The historical Jesus

[Lithzenze]

In May 2005, an anonymous user created a five-sentence Wikipedia article about Seigenthaler which contained false and defamatory content.[25] Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia in September, and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today, in which he wrote "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."[26] A reference to the protection from liability that Internet Service Providers are given under Federal law versus editorially controlled media like newspapers and television.

After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.

oh so now i can go register on Wiki and then write an article on how a monster took over new york and pooped on empire state building?

[Dakini]

My point is that it doesn't say reliable on everything neither on history/religion (what we are debating) but in science, that has nothing to do with that. The rest, is with Dakini.

Fine, then do you want to pick through the sources cited for each date pulled down in the article I linked and make sure that the dates are accurate? At least my source cited its information, unlike the source which was provided earlier by Lithzenze which made comments that were clearly personal interpretations in addition to claiming to state facts.

[Farnhamia]

In May 2005, an anonymous user created a five-sentence Wikipedia article about Seigenthaler which contained false and defamatory content.[25] Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia in September, and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today, in which he wrote "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."[26] A reference to the protection from liability that Internet Service Providers are given under Federal law versus editorially controlled media like newspapers and television.

After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.

oh so now i can go register on Wiki and then write an article on how a monster took over new york and pooped on empire state building?

Yes, you can, and you can expect to have it deleted pretty quick, too.

[Grave_n_idle]

well Abraham lived to a ripe old age.

Yeah. I totally believe that he lived to be 175 because it's just so plausible.

i detect sarcasm. I belive that he did live to be of a very old age.

I don't believe it's even a reference to a real person.

Where does that leave us?

[Dakini]

In May 2005, an anonymous user created a five-sentence Wikipedia article about Seigenthaler which contained false and defamatory content.[25] Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia in September, and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today, in which he wrote "And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them."[26] A reference to the protection from liability that Internet Service Providers are given under Federal law versus editorially controlled media like newspapers and television.

After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages.

oh so now i can go register on Wiki and then write an article on how a monster took over new york and pooped on empire state building?

And it will be torn down very quickly.

[Dakini]

well Abraham lived to a ripe old age.

Yeah. I totally believe that he lived to be 175 because it's just so plausible.

i detect sarcasm. I belive that he did live to be of a very old age.

I believe that much of what is written in the Bible is either made up entirely or greatly exaggerated.

[Grave_n_idle]

You claimed they were written by people that knew him. Proof? Evidence Source?

You made the first claim - let's see you support it.

"The key to dating the Gospels is dating the book of Acts (written by Luke). Luke makes no mention of the capture and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans. He also doesn't mention the war between the Romans and Jews in 66 A.D., though throughout his writings he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations.

Jesus said Jerusalem would fall.

Luke 21:5-6 Some of his disciples began talking about the majestic stonework of the Temple and the memorial decorations on the walls. But Jesus said, “The time is coming when all these things will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!”

Wouldn't Luke have pointed out that the destruction of the Temple had actually happened and that the prophecy of Jesus had been fulfilled if it occurred before he wrote his gospel? Luke was written before Acts to be published as a two volume set. Luke was written after Mark, because both Luke and Matthew use the Gospel of Mark as a source. This dates the book of Acts to have been written no later than the mid 60's A.D.

This means that the first Gospels were written less than 30 years after Jesus' death in 30 A.D. Not enough time had passed for legend to take effect. Legends tend to start with facts, but over many generations include more fiction. However; it takes much longer than 30 years to develop a legend. By 60 A.D., eyewitnesses mentioned in the Gospels would have still been alive and living in the area who could dispute the New Testament writings."

http://www.scarfire.com/cjournal/journa ... idence.htm

Okay - your source claims that 'Luke' must have existed at a certain point... but it doesn't actually prove that 'Luke' was even a real person, does it?

And the "Not enough time had passed for legend to take effect. Legends tend to start with facts, but over many generations include more fiction. However; it takes much longer than 30 years to develop a legend"? That's just bullshit.

[JLAEST]

Wiki is about as reliable as a normal encyclopedia. And given that this article is heavily cited, it is significantly more reliable than your source.

Hum...

Wikipedia survives research test

John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

If I'm not mistaken, the general conclusion is that pages which are heavily referenced and worked on tended to be accurate. I don't see why this would hold in science articles, but not others.

The fact is that in some matters it's pretty much wrong. In History, Geography and Music, at least, I had some entire articles debunked by teachers.

[Lithzenze]

Luke was written before Acts to be published as a two volume set.

No. The two-volume "Luke"/"Acts" is a late compilation from multiple sources, as the anonymous author acknowledges in his cover letter to Theophilus, patriarch of Antioch in the mid-2nd century. The direct source for most of "Luke" is the Evangelion published by Marcion c. 130, which was not yet attributed to Luke or to anybody else, not yet associated with the book of Acts, and not yet including the nativity stories for John the Baptist or Jesus, or the "temptation in the desert" story. The direct source for the second half of Acts is called the "we document", a travel narrative in which the pronoun is always "we" when Luke the physician was present but "they" otherwise; the "we document" is clearly from the hand of Luke, written c. 63 (it ends when Paul has been in Rome a while; but the Great Fire episode has not happened, and it is inconceivable that this would not have been mentioned if it had happened already when the document was written). The first half of Acts shows signs of internal rearrangement, reflecting older sources that have been reworked to form a bridge from the "gospel" (itself a reworking of older sources; Marcion did not write it) to the "we document".

source? please dont say Wiki

[Grave_n_idle]

Out of interest

"The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.

Author No. of Copies Time Span
Caesar 10 1.000 years
Plato (Tetralogies) 7 1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals) 20 1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History) 7 750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8 800 years
Homer (Iliad) 643 500 years
New Testament Over 24,000 25 years

After looking at the chart above, which document do you believe is the most trustworthy in being accurate regarding being closest to the original? Homer's Iliad does not even come close to the New Testament. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original."

http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html

despite my best attempts to edit it, the chart is pretty mest up.

Number of copies sold =/= reliable.

Length of time over which it has been available =/= reliable.


Corroboration is far more important than number of units shifted or shelf-life.

[Lithzenze]

You claimed they were written by people that knew him. Proof? Evidence Source?

You made the first claim - let's see you support it.

"The key to dating the Gospels is dating the book of Acts (written by Luke). Luke makes no mention of the capture and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. by the Romans. He also doesn't mention the war between the Romans and Jews in 66 A.D., though throughout his writings he is concerned with Roman-Jewish relations.

Jesus said Jerusalem would fall.

Luke 21:5-6 Some of his disciples began talking about the majestic stonework of the Temple and the memorial decorations on the walls. But Jesus said, “The time is coming when all these things will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!”

Wouldn't Luke have pointed out that the destruction of the Temple had actually happened and that the prophecy of Jesus had been fulfilled if it occurred before he wrote his gospel? Luke was written before Acts to be published as a two volume set. Luke was written after Mark, because both Luke and Matthew use the Gospel of Mark as a source. This dates the book of Acts to have been written no later than the mid 60's A.D.

This means that the first Gospels were written less than 30 years after Jesus' death in 30 A.D. Not enough time had passed for legend to take effect. Legends tend to start with facts, but over many generations include more fiction. However; it takes much longer than 30 years to develop a legend. By 60 A.D., eyewitnesses mentioned in the Gospels would have still been alive and living in the area who could dispute the New Testament writings."

http://www.scarfire.com/cjournal/journa ... idence.htm

Okay - your source claims that 'Luke' must have existed at a certain point... but it doesn't actually prove that 'Luke' was even a real person, does it?

And the "Not enough time had passed for legend to take effect. Legends tend to start with facts, but over many generations include more fiction. However; it takes much longer than 30 years to develop a legend"? That's just bullshit.

Bullshit? ummm evidence to support this claim

[Farnhamia]

The fact is that in some matters it's pretty much wrong. In History, Geography and Music, at least, I had some entire articles debunked by teachers.

Then you should go point out the errors and have them make corrections. They will do that, you know. Just sitting and going, "Nyah, nyah, Wiki sucks" helps nothing.

[Lithzenze]

I believe that much of what is written in the Bible is either made up entirely or greatly exaggerated.

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

[Grave_n_idle]

Bullshit? ummm evidence to support this claim

Why? It's unsupported in the text - why do you hold me to a higher standard?

But - sure. The 'legends' surrounding Hitler or Elvis, for example, actually started to form within their lifespans, and even within the high-points of their 'careers'. A legend clearly doesn't have to have some preset timespan before it starts to materialise.

Further, the legend legacy around someone like - for example - Batman, is testament to the fact that actually even being REAL is not required for a character to start the kind of mythical accretion that your source is talking about.

[Grave_n_idle]

I believe that much of what is written in the Bible is either made up entirely or greatly exaggerated.

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

Why?

Why would we assume that a year means something different?

(Actually, there are several meanings of 'year' in scripture - but I don't think that's what you're talking about).

[JLAEST]

The fact is that in some matters it's pretty much wrong. In History, Geography and Music, at least, I had some entire articles debunked by teachers.

Then you should go point out the errors and have them make corrections. They will do that, you know. Just sitting and going, "Nyah, nyah, Wiki sucks" helps nothing.

I'm not the one that knows that. What I see, I try to correct when I can. But I don't know everything.

[Lithzenze]

I believe that much of what is written in the Bible is either made up entirely or greatly exaggerated.

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

Why?

Why would we assume that a year means something different?

(Actually, there are several meanings of 'year' in scripture - but I don't think that's what you're talking about).

why would we assume they are the same as now?

[Dakini]

If I'm not mistaken, the general conclusion is that pages which are heavily referenced and worked on tended to be accurate. I don't see why this would hold in science articles, but not others.

The fact is that in some matters it's pretty much wrong. In History, Geography and Music, at least, I had some entire articles debunked by teachers.

And yet it's infinitely more reliable than the site which was provided earlier which was a random personal website maintained by some random guy who intersperses personal feelings and beliefs with what he claims are factual statements.

[Grave_n_idle]

why would we assume they are the same as now?

Because 'a year' is the amount of time it takes the earth to go round the sun, one time?

Why would we expect that number to change?

[Lithzenze]

If I'm not mistaken, the general conclusion is that pages which are heavily referenced and worked on tended to be accurate. I don't see why this would hold in science articles, but not others.

The fact is that in some matters it's pretty much wrong. In History, Geography and Music, at least, I had some entire articles debunked by teachers.

And yet it's infinitely more reliable than the site which was provided earlier which was a random personal website maintained by some random guy who intersperses personal feelings and beliefs with what he claims are factual statements.

proof of your claim? i want proof its a guy for one thing, and proof that he puts his own personal belifes into factual statements.

[Lithzenze]

why would we assume they are the same as now?

Because 'a year' is the amount of time it takes the earth to go round the sun, one time?

Why would we expect that number to change?

well because for one thing, at that time they didnt know the earth was going around the sun.

[Dakini]

you realise that "years" may have been different back then. (different length)

Why?

Why would we assume that a year means something different?

(Actually, there are several meanings of 'year' in scripture - but I don't think that's what you're talking about).

why would we assume they are the same as now?

Because we have some knowledge of how ancient peoples kept track of years?

Also, your proposal was that Abraham lived to be very old. If they kept track of years differently, then maybe he wasn't very old afterall? You can't have both.

[Grave_n_idle]

why would we assume they are the same as now?

Because 'a year' is the amount of time it takes the earth to go round the sun, one time?

Why would we expect that number to change?

well because for one thing, at that time they didnt know the earth was going around the sun.

Two problems with that:

One: You don't HAVE to know. Every year, there are two points at which the length of the day and the length of the night are equal. There is also one single point at which the day stops getting longer and starts getting shorter... and one where the reverse occurs. Any of those data points allows you to work out the length of a year (or a half-year, and then double it).

Two: You don't believe 'god' knows how long a year is

[Grave_n_idle]

Also, your proposal was that Abraham lived to be very old. If they kept track of years differently, then maybe he wasn't very old afterall? You can't have both.

Exactly.

If we're talking about months rather than years, sure. Abraham lived to 175 months.

[Dakini]

why would we assume they are the same as now?

Because 'a year' is the amount of time it takes the earth to go round the sun, one time?

Why would we expect that number to change?

well because for one thing, at that time they didnt know the earth was going around the sun.

Yes, but there are seasonal variations. Rainy vs dry seasons, colder vs warmer seasons, flooding vs non-flooding seasons. Different stars appear in the sky based on what time of year it was and they make a cycle. Basically, people would keep track of the years so they would know when to plant their crops and about when they should be harvesting them. The calendar isn't a wonder of technology even if people didn't know what they were marking out.