Author Topic: Evidence of Jesus?  (Read 2376 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2012, 09:30:42 PM »
Jeffpt,

Hey cuz, my father did it for not only his side but my mother's too. He traced his side back to the 1200's in Bavaria. And my mother's side to Ireland in the 1400's.

Does this mean I am Bavarian-Irish-American? ;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2012, 09:55:49 PM »
Nam,

I always find genealogy's fascinating.  They always stop at some arbitrary point where the information can't be traced back any further, and that's how we define where our ancestors were from. For me, it's almost like the information is just a teaser.  Wouldn't you like to know where your fathers side was in the 900's?  Or where your mother's side was around the time when Jesus wasn't really doing anything important, but people were saying he was?  I know I'd like to know that information.  Since we have no way of getting it, you have to take consolation in knowing that your 100,000th great grandfather... was probably a fish.  And mine was probably the same one. 

That makes us brother's doesn't it?  Smile for me brother! 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2012, 10:03:30 PM »
I prefer "cousins". For all I know you were a shark, and I was a lonely fish named Nemo, ans you ate me. ;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline learnin

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #32 on: October 24, 2012, 11:29:44 AM »
What kind of evidence would be acceptable to prove a man lived 2,000 years ago?   What kind of evidence is acceptable concerning Plato?  His writings?  How do we know they're not forgeries?  How do we know Plato wasn't a pen name?

There are first century writings on the tombs in the Roman catacombs which refer to Jesus.  We have letters from Paul, Jude, James, Peter, etc. which refer to Jesus.  We have first-second second century,extant letters from Iraneus, Clement which refer to Jesus.

 I think it serves no purpose and, probably, plays into the hands of theists whenever one argues whether Jesus was historical.  I think it's safe to assume there was a preacher in the Jerusalem area, at the time of the Roman occupation, that stirred up authorities and the general populace. 

The discussion should focus on whether or not this preacher was what his followers claimed him to be.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6128
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #33 on: October 24, 2012, 12:14:49 PM »
I read something interesting that is relevant to the discussion Nam and JeffPT are having. We all have ancestors that provided both sides of our family. That is, each of us has grandmothers and grandfathers from which both our mothers and our fathers descended. Nothing incestuous is going on. It's just that it is almost impossible for that to not be the case when you look at the numbers.

In the meantime, I doubt that the evidence for an actual Jesus would hold up in court. I've never seen anything to the contrary.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #34 on: October 24, 2012, 12:19:09 PM »
who cares about court, I just want it to hold up here.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #35 on: October 24, 2012, 12:28:24 PM »
What kind of evidence is acceptable concerning Plato?  His writings?  How do we know they're not forgeries?  How do we know Plato wasn't a pen name?

Quote
We have letters from Paul, Jude, James, Peter, etc. which refer to Jesus.  We have first-second second century,extant letters from Iraneus, Clement which refer to Jesus.

See what you did there?

Quote
I think it serves no purpose and, probably, plays into the hands of theists whenever one argues whether Jesus was historical.  I think it's safe to assume there was a preacher in the Jerusalem area, at the time of the Roman occupation, that stirred up authorities and the general populace.

Jesus is historical. However, "historical" doesn't always equate to actuality. I am asking for empirical evidence. Scribblings on paper, or on a tomb (that anyone could have written) is not empirical evidence.

Quote
The discussion should focus on whether or not this preacher was what his followers claimed him to be.

No it shouldn't 'cause that isn't what I am asking.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline learnin

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #36 on: October 24, 2012, 03:16:11 PM »
What kind of evidence is acceptable concerning Plato?  His writings?  How do we know they're not forgeries?  How do we know Plato wasn't a pen name?

Quote
We have letters from Paul, Jude, James, Peter, etc. which refer to Jesus.  We have first-second second century,extant letters from Iraneus, Clement which refer to Jesus.

See what you did there?

Yes.  Essentially, I'm saying we have as much evidence about a historical Jesus as we do about any other human who, supposedly, walked the earth thousands of years ago.

Jesus is historical. However, "historical" doesn't always equate to actuality. I am asking for empirical evidence. Scribblings on paper, or on a tomb (that anyone could have written) is not empirical evidence.

I know what you're asking for but I don't think such evidence exists for any person who lived centuries ago.  We have to trust that there weren't forgeries and conspiracies involved no matter which historical person we wish to consider.   It's just my opinion.


Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #37 on: October 24, 2012, 03:37:40 PM »
No, what you did was contradict yourself. You mention in the first about how valid writing by Plato would be then contradicted that by pointing out writings by varying people who wrote about Jesus.

And again: I am not asking for "historical" evidence but "empirical" evidence. They are not synonyms.

You say you understand but keep mentioning "historical". If you don't think there is empirical evidence (as you relunctantly seem to say) then just say that.

-Nam

This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2012, 05:07:05 PM »


Yes.  Essentially, I'm saying we have as much evidence about a historical Jesus as we do about any other human who, supposedly, walked the earth thousands of years ago.

..

I know what you're asking for but I don't think such evidence exists for any person who lived centuries ago.  We have to trust that there weren't forgeries and conspiracies involved no matter which historical person we wish to consider.   It's just my opinion.

How many people witnessed Jesus in action and producing miracles? Tens of thousands as the story goes. Yet none of those depicted these actions in artwork during their lifetime. None of those wrote their own account of what they thought of Jesus. While it's true that most historical characters of that age had little empirical evidence, it is also true that little empirical evidence would be expected of people such as Plato or a common man because he was only of interest to a small circle of people during his lifetime. Jesus, on the other hand would have been relevant to everyone, if he was real as depicted. People who had appeal to many thousands, such as political leaders from that time, do have loads of empirical evidence, and at least the same is expected of jesus.
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline learnin

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #39 on: October 25, 2012, 12:22:18 AM »
No, what you did was contradict yourself. You mention in the first about how valid writing by Plato would be then contradicted that by pointing out writings by varying people who wrote about Jesus.

If you see a contradiction, then, there's nothing I can to change your mind, I'm sure.  I don't remember mentioning the word, "valid" in bringing up writings which are ascribed to Plato.  I simply asked how do we know they weren't forgeries?

Quote
And again: I am not asking for "historical" evidence but "empirical" evidence. They are not synonyms.
 

Of course "historical" and "empirical" evidence is not synonymous.  If I understand it correctly, empirical evidence is evidence that I can observe or experience.  I don't know how I could observe or experience a human who lived 2,000 years or 4,000 years ago except through "historical" evidence and, then, I would have to trust that "historical" evidence was valid.

Quote
You say you understand but keep mentioning "historical". If you don't think there is empirical evidence (as you relunctantly seem to say) then just say that.

I guess I would say there is no empirical evidence of Jesus just as I don't think there is any empirical evidence of Socrates.
-Nam
[/quote]

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #40 on: October 25, 2012, 01:52:33 AM »
learnin,

Did I say you said "valid"? No.

You, yourself, did not have to be there for there to be "empirical" evidence. My OP outlines what I consider, by definition, what is constituted as "empirical evidence". We know, for a fact, based on varying evidence not only by people of the time in said location but in other surrounding areas that certain people back then existed. There is "empirical" evidence.

You keep bringing up "historical" as if I didn't state in the OP not to bring it up.

If you believe there is no "empirical" evidence, then say that. Stop bringing up "historical" since I specifically asked for people not to do it.

-Nam
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 01:54:55 AM by Nam »
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline learnin

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 235
  • Darwins +7/-0
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #41 on: October 25, 2012, 09:29:39 AM »
learnin,

Did I say you said "valid"? No.

You, yourself, did not have to be there for there to be "empirical" evidence. My OP outlines what I consider, by definition, what is constituted as "empirical evidence". We know, for a fact, based on varying evidence not only by people of the time in said location but in other surrounding areas that certain people back then existed. There is "empirical" evidence.You keep bringing up "historical" as if I didn't state in the OP not to bring it up.If you believe there is no "empirical" evidence, then say that. Stop bringing up "historical" since I specifically asked for people not to do it.

-Nam

I guess I'm too dense to follow you.  Please refer to your words above which I have bolded.  It seems you're telling me that the "empirical" evidence you're looking for is writings from, other areas, which testify to a certain historical person, from another area, as having existed.   Does the following example meet your criteria?


In 1501, John Doe was a famous orator who spoke against the King.  Slats Grobnik, an attorney from Wales, wrote a treatise attacking the arguments put forth by Mr. Doe.

Is this the type of empirical evidence that you are looking for?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #42 on: October 25, 2012, 11:57:36 AM »
Let's see if you can keep the word "historical" out of your lexicon in this topic for now on.

If one can show empirical evidence of a person who lived 2,000 years ago not just by those who, in the time, represented that person existing but also those in the surrounding area.

It's highly unlikely to find empirical evidence about any one person (not like they kept good records, if any) during that time period. However, significant people of the time should have enough empirical evidence to show that individual existed. Especially if they are a person who was a "great leader" not only to the people in the place they were from but also surrounding areas.

The New Testament is filled with individual books, with varying accounts of a man named Jesus during that time period. The problem with those books is the vast majority of them were written well after his supposed death. None were written during his lifetime; not one single thing seems to be known to be written during his lifetime: by anyone, anywhere.

There is a bevy of "Historical" evidence but as I said: Historical doesn't equate to "truth" or "evidence" of anything. So, let's just leave that word out of this conversation.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1984
  • Darwins +187/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2012, 03:56:25 PM »
The only argument that ever really swayed me with the whole historical Jesus thing was something I read a while back by Christopher Hitchens (I think he's the one who wrote it.  Maybe it was Ehrman, I don't remember).  It said that there were things written in the bible about Jesus that your normal, average person looking out for the messiah would not have expected of the messiah they thought was coming.   For example, the Jews believed Jesus was going to be a great leader, and the guy they portrayed in the bible was just some poor shmuck.  Why wouldn't they have made him a great leader if they were just making it all up?  One reason might be because a real guy existed that was dirt poor.  Stuff like that lead them to think it couldn't ALL be made up.  Another one had to do with his birthplace.  Same sort of thing where they thought the messiah was going to come from one place, and the 'real' Jesus didn't come from there, so they had to create that census bullshit to get Jesus to be 'from' where he was supposed to be from.   

Again, I know of zero empirical evidence. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #44 on: October 25, 2012, 08:48:28 PM »
One would figure a Christian would come and rectify that.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #45 on: October 25, 2012, 10:02:38 PM »
The only argument that ever really swayed me with the whole historical Jesus thing was something I read a while back by Christopher Hitchens (I think he's the one who wrote it.  Maybe it was Ehrman, I don't remember).  It said that there were things written in the bible about Jesus that your normal, average person looking out for the messiah would not have expected of the messiah they thought was coming.   For example, the Jews believed Jesus was going to be a great leader, and the guy they portrayed in the bible was just some poor shmuck.  Why wouldn't they have made him a great leader if they were just making it all up?  One reason might be because a real guy existed that was dirt poor.  Stuff like that lead them to think it couldn't ALL be made up.  Another one had to do with his birthplace.  Same sort of thing where they thought the messiah was going to come from one place, and the 'real' Jesus didn't come from there, so they had to create that census bullshit to get Jesus to be 'from' where he was supposed to be from.   

Again, I know of zero empirical evidence.

This definitely sounds like Bart Ehrman. Unfortunately this is nothing more than an argument from personality incredulity. "I don't see why anyone would make it up, therefore it must be historical". The biggest problem with his argument is that he treats Jews as one monolithic group with no diversity whatsoever. There were dozens of Jewish sects at the time, many of which we don't know what they believed. His argument about what they would or would not have believed is completely unsupportable. Furthermore, he assumes that a crucified messiah means a failed messiah; even the Christians believed in a conquering messiah, except he had to sacrifice himself first to pardon sins before returning within their generation to kick some ass.

Empirical evidence isn't really relevant here since historical methodology is fundamentally different than that of science in that it's about trying to interpret the past using the bits that remain. You'd be hard-pressed to find any empirical evidence of any ancient person who pretty much wasn't a king as to have coins and statues made of them. What is relevant here is that the only sources we have to work with in order to interpret the history of Jesus are theological in nature. It's not atypical for people of great prestige to have had myths surrounding them such as Alexander the Great being born of a virgin, but the problem is that the historical Jesus we are discussing is nowhere to be seen in the sources. Instead, it's only Jesus Christ, the son of God who performed miracles, died, resurrected, and ascended into heaven. There's not even any external corroboration, which is key when assessing history based on text. Any "real" Jesus is only assessed only in terms of what parts of the sources could be based on real history, but there is no legitimate historical discipline that just plucks historical facts from a theological narrative. At least with Socrates we have some sort of identity which can be attributed to him (even if just as in the same way as with Paul Bunyan and Robin Hood) whereas most of the scholars who argue for historical Jesus essentially argue for a complete non-entity who we can know nothing about.

That's my take on it, anyway. I'm not particularly well-read on the subject, but this is my understanding of the nature of the texts and historical methodology.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 10:07:21 PM by Aspie »

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #46 on: October 25, 2012, 10:35:07 PM »
Why I didn't want "Historical" evidence is because there's a plethora of it out there dating from the NT on (and some other writings) but that doesn't mean any of it is true. Anything "Historical" can have error but "Empirical" evidence has little to no error. Christians yelp all the time they have evidence. Usually that evidence is the Bible or "life itself". Never is it actual evidence. Then, when they state they have "actual" evidence it's based on places or things, which isn't evidence of the people and/or the "miracles" they said had happened.

They say they have evidence Jesus existed. All I am asking for is empirical evidence.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #47 on: October 25, 2012, 11:24:36 PM »
Well as we are already aware many Christians have their own idea of how evidence works (the Bible proving the Bible true, a man telling about a dream he had while unconscious, just look at the trees, etc.). This is irrelevant to a reality-based discussion, however. By its very nature evidence requires interpretation, but we'll never have the whole big picture to work with when it comes to judging ancient history because we can only draw conclusions from the pieces we have. I'm at a loss to determine what would serve as empirical evidence in such a soft science as history as it would need to somehow be completely unambiguous even after the culture has long since faded away. The problem is that such evidence is only as useful as how we connect it to our understanding of a culture.

Offline Not on the fence

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 150
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #48 on: October 26, 2012, 01:55:50 AM »
Not to go off topic here, but could someone explain to me the time period of when the NT was written? How much of a time period after OT, or "jesus".
Then I may add to this topic.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1384
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2012, 04:03:43 AM »
Not to go off topic here, but could someone explain to me the time period of when the NT was written? How much of a time period after OT, or "jesus".
Then I may add to this topic.
If by time frame you mean when were they alleged written, then we can say as a rough guide the OT/Hebrew bible may have been written in the seventh century BCE According to Finkelstein and Silberman,[1] They believed it was written in the reign of King Josiah of Judah. however there is no real evidence he actually existed.

However it wasn't until 90ce that the Council of Jamnia selected books to be included in the OT/Hebrew bible,[2] so are they fiction or are they fact. We can only go where the actual evidence takes us.

As for the NT, around about the same time some earlier and some later, we have stories that the Gospels were written.

But the bible aka the NT wasn't written until 328CE[3].

So you could say that the OT was being written in fifth century BCE and finished when the NT was written in the fourth century CE.
 1.  The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts
 2.  However the dead sea scrolls have a range of 700/800 years some as early as 408BCE and some 318CE
 3. First Council of Nicaea
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1384
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2012, 08:42:09 AM »
Addendum: to my last post.
I didn't say that Finkelstein and Silberman dates weren't the consensus of opinion amongst bible scholars, they have put it more likely the fifth century.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 08:45:13 AM by bertatberts »
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline jedweber

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3791
  • Darwins +19/-0
  • Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2012, 09:45:51 AM »
But the bible aka the NT wasn't written until 328CE

The NT as we know it today may not have been formally compiled until the 4th century, but the individual texts certainly existed long before that. We have texts of the gospels and epistles dating to the second century (possibly even fragments from the late first) and the documents were being referenced and quoted by second-century figures like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Marcion, etc. So I don't think it's correct to suggest that the books could have been written in the 4th century...

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #52 on: October 26, 2012, 11:11:29 AM »
They were collected and edited by the 4th Cent.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #53 on: October 26, 2012, 11:23:05 AM »
I have the Finkelstein and Silberman book, it's excellent by the way, but it's important to note that the sewing together of the official religion of the Jordanian Kingdom and the official religion of the Israel kingdom was the date offered. (If I remember correctly, which might not be the case..)
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1384
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #54 on: October 26, 2012, 01:33:20 PM »
But the bible aka the NT wasn't written until 328CE

The NT as we know it today may not have been formally compiled until the 4th century, but the individual texts certainly existed long before that. We have texts of the gospels and epistles dating to the second century (possibly even fragments from the late first) and the documents were being referenced and quoted by second-century figures like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Marcion, etc. So I don't think it's correct to suggest that the books could have been written in the 4th century...
Did you not read the previous couple of lines. here it is again
Quote from: me
However it wasn't until 90ce that the Council of Jamnia selected books to be included in the OT/Hebrew bible,[2] so are they fiction or are they fact. We can only go where the actual evidence takes us.

As for the NT, around about the same time some earlier and some later, we have stories that the Gospels were written.

But the bible aka the NT wasn't written until 328CE
No sir I didn't suggest that the gospels were written in the fourth century but I did say the NT as we know it was.
And the question I was replying too was requesting a time period between the NT and the OT. which I think I answered.

Also it was not until about 185CE that the Gospels received their current names with Irenaeus, based on a few earlier scraps and speculations. Before then we see various references to Gospels without authors - by Aristides, Justin, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theodotus, Hegesippus, Melito, Polycrates, Autolycus - all make reference to anonymous Gospel(s).
However the NT with authored gospels was not compiled and written until the fourth century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 01:37:20 PM by bertatberts »
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #55 on: October 26, 2012, 03:22:15 PM »
They are probably not anonymous just written by the same person and they labeled it "anonymous".

Or not.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline bgb

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 862
  • Darwins +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • That felt great.
    • BGBART SHIRTS AND GIFTS
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2012, 07:21:29 PM »
Anonymous was a common name as it is today.
The whole point of science is that most of it is uncertain. That's why science is exciting--because we don't know. Science is all about things we don't understand. The public, of course, imagines science is just a set of facts. But it's not.  Freeman Dyson

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Evidence of Jesus?
« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2012, 07:26:41 PM »
Sometimes some people named Anonymous just like to be called Anon.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?