Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56

Thread: Was Jesus a real person?

  1. #1 Was Jesus a real person? 
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Was Jesus a real person?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    It depends on who you ask!


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    What f I ask you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    as far as i’m aware, Jesus is not mentioned in any near-contemporary source other than the bible
    so it’s a matter whether you consider the bible a reliable source of historical fact
    personally I think there’s too many items that point to something written by someone a lifetime removed from the facts it purports to describe with all the foibles of what memory does to events of a long time ago

    so imo the answer is that there’s no reliable evidence of a Jesus as described in the bible
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Was Jesus a real person?
    As Marnix said, it depends on whether you consider the Bible a valid source. I don't believe the Bible is a valid historical source, so I am inclined to not believe in the existence of Jesus.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Was Jesus a real person?
    As Marnix said, it depends on whether you consider the Bible a valid source. I don't believe the Bible is a valid historical source, so I am inclined to not believe in the existence of Jesus.
    Yes but the bible is a 'mix' of stories from different authors. The stories of Paul are supposed to contain his words...but he never mentions nazareth or Bethlehem. The gospels tell nearly everything of Jesus and Luke/Matthew/Mark/John are the assumed authors yet those names were added later. The gospels are written in great detail yet at least 40 years after Jesus. Such detail could only be written by eye witnesses, not decades later. The stories concerning Jesus's birth in Bethlehem are impossible to contain truth since there was no one to write stuff down since Jesus did not have any followers when he was born...

    Many irreligious people believe Jesus was a real dude(except for the miracles of course)...people invent evidence.
    Even Richard Dawkins believes he was real...it's frightening.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5EjA-JNiVk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Such detail could only be written by eye witnesses
    Exactly. That's how we know that Smaug was a real dragon.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,003
    My opinion: Jesus was a real person. The events concerning his birth were probably all made up. The bare facts of his adulthood (baring miracles) were probably more or less true


    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    The gospels are written in great detail yet at least 40 years after Jesus. Such detail could only be written by eye witnesses, not decades later.
    Well it could be written decades later if it's all made up bullshit. Which is what I'm willing to bet most of it is. It's basically just a collaboration between fiction writers, it would be like Stephen King, Peter Straub, Dean Koontz, and James Patterson all working together on a book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Many irreligious people believe Jesus was a real dude(except for the miracles of course)...people invent evidence.
    I see this sort of thing and I think its's mainly just a concession to the religious people to keep them from outright lynching the nonbelievers. We atheists already get such a bad reputation from the religious crowd that many are willing to say things like that "Jesus was probably a real dude just not god" in order to save a little face. Alternately it also saves us the annoyance of having to debate Jesus's existence with believers when we already are debating the existence of God in general.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    For Jesus to be a real person he needed a human father and mother as 50% of genes are from father and 50% from mother. But he didn't have a human father, so no contest.
    Take a read of this from Bible Myths by Thomas Doane.

    The Project Gutenberg eBook of Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, by Thomas William Doane.
    Go to the conclusion on page 508.

    The actual Jesus is inaccessible to scientific research. His image cannot be recovered. He left no memorial in writing of himself; his followers were illiterate; the mind of his age was confused. Paul received only traditions of him, how definite we have no means of knowing, apparently not significant enough to be treasured, nor consistent enough to oppose a barrier to his own speculations.
    There probably was a man the Jesus myth was based around. Many candidates include Yeshua ben Joseph.

    I think God prefers atheists; at least they don't keep bothering him all the time. (Dave Allen)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Maybe the gospelwriters rather wrote it to teach 'morality', without caring for whether it was fiction or not.

    Religion improves social/group cohesion (many studies show this) they found religious behavior in animals
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...ior_in_animals and they found evidence for ritual burials of, homo sapiens/neanderthalis and they found evidence for 70.000 year old ritual practices in Africa. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-a-stone-snak/

    So it looks like religion is an evolutionary trait. This might give a better insight as to why they wrote the gospels.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Religion improves social/group cohesion (many studies show this) they found religious behavior in animals
    Studies by theologians may find this. Scientists find genes for altruism.

    So it looks like religion is an evolutionary trait.
    It does not evolve. It is only reinterpreted for the times.

    This might give a better insight as to why they wrote the gospels.
    The reason for the gospels is because people thought they were living in last times and ancient myths needed reworking.
    St. Paul was the founder of Christianity. Had it not been for him the gospels would have been lost texts.
    Many gospels were conveniently left out of the Bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Studies that show religion improves social cohesion: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/
    The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality | Science
    Overcoming Bias : Religious Cohesion
    Wiki about religious behavior in animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...ior_in_animals

    Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes, humans...It leads to evolutionary succes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Subject changed. It isn't even Trash.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    I rather like the OPs argument here, that religion is a behavior as an evolutionary heuristic. That would imply that religion can exist without any Devine or deistic input. Further that with some alternative environment or set of selection pressures religion wouldn’t exist at all.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I rather like the OPs argument here, that religion is a behavior as an evolutionary heuristic. That would imply that religion can exist without any Devine or deistic input. Further that with some alternative environment or set of selection pressures religion wouldn’t exist at all.
    True and for this it's in a sense normal people wrote religious fictional stories...which led to the origin of Christianity.

    Some of the stories were probably based on real persons but the entirety of the gospels and the bible for that matter are imo fictional religious stories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    The gospels are written in great detail yet at least 40 years after Jesus. Such detail could only be written by eye witnesses, not decades later.
    maybe so, or maybe not - thereís fictional historical novels that contain just as much detail
    + the individual donít exactly support each other, which appears rathe4 suspicious
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    Guignebert, Chair of the history of Christianity in the Sorbonne says in his book "Jesus" that we can know nothing historically reliable of the teachings, personality or even the existence of Jesus from historically reliable sources. Virtually all of the gospels even pre canonical sources can be traced to fiction, apologia, redaction, and earlier pagan traditions. Historians term a group of hypothetical sources of the 4 gospels from the hypothetical "books" (early sources) under the terms "Q" and "Urmarcus". In fact even the earliest known traditional teachings of "Jesus" would have been incomprehensible to Palestinian Jews of the time. Early Christianity could very well have been a group of people joined by some unknown reason, bar patrons for example, who later invented the person, and teachings, of the traditional Jesus. Even then most of the early traditions were disposed of as heresy for obvious political reasons by the later church. In fact later teachings of the church declared that the traditional Jesus, fictitious though they were, had to be destroyed to make way for their "glorified" Christ.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,008
    Was Jesus real? Don't know. Just don't believe all the god stuff, and to me, the Bible is a fictional book written by men.

    I do like the point made about his birth....that rather cracked me up.


    Great to see read you again Marnix!

    and of course the rest of you and Sir Ducky!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    The gospels are written in great detail yet at least 40 years after Jesus. Such detail could only be written by eye witnesses, not decades later.
    maybe so, or maybe not - there’s fictional historical novels that contain just as much detail
    + the individual don’t exactly support each other, which appears rathe4 suspicious
    True but I mean such detail is very unlikely to be orally transmitted for decades until it was written down. Which means they made most of it up. And it doesn't make sense it was written down decades later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,279
    If people are just making stuff up, they can do that anytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    And it doesn't make sense it was written down decades later.
    why not ? to the best of my knowledge the scriptures were written down 30 to 40 years after the events by people who hadnít known Jesus in person but had to rely on oral transmission from people who presumably had - and thereís the rub : we donít know who those people were and what process this oral transmission followed, so canít judge whether the original source was a valid one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Robbedoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    And it doesn't make sense it was written down decades later.
    why not ? to the best of my knowledge the scriptures were written down 30 to 40 years after the events by people who hadn’t known Jesus in person but had to rely on oral transmission from people who presumably had - and there’s the rub : we don’t know who those people were and what process this oral transmission followed, so can’t judge whether the original source was a valid one
    Ok, I mean it's another reason to believe he was not a real person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,003
    The main reason to believe Jesus existed is that making up all these stories based on nothing seems unlikely. However the details seem definitely embroided.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    very often the so-called facts were retro-fitted to make it look like a prophecy from the old testament was being fulfilled
    i don't have any problem with the possibility that someone is making up stories to acquire some sort of legitimacy from earlier religious sources
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    Virtually all of the gospels even pre canonical sources can be traced to fiction, apologia, redaction, and earlier pagan traditions.
    Correct.
    I can never pass a church without thinking it to be based on a myth - the myth of Jesus. The only proof Christians have of Jesus is in the NT, which is no proof at all. He was a character invented to fulfil a prophecy made 800 years earlier in Isaiah.
    So that's all Jesus is, the fictional fulfilment of a prophecy.
    Why do you suppose so many different types of church exist? It would be easy to debunk just one. One of the reasons Christianity got lucky was that you can interpret the 780,000 or so words of the Bible in just about any way possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    28
    There is no historical record of the existence of Jesus. His alleged birth 25th/12/0000 is it appears based on sun worship. Emperor Constantine founded the Christian Church in 325 AD at the council of Nacea, whereby various mythical or otherwise stories were rejected, to try to come up with a uniform belief system. Constantine was into Sun worship, not son worship as were a lot of other none christian types. Constantine combined all the separate religions of the day under one umbrella, and made that religion the recognized religion of Rome, the dates of religious festivals are based on sun worship. The alleged crucifiction of Jesus would have been no big deal, as crucifiction was popular back in the day prior to the council of Nacea. Shortly after 325AD crucifiction was banned in respect of Jesus, in favour of other ways of killing people who disagreed with the then failing Roman empire. These included such things as poring molten lead down peoples throats.

    Religion is in my opinion a tool for controlling people. It can be used to make people feel good about there actions good or bad, it can be invoked in time of war, or even to seperate social groups.

    Dawkings concept of memes whereby religion is like a virus in peoples minds is most likely correct. A Christian, Muslim etc imprinted at birth with a religious virus, can be infected for life unless they are removed from the group that gave them that belief.

    I also suspect that Genesis and Big Bang Singularities are both based on the fairies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,045
    You were doimg well until that last line, where you go total woo
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    You were doimg well until that last line, where you go total woo
    Discussing fairy stories without pointing out they might be make believe is politically acceptable by some that believe in woo woo, like the stories in genesis or the original BB theory which has now moved on.

    The whole point of any belief system is to control opinions of groups who talk woo woo as if it is fact. The Romans understood this, and most likely why they created christianity from the range of religions extant at the time.

    Woo Woo

    Edit a link on crucifiction https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27245852. Apparently still practiced today even though Constantine banned it.
    Last edited by WilliamA; January 29th, 2019 at 02:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,045
    Please keep your misunderstanding of the big bang theory (hint:it's not a story) out of the religion forum.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Please keep your misunderstanding of the big bang theory (hint:it's not a story) out of the religion forum.
    lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,083
    lol troll
    fify
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamA View Post
    Dawkings concept of memes whereby religion is like a virus in peoples minds is most likely correct. A Christian, Muslim etc imprinted at birth with a religious virus, can be infected for life unless they are removed from the group that gave them that belief.
    What would you say is the unit of a meme and how can it be measured?

    I also suspect that Genesis and Big Bang Singularities are both based on the fairies.
    Which fairies are these, any in particular?

    Theists might say that God and the universe are infinite. God started the Big Bang and the rapid expansion. Seeing that the universe was just radiation he invented the Higgs field to provide mass, and so on.
    Don't you see any Christian interpretation is just nonsense?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    The context in which the people of Christianity arose is reflected in the gospels. There is an early gospel that reflects a people rejected and oppressed. Later gospel reflects a people resisting oppression.Gospel written later still reflects a people who had assimilated.

    The early Christians in Europe were not distinguished from Jews. They were part of the same community. The Jews assimilated sooner than Christians, and began to be distinguished from them.

    The rationale for the oppression was not merely that they were outsiders, and immigrants. There were a lot of outsiders and immigrants moving around in Europe. But they had one thing in common. They were migrating to find a better life in a fallen society. Really badly fallen. Like the city of Rome went from a high in population of 1,000,000 people to a low of 30, 000. That would be as if every one on your block left except you. Looking like "last Man On Earth". The "Roman Empire" that rose up from that was not the Roman Empire of Julius Caesar. The Jews/Christians came from a part of the world that had not fallen. They tended to be educated, and they came with gold. They were seen as using the gold exploitatively. Europe was raising itself up from a bad fall. Money, gold, is a very useful organizational convenience in doing that. But too much money in the system, like counterfeit, has bad effects on the economy. Also money can give economic, and political power to people who did not earn it. So there were laws passed to prevent the participation of the Jews in the economic, and political life, and recovery, of Europe. The Jews, and Christians wrote their experience in their cultural, and religious teachings. The narratives can be easily interpreted as a "pulling one's self up against oppression" while at the same time assimilating into the culture of the oppressor. That was seen by Constantine as a very seductive narrative. It holds out the promise of reward for compliance with the exploitation by the powers that be (render unto Caesar), and t the same time as urging hard work to "pull your self up" against the resistance of the powers that be. All good things for the powers that be to get maximal performance from those exploited by the powers that be.

    So in answer to the question "why would they invent those stories?" The answer is "Duh".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    The context in which the people of Christianity arose is reflected in the gospels. There is an early gospel that reflects a people rejected and oppressed. Later gospel reflects a people resisting oppression.Gospel written later still reflects a people who had assimilated.
    Why haven't you named these gospels?

    The rationale for the oppression was not merely that they were outsiders, and immigrants. There were a lot of outsiders and immigrants moving around in Europe. But they had one thing in common. They were migrating to find a better life in a fallen society.
    Just as I suspected. We've waited a long time for a new Messiah.
    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...nt/2727530002/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    lol troll /
    fify
    Bless you
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    duplicate post
    Last edited by doitright; February 2nd, 2019 at 02:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    There is an early gospel that reflects a people rejected and oppressed. Later gospel reflects a people resisting oppression.Gospel written later still reflects a people who had assimilated.
    Why haven't you named these gospels?
    Because, as I wrote in a previous post, the gospels commonly referred to by name are not historical. The named gospels are a mish mash of of fabrication, redaction, apologia, earlier papers, letters, pagan traditions, and partially lost sources. All of those sources are called gospel sources because they are the sources of the named gospels but are not named gospels. There is also a lot of sources for the history of those people that are not just what those people wrote in the sources of their own gospels. Just as there is a lot of history of the world, including christians, that was not written by or about christians.
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    The rationale for the oppression was not merely that they were outsiders, and immigrants. There were a lot of outsiders and immigrants moving around in Europe. But they had one thing in common. They were migrating to find a better life in a fallen society.
    Just as I suspected. We've waited a long time for a new Messiah.
    https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...nt/2727530002/
    Is the word immigration a hot button word for you?
    Last edited by doitright; February 1st, 2019 at 12:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,008
    Bible = Grimm's Fairy Tales for people who need a good religious story....filled with blood, betrayment, incest, cheating partners.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    Because, as I wrote in a previous post, the gospels commonly referred to by name are not historical. The named gospels are a mish mash of of fabrication, redaction, apologia, earlier papers, letters, pagan traditions, and partially lost sources. All of those sources are called gospel sources because they are the sources of the named gospels but are not named gospels. There is also a lot of sources for the history of those people that are not just what those people wrote in the sources of their own gospels. Just as there is a lot of history of the world, including christians, that was not written by or about christians.
    Not sure what we're arguing about here.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour...icity_of_Jesus
    Does Bart Ehrman exist? Never seen him. I've seen Bart Simpson, but he doesn't exist. You can never be quite sure of anything in the present let alone in antiquity. It's all a matter of interpretation and that horrible word 'faith'. You could be a robot for all I know.

    Is the word immigration a hot button word for you?
    My family name suggests I have ancestors from Denmark. No idea who they were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Bible = Grimm's Fairy Tales for people who need a good religious story....filled with blood, betrayment, incest, cheating partners.....
    You can read some of the Bible and some of the Grimm's tales to kids, but the not the scary stories that were removed.

    Example: "Rapunzel is impregnated by her prince, the evil queen in Snow White is the princess’s biological mother, plotting to murder her own child, and a hungry mother in another story is so “unhinged and desperate” that she tells her daughters: “I’ve got to kill you so I can have something to eat.”

    You can tell them that Jesus was God's perfect little son. But don't mention where he wanted his enemies brought before him and slain, or when he cursed a fig tree, or when he sent animals to drown in the river.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    Because, as I wrote in a previous post, the gospels commonly referred to by name are not historical. The named gospels are a mish mash of of fabrication, redaction, apologia, earlier papers, letters, pagan traditions, and partially lost sources. All of those sources are called gospel sources because they are the sources of the named gospels but are not named gospels. There is also a lot of sources for the history of those people that are not just what those people wrote in the sources of their own gospels. Just as there is a lot of history of the world, including christians, that was not written by or about christians.
    Not sure what we're arguing about here.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour...icity_of_Jesus
    Does Bart Ehrman exist? Never seen him. I've seen Bart Simpson, but he doesn't exist. You can never be quite sure of anything in the present let alone in antiquity. It's all a matter of interpretation and that horrible word 'faith'. You could be a robot for all I know.

    Is the word immigration a hot button word for you?
    My family name suggests I have ancestors from Denmark. No idea who they were.
    I don't know what you are arguing but that's the same lying sophistry as anti evolution, anti science, holocaust denial, lunar hoax, conspiracy theory, and religious right, Donald Trump BS. That is to say those who think lying sophistry is convincing. It isn't.

    Also that link is an obvious christian misrepresentation of historian thought on the matter it mentions. The matter Of which Josephus wrote was not an authentication of the existence of Jesus, or the baptism, or crucifixion. It was authentication that the early Christians, and Jews taught those fabrications as part of their culture. That they are fabrications is know from many other sources. Just a simple example. Crucifixion was a penalty known historically to only to have been imposed for rebellious slaves. Spartacus and his men in the second servile war, for example. Why is that known so well? Because Romans wrote a lot about their laws to convince the people they conquered that the law would be imposed fairly with the penalty suiting the crime. Cutting off the hand for stealing, death for murder, beheading, and dismemberment for treason, beating with sticks for lesser crimes. Penalties still used in many places where Roman laws were retained from antiquity particularly the eastern Roman empire which did not fall as Rome did. The standard leading the head of all their armies was a symbol of the fairness of their justice. It was an ax representing death stuck in a bundle of sticks for lesser crimes.

    How do you "test" the validity of your thought? Pray on it? That's another piece of sophistry the religious right is taught. To claim they know the truth of the bible because they "tested" it. When asked how they "tested" it by those smart enough to not be convinced by obvious lies, and claims of unknown testing, they just say they prayed on it.
    Last edited by doitright; February 2nd, 2019 at 11:38 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by doitright View Post
    I don't know what you are arguing but that's the same lying sophistry as anti evolution, anti science, holocaust denial, lunar hoax, conspiracy theory, and religious right, Donald Trump BS. That is to say those who think lying sophistry is convincing. It isn't.
    If you are you saying I'm a lying liar, then you are muddled.

    The matter Of which Josephus wrote was not an authentication of the existence of Jesus
    Josephus didn't write it. It's an interpolation.

    How do you "test" the validity of your thought? Pray on it? That's another piece of sophistry the religious right is taught. To claim they know the truth of the bible because they "tested" it. When asked how they "tested" it by those smart enough to not be convinced by obvious lies, and claims of unknown testing, they just say they prayed on it.
    As no evidence has ever been presented for prayer, I rely on reason.

    The subject is 'Was Jesus a real person'? There should be no doubt about this. As he did not have a biological father then could not have been.
    A real person has a biological parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on, going right back to when he was a fish.

    (Oh, shit. Did someone say Jesus was a fish).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post

    As no evidence has ever been presented for prayer, I rely on reason.


    No. You rely on sophistry.
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The subject is 'Was Jesus a real person'? There should be no doubt about this.
    The standard you apply to doubting intelligent evidence convincing to science is infinite. You don't apply that standard of doubt to your sophistry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    as far as i’m aware, Jesus is not mentioned in any near-contemporary source other than the bible
    so it’s a matter whether you consider the bible a reliable source of historical fact
    personally I think there’s too many items that point to something written by someone a lifetime removed from the facts it purports to describe with all the foibles of what memory does to events of a long time ago

    so imo the answer is that there’s no reliable evidence of a Jesus as described in the bible
    What are your sources that support that the Bible stories about Jesus being written after Jesus allegedly walked the Earth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    as far as iím aware, Jesus is not mentioned in any near-contemporary source other than the bible
    so itís a matter whether you consider the bible a reliable source of historical fact
    personally I think thereís too many items that point to something written by someone a lifetime removed from the facts it purports to describe with all the foibles of what memory does to events of a long time ago

    so imo the answer is that thereís no reliable evidence of a Jesus as described in the bible
    What are your sources that support that the Bible stories about Jesus being written after Jesus allegedly walked the Earth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    It seems the site initiates a double post at times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbedoes View Post
    Was Jesus a real person?
    As Marnix said, it depends on whether you consider the Bible a valid source. I don't believe the Bible is a valid historical source, so I am inclined to not believe in the existence of Jesus.
    What evidence has convinced you that the Bible is not a valid historical source? For me I would test to see if Bible stories match up with archaeological or anthropological research but I am not sure if that had been done successfully yet. We may never know fact from fiction for sure when it comes to the Bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,045
    They dont match though, matt. No contemporary civilization of the time records the events that are purported in the bible.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    as far as iím aware, Jesus is not mentioned in any near-contemporary source other than the bible
    so itís a matter whether you consider the bible a reliable source of historical fact
    personally I think thereís too many items that point to something written by someone a lifetime removed from the facts it purports to describe with all the foibles of what memory does to events of a long time ago

    so imo the answer is that thereís no reliable evidence of a Jesus as described in the bible
    What are your sources that support that the Bible stories about Jesus being written after Jesus allegedly walked the Earth?
    my point being that i don't know of any sources in support of anything that confirms the bible's account - that leaves the bible as a single data point, which weakens its authority
    that last statement is a matter of pure logic on probability in scientific thinking and imo does not require any source to back it up
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,008
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Bible = Grimm's Fairy Tales for people who need a good religious story....filled with blood, betrayment, incest, cheating partners.....
    You can read some of the Bible and some of the Grimm's tales to kids, but the not the scary stories that were removed.

    Example: "Rapunzel is impregnated by her prince, the evil queen in Snow White is the princess’s biological mother, plotting to murder her own child, and a hungry mother in another story is so “unhinged and desperate” that she tells her daughters: “I’ve got to kill you so I can have something to eat.”

    You can tell them that Jesus was God's perfect little son. But don't mention where he wanted his enemies brought before him and slain, or when he cursed a fig tree, or when he sent animals to drown in the river.

    HILARIOUS! Oh my dear LOL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,008
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Bible = Grimm's Fairy Tales for people who need a good religious story....filled with blood, betrayment, incest, cheating partners.....
    You can read some of the Bible and some of the Grimm's tales to kids, but the not the scary stories that were removed.

    Example: "Rapunzel is impregnated by her prince, the evil queen in Snow White is the princess’s biological mother, plotting to murder her own child, and a hungry mother in another story is so “unhinged and desperate” that she tells her daughters: “I’ve got to kill you so I can have something to eat.”

    You can tell them that Jesus was God's perfect little son. But don't mention where he wanted his enemies brought before him and slain, or when he cursed a fig tree, or when he sent animals to drown in the river.

    HILARIOUS! Oh my dear LOL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    They dont match though, matt. No contemporary civilization of the time records the events that are purported in the bible.
    Thanks for the information. I was curious if any of the Bible was supported by any archaeological or anthropological evidence or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    as far as iím aware, Jesus is not mentioned in any near-contemporary source other than the bible
    so itís a matter whether you consider the bible a reliable source of historical fact
    personally I think thereís too many items that point to something written by someone a lifetime removed from the facts it purports to describe with all the foibles of what memory does to events of a long time ago

    so imo the answer is that thereís no reliable evidence of a Jesus as described in the bible
    What are your sources that support that the Bible stories about Jesus being written after Jesus allegedly walked the Earth?
    my point being that i don't know of any sources in support of anything that confirms the bible's account - that leaves the bible as a single data point, which weakens its authority
    that last statement is a matter of pure logic on probability in scientific thinking and imo does not require any source to back it up
    Good point. If the stories in the bible do not have any outside support how can you scientifically validate them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,045
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    They dont match though, matt. No contemporary civilization of the time records the events that are purported in the bible.
    Thanks for the information. I was curious if any of the Bible was supported by any archaeological or anthropological evidence or not.
    As I noted, the anthropological evidence (eg all other civilizations of the time) show no evidence at all of any biblical stories.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    my point being that i don't know of any sources in support of anything that confirms the bible's account - that leaves the bible as a single data point, which weakens its authority
    that last statement is a matter of pure logic on probability in scientific thinking and imo does not require any source to back it up
    Good point. If the stories in the bible do not have any outside support how can you scientifically validate them?
    Ummmmm, your own post should give you that answer, the biblical assertions are invalidated by the lack of out side support.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    13,008
    Even though brought up initially as Catholic, school et al, then parents became ordained Pentecostal's, I find all the organized cults known as "churches" to be franky delusional cults. Marnix said it best
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor mmatt9876's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    They dont match though, matt. No contemporary civilization of the time records the events that are purported in the bible.
    Thanks for the information. I was curious if any of the Bible was supported by any archaeological or anthropological evidence or not.
    As I noted, the anthropological evidence (eg all other civilizations of the time) show no evidence at all of any biblical stories.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mmatt9876 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    my point being that i don't know of any sources in support of anything that confirms the bible's account - that leaves the bible as a single data point, which weakens its authority
    that last statement is a matter of pure logic on probability in scientific thinking and imo does not require any source to back it up
    Good point. If the stories in the bible do not have any outside support how can you scientifically validate them?
    Ummmmm, your own post should give you that answer, the biblical assertions are invalidated by the lack of out side support.
    Sorry. I may have phrased that post badly. I was not asking a question but rather making the point in the form of a question that you cannot validate something without evidence. Maybe I should have ended my point with a period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman Tomeoneil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    50
    According to Pliny and Tacitus Jesus existed without the New Testament as a reference.

    From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomeoneil View Post
    According to Pliny and Tacitus Jesus existed without the New Testament as a reference.

    From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
    could do with a source here, especially for the Tacitus quote, so I can look it up
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman Tomeoneil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    50
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Christians are devious in their interpretations. but mention Philo and they will want to change the subject.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomeoneil View Post
    I see - I would have preferred the original Tacitus quote, but I suppose the Guardian will have to do for the time being until I have time to dig a little deeper
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    hereís the passage in Wikipedia which explains where Tacitus gives the earliest ever mention of Jesus Christ in a non-biblical context

    Tacitus on Christ
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Just like the gospel writers, whoever they were, Tacitus had never met Jesus. He was born in 56 or 57 CE.
    He was relying on hearsay or hearsay based on hearsay. More likely the reference was later added. Do you know of an original manuscript containing the reference?
    Beware of apologetics' websites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman Tomeoneil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Just like the gospel writers, whoever they were, Tacitus had never met Jesus. He was born in 56 or 57 CE.
    He was relying on hearsay or hearsay based on hearsay. More likely the reference was later added. Do you know of an original manuscript containing the reference?
    Beware of apologetics' websites.
    Here is some proof:

    8. The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ ossuaryJames the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62. A mid first century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears this inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (“Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua”)
    The ossuary has provoked controversy as the inscription was originally suspected of being a forgery. However, two eminent paleogrophers confirmed it authentic in 2012. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”
    https://www.premierchristianity.com/...-New-Testament


    Last edited by Tomeoneil; March 14th, 2019 at 02:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomeoneil View Post
    However, two eminent paleogrophers confirmed it authentic in 2012.

    I find it curious, not to say somewhat significant, that the names of the two eminent palaeographers aren't given.
    Plus we have this: a 2014 study "clearly states that their research and findings "strengthen the contention" that the ossuary is authentic, it does not definitively state" either way.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman Tomeoneil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomeoneil View Post
    However, two eminent paleogrophers confirmed it authentic in 2012.

    I find it curious, not to say somewhat significant, that the names of the two eminent palaeographers aren't given.
    Plus we have this: a 2014 study "clearly states that their research and findings "strengthen the contention" that the ossuary is authentic, it does not definitively state" either way.
    The names are in this quote:

    1. According to expert paleographers (Andre Lemaire and Ada Yardeni) who authenticated (and dated) the inscription based on the shape and stance of the letters, the Aramaic is fully consistent with first-century style and practice. No credible challenge to their findings has yet to be published.
    https://normangeisler.com/the-james-...nd-his-family/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomeoneil View Post
    The names are in this quote:
    The slight problem here is that Lemaire and Yardeni's work dates from 2002 not 2012...

    No credible challenge to their findings has yet to be published
    And yet we have this and this and this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    If there was hard evidence that Jesus the Son of God had existed, then churches would bang every drum.
    It would make headline news all over the world.
    Jesus was not an historical figure. He wrote nothing. We have no bones.
    St. Paul was the real founder of Christianity and hardly discussed him as a person, and made no references to his family.
    We have no original manuscripts of the gospels and we know nothing about the gospel writers. What is most likely is that any texts were forged and redacted.
    Again, if we knew anything at all that could be proven, the churches would be banging every drum and blowing every bugle.
    History gets more unreliable the further you go back in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman Tomeoneil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    50
    What a conundrum when people are presented with scientific evidence who profess science as their guide scoff at it so easily. The phrase "ignorance is bliss", comes to mind, sort of ironic with the duck and ox hmmm.

    Maybe faith in science is easy for these two to disregard! Paleography is a legitimate science.

    @ox
    we have no bones
    which is the whole point about Jesus. He ascended with his body after 10 - 20 days from the resurrection.
    https://coldcasechristianity.com/wri...ide-the-bible/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomeoneil View Post
    What a conundrum when people are presented with scientific evidence who profess science as their guide scoff at it so easily.
    You haven't presented any (irrefutable) scientific evidence.
    As has been noted.

    As for your graphic it should be noted that most (if not all - I can't be bothered to check) of those mention Jesus well after the "fact" and thus are nothing but hearsay or repetition of hearsay.

    He ascended with his body after 10 - 20 days from the resurrection.
    Given that there's no hard evidence that he existed then what you should have written is "He allegedly ascended with his body after 10 - 20 days from the alleged resurrection.".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    He ascended with his body after 10 - 20 days from the resurrection.
    So Jesus ascended bodily, bones and all into Heaven in defiance of the laws of gravity. If you believe that then you are mad.
    Jesus was invented to fulfil a prophecy made 800 years earlier. That's quite a long time. Not 8 years earlier, but 800. Go back from the present to the time of the Crusades.
    Nobody sees into the future. The best you can hope for is a lucky guess, but prophets still make lots of profits for the Church.
    Jesus also comes from the golden age of myth and fable. The Bible is a good example. The myth of the OT and the fable of the NT.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,003
    Based on all the posts, it seems to me that Jesus, with a Jewish following, was a Jew who was crucified. The stories of his birth and his deification were created by later followers. starting with Paul, to develop a new religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Based on all the posts, it seems to me that Jesus, with a Jewish following, was a Jew who was crucified.
    A following of how many Jews? Jews know nothing about Jesus. Crucifixion was probably used by the Romans, but we do not have a list of the victims.

    Remember that history is mostly bunk and religion is even bigger bunk.
    "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there"
    .

    The stories of his birth and his deification were created by later followers. starting with Paul, to develop a new religion.
    A small number of Jews within a sect needed a place within the age of myth and fable. The stories of Jesus are based on many legends of previous saviours from antiquity.
    There is also the possibility that Christianity was a drug inspired cult, similar to Buddhism.
    We'll never know for sure, and unfortunately that doesn't stop people believing in what they want to believe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    I must admit I have always thought Jesus existed as a real person altho', as I became older, I did not accept the version presented in the Bible.
    It is, of course, perfectly possible to be an atheist and believe he was a real historical figure.
    However, it has now become clear to me I have absolutely no idea of the criteria necessary to prove, or disprove, a figure, from the distant past, actually existed and IMO that also applies to one or two individuals who have contributed to this thread.
    Bart D. Ehrman is an academic and scholar of the New Testament. He is now an agnostic, and presents much evidence Jesus did exist.
    You may, or may not, accept his conclusions, but I do agree when he says many of the "mythicists", as he calls them, are primarily "motivated by a desire to denounce religion" rather than devote time to a proper examination of the historical evidence.
    Last edited by Halliday; March 19th, 2019 at 06:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    But Jesus is not an historical figure. We don't know the date of his birth. Nobody recorded the date of his death. He left no letters. He didn't write any of the Bible.
    Ehrman was once a believer but he found too many inconsistencies in the texts, and had trouble reconciling evil and suffering with a benevolent deity. He is now an 'agnostic atheist' (Wiki).
    I don't see why 'mythicists' are there to denounce religion. There are plenty of other reasons why Christianity should be classed as fiction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    For Jesus to be a real person he needed a human father and mother as 50% of genes are from father and 50% from mother. But he didn't have a human father, so no contest.
    Ehrman is an agnostic/ atheist. He is an academic and scholar of the New Testament. However he believes Jesus did exist and presents much evidence to back up his claim.
    His work should be studied carefully and not dismissed, lightly, in a couple of sentences.
    Your argument, above, is nonsense and reminds of the following type of debate:-
    (1) It is said Jesus performed miracles.
    (2) It is not possible to perform miracles.
    (3) Therefore Jesus did not exist.
    Many of your posts do denounce, and make clear a real hostility toward religion. IMO this is the starting point for your unwillingness even to consider there exists evidence for a different take, on this topic, from your own.
    We are arguing about whether Jesus existed and not about the possibility he was a supernatural being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Ehrman is an agnostic/ atheist. He is an academic and scholar of the New Testament. However he believes Jesus did exist and presents much evidence to back up his claim.
    I have dipped into Ehrman in the past and he is a doubter. I don't have access to many of his books, so please outline the reasons why he believes Jesus existed.
    By Jesus I mean the Christ, the incarnated son of the one god of Abraham, and not any other god of antiquity or any person who might have had the relatively common name of Jesus.

    Your argument, above, is nonsense and reminds of the following type of debate:-
    (1) It is said Jesus performed miracles.
    (2) It is not possible to perform miracles.
    (3) Therefore Jesus did not exist.
    More like, given his supernatural powers, why did he bother to curse a fig tree? Why didn't he bring proper cures for disease to benefit the whole of mankind?

    Many of your posts do denounce, and make clear a real hostility toward religion. IMO this is the starting point for your unwillingness even to consider there exists evidence for a different take, on this topic, from your own.
    I still wait for evidence. There is only faith. Supply your evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Ehrman is an agnostic/ atheist. He is an academic and scholar of the New Testament. However he believes Jesus did exist and presents much evidence to back up his claim.
    I have dipped into Ehrman in the past and he is a doubter. I don't have access to many of his books, so please outline the reasons why he believes Jesus existed.
    By Jesus I mean the Christ, the incarnated son of the one god of Abraham, and not any other god of antiquity or any person who might have had the relatively common name of Jesus.

    Your argument, above, is nonsense and reminds of the following type of debate:-
    (1) It is said Jesus performed miracles.
    (2) It is not possible to perform miracles.
    (3) Therefore Jesus did not exist.
    More like, given his supernatural powers, why did he bother to curse a fig tree? Why didn't he bring proper cures for disease to benefit the whole of mankind?

    Many of your posts do denounce, and make clear a real hostility toward religion. IMO this is the starting point for your unwillingness even to consider there exists evidence for a different take, on this topic, from your own.
    I still wait for evidence. There is only faith. Supply your evidence.
    In his 1912 book Ehrman states that whatever else you think about Jesus he certainly did exist!
    If you had, as you say, "dipped" into Ehrman you should have known this.
    He may be a "doubter" but on this matter he believes Jesus was a real historical figure.
    I am far from being an expert in the techniques used to prove some individual, from the past, did exist. I suspect you possess the same "ability".
    Further, I can say I am not very interested in the methods used, but I am aware there are a number of what I would term reputable sources that agree with Ehrman.
    Ehrman believes the figure many, at least in the past, believed was the son of God did exist as a real person.
    I get the impression that, for you, those who accept this view are also saying Jesus was a supernatural being. This is not the case!
    My quarrel with you is not about you opinion, on this matter, but with your dogmatic assertion your own view is the only correct one and that any other is not even worth considering.
    You mention "evidence" required. I would say researchers, such as Ehrmann, believe this evidence exists "beyond reasonable doubt".
    Given the level of proof you demand would, IMO, lead to a situation where the existence of a great many figures, from the past, could well be denied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    In his 1912 book Ehrman states that whatever else you think about Jesus he certainly did exist!
    Are we talking about the same Ehrman?
    The one I am referring to is Bart Ehrman, born in 1955.
    Reveal the title of the book.
    If you had, as you say, "dipped" into Ehrman you should have known this.
    I have occasionally picked up a book of his from library shelves and read chapters. He has written a lot of books.
    He may be a "doubter" but on this matter he believes Jesus was a real historical figure.
    Then Jesus should be a real character from texts on ancient history, brief and probably interpolated references apart.
    Faith would then not be required.
    I am far from being an expert in the techniques used to prove some individual, from the past, did exist. I suspect you possess the same "ability".
    Did the gods of ancient Egypt exist? They even had a trinity (Isis, Osiris and Horus) where Horus was the incarnation. Another trinity existed in Hindustan (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) where Krishna was the incarnation.
    What you believe depends on your location and upbringing more than anything else.
    Further, I can say I am not very interested in the methods used, but I am aware there are a number of what I would term reputable sources that agree with Ehrman.
    Supply these 'reputable sources'.
    Ehrman believes the figure many, at least in the past, believed was the son of God did exist as a real person.
    What many?
    I get the impression that, for you, those who accept this view are also saying Jesus was a supernatural being. This is not the case!
    As far as we know, there is no such thing as the supernatural, only natural laws.
    My quarrel with you is not about you opinion, on this matter, but with your dogmatic assertion your own view is the only correct one and that any other is not even worth considering.
    I'll refer you to a quote by the quantum physicist Hermann Weyl. "Events do not happen. We merely come across them".
    Or, Lewis Carroll. "Say it 3 times and it must be true".
    Even supposing you were able to travel back to the time and place of Jesus. I don't think you'd find a Jesus Christ walking around. Only the mists of time can conjure up this fabricated image.
    You mention "evidence" required. I would say researchers, such as Ehrmann, believe this evidence exists "beyond reasonable doubt".
    Supply these sources.
    Given the level of proof you demand would, IMO, lead to a situation where the existence of a great many figures, from the past, could well be denied.
    At last, we're getting somewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    I typed into Google the question "did Jesus exist?".
    There are a number of sources mentioned there, including Ehrman, giving a positive answer to this question.
    You appear to suggest there are no reputable sources. I believe any work that goes against your own point of view would automatically be dismissed as nonsense.
    We are both atheists!
    To what extent does your atheism colour your view on this topic? IMO it is a significant factor!
    I am still not clear on whether you are of the opinion those who argue Jesus existed must also necessarily believe he was the son of God. I assume you do not accept this idiotic argument.

    A vital difference between us is the fact I do not argue there is 100% certainty Jesus was real, but I come down pretty firmly on the view such an individual did exist.
    You claim the question is settled and you have absolutely no doubts. I can't see any common ground between us.
    Last edited by Halliday; April 1st, 2019 at 07:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    Forgot to mention!
    The 2012 book, by Ehrman, is called "Did Jesus Exist:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth".
    He presents his sources and comes down firmly on the side of the argument favouring the existence of Jesus.
    He attacks those who dismiss this view as myth/ legend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I typed into Google the question "did Jesus exist?". There are a number of sources mentioned there, including Ehrman, giving a positive answer to this question.
    And I'll wager most of them are from Christian sources.
    You appear to suggest there are no reputable sources. I believe any work that goes against your own point of view would automatically be dismissed as nonsense.
    Correct. I was not there to confirm that Jesus existed. Neither was anyone else. That includes St. Paul, the gospel writers, and Bart Ehrman.
    We are both atheists!
    To all gods, or just the one?
    To what extent does your atheism colour your view on this topic? IMO it is a significant factor!
    Atheism usually refers to non belief in the God of Abraham. There are thousands of other gods from antiquity. I cannot state that I am atheist to all gods because I do not know all the details about all the other gods.
    I am still not clear on whether you are of the opinion those who argue Jesus existed must also necessarily believe he was the son of God. I assume you do not accept this idiotic argument.
    Some Christians have believed Jesus existed but did not believe in God. Some believe he was a man, part man part god, others a spirit. That's why there are heresies. There is no consistent argument in Christianity. The largest church (the Catholics) are not even regarded as Christians by many fundamentalists.
    A vital difference between us is the fact I do not argue there is 100% certainty Jesus was real, but I come down pretty firmly on the view such an individual did exist.
    Could have been Yeshua ben Joseph, but that doesn't make him the Christ.
    You claim the question is settled and you have absolutely no doubts. I can't see any common ground between us.
    I always have doubts, especially what is promoted as history.
    The 2012 book, by Ehrman, is called "Did Jesus Exist:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth".
    Ah, so the 1912 book is actually the 2012 book!
    He presents his sources and comes down firmly on the side of the argument favouring the existence of Jesus.
    He may well do that, but as a NT Greek scholar he wants to sell books. He also emphasises that the original manuscripts were based on hearsay, and the scribes could not have accurately translated them and probably further changed them.
    He attacks those who dismiss this view as myth/ legend.
    So non belief is myth and legend?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,416
    I've pulled an Ehrman book off the library shelf (Truth and Fiction in the Da Vince Code) and there is a chapter on the historical Jesus.
    He regards Jesus as a man of the imagination who is subject to all sorts of speculative claims (magician, Marxist, armed revolutionary, married, gay...).
    I've heard all of these and more.

    Historians looking at evidence find unreliable sources. They cannot just read between the lines.
    But he does say "For Jesus appears to have been a Jewish apocalypticist anticipating the end of the present evil age within his own generation."

    So where does this leave the Son of God? The obvious answer is that all Jews regarded themselves as the sons and daughters of God, and this belief was probably emphasised in the Roman occupation of their homeland.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2013, 06:25 AM
  2. Did the person Jesus from the bible actually really existed in the past?
    By RamenNoodles in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 24th, 2013, 07:08 PM
  3. Jesus Christ as a missing person case
    By Pong in forum Criminology and Forensic Science
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 31st, 2011, 04:13 PM
  4. Who is god and jesus a metaphor for in the real life?
    By Meatoz in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 1st, 2011, 03:11 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •