Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2016, 11:40 AM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2016 11:51 AM by Anjele.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  According to some estimates there are over 30k denotations of Christians, fundamentalist denominations, liberal/progressive denominations, etc.., that don't tend to agree on the meaning of being a Christian.

Yet, due to the sheer number of believers...however different, the whole story is to be seen as fact.

May I just point out that no matter how many people believe an untruth it doesn't become true?

Lots and lots of kids believe in Santa Claus or some variation of him. He still doesn't exist.

The difference is that kids tend to age out of the Santa thing. Of course, he doesn't threaten them with hellfire and eternal damnation. The worst thing he does is threaten a lump of coal - unlit.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
27-06-2016, 12:04 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I as an individual get to define my own self-identity. Something that liberal individuals such as yourself should acknowledge.

When you call yourself something misleading, that would tend to cause issues and confusion, wouldn't it? When you use a word in the opposite way from the commonly understood usage, that causes problems.

Sort of like when you call yourself honest.

(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  According to some estimates there are over 30k denotations of Christians, fundamentalist denominations, liberal/progressive denominations, etc.., that don't tend to agree on the meaning of being a Christian.

How many of them do not believe that Christ was the son of god?

And think about that number. 30,000+ denominations... That's a lot of confusion over something so important. Almost like everyone was making their own god and their own ways of worshipping him...

(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What's funny is that you idiots, are appealing to the idea that the earliest form of followers of Christ, didn't believe that he was a historical person. Yet somehow want to claim that these supposed early followers of Jesus shouldn't be able to identify as Christians, since later Christian group predominately believe he was a historical person.

What in the fuck are you talking about? The earliest followers of Christ? You call us idiots and you can't even write a coherent argument.

(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You don't apparently see why you're talking out of both sides of your mouth huh?

You better pull your head out of your ass. Things are starting to get garbled.

(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The reality is I don't tend to here other Christians tell me I'm not a Christian, it's just atheists such as yourself doing so. As if I care.

I find it hard to believe that a Christian would accept that your belief in a non-divine Christ made you a Christian.

The only reason I care is because your usage of the word muddies the waters and confuses the conversation.

(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  According to you the supposed earliest form of Christianity wouldn't be accepted into the membership of the later forms. But I doubt this supposed earlier form would have cared.

Since you are addressing me directly, once again you are lying.

I do believe that there could have been a historical jesus figure or there could have been a number of individuals who were combined into one figure in legend.

However according to the church histories, and at the very least, the bible, the early apostles and disciples believed in his divinity when he supposedly rose from the dead. I should note that I would attribute that to mass hysteria, since according to historians, the crucified dead were not buried.

In any case, I don't see how you can say that the earliest followers were not true Christians. I did not say that or even imply it.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-06-2016, 12:12 PM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2016 12:16 PM by SitaSky.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I've studied the historicity of Krishna, there are not only writings that show he was a real person but archaeological evidence as well, something your Jesus is lacking but that wasn't the point of my question. The point was I can sit here and say he may have been a real person, I can say Jesus may have been a real person, this doesn't shatter my word view or change my overall general opinion of religion, I'm still an atheist but you seem to be under the impression that every atheist here is desperately trying to disprove a historical Jesus for some deep seated emotional reason but here you are trying to cast doubt on Krishna, why? Do you need him to not be real?

(27-06-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I tend not to be interested in hearing about Hinduism from atheists.

Seriously? You're going to sit here and completely disregard everything I have to say about Hinduism because I'm an atheist? What about Christianity? Can I talk about that? How about Zen Buddhism? Is that alright? I just want to make sure I'm passing your test for validity when it comes to statements on other religions. Why are you even fucking here if you don't want to have intelligent discussions on religion with atheists? You're on an ATHEIST FORUM you dipshit.

(27-06-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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 what? So you found some Hindus who think all their Gods are one in the same and are actually maybe Jesus too? Wow good for you, I don't give a fuck about that at all and it seems you only accept that version of their religion because it aligns with your religious view. I have a Hindu friend from high school to this day who definitely worships more than one God and they don't think Krishna or any of the other avatars of Vishnu had anything to do with Jesus. Not only are your statements disrespectful to atheists, they are disrespectful to Hindus and Christians.

(27-06-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  .... your hypothetical hindu.

Why are you assuming I don't know any Hindus? Are you seriously going to sit there and act like ALL HINDUS think that their religion is complimentary to yours so it's all good y'all! Every religion turns out to be Christianity because Tomato here says so and all his friends of different religions agree with him!

Just because I don't believe in a religion doesn't mean I can't study that religion or even be more fascinated by it than Christianity. I also know a lot about Greek and Norse Mythology, would my statements on those subjects not be valid because I don't think Zeus is real and I don't practice Asatru? Do you have Asatruar friends who could enlighten you on how it's all actually about Jesus?

You must be the biggest hypocrite on this forum. You want to have a debate with us on religion but in the end our statements don't matter because we are atheists. It doesn't matter how many other god men may have existed in this world, they were all just Jesus in the end. You are the one who is desperate to maintain your world view, you are the one who is desperately clinging to any bit of "evidence" you can find in the face of harsh reality so you can keep believing in myths and fairy tales. Your historical Jesus means nothing to me or the other atheists here. Just get over it and if you don't think we can honestly discuss religion because we are atheists then just fucking leave.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like SitaSky's post
27-06-2016, 12:25 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Atheism as is currently defined, is a lack of belief in God/s, where as historically it implied a position that God/s did not exist, now it implies a lack of belief in God's existence, which is a lack of a position.

I'm not sure if that's the stupidest thing I've read all day, but it's high on the list.

If you ask someone if they believe in UFO's and they say no, then you do not say they lack a position.

(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The tendency among atheists here, as has been my experience in pretty much every argument I've had with, with topics that even remotely relate to religion, such as morality, the existence of Jesus, etc... is for atheists in these arguments to appeal to their lack of belief, to wash their hands of any affirmative position to defend themselves, to have theists as the one who exclusively holds an affirmative position, why they themselves lack a belief.

Holy shit, this thread is 300+ posts long. There are people here arguing tooth and nail asserting their position and you say we are not defending something?

I stand corrected. This is definitely the stupidest, most dishonest thing I have read all day.

Half the posters on here are stating flat out that there was no historical jesus.
What the fuck is the matter with you?

(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The theist is always the on with the burden of proof in these discussions, since the atheists hold no position himself. Lack of belief, being their position.

If the theist is claiming a god, then yes there is a burden of proof.

But the atheists here who have been claiming there was no historical Christ have been arguing for and defending that view. Haven't they?

(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's driven more out of desire to absolve oneself from having any defensible position. Where as those who claimed to believe that God does not exist, have a position they would have to argue in support of, those who define their position as a lack of belief, do so to avoid this all together.

How would you go about proving a negative, exactly?

How did you disprove the tooth fairy?
Santa Claus?
Leprechauns?
Zeus?
Odin?

Under your "logic" we would have to believe in all gods until they are disproven.

Since your god specifically forbids that, you've got a bit of a problem on your hands.

(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's the same here, the atheists here are not particularly inclined to define their position as aligned with the mythicist position, because then they've have an actual alternative position to argue for.

You are fucking lying out of your ass. Half the posts in this thread directly prove you a liar.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-06-2016, 12:42 PM
Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 12:04 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  When you call yourself something misleading, that would tend to cause issues and confusion, wouldn't it?

Judging that my religious belief are not relevant to the discussion at hand, whatever confusion it might cause you is of no consequence here.

Quote:When you use a word in the opposite way from the commonly understood usage, that causes problems.

It shouldn't cause a problem, because as far as I'm concerned the only reason my religious beliefs are even mentioned is that they're fairly irrelevant to the positions I'm arguing here. But other than that, the topic of historicity, is not about my religious beliefs, anymore that it is about physicalism, or whatever over arching worldview you subscribe to.

(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  How many of them do not believe that Christ was the son of god?

Liberal Christian branches tend not to subscribe to the view that's Jesus is God. I should say that I do believe Jesus is God, but whatever it is I mean by God here, is unlikely to correspond to what you and other atheists might mean by the term God. Whatever confusion this might cause you, is still irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

And think about that number. 30,000+ denominations... That's a lot of confusion over something so important. Almost like everyone was making their own god and their own ways of worshipping him...

Quote:What in the fuck are you talking about? The earliest followers of Christ? You call us idiots and you can't even write a coherent argument.

A non-existent Jesus requires a sort of early sect that would have believed in messiah who lacked a historical existence. It's why mythicist often argue for a Jesus that belonged entirely to some spiritual/celestial realm, in which his life and death took place, but lacked any earthly existence.


(27-06-2016 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You don't apparently see why you're talking out of both sides of your mouth huh?

Quote:I find it hard to believe that a Christian would accept that your belief in a non-divine Christ made you a Christian.

I find it hard to believe that any Christian would accept your understanding of terms like God, or divinity.

Quote:The only reason I care is because your usage of the word muddies the waters and confuses the conversation.

On discussions of historicity the effect is neutral. My religious beliefs have no real relevance to the topic at hand. If this were a thread about my religious belief, i might be inclined to explain in detail what I believe. But it's not.

Quote:However according to the church histories, and at the very least, the bible, the early apostles and disciples believed in his divinity when he supposedly rose from the dead. I should note that I would attribute that to mass hysteria, since according to historians, the crucified dead were not buried.

In any case, I don't see how you can say that the earliest followers were not true Christians. I did not say that or even imply it.

Ah okay so the earliest followers, his apostles and disciples all recognized him as a historical person, that physically died, and physically rose again.

Is that correct?

Did Paul also recognize him as a historical person, that physically died and rose again?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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, 01:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 12:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Ah okay so the earliest followers, his apostles and disciples all recognized him as a historical person, that physically died, and physically rose again.

Is that correct?

Did Paul also recognize him as a historical person, that physically died and rose again?

If you look at the story, I'd say Paul experienced either a heat-stroke related hallucination or an epileptic seizure of some kind. In any case, he admitted he had never met jesus in person.

So are you going to tell us how you disproved Zeus?

Or acknowledge any of your many lies?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-06-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 12:25 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  If you ask someone if they believe in UFO's and they say no, then you do not say they lack a position.

If they say, no, it can possibly mean one of two things here. That they believe UFO do not exists, in which case the have a position. Or they might lack a belief, unsure one way or the other as to whether UFO exists.

If you ask me if I believed you were married. The answer is also no. Because I lack belief in whether you are married or not. I lack a position. Someone else here might have reasons to believe you're not married, and they would say, no, as well, but in this instance he holds a position, that you are not married.

Quote:Half the posters on here are stating flat out that there was no historical jesus.
What the fuck is the matter with you?

Is that what they are saying? I see them, holding a similiar position to Chas, that they are unable to determine one way or the other whether Jesus existed or not. They do not hold that Jesus did not exist, they just lack a belief in whether he existed or not, sort of like how I lack a belief in if your married.

(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But the atheists here who have been claiming there was no historical Christ have been arguing for and defending that view. Haven't they?

You're mistaken, no one here seems to be arguing that there was no historical Christ, they're merely advocating for a lack of belief. That we can't trust the sources, etc.... They're not attempting to reassess those sources, as better supportive of Jesus not existing. They're not trying to claim that the writing of Josephus, Paul, Tacitus, make more sense in light of a non-existent Jesus. They're just appealing to a lack of belief.


(27-06-2016 10:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  How would you go about proving a negative, exactly?

How did you disprove the tooth fairy?
Santa Claus?

You'd be proving an alternative positive view, the mythicist position is a positive view. Mythicist appeal to variety of factors in support of their view, such as claiming Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus, appealing to an some supposed early sect of pseudo-christians that believed in platonic-realm, or some celestial sphere in which they saw their Christ as existing in.

You'd be arguing a positive position, like every individual who supports a conspiracy theory of some sort would be arguing a positive position. There's a variety things needing explanation, if we're to conclude that Jesus did not exist, as to why Josephus wrote of his brothers death, Paul accounts of meeting his brother and disciples. How this non-historical Jesus, became a historical one, who existed at the time of Pilate, crucified under his rule, in such a short period. Perhaps a conspiracy by the early church to take a non-historical Christ, and make him a historical one.

"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, 01:17 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 01:01 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  If you look at the story, I'd say Paul experienced either a heat-stroke related hallucination or an epileptic seizure of some kind. In any case, he admitted he had never met jesus in person.

That wasn't the question. Cleary most christians haven't met Jesus either, but you claim they all predominantly believe that Jesus was a historical person, who physically died and rose again.

The question I asked, is if Paul like them also believed Jesus was a historical person, who physically died and rose again?


Quote:So are you going to tell us how you disproved Zeus?

Or acknowledge any of your many lies?

I don't lack a belief Zeus, or Santa Claus. I believe Santa Claus does not exist. That he was a story made up by my parents, who knew he didn't exist, to fill the imaginations of their kids every Christmas time.

As far as Zeus, such question are non-sensical, as if there is suppose to be some Zeus that exists outside of the religious/pagan worldview in which he's a part of. So the question is why don't I believe in another worldview, religious or otherwise than the one that I currently hold. And the answer is that since I believe mines is true, it goes without saying that I hold all competing alternative to it as false.

Just like when you hold naturalism as true, it goes without saying that you reject, and hold all worldviews contrary to naturalism as false. The truth of one, negates the others.

"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, 01:43 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 11:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 11:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  It seems you wouldn't recognize intellectual honesty if it slapped you in the head.

No, there is no conflation. To believe something to be true requires evidence that it is true.

What you dishonest ones tend to do is play with terms as your see fit. It's purely a matter of semantics.

What terms are those? Please be specific.
It's about evidence; it's always about the evidence.

Quote:As I recall you believe that historians like Ehrman can reasonably infer from a variety of factors that Jesus did exist. That a person reading a first hand account of someone who met his brother, Josephus writing of his brother's death, Tacitus writing of his death under Pilate, etc.. can infer based on factors like this that a historical Jesus existed.

I think you recall incorrectly. I can see that people on both sides of this can reasonably infer their positions but neither side has a convincing weight of evidence.

Quote:What you don't like to do, is label factors that lead one to draw reasonable conclusions, as evidence. You're whole argument is not even about the reasonableness of one position over the other, but merely about the term evidence.

I can't even make sense of what you are trying to say with that. Consider

It's always about the evidence.

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
27-06-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(27-06-2016 12:12 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  I've studied the historicity of Krishna, there are not only writings that show he was a real person but archaeological evidence as well, something your Jesus is lacking but that wasn't the point of my question.

I don't know much about the historicity of Krishna, or the archaeological evidence you're appealing to. I can say that I believe that the G. Buddha existed, and he has less evidence going for him than Jesus. So it's possible that Krishna existed, I don't know much about him, or the case for his historicity to say one way or the other.

Quote:The point was I can sit here and say he may have been a real person, I can say Jesus may have been a real person, this doesn't shatter my word view or change my overall general opinion of religion, I'm still an atheist but you seem to be under the impression that every atheist here is desperately trying to disprove a historical Jesus for some deep seated emotional reason but here you are trying to cast doubt on Krishna, why? Do you need him to not be real?

I don't think every atheists believes Jesus didn't exist. And on a brief survey, when the views of others here were gauged on historicity, most seemed to be of the opinion that Jesus did exist.

But when atheists, and non-christians makeup lies, false claims, to support the idea that Jesus didn't exist, which the historicist position is filled with, like in the savior diety comparisons, the claims in Religulous, The God Who wasn't There, the Zeitgeist films, etc.. lies that get repeated here, like Philo being in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus death, then it becomes apparent that there's is an emotional component here. A component that propels a contingency to peddle lies, bought by a market eager to believe them.

Quote:Seriously? You're going to sit here and completely disregard everything I have to say about Hinduism because I'm an atheist?

Well, I'm indian, and grow up in a culture where Hinduism is the predominant religion, in which my family only converted a few generations ago themselves. It's nothing against you, but when it comes to learning of other religions, Hinduism, Islam, etc.. I prefer to learn that from other Hindus, Muslims, Christians, etc... From those who actually hold those beliefs, and can explain in depth their own positions. Not to mention it's a little annoying to have a person outside of your own culture, trying to teach you about it from their own western perspectives. Just as most black people likely are not interested in a person outside of their culture explaining their culture to them. It would be like trying to teach you on what its like to be a women.

Quote:So what? So you found some Hindus who think all their Gods are one in the same and are actually maybe Jesus too? Wow good for you, I don't give a fuck about that at all and it seems you only accept that version of their religion because it aligns with your religious view. I have a Hindu friend from high school to this day who definitely worships more than one God and they don't think Krishna or any of the other avatars of Vishnu had anything to do with Jesus. Not only are your statements disrespectful to atheists, they are disrespectful to Hindus and Christians.

And if your Hindu friend wanted to come here and explain his views on Jesus, I'm all ears. But I'm not interested in having you try to speak on his behalf, when he's not here to address any particular follow up questions, etc. that I would have for him.

In short I'm no more interested in hearing you educate me on Hinduism, anymore so than I am interested in a Christian educating me on Buddhism or Islam. I prefer to learn about other religions, and what their actual followers believe, from their followers themselves.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: