Payne -

Thanks for taking the time to post a link. I'll give it a fair shot and read that page when I have time.

I hope you give Josh a fair shot, and read his books, not just the critic's commentary of them.

- Donald

I liked the film and it would make me want to read more of the Gospels according to Philip and Thomas.I have heard that there is a Gospel according to Mary Magdalene in a museum in Germany.
Sure the Jesus bloodline is far fetched and is more then likely fiction but we know there was a council of Nicea with Constantine deciding to throw out some ideas of the early church founders.What if they did throw out all the parts that gave women much more power...the part in the film where Ian McKellan talks about the amount of women drowned and burnt as witchs is very true.250,000 - maybe over a million!

Where is the murder and persecution of women (on that scale) documented?

In books, Mr. Townsend. Books, where indisputable facts are written. By indisputable I mean they are entirely disputable. While being unprovable, they are also equally un-unprovable. And those who believe them will accept them as fact, those who don't will never believe.

Also, many don't realize that the burning of witches was not a sexually discriminatory thing. People don't realize a lot of things.

Yes, the exact figures are open to dispute.I will dig out the exact book [and bore
you all!.The figure I read was 250,000.Anyone [mostly women] who practiced any 'Pagan' ways [such as collecting herbs]had to be got rid of in order for the male dominated church to take hold.

The gospels referred to above are what are known as gnostic gospels. They date from, at the earliest, the mid-second century, and are reflect beliefs very different from historic christianity. They are most likely written attempts to use well-known biblical figures (Thomas, Mary Magdalene) in an attempt to legitimize their beliefs to others. If you do read them, good luck! Some of them make for some very strange reading, indeed!

Constantine did not do anything with regards to what is mentioned above. It is well known by church historians that Nicea simply formally recognized the canon of scripture that the practicing church had been using as the biblical canon for quite some time.

Da Vinci Code also misrepresents the Council of Nicea. For instance an important vote in the book was about Jesus' divinity and supposedly a close vote. The ACTUAL vote was about Jesus' eternal existence (whether He existed eternally with the Father, NOT whether he was human or God, they all agreed he wasn't merely human), and the vote was 300 to 2......I wouldn't call that close.

Constantine had no real influence over the council interms of doctrine. As above Nicea was about officially recognizing what was already universally accepted as Scripture.

The gnostic gospels, unlike the Biblical gospels, are written well after the time of Jesus, not written by the names attached to them, and have never been accepted as having any historical signifigance(on the life of Jesus).

This is all not new. None of the Da Vinci code is new. But the book's popularity is bringing all this up.

Also any 'bloodlines' recorded in the Holy Grail or otherwise are completely unprovable and probably false considering the date which they were compiled(created really). I highly doubt people in the 1600's, 1800's, and 1900's could give us an accurate recording of bloodlines dating back to Christ without any previous recordings to go by.

Payne,

The idea that there is no evidence of Christ existence is absurd. I have a hard time taking serious anyone who holds to that position. If we go by your standard then Alexander the Great did not exist either. Nor did Socrates. Nor Plato. (or it least you can't prove it to me) I don't mean to be rude. It's just that because of the claims of of Christ people use a double standard on Him that they don't apply to ANY other historical figure. That doesn't work as an historian or a scientist. The rebuttal on the website you listed uses the same principal of a double standard on evidence for Christ vs. any other historical figure. Using the same methods on that website you could discredit MANY historical figures that are universally accepted today.

If it is so absurd perhaps then you could point me to a source for this evidence. I am sure that there would also be many, many scholars, both secular and theistic who would like to see it as well. After all many have been searching for centuries for such a thing.
As for there being no proof of Alexander the Great, Socrates or Plato. We have many writings, descriptions and physical evidence to the existence of these people. This sight explains it well http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Payne, maybe you could be a bit clearer.

I, and others believe there is evidence that Christ existed. But with regard to evidence to be pointed to, what is the *standard* for such evidence? In other words, for something to be called evidence, what characteristics must the evidence have?

Yes,

I would like to know what qualifies as evidence? We have writings(Gospels), descriptions/documentation (first century sermons and historians: Josephus, Polycarp, Apollo, Tactitus, Paul, Timothy, Luke) and physical evidence ( scupltures and paintings and other artwork)

NOTHING more can be said of Alexander the Great or Plato or Socrates.

I read the first few sentences on that website before finding a falsehood. Obviously he hasn't read Tactitus, Plegius, Josephus and so on. (again he uses the phrase 'man y scholars', good because many can mean 10, the vast majority of scholars do NOT recognize their writings of Christ as interpolations) The author also picks and chooses scholars that say what he wants to hear. He says "many biblical scholars", good thing he didn't say most, because that would have been a lie. But let's use his date 40 years after Christ died the first Gospel written. THAT IS INCREDIBLE on a historical standard. When was the first biography of Plato written? Or Socrates? Alexander The Greats was 800 years after he died! But we accept it. When was the first biagraphy of George Washington written? Do we have any eyewitness material for these people?

( we must note the use of the misleading phrase 'many scholar's'..... the MAJORITY of scholars believe that we DO have eyewitness evidence for Christ. Luke is universally recognize as a Historian to the highest degree.)

The author also has a clearly flawed knowlege of Church history. The Gospel writers didn't ascribe themselves Sainthood before it was established by the church! The word saint in the Bible, means something much different than what you think of when you hear Saint. When the Bible uses the word saint it means believer.

Also the fact that the FIRST century church UNIVERSALLY ascribed the Gospels to it's namesake, and that there are NO competing authors of those gospels, is fine evidence for their authorship.

Also the author deomnstrates a flawed knowlege of Greek in the first century as a person writing a narrative DID NOT necessarily write from a first person point of view, the same way as you would expect because you are raised in a culture that expects first person point of view for a testimony.


That author was using a VERY clear double standard. If a historian didn't write within the time of Christ then it's no good to him. How many historians wrote down Washington's exploits during his life? Historians have 'historically' written HISTORY. Not current events.


The documentary evidence for the Gospels SURPASSES(in number of ancient copies) all writings we have of Alexander the Great. The closet biography of him was written 800 years after he died. The Gospels were written decades after Christ.

Explain to me why the Gospels are not evidence? (actually I think we are breaking a Café rule so we better stop this conversation). Because you don't believe what they contain? Because of the supernatural? That's a double standard. In science and history you don't rule something out before you start. They are as historically verified as any other ancient manuscript, more so as the number of copies are far greater than any other work of antiquity, and the date between the original Christ's life is incredibly small.

By the way you seem to think of faith as a negative thing? Did you know it takes as much BLIND FAITH to be an athiest? It has to be taken on faith and faith alone.

If there are two people and a box, one tells me there is a ball inside, the other says no such ball exists. It takes an equal amount of faith either way. What Athiesm doesn't have are hundreds of million of people(referring to Christians as no other faith claims this) that will testify not to have just seen this 'ball', but to know him and converse with him as much as I converse with you now.

I don't want to fight. I have no ill will towards you (which is hard to distinguish over the internet when you speak from two different points of view) I wish you a great Memorial Day! And may everyone with family in the Armed Forces also celebrate their service.

I can't edit my post, but just as an exercise watch me shorten (with no historical sleight of hand!) the authors chosen date of 70 AD for Mark's Gospel

Just about everyone (the author himself) believes Mark came before Luke. Luke wrote a two part history (The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts), which neither of are disputed about authorship. Acts came after Luke, and Acts focuses on Peter and Paul, but does NOT mention their deaths? It is very reasonable to assume with the high focus on them and lack of mentioning their executions that it was written before their deaths. Our new date is 65 AD. Luke came before Acts......so sometime before 65 A.D. And if we agree Mark came before Luke we've shortened that date even more! A good 10-12 years.

Tada.

Just to demonstrate that the author of that article was using HIGHLY biased figures.

That's not a very good analogy, is it..? Isn't it better analogy to say that there are two people and a box that can't be seen or felt. One tells you there's a box, and the other says there isn't.. Seems like the atheist is just choosing to go by what they can see and feel in that case. Although I suppose you can say that's blind faith in what one can see and feel.

Ohh, and there's a third person born in the Middle East who tells you it's actually an invisible basket.

[

All written after the time of Christ so they must be considered Secondary Evidence.

[quote}
NOTHING more can be said of Alexander the Great or Plato or Socrates.
{/quote}

Except we have the writings of Plato and Socrates and the recorded exploits of Alexander the Great not to mention the city of Alexandria.

[/quote}
I read the first few sentences on that website before finding a falsehood. Obviously he hasn't read Tactitus, Plegius, Josephus and so on.
[/quote]

Again all written by people who were not alive at the time of Christ, mention his followers and not the man himself or in the case of Josephus have been discounted as forgeries.



And the other side hasn’t? Both sides are guilty of picking and choosing their data. I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.



There is much debate on the accuracy of the forty year date. Some think it might be closer to seventy-five. But there is no clear evidence to either and you tend to choose that which supports your argument best.



Again we have the writings of Plato, Socrates and their contemporaries and the aforesaid evidence for Alexander the Great. We have a ton of information on George Washington. We have his house, his writings, the writings of his friends and enemies, portraits and sculptures created in period, his personal possessions and even his body.

[/quote]
The documentary evidence for the Gospels SURPASSES(in number of ancient copies) all writings we have of Alexander the Great. The closet biography of him was written 800 years after he died. The Gospels were written decades after Christ.
[/quote]

There is actually more evidence that supports the existence of Hercules than there is of Christ. Quantity doesn’t always mean reliability.



Because they were penned by unknown individuals many years after the events took place. There is no historical verification of many of the events described. No records exist of a unexplained star or having to return to your place of birth for tax purposes. Not to mention that the four accepted gospels each tell a different story.



I have no problem with people believing in something on faith alone. Never said I did. All I said is that there is no evidence for the existence of Christ and thus it all must be accepted on faith. Heck even I believe he most likely existed.



Everyone once believed the world was flat. Didn’t make it so. Simply believing in something doesn’t make it true. BTW if I wanted proof that the ball existed I’d just ask you to hand it to me., however I wouldn’t converse with it as it’s just a ball.



Who’s fighting? This is a debate, a whole different thing. We each have our own viewpoint and we each believe that we are correct when in reality we are probably both wrong. This argument has been going on for centuries and there will never be a satisfactory answer for either side. Still it’s fun to debate the topic in a civil manner. Gets the little grey cells moving about.
Nice chatting with you.

"Except we have the writings of Plato and Socrates and the recorded exploits of Alexander the Great not to mention the city of Alexandria. "

Which the earliest surviving manuscripts occur centuries after their lives. The Gospels occur decades after Christ. NO time for legendary development because LIVING witnesses still exist.

Not to mention the radical change of Jewish lifestyle. To us in a modern America a spiritual change is not a big thing. But you have to look at it from a historical first century Jew's point of view.

The only reason SOME think 75 might be a better date is by using circular logic. They IMMEDIATELY dicount that the book might be authentic then work from there. You simply can't do that with history. If you don't begin with that criteria(the book absolutely must be false) there is no way to get to a 75 date. Using that method to calulate the date is not biased on my part. It's simply doing the same with Mark as you would with any other historical book.
"Again all written by people who were not alive at the time of Christ, mention his followers and not the man himself or in the case of Josephus have been discounted as forgeries. "

The MAJORITY, not by a small margin, of scholars believe the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Christ. So you simply cannot puport that your statement is true. Only the opinion of 'many' rather the MINORITY of scholars. I think this was my main problem with your first post. Because you stated as if it was a fact that there is no evidence for Jesus to people here who might not no the history. Where in that statement is based on a minority poll of scholars about the Gospels.

Again, what about Luke, who even most skeptics agree was an incredibly detailed historian. Who interviewed eyewitnesses?

The two Josephus passages have NOT been discounted as forgeries. There are a few SENTENCES and fragments that have been discounted as interpolations, but the passages as wholes are still accepted as authentic.

"Again we have the writings of Plato, Socrates and their contemporaries and the aforesaid evidence for Alexander the Great. We have a ton of information on George Washington. We have his house, his writings, the writings of his friends and enemies, portraits and sculptures created in period, his personal possessions and even his body. "

I know we have more evidence of Washington. I was using the point that historians record history. News Anchors record current events. Most EVERY ancient historical work we have were written after they transpired.

The writings we have of Plato and Socrates cannot count more than the Gospels because of the time difference in the survivng copies with the 'supposed'(I'm using this word lightly, I have no doubt about their authenticity) originals. What about legendary development? How do you know they are authentic? The Gospels have universal testimony of the first century church.

"Because they were penned by unknown individuals many years after the events took place. There is no historical verification of many of the events described. No records exist of a unexplained star or having to return to your place of birth for tax purposes. Not to mention that the four accepted gospels each tell a different story. "

Again (I think we are stuck on this point, since we both believe too different things about the evidence.) they were not written by unknown individuals. And 40 years is not 'many' in the world of recording ancient history. If we had a forty year gap between Socrates and his earliest surviving copy we'd be ecstatic! If there was an 800 year gap between Jesus and the Gospels this would be completely moot with you. Except what we have is the reverse.

The 'star' in the Bible is not actually ever described as a star but rather a light in the sky. There IS historical verification for the census. Only a casual reader of the gospels would think they tell a different story. And then simply because there are a few things that aren't mentioned historically is NO reason to discount the book. What about the major things that ARE corraborated. The sudden darkness at Christ's death for instance? The phenomenon was recorded as far as Athens. EVERY little detail that has be verfied with the book of Luke, what about them? You can't discount a book that has 80 verfied bits of information and then say the 20 unverified prove it's falsehood. A more logical conclusion is to trust the book as it has been accurate so far.

That's how history knows about the Hittites. 40 years ago it was "oh those Bible people are crazy. The Hitties were just some small nomadic tribe, not an empire. There is NO historical evidence for the Bible's claims." With are modern findings we now know the Hittie empire to be ranked by most as the 3rd greatest empire mankind has ever known.

"Because they were penned by unknown individuals many years after the events took place. There is no historical verification of many of the events described. No records exist of a unexplained star or having to return to your place of birth for tax purposes. Not to mention that the four accepted gospels each tell a different story."

Payne, I think the argument that the Gospels were penned by unknown individuals is not an argument that can be supported. I honestly don't know why you feel that each Gospel tells a different story!

I think that the relationship between biblical documents and secular documents is worth noting here. We have only nine or ten good copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, none made earlier than 900 years after Caesar. Tacitus, the great ancient Roman historian, wrote 14 books of his Histories; we possess only 4½, none made earlier than the tenth century A.D. We can find only five manuscripts of any work of Aristotle, none copied earlier than fourteen centuries after Aristotle wrote the originals.

By contrast, we possess 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and 10,000 copies in other ancient languages. Fragments and parts of these copies date back as early as 30 years after the originals were written. Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul's letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the third century, Revelation to the latter half of that century. Complete volumes date to the fourth century.

Payne, as you say, quantity does not always equal reliability, but I think that these facts carry a great deal of weight.

Note: extensive quotations of Scripture in the letters of early Christians date to A.D. 100.

As for a lack of historical documentation of the events described (I assume you mean the ones of historical significance, such as the "star" and the "return to be taxed"), I'm not sure that an argument from silence is enough to throw out the biblical assertion.

With regard to actual, physical evedence, archaeological finds continue show that the biblical writers recorded history accurately. For instance, the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2) was once dismissed as non-historical. It can now be found in the northeast quarter of the Old City. We have a stone inscription documenting the life and office of Pontius Pilate; the ossuary (coffin) of Caiaphas, the High Priest of the crucifixion; an inscription found at Delphi which describes the work of Gallio, proconsul at Corinth (Acts 18:12-17); and scores of other artifacts which document the accuracy of biblical history and description.

As for secular, historical references, let's look at them and see what weight they carry (note that although they are writing after Christ's death, there *must be some basis - evidence - in order for them to do so*):

Thallus the Samaritan (A.D. 52) wrote a work tracing the history of Greece from the Trojan War to his own day. In it he attempts to explain the darkness of the crucifixion of Jesus as an eclipse of the sun. This is the earliest pagan reference to Jesus' existence and death.

Mara bar Serapion (writing after A.D. 70, as he describes the Fall of Jerusalem) adds: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished." His letter is on display in the British Museum today. It shows that the first Christians saw Jesus not just as a religious teacher, but as their King.

The Roman historian Suetonius (AD 65-135) later records, "Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Nero 16.2). Note that the Empire would not punish people who followed a religious teacher, only one who made him Lord in place of Caesar.

Tacitus (AD 55-120) was the greatest ancient Roman historian. Around AD 115 he writes, "Christus . . . suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition broke out" (Annals XV.44). His description of Christian belief as "superstition" makes clear the fact that Tacitus considered the followers of Christus to believe something supernatural or miraculous, not simply that he was a great human teacher.

Pliny the Younger was a Roman administrator and author, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor; two volumes of his letters are extant today. The tenth of his correspondence books (written ca. AD 112) contains the earliest non-biblical description of Christian worship: "They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as to a god." Note that believers worshiped Christ as God in AD 112, not centuries later after their beliefs "evolved," as some critics claim.

Flavius Josephus, the noted Jewish historian (AD 37/38—97), records: "Ananias called a Sanhedrin together, brought before it James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others . . . and he caused them to be stoned" (Antiquities 20.9.1). Thus the Christians called Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.

Finally, consider Josephus' most famous statement about Jesus (Antiquities 18.3.3): "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, 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; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

While most historians do not believe that this last paragraph represents Josephus's own faith commitment, it does document the beliefs of the Christians regarding Jesus. And note that it was written before the end of the first century.

Agaim thewre are many scholarly works and various websites that refute all of these allegations. All are written after the fact and most tell that there are followers of Christ, not Christ himself. Strong evidence but not Primary evidence. 40 years is plenty of time for legends to get constructed or the Legend of Horus to get attached to a highly charismatic Jew preaching a radicaly new philosophy. I just think about all the various Elvis sightings that took place just after his death or the number of people who are begining to deny the Holocoust ever occured. Also think we would have had much more documentation and copies of ancient records detailing Socrates, Plato and Alexander the Great had not some Zealot burned down the Library of Alexandria.

There are enough holes, contradictions and unsubstantiated stories in the Bible to make it an unreliable text on History. Certainly there are many actual places and people mentioned in the book but there are a myriad of events described that there isn't a shred of evidence for. Which is why you must take it's contents on faith.
If there was clear cut Primary evidence for the existence of Christ we wouldn't be having this debate. but as it is there evidence is just vague enough to leave lots and lots of room for opposing interpritation of the data and serious doubt as to it's validity.
Really there is nothing more to say on this topic. Neither of us are going to change our minds as we each have enough evidence to support our claims, oddly it is the exact same evidence we are just interpriting it differently.
Good chatting with you all.

Yes, I am inclined to agree with you, Payne.

I hope anyone who has read this discussion and wants to learn more will do the research, but do it carefully, regardless of the side they are researching. It takes time and some effort to find reliable scholars and scholarship, and to learn to detect good / bad arguments - ample evidence of poor scholarship/argumentation can be easily found on both sides of this particular argument, unfortunately.

If one is going to learn, take the time to find the best arguments from both sides.

The fruits of that work will be helpful - not just in spiritual discussions, but in almost every aspect of life.

End of sermon! ;^)

Here's the issue I take with this whole struggle not only in this thread, but in the debate over the DaVinci Code.

This thread has been made up of people claiming "fact, fact, evidence, fact" etc.

The concern I have is with Christians who are stating that the existance of Christ is a FACT. And that his divinity is a FACT. And his sacrifice on the cross is a FACT.

This is really disturbing. If these events are indeed FACT as Christians are claiming (to refute the DaVinci code) then either A) They're wrong and it's NOT fact, or B) The Bible is WRONG when it tells us about FAITH.

So that's why I'm disturbed by all this talk of "facts" because Christians aren't actually refutting the DaVinci Code with "facts", they're refutting the Bible.

Just some food for thought.

Robert

PS: As a side note, I'm really impressed by the group participating in this thread. It just goes to show that people if differing faiths and views, can have a "relgious" leaning discussion and not want to kill each other. Let's continue to keep it this professional!

Robert,

Honestly, I can't agree with statement "B)" below:

"If these events are indeed FACT as Christians are claiming (to refute the DaVinci code) then either A) They're wrong and it's NOT fact, or B) The Bible is WRONG when it tells us about FAITH."

A witness to the resurrection would have known it as a fact, but that would not mean the scriptures would have been wrong to talk of the importance of faith.

But I think I see the point you were making.

With regards to The DaVinci Code, the books errors are known to be errors of fact or history, not faith. So refuting factual or historical of the book is not at all refuting the Bible. For example, the book mentioning the Vatican working to suppress information in the 4th century when there was no Vatican in the 4th century.

I wanted to pop this thread back to the top after seeing something recently related to The Davinci Code.

I saw a performance by Payne last night, where he made it clear that he personally has cracked the Davinci code. You have to see it to believe it. Puts Dan Brown to shame.

Exceptional! I thoroughly enjoyed Payne's performance.

- Donald

P.S. I think he even mentioned The Magic Café in his performance.