-Shrug- Hey, it’s a job. Someone has to assume the mantle of Prince of Darkness and taunt the holy of holies, Cecil, from afar.
Thank goodness I’m prepaid for another year.
And, Wendell, you’re half-right. The columns started in 1973. The Straight Dope: A Compendium of Human Knowledge was published on May 12, 1986 by Ballantine, though it’s original copyright date is 1984.
I think we ought to have a party. That was 20 years ago this coming May 12. We could call it " Dopo De Mayo"
So what you referred to earlier as an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts is actually the gospels? That’s a stretch. I think it was more honest when you withdrew an earlier statement admitting you couldn’t back it up.
Consider this. Oral tradition is fine but is not a measure of accuracy. We don’t know for sure who the authors of the gospels were or if they knew and walked with Jesus or merely repeated stories told to them.
The authors of Matthew and Luke almost certainly had a copy of Mark as a reference in writing since many verses from are repeated in them. That indicates they are not independent accounts. It can also be argued fairly successfully that although these books weren’t canonized until much later they were still written as religious texts to promote a certain belief. And so these then are your incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts?
I stated before that we really don’t know from an historical point of view if Jesus actually existed. {That means he may have but based on historical evidence we really don’t know}You’ve offered nothing other than what I already acknowledged in the way of an argument. You certainly haven’t backed up your statement.
Once again, I’m not arguing the Jesus didn’t really exist. I’m simply asking for a little honesty and accuracy in considering the evidence, as well as not misquoting and misrepresenting what I’ve said.
-sigh- Look, I didn’t mean to misrepresent you and I do apologize. However, it’s incredibly disingenuous to say that someone has to provide a cite besides the earlier Gospels to prove that Jesus existed. You are asking for honesty and accuracy in considering the evidence and my position is that the very fact that the early Gospels were written by people who were direct associates of Jesus’ should be evidence enough.
I am sorry I don’t have a few dozen bulletproof indepentant cites to cross-reference the claim. It was 2,000 years ago and well… documentation wasn’t what it is now.
If there is someone being disingenuous here it is you {even if it’s unknowingly} The facts are that we don’t know if the gospels were written by direct associates of Jesus. To claim they were is simply an false claim. It is a Christian tradition not backed by evidence. That is exactly what I’m speaking of when I request accuracy and honesty. This information is not hard to find. The SDMB has a report on “who wrote the Bible” that is very informative. Someone who spews false facts is either too lazy to do the research or just in denial.
The point is that you were the one that made claims you couldn’t back up with cites. That’s the kind of challenge you should expect in GDs and I’m grateful for a forum that has standards like that. If you can’t back up your claims then learn not to make them.
Actually there are several non biblical references about Jesus from various writers of that era including Josephus (A.D. 37-100), Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55?-after 117)
and a few others. None of it makes us sure Jesus existed from an historical point of view because of the inaccurate nature of historians in that age. Which just happens to be , what I asserted several posts ago.
To the extent that historical claims made in the bible are testable, some have been tested and found to be true. Some have been tested and found to be false. Some have been tested and found to be inconclusive.
True: There was a city known as Jericho.
Almost assuredly false: The great flood. We may have found the origin of the story, but a flood covering the entire earth would leave certain marks which are clearly not present.
Inconclusive: The precise historical existance of one man of Nazareth. However, as these things go, there’s no strong evidence against it and some evidence for it. Some, but not all, of that evidence was forged.
The Books of Mormon have certain testable historical claims. Those that can be tested and are unique to the book, have, by and large, been found to be false.
This says little to the use of the book as a religious revelation, and more to the use of the book as a historical artifact.
That’s just about as harsh as your language needs to get in this thread, ok? I didn’t accuse you of being a liar, have the good graces to be as polite in return. No, I’m not a Moderator but I did start this thread and have tried very hard to speak to folks without making the heated discussion personal. Speaking of the Boards, if you need to call people names, see that little tab titled, “BBQ Pit”? Go for it. I respect your views even if I don’t automatically flip over and support them suddenly.
No, I was not trying to “spew false facts”, nor was I attempting to be disingenuous. We are in disagreement over what is a valid cite and what is not. That is fine, I respect that. The fact that Josephus also lived around that time makes him no more or less valid a cite than another person writing about the existence of Jesus. ( I say “around” because the birth date you supply has him born after Jesus supposedly died. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t able to write articulately about Jesus, does it? If I chose to interview many people who knew someone influential who died when I was a child ( Bobby Kennedy OR Martin Luther King, Jr. ) and write about their lives, that hardly would invalidate my writings just because I wrote about them afte they died. So, I accept Josephus as a reasonable cite- even though he never could have met Jesus Christ) It simply makes him another cite ( which I do of course recognize ).
I read the SDMB report on Who Wrote The Bible. Thanks for informing everybody else about it though, it is an excellent resource !!
Just so we’re clear, on a personal level. I’m not a Christian. This isn’t about defending my faith, it’s about comparing two religious texts and why one is accepted as the word of God and the other is routinely slammed as impossibly unbelievable.
So your reference to me as incredibly disingenuous is fine but my expressing an opinion is impolite. Let’s add that you again misrepresented my position again by indicating I insisted you provide non biblical references. I never insisted any such thing. I merely asked what you referred to when **you said **an incredible cross referenced plethora of independent written accounts. You presented the gospels as such and I pointed out they hardly qualify. They are not a plethora, nor are they independently written.
Incorrect. You did present false facts when you referred to the gospels as written by people who were direct associates of Jesus. That’s another claim you can’t back up with evidence. IMO making such a claim when you seem to have done enough reading to know better, repeatedly misrepresenting and misquoting me, and refusing to simply admit you made a claim you can’t really support is being disingenuous.
I never presented anyone as a direct associate of Jesus since we don’t know if we have anything written someone who fits that description. You did make such a claim. Having non biblical references to Jesus simply adds a little more credence to the idea that he actually lived. That’s all.
Then you should know better than to make the claims you have made in this thread.
That’s right. I mentioned the simple fact that we’re not sure if Jesus actually existed only as a minor aside and it blew up from there. In your responses you have misquoted me and made claims that you can’t support so it has gone on longer than it should have without furthering the discussion. I have no wish to continue.
