century," but possibility must not be confused with probability. For this letter to have any value at all as a witness to the historicity of Jesus, it needs to have been written earlier rather than later, and there is simply no evidence that it was.

The letter is also historical inaccurate. In addition to the bogus claim that the Jews executed Jesus, Bar-Serapion's letter contains other errors. The letter implies Pythagoras had been killed by his countrymen, yet Pythagoras left the island of Samos in 530 B. C. and emigrated to the Greek colony of Croton in Southern Italy. He later died in Metapontum, which is now Metaponto, Italy. McDowell and others admit that Mara Bar-Serapion's "information about Athens and Samos is inaccurate."

Zarm Rkeeg: Certainly, you could claim that all of these were fakes, frauds, or populations of a cultural myth. But as I was trying to suggest above, why do other historical figures like Ceaser not bear this kind of doubt and scrutiny?
Luigi Novi: Because of the fact that he left multiple lines of contemporaneous evidence that all converges upon the same conclusion. Caesar, for example, wrote two books. Where are the books that Jesus wrote? Caesar wrote letters to people, and others wrote letters mentioning him, which were contemporaneous with his life. Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus? Busts of Caesar's likeness contemporaneous with his life exist. Where are the equivalent images of Jesus? Coins exist bearing Caesar's likeness (which makes sense, if you're the ruler of Rome). Where is the evidence of equivalent quality for Jesus? Unlike Jesus, we know what Caesar looked like and have a complete record of his life, including important dates in his life, and even plenty of contemporary witnesses to his life whose accounts were recorded, such as:

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), governor of Cilicia, who sided with Pompey but was later pardoned by Caesar, witnessed his murder, wrote a series of speeches supporting Octavian against Mark Anthony and eulogizing the conquest of Gaul, and from whom and to whom 900 letters about and with Caesar are preserved.

Caius Sallust(86-34 BC), governor and supporter of Caesar whose testimony is in the history Bellum Batalinae.

Cornelius Nepos (c100-24), biographer who wrote Life of Atticus.

Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC), Roman poet whose targeted many other poets, politicians and enemies in his 116 Carmina, including Caesar.

Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD), ally of Caesar, founder of the first public library in Rome, and a source used by Plutarch.

Virgil (70BC-17AD), Latin poet whose epic Aeneid sought to legitimize Caesar's rule.

Ovidius Naso (43BC-17AD), Roman poet whose 15-book poem, Metamorphoses, begins with the transformations of creation and Prometheus metamorphizing earth into Man, and ends with the transformation of the spirit of Julius Caesar into a star.

I pointed out some of these things to you above. Rather than refute it, or even ask me for more detail, you simply ignore it, pretending not to have read it, and just ask the same question all over again. In the study of history-that is, objective history that proceeds with empirical methods, there is a standard by which people and events must be confirmed, and to argue that Jesus and Caesar meet the same standard is just flat-out false. The fact of the matter is that there is a WEALTH of contemporaneous information for Caesar, and none for Christ. Only blind ignorance of the facts can allow one to state otherwise.

Zarm Rkeeg: What makes historians who spoke about Napolean in less doubt than those who spoke about Christ?
Luigi Novi: The fact that Napoleon's life is far-better documented and left evidence for it than the alleged Jesus the Christ.

Zarm Rkeeg: And I'm saying that the evidence has been historically provided for centuries.
Luigi Novi: And as I've illustrated here, that statement is false. The fact that you choose to arbitrarily believe material that is either of questionable quality or even outright forgery, in support of an idea that you promote in an a priori manner, does not mean that that material has been confirmed by the historical community. What religious apologists choose to believe has nothing to do with actual history.

Zarm Rkeeg: When it comes down to 2,000 years of Christianity vs. Luigi Novi, it seems to me that you're the one with something to prove (or at least disprove) here.
Luigi Novi: Again, I cannot account for how things “seem” to you, nor do I care. We are not talking about Christianity. We're talking about Christ. The existence of a relgion whose adherents believe in a mythological figure, whether it's 2,000 years old or 2 million years old, does nothing to confirm that that figure was a historical person. Belief, after all, does not create fact. Again, there are many other ancient religions on Earth with many adherents. Are the mythological figures of those real too?

Zarm Rkeeg: My point is that Josephus, like many other Biblical sources, is considered to be a lack of proof for flimsy reasons at best. Just because the only writings about Christ that have survived are written after His death, they suddenly don't constitute historical evidence?
Luigi Novi: No. This is not what was said. This is a Straw Man Argument on your part.

In the first place, the point is that hearsay accounts are not reliable for the purposes of historical corroboration, especially if they were recorded years, decades or centuries after the lifetime of the alleged person in question. Why you think this reasoning is a “stretch,” I don't know. But it is not flimsy, no matter how vehemently you argue that it is.

Second, you have again deliberately ignored the other main problem with Josephus that experts have pointed out, and which I and others have mentioned on these boards: Namely, that the two passages in his Antiquities are A. entirely inconsistent with what we know of Joesphus, B. suspicious in their placement and length, given the context of Josephus' writings in general. For these reasons, they are believed by many to be forgeries, possibly by Eusebius, a bishop with great influence in the early Church who openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church.

It is one thing to disagree with this, and to explain why. It is another to ignore these statements, and then pretend that the only reasons given for questioning Josephus is a statement that no one here ever made.

Zarm Rkeeg: Again, I dissagree. I would say it is a more a matter of many things skeptics choose to regard as non-proofs, but my challenge still stands: the 'pro' evidence has been presented and confirms the biblical accounts.
Luigi Novi: No it does not. “I feel like believing it because it conforms to my pre-existing religious beliefs” is not the same thing as “it confirms it.” The consensus in the historical community determines confirmation. Not individual whim or religious belief, which have nothing to do with facts.

Zarm Rkeeg: Just because you choose not to believe them doesn't mean that you can say 'they're not true' without presenting facts to support that.
Luigi Novi: I do not “choose” not to believe them. They have been questioned for perfectly legitimate reasons, and in some cases, found to be forgeries, points that you deliberately ignore. I do not believe that what I “choose” determines what is true or not true, and I never said that I did, as that seems to more your problem than mine, since, as I've shown here, your position is motivated entirely by what you wish to believe, and is argued on an a priori basis. I at least address your arguments head-on. By contrast, you do not.

Zarm Rkeeg: Maybe it would help to clarify: I'm not asking you to prove a negative statement (Christ didn't exist) based on a positive one (Christ did exist), I'm asking you to defend your own positive statement (The proof of your statement doesn't count.) The burden is therefore on you to prove that statement to be correct.
Luigi Novi: What statement are you referring to?

Luigi,

a bit off topic here (can't let a board stay on topic the whole time, that would be a-typical, right? )

...By the same token, it is a reasonable statement to say that there is no evidence for the Battle of Troy, and that the city of Troy itself was also unproven until discovered recently...

I guess you mean "recently" in a historical sense, not in the everyday meaning? Because it's been about a century since Schliemann discovered ancient Troy.
Or do you mean the archelogists have only recently identified the layer which would fit the timeframe of Homer's story?

Yes, for many years Troy was believed to be be a myth that just existed in homer's stories.

Yes, constanze, that (the former) is exactly what I meant. I know when it was discovered.

I'd just like to say that Luigi and I are tight and he does not hold a grudge against me. Thank you.

Tim Callahan wrote: “If Jesus was made up out of whole cloth, as many skeptics assert, then the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke wouldn’t have had to deal with the embarrassing fact that in order to fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2 Jesus was supposed to come from Bethlehem, the home of David (at least according to legend), when he actually came from Galilee. Thus, both Matthew and Luke have to invent elaborate and rather unbelievable reasons to explain why this man from Galilee really did come from Bethlehem. If Jesus had been entirely made up there wouldn’t be any problem of him coming from Galilee: he would have been born and raised in Bethlehem. Of course accepting Jesus as historical and accepting him as God are two entirely separate issues.”

Skeptic magazine Vol. 11 No. # 2 2004 (page 33)

By this same “criterion of embarrassment”, my understanding of skeptic author Callahan is that the execution of Jesus by the Romans would also be understood to probably be an actual historical event. At that time, would-be Messiahs were a dime a dozen and it would be doubtful that the Roman government would pay any more notice to Jesus than any other “rebel” that was executed. Obviously, they thought his death would end his movement and scatter his followers. They had no way of knowing that his movement after his death would actually grow instead of diminish or that Jesus after his death would become more well known throughout the Roman Empire than he ever was during his life. As a modern day example, it has been said that Elvis has achieved more fame (and made more money) after his death than he did during his lifetime.

Given the context of the discussion here, I just keep thinking about MIB: "Elvis isn't dead; he just went home!"


"Where has anyone here ever argued that Christ cannot be proven historically? What I have pointed out is that he hasn't been. Not that he can't be."-Luigi Novi


All right, clarification noted. That resolves a lot.


"Zarm Rkeeg: Leaving aside the writings of the Bible itself and the eyewitness reports of his existnace (many of the non-Jesus passages of which have been confirmed historically as well)…
Luigi Novi: What “eyewitness” reports are these? Where are they? Have they been corroborated?"

Um, that would be the eye-witness reports recorded in the aformentioned Bible.


"Zarm Rkeeg: (many of the non-Jesus passages of which have been confirmed historically as well)…
Luigi Novi: What do non-Jesus passages have to do with confirming the historicity of Jesus?"

Nothing with Jesus specificaly, but in confirming the Bible as a reliable source of historical data.

"Zarm Rkeeg: and Tacitus, (all of which should not be left aside in the first place)
Luigi Novi: Tacitus was born in 55CE, about 35 years after the alleged Crucifixion. Hence, he was not an independent witness to Christ, and his accounts are hearsay. Was the average lifespan in 1st century Palestine even long enough for alleged witnesses to have spoken to Tacitus when he began his career in the first place?"

I would say... yes. But once again, it's statements like these that led me to accuse of bias... with the exception of the "non-contemporaneous" statement, isn't this pure speculation designed to discredit Tacitus without proof?

"Zarm Rkeeg: …and the world-wide traditions that have existed for centuries…
Luigi Novi: Traditions? You think traditions are evidence for the existence of something? Religions all over the world have “traditions” pertaining to their beliefs. So what? Does that mean all the gods of those religions exist too?"

Of course I'm not citing them as proof. I'm simply stating that when it comes to who has something to prove, there have been millions of people over thousands of years that have accepted the historocricy (or whatever the word is :-) ) of Christ. The burden of proof seems satisfying to the majority of the world for that statement (Jesus Christ is a historical figure) but not for your argument (Jesus Christ is not a proven historical figure.)
Of course, this is not a factual method (any more than, say, the peer-review process or anything the depends on people's opinions,) but it seems that the historocricity (if I keep trying words, one of them has to be right... :-) ) of Christ is a peer-review accepted fact. While proof is still required to confirm it as a scientific fact, I was simply arguing that your "Jesus is an unproven figure" argument is the new claim requiring support, not vice-versa.

"Luigi Novi: Because of the fact that he left multiple lines of contemporaneous evidence that all converges upon the same conclusion. Caesar, for example, wrote two books. Where are the books that Jesus wrote?"

Obviously, there are none. However, this is consistent with what we know of his life. There are historical figures who were not writers and had neither coins nor busts made of them, you know. (Thoguh for the purposes of the Caesar comparison, I understand what you mean with these statements.)

"Luigi Novi: Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?"

Um, that would be called the New Testament. :-)

While I disagree with a lot of your 'discrediting' (and BTW, that's essentially what I meant by 'grudge...' "some historians have their doubts" turns into "THIS SOURCE IS COMPLETELY NON-CREDIBLE!" Still, it was a poor choice of words made in anger. Sorry.) I will agree with your point that there are no known writings that were created during Jesus' lifetime (Earthly lifetime, at least... ;-) )

However, a little historical context is needed: much of Jesus' notoriety and fame came from the events of His death and Resurection. Most of the people who were following Him before these events were busy doing just that: following, not writing letters. In fact, the world at large had probably heard very little of Jesus until the much-publicized events of the crucifixion. So is it reasonable to search for contemporaneous documents in the first place? And do lack of such documents constitue a lack of proof, or merely a consistency with historical reality? You seem to be looking for a face-to-face, etched in stone interview which doesn't exist... but if it did, wouldn't that be counter to the nature and circumstances of Christ's life as described? If Jesus' life was documented as Caesar's, would that not be evidence of forgery? In other words, where does the lack of material to meet 'historical standards' cross with the lack of material being consistent with that history's described circumstances?
You discredit many of the ancient historians because they did not meet Jesus face to face. However, is it reasonable to believe that such an overwhelming belief in Jesus within one generation of His death could have truly risen up if people that would have been alive in His lifetime were around to say "Wait, I was there during that time; none of this ever happened!"
There were plenty of debaters of Jesus' divinity in His own time and beyond, but seldom or never in the ancient accounts does anyone, even from His own time, try to dispute His existance.


"Luigi Novi: Again, I cannot account for how things “seem” to you, nor do I care."

Actually, I was using that phrase repeatedly as an attempt at politeness, since so many people on this board seem to be offended by the idea of Absolute Statements. If you'd like me to go around making absolute statements about what you said or intended based on my understanding of them, I'd be happy to. As it is, I'm merely trying to leave room for explanation as a courtesy when I think that I may have misunderstood the intentions behind a statement or the facts presented.

Sheesh.

Zarm Rkeeg: Leaving aside the writings of the Bible itself and the eyewitness reports of his existnace

Luigi Novi: What “eyewitness” reports are these? Where are they? Have they been corroborated?

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, that would be the eye-witness reports recorded in the aformentioned Bible.
Luigi Novi: There aren't any eyewitness reports of Christ in the Bible. The Gospels were all written well after the alleged Crucifixion, by anonymous authors, none of whom claimed to have met an earthly Jesus, in some cases clearly admitting that they are interpreters of earlier material, and who wrote them in the third person, as well as with other elements of narrative storytelling rather than modern historical record-keeping, with large sections of the second and third of the Synoptic ones being taken from the first. We don't even have original manuscripts of them, but copies of copies, none of which date to the life of the alleged Christ. Both modern courts and honest scholarship do not allow hearsay when adjudicating the empirical quality of a claim. According to Professor of Literature and English, Randel Helms, the author of Mark stands at least at a third removed from Jesus and more likely at the fourth removed.

As Jim Walker puts it:

Imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lies, or simply bases his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.

It is not surprising to note, therefore, that police/detectives/prosecutors consider eyewitness testimony to be among the most easily subjective, and unreliable form of evidence, contrary to popular misconception, which views circumstantial evidence as weak, and eyewitness testimony as strong. (The opposite is actually true.) One source on this point is here. Let me make clear that eyewitness testimony is not categorically dismissible, and I'm not saying it is. Ultimately, as the aforementioned source alludes, each case should be analyzed individually. But it is best to approach eyewitness testimony by verifying it with an independent line of evidence, to see if they corroborate one another. As it states at Wikipedia's entry for “historiography”:

The study of historiography demands a critical approach that goes beyond the mere examination of historical fact. Historiographical studies consider the source, often by researching the author, his or her position in society, and the type of history being written at the time.

So not only are the Gospels not eyewitness accounts (let alone facts), but even if they were, there is no way to confirm them, because the authors are anonymous, and even contradict one another.

Zarm Rkeeg: (many of the non-Jesus passages of which have been confirmed historically as well)…

Luigi Novi: What do non-Jesus passages have to do with confirming the historicity of Jesus?"

Zarm Rkeeg: Nothing with Jesus specificaly, but in confirming the Bible as a reliable source of historical data.
Luigi Novi: In and of itself, it isn't. The Bible is at best a starting point for historians. But no objective one regards material from the Bible as historical unless it is consistent with other lines of evidence. Again, the fact that say, the Bible mentions Jerusalem and Caesar which other lines of evidence confirm as extant, does not mean that the rest of the Bible is deemed historical by association. Mythical stories, fictions, and narratives almost always use familiar landmarks as placements for their stories. King Kong, Superman, and Star Trek all include recognizable cities, planets, and landmarks, in order to allow the viewer to suspend their disbelief and live vicariously through those stories. But the fact that England is a real place doesn't make the Harry Potter books non-fiction.

In addition, there are other valid reasons why the material in the Bible should not be blindly accepted as historical. Some aspects of it are clearly mythological stories that were lifted from myths from other cultures that preceded it, such as the Noachian Flood, and Christ himself. Some parts contradict other parts, such as the Genesis stories, the genealogies of various characters, etc. Some of the things therein are just flat-out wrong, as when John 12:21 indicates that Bethsaida was part of Galilee, when in fact it was in Gaulonitis (Golan region), east of the Jordan river, not Galilee, which resided west of it, or when John 3:23 indicates that Aenon is near Salim, when critics agree that no such place exists near Salim. Much of it is written anonymously, and describes events and things when logically, no one could have been present in the first place to witness it (The first five books of the OT, Exodus' depiction of Moses' death, when Moses is traditionally the one thought to have written those books, etc.). Again, does the fact that the city of Troy was discovered mean that therefore, the Trojan War occurred? Or that the other things Homer described-gods, Cyclops, Sirens, sea monsters, etc.-should be deemed historical by association? It is clear that the only people who would unquestioningly accept the Bible as a book of history of religious believers who need to do so because of their religion, who are ignorant of the scholarly problems with historicity problem, and/or do not deem it necessary to examine their own long-held beliefs critically.

Zarm Rkeeg: and Tacitus, (all of which should not be left aside in the first place)

Luigi Novi: Tacitus was born in 55CE, about 35 years after the alleged Crucifixion. Hence, he was not an independent witness to Christ, and his accounts are hearsay. Was the average lifespan in 1st century Palestine even long enough for alleged witnesses to have spoken to Tacitus when he began his career in the first place?"

Zarm Rkeeg: I would say... yes. But once again, it's statements like these that led me to accuse of bias... with the exception of the "non-contemporaneous" statement, isn't this pure speculation designed to discredit Tacitus without proof?
Luigi Novi: In the first place, what in the above statement constitutes bias? Again, when you use that word, it seems to mean nothing more than “I don't agree with you, and I don't like you saying that, because it successfully calls my position into question.” Are you using a different definition of the word? Before even thinking of accusing someone of bias, shouldn't you at first establish that the statement in question is not reasonable, or poorly argued?

Which brings us to the second point: I didn't speculate on anything. I simply ASKED if 1st century Palestinians generally lived long enough to serve as witnesses for Tacitus. That's not speculation. It's a question. How does asking a question constitute bias? Isn't asking questions what you're supposed to do when discussing something, and you come to an aspect of the topic that you're not acquainted with? Aren't biases usually something you can discern when someone doesn't ask questions, and argues his position on an a priori basis? You're basically attacking me for doing the right thing scholarly-seeking knowledge and confirmation of it, rather than assuming it outright, while blind to the poor quality and bias-driven nature of your own arguments.

Again, when you parade a known forgery like the ossuary as evidence of Christ, without mentioning that it was forged (or without doing a simple Google search of it to find out that it was-the former would indicate dishonesty; the latter would indicate sloppy, incompetent argumentation, so I don't know which it is), and don't even bother addressing any number of the other points in my previous post-further proving my observation that you often do not address strong counterarguments head-on as I do-how am I supposed to take you seriously when you accuse me of being the biased one?

Luigi Novi: Traditions? You think traditions are evidence for the existence of something? Religions all over the world have “traditions” pertaining to their beliefs. So what? Does that mean all the gods of those religions exist too?

Zarm Rkeeg: Of course I'm not citing them as proof. I'm simply stating that when it comes to who has something to prove, there have been millions of people over thousands of years that have accepted the historocricy (or whatever the word is :-) ) of Christ. The burden of proof seems satisfying to the majority of the world for that statement (Jesus Christ is a historical figure) but not for your argument (Jesus Christ is not a proven historical figure.)
Luigi Novi: Again, it doesn't matter what “seem satisfying to the majority.” Only the intellectually dishonest or the willfully naïve or cognitively dissonant would argue that what is “accepted by the majority” has anything to do with the fulfillment of the burden of proof. The majority has been wrong about all sorts of things throughout history. The arguments or dogma that stated the Earth was the center of the universe “seemed satisfying to the majority of the world” for a long time. So what? That didn't make it true. Minority or majority, thousands of years or billions of years, it makes no difference. Historical facts require multiple independent lines of evidence. Not belief, regardless of how old the belief is, or what proportion of the population shares it.

Most Christians are probably genuinely unaware that Jesus' historicity is even in question, as I certainly was when I was a Christian, and for that matter, even after I became an agnostic. True scholarship, skepticism, empiricism and debate require that you deliberately attempt to try to disprove your own hypothesis, and to address problems with it. Churches do not do this, nor does the media, as documentaries on religious subjects on TV rarely or never approach the subjects with a critical eye, usually never even having a token skeptic on hand to provide a dissenting view, and bastions like Time magazine regularly feature cover stories that presume the existence of many Biblical events and characters as established fact. I myself had to discover material critical of assumptions and beliefs regarding the Bible mostly by accident. Given this, and the fact that the leading proponent of the Bible as history on this board uses the most threadbare arguments, sloppy research, and obvious fallacies in his posts to argue his case, including stonewalling on many refutations of his statements, the citing of outright forgeries, while simultaneously accusing others of bias, I hope you'll pardon me when I say that what the majority of people “accept” doesn't really impress me much with regards to matters of fact.

Zarm Rkeeg: Of course, this is not a factual method (any more than, say, the peer-review process or anything the depends on people's opinions,) but it seems that the historocricity (if I keep trying words, one of them has to be right... :-) ) of Christ is a peer-review accepted fact. While proof is still required to confirm it as a scientific fact, I was simply arguing that your "Jesus is an unproven figure" argument is the new claim requiring support, not vice-versa.
Luigi Novi: This passage is so flimsy in its argumentation that it is difficult to know where to begin.

First of all, you concede on the one hand that this is “not a factual method,” but then why do you bring it up? You then subsequently say (despite having just said that it's not a factual method) that it “seems” that Christ's historicity is a peer-review established fact. No, Zarm, it is not a factual method, and as I pointed out above, what the “majority accepts” is irrelevant to the issue, and therefore, pointless to mention.

Second, the historicity of Christ is not a peer-reviewed fact at all. Where you get this idea, I don't know, but again, what things “seem” like to you is irrelevant. The historicity of Christ is a matter of empiricism, for which you need facts and evidence. Not the subjectivities inherent to personal perception. Whether the historicity of Christ is accepted as a peer-reviewed fact by the historiographical community is a matter of fact. It is either true, or it is not. In point of fact, there is no such consensus on this point. The existence of an earthly historical Jesus the Christ of Nazareth has not been independently corroborated, let alone subjected to the Peer Review Process.

Third, I'd be a tad careful about making assertions about Peer Review, given your established lack of understanding regarding it, as your statements regarding it on the PM evolution v. creationism boards in October of 2004 demonstrated. There, your regard for the PR Process ranged from outright dismissal and ignorance of it (you claimed that it was neither an objective standard nor much of a scientific meter because it merely reflected the innate beliefs or prejudices of the reviewers-which is untrue), to the fraudulent citing of a creationism paper as having been Peer Reviewed, when in fact, it that was submitted for review, but discredited, rather than corroborated by the journal in question. Much as with your James ossuary, you deliberately omitted that fact when bringing up that paper, leaving it to me and Josh to point out the truth about that review's results, as well as clarify how the PRP works. And just as with the ossuary here, your reaction after Josh and I did this was the same: You stonewalled on the issue, never again posting on that board, not even to respond to Josh's posts and mine. Granted, it's possible that since October, you've educated yourself on the Peer Review Process, and perhaps even other aspects of the Scientific Method and skepticism, so maybe you are aware of some material that has been submitted for review to a peer journal, and that that journal found the material credible. But given how your argumentative conduct on this board seems to be of the same low quality as on that one, however, as well as the fact that you didn't bother citing this peer review (you pretend that something can be so reviewed if it “seems” that way), I'm doubtful.. So if you want to claim that evidence of Jesus' historicity has been submitted to Peer Review-and confirmed as authentic-you'd better back that up by citing the journal in question, and the results of that review. Otherwise, your assertion is simply an example of the Bold Statement Fallacy, and bold statements-especially when mitigated with the word “seems” in them-does nothing to confirm empirically.

Fourth, I'm not sure what you mean by making a distinction between the historicity of Christ as a question of fact, and “scientific fact,” since this seems a bit redundant. Science and history are differing subjects, but both use the Scientifc Method, or elements of it, to explore ideas empirically.

Lastly, your assertion that any statement that Christ's historicity has not been confirmed empirically is a “new claim requiring support” is false. While it is true that part of how the scientific process works is that once an idea has gathered enough evidence that is it reasonable to offer provisional agreement, it is fair to call that a “fact,” and that once that becomes the status quo, the burden is then shifted to those who wish to revise or disprove that notion by presenting evidence that not only accounts for the previous circumstances, but does so better than the old explanation, the important point here is the notion of whether Christ was ever established as historical fact. He wasn't. This may be the status quo in the minds of religious believers, but not as a matter of history. The statement, therefore, that Christ's historicity has not been proven, is not new, nor is it even a claim. It is a factual statement on the status of that idea. Hence, the only “support” it requires, if you want to call it that, is to cite scholars who make the point that Christ's historicity has not been empirically proven, which I've already done here, and of which you can find more with a simple Google search. If you want a smattering of why researchers do not consider Christ to have enough empirical support to be considered historical/factual, you can find plenty if you do a little research. If you want just one, here is Michael Shermer, Ph.D., author, and expert in psychology/biology and the history of science, founder of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, who has written various books on pseudoscientific topics, including Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Share, Care, and Follow the Golden Rule , The Borderlands of Science, and Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, interviewed on Showtime's Penn & Teller: Bull****!, in the sixth episode of that show's second season, which focused on the Bible:

“It's mythic storytelling, and nothing more.”

“The more we learn about archaeology, and history, of Biblical times, the more we realize that most of the stuff in the Bible is fiction.”

“It's an article of faith. It's part of a religious belief system that really doesn't fit the way we think when we think scientifically (and we live in the age of science) where we're supposed to ask for evidence and challenge beliefs.

“We can start right off with the first two books of the Bible in Genesis. In the first chapter, God creates Adam and Eve, at the same time. In the second chapter, God creates Adam, and then Adam does a few things, he names the animals, he does this, and he does that, and he gets lonely. And he talks to God, and says, you know, I'm lonely. And God says, 'All right, well, I'll provide you with a mate,' and he then takes the rib, and creates Eve out of his rib, and so forth. We all know these stories. These are two different Creation stories.”

Countering Shermer is Michigan U. Professor of Ancient History, and Biblical scholar Dr. Paul Meyer, who says that the two versions were probably written by two different authors whose accounts were merged with a bit of editorial revision, and that there is symbolism in these passages, but that symbols “don't always connote non-reality.” Shermer counters, in response to the argument that it's simply two different version of the same event, “Fine, but then don't, in the next breath tell me that, 'Oh we have to take the Bible literally; when it says 'this' it means 'this.”

On the Noachian Flood myth, Shermer says:

“There's no possible way that Noah could've retained all 10 billion species on a single boat and then distributed them appropriately, where all the marsupials are in Australia and so forth -this is just ridiculous. It is so ridiculous, that I find it embarrassing for people who attempt to prove that it's true. This is not a literal story. This is a story about destruction, redemption, starting over, beginning anew, forgiveness, redemption, and so on. To try and read it literally, is to miss the point of the story.”

On the Exodus, Moses and the Red Sea, Shermer:

“We are told that these people spent 40 years wandering around in the desert. They escaped as slaves, from Egypt, and so forth. There is not a shred of archaeological or historical evidence, outside of the Bible, that this is even true, that it ever even happened. You would think that if a people spend 40 years wandering around in the desert, they'd leave some archaeological evidence. There's absolutely none. There's no evidence that even somebody named Moses even existed.”

Meyer responds that the Egyptians would not have recorded the Exodus because it would've been an embarrassment to them. Shermer responds:

“Okay, maybe the Egpytians were embarrassed or whatever, but that is not an answer to the skeptic's challenge. That's just saying, 'It's true because there's no evidence for it.'” When Meyer asserts that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (which is true in itself), and that simply because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Shermer, recognizing that you have to establish with evidence that it did exist, and not simply give it a free pass because you want it to, responds, “Sorry, but in science, we don't allow that form of reasoning…These guys wanna play in the realm of science, they wanna claim, 'We have evidence for our beliefs!' Okay. What is it? (I myself would point out here that Meyer only explained why the Egyptians might not have records of it, but not why there is no archaeological evidence for it.)

On Jesus, Shermer says (pay attention to the part I formatted in boldface):

“An important question is, 'Did Jesus actually exist?' Within the community of people who study this stuff, there are some who are skeptics. I would be willing go so far as to say there probably was a man named Jesus….Jesus was not the only Messiah at the time. There were lots of Messiahs. In fact, there was another fellow, named Apollonius of Tyana, who, in the first century, was claimed, by his follows, that he healed the sick, he raised the dead, he was able to walk through walls and buildings…got persecuted for his religious beliefs, he was brought to trial by the local Roman courts, he was crucified, and after he died, he we are told, he ascended to heaven, and he came back, where his followers saw him. This is not the Jesus story, this is Apollonius of Tyana. Who the heck is that?” (You can read more about Apollonius of Tyana here, Zarm. Curiously, Apollonius, who lived from 2CE to 98CE, and was born in the Roman Empire in the city of Tyana, looks strangely familiar, don't you think?) Meyer claims that the miracles Jesus performed cannot be explained conventionally, and would require David Cooperfield. Shermer counters, “Most of the things attributed to Jesus are miracles that could easily be performed by Penn and Teller on their stage show.”

On the books of the Bible in general, Shermer comments:

“Most Biblical theologians who study the stuff seriously, will tell you that in fact, we don't know exactly who wrote the Bible.”

“There's other Gospels, that we're just now beginning to hear about, that didn't make the Bible. They didn't make the-what do you mean they 'didn't make the Bible?' What are you talking about? This is the inspired word of God!”

“And the fact that we have books not in the Bible, that are still recognized as-in many ways, canonical, they're sacred books, just not in the Bible, you have to ask, 'Why aren't they in the Bible?', and the answer is because the committee that decided didn't put 'em in. Committee? Committee???? What, they voted? Yeah. That's how it happened! Obviously, it's an edited volume. The Bible has written all over it the fact that it was a human-edited, socially-constructed collection of books, put together by people over many, many centuries.”

In conclusion, Meyer:

I'm not trying to say that now I approve in that the Bible is authoritative and accurate historically-you still have to have faith. My needing God is not a proof that God exists. I'll be the first to say that. But when I look around, at nature, and I ask how did it ever get here, my mind I think, would go up in smoke if I couldn't see that there was some logic behind all this. And there has to be logic behind it in terms of the incredible complexity of creation.” Shermer says: “They're making the mistake of linking their belief and faith, and their religion, to actual, factual tenets. These are not factual stories to be taken as historical events, they're really stories about how we should live our lives; they're moral homilies: 'What can I personally get out of the Bible for me today?' That's what those stories are about, and to try and take them literally, you're missing the point of the Bible.” In addressing the arguments that literalists and apologists resort to rationalize the Bible as factual, Shermer says, “Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe, for very non-smart reasons.”

I have offered to send, as a gift, copies of Michael Shermer's book, Why People Believe Weird Things (the first in his “belief trilogy”) to others on these boards, including Derrick Vargo and Brian Webber. It was the book with which I finally came to understand the true nature of the Scientific Method and skepticism, and how these are the best methods for testing empirical knowledge. Brian took me up on my offer, and I will now reiterate it to you. Just email me at nightscreamnovi1972@yahoo.com, and tell me where to mail it.

Luigi Novi: Because of the fact that he left multiple lines of contemporaneous evidence that all converges upon the same conclusion. Caesar, for example, wrote two books. Where are the books that Jesus wrote?

Zarm Rkeeg: Obviously, there are none. However, this is consistent with what we know of his life.
Luigi Novi: The argument is not that the absence of such evidence is somehow strange or inconsistent. The point is that the absence of evidence means that the comparison with Caesar is false, as you yourself stated.

Zarm Rkeeg: Certainly, you could claim that all of these were fakes, frauds, or populations of a cultural myth. But as I was trying to suggest above, why do other historical figures like Ceaser not bear this kind of doubt and scrutiny?

Luigi Novi: Because of the fact that he left multiple lines of contemporaneous evidence that all converges upon the same conclusion. Caesar, for example, wrote two books. Where are the books that Jesus wrote? Caesar wrote letters to people, and others wrote letters mentioning him, which were contemporaneous with his life. Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, that would be called the New Testament. :-)
Luigi Novi: The New Testament does not contain any letters written by anyone claiming to have been Christ, nor anyone claiming to have met him, and therefore, is not equivalent to the letters written by, to, or about Caesar. Hence the Caesar comparison, which is often used by Christian apologists in arguing Christ's historicity, is just flat-out wrong.

Zarm Rkeeg: While I disagree with a lot of your 'discrediting'…
Luigi Novi: While simultaneously refusing to elaborate on why you do so with most of it.

Zarm Rkeeg: …(and BTW, that's essentially what I meant by 'grudge...' "some historians have their doubts" turns into "THIS SOURCE IS COMPLETELY NON-CREDIBLE!" Still, it was a poor choice of words made in anger. Sorry.)
Luigi Novi: I'm not sure I understand this passage. Are you accusing me of saying that capitalized statement, or someone else? Yes, it was a poor choice, especially in a discussion on a topic that in my opinion, requires a certain modicum of precision and accuracy. I've certainly made poor choices in word choice when composing some posts in the past, as well as other grammatical, spelling and compositional and editing errors, but the point is, I try to learn from these mistakes, read my opponent's arguments carefully, and spend some time going over my own responses. By contrast, you allude to not knowing the word “historicity,” even though it's all over my posts, from which you can copy it, which makes no sense to me. Hence, I'd have no problem easily saying, “Don't worry about it,” if you didn't continue to do this, and so often, Zarm. I think your arguments would be much stronger if you didn't use language that on the surface, appeared so manipulative.

Zarm Rkeeg: I will agree with your point that there are no known writings that were created during Jesus' lifetime (Earthly lifetime, at least... ;-) ) However, a little historical context is needed: much of Jesus' notoriety and fame came from the events of His death and Resurection. Most of the people who were following Him before these events were busy doing just that: following, not writing letters. In fact, the world at large had probably heard very little of Jesus until the much-publicized events of the crucifixion. So is it reasonable to search for contemporaneous documents in the first place?
Luigi Novi: I'll let Jim Walker explain why these assertions are untrue:

What appears most revealing of all, comes not from what got later written about Jesus but what people did not write about him. Consider that not a single historian, philosopher, scribe or follower who lived before or during the alleged time of Jesus ever mentions him!

If, indeed, the Gospels portray a historical look at the life of Jesus, then the one feature that stands out prominently within the stories shows that people claimed to know Jesus far and wide, not only by a great multitude of followers but by the great priests, the Roman governor Pilate, and Herod who claims that he had heard "of the fame of Jesus" (Matt 14:1)". One need only read Matt: 4:25 where it claims that "there followed him [Jesus] great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordon." The gospels mention, countless times, the great multitude that followed Jesus and crowds of people who congregated to hear him. So crowded had some of these gatherings grown, that Luke 12:1 alleges that an "innumerable multitude of people... trode one upon another." Luke 5:15 says that there grew "a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear..." The persecution of Jesus in Jerusalem drew so much attention that all the chief priests and scribes, including the high priest Caiaphas, not only knew about him but helped in his alleged crucifixion. (see Matt 21:15-23, 26:3, Luke 19:47, 23:13). The multitude of people thought of Jesus, not only as a teacher and a miracle healer, but a prophet (see Matt:14:5).

So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world. Nor does a single contemporary person write about the earthquake described in Matthew 27:51-54 where the earth shook, rocks ripped apart (rent), and graves opened.

Matthew 2 describes Herod and all of Jerusalem as troubled by the worship of the infant Jesus. Herod then had all of the children of Bethlehem slain. If such extraordinary infanticides of this magnitude had occurred, why didn't anyone write about it?

Some apologists attempt to dig themselves out of this problem by claiming that there lived no capable historians during that period, or due to the lack of education of the people with a writing capacity, or even sillier, the scarcity of paper gave reason why no one recorded their "savior." But the area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And as for historians, there lived plenty at the time who had the capacity and capability to record, not only insignificant gossip, but significant events, especially from a religious sect who drew so much popular attention through an allegedly famous and infamous Jesus.

Take, for example, the works of Philo Judaeus who's birth occurred in 20 B.C.E. and died 50 C.E. He lived as the greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian of the time and lived in the area of Jerusalem during the alleged life of Jesus. He wrote detailed accounts of the Jewish events that occurred in the surrounding area. Yet not once, in all of his volumes of writings, do we read a single account of a Jesus "the Christ." Nor do we find any mention of Jesus in Seneca's (4? B.C.E. - 65 C.E.) writings, nor from the historian Pliny the Elder (23? - 79 C.E.).

If, indeed, such a well known Jesus existed, as the gospels allege, does any reader here think it reasonable that, at the very least, the fame of Jesus would not have reached the ears of one of these men?

Amazingly, we have not one Jewish, Greek, or Roman writer, even those who lived in the Middle East, much less anywhere else on the earth, who ever mention him during his supposed life time. This appears quite extraordinary, and you will find few Christian apologists who dare mention this embarrassing fact.

To illustrate this extraordinary absence of Jesus Christ literature, just imagine going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writing on earth until the 20th century. Yet straight-faced Christian apologists and historians want you to buy a factual Jesus out of a dearth void of evidence, and rely on nothing but hearsay written well after his purported life. Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.

So the idea that “much of Jesus' notoriety and fame came from the events of His death and Resurection”, and “most of the people who were following Him before these events were busy doing just that: following, not writing letters”, is just not true.

Zarm Rkeeg: And do lack of such documents constitue a lack of proof, or merely a consistency with historical reality? You seem to be looking for a face-to-face, etched in stone interview which doesn't exist... but if it did, wouldn't that be counter to the nature and circumstances of Christ's life as described? If Jesus' life was documented as Caesar's, would that not be evidence of forgery? In other words, where does the lack of material to meet 'historical standards' cross with the lack of material being consistent with that history's described circumstances?
Luigi Novi: You again misrepresent the point.

Even if the Bible did not indicate that Jesus' ministry was a huge thing in his lifetime, and only became significant in a manner that would leave evidence after his death, the point would not be that lack of evidence is inconsistent or strange, or that we should expect to see some. The point is that the lack of any-regardless of the reason why-means that we cannot confirm his existence. But as the blue passage shows above, the notion that his life only became seminal posthumously isn't even true in the first place, according to the very book you consider evidence of history.

Zarm Rkeeg: You discredit many of the ancient historians because they did not meet Jesus face to face. However, is it reasonable to believe that such an overwhelming belief in Jesus within one generation of His death could have truly risen up if people that would have been alive in His lifetime were around to say "Wait, I was there during that time; none of this ever happened!"
Luigi Novi: Yes. Such is the nature of how myths and unproven claims in general arise. Is it reasonable for so many people to believe that Elvis is really alive, just 25 years after photographs and autopsies show that he died? No. And yet, they do nonetheless. People have believed all manner of irrational, pseudoscientific beliefs throughout history, Zarm, and continue to do so today, including, alien abduction, JFK assassination conspiracies, homeopathy, ESP, Feng Shui, ouija boards, ghosts, magnet therapy, and so forth. Where you get the idea that humans will not believe in the existence of something that may not exist, and for which the evidence presented does is not confirmed or corroborated empirically, I don't know.

And again, do we regard the mytho-historical figures around which other religions are centers to be historical and factual? Or just the ones from your religion?

Zarm Rkeeg: There were plenty of debaters of Jesus' divinity in His own time and beyond, but seldom or never in the ancient accounts does anyone, even from His own time, try to dispute His existance.
Luigi Novi: Of course not. Putting aside the fact that the modern practice of historiography had not yet been formulated, the anonymous authors of the Gospels, which were clearly written as mythological/religious narratives intended to induct others into their faith, aren't going to call into question the existence of the very being at the center of the new religion they're promoting, now are they?

Luigi Novi: Again, I cannot account for how things “seem” to you, nor do I care.

Zarm Rkeeg: Actually, I was using that phrase repeatedly as an attempt at politeness, since so many people on this board seem to be offended by the idea of Absolute Statements. If you'd like me to go around making absolute statements about what you said or intended based on my understanding of them, I'd be happy to. As it is, I'm merely trying to leave room for explanation as a courtesy when I think that I may have misunderstood the intentions behind a statement or the facts presented. Sheesh.
Luigi Novi: Using the word “seem” instead of an absolute statement does not improve its merit. Phrasing it in the absolute, without the word “seem” (“You have something to prove [or at least disprove] here”), would simply be false, for the reasons I explained above regarding the relationship of ancient majority religious belief to empirical and historical fact.

Inserting the word “seem” into the statement makes it no better, since it only emphasizes the subjective nature of your assertion.

And you again use manipulative language. I do not recall anyone here being “offended” by absolute statements. The issue is that the statement is false, and as far as absolute statements in general are concerned, I don't know if you are referring to me or someone else, but my view of absolutism, which you can read about here, is that the statements thereof tend to be internally inconsistent, false, or and generally untenable philosophically.

MEGA-POST!

Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, John Mark, and Luke penned their gospels (there admittedly is some battle over John). These also are not the three first names one would take if one were "faking" Gospels (none of these three guys are that prominent in the Scriptures).

In A.D. 125, Papias stated that Mark had "carefully and accurately recorded" the observations of Peter. Irenaeus, in A.D. 180, also confirmed the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Yes, these are many years after Jesus' life. However, it is still a fairly early period of the church and you already have the traditional authors of the Gospels cemented. Somehow these four guys got pegged as authors. This does not prove that they wrote them, no, but it provides strong circumstantial evidence.

I disagree that the Gospels contradict each other, but I think we've had that discussion before.

I disagree with your analysis of the Bible. How does the fact that many other cultures have flood myths mean that Noah's story is "clearly lifted from [these] other cultures"? Moses being the author of events he could not witness is reconciled by the fact that tradition states that God TOLD Moses these things (and his "death" could easily have been added in by an editor, something many Christian scholars believe). Perhaps I am ignorant, needy, or uncritical, but I believe the Bible as is.

Regarding Michael Shermer, I agree with his central point: "It's an article of faith." But there is a big jump from that to "Most of the stuff in the Bible is fiction." Now work with me: If one has to have faith to accept most of what the Bible says (which I have never denied), then I don't see how you can just write it off as fiction. To say it is impossible for Moses to get all those animals and distribute them is missing the point; isn't God capable of doing anything? Does that mean we have to have faith when reading the Scriptures? Of course. And I have always maintained that the two Creation stories is a falsehood. I believe that the second is an up-close look at the first that can be reconciled.

Look, I understand Shermer's frustration. A lot of times Christians will try to cling to science through misguided motives to eliminate their need for faith. But there is a difference between pointing out that Christianity requires faith to stating well, the Bible/Christianity is false.

The other Gospels issue is very familiar to a lot of Christian scholars. Church tradition states that these committees that Shermer satirizes were guided by the Holy Spirit into determining what books to select; most of the "other gospels" are exactly what one would think of as fraudulent gospels--ones purported to be written by Peter, Mary, etcetera.

I might like a copy of the Shermer book, BTW, but not right now (one more year of school!) It might be helpful when/if I go into seminary, though, the year after.

The New Testament, going by church tradition, does contain many letters from people claiming to be contemporaries of Jesus--Peter, James, Jude, John, for starters. Is there some dispute as to the author? Yes. But your statement was "claimed"--and in the letters, these folks claim to be the apostle Peter or the apostle Jude.

Paul Maier (not sure if this is the same Paul MEYER quoted above) said the Earth's darkness "was a cosmic or world event according to Tertullian." Phlegon, in 137 AD, mentions accounts of a great eclipse. Thallus, in A.D. 52 (quoted by Julius Africanus), mentions an eclipse at that time. Are these contemporary accounts? Not exactly, no (although Thallus is pretty close). But again, more circumstanial evidence.

According to Christian scholar John McRay, the lack of corroboration for the slaughter at Bethlehem (which he does not deny) can be explained anyway: Bethlehem was a small town (probably not more than 500 people), Herod was a bloodthirsty guy who killed a lot of people, and frankly, people didn't care. This would be equivalent to Saddam Hussein killing a few kids in a small backwater town in a world without television, radio, or Internet. Would the U.S. report on it?

To say it is impossible for Moses to get all those animals and distribute them is missing the point; - MikeC

Moses?

Yes, missing the point that it would be Noah in charge of getting all those animals. Sorry.

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, that would be the eye-witness reports recorded in the aformentioned Bible.
Luigi Novi: There aren't any eyewitness reports of Christ in the Bible.


I disagree, but I can’t prove otherwise, so I’ll concede the point.


“Some aspects of it are clearly mythological stories that were lifted from myths from other cultures that preceded it, such as the Noachian Flood, and Christ himself.”-Luigi Novi

Or, Christians would claim, the other cultures also had these stories based on the events that actually occurred. Do you have ‘proof’ of these lifting as well?
(In other words, if the flood occurred, wouldn’t every culture have a story about it anyway? And for that matter, can you definitively prove in which order the stories were written?)


“Zarm Rkeeg: I would say... yes. But once again, it's statements like these that led me to accuse of bias... with the exception of the "non-contemporaneous" statement, isn't this pure speculation designed to discredit Tacitus without proof?
Luigi Novi: In the first place, what in the above statement constitutes bias?”

Perhaps I misread the intention of the question… as I stated, it seemed like a pointless attempt to discredit Tacitus with something that was unproven. If it was just an innocent question asked out of curiosity, then I apologize once again. Perhaps it’s just the placement of questions or statements like these, but it gives off the appearance to me that you’re actively looking for reasons not to believe just as strongly as I’m looking for reasons to believe. Once again, this is probably misinterpretation on my part- but that’s how they come across to me.


“(you claimed that it was neither an objective standard nor much of a scientific meter because it merely reflected the innate beliefs or prejudices of the reviewers-which is untrue),”-Luigi Novi

Well then, I’m obviously still ‘ignorant.’ How, precisely, is innate bias of individuals circumvented reliably?


“And just as with the ossuary here, your reaction after Josh and I did this was the same: You stonewalled on the issue, never again posting on that board, not even to respond to Josh's posts and mine.”-Luigi Novi

Forgive me for having a life outside of Nitcentral, Luigi! Or didn’t you notice that I dropped off of the board IN GENERAL at that time?


“Granted, it's possible that since October, you've educated yourself on the Peer Review Process, and perhaps even other aspects of the Scientific Method and skepticism,”-Luigi Novi

I could have learned something since September? How generous of you!

““It's mythic storytelling, and nothing more.”

“The more we learn about archaeology, and history, of Biblical times, the more we realize that most of the stuff in the Bible is fiction.””-Shermer

That’s patently untrue. There was just recently a case (and no, I don’t have the research in front of me, but I’ll try to track it down) where archeological evidence shed new light on the order/chronology of the Egyptian Pharoes- which now lined up with the Biblical account of Moses, which had previously been mocked as inconsistent with historical data. The more we learn about archeology, and history of Biblical times, the more it is confirmed.


““We can start right off with the first two books of the Bible in Genesis. In the first chapter, God creates Adam and Eve, at the same time. In the second chapter, God creates Adam, and then Adam does a few things, he names the animals, he does this, and he does that, and he gets lonely. And he talks to God, and says, you know, I'm lonely. And God says, 'All right, well, I'll provide you with a mate,' and he then takes the rib, and creates Eve out of his rib, and so forth. We all know these stories. These are two different Creation stories.””-Shermer


Shermer’s lack of knowledge here is astonishing, bordering on pathetic. Chapter one is an overview of the seven day period, while chapter two jumps back to detail the events of the sixth day. There is only one Creation story.


“Shermer counters, in response to the argument that it's simply two different version of the same event, “Fine, but then don't, in the next breath tell me that, 'Oh we have to take the Bible literally; when it says 'this' it means 'this.””

Well, too bad for Shermer, but being taken literally does not in any, way, shape, or form cause these two to be inconsistent. There is a difference between taking something literally, and recognizing obvious narrative style.


““There's no possible way that Noah could've retained all 10 billion species on a single boat and then distributed them appropriately, where all the marsupials are in Australia and so forth -this is just ridiculous. It is so ridiculous, that I find it embarrassing for people who attempt to prove that it's true. This is not a literal story. This is a story about destruction, redemption, starting over, beginning anew, forgiveness, redemption, and so on. To try and read it literally, is to miss the point of the story.””

Well, I will admit that so far, Shermer is quite the expert on missing the point. However, this is not an inconsistency at all- I will post on this as soon as I locate the book with the research I need. (Sometimes, Google doesn’t have everything!) J


“(You can read more about Apollonius of Tyana here, Zarm. Curiously, Apollonius, who lived from 2CE to 98CE, and was born in the Roman Empire in the city of Tyana, looks strangely familiar, don't you think?)”-Luigi Novi

SO WHAT? You continue, along with your citing of other cultural myths, to imply that the fact that there are knock-offs implies that the original can’t be true either. If the stories of the Bible are true, wouldn’t they logically be the most imitated stories in history?


““Most of the things attributed to Jesus are miracles that could easily be performed by Penn and Teller on their stage show.””-Shermer

Oh, right. You mean like healing the blind, curing a crippled man, and raising someone back to life. I’d like to see that Penn & Teller show.
Once again, these ‘debunkings’ from Shermer are not only full of holes, they prove nothing more than the Biblical arguments that he claims are based on personal opinion!


“Most Biblical theologians who study the stuff seriously, will tell you that in fact, we don't know exactly who wrote the Bible.” –Shermer

It has multiple authors, obviously. This is a matter of Jewish tradition as well, I believe, if not an already confirmed historical fact. Once again, what do any of these statements prove, other than Shermer is trying to throw out random, unconnected or irrelevant facts to try and discredit the Bible?


““There's other Gospels, that we're just now beginning to hear about, that didn't make the Bible. They didn't make the-what do you mean they 'didn't make the Bible?' What are you talking about? This is the inspired word of God!””-Shermer

Obviously, there were some disputes that these other books (like the laughable Gnostic Gospels) ARE part of the word of God. Are you now complaining that Christians ARE trying to check legitimacy and historical accuracy?


“The Bible has written all over it the fact that it was a human-edited, socially-constructed collection of books, put together by people over many, many centuries.””-Shermer

Ah, one of those good old objective ‘facts?’ Face it, Luigi- this guy is using terms even more loosely than I do!


“'What can I personally get out of the Bible for me today?' That's what those stories are about, and to try and take them literally, you're missing the point of the Bible.””-Shermer

I feel very sorry for Shermer, (mitigated somewhat by his arrogance at trying to dictate the ‘point’ of the Bible to believers from the position of believing it to be a collection of fairy tales). When Jesus says “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”- That is the point of the Bible. And if Mr. Serman cannot see the numerous literal statements in the Bible specifying what it’s all about… then he’s ‘missing the point.’


Just email me at nightscreamnovi1972@yahoo.com, and tell me where to mail it. “”-Luigi Novi

Reading your posts usually make me angry enough for the day… on the other hand, I’ve never turned down a free book… I’ll have to think about that one… ;-)
(Seriously, though… I very much appreciate the offer, but I’ll get it from my local library instead.)

“Zarm Rkeeg: Obviously, there are none. However, this is consistent with what we know of his life.
Luigi Novi: The argument is not that the absence of such evidence is somehow strange or inconsistent. The point is that the absence of evidence means that the comparison with Caesar is false, as you yourself stated.”

Point taken. Caesar was a bad example.


“Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, that would be called the New Testament. :-)
Luigi Novi: The New Testament does not contain any letters written by anyone claiming to have been Christ, nor anyone claiming to have met him, and therefore, is not equivalent to the letters written by, to, or about Caesar. Hence the Caesar comparison, which is often used by Christian apologists in arguing Christ's historicity, is just flat-out wrong.”

I’ve already agreed that Caesar was a bad example. However, that’s not what you asked. You asked “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” which is EXACTLY what the New Testament (except for the first few gospels and account books) IS.


“Zarm Rkeeg: While I disagree with a lot of your 'discrediting'…
Luigi Novi: While simultaneously refusing to elaborate on why you do so with most of it.”

I don’t have all day here, Luigi. If I fail to respond, it’s typically because I see flaws or errors in your debunking, but I have no counter-evidence to offer- in which case we’d just be led off on another pointless detour.


“By contrast, you allude to not knowing the word “historicity,” even though it's all over my posts,”-Luigi Novi

That’s called ‘trying to inject humor.’ As usual, trying to make the experience more pleasant just earns me ridicule.


“I think your arguments would be much stronger if you didn't use language that on the surface, appeared so manipulative.”

How? This is certainly not my intention (although I might remind you that I’ve just been called to carpet repeatedly for responding to language that on the surface, seems biased… sometimes, we can’t help how others interpret our words…), so if you would explain to me how I’m doing this, I will endeavor to correct it.

“So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?”-Jim Walker

Once again, in context, if His followers were all busy following Him, who would write the letters? Those that weren’t His followers dismissed Him as a heretic- not much to write home about- and this is assuming that others besides the historians that we have writing from today would have written with materials that would have survived until today anyway. Also, in historical context, wasn’t much of Jesus’ fame described through word-of-mouth? Again, this really proves nothing more than so-called experts saying “I have a hard time believing that it happened this way” which means little more than me saying “I do believe it happened this way.”


“Then we have a particular astronomical event that would have attracted the attention of anyone interested in the "heavens." According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Yet not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world.”-Jim Walker

What? Thallus and Phlegon, mentioned earlier, recorded the event, (though I understand they are not without contest) the statement that it is unrecorded is not true. (Also, about your ‘debunking’- neither of the sources you stated in your post gave any evidence, just more “I find it hard to believe…” statements, the website data on Phlegon simply complains that he tries to explain away an inexplicable phenomenon his own way, and the challenge to Thallus is simply a giant ‘we don’t know,’ and complains that such an event must be impossible because it would have to be ‘supernatural’ to operate in that manner- which, if it actually occurred, it was! Neither of these constitute any proof against them, simply a lack of knowledge either way. All in all, the sources are neither proven nor disproven, but this is hardly justification for a statement that “not a single mention of such a three hour ecliptic event got recorded by anyone, including the astronomers and astrologers, anywhere in the world.”)


“Considering that most Christians believe that Jesus lived as God on earth, the Almighty gives an embarrassing example for explaining his existence. You'd think a Creator might at least have the ability to bark up some good solid evidence.”-Jim Walker

Perhaps a reliance on faith is the point? (Which, theologically, makes a lot of sense…, but again I digress) Once again, Walker closes with an “I find it hard to believe…” (A.K.A. “You’d think”) statement that really means nothing except his own personal bias against the material.

“So the idea that “much of Jesus' notoriety and fame came from the events of His death and Resurection”, and “most of the people who were following Him before these events were busy doing just that: following, not writing letters”, is just not true.”-Luigi Novi

I fail to see where you proved that. What you cited was second-rate conjecture and false assumptions at best.


“which were clearly written as mythological/religious narratives intended to induct others into their faith,”-Luigi Novi

Based on what? Once again, this is your opinion coming through, not any kind of fact.


“And you again use manipulative language. I do not recall anyone here being “offended” by absolute statements. The issue is that the statement is false, and as far as absolute statements in general are concerned, I don't know if you are referring to me or someone else, but my view of absolutism, which you can read about here, is that the statements thereof tend to be internally inconsistent, false, or and generally untenable philosophically.”-Luigi Novi

Okay, then how ‘bout this:

“Luigi Novi: Very few absolutes exist, and most of them are in esoteric areas like mathematics. Obi-Wan and Aankin were obviously talking about morality.

Zarm Rkeeg:By the way, I dislike your statement for the same reason I disliked Obi-wan's- it's insulting to anybody that believe in absolutes.
Luigi Novi: And I find worldviews based largely on absolutes to be offensive. To each his own.” -May 21, 2005- revenge of the Sith board.

Based on that, I was trying to be considerate. (As much as possible within the context of this thread.)


“Yes, missing the point that it would be Noah in charge of getting all those animals. Sorry.”-MikeC

Don’t feel bad- you’re not the only one… There was a major Creationsim “debunking” article in the newspaper a few years back that made the same mistake! (Doncha hate typos?) :-)

By Mike D. on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 06:40 am:

Tim Callahan wrote: “If Jesus was made up out of whole cloth, as many skeptics assert, then the Nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke wouldn’t have had to deal with the embarrassing fact that in order to fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2 Jesus was supposed to come from Bethlehem, the home of David (at least according to legend), when he actually came from Galilee. Thus, both Matthew and Luke have to invent elaborate and rather unbelievable reasons to explain why this man from Galilee really did come from Bethlehem. If Jesus had been entirely made up there wouldn’t be any problem of him coming from Galilee: he would have been born and raised in Bethlehem. Of course accepting Jesus as historical and accepting him as God are two entirely separate issues.”

Skeptic magazine Vol. 11 No. # 2 2004 (page 33)

By this same “criterion of embarrassment”, my understanding of skeptic author Callahan is that the execution of Jesus by the Romans would also be understood to probably be an actual historical event. At that time, would-be Messiahs were a dime a dozen and it would be doubtful that the Roman government would pay any more notice to Jesus than any other “rebel” that was executed. Obviously, they thought his death would end his movement and scatter his followers. They had no way of knowing that his movement after his death would actually grow instead of diminish or that Jesus after his death would become more well known throughout the Roman Empire than he ever was during his life. As a modern day example, it has been said that Elvis has achieved more fame (and made more money) after his death than he did during his lifetime.

MikeC: Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. But the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, John Mark, and Luke penned their gospels (there admittedly is some battle over John). These also are not the three first names one would take if one were "faking" Gospels (none of these three guys are that prominent in the Scriptures).
Luigi Novi: “Uniform testimony of the early church”? How is that evidence that the authors to whom they attributed the Gospels were the actual ones who wrote them? Testimony based on what evidence? When did this testimony take place? What documentation did they have to form this conclusion?

MikeC: In A.D. 125, Papias stated that Mark had "carefully and accurately recorded" the observations of Peter. Irenaeus, in A.D. 180, also confirmed the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Yes, these are many years after Jesus' life. However, it is still a fairly early period of the church and you already have the traditional authors of the Gospels cemented. Somehow these four guys got pegged as authors. This does not prove that they wrote them, no, but it provides strong circumstantial evidence.
Luigi Novi: The Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially Irenaeus of Lyon, who lived in the middle of the second century, not during the time of Christ. He considered only four of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number, like the four zones of the world: the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures-the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith, and most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost. Irenaeus' reasons therefore, appear to be entirely arbitrary. The whimsical decision of an influential church father who didn't even live in the same century as the alleged Christ, but over a century later, to attribute the Gospels to the authors that he did, is not evidence of anything, circumstantial or otherwise. How you conclude that tradition equals “circumstantial evidence,” I have no idea.

Papias also lived decades after the alleged Crucifixion, and had just as little basis to declare authorship of the Gospels, and admitted to not being a witness to Christ's life, but claimed to have gathered material from those claiming to be his followers through the unwritten, oral tradition of the Presbyters. In other words, hearsay. Papias wrote:

"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."

So Papias was at least a third removed from Jesus. And how does he know what Mark's intentions were? Or how much special care he took in whether he omitted anything he heard? How does he know that he didn't fail to hear something significant? Or that he put fictious material therein?

Interestingly, Papias was censured as a fool by Eusebius for his "strange parables" which included "speaking bunches of grapes." Eusebius also thought that Papias was "a man of small mental capacity".

MikeC: How does the fact that many other cultures have flood myths mean that Noah's story is "clearly lifted from [these] other cultures"?
Luigi Novi: In and of itself, it doesn't. Literary comparison between Biblical stories and ones that preceded them make the influence of the latter on the former obvious. The Noachian flood, for example, is not original work. It is a retelling of re-creation myths that predate the Bible. Around 2000-1800 B.C.E., The Epic of Gilgamesh features Gilgamesh learning of the flood from an ancestor named Utnapishtim, who warned him the gods were going to destroy all life on Earth with a flood, and who built an ark on which he'd carry two of each creature. Even earlier than this is a Sumerian myth features the priest-king Ziusudra in a story dated 2,800 B.C.E. These stories predated the Bible story by millennia, and literary comparison makes their influence on the Noachian flood story obvious. (One can find similar antecedents for other aspects of the Bible, most notably Jesus.)

MikeC: Moses being the author of events he could not witness is reconciled by the fact that tradition states that God TOLD Moses these things (and his "death" could easily have been added in by an editor, something many Christian scholars believe). Perhaps I am ignorant, needy, or uncritical, but I believe the Bible as is.
Luigi Novi: Again, tradition and belief does not make an idea a reality.

MikeC: Regarding Michael Shermer, I agree with his central point: "It's an article of faith." But there is a big jump from that to "Most of the stuff in the Bible is fiction."
Luigi Novi: Shermer explained why he says that most of it was fiction, and I quoted him above. The books reads like mythological book of homilies, not as a historical record. And then there's the issue of the statements in the Bible that are simply wrong, contradictory, or supernatural. How can you be surprised that someone would think of it as fiction?

MikeC: To say it is impossible for Moses to get all those animals and distribute them is missing the point; isn't God capable of doing anything? Does that mean we have to have faith when reading the Scriptures? Of course.
Luigi Novi: Again, note this statement by Shermer: “Sorry, but in science, we don't allow that form of reasoning…These guys wanna play in the realm of science, they wanna claim, 'We have evidence for our beliefs!' Okay. What is it? You can't have it both ways, Mike. You wanna say that it's faith, fine. But when you start using the language of empiricism and science, as when people assert that the Bible is “fact,” or that it's a “book of history,” or that “there is evidence,” you then stray on the turf of modern historiography/science/empiricism, and you have to provide evidence. Faith doesn't cut it.

MikeC: The other Gospels issue is very familiar to a lot of Christian scholars. Church tradition states that these committees that Shermer satirizes were guided by the Holy Spirit into determining what books to select; most of the "other gospels" are exactly what one would think of as fraudulent gospels--ones purported to be written by Peter, Mary, etcetera.
Luigi Novi: Tradition, as I mentioned to Zarm, isn't evidence. Citing a spirit doesn't help confirm the authorship of the books.

MikeC: I might like a copy of the Shermer book, BTW, but not right now (one more year of school!) It might be helpful when/if I go into seminary, though, the year after.
Luigi Novi: Just tell me where to mail it.

MikeC: The New Testament, going by church tradition, does contain many letters from people claiming to be contemporaries of Jesus--Peter, James, Jude, John, for starters. Is there some dispute as to the author? Yes. But your statement was "claimed"--and in the letters, these folks claim to be the apostle Peter or the apostle Jude.
Luigi Novi: Again, there's that “going by tradition” thing. That's not evidence, Mike. The Gospels, as aforementioned, were written anonymously, and they admit to not being witnesses to the events they describe, and are written as narratives, not history. The authorship of Peter 2, Jude, Revelation, etc., are in dispute.

Sorry if I misspelled Maier's name, but the DVD didn't seem to have Closed Captioning.

MikeC: To say it is impossible for Moses to get all those animals and distribute them is missing the point;

Benn: Moses?
Luigi Novi: “Let my animals go!”

Luigi Novi: There aren't any eyewitness reports of Christ in the Bible.

Zarm Rkeeg: I disagree, but I can't prove otherwise, so I'll concede the point.
Luigi Novi: How can you disagree and concede the point? If you can't prove otherwise, what is your basis for disagreeing?

Zarm Rkeeg: In other words, if the flood occurred, wouldn't every culture have a story about it anyway?
Luigi Novi: If one culture had a flood story, and then another had a version of it millennia later, obviously, the latter isn't describing an event witnessed by its author, is it?

However the original story isn't based on a global flood.

The Noachian story is probably a mixture of stories about a flood that actually occurred on the Euphrates River, about 125 miles southeast of modern day Baghdad. The river floods every spring, but according to archaeologists, one June, around 2900 BCE, there was a six-day storm, and the river rose another 22 feet, overflowing the levies, and killing many people. One survivor was a local Sumerian king, Ziusudra, who had commandeered a commercial barge loaded with supplies, and rode the flood to the Persian Gulf. Thankful to be alive, he offered a sacrifice in a hilltop temple. Geological and archaeological evidence supports this.

As Michael Shermer notes in Why People Believe Weird Things, cultures whose major rivers flooded and destroyed the indigenous villages told flood stories, as in Sumeria and Babylonia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers periodically flooded. Even cultures in arid regions have flood stories if they are subject to whims of flash flooding. By contrast, cultures not on major bodies of water typically have no flood stories. Citing mythologist Joseph Campbell, he asserts that these flood myths have deeper meanings tied to re-creation and renewal. They're not about "literal" truth. They address a psychological or spiritual struggle to deal with the passage of time and the major stepping stones in life-birth, death, marriage, growth into adulthood and old age, etc., and have nothing to do with science or history.

Zarm Rkeeg: And for that matter, can you definitively prove in which order the stories were written?)
Luigi Novi: Um……………by dating them? You and I went over this already in January 2004 on Board 5 of the EvC boards here. When I pointed out the respective dates of each story, you responded by retreating from the discussion entirely. You didn't show up again on the EvC boards until a month later, on Board 7, where you again were mum on the issue. Now you're asking me the same question all over again. Why?

Zarm Rkeeg: Perhaps it's just the placement of questions or statements like these, but it gives off the appearance to me that you're actively looking for reasons not to believe just as strongly as I'm looking for reasons to believe.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I look for strong evidence for both sides. That's part of honest scholarship. (Again, I used to think Christ was an empirical fact, even after I became an agnostic. I had no problem with the notion, even though I was no longer a Christian. My research into the questionable nature of his existence was quite incidental.)

Zarm Rkeeg: Well then, I'm obviously still 'ignorant.' How, precisely, is innate bias of individuals circumvented reliably?
Luigi Novi: Are you kidding me with this? Seriously, are you kidding me?

Read my response to you on that board.

Look it up in a book.

Use Google.

Use Wikipedia.

Serisouly, Zarm, do I have to do everything for you? Show some intellectual curiosity.

Sheesh, indeed.

Luigi Novi: And just as with the ossuary here, your reaction after Josh and I did this was the same: You stonewalled on the issue, never again posting on that board, not even to respond to Josh's posts and mine.

Zarm Rkeeg: Forgive me for having a life outside of Nitcentral, Luigi! Or didn't you notice that I dropped off of the board IN GENERAL at that time?
Luigi Novi: You may have stopped after my post, but your next post after Josh Gould posted a link explaining why that paper was discredited was only three days later, in which you continued to arrogantly dismiss and misrepresent the true nature of the Peer Review Process, and for that matter, our words, saying that peer review is our “stoopid qualification, not yours,” and continuing to insist that the blatant falsehood that ID has been peer-reviewed and approved, when in fact, it was submitted, but not approved.

Only after I responded to point out to you that mere submission for review does not constitute “approval,” and that the paper in question was discredited, did you “drop off”, but what is your excuse now?

Why have you not commented here and now about the fact that you cited a blatant forgery as evidence of Christ? Again, when you make these ridiculous arguments, and then retreat from them when they're refuted, your hollow accusations of bias on the part of others is quite hard to take seriously.

Zarm Rkeeg: There was just recently a case (and no, I don't have the research in front of me, but I'll try to track it down) where archeological evidence shed new light on the order/chronology of the Egyptian Pharoes- which now lined up with the Biblical account of Moses, which had previously been mocked as inconsistent with historical data. The more we learn about archeology, and history of Biblical times, the more it is confirmed.
Luigi Novi: Let us know when you've “tracked it down.” I'm sure we'll hear from you soon in that regard, and that the source will no doubt be a perfectly objective one.

Zarm Rkeeg: Shermer's lack of knowledge here is astonishing, bordering on pathetic. Chapter one is an overview of the seven day period, while chapter two jumps back to detail the events of the sixth day. There is only one Creation story.
Luigi Novi: There are two, and they contradict one another, in that the order of how things were created is different in each.

Shermer: There's no possible way that Noah could've retained all 10 billion species on a single boat and then distributed them appropriately, where all the marsupials are in Australia and so forth -this is just ridiculous. It is so ridiculous, that I find it embarrassing for people who attempt to prove that it's true. This is not a literal story. This is a story about destruction, redemption, starting over, beginning anew, forgiveness, redemption, and so on. To try and read it literally, is to miss the point of the story.””

Zarm Rkeeg: Well, I will admit that so far, Shermer is quite the expert on missing the point. However, this is not an inconsistency at all…
Luigi Novi: He didn't say it was. It said it was an impossibility.

Zarm Rkeeg: SO WHAT? You continue, along with your citing of other cultural myths, to imply that the fact that there are knock-offs implies that the original can't be true either.
Luigi Novi: I said no such thing. As far as Apollonius, some believe he may actually have been the basis for Christ. You'd know that if you read the link. The Wikipedia entry isn't even that big.

Zarm Rkeeg: Oh, right. You mean like healing the blind, curing a crippled man, and raising someone back to life. I'd like to see that Penn & Teller show.
Luigi Novi: Read James Randi's The Faith Healers, which details his expose of preachers like Peter Popoff as frauds. Popoff too claimed to heal people. Randi showed that he actually didn't.

Zarm Rkeeg: Once again, these 'debunkings' from Shermer are not only full of holes, they prove nothing more than the Biblical arguments that he claims are based on personal opinion!
Luigi Novi: No, they're based on evidence, reason, and adherence to the Scientific Method, which he always illustrates. Magicians and conjurors are adept at fooling audiences into thinking that they're seeing miracles. Shermer explores these issues at length in his books, not simple on Biblical matters, but on other pseudoscientific topics, such as cults, ESP, alien abduction, near-death experiences, Holocaust denial, etc. Given that he actively reads and researches the topics he discuses, and from sources with different conclusions, and you give little evidence this, to dismiss his well-researched conclusions as based solely on “personal opinion” says far more about your own capacity for objectivity than it does about Shermer.

Shermer: “Most Biblical theologians who study the stuff seriously, will tell you that in fact, we don't know exactly who wrote the Bible.”

Zarm Rkeeg: It has multiple authors, obviously. This is a matter of Jewish tradition as well, I believe, if not an already confirmed historical fact. Once again, what do any of these statements prove, other than Shermer is trying to throw out random, unconnected or irrelevant facts to try and discredit the Bible?
Luigi Novi: The fact that we don't know who wrote much of the Bible is one of the reasons we cannot corroborate much of its content, which is not random, or irrelevant, but quite reasonable, regardless of whether you refuse to accept that. Shermer notes this anonymity of authorship, and you again misrepresent his words, talking about the multiplicity of authorship. Nice try.

Zarm Rkeeg: Obviously, there were some disputes that these other books (like the laughable Gnostic Gospels) ARE part of the word of God. Are you now complaining that Christians ARE trying to check legitimacy and historical accuracy?
Luigi Novi: Again, how does someone check the legitimacy of the word of God? And what does this have to do with historical accuracy?

Zarm Rkeeg: Ah, one of those good old objective 'facts?' Face it, Luigi- this guy is using terms even more loosely than I do!
Luigi Novi: How so? Again, this is a conclusion that he has come to from reading and researching the topic critically. Given that you have little idea what critical research, the Scientific Method or the Peer Review Process even are, by what criteria do you judge his word choices to be more loose than yours?

Zarm Rkeeg: Certainly, you could claim that all of these were fakes, frauds, or populations of a cultural myth. But as I was trying to suggest above, why do other historical figures like Ceaser not bear this kind of doubt and scrutiny?

Luigi Novi: Because of the fact that he left multiple lines of contemporaneous evidence that all converges upon the same conclusion. Caesar, for example, wrote two books. Where are the books that Jesus wrote? Caesar wrote letters to people, and others wrote letters mentioning him, which were contemporaneous with his life. Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?

Zarm Rkeeg: Um, that would be called the New Testament. :-)

Luigi Novi: The New Testament does not contain any letters written by anyone claiming to have been Christ, nor anyone claiming to have met him, and therefore, is not equivalent to the letters written by, to, or about Caesar. Hence the Caesar comparison, which is often used by Christian apologists in arguing Christ's historicity, is just flat-out wrong.”

Zarm Rkeeg: I've already agreed that Caesar was a bad example. However, that's not what you asked. You asked “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” which is EXACTLY what the New Testament (except for the first few gospels and account books) IS.
Luigi Novi: No.

That is not what I asked. You are now engaging in a deliberate and knowing LIE, and I'm going to expose it.

That is not what the exchange was.

You deliberately edited out the rest of the passage to remove the context-the second time you have done this with regard to that exchange. I restored the full context in my last post, and you again removed it. Observe the five-part exchange I've quoted just above in red. Your original question was about CAESAR. You asked why historians treat Caesar differently from Christ. That was your original question. I answered it by pointing out that contrary to the notions advanced by Christian apologists, Caesar left much contemporaneous evidence, all of which is authenticated, and all of which converges upon the factual nature of his existence. As an example, I mentioned, among other things, the books he wrote, and the letters written to, from, and about him. My question with regard to Christ, therefore, was to ask you where are the EQUIVALENT letters-that is, the equivalent letters written by Christ, about Christ, and to Christ, and in his lifetime. The Gospels are not this. Yes, you admitted that the Caesar argument is a bad one, but you continued on with the New Testament comment, except that now you're attempting to take out away from the original context of the Caesar line of argument, pretending that my original question about Jesus' ministry was not in actuality made in reference to your original comparison with Caesar. You first did this bit of selective quoting in your June 17th post, but I didn't make an issue out of it, because you didn't explicitly attempt to argue it out of context (though I wondered if that was your intention). I simply responded to it by restoring the entire exchange, and now, you're again attempting to decontextualize it, except that now you're being a bit more bold and shameless in doing so EXPLICITLY. Why you think I won't simply point to the entire exchange to expose this tactic of yours, I don't know.

Nice try.

Zarm Rkeeg: While I disagree with a lot of your 'discrediting'…

Luigi Novi: While simultaneously refusing to elaborate on why you do so with most of it.”

Zarm Rkeeg: I don't have all day here, Luigi. If I fail to respond, it's typically because I see flaws or errors in your debunking, but I have no counter-evidence to offer- in which case we'd just be led off on another pointless detour.
Luigi Novi: Let me see if I have this straight-you fail to respond because you see errors in my arguments? Nope, sorry, wrong answer. It is because you see flaws in my arguments that you should respond, and why responding should be EASY for you to do. If you spot a flaw, point it out. Again, how you manage to talk out of both sides of your mouth like this-claiming a flaw in my arguments, yet simultaneously lacking the evidence or counterargument needed to point it out-is ridiculous. It's also a specious bit of excuse-making to admit that you don't have a valid counterargument to refute what someone else says, but then say that it's a question of how much time you have.

Moreover, if you “don't have all day,” then by what reasoning do you presume to attack the reasoning and arguments used by someone who does spend time researching the subject as “random,” “opinion,” or “irrelevant”?

The problem is not that you don't have all day. It's that you don't have any basis for your statements, as you yourself admit, and that your capacity for critical thinking and intellectually honest debate is poor, leaving said statements nothing more than rhetorical.

Luigi Novi: I think your arguments would be much stronger if you didn't use language that on the surface, appeared so manipulative.”

Zarm Rkeeg: How? This is certainly not my intention (although I might remind you that I've just been called to carpet repeatedly for responding to language that on the surface, seems biased… sometimes, we can't help how others interpret our words…), so if you would explain to me how I'm doing this, I will endeavor to correct it.
Luigi Novi: We can help it by not using words in ways that diverge from their definitions, by showing how the words' usages is accurate by illustrating how it's consistent with the argument one is responding to, and of course, by not deliberately misrepresenting someone else's words when quoting them or referencing the things they've said. I've already shown “how” you've done this above.

Jim Walker: So here we have the gospels portraying Jesus as famous far and wide, a prophet and healer, with great multitudes of people who knew about him, including the greatest Jewish high priests and the Roman authorities of the area, and not one person records his existence during his lifetime? If the poor, the rich, the rulers, the highest priests, and the scribes knew about Jesus, who would not have heard of him?

Zarm Rkeeg: Once again, in context, if His followers were all busy following Him, who would write the letters?
Luigi Novi: The scribes, priests and Roman authorities whose mention you just quoted.

Zarm Rkeeg: What? Thallus and Phlegon, mentioned earlier, recorded the event, (though I understand they are not without contest) the statement that it is unrecorded is not true.
Luigi Novi: Question: Did that event occur during (or heralded) the birth of Jesus? Or was it an event during his ministry?

Zarm Rkeeg: Also, about your 'debunking'- neither of the sources you stated in your post gave any evidence, just more “I find it hard to believe…” statements…
Luigi Novi: Another manipulation on your part. The sources explain what some of the problems are with these passages. The disbelief expressed by the researchers is based on the facts and evidence. You pretend that statements of disbelief are without any context or support, when in fact, the researchers only come to these conclusions precisely because of the material they cite. You are merely accusing them of what you yourself are guilty of-holding conclusions without any support for them, and without providing any counterargument when they're refuted.

Zarm Rkeeg: Perhaps a reliance on faith is the point?
Luigi Novi: Perhaps then believers shouldn't pretend that it's empirical and factual?

Zarm Rkeeg: (Which, theologically, makes a lot of sense…, but again I digress) Once again, Walker closes with an “I find it hard to believe…” (A.K.A. “You'd think”) statement that really means nothing except his own personal bias against the material.
Luigi Novi: More manipulative quoting.

How Walker closes his essay, is not, in and of itself, the sole passage by which to judge it. Walker spends the entire essay talking about evidence, and the reasoning employed to examine it critically. Hence, his disbelief is based on all that material that preceded that conclusion. You pretend that that one statement, again taken by you out context, is the only thing he said on the subject, when in fact it is a choice of wording that you are over-emphasizing that he simply used to express the ultimate conclusion he reached based on all that preceding material.

Again, nice try.

Luigi Novi: So the idea that “much of Jesus' notoriety and fame came from the events of His death and Resurection”, and “most of the people who were following Him before these events were busy doing just that: following, not writing letters”, is just not true.

Zarm Rkeeg: I fail to see where you proved that. What you cited was second-rate conjecture and false assumptions at best.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. I pointed out that scribes, priests and so forth existed to record Jesus' existence, contrary to your assertion that no one was around to do this.

I also find it interesting that you label the material I provided as “second-rate conjecture” and “false assumptions.” May I ask, how would you describe your prior statements that no one was around to do this? What are your sources, may I ask?

Again, your rhetoric about conjecture and assumption describes your position. Not Walker's.

Luigi Novi: which were clearly written as mythological/religious narratives intended to induct others into their faith.

Zarm Rkeeg: Based on what? Once again, this is your opinion coming through...
Luigi Novi: No. It's an observation of the material in question, and the recognition that that is precisely how it reads.

Zarm Rkeeg: Okay, then how 'bout this:

“Luigi Novi: Very few absolutes exist, and most of them are in esoteric areas like mathematics. Obi-Wan and Aankin were obviously talking about morality.

Zarm Rkeeg: By the way, I dislike your statement for the same reason I disliked Obi-wan's- it's insulting to anybody that believe in absolutes.

Luigi Novi: And I find worldviews based largely on absolutes to be offensive. To each his own.” -May 21, 2005- revenge of the Sith board.
Luigi Novi: A hypothetical on my part. You appeared to be arguing that someone with a different view of absolutes should not express that view, because it might offend you. My point was, what if yours offends me? Is that the same thing? (I see now what you meant earlier about being “offended,” and that you were referring to the Sith board; Me, I'm not offended by absolutes (though I don't find many to be tenable), I simply wanted to propose that idea to you about how to react when someone expresses a view different from yours. Sorry if that intention on my part wasn't clear.)

Mega-Post Redux

Re: "Testimony of Early Church"
Gosh, I don't know what evidence or documentation the early church had to make up this testimony. You'd have to ask the early church leaders where they got these ideas. Somehow these four guys became fairly cemented into the roles as authors fairly early in the history of the church. As I've pointed out, these are not the four guys that one would pick as gospel authors if one was looking to seriously back up Jesus. The standard scholarly dating is Mark in the A.D. '70s, Matthew and Luke in the '80s, and John in the '90s. That is still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses (positive and hostile) to the events in the past. In contrast, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written more than four hundred years after Alexander's death.

How did Papias know if Mark's intentions were true? I don't know--perhaps he did research. Perhaps he used Google or Wikipedia. I don't know. You'd have to ask him.

Re: "Flood Myths"
I still don't see how the Noah flood is automatically rendered fraudulent because a similar story has been written years before. Couldn't it just as easily be both stories are about the same event only that the Biblical one was written much later? Psycho and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are both about the Ed Gein killings. Because Psycho came sooner, does that mean that TCM cannot be about the Gein killings and must be a ripoff of Psycho?

Re: "Tradition and Belief"
Of course, belief doesn't make an idea an reality. I was simply rebutting Shermer's point, in which he makes it seem that Christians have no answer for his criticisms of Genesis, when they actually do have (admittedly supernatural) quite reasonable explanations.

Re: "Bible as fiction"
This sentence is just sort of unintentionally funny: "There's the issue of the statements in the Bible that are simply wrong, contradictory, or SUPERNATURAL (emphasis mine)." One does not pick up a book of the supernatural and declare it false because it details supernatural events. One can say, "This requires a faith in the supernatural." Yes, definitely. One can say "This cannot be scientifically proven." Yes, definitely. One cannot say "This is categorically fiction."

You're right in that I cannot have it both ways. I have never denied that the Bible is a book that requires faith. I was merely posting in response to what I perceived to be some inaccuracies in Shermer's comments.

Re: "Citing a spirit"
This particular issue illustrates the fundamental gap between people of faith and people without faith. To people of faith, it is ridiculously simple: "The Holy Spirit guided the committee into picking the accurate gospels." To the people without faith, it is also ridiculously simple: "There is no such thing as a Holy Spirit. You can't cite a spirit. There is no evidence." There is nothing I can provide in terms of evidence apparently to make you believe my interpretation of events. And there shouldn't be. If God's Spirit could be scientifically proven, faith would be worthless. I say this not to "win" a point, I'm saying it to point out this represents an irreconcilable difference. At its heart, that's where these arguments go.

Re: General good cheer
Is there some reason, Zarm and Luigi, that you cannot interact in a generally civil relationship? Just wondering. I see no reason for the vitriolic sarcasm and biting insults from both sides. Maybe I'm just a wimp.

Re: Two creation myths
"Chapter One": The order is God creates heavens, earth, light, water, sky, land, vegetation, sun/moon, animals, and man (male and female) in that order.

"Chapter Two": Chapter Two seems to assert that man is created at the same time as the vegetation, but the female is created some time later. I don't see this as a contradiction. Chapter One, to me, is going very fast and giving a very broad overview of the creation. Chapter Two does a close-up viewpoint of that. It would be like in Will Durant's books where he does a general summary of a historical period and then does up-close "snapshots" of particular people and events. Some of the admittedly still confusing passages (if women are created on the sixth day, how did Adam name everything on one day?) are reconciled by the familiar point of "Hey, this is God we're talking about here. Omnipotent, you know?"

Re: Thallus and Phlegon
I don't understand your question. I quoted them in reference to the global darkness, which was at the time of the Crucifixion and was not heralding Jesus' birth.

Re: Empirical and Factual
If you can find some posts in which I claim Christianity to be empirical and factual (in terms of scientific context), I'd love to see them.

The fact that don't know the church fathers' basis for their attributions, and that we can't ask them where they got these ideas, is precisely why there is no way to confirm these ideas as historical.

No one said the Noah flood is “automatically rendered fraudulent because a similar story has been written years before.” What was said was that the preceding one was written millennia before, that literary comparison makes the influence of one on the other obvious, and that that original story wasn't about a global flood, and did not involve a God, or two of each animal, or for that matter, Noah. The writer of the Noah story was basing his story on the prior one, and was likely not recording actual events as literally described.

Those movies were not about Gein. They had elements inspired by him.

The “makes it seem” argument is often used fallaciously, and I'm surprised to see you using it, Mike. “Makes it seem” often tends to be simply a phrase you insert in between two disparate things -what someone actually said, and the distorted version you're asserting it was-in order to take a short cut to arguing that one means the other, without actually showing how or why. If you want to respond to something Shermer says, do so. Don't use a Straw Man, because I think you're better than that. The fact that some insist on a literal reading of the book's supernatural events is precisely why we cannot regard those passages as historical fact. I don't see any inaccuracy here. It is Shermer who has pointed out that believers often contradict themselves (or one another), but insisting on literalism on the one hand, and then allowing interpretation on the other.

Can I interact with others with civility? I think so. I think I've been doing so, despite Zarm's accusatory, hypocritical and intellectually dishonest behavior. Can you show me where I haven't? Or are you arguing that my pointing out when Zarm behaves this way somehow is my fault, and constitutes equally bad behavior on my part? If so, I disagree. When you deliberately take someone's words out of context, lie, edit manipulatively, and generally behave the way Zarm has, I have every right to call him on it. Rather than pointing the finger at me, perhaps you should voice objections to this behavior on his part yourself. Instead, you leave it to me, and then criticize me for pointing out the dishonest behavior on his part? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Chapter 2 indicates that God created Man before vegetation, not at the same time, which cannot be accounted for by speed.

Thank you for clarifying your statements about Thallus and Phlegon. Sometimes even I have trouble keeping track of all the info in a big thread like this. As stated before, these guys didn't witness the events of Christ's life, and their accounts are hearsay.

When you use the language of empiricism-like talking about “evidence,” or “circumstantial evidence,” “history”, etc., you're on the turf of science and empiricism, a point I make to anyone using such language.

“Zarm Rkeeg: I disagree, but I can't prove otherwise, so I'll concede the point.
Luigi Novi: How can you disagree and concede the point? If you can't prove otherwise, what is your basis for disagreeing?”

By faith, Luigi. Believe it or not, I can see a world beyond what science can tell us… especially since science doesn’t even have all the answers for things we know to be true, yet. But as I said, I’m not trying to support those statements… in the realm of science, I concede the point.
(Isn’t it funny how all of these discussions turn into demands for exacting scientific proof on the religious musings board? Shouldn’t there be a scientific musings board by now?) J


“Zarm Rkeeg: In other words, if the flood occurred, wouldn't every culture have a story about it anyway?
Luigi Novi: If one culture had a flood story, and then another had a version of it millennia later, obviously, the latter isn't describing an event witnessed by its author, is it?”

No, that’s beside the point. I’m not asking about flood eyewitnesses… but why is it inconceivable that multiple stories based on an historical event would pop up from descendants of the witnesses of that event? (A.k.a. Is it so inconceivable that all of these are parallel stories that grew out of one event, instead of simply being re-tellings of each-other?)


“However the original story isn't based on a global flood.”-Luigi Novi

That is based on your assumption that the Biblical account is based on earlier accounts, not an actual event. This is conjecture- you have no proof of this. Neither does Michael Shermer.


“Zarm Rkeeg: And for that matter, can you definitively prove in which order the stories were written?)
Luigi Novi: Um……………by dating them?”


By dating what? The writings that we have of them? Unless you have a way to confirm that these are both original manuscripts in which the story was recounted for the first time, you can prove nothing more than the first physical instance of their appearance- but with the heavy oral traditions of most ancient cultures, there’s no definitive way to prove the origin of the story itself.


“Zarm Rkeeg: Well then, I'm obviously still 'ignorant.' How, precisely, is innate bias of individuals circumvented reliably?
Luigi Novi: Are you kidding me with this? Seriously, are you kidding me?”

No. Your polite suggestions aside, you continue to assume that my question implies a lack of knowledge about the concept- not a lack of conviction that the concept works.
Did you ever consider that the information I researched didn’t satisfy me as to the objectivity of Peer Review Process, and I wanted your opinion on the subject? (As for your previous response- I’m a bit embarrassed to admit I’d forgotten which board it was on… I’ll research that sort of thing better in the future.)
But your continued implications are unwarranted and unfair- is it lacking in intellectual curiosity that I want to hear your views on the subject rather than Wikipedia’s?

Sheesh squared and cubed to the 13th power. ;-p

“Only after I responded to point out to you that mere submission for review does not constitute “approval,” and that the paper in question was discredited, did you “drop off”, but what is your excuse now?”-Luigi Novi

WHAT? I haven’t gone anywhere- I’ve wasted most of my week on this board! And yes, I probably did drop off after that post- so what? I was extremely tired of the debate and very busy at the time- what do you want from me? I’m back now, for all the good it does me, and rapidly remembering why I left in the first place! I’m sorry if you felt that I picked a poor time to leave the debate, but I don’t see why you insist on categorizing it as an excuse.


“Why have you not commented here and now about the fact that you cited a blatant forgery as evidence of Christ? Again, when you make these ridiculous arguments, and then retreat from them when they're refuted, your hollow accusations of bias on the part of others is quite hard to take seriously.”-Luigi Novi

First off, my poor choice of examples does nothing to mitigate bias on behalf of other individuals except my some twisted, ad hominim logic.
Secondarily, what are you looking for, Luigi? I let the matter drop- I was signaling my concession. Yes, I fell into the trap of accepting it’s credibility without enough research- so what are you looking for? A public apology? I was wrong, okay? I was in error, and I made an incorrect statement.
Now can you drop the matter, or do I have to get an engraved plaque and a megaphone?!?


“Zarm Rkeeg: Shermer's lack of knowledge here is astonishing, bordering on pathetic. Chapter one is an overview of the seven day period, while chapter two jumps back to detail the events of the sixth day. There is only one Creation story.
Luigi Novi: There are two, and they contradict one another, in that the order of how things were created is different in each.”

No, it’s one story. The tense usages in Genesis 2:8-9 are a little confusing at first, but the creation order is not contradictory. The Lord made Heavens/Earth, the lord made man- but he had already planted the vegetation and created the animals- they just aren’t referenced in chronological order within the chapter- but they are referenced as having occurred in chronological order.


“Zarm Rkeeg: SO WHAT? You continue, along with your citing of other cultural myths, to imply that the fact that there are knock-offs implies that the original can't be true either.
Luigi Novi: I said no such thing. As far as Apollonius, some believe he may actually have been the basis for Christ. You'd know that if you read the link. The Wikipedia entry isn't even that big.”

Precisely. ‘Some believe,’ but isn’t arguing any of the points based solely on beliefs what you’ve been arguing against, here? What does Apollonius have to do with anything?


“Zarm Rkeeg: Oh, right. You mean like healing the blind, curing a crippled man, and raising someone back to life. I'd like to see that Penn & Teller show.
Luigi Novi: Read James Randi's The Faith Healers, which details his expose of preachers like Peter Popoff as frauds. Popoff too claimed to heal people. Randi showed that he actually didn't.”

So what? You’re continuing with the “knockoffs are fake” line of thought, as if that has some basis on the original. (BTW- the individuals in the Bible are often described as having been well-known as injured/disabled for years- and I doubt that Penn and Teller could have brought a man dead for four days…)


“Zarm Rkeeg: Once again, these 'debunkings' from Shermer are not only full of holes, they prove nothing more than the Biblical arguments that he claims are based on personal opinion!
Luigi Novi: No, they're based on evidence, reason, and adherence to the Scientific Method, which he always illustrates.”

Not any of the examples you posted.


“Zarm Rkeeg: Ah, one of those good old objective 'facts?' Face it, Luigi- this guy is using terms even more loosely than I do!
Luigi Novi: How so? Again, this is a conclusion that he has come to from reading and researching the topic critically.”

No. Like the passage I noted beforehand, Shermer states the ‘fact’ that the Bible is “human-edited, socially-constructed collection of books, put together by people over many, many centuries.” What fact? Based on what? Shermer is looking at the Bible as critically as you say I am… just from the other side.

“Zarm Rkeeg: I've already agreed that Caesar was a bad example. However, that's not what you asked. You asked “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” which is EXACTLY what the New Testament (except for the first few gospels and account books) IS.
Luigi Novi: No.

That is not what I asked. You are now engaging in a deliberate and knowing LIE, and I'm going to expose it.”

No, those were your exact words. You asked “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” (exact quote.) You never stated that you were asking for “letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus written by Him, to Him, or contemporaneously to Him, just like Caesar.” In fact, one of the qualification you wrote about the ‘Caesar letters’ is “Caesar wrote letters to people, and OTHERS WROTE LETTERS MENTIONING HIM, which were contemporaneous with his life.” (Emphasis mine.) That is exactly what the New Testament is- a set of letters that fit into the second catergory.

I was responding to the quote somewhat impishly, it’s true. I was trying to be ‘cute.’ And I was not trying to state that they fit all three of your categories, or served as proof, or discredited your Caesar arguments, or elevated the historical status of the New Testament to the level of Caesar’s letters. I was just answering a bloody question.
There is nothing incorrect about my statement, with or without context. All you asked was “Where the letters sparked by the world-changing ministry of Jesus?” which seemed to me an ironic question, considering that is a near-perfect description of the New Testament. So I answered literally. How are the majority of the New Testament books NOT that? (With the exception of the first few ‘account’ gospels, as I already noted.)


“It's also a specious bit of excuse-making to admit that you don't have a valid counterargument to refute what someone else says, but then say that it's a question of how much time you have.”-Luigi Novi

It is precisely because I don’t have a valid counter-argument- In the required archeological or historical ‘playing field’ that I don’t respond- even if your reasoning is flawed based on common sense, I don’t try to contest it because you won’t accept that kind of argument anyway.
And yes, I waste too much time here already- so I don’t care to elaborate on why I disagree with you in issues that I drop- that would be a waste of both of our time!


“Moreover, if you “don't have all day,” then by what reasoning do you presume to attack the reasoning and arguments used by someone who does spend time researching the subject as “random,” “opinion,” or “irrelevant”?”-Luigi Novi

Time spent researching does not have any bearing on the validity of an argument- if it’s just opinion, it’s just opinion- no matter how long it took to come up with it.


“The problem is not that you don't have all day. It's that you don't have any basis for your statements, as you yourself admit, and that your capacity for critical thinking and intellectually honest debate is poor, leaving said statements nothing more than rhetorical.”

Well jeepers… when ya put it like that, I gess I am just plane out of my leeg. Thank gudness that I don’t just come hear to be insulted…

Honestly, Luigi, I’d thank you to keep your speculations about why I respond/don’t respond to something to yourself instead of resorting to insults on my character.

“Zarm Rkeeg: Once again, in context, if His followers were all busy following Him, who would write the letters?
Luigi Novi: The scribes, priests and Roman authorities whose mention you just quoted.”

You said it yourself- if ‘Messiahs’ were a dime a dozen, the scribes would probably wait for something major to occur (like the crucifixion) before recording yet another one in the annals of history, the priests considered Him a heretic, and Jesus’ fame was limited mostly to Israel, even if the Romans would have had inclination to write each other about a Jewish religious figure.


“Zarm Rkeeg: What? Thallus and Phlegon, mentioned earlier, recorded the event, (though I understand they are not without contest) the statement that it is unrecorded is not true.
Luigi Novi: Question: Did that event occur during (or heralded) the birth of Jesus? Or was it an event during his ministry?”

Concurrent His death. And the time in which the event occurred is irrelevant to Walker’s statement.


“Zarm Rkeeg: Perhaps a reliance on faith is the point?
Luigi Novi: Perhaps then believers shouldn't pretend that it's empirical and factual?”

Perhaps so.


“I also find it interesting that you label the material I provided as “second-rate conjecture” and “false assumptions.” May I ask, how would you describe your prior statements that no one was around to do this? What are your sources, may I ask?”-Luigi Novi

Two wrongs don’t make a right. I’m not claiming a moral superiority there, just the fact that your sources’ reasoning is no better than mine.


“Luigi Novi: which were clearly written as mythological/religious narratives intended to induct others into their faith.

Zarm Rkeeg: Based on what? Once again, this is your opinion coming through...
Luigi Novi: No. It's an observation of the material in question, and the recognition that that is precisely how it reads.”

Precisely how it reads to you. Again, where does an opinion based on observation prove anything? Especially when it contradicts what the writings themselves claim? (that they were written as historical recordings of true events.) “clearly written as mythological/religious narratives” to you, but unless you have a way to prove the authors intent, then is merely an educated guess.


“You appeared to be arguing that someone with a different view of absolutes should not express that view, because it might offend you.”-Luigi Novi

Actually, I was trying to argue that the view that there are no absolutes is a self-deception, since it is an absolute belief itself. (Also, stating that “ONLY” Sith deal in absolutes sounds like an extremely absolute statement to me.)

However, your explanation is understood- sorry about the misconception.


“If God's Spirit could be scientifically proven, faith would be worthless. I say this not to "win" a point, I'm saying it to point out this represents an irreconcilable difference. At its heart, that's where these arguments go.”-MikeC

You make an excellent point.

“What was said was that the preceding one was written millennia before, that literary comparison makes the influence of one on the other obvious, and that that original story wasn't about a global flood, and did not involve a God, or two of each animal, or for that matter, Noah. The writer of the Noah story was basing his story on the prior one, and was likely not recording actual events as literally described.”-Luigi Novi

Obvious to whom? You? Not me. So why does something being obvious to you or Walker or Shermer make something true? Again, where is the proof that this is a derivative account, and not yet another parallel account based on an original event (as described)?


“Can I interact with others with civility? I think so. I think I've been doing so, despite Zarm's accusatory, hypocritical and intellectually dishonest behavior. Can you show me where I haven't?”-Luigi Novi

Funny, I was going to say the same thing… surely you don’t think some of the passages in the “Zarm Under Attack” (Yeah, I know… bias…) post were civil and fair, do you? (Well, maybe fair…)
Or do statements like “When you deliberately take someone's words out of context, lie, edit manipulatively, and generally behave the way Zarm has,” constitute civility?


“Thank you for clarifying your statements about Thallus and Phlegon. Sometimes even I have trouble keeping track of all the info in a big thread like this. As stated before, these guys didn't witness the events of Christ's life, and their accounts are hearsay.”-Luigi Novi

Come on, Luigi, that’s just falling back onto a party line- that doesn’t deal ata all with their challenge to Walker’s statements.

You are correct--we cannot CONFIRM the church father's basis for their ideas. The fact remains that they had these ideas that were generally quite accepted. The question would be "What basis did these guys have?" I believe we do not have enough evidence to rule one way or the other.

"The writer of the Noah story was basing his story on the prior one, and was likely not recording actual events as literally described."

Did you ask the writer of the Noah story? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Isn't this just a literary assumption? Can't I just assume that the ancient cultures had a myth account derived from some inkling of real life events and that the writer of the Noah story got the real deal? BTW, you're right, I should have said the movies were INSPIRED by Gein, not actually adaptations of Gein.

I don't understand your point about my apparent usage of the "makes it seem" Straw Man. I did respond to Shermer's points. I don't believe I misrepresented Shermer at all; that was truly and honestly what I believed the point of the selected quotations were. He indicated that reading the Bible literally is to "miss the point": I disagreed by pointing out that if one reads the Bible with faith, then it can indeed be read literally. Shermer's perspective only makes sense if one ignores the supernatural. If that is still a "makes it seem" Straw Man, then please tell me what Shermer's actual point is.

Here are some examples of what I perceived to be not in good cheer civility from you.

Luigi: "Seriously, Zarm, do I have to do everything for you? Show some intellectual curiosity. Sheesh, indeed."
Luigi: "Let us know when you've tracked it down. I'm sure we'll hear from you soon in that regard and that the source will be a perfectly objective one."
Luigi: "You are now engaging in a deliberate and knowing LIE"

None of these sentences, to me, are necessary. The first one was in response to a question from Zarm that in my opinion, did not deserve that level of vitriol from you. The second one was from a promise from Zarm to look up something that in my opinion, did not deserve to be treated sarcastically. The third was in a response from a misquote from Zarm that you eloquently defended; I do not think you needed to classify it as a "deliberate and knowing lie" because you have no proof to show it was a KNOWING lie.

Since we have had this discussion COUNTLESS times, let me just summarize myself. Just because someone is behaving in an illogical or intellectually dishonest manner does not give someone else carte blanche to use vitriol and sarcasm against him. In some of Zarm's earlier posts, I thought that he too was being too vitriolic and sarcastic; if you really want, I could go back and quote them too. I was not criticizing you for pointing out Zarm's "dishonesties." I was criticizing you for pointing them out in what I felt to be a rude manner not worthy of a man of your intelligence.

Chapter 2 does not necessarily say that man appeared before shrubs. The syntax of verses 5-7 is confusing: "[when] no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--the Lord God formed the man..." You could assume that these "streams" resulted in flowering shrubs and plants, and man came "immediately" after this. "Earth" is also translated as "land," so you could also assume the passage is just talking about a particular section of the Earth (Eden?). Are these assumptions? Sure. Are they written from an apologetic viewpoint? Sure. But there is nothing to discount either assumption.

Thallus wrote his history in A.D. 52, a few scant years after Jesus' life. His history was apparently thought well enough of to be quoted all the way in A.D. 221; I'm also ASSuming that he actually did some history work and interviewed witnesses/looked at records that are probably now lost. Because Gore Vidal never met Abraham Lincoln, should we assume that all of his historical account of Lincoln is just hearsay fiction? Take it with a grain of salt, sure (and we have the luxury of looking at his sources), but it's still a secondhand source.

Your final paragraph illustrates the vast gulf again between people of faith and people without faith. To me, I have plenty of evidence that is not "empirical." I will refrain from using those words in this discussion again, I guess, though.

(Zarm interrupted me in mid-post, so my post is directed towards Luigi, not Zarm)

Also, I'm going to create a Page 2.