Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Oh there was a Yeshua alright. In fact there were a bunch.
There was at least one other that was said to have been martyred and rose in three days. Is there any possible way at this point to separate out one from the legends ? I think not.
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/th...s_myth.htm
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

Christianity borrowed ostensibly from Hebrew concepts, but in fact radically changed them, in cooking up their new cult. Did Jesus ever once in the gospels ever say "Just wait, Ima gonna die and save you from yer sins" ? Nope. When asked by the young man in the gospel what he had to do to get into heaven, he said "Keep the commandments". He said nothing about dying for sin.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid160188

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-11-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 10:05 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I actually believe there was a historical figure called Yeshua. I believe this because he's mentioned quite clearly in the Talmud, and the Talmud is a document that I place a lot of trust in.

But the source that they're using, is a 6,000-page document from which they've taken two sentences. The rest of the document contradicts Christianity, Christian theology, and the claims that Christians make about this guy they call Jesus.

Far as I know they're isn't an references to Jesus in the oldest parts of the Talmud, just in the later commentators composed a few hundred years after Jesus existed, and appears more to be a subtle attack against Christianity, than a particularly reliable portrait of Jesus.

"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
03-11-2015, 10:30 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 10:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 10:05 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I actually believe there was a historical figure called Yeshua. I believe this because he's mentioned quite clearly in the Talmud, and the Talmud is a document that I place a lot of trust in.

But the source that they're using, is a 6,000-page document from which they've taken two sentences. The rest of the document contradicts Christianity, Christian theology, and the claims that Christians make about this guy they call Jesus.

Far as I know they're isn't an references to Jesus in the oldest parts of the Talmud, just in the later commentators composed a few hundred years after Jesus existed, and appears more to be a subtle attack against Christianity, than a particularly reliable portrait of Jesus.

So if from your perspective, the Talmudic reference is crap because it was written well after the time when Jesus was said to have lived, then why didn't you raise your skepticism alert and start questioning the rest of the article?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
03-11-2015, 10:41 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 10:47 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 10:30 AM)Aliza Wrote:  So if from your perspective, the Talmudic reference is crap because it was written well after the time when Jesus was said to have lived, then why didn't you raise your skepticism alert and start questioning the rest of the article?

Well the Talmudic reference, does suggest that the Jews acknowledged Jesus as a historical person. If the Talmudic reference even as an attack on Christianity, accused Christians of fabricating a messiah or supportive of a mythicist version of a messiah, that might lend some credibility to mythicist/a-historicist arguments.

And if we can reasonably conclude that the Talmudic portrait of Jesus was based on earlier biographical sketches of him, earlier sources etc, the actual biographical details might have more weight to them, but in this case appears to have been composed whole cloth several hundred years later, as a subtitle attack on Christianity.

On it's own it does little to support a historicist case, in conjunction with other sources, it serves to marginally support the conclusions that there was historical Yeshua.

But I do agree the cite's partial use of the Talmudic reference, was likely deliberate, and a bit deceptive on their part.

"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
03-11-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 10:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 10:30 AM)Aliza Wrote:  So if from your perspective, the Talmudic reference is crap because it was written well after the time when Jesus was said to have lived, then why didn't you raise your skepticism alert and start questioning the rest of the article?

Well the Talmudic reference, does suggest that the Jews acknowledged Jesus as a historical person. If the Talmudic reference even as an attack on Christianity, accused Christians of fabricating a mythicist version of a messiah, that might lend some credibility to mythicist arguments.

And if we can reasonably conclude that the Talmudic portrait of Jesus was based on earlier biographical sketches of him, earlier sources etc, the actual biographical details might have more weight to them, but in this case appears to have been composed whole cloth several hundred years later, as a subtitle attack on Christianity.

On it's own it does little to support a historicist case, in conjunction with other sources, it serves to marginally support the conclusions that there was historical Yeshua.

You don't really need the Talmud to know that. In observant Jewish circles, I have only ever been taught that the Christian story of Jesus was based on a real person. I can make a really good case for that using the NT alone. The Jewish people know the story of this guy, we know who his biological father was, and we can take a pretty decent stab at how this whole virgin story came to be. We also know who his teacher was, that he got thrown out of yeshivah on his ass, and we know what kind of stuff he tried to teach the Jewish people. He had 5 disciples, and if memory serves, they were all executed for apostasy.

The Talmud is a very bad source for Christians to use to bolster their claims about Jesus being some kind of man-god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
03-11-2015, 11:02 AM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 11:06 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 10:54 AM)Aliza Wrote:  You don't really need the Talmud to know that. In observant Jewish circles, I have only ever been taught that the Christian story of Jesus was based on a real person.

Clearly no one needs to make that case to you. But I think you forget there is a sort of fringe element, often popular in atheists circles, supportive of mythicist, non-historical Jesus conclusions, that suggest he wasn't based on a real person at all. The popular figures that get often cited for this, are those like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, Archara X, etc......

Quote:The Talmud is a very bad source for Christians to use to bolster their claims about Jesus being some kind of man-god.

I don't think the Talmud is being used here by anyone, including the cite to bolster the claims of divinity, just historicity, that he was a real person, even if we conclude that fanciful, supernatural, and divine elements, are not.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
03-11-2015, 11:14 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 11:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 10:54 AM)Aliza Wrote:  You don't really need the Talmud to know that. In observant Jewish circles, I have only ever been taught that the Christian story of Jesus was based on a real person.

Clearly no one needs to make that case to you. But I think you forget there is a sort of fringe element, often popular in atheists circles, supportive of mythicist, non-historical Jesus conclusions, that suggest he wasn't based on a real person at all. The popular figures that get often cited for this, are those like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, Archara X, etc......

Yeah, that's fine. Their opinions are formed from the information they've been exposed to; same as everyone else. Their disbelief in the historicity of Jesus doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things so I'm perfectly content to respectfully disagree with them.

(03-11-2015 11:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 10:54 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The Talmud is a very bad source for Christians to use to bolster their claims about Jesus being some kind of man-god.

I don't think the Talmud is being used here by anyone, including the cite to bolster the claims of divinity, just historicity, that he was a real person, even if we conclude that fanciful, supernatural, and divine elements, are not.

I think the site failed to take into account that the Jewish timeline for Jesus may not match up with the Christian one. Also, in using the Talmud to prove the historicity, you have to introduce a host of narratives that contradicts the divinity, and a very well formed cultural history which disputes the very nature of the Christian story.

The Christians, after all, are not out there trying to prove the historicity of Jesus as much as they're trying to get people to worship him. -That's really the agenda here, whether it's out there in the open, or hidden, as it is in this article.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
03-11-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like Reltzik's post
03-11-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 11:20 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  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.

QFT.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
03-11-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 11:47 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 11:20 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  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.

QFT.

Damn. Sometimes I think about things too much Reltzik. You made my entire post worthless by just stating the obvious...in one sentence no less. Big Grin Kudos.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Tonechaser77's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: