For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2014, 01:42 AM
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 01:18 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  
(10-03-2014 01:14 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  His *supposed* existence. The impact is ALL predicated on belief in his supposed magic powers. As a testament to the horrors that humankind can inflict on each other in the name of superstitious fairy tales.

True, the powers are clearly of importance to the religion and its evolution throughout history.

But I would personally find it interesting to know the real man. I believe Richard Dawkins said if he could talk to any historical person ever, it would be Jesus (if he existed at all), to figure out who he truly was.



(10-03-2014 01:14 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It means you were strawmanning me under the guise of a question.

Or seeking clarification.

RE
"But I would personally find it interesting to know the real man."

Yeah...that would be interesting. After 7 years of reading around the topic, this is what I think you'd find....

Summary of Yeshua’s Life

Yeshua probably did exist, yet was someone quite different from the character in the Gospels. Rather than passively accepting the conventional Christian account, I would rather pay him the respect of acknowledging his humanity, family, society, and religion. It makes sense to circumvent Christian mythology and place him in the religious context of first-century Judaism, the political context of Roman occupation and violent oppression, and the social context of poverty.

He was the first-born child of a young Jewish girl, and his biological father, identity unknown, may not have been in the picture to offer him direction. He was probably part of a large family of peasants.

He would have been very proudly Jewish, and familiar with scripture. Like many Jews of his time, he must have had some grandiose delusions, such as that Jews were the world’s superior people, specially favored by God and destined to show pagans the proper way to live. I think he imagined he was the messiah, a person depicted in scripture whose mission was to establish the kingdom of God, an ideal Jewish state, one with social and economic equity, in which everyone worshipped Yahweh. It’s likely he was convinced his God would intervene in the affairs of men to help initiate this. None of these fantasies ever came to fruition.

As he grew up, he would have seen his fellow Galileans violently oppressed and impoverished by the Romans. His cousin John created a grassroots anti-Roman movement, which he joined. Herod Antipas thought John was a threat to the political stability of Galilee, so had him murdered. Yeshua was brave enough to take over the leadership, and worked hard to rally common Jews to his cause, which was nothing less than to expel the Romans and their collaborators from Israel. He wasn’t the first, or the last Jew to harbor such a dream, and to try to make it happen was a very risky business. His less militant countrymen eschewed joining his ranks.

His goal to overthrow the Romans looked possible because of the enthusiasm with which he was sometimes received, yet as best we know he had no military experience or intelligence. So it’s no surprise that he fell flat. He had talked the talk but couldn’t walk the walk. The Romans captured, scourged, and crucified him, a punishment reserved for rebellious insurgents who threatened Roman rule.

Yeshua didn’t achieve much. As he was dying in agony on a cross, he would have wondered why his God hadn’t helped him, and he must have figured he was a failure. Memories of other Jews crucified by the Romans may have flashed through his mind. His goal had been to bring forth a glorious Israel, yet he became the latest addition to a long list of dead messiahs. Before he took his last breath, he may have wondered whether the Romans would ever be defeated.

It’s ironic that the Romans, the very people Yeshua despised, adopted him as their hero some three centuries after they killed him, and then blamed his own people, the Jews, for his death. The accusation that it was the Jewish people (as a whole) who demanded Jesus’ death is one of the most disgraceful deceptions in the bible. It’s been the primary source of anti-Semitism throughout history. The consequences have been devastating for the Jewish people, because many churches have harassed them as Christ-killers. Adolf Hitler, who was a Catholic, wrote “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”(Mein Kampf p. 65.)

I feel some respect for him because he had a tough life, and he stood up for what he believed in. He tried hard to make a difference for his Jewish compatriots. It’s ironic that the Gospels in places portray him as a pacifist, when he was, in fact, a freedom fighter. They falsely portray him as a person who praised the meek, yet he was a proud man who refused to accept poverty and oppression.

It’s fascinating that there are such obvious clues about Jesus the political insurgent scattered throughout the Gospels. I don’t know why they weren’t edited out. I’ve made a reasonable assumption that they’re there because the authors knew some details about a charismatic wannabe messiah from a few decades earlier upon which some of the more realistic details about him are based. Anyone who comments about Jesus is dependent on the Gospel’s authors, and they were clever, manipulative men.

There have been thousands of books written about Jesus in the last hundred years, so this assessment of his life is one of many. It fits well, I believe, with what we do know about the place and time in which he’s said to have lived. I admit I have cherry picked what Jesus may have said, and that my assessment doesn’t lie well with everything the Gospels claim he said. For example John’s Gospel has Jesus saying
“... My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36 KJB.) Is not the hand of a simple-minded pro-Roman author trying to disguise a militaristic Jesus obvious here? Matthew has Jesus say
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Mattthew 5:9 KJB.) Can we realistically imagine this from a man crucified as a zealot? I’ll give good reasons why Jesus was sometimes portrayed as a pacifist later in this book.

As a consequence of passages like these, “Jesus” is inconsistent. The historian needs to examine the important details of ancient biographies such as the Gospels, put them in context, and consider the author’s credibility and intent. Only then can he have an educated guess as to what may be fact and what’s fiction.

Yeshua’s political ambitions, or lack thereof, is a topic strongly debated. Some think he was a Pharisee (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jFt7NqhoxE4). Some deny he was an Essene, others say he was a pacifist Essene. Some claim Yeshua was an apocalyptic messiah on a suicide mission. I haven’t discussed these possibilities, as I think they’re less likely. If we consider the bare facts of his life; that he was a poor Galilean peasant who led a band of Jewish men around Galilee, that he was hailed as a king, and then arrested and crucified in Jerusalem, the question must be asked why more historians in the past haven’t realized that he was a political insurgent.

I have no foolproof argument to contradict the growing number of scholars who claim that Jesus never existed, because there are no known contemporary sources to vouch for him outside the Gospels, so I grant they may be right. (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc). In one sense it’s a mute point, because the miracle-working preacher depicted in parts of the Gospels is most definitely not a description of a real person.

No one knows the whole truth about what happened two thousand years ago. Yet surely my analysis makes much more sense than the traditional tale. It uses what we know of secular history and is less dependent on the Gospels than the confusing story people are told in church. One doesn’t need to have spent a lifetime studying the bible or Judaism to realize it rings true. One must either be a diehard Christian, or deliberately dishonest, to reject outright the account I’ve just given.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
10-03-2014, 01:43 AM
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 01:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(10-03-2014 01:13 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  My point is about historical consistency.

Your point is rather pointless.

Yes, hence I'm off to do something more interesting like watching paint dry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes englishrose's post
10-03-2014, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2014 02:53 AM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 12:02 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Archimedes. His existence hangs entirely on textual evidence, just like Jesus. This is the case for most figures in antiquity.
Errr.. jesus is a MYTHICAL character doing magical stuff like harry potter..

We know Socrates for his works of philosophy and Archimedes for his math equations and tough shit like that and we know jebus christ for walking on waterFacepalm.

Archimedes's equations still help kids in the school whereas jesus walking in water and curing leprosy is JUST A STORY.

For all we know Jesus might have been a real guy who was crucified by romans and became a public figure but i for one do NOT buy the bullshit miracles and Resurrection hogwash!

A human being who got crucified is NOTHING special.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes IndianAtheist's post
10-03-2014, 05:59 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2014 06:11 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 01:24 AM)Charis Wrote:  I guess what contributed to suspicions in this thread is that your line of questioning sounded more like a challenge than like a person "searching for the historical Jesus." I would recommend rephrasing or changing up your approach just a tad to appropriately reflect your stated objective.

Completely agree. The title "For those who reject the existence of Jesus" strongly suggests a christian motive.

The OP could just as easily have used the subject title "For those who question the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mathilda's post
10-03-2014, 06:05 AM
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 12:02 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Do you also reject the existence of Socrates and Archimedes?

My point is simply that there is indeed a set of consistent standards and methods in determining the historicity of any given figure in antiquity.

The easy answer is to point you to the Rational Wiki article on the historical Jesus. It covers a lot of what people said about issues with the Gospels and what constitutes evidence as well as diving into how much evidence there is for other people (including Socrates, but not Archimedes) and the "secular evidence".


(10-03-2014 12:02 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Archimedes. His existence hangs entirely on textual evidence, just like Jesus. This is the case for most figures in antiquity. Even then the references given on Archimedes, primarily Livy and Polybius, only give scant mentions written some 75 years after his death at the earliest. Most of it comes over 150 years later. That is quite typical of this field. Jesus has more textual evidence than almost anyone of this era written 25-75 years after the crucifixion.

If the existence of Jesus is to be called into question, then we must apply the same standards across the board. No?

From the above-linked article:

Rationalwiki Wrote:There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person here)

When discussing the evidence for Jesus' existence, a common claim made by apologists is that there is "more evidence for Jesus than 'X'".[179] This is often because ancient records really are sparse for the existence of some ancient kings, Pharaohs of Egypt, or other historical figures. However, what evidence we do have is higher quality than what exists for Jesus. This does not mean it is necessarily worthless, but it means it is worth questioning. Court records, birth records, even lists of property owners or tax records do not have this doubt attached. Finding a document that said "Jesus, known as the Christ, was crucified today, in the Court of..." would be this kind of evidence.

One common claim is that there are "over 5000 distinct pieces of evidence for Jesus". This number comes from counting each individual handwritten document (from full codices down to mere scraps) with New Testament text on it, including multiple copies of the same texts. The actual number is 5500 ancient fragments (dating from before the printing press) of any writings from the New Testament.[180] It should be noted that just 6.29% of these 5000 distinct pieces of evidence have been dated before the 9th century and only 48 supposedly predate our oldest intact Bibles[181]

While it is is impossible to cover all the ancient figures and events Jesus has been compared to there are a few popular ones that show just how shaky the position really is.

Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) (544–496 BC?): his very existence is debated in scholarly circles [182] despite reference in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived.

Confucius (Kong Qiu) (551–479 BCE) the Records of the Grand Historian used archives and imperial records as source material (which themselves have not survivef). Its author Sima Qian noted the problems with incomplete, fragmentary, and contradictory sources stating in the 18 volume of the 180 volume work "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank." Moreover, Kong Qiu was the governor of a town in Lu and ultimately held the positions of Minister of Public Works and then Minister of Crime for the whole Lu state not exactly minor potions one could create a fictitious person to fill.

Leukippos (shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE): very existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).[183]

Socrates (c469 – 399 BCE): written about by contemporaries Plato, Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE), and Aristophanes (c446 – 386 BCE).

Hippocrates (c460 – c370 BCE): written about by contemporary Plato.

Plato (428 – 347 BCE): written about by contemporaries Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE): official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus where all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Then you have mosaics and coins also contemporaneous with Alexander.

Hannibal (247 – 182 BCE): Written about by Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Never mind the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.

Julius Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julius Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.

Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE): Often refereed to as the "Pagan Christ", fragments of Apollonius' own writings are part of the Harvard University Press edition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1912) ISBN-13: 978-0674990180 as documented in Carrier's Kook article.

Boadicea (d. 60 CE):[/b] Tacitus himself would have been a 5-year old boy when she poisoned herself c. 60 CE making him contemporary to her. Furthermore, his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary, but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

Muhammad (570 – c. June 8, 632 CE): Unlike the New Testament, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime and there are some that say it was compiled shortly before his death. Moreover there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary to Muhammad.[184]

Now compare those to Jesus:

1) The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.

2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.

As you can see from this sampling, the ancient person being compared to Jesus is generally in far better shape in terms of documentation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
10-03-2014, 07:40 AM
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 12:02 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Do you also reject the existence of Socrates and Archimedes?

My point is simply that there is indeed a set of consistent standards and methods in determining the historicity of any given figure in antiquity.

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Archimedes. His existence hangs entirely on textual evidence, just like Jesus. This is the case for most figures in antiquity. Even then the references given on Archimedes, primarily Livy and Polybius, only give scant mentions written some 75 years after his death at the earliest. Most of it comes over 150 years later. That is quite typical of this field. Jesus has more textual evidence than almost anyone of this era written 25-75 years after the crucifixion.

If the existence of Jesus is to be called into question, then we must apply the same standards across the board. No?

Yabut, nobody is claiming Socrates or Archimedes are the son of god and died for our sins. If you are suggesting that we accept the existence of Jesus on the same terms as Socrates and Archimedes, then that just means we have some teachings attributed to a near east amateur philosopher and teacher which some might choose to read and glean some wisdom from. But you are going to have to offer WAY more proof to accept the claim of godhood and savior of mankind (starting with proof there is a god, that yahweh is that god, and that their is such a thing as"sin" that we need saving from).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2014, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 10-03-2014 07:54 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 12:02 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  Do you also reject the existence of Socrates and Archimedes?

My point is simply that there is indeed a set of consistent standards and methods in determining the historicity of any given figure in antiquity.

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Archimedes. His existence hangs entirely on textual evidence, just like Jesus. This is the case for most figures in antiquity. Even then the references given on Archimedes, primarily Livy and Polybius, only give scant mentions written some 75 years after his death at the earliest. Most of it comes over 150 years later. That is quite typical of this field. Jesus has more textual evidence than almost anyone of this era written 25-75 years after the crucifixion.

If the existence of Jesus is to be called into question, then we must apply the same standards across the board. No?

No, slimey jimmy. No.

The "textual" evidence is not even remotely similar.
By your standards, there is "textual evidence" for Zeus. They wrote a LOT about him. The point is, it's the QUALITY and nature of the textual evidence. "Gospels" (the "good news", written by believers, for believers, to remind themselves what they ALREADY believed) and the epistles of Paul (who admitted he never even met him, and admitted he got his "gospel" from an hallucination)) is evidence of NOTHING.

You prove yet again, you are TOTALLY uneducated and not even conversant about even the simplest elements of the things you think you want to discuss. You cannot provide ONE refutation of ONE point made by Dr. Carrier.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-03-2014, 08:03 AM
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 01:05 AM)shimmyjimmy Wrote:  I am not Christian.

Really? Then please share with us YOUR views, I think you have asked us plenty of questions without revealing your own stance. Did you do an intro post so we can get to know you a bit?

I think you know you have walked into a room of mostly atheists and agnostics, questioned, and now, it's your turn to share about you. It's how a community works.


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bows and Arrows's post
10-03-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
(10-03-2014 01:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Try reading Proving History by PhD Richard Carrier, and you'll see how objectively the evidence for the existence of Jesus is worse than the evidence of actual witchcraft for the Salem Witch Trails in colonial Massachusetts between 1962 and 1963.

Gasp

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
10-03-2014, 08:56 AM
For those who reject the existence of Jesus...
We also have writings directly attributed to Archimedes. Plato wrote for Socrates, and most intro to Philosophy classes will mention it's unknown whether Socrates existed (and was possibly Plato's lover) or was a mouthpiece for Plato.

Then again, most contemporary people believe Homer was a single author.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: