The Shroud Of Turin

[Ally]

Bunch of blotchy-faced heathens. To say there's no evidence for Christ's existence is completely retarded.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well there's a logical and fact-filled argument impossible to refute.

[Celesta]

Blotchy rears his evil head again!

[Tom_Wescott]

Well there's a logical and fact-filled argument impossible to refute.

I'm not gonna waste my time on such silliness. I've had to counter-argue enough ridiculous theories with Perry Mason and the like. The idea that Jesus Christ did not exist is not only unabashedly blasphemous it's also historically inaccurate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

You know what's silly? Someone using the word blasphemous with serious indignation and accusation.

It's always nice to be reminded that fundies walk amongst us, and we don't even live in Iran!

[DVV]

You know what's silly? Someone using the word blasphemous with serious indignation and accusation.

It's always nice to be reminded that fundies walk amongst us, and we don't even live in Iran!

I'm sure you know a lot about Iran.

Perhaps more than about the shroud.

[DVV]

I'm not gonna waste my time on such silliness. I've had to counter-argue enough ridiculous theories with Perry Mason and the like. The idea that Jesus Christ did not exist is not only unabashedly blasphemous it's also historically inaccurate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Now we know Perry Mason is far more rational and smart than Ally.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

You know what's silly? Someone using the word blasphemous with serious indignation and accusation.

It's always nice to be reminded that fundies walk amongst us, and we don't even live in Iran!

Ally, about Jesus....

My advice :
Read a bit before posting.


Or wait until one of your relatives starts a website on the subject.

Blessings.

[Jdombrowski89]

I'm not gonna waste my time on such silliness. I've had to counter-argue enough ridiculous theories with Perry Mason and the like. The idea that Jesus Christ did not exist is not only unabashedly blasphemous it's also historically inaccurate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Agreed, Tom. Whether you like it or not, there is DOCUMENTED FACT that Christ did indeed exist. Whether you believe his word of the Bible, and his motivations however is a much more debatable. Refusing to believe Christ was an actual, historical human being is like saying in the fall of 1888 in London, that prostitutes weren't murdered either, or like saying the Holocaust is a complete hoax.

Regards,
Justin

[belinda]

List the evidence then,apart from the bible.

[Jonathan H]

Historically speaking, there are no surviving primary sources on Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to ones on Julius Caesar [thanks o the Christian monk copyists] or a plethora on the Jack the Ripper murders.

Amongst those who first mention Christ, the Pagan writers Tacitus and Suetonius are not primary.

The Jewish writer Josephus is primary, but he does not mention Jesus of Nazareth at all. The two, notorious references which are contained in his his writings about Jesus Christ are arguably Christian [or Catholic] forgeries for a number of reasons, amongst them that Church fathers never quoted them in defense of their founder in the centuries before taking over the crumbling Roman state. Those references only date from the 4th century.

The Gospels, apart from their obvious bias, are secondary sources as they are not written by eyewitness and the first one, Mark, may not meant to be taken literally at all, despite including figures who were historical: eg. John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and Herod Antipas.

In terms of religious and/or spiritual faith none of the above matters, because the life-giving spirit of the risen Christ is known to believers in their hearts. He lives, therefore he once lived.

On the other hand, in terms of the science of history it matters a great deal.

[Ally]

Agreed, Tom. Whether you like it or not, there is DOCUMENTED FACT that Christ did indeed exist. Whether you believe his word of the Bible, and his motivations however is a much more debatable. Refusing to believe Christ was an actual, historical human being is like saying in the fall of 1888 in London, that prostitutes weren't murdered either, or like saying the Holocaust is a complete hoax.

Regards,
Justin

Actually, both you and Tom are saying that there is evidence Christ did exist. Um nope sorry, there is zero evidence for that. If you want to argue that Jesus of Nazareth existed, which is the argument that is being conducted, that's one thing, but you absolutely cannot say there is any evidence whatsoever that the Christ walked the earth. Whether "Jesus of Nazareth" was the Christ is a matter of faith. Not record.

[DVV]

Actually, both you and Tom are saying that there is evidence Christ did exist. Um nope sorry, there is zero evidence for that. If you want to argue that Jesus of Nazareth existed, which is the argument that is being conducted, that's one thing, but you absolutely cannot say there is any evidence whatsoever that the Christ walked the earth. Whether "Jesus of Nazareth" was the Christ is a matter of faith. Not record.

I have to agree with this.
At the same time, no specialist will deny Jesus historicity. This debate is closed for decades.
As soon as 40-50 (less than one generation after Jesus), traditions already existed about his life - as we learn from Paul - and it's therefore completely unlikely that such a figure would have been "invented" so quickly.

[belinda]

I have to disagree with this. I don't think there is any consensus out there that the Jesus depicted in the New testament definently existed .

[DVV]

Hi Belinda,

yes there is a consensus (consensus doesn't mean unanimity, of course).
Jesus has most certainly existed, and I know no university that teaches otherwise.
This was a 19th century debate. Now it's 2010.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

What about John the Baptist, Demitrius, Crispus and Simon Magus?

They must have all existed too.

Mike