A draw? BOO! I WANT BLOOD!

can you explain this text tradition, I'm not quite sure what you mean ?

I think what i'm sayign is that within 100-150 years of the person dying I think is reliable data, because it dosent leave room for people to make up legends about such things. If they had, they quickly would have been called out because the events are still somewhat fresh in people's memories. Now there are a dozen accounts during that time period and if you consider that the Jews really didn't like this idea of Jesus, any account that was false about him would have been attacked thoroughly by Jewish Pharises and Sadduces, and would haev been taken as a hoax.

This was my point about JFK. That because his death is still somewhat recent, no one can really dispute the concrete historical facts of his life. If anyone did, we coudl quickly know if it was a hoax or not.

An original text rarely survives, but very often, copies are made of it. Until 1500 there was no other way then to just copy texts by hand. In this process, there were always changes made, either deliberatly (sometimes copyers made changes to things that fitted them better) or by accident. a good text tradition implies you either have the original text or have a good idea of how it must have looked like (by using different copies).
When you just have some copy of a source, you can never be sure wether this is the original text, and thus your info is flawed. A copyer, defenatly when he felt connected to the subject (wich is always the case in religion), can always make changes to provide proof or whatever...

A good text tradition, and thus a good knowledge of how the original text was like, is thus most important when you discuss the content of it.. Without it, your source is useless..

"I think what i'm sayign is that within 100-150 years of the person dying I think is reliable data, because it dosent leave room for people to make up legends about such things. If they had, they quickly would have been called out because the events are still somewhat fresh in people's memories. Now there are a dozen accounts during that time period and if you consider that the Jews really didn't like this idea of Jesus, any account that was false about him would have been attacked thoroughly by Jewish Pharises and Sadduces, and would haev been taken as a hoax."

That's a seriously dangerous statement. I could name you thousands of examples of people being turned into legends just after their death, or even while they were still alive
Reliable data doesn't exist either. Every way of communication is selective and deforms the reality. Minds deform things as well, it's a well-known fact that your mind only remembers what you found important, and that little bits are forgotten and "patched" with little made up facts. This is an automatic process, you can't control it..
Another thing, I wouldn't go as far as calling them "the Jews" as a single monolithic group, and I wouldn't defenatly conclude that sources were or weren't attacked, you can only guess... Especially if you say that they really didn't like him, they can as well make things up to make him look like a sorcerer or whatever..

To summarize: we have 2 sources that weren't directly involved into the whole situation, and they mention a Jesus, how he was killed and that he inspired people (wich explains the political trouble of that region in that time.  That's where historical facts end about the man. When you go further, you can assume things, but they're not facts..
And this is where I reconciliate with Deci's statement: "there's no historical evidence of one jesus performing the things described in the bible. it's very common for religious people to shout "jesus was a historical person" and intentionally disregard that he was most likely many historical persons."

TYMO, stop spamming X(

How is the discussion anti-religious?

That doesn't answer the question.

I tihnk it is very unlikely that a legend could happen with so many people already opposed to the existence of the person. Anything created out as a myth within the first 150 years would have been strongly opposed by those said people. Since they were strongly to discredit this "movement" in this the first century.
The problem isnt that legends can form, the problem is that in this specific case, the legend would have trouble rooting due to huge opposition that would quickly strike down things as false.
And I would only call that specific group, because it is commonly known that the 1st generation of Christians were being hounded by Jews because they thought this movement was blaspheme. (We can understand this by early letters written from churches., among other sources)

Fokker: Forgive my spelling lol, it isnt what it once was

TYMO: Your zeal is examplary, but if WFS has honest concerns, he should feel free to express them.

WFS, here is the 100% truth of the matter.

I've seen and been involved in rather tangible things that make it 100% impossible for me not to believe.  However, you'd never believe me if I told you - if you'd like, I can, but I fully anticipate ridicule and disbelief

That said, I have a question for you that doesn't develop this any further, I'm just curious.  If you could have the truth - 100% know for sure exactly what this was all about, would you really want it?  If it wasn't what you believed, would you accept it?
I guess I'm asking - are you really out there searching for the right answer, or do you have your viewpoint and everything you do is about securing it as being right?

Just curious there, I was thinking about that on my own the other day, and thought it would be an interesting question.

ridiculous things often draw ridicule, don't they, windowsME?

"I've seen and been involved in rather tangible things that make it 100% impossible for me not to believe.  However, you'd never believe me if I told you - if you'd like, I can, but I fully anticipate ridicule and disbelief tongue"

But in the end, it wouldn't matter, would it? If we're talking about some lad like Jesus, whose followers changed the course of history, it's a whole other thing.

"That said, I have a question for you that doesn't develop this any further, I'm just curious.  If you could have the truth - 100% know for sure exactly what this was all about, would you really want it?  If it wasn't what you believed, would you accept it?
I guess I'm asking - are you really out there searching for the right answer, or do you have your viewpoint and everything you do is about securing it as being right?"

Yes, I have no problem with a Jesus really performing miracles, or anyone else for that matter. All I'm saying is that there's no historical proof of a single act Jesus did in his life, apart from dieing on the cross. We also know he inspired people.. I don't really see where the bloody problem is that he most likely never did a single miracle. And I just can't understand why no one can accept that. Jesus' message to humanity remains the same without the whole hocus pocus....
As I said before, Christianity should be researching how it can coexist and complete together with science, rather then competing with science. I'm an atheist, and I'm not urging you to become one, but I think christians would benefit from that..

lol I often wonder why ppl feel that science is more valid than religion. Until you know something, you'll never know anything. Science and religion are nothing different really. Just different opinions and beliefs. You can't prove love exists yet we all feel the joys and pain of it. You can't prove that jesus did or didn't perform miracles. Not to mention that nobody can really say someone is wrong about anything unless they see what the other person saw for themself. And even then, who is to say that what you saw is what you saw?