Poll: Did Jesus Exist?
He was a real person.
Jesus is a complete myth.
He may have been real, but has become so shrouded by myth that we can't know anything about him.
Other- please explain.
[Show Results]
 
Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2014, 10:21 PM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(08-10-2014 06:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  You can bet someone will use this to rant about "the mob" chasing away a "valuable member". Dodgy


Im sorry but thats just fucking funny right there....up one side and down the other funny.
No worries, Chas...
No one has been run off.


The mouse always returns. Might be a couple of years but the mouse always pops up with the exact same agenda.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 01:40 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
Nice one Bucky.

It's that kinda stuff that made me join TTA.

Thank you.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:10 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(08-10-2014 11:12 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 11:08 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  ^ Is that what you're trying to say? Maybe you should ask Richard Carrier. He's the one with the degree.

my memory isn't all that great.
^fixed that for you.

I noticed you are having memory issues. are you okay? time to change the dosage?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 06:14 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(08-10-2014 11:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 11:12 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Wow, are you fucking retarded?

I can't argue logically... you've proved to me that the experts in the field of ancient history accept that Jesus did exist.. they accept that he was baptized and was executed under Pontius Pilate. That fact blows my mind... My boy Carrier was my authority.. and now I don't know where to turn.
^fixed that for you.
I know... the truth is a hard pill to swallow, isn't it?

It'll be okay.. it's not that big a deal. it's not like historians are fans of supernatural claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(09-10-2014 06:10 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 11:12 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  my memory isn't all that great.
^fixed that for you.

I noticed you are having memory issues. are you okay? time to change the dosage?

You are a lying troll. Time for you to fuck off.

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
09-10-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(09-10-2014 06:14 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 11:13 AM)Chas Wrote:  I can't argue logically... you've proved to me that the experts in the field of ancient history accept that Jesus did exist.. they accept that he was baptized and was executed under Pontius Pilate. That fact blows my mind... My boy Carrier was my authority.. and now I don't know where to turn.
^fixed that for you.
I know... the truth is a hard pill to swallow, isn't it?

It'll be okay.. it's not that big a deal. it's not like historians are fans of supernatural claims.

You are such a sleazy little dickhead. Is it damp and cold in your momma's basement?

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
09-10-2014, 09:00 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
In a (probably vain) attempt to get something useful out of this travesty of a thread...

There are 4 pieces of evidence at the OP's http://www.ahistoricaljesus.com/evidence.htm page:

1. Josephus passage mentioning ""and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (AD 93-94). My understanding is that a wider reading of the surrounding material shows that Josephus had been discussing Jesus ben Damneus and that all it would take would be somebody either deliberately inserting "who was called Christ" or honestly thinking that's who was being mentioned. If it can be shown that there is support for that phrase being an interpolation then this passage is irrelevant to the historicity question. Note that the quoted passage on the web page includes "and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" which lends at least some credence to this interpretation.

2. Josephus passage defining the Christ: already noted on the web page that this is highly disputed among the experts. There is good reason to believe that it is a later interpolation and isn't good evidence either way. My only caveat is that if it was forged then it is some evidence that at least one Christian was desperate to find proof which could indicate that there wasn't much else available even in documents they had that have since been lost.

3. Tacitus "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin" (AD 116). There is some argument over whether this actually refers to "Christians" and "Christus" or to Chrestians" and "Chrestus" which may make it a reference to another cult group at the time. Even if we accept that it refers to Christians it is 80+ years after the fact and really attests only to the existence of Christians at the time (which is not in dispute) and to their having a doctrine that they took their name from "Christ". That could be a reference to a historical person, to an imagined person (like Socrates may be), or to a completely mythological entity (like a reference to Satanists getting their name from Satan). Without more details it is easyfor anybody to read into it what they want to see.

4. Papius, a "Church father who claims to have talked to people who knew Jesus' disciples" (AD 95-120). So 60 to 90 years after the fact Papius claimed to have second-hand knowledge of claims made by Jesus' disciples. That's a pretty thin trail with much room for distortion whether it be deliberate or just normal memory failings and confirmation bias.

There is no doubt that there is some grounds for accepting historicity based on evidence like the above. There are also grounds for doubting that they are reliable sources. Christians have a bias towards accepting them as proof. Atheists can have a bias towards denying them. In my opinion, the current "consensus" deserves to be challenged to defend itself. If it is right then the evidence should be enough to support the position. If mythicism explains the evidence at least as well then the confidence in a historical Jesus should go down.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
09-10-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
Is what anonymous66 doing really acceptable on this forum? Making up quotes? Lying?

I will seriously re-think participating here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2014, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2014 12:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(09-10-2014 09:00 AM)unfogged Wrote:  In a (probably vain) attempt to get something useful out of this travesty of a thread...

There are 4 pieces of evidence at the OP's http://www.ahistoricaljesus.com/evidence.htm page:

1. Josephus passage mentioning ""and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (AD 93-94). My understanding is that a wider reading of the surrounding material shows that Josephus had been discussing Jesus ben Damneus and that all it would take would be somebody either deliberately inserting "who was called Christ" or honestly thinking that's who was being mentioned. If it can be shown that there is support for that phrase being an interpolation then this passage is irrelevant to the historicity question. Note that the quoted passage on the web page includes "and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest" which lends at least some credence to this interpretation.

2. Josephus passage defining the Christ: already noted on the web page that this is highly disputed among the experts. There is good reason to believe that it is a later interpolation and isn't good evidence either way. My only caveat is that if it was forged then it is some evidence that at least one Christian was desperate to find proof which could indicate that there wasn't much else available even in documents they had that have since been lost.

3. Tacitus "called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin" (AD 116). There is some argument over whether this actually refers to "Christians" and "Christus" or to Chrestians" and "Chrestus" which may make it a reference to another cult group at the time. Even if we accept that it refers to Christians it is 80+ years after the fact and really attests only to the existence of Christians at the time (which is not in dispute) and to their having a doctrine that they took their name from "Christ". That could be a reference to a historical person, to an imagined person (like Socrates may be), or to a completely mythological entity (like a reference to Satanists getting their name from Satan). Without more details it is easyfor anybody to read into it what they want to see.

4. Papius, a "Church father who claims to have talked to people who knew Jesus' disciples" (AD 95-120). So 60 to 90 years after the fact Papius claimed to have second-hand knowledge of claims made by Jesus' disciples. That's a pretty thin trail with much room for distortion whether it be deliberate or just normal memory failings and confirmation bias.

There is no doubt that there is some grounds for accepting historicity based on evidence like the above. There are also grounds for doubting that they are reliable sources. Christians have a bias towards accepting them as proof. Atheists can have a bias towards denying them. In my opinion, the current "consensus" deserves to be challenged to defend itself. If it is right then the evidence should be enough to support the position. If mythicism explains the evidence at least as well then the confidence in a historical Jesus should go down.

Thanks for that.
One thing I had never heard about is Van Voorst's book (supposedly) about *external* evidence. I'm getting it, and will look at what he claims.
Not sure I'm allowed to copy things I access through the University library, so I won't, but there is a calm and balanced review of the Van Voorst book in "Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Jan 2001" issue. It says pretty much what I was expecting to find about the book, (he doesn't really question the authenticity of the gospels). I'll read it for myself, however.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-10-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: Did Jesus Exist? Or Was He a Myth?
(09-10-2014 09:16 AM)Rik Wrote:  Is what anonymous66 doing really acceptable on this forum? Making up quotes? Lying?

I will seriously re-think participating here.

It is not expressly against the rules, but people who do that suffer reprisals and are relegated to troll status. At this point anonymous66 has lost any shred of credibility by continuing to do that. He has effectively removed himself from the adult conversation and now will just be talked around as a non-entity by the majority of those actually wishing to engage on this topic.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: