Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 04:23 PM)Free Wrote:  No, it's "dumb" because your fucking arguments are not arguments at all. Let me give you a very simple demonstration of how fucking stupid these mythicist arguments are, okay?

Watch and learn. Here is goodwithoutgod's "pasted" argument regarding Philo:


Okay so Philo didn't say anything. How the fuck does saying nothing prove anything? An argument from silence is somehow an argument? Because someone didn't say something, well by golly, it never happened?

How the fuck does that utter stupidity ever make it into a discussion?

Not only that, the big question is this:

WHY THE FUCK WOULD PHILO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS?

Do you know that Philo lived in Egypt and NOT Judea?
Do you know he was a Hellenistic Jew who attempted to combine Jewish and Greek philosophies?
Do you know he was not accepted in Orthodox Jews/Judaism at ALL?

Do you really think they had mass communication in ancient times where news of a localized "historical" Jesus somewhere in Judea would have reached some obscure Hellenistic Jew in Egypt?

So ...

WHY THE FUCK WOULD PHILO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JESUS?

And that is why the mythicist's arguments are so fucking retarded.

Get bent.

No, the mythicists' arguments are not retarded - the argument is essentially that evidence that one might reasonably expect to be present isn't, and that the scant evidence that exists in unconvincing.

Neither side has a convincing argument in this.


Exactly, this is the entire point I was trying to make. Simply we do not have a conclusive case for historical Jesus, either way we look at it. No more than that for a plausible historical Achilles. End of story!

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
16-11-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:10 PM)Free Wrote:  The real answer lies in why they hated each other.

Religion.
---

That is not entirely true. Officially, Rome didn't give a shit what idiotic religions they had to deal with; the plebs could worship whomever they liked, as long as they also worshipped the standard Roman issued gods.

If official worship was refused in sole favor of one's own god(s), well then, fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Rome was about control... religion was a tool,but not the only one.

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
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
16-11-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:16 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the mythicists' arguments are not retarded - the argument is essentially that evidence that one might reasonably expect to be present isn't, and that the scant evidence that exists in unconvincing.

Neither side has a convincing argument in this.

Nope, the myther argument is retarded. Almost all of their arguments must first assume that Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, rose from the dead, et al.

They do not argue against the historical position.

There are two levels of argument. One is that the miraculous Jesus of the Bible is a myth, second that there was no actual, real man, Jesus, about whom the stories refer; that the Jesus myth grew out of conflation of stories from several sources.

I think we are all in agreement that the walking on water, fig tree cursing, risen from the dead Jesus is a myth. The difference of opinion seems to be whether there was one preacher about whom these myths grew or were concocted, or not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Paul was ostracized by the 12 apostles because he was an untrustworthy belligerent asshole.

According to Paul's writings, he had his revelation and began preaching without meeting with any of the 12 until many years later. What evidence do you have that they ostracized him?

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, 02:28 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Free

yeeeah, I am just going to drift elsewhere, I am not going to get my blood pressure up arguing with an atheist about the semantics of whether jesus existed or not, or the validity of the statement/fact that no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him when all evidence indicates that....I would drag out the books and warm up my speech recognition software and wring your fucking neck intellectually, but I don't waste that level of energy or time on atheists. Let's just agree to disagree or whatever, carry on with your musings.

Peace
GWG

"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
16-11-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:28 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Free

yeeeah, I am just going to drift elsewhere, I am not going to get my blood pressure up arguing with an atheist about the semantics of whether jesus existed or not, or the validity of the statement/fact that no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him when all evidence indicates that....I would drag out the books and warm up my speech recognition software and wring your fucking neck intellectually, but I don't waste that level of energy or time on atheists. Let's just agree to disagree or whatever, carry on with your musings.

Peace
GWG

Thank you. On a scale of 1 - 10, I assess that you have given me a 5.5 on the "entertainment value."

That's actually pretty good.

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
16-11-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:25 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  Paul was ostracized by the 12 apostles because he was an untrustworthy belligerent asshole.

According to Paul's writings, he had his revelation and began preaching without meeting with any of the 12 until many years later. What evidence do you have that they ostracized him?

That's already been done on this forum. Start reading at the following link:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid213945

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
16-11-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:24 PM)kim Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 02:10 PM)Free Wrote:  The real answer lies in why they hated each other.

Religion.
---

That is not entirely true. Officially, Rome didn't give a shit what idiotic religions they had to deal with; the plebs could worship whomever they liked, as long as they also worshipped the standard Roman issued gods.

Uh-huh.

And the Jews are permitted to worship other gods aside from Jehovah?

Bowing

Is it really necessary that I state the fucking obvious?

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
16-11-2014, 04:35 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Bucky,

Naming all the other Jesus' doesn't help the case for proving that Jesus of Nazareth was the one true Jesus that The Bible was speaking of regarding even a mortal man who was just preaching.

I see no concrete evidence that proves or disproves he existed. Supernatural Jesus is obviously a lie, but I see no compelling evidence to believe in a historical Jesus but I do see Christianity lying about everything else for 2000 years, so why should I believe this?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 04:09 PM)Free Wrote:  And the Jews are permitted to worship other gods aside from Jehovah?

You seem to be viewing an historically vast timespan, from a very narrow point of view.

Jews existed in cities throughout the Roman Empire for centuries. Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fairly ok until rebellion in Judaea led to a major change in the practice of their faith. Philo wrote that they could practice their religion and received the same help as any other Roman, though they were not permitted Roman citizenship.
**

Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance. Roman leadership had long realized that tolerance was a tremendous benefit.

Yes, there were incidents - Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.

When Augustus died, the situation became very different, very quickly. In 39 CE, when Caligula was emperor, religious intolerance erupted in Alexandria. Non-Jews had placed statues of human gods in the city’s synagogues. It's a pretty good bet it was most likely political provocation but ... it's been a while since my Roman studies so, I'm unable to provide evidence from my foggy memory. Anyway...

Furious at the desecration of synagogues, the Jews ripped out the "blasphemous imagery" and that's when the violence began. Philo writes of how mobs of men killed Jews and set fire to Jewish properties. It's just not fun until you can get everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

So yea, Jews did worship Jehovah under Roman rule and many certainly survived to see not only their status in Rome change, but also to see their own religion become altered.

I think any speculation on the Jewish position in ancient Rome, must come from a much wider perspective than where you might be perched, at the moment. Shy

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: