Italian Court will Decide of Jesus Existed

[Professor Smooth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060105/od_ ... gion_court

Even as a pretty hardcore Athiest, I'm pretty sure that there's enough credible evidence that the man existed.

[Bouncelot]

This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence.

[Best First]

sounds enteratining.

[Obfleur]

Sounds like an episode of South Park.

[Legion]

Sounds like an episode of South Park.

Think they'll be using the Chewbacca defense?

[Professor Smooth]

Sounds like an episode of South Park.

Think they'll be using the Chewbacca defense?

I bloody hope so!

[Impactor returns 2.0]

This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence.

Actually - he might not of. and what evidence.

your eveidence is a book, written 400 years or somthing after his supposed birth. thats not evidence at all.

guess wht I just wrote a book, it says that 400 years ago, someone in my family was the ruler of the universe.

good enough for evidence? - no.

[Professor Smooth]

This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence.

Actually - he might not of. and what evidence.

your eveidence is a book, written 400 years or somthing after his supposed birth. thats not evidence at all.

guess wht I just wrote a book, it says that 400 years ago, someone in my family was the ruler of the universe.

good enough for evidence? - no.

As I understand it, there's quite a bit of credible evidence that says that Jesus existed. Legal records, etc. However, any evidence that he was the son of god and performed miracles...that's a bit hard to come by for some reason.

[Best First]

isn't this a Billy Connely movie?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

THeres legal records? Thats interesting as there is no written literature from the Romans, only the odd wall painting, and a bit of clay table.

Most of roman history was written later on - so im amazed to think any ine wrote down somthing about old Jesus at the time, if you consider thats the last thing the romans would have wanted, and as they were most likely the only ones capable of it in the area. its hard to belive anything survied when almost nothing survied from the Romans as a whole?

[Legion]

not meaning to stoke the fires or anything, but some comments on aparent 'historial' records...

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pau ... h.htm#h2_1

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I like that site I think it looks at both sides objectivily and draws some interesting conclusions.

[Metal Vendetta]

Wow, I always assumed that Jesus was a historical figure, but that site doesn't offer much hope - it's actualy amazing how flimsy the evidence is. Some of it I remember from first-year RE, but the rest of it is quite overwhelming.

Wouldn't it be great if he never really existed at all and the whole thing was, as suggested, a literary invention? Would that make Christianity the world's greatest ever practical joke?

[Best First]

i think that remains George Bush.

"Jesus to decide if Italian Court exists"

[Denyer]

Yeah, unsurprisingly lots of historical works have been doctored, mistranslated and pressed into service by interested parties.

Here's some of the fun stuff most branches of Christianity have decided was a bit too silly for them:

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/public ... mesnew.htm

isn't this a Billy Connely movie?

Indeed, and it's not that bad...

[Bouncelot]

This is just silly. Jesus blatantly existed, sure you can dispute whether the gospels are accurate records of what He did, and whether He was God, as his followers clearly believed (and, of course, continue to believe 2000 years later). But to say that he never existed is flying in the face of all the evidence.

Actually - he might not of. and what evidence.

your eveidence is a book, written 400 years or somthing after his supposed birth. thats not evidence at all.

Last time I checked even the most sceptical scholars agreed that the majority of the New Testament was written in the first century - within living memory of Jesus. And there's a lot more evidence that the Bible we have to today is what was originally written down in the first century than for any other historical document of comparable age.

For the other side of the coin to the rather one-sided page that's previously been presented, have a look here

[Yaya]

Yeah, unsurprisingly lots of historical works have been doctored, mistranslated and pressed into service by interested parties.

The current Bible being one of them.

Hell, before our very eyes in our very lifetime the Bible is changing.

[Denyer]

I suspect I'd be more bothered if I thought the original texts weren't bunkum, but I do have particular dislike for the overt modernness of the NIV...

[Bouncelot]

Yeah, unsurprisingly lots of historical works have been doctored, mistranslated and pressed into service by interested parties.

The current Bible being one of them.

Hell, before our very eyes in our very lifetime the Bible is changing.

Which "current Bible" are you referring to? The Bible is definitely not changing to any significant degree. There are a few, unimportant, passages in older translations which are now thought to be less likely to be authentic because of modern discoveries of older manuscripts. But such passages are very much the exception rather than the rule.

The only thing that is changing is that more translations are available than used to be the case. Certainly a translation using the archaic language of, for example, the King James Version is utterly pointless when you could have a translation into contemporary English. And though the NIV is the most common modern English translation, you have a wide variety of choices of translation depending on precisely which translation methodology you want to use, but they're all translations of precisely the same manuscripts.

[Metal Vendetta]

For the other side of the coin to the rather one-sided page that's previously been presented, have a look here

From that site:

In history there is little that is certain but there is also a level of scepticism that makes the task of the historian impossible. Furthermore, the thesis that Jesus never existed requires selective scepticism about which sources are reliable and how others are interpreted. In the end, if Jesus did not exist, it makes Christianity a much more incredible phenomena than if he did.

Which is more or less what I said above.

TBH though I find the arguments on this site unconcincing.

This tells us that the later passage about 'James, brother of Jesus called Christ' certainly existed in Josephus in Origen's time because he uses the phrase 'called Christ' twice.

Yeah, obviously Origen didn't, say, invent that phrase and use it twice?

I don't know, I don't really care if Jesus existed or not, (from the same site) it makes precisely as much difference to my life as if Hannibal was fictional. Who really cares? If you want to believe some guy who may or may not have existed was the Son of God and died for all our sins (which I still don't understand, how was he supposed to know in 33AD that I would cheat on my girlfriend in 1993?) then fine, go ahead. He may have been real, he may not. In the end, we're still left with a certain number of people who believe that Jesus was the saviour.

Whatever this court decides, everyone is going to believe exactly the same as before. I will continue to believe that it's all a load of fetid dingo's kidneys and everyone elese will carry on with their beliefs that [insert feel-good lie here]. Because nothing short of a time machine is really going to solve this one.

[Denyer]

a translation using the archaic language of, for example, the King James Version is utterly pointless when you could have a translation into contemporary English

Disagree; I prefer Biblical stories with C17th cadences, in the same way I prefer Shakespeare to l33t or txtspk.

[Scraplet]

Because nothing short of a time machine is really going to solve this one.

Now, there's an episode of Dr Who they have to make

[The Last Autobot]

If you want to believe some guy who may or may not have existed was the Son of God and died for all our sins (which I still don't understand, how was he supposed to know in 33AD that I would cheat on my girlfriend in 1993?) then fine, go ahead. He may have been real, he may not. In the end, we're still left with a certain number of people who believe that Jesus was the saviour.

Well If he was really the son of God time doesnt really matters a bit

Whatever this court decides, everyone is going to believe exactly the same as before. I will continue to believe that it's all a load of fetid dingo's kidneys and everyone elese will carry on with their beliefs that [insert feel-good lie here]. Because nothing short of a time machine is really going to solve this one.

Right so. And the discussion will be endless. But either way if he existed and was/is God there will be plenty of "time" later to discuss in heaven/hell or wherever/whenever dimension we end/begin.

If he wasnt (if he existed or not) it really doesnt matter either because we will be poo and we wont discuss anything with anybody because we dont have a soul, there s nothing after and all is crap.

Bottom line nothing really matters, go and live your life as you want

[Bouncelot]

a translation using the archaic language of, for example, the King James Version is utterly pointless when you could have a translation into contemporary English

Disagree; I prefer Biblical stories with C17th cadences, in the same way I prefer Shakespeare to l33t or txtspk.

That's a rather disingenuous comparison. You've just chosen three ways of writing that are difficult to understand if you're just familiar with modern English. Given the choice of reading something in Shakespearean English, l33t, or txtspk, I'd go for Shakespearean because it takes me less effort to understand it. If you added modern English, I'd go for modern English unless it was something originally written in Shakespearean. I can't see how any of that relates to which translation of the Bible to read. If I want to read the Bible, I want to get as close to what the original said as I can, not to read an archaic translation because I'm in love with archaic English.

Anyway, as a translation, the King James is severely lacking. It's difficult to understand because of the archaic English, and it's based on less accurate manuscripts than any modern translation. If you want to read the Bible, you're better off with a half-decent modern translation. And not all of them are stylistically like the NIV. There's a whole range from more formal King James-like ones to paraphrases into modern street English (and the New Testament was actually written in the 1st Century equivalent of street English).

I think the only reason for still using the King James in today's world is for its impact on subsequent English literature, it's certainly a rubbish tool for reading the Bible. After all, its authors wanted people to be able to understand the Bible easily, and today reading the Bible in King James language is completely defeating the purpose of why it was written.

[Denyer]

That's a rather disingenuous comparison.

"Stuff written with tone and rhythm in mind" and "stuff I think lacks dignity" then.

If I want to read the Bible, I want to get as close to what the original said as I can, not to read an archaic translation because I'm in love with archaic English.

Yeah, that's the core difference: I regard the Bible as an impressive piece of literature, which a bunch of people just happen to have killed, imprisoned and tortured each other over.

its impact on subsequent English literature

As you say, it's been the most widely available edition and continues to be the most quoted -- books, films, suicide notes.

the purpose of why it was written.

The social manipulation seems to proceed apace whichever rendering is selected.

It's difficult to understand because of the archaic English

Not for anyone with a reasonable grasp of literacy. Nor's Shakespeare, or the Canterbury Tales. Heck, eleven year olds can make sense of most of the Canterbury Tales if they read it out loud rather than trying to frame and translate it as dictionary-written modern English. I've got some good worksheets tucked away somewhere...

edit:

Were I religiously-minded, I'd probably go with Catholicism... ritual and tradition get a fair degree of emphasis rather than just symbolism.