Christianity ruins families.

[Kitschum]

As 'fragments' they are rather extensive...

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Augustus/Res_Gestae/1*.html

[Ben Kenobi]

You were claiming that the evidence for his existence was lacking.

I never claimed this. All I claimed is that the Christian evidence is superior.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would you expect reports of a mundane event?

Because we have evidence that it wasn't a mundane event from Roman sources.

And who would have preserved them?

The same people that wrote about Roman times that we have today.

And why do you find it easier to believe that someone rose from the dead than that someone didn't and people mistakenly believed it the same way people believe in every other alleged miracle?

That's a good question. Why are you so confident arguing from complete silence? The records that we do have all testify that this was a big deal. It wasn't a mundane event. Clearly something happened, why don't we have a Roman source that clearly spells out that the Christians were wrong?

I was on your side gribbler. The evidence is just not there for your position.

[giblets]

Interesting. However, they don't have a full copy, just fragments.

Lives of the 12 Caesars has a far more extensive account of his reign.

You were claiming that the evidence for his existence was lacking. I'd say fragments and coins are fine for showing a ruler existed.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are coins minted under him too. I'd have to look to see whether he's mentioned by name or what inscriptions they have, but I don't think that should be necessary.

Interesting. However, they don't have a full copy, just fragments.

Lives of the 12 Caesars has a far more extensive account of his reign.

[Kitschum]

There are contemporary sources for the existence of Augustus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_Gestae_Divi_Augusti

There are coins minted under him too. I'd have to look to see whether he's mentioned by name or what inscriptions they have, but I don't think that should be necessary.

I'm with Imran on this, by the way.

[giblets]

The earliest source for Augustus Caesar is Suetonius' Lives of the 12 Caesars which wasn't written until 125 AD. The earliest copy known dates from 950. I'm not sure what is the oldest extant copy of the Lives of the 12 Caesars.

The bible has fragments from 120 AD. The oldest extant copy dates to 320 AD.

So if you were to ask who is likely to be the source of a corrupted manuscript over time, you'd be far likely to find it with Augustus, than you would for Christ.

It would take a pretty big corruption to invent an emperor who didn't exist.

Then why don't we have a source from the Romans asserting this? The sources we do have all corroborate the Christian account.

So your only argument is silence. You've got nothing that supports your analysis of a hoax or a rumour. No inquiry by the Roman authorities. There's nothing.

If, and there's a big if here, you actually had these sources, this would be concrete evidence that your position is correct. I don't have the faith that you do. I can't believe in nothing, not without some supporting evidence to say that you were in fact correct.

Why would you expect reports of a mundane event? And who would have preserved them? And why do you find it easier to believe that someone rose from the dead than that someone didn't and people mistakenly believed it the same way people believe in every other alleged miracle?

[Ben Kenobi]

I seriously doubt that there's less evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus rising from the dead, but sure, it's possible he didn't exist.

The earliest source for Augustus Caesar is Suetonius' Lives of the 12 Caesars which wasn't written until 125 AD. The earliest copy known dates from 950. I'm not sure what is the oldest extant copy of the Lives of the 12 Caesars.

The bible has fragments from 120 AD. The oldest extant copy dates to 320 AD.

So if you were to ask who is likely to be the source of a corrupted manuscript over time, you'd be far likely to find it with Augustus, than you would for Christ.

What evidence is there that they were written before the destruction of the temple? And why would say it's "more likely to be earlier" other than your own bias?

References to the temple in the present tense.

It's more likely to be earlier, as if the disciples were in their 30's when Christ died, they'd be in their 60's when the Gospels were written.

Because if it's just a rumor, then what really happened was mundane.

Then why don't we have a source from the Romans asserting this? The sources we do have all corroborate the Christian account.

Some criminal was crucified, and then he didn't rise from the dead? Happens all the time. Did anyone take the time to write about all the other thousands of people who were executed and then didn't rise from the dead? Are people taking the time to point out that people aren't rising from the dead after receiving the death penalty today?

So your only argument is silence. You've got nothing that supports your analysis of a hoax or a rumour. No inquiry by the Roman authorities. There's nothing.

If, and there's a big if here, you actually had these sources, this would be concrete evidence that your position is correct. I don't have the faith that you do. I can't believe in nothing, not without some supporting evidence to say that you were in fact correct.

[giblets]

So you don't believe in the existance of Augustus Caesar?

I seriously doubt that there's less evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus rising from the dead, but sure, it's possible he didn't exist.

The synoptics were written some time before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which would be about 35 years after his death. It also seems most likely that they were written after paul's letter to the corinthians, although this isn't certain, which would place them sometime between 55-70, with it being more likely to be earlier than later.

What evidence is there that they were written before the destruction of the temple? And why would say it's "more likely to be earlier" other than your own bias?

Their knowledge would also show evidence of anachronisms which are not present in the Gospels.

Isn't claiming that the reign of Herod the Great overlapped with the governorship of Quirinius an anachronism? I don't know what your point is.

If, as you've said, this was simply a rumour, why don't we have sources telling us what really happened? Why are there no contemporary sources that provide your argument?

Because if it's just a rumor, then what really happened was mundane. Some criminal was crucified, and then he didn't rise from the dead? Happens all the time. Did anyone take the time to write about all the other thousands of people who were executed and then didn't rise from the dead? Are people taking the time to point out that people aren't rising from the dead after receiving the death penalty today?

[Ben Kenobi]

Poor evidence is poor evidence. If all of the evidence from the time period is poor what reason is there to be certain of anything?

So you don't believe in the existance of Augustus Caesar?

References from the first part of the 2nd century? How does that prove they weren't written, say, fifty years after Jesus allegedly died?

The synoptics were written some time before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, which would be about 35 years after his death. It also seems most likely that they were written after paul's letter to the corinthians, although this isn't certain, which would place them sometime between 55-70, with it being more likely to be earlier than later.

Well if the people writing them lived in that region you would expect them to know about real places and people.

Their knowledge would also show evidence of anachronisms which are not present in the Gospels.

If, as you've said, this was simply a rumour, why don't we have sources telling us what really happened? Why are there no contemporary sources that provide your argument?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben, I think you are getting dragged into the wrong discussion. Those who argue about the truth of Jesus's divinity and his rise from the dead are not going to be convinced by historical argument. I wasn't when I was an atheist. I think the proper course is to agree to disagree on historical issues and pray for divine understanding. People don't accept Jesus by being convinced that his story was historical; they accept Him by feeling his divine presence and encountering the supernatural.

[giblets]

Because the evidence, poor by modern standards is more then sufficient to be reasonably sure that it is accurate.

Poor evidence is poor evidence. If all of the evidence from the time period is poor what reason is there to be certain of anything?

Yes, about 55 AD or so.

References to them by the first part of the 2nd century. Manuscript fragments by the mid 2nd century. References from others throughout the period, and full manuscripts by the early 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They are also corroborated by the writings of Flavius Josephus in the late 1st century.

References from the first part of the 2nd century? How does that prove they weren't written, say, fifty years after Jesus allegedly died?

The Gospels make all kinds of references to datable places, people and things and is consistant to what we know today.

Well if the people writing them lived in that region you would expect them to know about real places and people.

Unfortunately there are no sources that corroborate this interpretation. All the sources we have say he died, and he rose again.

[Ben Kenobi]

All ancient events have poor documentation, therefore the one that you think has the least poor documentation should be accepted as completely true? Why?

Because the evidence, poor by modern standards is more then sufficient to be reasonably sure that it is accurate.

You're saying the gospels were written twenty years after the fact?

Yes, about 55 AD or so.

What evidence is there that they were written so soon?

References to them by the first part of the 2nd century. Manuscript fragments by the mid 2nd century. References from others throughout the period, and full manuscripts by the early 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. They are also corroborated by the writings of Flavius Josephus in the late 1st century.

My point was that people make up detailed accounts of things that never happened all the time.

The Gospels make all kinds of references to datable places, people and things and is consistant to what we know today.

And it's entirely possible that a guy named Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, but that doesn't make rumors of him rising from the dead true.

Unfortunately there are no sources that corroborate this interpretation. All the sources we have say he died, and he rose again.

[giblets]

I'm arguing that of all ancient events, this one is by far the best documented. Is it as well documented as this one recent event? No,and it could never be. Does it mean that the records we do have are unreliable? Far from it.

All ancient events have poor documentation, therefore the one that you think has the least poor documentation should be accepted as completely true? Why?

The gospels of mark, luke and matthew.

You're saying the gospels were written twenty years after the fact? What evidence is there that they were written so soon?

So when Matthew refers to Pontius Pilate, this is our clue that he is referring to an event that never happened? Or is he doing just the opposite and recording an event that did happen? I think it's pretty clear that one is fiction, while the other is not. Rawlings never refers to any real live person, unless you believe Dumbeldore is real.

My point was that people make up detailed accounts of things that never happened all the time. And it's entirely possible that a guy named Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, but that doesn't make rumors of him rising from the dead true.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you pointing out that ancient events are poorly documented? Then why believe ancient supernatural stories?

I'm arguing that of all ancient events, this one is by far the best documented. Is it as well documented as this one recent event? No,and it could never be. Does it mean that the records we do have are unreliable? Far from it.

Which sources are these?

The gospels of mark, luke and matthew.

So does J.K. Rowling. I guess Hogwarts is real because no one is capable of writing detailed accounts of things that never happened. She must have personally interviewed someone who knew Harry Potter

So when Matthew refers to Pontius Pilate, this is our clue that he is referring to an event that never happened? Or is he doing just the opposite and recording an event that did happen? I think it's pretty clear that one is fiction, while the other is not. Rawlings never refers to any real live person, unless you believe Dumbeldore is real.