snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 23 August 2011, 04:22 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
It depends on how you define the parameters. Various sites put the number of bibles sold between 6 and 7 billion. If Jesus is mentioned 1,000 times in one bible, then there is up to 7 trillion pieces of evidence for Jesus' existance. I doubt George Washington is mentioned quite so many times.
Yea, that's taking goal post moving to an extreme!

Heck by those standards, people should be doubting my existence - and I am actually still alive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitz1980 View Post
Penn's actual quote was "So Monty Python's: Life of Brian was actually more accurate than Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ."

His point about Elvis was that "Elvis Aaron Presley was born at a time when most people in his land were literate; we have photographic, video and audio records of his life and yet there are still people today arguing about the details of his life."

Both were from Penn & Teller's ep called "The Bible" and yes, it's my favorite of their eps.
I think the Life of Brian point was made also by Dr. Michael Shermer too. My memory of that episode is hazy (I's my favorite, but I haven't watched it in awhile) (yes I am embarrassed by that)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 31 March 2013, 07:15 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,644
Icon215 Easter Science: 6 Facts About Jesus

From his birth to his execution by the Romans, here are six facts about the historical Jesus.

http://news.yahoo.com/easter-science...130048031.html
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 17 September 2013, 08:29 AM
Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
Default

The best summary of the historical evidence for Jesus that I've seen is presented by Josh McDowell in 'Evidence That Demands A Verdict.'

http://books.google.com/books?id=UD7...page&q&f=false
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 19 September 2013, 02:18 PM
Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
Default

In addition, there are some particularly old New Testament manuscripts that date to the 2nd century A.D., just a century later than the events of the New Testament. P52, P104, P90, P64, P67, and P98 are all commonly dated between 125 and 175 A.D., so early that it's possible some could even be fragments of the original documents. GA0189, P4, P32, P66, P77, and P103 are dated to about 200 A.D.

http://bibletranslation.ws/manu.html

That such early documents preserve the New Testament's record of Jesus within a century after the fact is for me another powerful evidence that the Bible is correct on the issue. To believe that such early documents could exist if Jesus were not real seems to me preposterous.

In fact, for fragments of a document to exist that are nearly 2,000 years old, less than a century after the originals, is remarkable from a historian's view. Many ancient works are preserved in just a handful of manuscripts (copies) written a thousand years or more after the original documents. This kind of preservation is simply incredible.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 19 September 2013, 06:19 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
That such early documents preserve the New Testament's record of Jesus within a century after the fact is for me another powerful evidence that the Bible is correct on the issue. To believe that such early documents could exist if Jesus were not real seems to me preposterous.
Why not?

Quote:
In fact, for fragments of a document to exist that are nearly 2,000 years old, less than a century after the originals, is remarkable from a historian's view. Many ancient works are preserved in just a handful of manuscripts (copies) written a thousand years or more after the original documents. This kind of preservation is simply incredible.
Citation needed.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 19 September 2013, 06:47 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
Many ancient works are preserved in just a handful of manuscripts (copies) written a thousand years or more after the original documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Citation needed.
I don't have a citation, but I am pretty sure this would apply to most of the ancient Greeks - Plato, Socrates, Sappho, Herodotus (less sure on that one), Pythagorus, and many others.

ETA: The Wiki article says that the earliest of the manuscripts of Plato dates to 895 A.D. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato

Last edited by A Turtle Named Mack; 19 September 2013 at 06:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 19 September 2013, 07:02 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,041
Default

And is the earliest record of that manuscript a copy from 1895?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 19 September 2013, 07:46 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
And is the earliest record of that manuscript a copy from 1895?
No, that IS the earliest record of dialogues that were written originally roughly 1500 years earlier. It is far from being an original, but was a copy produced by a Byzantine scholar.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 20 September 2013, 12:33 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,458
Default

I'm not really sure how that would prove that because we've got references of Jesus that are much closer to the time when Jesus allegedly lived, Jesus had to be a real historic person who did all or at least many of the things he's reported to have done in the NT and Gospels rather than a myth.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 20 September 2013, 04:07 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default 6 Historical Figures Who May or May Not Have Existed

Quote:
From Britainís most beloved outlaw to the founder of Sparta, find out more about six historical figures whose existence remains up for debate.
http://www.history.com/news/history-...t-have-existed

The argument that "many historical persons have even less evidence" for their existence is an interesting one to me because it implies that their existence isn't questioned or questionable in the same way. It's a well-accepted part of history that many stories told about many of the ancients simply are not true, even when they were told within a century or two of their supposed demise (or ascension or whatever). Even stories told by contemporaries are considered suspect. (Don't get a historian started, for example, on Socrates!) Of course, more outlandish stories are even more likely to be doubted. So it's not as if historians are out to get Jesus. It's just a matter of being honest about the evidence - something that, if the gospels are to be believed - Jesus understood, even as he blessed those who would accept Him without such evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 20 September 2013, 08:14 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,024
Default

I don't see much reason to doubt that Jesus (a preacher by that name in early first-century Palestine) existed, but the nativity story is probably not historical. I'm reading A History of Christianity by Diarmid McCulloch, and he points out several aspects of it that don't make any historical sense. The first Roman census in that area was a decade after the death of Herod, for one thing, and Roman censuses didn't work like that - people didn't have to move around to the "place of their ancestors" because that makes no sense. It goes with the idea that Jesus was descended from David via Joseph, because Joseph was his father when it suits the narrative.

There's apparently disagreement later in the Bible about where he was born anyway, with John recording people in Jerusalem arguing that Jesus was born in Galilee, with others arguing that the Messiah was meant to be born in Bethlehem, and the other gospels repeatedly referring to him coming from Galilee or Nazareth. Since he was known as "Jesus of Nazareth" that seems reasonable. The nativity story - which doesn't ring true in other ways either - is the only part of the Bible where he's referred to as being born in Bethlehem.

Perhaps to some, not being born in Bethlehem means he's "not the Messiah" and therefore implies that Jesus (Christ) didn't exist because whoever this bloke from Nazareth was, he couldn't have been the real Jesus?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 20 September 2013, 08:24 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

Maybe it was more than one person. That would explain many of the discrepancies.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 20 September 2013, 11:13 AM
Apollonia's Avatar
Apollonia Apollonia is offline
 
Join Date: 09 July 2007
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Maybe it was more than one person. That would explain many of the discrepancies.
Like twins, maybe?
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 21 September 2013, 10:17 AM
Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua is offline
 
 
Join Date: 15 September 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 17
Icon102

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Why not?

Citation needed.
As Josh McDowell points out in 'More Than a Carpenter', it would make no sense for Christians to claim to be eyewitnesses and tell their enemies "you yourselves know these things" if they were making it up. That these New Testament documents existed in the 2nd century given these manuscripts, and were accepted enough as fact by the population for Christianity to become popular at the time, is a strong evidence that the claims were well-accepted as true. (pp. 49-51) McDowell refers to this as internal evidence for the New Testament's accuracy, one of the three tests historians use for evaluating the accuracy and preservation of historical documents.

As for other documents being preserved far later, McDowell also makes that point on pages 47-49 of 'More Than a Carpenter'. To quote McDowell:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xRj...=PA47&lpg=PA47

Quote:
We can appreciate the tremendous wealth of manuscript authority of the New Testament by comparing it with textual material from other notable ancient sources.

The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote. The MSS of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce, and yet, as F.F. Bruce concludes, "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals."11

Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400-year gap, and only five MSS are in existence.

Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death.

When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri manuscript discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 27 September 2013, 11:14 AM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
Roman censuses didn't work like that - people didn't have to move around to the "place of their ancestors" because that makes no sense.
The way I understand it, it's not saying that people had to return to the "place of their ancestors", but just explaining that Joseph was from Bethlehem since that was the place of his ancestors. And since Joseph was visiting Mary in Nazareth, he was just returning to his hometown of Bethlehem for the census. Since most people lived in their hometowns, this didn't require most people to go far.

Quote:
Luke 2:3-4. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 27 September 2013, 12:22 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

If it was his hometown, why did he have to sleep in a complete stranger's stable?
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 27 September 2013, 02:01 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
If it was his hometown, why did he have to sleep in a complete stranger's stable?
Are you kidding!? He could not come back to the house with a knocked-up chick from that rowdy Nazareth, so outre' it is beyond Samaria!
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 27 September 2013, 10:05 PM
KingDavid8 KingDavid8 is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 4,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
If it was his hometown, why did he have to sleep in a complete stranger's stable?
They probably didn't. The world translated as "inn", "kataluma", can also mean "guest chamber", and some translations say this. This would suggest Joseph went to his family's home, but the guest room was being used by someone else, so they went out to the manger.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 27 September 2013, 10:18 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,644
Sheep

Quote:
This would suggest Joseph went to his family's home, but the guest room was being used by someone else, so they went out to the manger.
Surely you mean a stable or a barn, not a manger. Jesus may have slept in a manger as a newborn, but a manger isn't a structure that could house or shelter people.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 27 September 2013, 10:26 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,331
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDavid8 View Post
They probably didn't. The world translated as "inn", "kataluma", can also mean "guest chamber", and some translations say this. This would suggest Joseph went to his family's home, but the guest room was being used by someone else, so they went out to the manger.
If he lived in Bethlehem, why would he sleep in his family's "guest room"?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama = anti-Christ snopes Politics 103 13 November 2013 10:24 PM
The 27 Characteristics of the Anti-Christ Altered Statesman Religion 62 28 March 2011 08:16 PM
I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians Jonesy Questionable Quotes 3 03 July 2010 01:56 AM
Muslim hitman's hand stayed by Christ snopes Glurge Gallery 25 27 June 2010 10:28 PM
Olivia Newton-John's "Physical" banned in Utah snopes Entertainment 6 02 December 2008 05:10 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.