Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2014, 07:15 PM
Jesus historicity
The funny thing about Jesus is that we may never know whether he existed or not. However, It is not an extraordinary claim to think a man inspired a legend. Yet these modern Historians cant seem to pin the man down. They all argue for different versions of the man- from cynical rabbi, revolutionary zealot, apocalyptic prophet, progressive Pharisee, a Galilean shaman, a magus, or a Hellenistic sage- even some a demigod or myth. Why is this? Because we have absolutely no evidence for this man's existence. All of the accounts for this man's existence are hearsay accounts- non-contemporary historians from antiquity- that wrote about him.

The fact is even these hearsay accounts come into question, many of them have been so interpolated by early Christians after their deaths. That we have no idea when the original author began and a new author jumped in. Which many of them have been also shown to be forgeries. Even within the Bible itself we see this. Such as Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy's (one other I just cant remember the name) are known to be fakes, while 4 other Pauline Epistles are widely held to be interpolated after Paul's death. Which the Bible itself can not be used to validate the Bible.

The problem with Jesus is that throughout history Christians have been using confirmation bias, disingenuous tactics and blatant lies to try to make up evidence for the man. We will never really know what type of man he was or even if he actually existed. Which is odd really since Acts asserts that everyone was talking about the events that occurred in the Bible. Yet out of the 138 known historians from his life time, not one of them mentions a thing about him.
As Bart Erhman (who argues for one of the many Historical Jesus' accounts) says,


“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)


Which even if we did nail down Jesus to the type of man he was, it would be a red herring to suggest in any way, shape or form that it would give relevance to the Biblical account of Jesus. Just like how modern Historians believe Achilles may have existed. By no means does this give validity to the extraordinary claims in his tale or in other words called a red herring .(being a descendant of Zeus, as an example). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Biblical Jesus is pure fiction an unsubstantiated and asinine assertion, nothing more. Evidence dictates truth, not peoples asinine and unsubstantiated opinions.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like StorMFront's post
14-11-2014, 07:24 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
good point, more here;

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674873

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674839

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674847

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674851

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid674857

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid675024

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid677945

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
14-11-2014, 07:50 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 07:15 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Biblical Jesus is pure fiction an unsubstantiated and asinine assertion, nothing more. Evidence dictates truth, not peoples asinine and unsubstantiated opinions.

Amen

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
14-11-2014, 08:10 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 08:15 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Jesus historicity
OP

Are you also logicB4religion? I found your exact post below by accident when I was surfing through yahoo news looking for Xtians to slaughter Tongue

If so, nicely done, I stalk around other sites as well hehe

http://www.examiner.com/article/only-one-way-to-god

LogicB4religion • a day ago
The funny thing about Jesus is that we may never know whether he existed or not. However, It is not an extraordinary claim to think a man inspired a legend. Yet these modern Historians cant seem to pin the man down. They all argue for different versions of the man- from cynical rabbi, revolutionary zealot, apocalyptic prophet, progressive Pharisee, a Galilean shaman, a magus, or a Hellenistic sage- even some a demigod or myth- why is this? Because we have absolutely no evidence for this man's existence. All of the accounts for this man's existence are hearsay accounts- non-contemporary historians from antiquity- that wrote about him.

The fact is even these hearsay accounts come into question, many of them have been so interpolated by early Christians after their deaths. That we have no idea when the original author began and a new author jumped in. Which many of them have been also shown to be forgeries. Even within the Bible itself we see this. Such as Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy's (one other I just cant remember the name) are known to be fakes, while 4 other Pauline Epistles are widely held to be interpolated after Paul's death. Which the Bible itself can not be used to validate the Bible.

The problem with Jesus is that throughout history Christians have been using confirmation bias, disingenuous tactics and blatant lies to try to make up evidence for the man. We will never really know what type of man he was or even if he actually existed. Which is odd really since Acts asserts that everyone was talking about the events that occurred in the Bible. Yet out of the 138 known historians from his life time, not one of them mentions a thing about him.
As Bart Erhman (who argues for one of the many Historical Jesus' accounts) says,

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

Which even if we did nail down Jesus to the type of man he was, it would be a red herring to suggest in any way, shape or form that it would give relevance to the Biblical account of Jesus. Just like how modern Historians believe Achilles may have existed. By no means does this give validity to the extraordinary claims in his tale or in other words called a red herring .(being a descendant of Zeus, as an example). Biblical Jesus is pure fiction an unsubstantiated and asinine assertion, nothing more.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 08:37 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 08:10 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  OP

Are you also logicB4religion? I found your exact post below by accident when I was surfing through yahoo news looking for Xtians to slaughter Tongue

If so, nicely done, I stalk around other sites as well hehe

http://www.examiner.com/article/only-one-way-to-god

LogicB4religion • a day ago
The funny thing about Jesus is that we may never know whether he existed or not. However, It is not an extraordinary claim to think a man inspired a legend. Yet these modern Historians cant seem to pin the man down. They all argue for different versions of the man- from cynical rabbi, revolutionary zealot, apocalyptic prophet, progressive Pharisee, a Galilean shaman, a magus, or a Hellenistic sage- even some a demigod or myth- why is this? Because we have absolutely no evidence for this man's existence. All of the accounts for this man's existence are hearsay accounts- non-contemporary historians from antiquity- that wrote about him.

The fact is even these hearsay accounts come into question, many of them have been so interpolated by early Christians after their deaths. That we have no idea when the original author began and a new author jumped in. Which many of them have been also shown to be forgeries. Even within the Bible itself we see this. Such as Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy's (one other I just cant remember the name) are known to be fakes, while 4 other Pauline Epistles are widely held to be interpolated after Paul's death. Which the Bible itself can not be used to validate the Bible.

The problem with Jesus is that throughout history Christians have been using confirmation bias, disingenuous tactics and blatant lies to try to make up evidence for the man. We will never really know what type of man he was or even if he actually existed. Which is odd really since Acts asserts that everyone was talking about the events that occurred in the Bible. Yet out of the 138 known historians from his life time, not one of them mentions a thing about him.
As Bart Erhman (who argues for one of the many Historical Jesus' accounts) says,

“What sorts of things do pagan authors from the time of Jesus have to say about him? Nothing. As odd as it may seem, there is no mention of Jesus at all by any of his pagan contemporaries. There are no birth records, no trial transcripts, no death certificates; there are no expressions of interest, no heated slanders, no passing references – nothing. In fact, if we broaden our field of concern to the years after his death – even if we include the entire first century of the Common Era – there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind. I should stress that we do have a large number of documents from the time – the writings of poets, philosophers, historians, scientists, and government officials, for example, not to mention the large collection of surviving inscriptions on stone and private letters and legal documents on papyrus. In none of this vast array of surviving writings is Jesus’ name ever so much as mentioned.” (pp. 56-57)

Which even if we did nail down Jesus to the type of man he was, it would be a red herring to suggest in any way, shape or form that it would give relevance to the Biblical account of Jesus. Just like how modern Historians believe Achilles may have existed. By no means does this give validity to the extraordinary claims in his tale or in other words called a red herring .(being a descendant of Zeus, as an example). Biblical Jesus is pure fiction an unsubstantiated and asinine assertion, nothing more.

Yes, same person, me and my brother 'troll' any religious forums we find.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
14-11-2014, 09:37 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Quote:there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind.

Just curious as to why you would think some other culture would even know about Jesus, let alone write about him during, or immediately after, his time?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 09:42 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 09:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:there is not so much as a solitary reference to Jesus in any non-Christian, non-Jewish source of any kind.

Just curious as to why you would think some other culture would even know about Jesus, let alone write about him during, or immediately after, his time?

Just curious on why you wouldn't think a demi-god would not be relevant to other cultures. Is Jesus not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, just like his 'father/itself'?

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 09:44 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 09:42 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 09:37 PM)Free Wrote:  Just curious as to why you would think some other culture would even know about Jesus, let alone write about him during, or immediately after, his time?

Just curious on why you wouldn't think a demi-god would not be relevant to other cultures. Is Jesus not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, just like his 'father/itself'?

You did not answer my question.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 09:46 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 09:42 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 09:37 PM)Free Wrote:  Just curious as to why you would think some other culture would even know about Jesus, let alone write about him during, or immediately after, his time?

Just curious on why you wouldn't think a demi-god would not be relevant to other cultures. Is Jesus not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, just like his 'father/itself'?

"Why did it take so long to inform the Chinese?"

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
14-11-2014, 10:12 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(14-11-2014 09:44 PM)Free Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 09:42 PM)StorMFront Wrote:  Just curious on why you wouldn't think a demi-god would not be relevant to other cultures. Is Jesus not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, just like his 'father/itself'?

You did not answer my question.

I answered your question, than I asked another question to you. Why would you not think an all powerful, all knowing and everywhere at once demi-god would not let himself be known to all?

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: