Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2015, 09:29 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 09:08 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Do we have a favorite quotes to show someone is a douchebag thread yet?

Sorry, I'm just busting his balls, to keep me from being bored.

I like Chas, he's a good guy.

I'm failing to see how corporal punishment is humorous in any context.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:29 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 09:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sorry, I'm just busting his balls, to keep me from being bored.

I like Chas, he's a good guy.

I'm failing to see how corporal punishment is humorous in any context.

I guess we have a different sense of humor.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 01:33 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  This got linked to me in facebook. I don't know this website and never heard of it, nor these sources they are quoting or the names given. What do you people think?

http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-...an-sources

Poppycock...

It starts with Tacitus

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts. That equals a non witness account.

Next it goes to Pliny the younger

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account. That equals a non witness account....again.

Next they go to Josephus

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. Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations. That equals a non witness account....yet again.

Next they go into the Talmud...this was a compilation of writings from 200-500ish CE, and one of the oldest pieces was the Mishnah, a collection of oral "traditions"....that far after the fact is yet again...wait for it...hearsay.

Then they go to Lucian of Samosata, born 125 CE....enough said...more after the fact hearsay from a non witness.

Soooooo like I have said MANY times, no one who wrote of jesus knew him. NO one.

Debunked...next Smartass

"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
[+] 6 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
04-11-2015, 09:51 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 08:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 12:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You really don't understand that no one has to choose any story at all when none are compelling.
There is no story that has convincing evidence. That is the argument I am making

Your argument is almost exclusively a grammatical one, an argument of over the appropriate use of the word evidence, the appropriate use of the word conclusion, or explanation, as opposed to an opinion.

No, it isn't. When there isn't compelling evidence, it is OK to withhold judgement.

That's what critical thinkers do. Drinking Beverage

Quote:If we were to map out your thought process here, it would look like this:

Oh,goody, here we go again with you telling me what and how I think. You need to stop doing this.

Quote:Step 1: Decide whether the sources use to drawn conclusions and inferences from, fall under the a particular definition of “evidence” or “not evidence”.

That is what we all have to do. Most of the alleged evidence in this matter is hearsay.

Quote:Step 2: If the fall into the category of “not evidence”, any inferences or conclusions drawn from them are to deemed as “opinions”. But there can be reasonable and unreasonable opinions. But historians are grammatically incorrect in referring to those sources and materials as evidence, or the explanations as historical conclusion.

They are deemed to be opinions because that is what they are; that and speculation. Historians can call whatever they want 'evidence' - that doesn't make it evidence. An honest historian doesn't claim that it is proof, just an argument for his version of the story.

It is not about grammar, it is about what is credible.

Quote:That seems to be the gist of your argument, as far I can decipher it given our past experiences, in which you continuously reserve yourself to semantic distinctions, rather than substantive criticisms.

It is only the gist in your mind. No one else here thinks I am making a 'grammatical argument'. You might think about that.

Quote:My thought process is a bit different here, and if my children or friends subscribed to your way of thinking, I’d be inclined to slap the shit of them, lol.

You constantly suppose you know what others think and usually get it quite wrong. You really need a slap upside the head.

Quote:It’s a modified version of the basic thought process advocated to children when doing a science project, which is not based on drawing grammatical distinction between what falls under the description of evidence, but rather in terms of thinking of questions, drawing a conclusion, and gauging whether those conclusions fall in line with expected predictions.

Based on evidence, not opinion.

Quote:The modification, has to do with the fact that we’re dealing with historical claims, as a opposed to future predictions of the experimental sciences.

You don't understand scientific experiment. It doesn't predict anything; it tests a hypothesis.

Quote:Here we think in terms of a tentative conclusion, such as if there was a historical Yeshua living in the first century, believed to have been the Jewish messiah, and was crucified by the Romans, that gave rise to the Christian movement, what we would expect to find in the historical records of the time?

We don't find what we'd expect to find if the Jesus described in the Bible existed.

Quote:Do our discoveries, the various sources, materials, fall in line with those expectations?

No.

Quote:Sort how we’d expect the fossil record to look a certain way, if the theory of evolution is true, and low and behold it does, and we have yet find those bunnies in the precambrian.

A mythicist on the other hand is one offering alternative conclusions, but where it falls apart is in considerations of whether the material and sources we have, fall in line with those predictive expectations. Would we expect to find people writing of meeting a non-existing persons brother, and disciples, historians writing of their brother death, accusations of his mother being raped by a roman soldier, etc… What we find is an endless stream on inconveniences to that particular conclusions, an endless stream of bunnies in the precambrian that need to be explained away.

I am not a mythicist. Get it through your head - I observe that neither side has compelling evidence.

Quote:Your thought process seems to be dictated by some grammatical distinction, mines involves thinking through a variety of questions, considering expectations, whether or not any particular conclusions offers a better predictive model of those expectations, whether the sources and materials we discovered all fall within that frame or not, what are possible variables, etc..

No, mine is seeing that there is insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.
Yours is to form an opinion. Fine, have an opinion but realize that is what it is.

Quote:You seems to have problems with this thought process, and don’t particularly feel inclined to subscribe to it yourself. But that’s not my problem, that yours.

Just because you think everyone has to come to a conclusion does not make it so.

The intellectually honest thing to do in the face of insufficient or inconclusive evidence is to reserve judgment.

It is just fine to have an opinion, but don't confuse that with fact.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
04-11-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:50 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Soooooo like I have said MANY times, no one who wrote of jesus knew him. NO one.

Debunked...next Smartass

But there was someone who WAS there, and intimatly connected to Jerusalem, who talks about all sorts of other more mundane things, yet never mentions JC.

On top of that, some of the things that appear in his writings suspiciously show up, in slightly altered format, in Christianity.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-11-2015, 10:31 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 07:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It might be interesting, if you offered evidence in support of a non-existing Jesus,
We've all heard what you have to offer on the topic, we've read these passages from Tacitus, Josephus etc and they are not very convincing.

Us atheists have no reason to reject a humanly Yeshua, it is no threat. But we do so because there is no evidence supporting it.

This isn't to say we know Yeshua didn't exist. You can't have negative evidence, no certificate of non existence was produced by the Roman government for non existing people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
04-11-2015, 11:00 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 11:20 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'll largely skip the parts about Josephus and Tacitus since Tonechaser did such a good job on those, but let's see what else the site has to say.

It starts with the following:

Quote:Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

.... so, wait, how on Earth could the authors be saying that there is overwhelming evidence -- or ANY evidence -- that the NT is accurate, trustworthy, and historical WITHOUT some independent, non-biblical corroboration? I mean we can't just look at some narrative, say "sounds true to me!", and count that as overwhelming evidence, can we? Don't we have to look at SOME facts outside of the narrative itself in order to verify it? My takeaway from this passage is that, right from the start, the site's authors have no clue what the word "evidence" even means, and can't tell the difference between overwhelming, underwhelming, and non-existent.

From the section on Tacitus (again, leaving the historicity issues to Tonechaser and just addressing the logical fails):

Quote:While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal. How else might one explain that?

In the same way we can explain the rise of Islam around genocidal warmongering maniac and pedophile Muhammed, Mormonism around convicted fraudster Joseph Smith, Scientology around Ron Hubbard who EXPLICITLY said he was going to start a religion to evade taxes, and a host of others.

The long and short of the explanation is: Religious people are gullible, trusting idiots who don't have a shred of healthy incredulity and sometimes follow the worst people imaginable. Or sometimes not so bad. Because they don't ever stop to check.

Moving on to the part about Pliny, the passages cited, even taken on face value, only describe the practice and beliefs of the Christians Pliny encountered. This is not evidence in any sense that the New Testament is true. It is evidence that people believed it true. I LIVE IN FUCKING AMERICA! I ALREADY KNEW THAT!

Again, this person does not know what the word "evidence" means.

I'll leave Josephus to Tonechaser, and Aliza's already hammered the section on the Talmud.

Next up, Lucian. The site's author acknowledges that Lucian is a satirist and yet still thinks something reliable might be extracted from this, much as a reliable picture of American politics might be extracted from The Colbert Report. In particular, the author gives significant credit to the rites being introduced into Christianity by Jesus, when the cited passage is quite readable as a belief of the Christians of Lucian's era rather than Lucian verifying the belief.

Pretty much the entirety of the "evidence" and "corroboration" on this site boils down to this: EARLY CHRISTIANS BELIEVED IT, CONTEMPORARIES RECORDED WHAT THEY BELIEVED, AND THEREFORE IT IS TRUE.

Bull. Shit.

Amen! *claps hands* Testify! *waves arms in the air*

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
04-11-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  We don't find what we'd expect to find if the Jesus described in the Bible existed.

Assuming an entirely naturalistic accounts of the 1st century Jerusalem, in which a historical Yeshua, lacking any particular magical or supernatural qualities existed, who was a jewish teacher, and a messiah claimant who developed a following, had a brother named James, and disciples, who told a variety of parables, and sayings, and was eventually crucified by the Romans, would the accounts we of his life, the references, and material we have for him, fall inline with our expectations? If such a historical Yeshua existed, would we expect to find something different, that what we currently have?

Would we expect to find accounts of him by his followers, attributing a variety of supernatural elements to him? Of course we would, in fact it’s more surprising to find accounts of a revered religious cult figures, by their followers absent of these features, even in regards to more recent ones like L. Ron. Hubbard, and Joseph Smith. We have a variety of fantastical attributes associated with him. Even highly regarded political figures at the time, get virgin births, and claims of divinity attached to them, like Ceaser, and Alexander.

The fact that we have first hand accounts of an individual meeting his brother, and his disciples, in that particular time frame, we have historians like Josephus writing of his brother’s death, does this fall better in line with our expectations of a historical Yeshua, or mythicist account?

Of course you don’t appear to actually think along these lines of these considerations at all, it appears you avoid doing so when possible.

Quote:No one else here thinks I am making a 'grammatical argument'. You might think about that.

I am not a mythicist. Get it through your head - I observe that neither side has compelling evidence

No, it’s a blatant grammatical argument. I’ve offered a variety of definitions of evidence justifying the use of it. Your appeal to some other definition, to argue that my use of the term “evidence” is inappropriate. Your entire contribution on the question of historicity, is almost exclusively reducible to a quibble over terminology: the appropriate use of the word evidence, the appropriate use of the word conclusion, explanations, as opposed to opinions, etc…

Your entire argument is dictating terminology, which is a frequent pattern for you.

Quote:I am not a mythicist. Get it through your head - I observe that neither side has compelling evidence

And for those us trying to gauge which conclusions stretch credulity, which conclusions are more reasonable inferences based on the source materials, whether or not certain historical conclusions offer better predicate models, or mythicists one are more up the task, etc…, your above point doesn’t amount to anything, other than complaining about the terms being used, and our supposed stubbornness in refusing to accept your inane and perhaps contradictory definitions of evidence, and opinions.

Quote:No, mine is seeing that there is insufficient evidence to come to a conclusion.
Yours is to form an opinion. Fine, have an opinion but realize that is what it is.

Again a grammatical argument about the appropriate use of the term opinion, as opposed to an explanation with the greater explanatorily scope. You want the dictate the terms, and have trouble accepting you inefficacy in doing so. Either way, it’s just a word game with you, not a substantive dispute.

Quote:The intellectually honest thing to do in the face of insufficient or inconclusive evidence is to reserve judgment.

There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about the approach and take on the subject of historicity, offered by folks like Ehrman, and I’m content to take on that same approach. You think your approach is more honest, I don’t think so. Your approach appears to involve the least amount of considerations, the least amount of depth and substance. While it might not be dishonest, it is lazy.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 10:31 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Us atheists have no reason to reject a humanly Yeshua, it is no threat. But we do so because there is no evidence supporting it.

I don't think you're depicting an accurate pathology, you seem to ignore the history of mythicist arguments, which has produced an entire history of quite blatant charlatans and frauds, from Archaya X, to Kersey Graves, etc.. You seem to ignore the sort of delusions that often arise from anti-religious sentiments. Mythicism is a bad argument, but gets tactile support by parties too polluted by their anti-religious sentiments.

It's not a surprise that mythcisits arguments, get attached to zeitgeist videos, regarding global banking conspiracies, and 9/11 hoaxes.

There's something appealing about that argument, to a certain subset of our population, who fuel the market for it.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 07:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 01:42 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Even if a preacher named Jesus existed, the leap from that to "son of god" is so immense that such knowledge is useless, utterly useless.

If it could be proved that the main character of the story is entirely fictional, it would be useful. Drinking Beverage

Adding one more turd to the pile of horseshit won't make it stink any more than it already does. [Image: 2rfca47.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: