Layman, I haven't had the chance to read this entire thread, but I think I can contribute some points.

Is there someway we can communicate/consult privately?

FarSeeker

Feel free to email me at:

laymantwo@yahoo.com

Just to like everyone know, this ends the thread for me. I was waiting for Layman to pull out that really weak argument from his Miracle Worker thread, so that I could expose the excessive credulity he approaches the issue. And, frankly, this has taken up too much of my time as it is. So, to sum up:

Layman never considers that we have no proven, first-hand source for Jesus, as we have in Caesar.

That all the information comes from a single viewpoint -- a Christian one -- that was trying to promote a particular theological viewpoint (hardly an objective source). It never seems to cross his mind that historians generally discount stories which tend to be self-serving, as the empty tomb story is.

He never considers that the absurdity of the story weighs against it, though such considerations are important in evaluating historical sources (as I have shown in the case of Caesar).

He's totally unable to provide archeological facts that support the events purported in the Bible, as I have been able to do with Caesar.

The fact is, the stories in the Bible simply are not sufficient to establish the historicity of any of the events of Jesus's life. Layman can believe it if he wants, but he can't claim it is a historical fact. The evidence doesn't rise to that level.

So, Layman, it's been fun showing how you operate with credulous naiveity when it comes to your religion. I'm sure you'll have more bluster to get out of your system, so I'll leave it to you to have the last word. Just my generous nature.

For the rest of you, feel free to use the arguments presented here the next time a theist pretends that the events of Jesus's life are well-documented. Layman's inability to refute my points demonstrates it's soundness.


[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 09, 2001).]

Dennis, the only thing you have succeeded in demonstrating is what I conceded from the beginning, that the evidence of Caesar's existence is greater than that of Jesus' existence. You have not offered a quote by ANY historian who suggests that the evidence for the life of Caesar is THE standard by which all other historical knowledge is to be measured. Such a rule would be ludicrous and would eliminate most of what historians know about history. NO historian places the standard anywhere close to what you do. It is a strawman argument with no basis in historical studies.

Moreover, you completely failed to prove most of your assertions. Specifically, you failed to follow up on our discussion about the manner of their death. This is the one point where I believe the evidence for Jesus' is as strong or stronger than that for Caesar. You asserted that ALL of the sources for Caesar's assassination completely agreed as to the time, manner, method, and persons involved. However, when I asked you which sources you were talking about and what they said, you told me to look it up myself. Until you back up your statement I consider it unestablished.

You also completely obfuscate the issue of independent sources and demonstrate your general ignorance regarding the study of history. John is an eyewitness. Paul was passing along eyewitness accounts of members of the Jerusalem Church. Mark based his gospel on the teachings of Peter, Jesus' chief disciple. Luke and Matthew also relied on preexisting Christian traditions independent of the others. You label as "not pertinent" my discussion of these sources in Jesus, the Miracle Worker thread, despite the fact that it is exactly the point of the discussion! (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum6/HTML/000238.html). Rather than deal with these multiple attestations, you pretend that they are no such thing because they are all "Christian."

Which leads me to the point you completely ignored throughout all of these posts, that Josephus refers to Jesus twice and he certainly was no Christian. He records Jesus' miracle working, teaching, accusation by Jewish authorities, execution by Roman authorities, and the perseverance of his followers (confirming the epistles of Paul, all four Gospels, and Hebrews). He also tells of Jesus' brother, leader of the Jerusalem church (confirming the independent accounts of Paul's epistles and Acts). Josephus' references alone are strong evidence of many of the most important facts regarding Jesus' life. In fact, what he does tell us about the life of Jesus is overwhelmingly similar to what the Gospels tell us. But despite the fact that I raised this issue several times, you completely ignored it.

You also ignore the fact that Paul (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum6/HTML/000211.html), Mark, Q, M, L, Hebrews (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/Forum6/HTML/000317.html) and John agree on so much despite their independence of each other. Despite showing literary and source independence, Paul, Mark, Q, L, M, and John agree on much of Jesus' life. There is a independent confirmation on his miracle working, teaching regarding the Kingdom, accusation by the Jewish authorities, execution by crucifixion, and the resurrection appearances. But you dismiss them because they share a "viewpoint." But here again you are applying a standard that no historian applies. Although a historian will take this fact into account, they will never just dismiss the source as useless, especially given their independent confirmation on so many points. Moreover, this is a standard that not even you would apply to your own pet topic: the evidence regarding Caesar. Do you eliminate all of the Roman sources of information regarding Caesar? Of course you don't. Although you claim that Cicero was somehow an independent source of information about him (like Josephus does Jesus?), you would never cast aside all of the Roman information about Caesar. If you did, you would no very little about him.

Next up, your contention that Paul does not mention an empty tomb is extremely misleading. He clearly envisions and preaches that Jesus was placed into a tomb from which he rose bodily, thus leaving the tomb empty. This is the opinion of the vast number of New Testament scholars (J.D. Crossan, E.P. Sanders, Luke T. Johnson, N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, etc.) and has been discussed and defended at length at: http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000220.html

Finally, despite all of your talk about what history can and cannot tell us, you completely fail to mention a single historian that agrees with you. I, on the other hand, will be glad to give you a reading list of several New Testament scholars who agree that we can and do know quite a bit about Jesus. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus and Jesus and Judaism, Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vols. I & II, Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah, Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament. Also, Michael Grant, the one historian you did manage to quote, takes as a fact the existence of Jesus and many of the events reported in the gospel, including the fact that he performed what many people believed to be miracles, that he taught the kingdom, that he was accused by Jewish authorities, executed by Pilate, and that his disciples reported resurrection experiences. Even those historians that assume miracles are impossible, like E.P. Sanders, believe that the Gospels contain a large amount of accurate information regarding Jesus.

Heck, there is even a criteria that New Testament scholars that assumes that certain facts about Jesus' life are established as fact, The Criterion of Rejection and Execution. "The criterion of Jesus' rejection and execution if notably different from the first four criteria. IT does not directly indicate whether an individual saying or deed of Jesus is authentic. Rather, it directs our attention to the historical fact that Jesus met a violent end at the hands of Jewish and Roman officials and then asks us what historical words and deeds of Jesus can explain his trial and crucifixion as '"King of the Jews.'"

Yes, there is more existence for the existence of Caesar than of Jesus. No, that does not mean that the evidence regarding Jesus is weak. On the contrary, most historians believe that many facts about Jesus' life, and especially his death, are accepted historical facts. Moreover, there is plenty of data upon which to reach such conclusions.

My goodness, but what one simple question can do.

So all of this got started because I asked the question as to how many sources we have for Caesar's assassination? Well, it looks like I am too late, and Dennis has fled the field, but does anyone have them? I have gone through the thread and seen some name dropping, but I have yet to see any quotes. How in the world are we to evaluate the primary evidence if it is never presented to us?

So let's clear up some points:

1) I never challenged the historicity of Julius Caesar.
2) I did ask how many sources we have for his assassination.
3) Thus far no one has produced a bloody thing.
4) Does anyone have an answer to this question or not? If not, what was the point of this thread?

I know many of you do not know or understand how history is studied. At the same time, if you are going to start a thread in which you will supposedly address one of my questions, please answer that question.

Thank you.

Nomad

How kind of you to show up. I was, at least in part, defending your honor.

Nomad: I know many of you do not know or understand how history is studied.

You KNOW no such thing, Nomad. You have "Nomad's understanding" of what history is, nothing more. At no point in any posting have you shown yourself to be more qualified than "many" of the posters to evaluate what history is or how it should be understood. Furthermore, you have exposed the fact that you are a biased Christian apologist with an agenda.

The only people you seem to convince with your "knowledge and understanding of history" are Christians.

rodahi

Yes, let's.

I never said you did. Please read my first post, for it is evident you never read it in the first place. I said the sources we have for the events of Caesar's life is far better than the events of Jesus's life. So far, no one has really challenged the point.

Why focus on the assassination? It's not that extraordinary of an event, and it is not the focus of this discussion. The point is that Julius's life was well-documented in his lifetime and thereafter. Jesus's was only documented well after his lifetime by a group of people with a motivation to make him appear greater than he really was. Again, a point conveniently ignored before this.

I have shown the case for the events of Caesar's life is far better than the case for the events of Jesus.

Apparently, the point was to have you and Layman babble on about claims I never made, because neither of you have even indicated that you understood the point. But then, it should be clear to everyone that you have no other choice, but to address the point would reveal that your position is demonstrably false, would it?

It is obvious that you and Layman have no clue how to read history (see my Michael Grant thread, Nomad), which is why I see no reason to continue any discussion with you.

Neither you or Layman have any honor to defend.



[This message has been edited by DennisMcD (edited April 12, 2001).]

I have seen your Nomad/Grant thread, but why does that have anything to do with my honor?

What nonsense. By this standard of "proof", the existence of Troy, Thebes and other cities of ancient Greece proves that the gods of Mt. Olympus are true. Or that the existence of Ithaca and Parnassus prove the claims of Homer about the existence of Polyphemus the Cyclops.

Next you'll be telling us that the existence of Jerusalem proves that a crucifixion took place, because the gospels mention that it took place in that city. Or that the existence of the Sea of Galilee proves that Jesus walked on water since - hey - we have the body of water right here with us, even today.

You're being deliberately obtuse, deLayman. There claim here is that no archaeological evidence for the specific, unique, and defining characteristics of Jesus' life.

But you already knew that was the claim, didn't you....




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 13, 2001).]