Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2016, 04:08 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 09:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What possible difference does it make ?

I know it's obvious but I wanted to answer anyway, it wouldn't make any difference at all. Even if Jesus was a real guy who was crucified there is still no reason to believe he was God made mortal, born of a virgin, came back to life, etc.

There is one question that Tomasia keeps ignoring that I've asked several times now, did Lord Krishna really live? There are historical accounts of him but of course to a Hindu he was a supreme being, a god made flesh, not just some Lord or Prince who ruled over a city 5,000 years ago. There are modern Hindus awaiting his return to our moral realm to this day.

There are historians who say he was real, some say he wasn't, even a Hindu says Krishna is real because they feel he is real, in their mind they just know it, much like a devout Christian says all they need is faith for proof of Jesus. Does that mean we should all convert to Hinduism?

So to Tomasia, would your life change in any way by discovering the historical truth of Krishna? Probably not, I doubt you'll convert right away and it wouldn't change your life at all, you probably have no clue what I'm even talking about and even knowing that Vishnu had multiple historical human avatars wouldn't make any difference to you. Why would finding out Jesus was a real historical person make any difference to me then? Or any atheist?

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
26-06-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Really? If Josephus's account of James is unreliable, because he wasn't there to witness James's death.
It's not reliable for a great many reason which, once again, you have ignored.

(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What folks like yourself will likely do so is ...
Dude just shut up already. Their are so so so many reason to be skeptical of these claims, which for fuck sake AGAIN have been listed multiple times and you haven't addressed them. You have just fucking cried and whined and bitched.
Do you think the longer and louder you act like a bitch with a skinned knee that we won't notice that you don't have any refutations or arguments? That all you have is more lil' bitchery?
You wanna believe that this is evidence then you go right ahead, it will be perfectly inline with your idiotic gullibility and refusal to utilize even basic critical thinking.

(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It seems to matter a great deal to many unbelievers, willing to go full retard to believe that Jesus did not exist.
The only one gone full retard here is you Tom, as usual. You see people using their critical thinking and not accepting any claim that they happen to like without evaluating it is quite literally the opposite of retarded.
You're a fucking child throwing a temper tantrum because you have been asked to think for a change.


(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm not emotionally dependent on a historical Jesus, my religious beliefs aren't dependent on a historical Jesus, even if he didn't exist they'd be fine.
Considering you won't share what your beliefs actually are, like a coward, and because I know your a dishonest piece of shit I'm just going to go ahead and call you a liar. I'm not interested in playing guessing games with you, and as far as I'm concerned you keep your beliefs a secret so you can play a shell game with them to avoid being subjected to criticism.

(26-06-2016 05:52 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Of course for fatbald these kindof statements means that I'm not a Christian according to him, but that's beside the point.
Christianity is a religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ, without a Christ there is no Christianity. The clue is in the fucking name, you idiot. If you wanna try and say that Christianity doesn't require a Christ than you're fucking delusional.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
27-06-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 09:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I want to know, HERE, NOW today, EXACTLY why non-believers would rather (pretend) that a Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist.

You tell me, there's been entire cottage industry devoted to lying to claim that Jesus did not exist, making false claims in support of it, such the twelve savior deity comparisons. With such blatant dishonesty than even other mythicist like Carrier have to distance themselves from them.

What do you think motives their desire?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:17 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 08:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Wait, wut?

You're claiming that our discounting of Josephus, who wasn't born until 37 C.E., as an eyewitness to the time of Jesus' ministry, is the same as the accounts of Philo, who was a full-grown adult in the city of Jerusalem on his way to Rome in 39-40 C.E. ?

Philo was full grown adult living a few hundred miles away in Alexandria who visited Jerusalem once in his life time. Early individuals such as yourself and bucky, appealed to his family connections, as his possible sources for what was going on in Jerusalem. Yet if Philo wrote about Jesus based on his family connections, our lot here would be complaining about his account being based on hearsay, that he wasn't in Jerusalem to witness the events. Or claiming christian interpolation. Because that it the pattern here, even in regards to passages that are regarded as authentic.

(Also you like GoodwithoutGod have yet to correct yourself for falsely claiming that Philo was in Jerusalem shorty after Jesus's death, so I'm still awaiting you're accountability on making a false claim)

It's a sort of mentality that lost the plot.

We have writing of Josephus in an authentic portion of his writing indicating James death, highlight the fact that he was Jesus brother. We have the first hand accounts of Paul who met his brother and his disciples. We Tacitus writing of his death at the hands of Pilate.

Yet we're not to believe that Jesus existed, based on factors like this? Why? Because such an inferences made by secular historians like Bart Ehrman are unreasonable? Because it makes more sense given factors like this, that Jesus did not exist? No, because there's a contingency that has a weird desire for Jesus to not exist, with a series of claims that stretch credulity. Everything in their mind is not to be trusted, a condition common to pretty much every conspiracy theory proponent.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:31 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 04:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Considering you won't share what your beliefs actually are, like a coward, and because I know your a dishonest piece of shit I'm just going to go ahead and call you a liar.

No, I share my beliefs in places where I see at as appropriate to, like someone asked me to enter the boxing ring. But I see no particular mandate that I do at every turn, in discussions that are not particularly pertinent to them.

Quote:I'm not interested in playing guessing games with you, and as far as I'm concerned you keep your beliefs a secret so you can play a shell game with them to avoid being subjected to criticism.

I don't think the crowd that deems themselves as lacking belief, has much criticism to offer, because they hold no real alternative position to my own, they just appeal to sitting on fences when it comes to religious question.

Quote:Christianity is a religion founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ, without a Christ there is no Christianity. The clue is in the fucking name, you idiot. If you wanna try and say that Christianity doesn't require a Christ than you're fucking delusional.

Ah, perhaps this is a bit revealing. If Jesus didn't exist, than Christianity would be a religion founded on the teaching of a non-exist, non-historical person named Jesus, wouldn't that be correct? In that case true christianity, in it's most pure and original form, was a belief in a non-historical Christ?

Perhaps that's the likely psychology of why many atheists appeal to a non-historical Jesus, because for them a non-historical Jesus, would be a final blow to Christianity, which they despise?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2016 07:50 AM by Chas.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps that's the likely psychology of why many atheists appeal to a non-historical Jesus, because for them a non-historical Jesus, would be a final blow to Christianity, which they despise?

Oh, you poor, despised Christians. Your persecution complex is apparent.

Atheists don't despise Christianity any more than they despise any other religion.
And 'despise' is really not a correct characterization, but you can't feel persecuted otherwise.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-06-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Poor Christian on an atheist forum is confused about why atheists don't buy into religious messiahs Drinking Beverage the idiocy is astounding.

Drinking Beverage still waiting

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(26-06-2016 04:08 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  There is one question that Tomasia keeps ignoring that I've asked several times now, did Lord Krishna really live? There are historical accounts of him but of course to a Hindu he was a supreme being, a god made flesh, not just some Lord or Prince who ruled over a city 5,000 years ago. There are modern Hindus awaiting his return to our moral realm to this day.

I don't know much about the historicity of Krishna, from brief search if he lived 5,000 years ago, writing about him are dated over 4000 years later. As to Jesus we have writing about him in historical chroniclers of the time, first hand account of someone who met his disciples and brothers, and had theological disputes with them. He's placed in history, dying during the time of Roman Rule, under Pontius Pilate, we have non-christian historian, like Tacitus, citing his death under Pilate as well. We have numerous NT accounts, that place him within that period and place as well.

Quote:There are historians who say he was real, some say he wasn't, even a Hindu says Krishna is real because they feel he is real, in their mind they just know it, much like a devout Christian says all they need is faith for proof of Jesus. Does that mean we should all convert to Hinduism?

I tend not to be interested in hearing about Hinduism from atheists. I have plenty of hindu friends, who can enlighten me on there beliefs, who are not exclusive monotheist, who claim we believe in the same God. And view individuals like Jesus as avatars, as possibly incarnations of Krishna. So whatever the view of God, of divinity, of truth, they tend to see that represented in Jesus as well. So our discussion are likely to be different, than with your hypothetical hindu.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, you poor, despised Christians. Your persecution complex is apparent.

Atheists don't despise Christianity any more than they despise any other religion.
And 'despise' is really not a correct characterization, but you can't feel persecuted otherwise.

So they despise religion in general, it's just that Christianity tend to be the religion of choice in their own culture milieu. And I don't feel persecuted, the anti-theists number are too small, to weak, and irreverent, to persecute anybody. It would be like the persecution inflicted upon me by a house fly.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 07:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, you poor, despised Christians. Your persecution complex is apparent.

Atheists don't despise Christianity any more than they despise any other religion.
And 'despise' is really not a correct characterization, but you can't feel persecuted otherwise.

So they despise religion in general, it's just that Christianity tend to be the religion of choice in their own culture milieu.

Which part of "And 'despise' is really not a correct characterization..." did you not understand? Consider

When Christians present themselves, their Christianity is the issue.
When Muslims present themselves, their Mohammedanism is the issue.
When Hindus present themselves, their Hinduism is the issue.

It is not my cultural milieu that is the determining factor.

Quote:And I don't feel persecuted, the anti-theists number are too small, to weak, and irreverent, to persecute anybody. It would be like the persecution inflicted upon me by a house fly.

You sure sound like you feel persecuted.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: