Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:38 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  I bet they were all full of shit too.

I'm no expert, I just personally think Jesus was a myth comprised of other myths.

If you are going to apply the Mythicist's arguments to a "mythical" Jesus, then absolutely, it is impossible to not to end up with a mythical Jesus.

But applying those arguments to the historical spectrum ... wholly different ball game.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 09:06 AM)Free Wrote:  If you are going to apply the Mythicist's arguments to a "mythical" Jesus, then absolutely, it is impossible to not to end up with a mythical Jesus.

But applying those arguments to the historical spectrum ... wholly different ball game.

If you have preconceptions then you can make the evidence, such as it is, fit either scenario. The question is, can you look at the claims without assuming ahead of time that the Jesus character either did or did not exist?

You can't legitimately claim that mythicists are biased when the historicists are just starting off with the opposite bias.

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
16-11-2014, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 10:35 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 09:18 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 09:06 AM)Free Wrote:  If you are going to apply the Mythicist's arguments to a "mythical" Jesus, then absolutely, it is impossible to not to end up with a mythical Jesus.

But applying those arguments to the historical spectrum ... wholly different ball game.

If you have preconceptions then you can make the evidence, such as it is, fit either scenario. The question is, can you look at the claims without assuming ahead of time that the Jesus character either did or did not exist?

You can't legitimately claim that mythicists are biased when the historicists are just starting off with the opposite bias.

Let me show you what I mean.

I will quote some more of goodwithoutgod's pasted myther arguments:

Regarding James

Quote:2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief.

Not true:

James 1.1
James 2.1

Regarding Peter:

Quote: Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it

Quite misleading. The text actually demonstrates that Silvanus took dictation from Peter. That does not make Silvanus the author.

Quote:Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this).

This is an example of how a myther's mind simply cascades into oblivion. Since mythers claim the whole bible is fake, should they use a fable (Acts) to confirm another fable (Peter)?

Even if what the myther claims was true regarding Peter's illiteracy, well then of course it is evidence as to WHY Peter had Silvanus take dictation. Duh!

Regarding Jude:

Quote:4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

This assessment assumes many things without evidence.

Jude could not write? Evidence please. He was living under Roman rule, subjugated to Roman customs and exposed to Roman languages.

There is simply no evidence that Jude was unable to write.

Regarding Josephus:

Quote:[1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Another remarkable example of myther stupidity.

Firstly, what's the point of claiming that Josephus' birth date puts him out of the range of the crucifixion of Jesus if the myther claims that Jesus never existed at all?

Secondly, this statement gives the impression that "most" scholars think the mentioning of Jesus by Josephus was a "total" interpolation, which is a blatant lie.

The truth is, in the first mention of Jesus in Antiquities, most scholars think it was a "partial" interpolation, and that some zealous Christian scribe altered the text to portray Josephus as being a follower of Jesus. Most scholars believe and accept that something was written about Jesus here.

The second mention of Jesus by antiquities is virtually uncontested, except my mythers who's arguments are so desperate as to defy all reason, and embarrass themselves hilariously.

I could go on and on, but what's the point? It is so easy to demonstrate that the myther arguments are not arguments at all, and in most cases are designed with complete deception for the average Joe.

Another such absolutely ridiculous argument is this, and here's a hypothetical scenario:

Myther: Nothing about Jesus was written by a contemporary.
Me: Really? I suppose Paul was not a contemporary?
Myther: But ... but ... but ..
Me: Yeah, whatever. Shut the fuck up.

Trust me, it really is just as stupid as that.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 10:24 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
Seriously, I have no idea why many atheists have a problem with a historical Jesus.

To me, I kind of like the idea that a supposed Christian god was demonstrated to be a mere human when he got his sorry ass handed to him by the Romans. This supposed god died?

Seriously, God died? This eternal being failed to exist due to death? What a fucking crock of shit! How the fuck does anything eternal cease to exist?

Jesus of Nazareth pissed off the Sanhedrin, which resulted in his sorry ass being strung up on a cross like a side of beef, spit upon, laughed at and ridiculed until his human bones went limp unto death.

What the fuck is wrong with that, atheists?

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
Are you bored again, Free? Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
16-11-2014, 10:44 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 10:56 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:38 AM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  I bet they were all full of shit too.

I'm no expert, I just personally think Jesus was a myth comprised of other myths.

They were all full of shit. But that's not really the point.
Applying the standard : (that) if he had been doing what they said later he had been doing, (being seen to have been working miracles by an illiterate populace) .. which was nothing unusual in that culture, at that time, "there wold have been written materials from his own time", is not an appropriate standard to apply to determine historicity.

We know there was a Jesus ben Sirach, Jesus ben Pandira, Jesus ben Ananias, Jesus ben Saphat, Jesus ben Thebuth, and a Jesus ben Stada.
Interestingly, each of them did things and had things said of them which collectively ended up in the story which was told about Jesus of Nazareth, or remarkably similar to things which were said of him, (ie rose from the dead after 3 days, etc).

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
16-11-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 10:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Are you bored again, Free? Tongue

Just a little more time, please.

I am on a roll with the aim of convincing all atheists that Jesus of Nazareth was actually offed by my father, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Thumbsup

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
16-11-2014, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 12:23 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 10:51 AM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 10:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Are you bored again, Free? Tongue

Just a little more time, please.

I am on a roll with the aim of convincing all atheists that Jesus of Nazareth was actually offed by my father, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Thumbsup

Free taking a swing at me?, My replies in bold since you seem to be trying to discredit me

“I will quote some more of goodwithoutgod's pasted myther arguments:”

First, I am not a myther, although the concept is interesting. My personal position is that jesus was some delusional person who thought he was the messiah, when the authors of the bible started putting the whole fable together, they took the story of this man, who may have been a charismatic "preacher" executed for his transgressions, and exaggerated that story base into the BS fairy tale it is in the bible, that is my perspective, based on the fact that no one who wrote of jesus, knew him, and based on the fact that the none of the magical events were written down at the time they happened tells me they didnt happen, for if they had, someone would have thought it dignified recording. This means all the son of god stuff is BS, of course.

Regarding James

Quote:
2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief.

Not true:

James 1.1 James, a servant of god and of the lord jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
James 2.1 My brethren, have not the faith of our lord jesus Christ, the lord of glory, with respect of persons
BS, as I said, he only mentions jesus as an introduction, AT the introduction. My point was he does not posit a witness to Christ, just states his belief, it isn’t as if he says, “jesus said blah blah blah as he and I walked down the road to never never land”
Regarding Peter:

Quote:
Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it

Quite misleading. The text actually demonstrates that Silvanus took dictation from Peter. That does not make Silvanus the author.
“1 Peter 5:12 – By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of god wherein ye stand. 5:13 – The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth marcus my son. 5:14 Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ jesus. Amen.” What does that appear like to you? A signature, a closing by the author…Silvanus

Quote:
Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this).

This is an example of how a myther's mind simply cascades into oblivion. Since mythers claim the whole bible is fake, should they use a fable (Acts) to confirm another fable (Peter)?
Where did I claim to be a myther? I did use Carriers book for a citation, as well as like 9 other books, these points aren’t even from Carrier, or any “myther”. These are just facts. The reference to ACTS was to demonstrate to the believer that even within their holy book it states that he was an ignorant and illiterate peasant, thus could not have personally written those scriptures…get it?

Even if what the myther claims was true regarding Peter's illiteracy, well then of course it is evidence as to WHY Peter had Silvanus take dictation. Duh!

citation please

Regarding Jude:

Quote:
4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

This assessment assumes many things without evidence.

Jude could not write? Evidence please. He was living under Roman rule, subjugated to Roman customs and exposed to Roman languages.

There is simply no evidence that Jude was unable to write.

provide evidence he could, take a few theology classes in Christianity, historicity of jesus, as I have, and you may learn these things, I will not waste too much time regurgitating lessons to another atheist

Regarding Josephus:

Quote:
[1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Another remarkable example of myther stupidity. facts can be inconvenient can’t they?

Firstly, what's the point of claiming that Josephus' birth date puts him out of the range of the crucifixion of Jesus if the myther claims that Jesus never existed at all? again, not a myther, and this information has nothing to do with mythism, and was not taken from Dr carrier’s book. The point here again, is NO one who wrote of jesus knew him, thus it is all based on hearsay…how is this fact beyond your grasp?

Secondly, this statement gives the impression that "most" scholars think the mentioning of Jesus by Josephus was a "total" interpolation, which is a blatant lie.

no sorry bud, again, the VAST majority do not even try to refute this anymore, the majority of pseudepigrapha, interpolations and and allegorical writings have been identified, validated and substantiated

The truth is, in the first mention of Jesus in Antiquities, most scholars think it was a "partial" interpolation, and that some zealous Christian scribe altered the text to portray Josephus as being a follower of Jesus. Most scholars believe and accept that something was written about Jesus here.


The second mention of Jesus by antiquities is virtually uncontested, except my mythers who's arguments are so desperate as to defy all reason, and embarrass themselves hilariously.

I could go on and on, but what's the point? It is so easy to demonstrate that the myther arguments are not arguments at all, and in most cases are designed with complete deception for the average Joe.
Flavius Josephus
Christian apologetic fan’s most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were ‘The antiquities of the Jews’ and ‘the wars of the Jews’. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:
“now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”
This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:
1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origen’s second century version of Josephus, in ‘Origen Contra Celsum’, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible “medicine” for historians to create fictions – prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.”

The fact that Josephus – Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history – at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity – makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus “the Christ” or “the truth.” Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and if he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was “not believing in Jesus as the Christ.”

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows.… Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase “to this day” shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no “tribe of Christians” during Josephus time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the “divine prophets” foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus would’ve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: “… As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him…” This sounds more like sectarian propaganda – in other words, more like the new testament – than objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historian’s pen.

Another such absolutely ridiculous argument is this, and here's a hypothetical scenario:

Myther: Nothing about Jesus was written by a contemporary.
Me: Really? I suppose Paul was not a contemporary?
Myther: But ... but ... but ..
Me: Yeah, whatever. Shut the fuck up.
well you certainly are proud of your ignorance on this subject. When did paul and jesus meet? Perhaps you can set the theological world on fire and present that evidence? If you try to say on the road to Damascus I am taking away your atheist card

Again, perhaps a bit slo---wer: paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination.


Trust me, it really is just as stupid as that.
your inability to comprehend known facts truly is baffling, are you sure you aren’t a closet xtian? Perhaps you should choose better whom you attack within the TTA forums.


Again, I am not sure if you misread something I said previously, misunderstood my post to Thomasia, or whatever his name was, but no where have I ever presented that I am a myther, although it is an interesting perspective and does have some substantiation, but I havent done enough reading on that yet to profer a solid opinion. it truly saddens me to be at odds with another TTA atheist, and I hope it waqs just a misunderstanding on your part of my position, if not, then it is what it is..

"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
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
16-11-2014, 11:54 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 10:09 AM)Free Wrote:  Let me show you what I mean.

I will quote some more of goodwithoutgod's pasted myther arguments:

Regarding James

Quote:2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief.

Not true:

James 1.1
James 2.1

Whether GWG had the count right or not, as I understand it the epistle of James is generally considered to be a forgery so anything it says is questionable at best. The references also don't indicate that Jesus was a historical person, just that he is "the lord".

Quote:Regarding Peter:

Quote: Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it

Quite misleading. The text actually demonstrates that Silvanus took dictation from Peter. That does not make Silvanus the author.

The KJV says Peter wrote "with the help of Silvanus"; other versions say "By Silvanus". I don't know what the original says but it does imply that Silvanus actually wrote it and that means he may have influenced it.

Quote:
Quote:Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this).

This is an example of how a myther's mind simply cascades into oblivion. Since mythers claim the whole bible is fake, should they use a fable (Acts) to confirm another fable (Peter)?

Even if what the myther claims was true regarding Peter's illiteracy, well then of course it is evidence as to WHY Peter had Silvanus take dictation. Duh!

Maybe you missed the "if he ever lived at all" caveat. The point is that if you accept the stories as being about a real person there are inconsistencies in the claims that make it difficult to determine what is likely to be true. The idea that they are all fiction is not so hard to swallow when you aren't so dogmatically wedded to the idea that Jesus existed.

Quote:Regarding Jude:

Quote:4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

This assessment assumes many things without evidence.

Jude could not write? Evidence please. He was living under Roman rule, subjugated to Roman customs and exposed to Roman languages.

There is simply no evidence that Jude was unable to write.

GWG is certainly much more knowledgeable about the claim but what I get from that is that the story of the disciples has them coming mostly from the lower or working classes and would likely speak aramaic but be illiterate. To assume that a person like that could later write fluently in Greek and incorporate knowledge of the church many years after the supposed crucifixion also requires making a lot of assertations for which there is no evidence. The question is, is it more likely that Jude lived into very old age and learned Greek and was an accomplished church historian or that somebody else wrote something that was attributed to Jude?

Quote:Regarding Josephus:

Quote:[1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Another remarkable example of myther stupidity.

Firstly, what's the point of claiming that Josephus' birth date puts him out of the range of the crucifixion of Jesus if the myther claims that Jesus never existed at all?

Maybe that Josephus could not have had any first-hand knowledge so even if a Jesus reference were accepted it could only be hearsay?

Quote:Secondly, this statement gives the impression that "most" scholars think the mentioning of Jesus by Josephus was a "total" interpolation, which is a blatant lie.

The truth is, in the first mention of Jesus in Antiquities, most scholars think it was a "partial" interpolation, and that some zealous Christian scribe altered the text to portray Josephus as being a follower of Jesus. Most scholars believe and accept that something was written about Jesus here.

I don't know what the numbers are. I do know that even the most generous reading of the passage only really attests to the existence of Christians at best and that's not in question.

Quote:The second mention of Jesus by antiquities is virtually uncontested, except my mythers who's arguments are so desperate as to defy all reason, and embarrass themselves hilariously.

I've read arguments for both sides. I'm not convinced either way. The wording is strange no matter how I try to interpret it but from my perspective you are every bit as desperate to deny that it might be a reference to some other Jesus as pure mythicists are to prove that point.

Quote:Myther: Nothing about Jesus was written by a contemporary.
Me: Really? I suppose Paul was not a contemporary?
Myther: But ... but ... but ..
Me: Yeah, whatever. Shut the fuck up.

Trust me, it really is just as stupid as that.

Paul is certainly the closest thing to a contemporary (assuming he existed but so far I've found the arguments for his being a myth to be much less compelling). Even so, he never met Jesus and based his claims solely on his "revelation". His writings don't require a historical Jesus.

Quote:Seriously, I have no idea why many atheists have a problem with a historical Jesus.

To me, I kind of like the idea that a supposed Christian god was demonstrated to be a mere human when he got his sorry ass handed to him by the Romans. This supposed god died?

And I think that's where you are unwilling to even consider that there wasn't a historical Jesus. You've picked a story that you like and are sticking with it regardless.

Quote:Jesus of Nazareth pissed off the Sanhedrin, which resulted in his sorry ass being strung up on a cross like a side of beef, spit upon, laughed at and ridiculed until his human bones went limp unto death.

What the fuck is wrong with that, atheists?

Nothing, except that it may not be what really happened. It is certainly a possibility but to claim that you are certain it happened that way leaves a lot of things unexplained. We know that the trial could not have happened the way the bible describes it so to accept the story you have to accept that they got the broad strokes right but the details very wrong. I don't think you are justified in doing that.

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
16-11-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
The thing is, Jerusalem was out in the boondocks and at the time, Rome had other matters to attend to.

I'm with the eyewitness accounts of Philo... the "man on the street" gave as much of a shit about some Jesus guy they never heard of, as I do about "who shot JR".

Then there are "very notably absent" accounts of the Justus guy... pretty telling. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

At the most, I'd say if there were any historicity to the Jesus character, it would possibly be an amalgam of several fringe, local characters running around... a sort of Harold Camping/Ken Ham sandwich with all extra veggies & condiments tossed on.

Based on (lack of)evidence, I consider the whole Jesus issue to be fan fiction. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: