Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2014, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 10:27 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus historicity
We do know that whatever got the "Way" (sub-sect of JEWS which was named in Acts) going, (and there must have been a "founding group" or some impetus for that to get going) it was well under way by the end of the First Century, because we know for a fact that the grandson of Gamaliel required the "Expulsion Curses" to be read as part of the Benedictions in the synagogues at the end of the First Century. Whether that "impetus" bears some relationship to, or something "historical" can be *teased out* of what was written in Acts, I think there is not enough evidence to make any informed statement. The fact that the gospels, (as Carrier has clearly demonstrated) follow the literary format of mythology, does not help the case of historicity.

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
15-11-2014, 10:23 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 10:15 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote: However, It is not an extraordinary claim to think a man inspired a legend.

No, but it is not necessary, either. Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus" points out that in 1945, Betty Crocker was named the 2d most influential woman in America, behind Eleanor Roosevelt.

Betty Crocker was created as an advertising campaign in 1921. Eleanor Roosevelt, at least, was real.

Right, that was the entire point I was trying to convey yesterday night. However beer and typing only go together for a short time period. Than things start going side ways.

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
15-11-2014, 10:25 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
Right, that was the entire point I was trying to convey yesterday night. However beer and typing only go together for a short time period. Than things start going side ways.

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, 10:25 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 09:54 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 09:32 AM)morondog Wrote:  Woohoo. Party on. Citation for your claim?

Sure:

"OK so Jesus existed." -morondog

If I now say "I believe Jesus existed" and someone says "Why?" I gotta say "because some dick on a net forum said so".

Whatever. If that's the level of your "I'm so fucken great and no one can debate me" skillz then good luck to you.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
15-11-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
Seriously, from a historical viewpoint the following is about all that can be said about Jesus:

A man named Jesus came from a town called Nazareth. He had a religious philosophy that many of the common Jews found attractive. He gained fame in certain areas of 1st century Judea, but this fame did not bide him well. The Jewish Sanhedrin feared Jesus because many of the common people were claiming this Jesus to be the Messiah, and to be proclaimed as a Messiah literally means that they were claiming him to be a king; King of the Jews.

The Sanhedrin feared a war with the Romans would break out if they supported Jesus of Nazareth as being a Messiah. They therefore determined that "one man must die for the nation," and set in motion a plan to capture Jesus and have him put to death. Since they couldn't do it themselves because of their laws during the Passover, they brought him to Pilate.

It was when Jesus was in the custody of Pilate that members of the Sanhedrin pressed for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. When Pilate resisted, those Sanhedrin members then proceeded to blackmail Pilate by saying something to the effect of, "If you let this Jesus go free, we will tell Caesar that you let a rival king go free in Caesars kingdom."

Pilate's hands were tied, and forced by blackmail he crucified Jesus and wrote on the cross, "This is Jesus, King of the Jews."

And that is about all that needs to be said or known about this man. He didn't walk on water, raise the dead, or fly up into the sky.

He's dead, and he will stay that way.

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, 11:00 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 10:25 AM)morondog Wrote:  "OK so Jesus existed." -morondog

If I now say "I believe Jesus existed" and someone says "Why?" I gotta say "because some dick on a net forum said so". [/quote]

lol, in this example you're the "dick on a net forum" who said so. You said "Ok so Jesus existed, now what".

You initial question was one in which his existence is assumed to be established, and you wanted to know what then, where did I want to go from there?

And my response was nowhere else, that's as far as I'm going.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 10:06 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Is all your history so shitty? Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus discussed Pilate's activities in Judaea. See Philo's "Embassy to Gaius"...if you dare. Josephus' reference comes in Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews.

Yep, they do, that's why i cited them, duh.

But were Philo and Josephus Pagans though?

Quote:The Tacitus reference is most likely a forgery but even if it were not, he does not mention any fucking "jesus."

Tacitus: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Yep, Tacitus wasn't referring to Jesus Christ, but another Christus whose followers were called Christians (persecuted under Nero), who was also suffered the extreme penalty, at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. And this is all just an uncanny coincidence.

And if that seems too incredulous, just assume it was forgery because it would be inconvenient for the bullshit i'm trying to sell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 11:19 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 11:24 AM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 10:06 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Is all your history so shitty? Both Philo of Alexandria and Josephus discussed Pilate's activities in Judaea. See Philo's "Embassy to Gaius"...if you dare. Josephus' reference comes in Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews.

Yep, they do, that's why i cited them, duh.

But were Philo and Josephus Pagans though?

Quote:The Tacitus reference is most likely a forgery but even if it were not, he does not mention any fucking "jesus."

Tacitus: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Yep, Tacitus wasn't referring to Jesus Christ, but another Christus whose followers were called Christians (persecuted under Nero), who was also suffered the extreme penalty, at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. And this is all just an uncanny coincidence.

And if that seems too incredulous, just assume it was forgery because it would be inconvenient for the bullshit i'm trying to sell.

I tend to agree.

The "Mythicist" argument that Tacitus wasn't talking about "Jesus" needs to completely dispose of all reasoning and any other evidence to arrive at this exceptionally weak- and if you don't mind me saying- "utterly fucking retarded" conclusion.

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, 11:35 AM
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 11:19 AM)Free Wrote:  
(15-11-2014 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yep, they do, that's why i cited them, duh.

But were Philo and Josephus Pagans though?


Tacitus: "Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"

Yep, Tacitus wasn't referring to Jesus Christ, but another Christus whose followers were called Christians (persecuted under Nero), who was also suffered the extreme penalty, at the hands of Pontius Pilatus. And this is all just an uncanny coincidence.

And if that seems too incredulous, just assume it was forgery because it would be inconvenient for the bullshit i'm trying to sell.

I tend to agree.

The "Mythicist" argument that Tacitus wasn't talking about "Jesus" needs to completely dispose of all reasoning and any other evidence to arrive at this exceptionally weak- and if you don't mind me saying- "utterly fucking retarded" conclusion.

Is that even an argument? Or one people are making up here..

I've read the Tacitus lines.. it comes off to me as proving that people believed Jesus existed. We know Christianity was spread around by the time he wrote and that people had the texts believing it... It doesn't really prove evidence he existed, it proves people believed in the story.

That's kind of a problem I've seen with historical arguments of that manner once you go a couple generations deep.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
15-11-2014, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2014 12:17 PM by StorMFront.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(15-11-2014 10:39 AM)Free Wrote:  Seriously, from a historical viewpoint the following is about all that can be said about Jesus:

A man named Jesus came from a town called Nazareth. He had a religious philosophy that many of the common Jews found attractive. He gained fame in certain areas of 1st century Judea, but this fame did not bide him well. The Jewish Sanhedrin feared Jesus because many of the common people were claiming this Jesus to be the Messiah, and to be proclaimed as a Messiah literally means that they were claiming him to be a king; King of the Jews.

The Sanhedrin feared a war with the Romans would break out if they supported Jesus of Nazareth as being a Messiah. They therefore determined that "one man must die for the nation," and set in motion a plan to capture Jesus and have him put to death. Since they couldn't do it themselves because of their laws during the Passover, they brought him to Pilate.

It was when Jesus was in the custody of Pilate that members of the Sanhedrin pressed for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. When Pilate resisted, those Sanhedrin members then proceeded to blackmail Pilate by saying something to the effect of, "If you let this Jesus go free, we will tell Caesar that you let a rival king go free in Caesars kingdom."

Pilate's hands were tied, and forced by blackmail he crucified Jesus and wrote on the cross, "This is Jesus, King of the Jews."

And that is about all that needs to be said or known about this man. He didn't walk on water, raise the dead, or fly up into the sky.

He's dead, and he will stay that way.

Honestly though you could be right. However, as I said before, what you state is simply only hypothetical and not substantiated at all. I am no historian, however I do know what the 'historical method' states. Where as you cannot confirm a person, place, thing or event in history existed without some form of contemporary evidence.

Where we all know for obvious reasoning, that 'hearsay' accounts are not sufficient enough to prove any claim. Within the three criteria used within the historical method, Jesus only meets one, indirect non-contemporary evidence. Which even those are debated on their reliability within Jesus' historicity. So I stand by what I said, historical Jesus is simply only plausible within history. He is in no shape, way or form confirmed to have actually existed, no more than that of Achilles.

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
[+] 4 users Like StorMFront's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: