Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 12:48 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 12:46 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 12:37 PM)Vosur Wrote:  That's still plain wrong. I don't need to acknowledge the existence of Jesus in order to determine whether or not the methods used to figure out the time in which he supposedly lived are accurate and valid.

It's quite logically simple.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think the methods are valid or not. What matters is your "agreement'" with the scholars as to dating of Jesus' supposed existence. This acknowledgement on your part- or anyone's part- is an admission in itself to the "existence" of Jesus.

You cannot say, "I agree with the scholars that Jesus existed around AD33" and then say, "Jesus did not exist."

It's a logical contradiction.

One can agree that if Jesus existed, he existed around 33 AD. That is consistent with the stories. One can also then say that his existence is doubtful. There is no contradiction.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-11-2012, 01:53 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 12:46 PM)Free Wrote:  It's quite logically simple.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think the methods are valid or not. What matters is your "agreement'" with the scholars as to dating of Jesus' supposed existence. This acknowledgement on your part- or anyone's part- is an admission in itself to the "existence" of Jesus.

You cannot say, "I agree with the scholars that Jesus existed around AD33" and then say, "Jesus did not exist."

It's a logical contradiction.

One can agree that if Jesus existed, he existed around 33 AD. That is consistent with the stories. One can also then say that his existence is doubtful. There is no contradiction.

Sure you can say that, because it leaves room on both ends for either doubt or affirmation.

One of the problems though is your statement of "is consistent with the stories." Now, again it becomes a matter of whether or not those "stories" have any truth to them. If you agree they do, then you are stuck in the affirmation position.

The problem with this whole "He existed/He didn't exist" fiasco is that the proponents for non existence are forced to accept something that affirms the existence of the man according to all available resources.

If we agree with what the scholars believe, then ... we agree with what the scholars believe.

Our problem is almost impossible. How does anyone prove the non existence of someone if they did not exist? We simply cannot.

In every historicity/myth argument I have seen, those who favor non existence are always using arguments from silence, unsupported assertion, or some improbable explanation to counter the evidence the believers bring.

At the end of the day, the believers cling to their evidence such as Tacitus, Josephus, non canonical texts etc because it IS evidence (doesn't prove anything conclusively though), while the myth argument brings not a shred of good evidence to the table.

I think the argument for a complete myth is quite untenable.

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
01-11-2012, 02:45 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 03:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(12-10-2012 05:16 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Playing devil's advocate here.













Video 1
---The speaker says the only reason it's possible to deny the existence of Jesus is the distance from the events, and no one else denied it.
***Wrong. The reason it's denied, now, is the quality of the "so called" evidence, and the assumptions are now changed, in light of later scholarship. Fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum.
A Roman writer, (or us for that matter) in conflating a "Jesus" figure, with *Christ* is no evidence. There were many *Christs*, and many men named *Jesus*, and some of the other apocalyptics were also named Jesus.
Tacitus. Tacitus was not ever "on site". Even *if* there was man named Jesus crucified in that time period, there is no reason to one HAS to accept that the *christ* named, and Yeshua ben Josef, are the same person. They may have been. There is no reason to HAVE to think they were. The *christ* myth could be built on a semi-historical person, or even many people, and then conflated. There is NO on-site reference to him. In fact there are good reasons to NOT think the "trail" happened the way it was recounted. The gospels contradict themselves on the day he died. There is no way a peasant Galilean would have been allowed into the chambers of a Roman aristocrat to watch the proceedings, and record it. In fact the gospels say "everyone fled". The Jews did not record it. And no peasant, illiterate Jew would even merit a trial. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to simply execute troublemakers. There is a mountain of evidence to think something stinks to high heaven here.
--- Lucian of Samosota
***Wrong. Not on site. Hearsay. Could have conflated any Jew named Jesus with one of the *christs* In no way "confirms the Biblical account" Which conflicting account is he talking about ?
---Josephus
***This is laughable. The early church Fathers did not know of the statement in Chapter 18. If Josephus had actually written it, they would have talked about it and used it. The earliest version is in the Museo Ambrosiano in Milan, from after 1100 CE. The statement is an obvious interpolation. Different hand writing, different syntax, different vocabulary, and different ink. Anyone can go see for them-self. It's a forgery by Christian monks. The statement actually conflicts substantially philosophically with the Saul of Tarsus account, and philosophy, which was the first account written. The Q document had no resurrection. Thus we know that's not what the earliest Christians thought of the "Jesus events", or how they interpreted them for themselves.

Video 2 :

to be continued. ....

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 02:46 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 11:35 AM)NeonMoment Wrote:  I posted this in support of A2...let's see if they approve it for posting.
__________
Hello,

I, like A2, am an atheist. I think I have been--in the very least I have been sceptical--my entire life. The question he has posed is a completely valid one, and I can't seem to find any relevant or convincing arguments here that answer it.

What I want to know is how you can have so much faith in a Bronze Age superstition. Why aren't you compelled by the Icelandic Sagas to believe in Odin or Thor? About as much writing exists about Zeus, Hera, Heracles as there does about Jesus and Yahweh. So why are you so willing to put your 'faith' in what you were told by humans about a book written by humans? It seems to me it isn't 'god' you have faith in, but other human beings. Why is it so unreasonable for people like A2 and I to demand more than that? To not make decisions based on the words of others with no substantiating proof? I trust verifiable, repeatable, and visible evidence before I trust anything. Historical sources are never deemed completely reliable, but they are always ALWAYS read with that bias in mind.

As to Alexander; yes, the earliest remaining sources describing him and his campaign are hundreds of years after his lifetime. There are many disagreements in the sources about particular events (Ie, if he cut the Gordian knot or if he pulled the holding pin) but there is no doubt in scholarship that he was a real man. That he lived, and that he really did lead a campaign across the Mediterranean. I accept these basic, verifiable facts because--while the sources are not as old as we would like--there are countless accounts. None of them first hand, but they don't have to be. To substantiate his existence we only need one or two sources--separated by great geographical distance--to make an educated assumption that the person in question was real. More importantly, Alexander left behind a legacy and material evidence of his existence--the Hellenistic world was not an illusion-- that is not difficult to verify, and Macedonia did keep a record of their Kings. But it is impossible to make any solid statement of fact about the specifics of his campaign because we simply cannot verify that the testimonies of Plutarch, Quintus, Diodorus, Pliny, Arrian, Cleitarchus, Justin, Valerius, or Aelian (to name only a few) are completely factually accurate. But we aren't making that claim, are we?

The fact that theists struggle to come up with even one such account - Josephus- whose validity is HIGHLY in question, when I can name nine such accounts of Alexander makes them not even in the same arena to be compared. We can prove Alexander existed, and even if you can prove conclusively that Jesus existed, you can't prove anything else about him because the records simply don't exist. We don't claim anything extraordinary or supernatural about Alexander, but you want to claim all kinds of things about Jesus when you can't even verify he was a real man to any satisfiable degree.

If I haven't repped you, I will rep you now.

Why can't girls my age be as smart as you!

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 01:53 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  One can agree that if Jesus existed, he existed around 33 AD. That is consistent with the stories. One can also then say that his existence is doubtful. There is no contradiction.

Sure you can say that, because it leaves room on both ends for either doubt or affirmation.

One of the problems though is your statement of "is consistent with the stories." Now, again it becomes a matter of whether or not those "stories" have any truth to them. If you agree they do, then you are stuck in the affirmation position.

The problem with this whole "He existed/He didn't exist" fiasco is that the proponents for non existence are forced to accept something that affirms the existence of the man according to all available resources.

If we agree with what the scholars believe, then ... we agree with what the scholars believe.

Our problem is almost impossible. How does anyone prove the non existence of someone if they did not exist? We simply cannot.

In every historicity/myth argument I have seen, those who favor non existence are always using arguments from silence, unsupported assertion, or some improbable explanation to counter the evidence the believers bring.

At the end of the day, the believers cling to their evidence such as Tacitus, Josephus, non canonical texts etc because it IS evidence (doesn't prove anything conclusively though), while the myth argument brings not a shred of good evidence to the table.

I think the argument for a complete myth is quite untenable.

One can indeed say that "Jesus's existence might be consistent to the story( died in 33 AD), but it is highly doubtful he did, or that it is consistent."

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 02:52 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 02:47 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 01:53 PM)Free Wrote:  Sure you can say that, because it leaves room on both ends for either doubt or affirmation.

One of the problems though is your statement of "is consistent with the stories." Now, again it becomes a matter of whether or not those "stories" have any truth to them. If you agree they do, then you are stuck in the affirmation position.

The problem with this whole "He existed/He didn't exist" fiasco is that the proponents for non existence are forced to accept something that affirms the existence of the man according to all available resources.

If we agree with what the scholars believe, then ... we agree with what the scholars believe.

Our problem is almost impossible. How does anyone prove the non existence of someone if they did not exist? We simply cannot.

In every historicity/myth argument I have seen, those who favor non existence are always using arguments from silence, unsupported assertion, or some improbable explanation to counter the evidence the believers bring.

At the end of the day, the believers cling to their evidence such as Tacitus, Josephus, non canonical texts etc because it IS evidence (doesn't prove anything conclusively though), while the myth argument brings not a shred of good evidence to the table.

I think the argument for a complete myth is quite untenable.

One can indeed say that "Jesus's existence might be consistent to the story( died in 33 AD), but it is highly doubtful he did, or that it is consistent."

Anyone can say whatever they want. It's whether or not the things they say have enough merit to win the argument.

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
01-11-2012, 02:54 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 02:52 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 02:47 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  One can indeed say that "Jesus's existence might be consistent to the story( died in 33 AD), but it is highly doubtful he did, or that it is consistent."

Anyone can say whatever they want. It's whether or not the things they say have enough merit to win the argument.

Wow.Drinking Beverage

What a perfect rebuttal to me... I guess you win.Drinking Beverage

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 03:02 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 02:54 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 02:52 PM)Free Wrote:  Anyone can say whatever they want. It's whether or not the things they say have enough merit to win the argument.

Wow.Drinking Beverage

What a perfect rebuttal to me... I guess you win.Drinking Beverage

I'm not trying to win anything. What I said is valid. Anyone can say whatever they want, but if they cannot back up their assertions with some kind of evidence then they have really said nothing at all.

We can assert that Jesus never existed until the cows come home, but at the end of the day all we did was assert.

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
01-11-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 03:02 PM)Free Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 02:54 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Wow.Drinking Beverage

What a perfect rebuttal to me... I guess you win.Drinking Beverage

I'm not trying to win anything. What I said is valid. Anyone can say whatever they want, but if they cannot back up their assertions with some kind of evidence then they have really said nothing at all.

We can assert that Jesus never existed until the cows come home, but at the end of the day all we did was assert.

We can also assert that he did exist, so it's a lose-lose situation.

...Except that its not.

We are not saying Jesus didn't exist, we are saying his existence consistent to the bible is DOUBTFUL.

We can also say

"I DO NOT believe Jesus existed." Which is not a positive claim at all and doesn't assert anything... Well except nonbelief.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 03:14 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(01-11-2012 03:06 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 03:02 PM)Free Wrote:  I'm not trying to win anything. What I said is valid. Anyone can say whatever they want, but if they cannot back up their assertions with some kind of evidence then they have really said nothing at all.

We can assert that Jesus never existed until the cows come home, but at the end of the day all we did was assert.

We can also assert that he did exist, so it's a lose-lose situation.

...Except that its not.

We are not saying Jesus didn't exist, we are saying his existence consistent to the bible is DOUBTFUL.

We can also say

"I DO NOT believe Jesus existed." Which is not a positive claim at all and doesn't assert anything... Well except nonbelief.

But it all comes down to whoever has the best evidence to support an argument. Unfortunately for those who contest existence, the believers actually do have evidence.It doesn't matter how good the evidence is, for all that matters is that it exists.

Some evidence beats no evidence every single time. It takes a 50/50 split at the start of the debate and turns it into a 70/30 split in favor of existence by the end, which means "likely, probable, very possible."

They don't have to conclusively prove existence to win the argument. All they need to do is provide a better argument, and they do because they have evidence.

You can try to argue against the evidence, but all we do is assert this or that, and the evidence remains. Assertion changes absolutely nothing. If we take all emotion out of it, and weigh the evidence on a scale against the evidence for non existence, obviously the scales will tip in favor of the believers.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: