Ok, everyone, time to review basic English language definitions,
specifically "identical" and "changed".

Jesus gives a speech. Matthew and Mark listen to the speech,
and write it down. They then turn in the copies to Jesus, who
reviews them.

Lo and behold, they are not identical.

No one has ever provided real evidence that anyone changed the
words of Jesus [. . . .]

I shouldn't say "anyone". I meant specifically the authors of
the Gospels, and more loosely the early Christians, although
they were willing to paraphrase, quotation standards not being
as strict as today.

Greetings Mr. Goren. Thank you for your post. My comments refuting your
suppositions are inline - enjoy if you can:

Ben Goren wrote:

As I'm sure many of you have noticed, we've been having something
of a running battle between Christians and atheists of late. The
Christians claim overwhelming evidence that Jesus actually
existed. The atheists point out that, no, they don't; what they
/do/ have is a bunch of hearsay mostly dating from a century after
the fact. The earliest any Christian has even tried to claim for a
document is 50 CE, almost a generation after the fact.

Amongst all the speculation, some of us atheists have pointed out
that many pieces of evidence of Jesus which absolutely must exist,
if he were real, actually don't. Josephus is a great example: he
gave whole pages to petty thieves and covered just about everybody
in the whole period and the whole area, but is perfectly
silent when it comes to Jesus. Similarly, no other first century
historian mentions Jesus, we don't have the records of the trial
or execution, no Roman spies made mention of any rabble rousers
fitting his description, and so on.

And then it hit me. We don't even have anything that Jesus himself
wrote.

There are two extremes one can take on the question. The first is
that the literal claims of the Bible are substantially true. Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was born to the Virgin Mary,
was baptized by John, performed many wondrous miracles for
thousands of witnesses, preached famous sermons to crowds of
people, was tried by Pontias Pilate, was found innocent but still
ordered executed anyway at the insistence of the local priesthood,
was crucified by Roman soldiers, was entombed, rose bodily from
the dead a few days later, continued his ministry for a while, and
finally rose bodily to Heaven where he resides to this day at the
right hand of God his Father.

The other extreme is that there was a first century Rabbi, name of
Jesus, who had some novel and inspirational sermons and, after
his death, later generations built the Jesus myth around his
teachings.

If we consider the first extreme, we can only assume that Jesus
was literate. His Father, after all, personally carved the Ten
Commandments in stone and handed them to Moses. Jesus, being
the bodily incarnation of the universe's only omnipotent and
omniscient being, would have been more than capable of writing
down accurate versions of his sermons, in stone or even steel, to
ensure that later generations would have no doubt about what he
taught. That he did not do so is proof positive that he did not
wish his teachings to be accurately taught to later generations,
preferring instead the confusion we're faced with today.

If we consider the other extreme, we, again, can only assume that
Jesus was literate, for the simple reason that all Rabbis were
literate. To suggest that Jesus wasn't literate, in the first
society where everybody who was anybody was literate, is to
suggest that he truly was a nobody. Even the last vestiges of
salience vanish from such a Jesus, for we're left with no more
semblance between the Bible and reality than but a mere name.

So, let us assume that Jesus was at least literate. Once again,
such a man /must/ have written down his grand new philosophy, for
the exact same reason that any philosopher ever has: so that he
will live on, through his words, after his death.

And, yet, there isn't even a mention in the Bible of Jesus ever
even picking up a pen. No Christian even dreams of suggesting that
Jesus was the author of anything in the Bible, and none has yet
thought to suggest that Jesus actually did write something but
that it's been lost to the ages.

Any who did would be laughed at, of course. If Jesus was real, if
he was a respected preacher (even if respected only by a
small following), his writings would have been most closely
guarded. Many copies would have been made, for the exact same
reason many copies of the later gospels were made. People would
have quoted Jesus's writings, providing further evidence that he
wrote something and what he was alleged to have written.

And the Bible, instead of saying, ``Jesus said,'' it would say,
``Jesus wrote.'' And, even if, as has happened with so many
documents, there should be some questions as to which bits and
pieces somebody might have inserted or removed in later copies,
there would nevertheless be no question of its authenticity.

But, like I said, we don't have any of that. Therefore, we can
only conclude that the Jesus of the Bible certainly didn't exist,
and neither did Rabbi Jesus.

Any Jesus who might have existed was just a dumb illiterate
schmuck whose words were so unimpressive that nobody bothered to
write them down for another generation.

Is /that/ the Jesus y'all are trying to prove really existed?

writing with our silcon based CPUs into magnetic bits and bytes - easily
wiped away .. The man taught with His very Being.

The man taught with His very Being.<

Greetings Mr. Goren. Thank you for your post. My comments refuting your
suppositions are inline - enjoy if you can:


Ben Goren wrote:

As I'm sure many of you have noticed, we've been having something
of a running battle between Christians and atheists of late. The
Christians claim overwhelming evidence that Jesus actually
existed. The atheists point out that, no, they don't; what they
/do/ have is a bunch of hearsay mostly dating from a century after
the fact. The earliest any Christian has even tried to claim for a
document is 50 CE, almost a generation after the fact.

If there's but a tenth of the hearsay and written references about other
supposedly real person from ancient times, I bet dolaars to donoughts
you'd
be stating emphatically that they existed beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Amongst all the speculation, some of us atheists have pointed out
that many pieces of evidence of Jesus which absolutely must exist,
if he were real, actually don't. Josephus is a great example: he
gave whole pages to petty thieves and covered just about everybody
in the whole period and the whole area, but is perfectly
silent when it comes to Jesus. Similarly, no other first century
historian mentions Jesus, we don't have the records of the trial
or execution, no Roman spies made mention of any rabble rousers
fitting his description, and so on.

The world's a big place. Yet there are countless writings on Jesus , canon
and gnostic etc.

And then it hit me. We don't even have anything that Jesus himself
wrote.

There are two extremes one can take on the question. The first is
that the literal claims of the Bible are substantially true. Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was born to the Virgin Mary,
was baptized by John, performed many wondrous miracles for
thousands of witnesses, preached famous sermons to crowds of
people, was tried by Pontias Pilate, was found innocent but still
ordered executed anyway at the insistence of the local priesthood,
was crucified by Roman soldiers, was entombed, rose bodily from
the dead a few days later, continued his ministry for a while, and
finally rose bodily to Heaven where he resides to this day at the
right hand of God his Father.

The other extreme is that there was a first century Rabbi, name of
Jesus, who had some novel and inspirational sermons and, after
his death, later generations built the Jesus myth around his
teachings.

They would have had to have worked quickly. The evidence that many of
these
gnostic and Gospel books were written only a few years after his ministry
is
mounting.

If we consider the first extreme, we can only assume that Jesus
was literate. His Father, after all, personally carved the Ten
Commandments in stone and handed them to Moses. Jesus, being
the bodily incarnation of the universe's only omnipotent and
omniscient being, would have been more than capable of writing
down accurate versions of his sermons, in stone or even steel, to
ensure that later generations would have no doubt about what he
taught. That he did not do so is proof positive that he did not
wish his teachings to be accurately taught to later generations,
preferring instead the confusion we're faced with today.

The Father is omnipotent - the Son humbled Himself.

If we consider the other extreme, we, again, can only assume that
Jesus was literate, for the simple reason that all Rabbis were
literate. To suggest that Jesus wasn't literate, in the first
society where everybody who was anybody was literate, is to
suggest that he truly was a nobody. Even the last vestiges of
salience vanish from such a Jesus, for we're left with no more
semblance between the Bible and reality than but a mere name.

So, let us assume that Jesus was at least literate. Once again,
such a man /must/ have written down his grand new philosophy, for
the exact same reason that any philosopher ever has: so that he
will live on, through his words, after his death.

And, yet, there isn't even a mention in the Bible of Jesus ever
even picking up a pen. No Christian even dreams of suggesting that
Jesus was the author of anything in the Bible, and none has yet
thought to suggest that Jesus actually did write something but
that it's been lost to the ages.

No, but it is recorded that He wrote in sand - we do much the same today
writing with our silcon based CPUs into magnetic bits and bytes - easily
wiped away .. The man taught with His very Being.

Any who did would be laughed at, of course. If Jesus was real, if
he was a respected preacher (even if respected only by a
small following), his writings would have been most closely
guarded. Many copies would have been made, for the exact same
reason many copies of the later gospels were made. People would
have quoted Jesus's writings, providing further evidence that he
wrote something and what he was alleged to have written.

Assumption and speculation. You assume because he was "a respected
preacher"
the creation of copious writings on His part. But He what if He wasnt'
just
a preacher ..

And the Bible, instead of saying, ``Jesus said,'' it would say,
``Jesus wrote.'' And, even if, as has happened with so many
documents, there should be some questions as to which bits and
pieces somebody might have inserted or removed in later copies,
there would nevertheless be no question of its authenticity.

Yada .. yada

But, like I said, we don't have any of that. Therefore, we can
only conclude that the Jesus of the Bible certainly didn't exist,
and neither did Rabbi Jesus.

You're not being scientific. A good scientist never would "only conclude"
anything - at best a good scientist uses findings to (re)formulate an
hypothesis.

Any Jesus who might have existed was just a dumb illiterate
schmuck whose words were so unimpressive that nobody bothered to
write them down for another generation.

We've already shown that Jesus could write. You haven't even read the
Gospels lately have you? Read the very beginning of Luke, his prolugue:

"Seeing that many others have undertaken to draw up accounts of the events
that have taken place among us ..."

Is /that/ the Jesus y'all are trying to prove really existed?

If there were but a tenth of ancient literal references to anyone other
person from ancient times as there are to Jesus, you be stating
uncategorically and with certainty that they existed beyond a doubt.

Cheers,

b&

--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.

Without God there's be no sentence.

No, but it is recorded that He wrote in sand - we do much the same today
writing with our silcon based CPUs into magnetic bits and bytes - easily
wiped away .. The man taught with His very Being.