Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 05:50 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 05:39 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 05:38 PM)Free Wrote:  Haha ...

Am I an atheist? Why the fuck do idiots like you automatically play the "he isn't an atheist" card whenever an atheist accepts the historicity of Jesus?

Is there some private club or creed that atheists need to take that entails something to the effect of "Deny Jesus ever existed, even if he showed up at your front door with a harp and 1000 angels in tow?"

For fuck sakes get over yourselves.

I explained why, because you are becoming ignorant and blatantly hostile to what is being said. I typically only see this behaviour from Christians that have no argument.

I don't "become" ignorant and blatantly hostile.

I am that way all the fucking time.

Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
15-11-2014, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 06:06 PM by StorMRising.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 05:43 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  Citations of what he said on Jesus?

Dude, he said nothing on Jesus, or Christians.

That's the point.

I apologize, I jumped on my brothers bandwagon. Reading his comment before reading yours. I was under assumption you said Philo mentioned Jesus. Instead it was him that misread you.
Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

However, you dont see this as a problem? That he didnt mention neither the supposed King or his radical following?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMRising's post
15-11-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 05:43 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  Citations of what he said on Jesus?

Dude, he said nothing on Jesus, or Christians.

That's the point.

Honestly I misread you, I thought you were arguing that he 'did' mention Jesus. I am man enough to own up to my mistake and I apologize. Though, you still have yet to mention why you think Tacitus vague reference to a 'Christus' is relevant, being a non-contemporary account. But Philo saying nothing is not relevant as well? Where as Philo at least was contemporary (in the area for both Jesus' alleged birth and his supposed march into Jerusalem).

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
15-11-2014, 06:42 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 06:48 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 06:03 PM)StorMRising Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 05:48 PM)Free Wrote:  Dude, he said nothing on Jesus, or Christians.

That's the point.

I apologize, I jumped on my brothers bandwagon. Reading his comment before reading yours. I was under assumption you said Philo mentioned Jesus. Instead it was him that misread you.
Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups.

However, you dont see this as a problem? That he didnt mention neither the supposed King or his radical following?

I understand why "mythers" would see a problem, because they pose the question of Philo in the context of a mythical Jesus as opposed to a historical Jesus. Let me demonstrate.

Mythers would have a point about the silence of Philo in regards to man who walked on water, rose people from the dead, healed the sick, and flew up to heaven. If someone like the mythical Jesus had actually existed, then his fame would exceed the borders of Judea, and he would be very well known in all the surrounding nations.

But when it comes to a historical Jesus- when the myth is stripped off the man- those myther arguments make absolutely no sense at all. Think of the historical Jesus as a local folk hero, who gained fame because of his religious philosophical views. In his own neck of the woods he would be well known. But that's the extent of it.

So you see, the myther arguments relate to a mythical Jesus, and not a historical one. That is why so many people- atheists in particular- get sucked into the myther belief system. They simply do not understand the difference between the mythical Jesus and the historical Jesus or ... they refuse to understand due to militant bias.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
15-11-2014, 06:43 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 03:19 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 03:02 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Reality is not black and white... why do you boil this down to Hate/Love? What purpose does this serve or benefit does this construe? Repeating claims or assertions doesn't adjust anything about them.

Somehow I get the impression that you think I need to quote numerous and endless sources to demonstrate to you that the Romans hated the Jews.

As if two well documented wars, numerous writings of Romans that I have posted using the exact word of "hate" wasn't enough.

If that doesn't do it for you, then it becomes apparent that no amount of references will.

Like one army is going to go fight and kill another army because they love them.

Seriously ...

Quote:What is incorrect about your statements not being just statements? Without given descriptive reasoning or evidence about it, they're statements. By your reasonin Rome hated everyone non-Roman god believing.. there's no value in any distinction of the jews if that was the case anyway.

I gave the info and documents. Did you even lOOk at them? What do you think I am going to do? Post more? What's the point?

Quote:To bring it on point.. none of what you've been adding here or saying brings any more reason for the Christians/Jews over others to have been picked out and for their leaders to be scoffed at in written texts. It doesn't add any reason to think Jesus was real or that Christ was written out by Tacitus because he hated Christians.

Well I guess we'll just have to take your word for it?

Bowing

I'd rather you just come out of a shell and be skeptical and not willfully assume and think of the world as a black and white situation. I don't get why someone who says they are skeptical and prides himself on looking at situations from various perspectives and opinions... but doesn't appear to be so but instead ignores rational arguments to view things in a love/hate type dichotomy; to say that again after being pointed out it's silliness and asked why you do it is bizarre behavior.

Or in another situation.. The problem of you doing that again. Picking apart the other contemporary historians isn't because Arguments are Merely the case of Jesus existed/Jesus Didn't exist at all.. It's a open range of questioning to ponder if Jesus was real in some for, or based on multiple people, etc. The questioning isn't based on a 1 or zero perception. It shouldn't be to anyone. It is an open debate, but if one of those historical contemporaries of Jesus talked of him, that actually would be the dagger in the case you some reason say Tacitus is.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
15-11-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 06:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'd rather you just come out of a shell and be skeptical and not willfully assume and think of the world as a black and white situation. I don't get why someone who says they are skeptical and prides himself on looking at situations from various perspectives and opinions... but doesn't appear to be so but instead ignores rational arguments to view things in a love/hate type dichotomy; to say that again after being pointed out it's silliness and asked why you do it is bizarre behavior.

I am not seeing rational arguments here from anyone. Instead, I am seeing denial at my rational arguments and evidence provided.

I have demonstrated the "hatred" thing numerous times with actual evidence from both Tacitus and Pliny, so what more is expected?

I have demonstrated it with "rational" reasoning- "would you go to war with someone you love?"

Pliny`s letter to Trajan shows how the Roman authorities would actively hunt down Christians and bring them in for persecution. It shows that they were being persecuted because of their religious beliefs. Unless they denounced Christ, and took the oath and rituals of the Roman empire and their gods, they would be killed.

It was all about religion. It`s the same thing today with the Muslims. If you are a Christian in Saudi Arabia, you are not permitted into their `holy`city. Only Muslims are permitted in their little `kingdom`and if you are not a Muslim, accessed denied.

The Romans were an arrogant lot. Their religion and way of life was far superior than anyone else, as far as they were concerned. If you were not a Roman, you were garbage.

Quote:Or in another situation.. The problem of you doing that again. Picking apart the other contemporary historians isn't because Arguments are Merely the case of Jesus existed/Jesus Didn't exist at all.. It's a open range of questioning to ponder if Jesus was real in some for, or based on multiple people, etc. The questioning isn't based on a 1 or zero perception. It shouldn't be to anyone. It is an open debate, but if one of those historical contemporaries of Jesus talked of him, that actually would be the dagger in the case you some reason say Tacitus is.

From a strictly mythical Jesus perspective, true. But those arguments miserably fail when confronted from a historical perspective.

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
15-11-2014, 07:18 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 07:04 PM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 06:43 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I'd rather you just come out of a shell and be skeptical and not willfully assume and think of the world as a black and white situation. I don't get why someone who says they are skeptical and prides himself on looking at situations from various perspectives and opinions... but doesn't appear to be so but instead ignores rational arguments to view things in a love/hate type dichotomy; to say that again after being pointed out it's silliness and asked why you do it is bizarre behavior.

I am not seeing rational arguments here from anyone. Instead, I am seeing denial at my rational arguments and evidence provided.

I have demonstrated the "hatred" thing numerous times with actual evidence from both Tacitus and Pliny, so what more is expected?

I have demonstrated it with "rational" reasoning- "would you go to war with someone you love?"

Pliny`s letter to Trajan shows how the Roman authorities would actively hunt down Christians and bring them in for persecution. It shows that they were being persecuted because of their religious beliefs. Unless they denounced Christ, and took the oath and rituals of the Roman empire and their gods, they would be killed.

It was all about religion. It`s the same thing today with the Muslims. If you are a Christian in Saudi Arabia, you are not permitted into their `holy`city. Only Muslims are permitted in their little `kingdom`and if you are not a Muslim, accessed denied.

The Romans were an arrogant lot. Their religion and way of life was far superior than anyone else, as far as they were concerned. If you were not a Roman, you were garbage.

Quote:Or in another situation.. The problem of you doing that again. Picking apart the other contemporary historians isn't because Arguments are Merely the case of Jesus existed/Jesus Didn't exist at all.. It's a open range of questioning to ponder if Jesus was real in some for, or based on multiple people, etc. The questioning isn't based on a 1 or zero perception. It shouldn't be to anyone. It is an open debate, but if one of those historical contemporaries of Jesus talked of him, that actually would be the dagger in the case you some reason say Tacitus is.

From a strictly mythical Jesus perspective, true. But those arguments miserably fail when confronted from a historical perspective.

A Hate/Love dichotomy isn't a rational juxtaposition since the world isn't a good/bad one or none scenario. Would you go to war with someone you love? NO, then you HATE them is an irrational form of argument.

Even if this argument you've made was valid... so what? You brought it up to say that it makes sense Tacitus would want to hate the Jews/Christians messiah? How do you even rationalize this without making logical leaps? He wrote 1 line about Christ, to extrapolate extra context about why based on his opinions of Christians is flimsy. There isn't a solid logical progression.

And back on the Jesus case. There isn't some it must be a No Jesus vs Historical Jesus case being made most of the time. You have to debate these concepts on a spectrum. Unfold these topics at an open angle and view them as fluid, not static and black/white.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
15-11-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 06:42 PM)Free Wrote:  I understand why "mythers" would see a problem, because they pose the question of Philo in the context of a mythical Jesus as opposed to a historical Jesus. Let me demonstrate.

Mythers would have a point about the silence of Philo in regards to man who walked on water, rose people from the dead, healed the sick, and flew up to heaven. If someone like the mythical Jesus had actually existed, then his fame would exceed the borders of Judea, and he would be very well known in all the surrounding nations.

But when it comes to a historical Jesus- when the myth is stripped off the man- those myther arguments make absolutely no sense at all. Think of the historical Jesus as a local folk hero, who gained fame because of his religious philosophical views. In his own neck of the woods he would be well known. But that's the extent of it.

So you see, the myther arguments relate to a mythical Jesus, and not a historical one. That is why so many people- atheists in particular- get sucked into the myther belief system. They simply do not understand the difference between the mythical Jesus and the historical Jesus or ... they refuse to understand due to militant bias.

This is absolutely the best post of this mind-numbingly redundant thread. Free is correct and hits it right on the head here. Let go of the idea that Jesus was the Son of God miracle worker and think of him as just some guy whose dedicated legend eventually got blown out of proportion after the fact.

From a historical standpoint he's not even worth a footnote to these historians of the day, nor would they even know about him because his accomplishments were no different than any other man. So why would they know about him, much less write about him?

If his mythical accomplishments were indeed true they would know about him and write about him, which is the point. Since they didn't write about him it lends more credence to a historical Jesus and less to the mythical one.

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WillHopp's post
15-11-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 07:04 PM)Free Wrote:  From a strictly mythical Jesus perspective, true. But those arguments miserably fail when confronted from a historical perspective.

I always assumed that there was probably a historical figure at the core of the myth. It made sense that the legends had been blown way out of proportion but that it started with an actual person. Looking at the claims with that assumption in the back of my mind it all made sense.

Lately I've been doing a lot of reading about it and re-examining the claims while considering "what if" and the pure myth argument is making a lot more sense than it did before. All of the historicity claims do seem to rely on hearsay and boil down to "I've been told that there are people called Christians who follow a Christ" and none actually unambiguously document a real person. I'm no longer sure I can honestly say that any of them make less sense if they refer to a purely mythical Jesus. I'm also considering that if there was an actual historical figure it may make more sense that it started with the Essene's "teacher of righteousness" being martyred more than 100 years before the commonly accepted Jesus. An actual historical man may have also been displaced in time by later writers when he was made into something more human.

I'm not claiming that there wasn't a historical man or that he wasn't killed sometime around the year 30 as that is still a reasonable possibility in my estimation. All I'm saying is that the idea that there wasn't even that much truth in the stories is not so far-fetched when you try to view the claims with as little bias as possible.

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
15-11-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 07:22 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 06:42 PM)Free Wrote:  I understand why "mythers" would see a problem, because they pose the question of Philo in the context of a mythical Jesus as opposed to a historical Jesus. Let me demonstrate.

Mythers would have a point about the silence of Philo in regards to man who walked on water, rose people from the dead, healed the sick, and flew up to heaven. If someone like the mythical Jesus had actually existed, then his fame would exceed the borders of Judea, and he would be very well known in all the surrounding nations.

But when it comes to a historical Jesus- when the myth is stripped off the man- those myther arguments make absolutely no sense at all. Think of the historical Jesus as a local folk hero, who gained fame because of his religious philosophical views. In his own neck of the woods he would be well known. But that's the extent of it.

So you see, the myther arguments relate to a mythical Jesus, and not a historical one. That is why so many people- atheists in particular- get sucked into the myther belief system. They simply do not understand the difference between the mythical Jesus and the historical Jesus or ... they refuse to understand due to militant bias.

This is absolutely the best post of this mind-numbingly redundant thread. Free is correct and hits it right on the head here. Let go of the idea that Jesus was the Son of God miracle worker and think of him as just some guy whose dedicated legend eventually got blown out of proportion after the fact.

From a historical standpoint he's not even worth a footnote to these historians of the day, nor would they even know about him because his accomplishments were no different than any other man. So why would they know about him, much less write about him?

If his mythical accomplishments were indeed true they would know about him and write about him, which is the point. Since they didn't write about him it lends more credence to a historical Jesus and less to the mythical one.

Hali-fucking-luya!

Somebody gets it.

Thumbsup

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: