Carico wrote:We not only have one, we have at least FOUR.
Again, you have four documents
which is not the same as having identified authors known and written about by contemporaries.
Compare it to a murder case where the suspect brings to his defense four written statements, alibis that the suspect claims are written by four close family members or confidants who claim to have eaten with him at a restaurant at the time of the murder.
The court views those documents and asks: "who are these people, and who has recorded their statements and legalized them as bonafide?". The suspect replies: "the evidence these people and their testimonies are real is contained in their witness statements, they even name each other in their statements!"
Now in the mean time no one at the restaurant who was asked seems to remember this group at all. It's still very hard to find and question all people who have been at the restaurant, since the murder case is two thousand years old...
So it should be clear a court will throw out these witness statements, even if they were only ten
years old since their authority or accuracy can not be established to any reasonable, or legitimate level. So the waiting is for a new witness or source that could clear up the issue. Until that moment the suspect will remain suspect unless he can ID the people who wrote the statements as actually existing with some degree of credibility (so not someone from a mental institution, a known fraud, etc).
And all you need is ONE who says he wasn't there and you don't even have that. So the evidence is on our side.
I don't need proof someone was not
there. All I ask is believable evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that a specific person actually was there, doing miracles, traveling around, saying the things like the gospels recorded. It would be already a major improvement if only the identity and whereabouts were established, that would be a big step forward.
And who would talk about a baby in Egypt? There were millions of babies in Egypt that weren't written about. So do you claim that no baby who wasn't written about in Egypt, existed? Come on, this is supposed to be about reason. So you need to use some.
Sorry about that, I shouldn't have brought the matter up, I wasn't meaning anything particular with it.
And considering that most contemporaries of Jesus were illiterate, and very few, if any, historiains lived in Israel except Jews, then again, who would write about him?
Well, you're implying already 4 of the 12 could compose a gospel, so that's at least 30% literacy rate and the Gospels are known to be decent writing too.
Why wouldn't a Jewish historian write about Jesus? They could at least write a bit negative, warning people away! Do you believe they blacked him out of existence on purpose? But upon reading historians they seem to include a lot of terrible unfavorable (to the Jews) passages about other topics so it doesn't seem likely they'd self-censure much.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. I've read enough detective books and seen enough real life detective stories to see that they all interview people who knew those involved with the victim or suspect.
Witnesses include anyone having seen or heard anything which might help the case, preferably reliable
witnesses who can give their name and profession. Anonymous or false name statements are not considered witnesses at all. Perhaps you're thinking of 'character witnesses' or lining suspects up for identification. But these people still have to identify
themselves first. You might not realize that we cannot identify the authors of the Gospels apart from what the authors themselves claimed. But without official 'ID' it remains a spurious claim.
Sorry, but no one witnessed what Joseph Smith claimed to see which is why we only have HIS account of his visions just like we only have Mohammed's account that allah even exists. So try again.
Exactly! Of course after
Smith and Mohamed came generations of teachers and authors writing about and 'authorizing' what was originally written. But in the end we have no means to verify the claims of Smith (even while we know he existed as person). We can show some of the weaknesses of his statements and contradictions, and so on.
So why would the disciples who all denied Jesus at his crucifixion, suddenly turn around and pass along a story they KNEW to be a lie just so they could get killed? Again, use reason rather than desperation.
You assume they denied Jesus first, you assume there was a crucifixion, you assume existing disciples because you assume the Gospels already to be faultless true accounts
. You're free to assume or believe it but not to state is as rational proof or 'legal' evidence of some kind, because there's none to date.
And most importantly, why would Jews who were looking for a DIFFERENT messiah than Jesus make up a story like that?
If the story was 'made up' we cannot say exactly by whom, perhaps they were Hellenistic Jews (influenced by Greek ideas). We can't say what the story was intended to mean, apart from the clear wisdom
many passages contain. I find it reasonable to assume the document was originally meant as teaching, not as much as historical account of affairs. This is in line with earlier teachings that can be found in the Old Testament and other writings that circulated at the time.
People from all ages always have taken simple truths and made some sensational literal account from it. The evidence is staggering up until today that this is what humans tend to do so it seems reasonable to suspect a similar event in the first century CE. It's only my educated suspicion, not a proven case. Not many things in life are iron-clad proven, we live with a lot of reasonable assumption when it comes to many important matters.
And lastly, please tell us what did happen in Jerusalem during the time of Christ so we can claim that most of the Jews just sat around making up stories about their history and events.
Well, not any of them we know (who have an ID) actually wrote anything about Jesus. They did wrote what happened in Jerusalem, the Roman occupation, the rebellions and so on. Not many people doubt the historical context. Actually there's some evidence that suggests the NT writers used some of the known work (ad verbatim) of contemporary historians to use in their accounts, thereby appearing more historical. I could give you references if interested.
So none of your arguments are reasonable or credible. They're just desperate attempts to deny Jesus and re-write history in the process. That's as ridiculous as me claiming that Caesar didn't exist with no evidence for my claims.
I do not deny the existence of Jesus. I only deny your claim that we can speak of "eye-witness testimony that is considered evidence in a court of law". Can you see the difference?
In fact many millions of Christians, many of them I met and spoke with, would admit this too. They live by faith alone, and do not require 'evidence', nor do they claim any after reviewing the facts so far. I just wonder why the need for evidence? Why create it out of thin air?
The reason Julius (?) Ceasar is not doubted is because there's so much evidence in the form of accounts by various independent parties about him, containing varying viewpoints. Some things about his life probably are disputed though because it might only appear in his own biography, or written by his friends and admirers with no track record of neutrality and so cannot be confirmed in any way but should be read with reasonable suspicion.