Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2015, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 12:28 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 11:14 AM)Aliza Wrote:  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.

I don't think it's a part of a hidden agenda. Arguing for historicity, is not really connected to arguing for the divinity or even the validity of Christianity. The only reason any apologist or particular christian group involves themselves on that particular topic, is primarily because of the existence and popularity of the fringe mythicist/ahistoricist views among certain segments of our population. The same way biologist might argue against creationist, though the particular validity of theory of evolution, etc.. is not particularly dependent on pointing out the vapidity of creationism.

As you pointed out historical arguments in the long run when ran through consistently create more problems for Christianity, then they solve. It tends to paint a portrait of a man believed to be a messiah, believed to have have been divine, but who was likely none of those things, another messiah claimant who failed miserably, crushed by the weight of Rome. But the movement he inspired was salvaged through a considerable amount of spin by his followers after his death.

"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, 01:35 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 12:03 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 11:47 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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.

Oh no, your analysis is very valuable. It's one thing to show that the logic of the apology is flawed. What you did highlights the degree of perverse bias, deliberate distortion, and outright dishonesty in these apologies. It indicts them beyond showing them to have made a (potentially innocent) logical mistake. It reveals them for the frauds and desperate cons that they are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
03-11-2015, 05:03 PM
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

That is almost entirely hearsay, not evidence at all.

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
03-11-2015, 05:06 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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

It's a decent compilation of some non-christian sources. Is it all evidence of Jesus being a historical person, sure.

Those who attempt to interpret it all away, tend to border on creationist territory.

Except the hearsay and the forgeries, of course.

Oh, right - that's most of it. Drinking Beverage

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
03-11-2015, 05:10 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 10:05 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What part do you think they're inherently wrong about, besides their half borrowing of the the reference in the Talmud?

I meant it as a general statement. They're not wrong just because they're Christians. They're wrong because their evidence is faulty.

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.

Of course, reality pretty much contradicts all theology. Drinking Beverage

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
03-11-2015, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2015 05:13 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 05:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's a decent compilation of some non-christian sources. Is it all evidence of Jesus being a historical person, sure.

Those who attempt to interpret it all away, tend to border on creationist territory.

Except the hearsay and the forgeries, of course.

Oh, right - that's most of it. Drinking Beverage

I offer you the similar challenge that I offer to any creationist. Whenever you can offer a more compelling explanation than historicity, you let me know. Your inability to form a compelling alternative explanation, says a great deal about the weakness of your supposed criticisms.

"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, 05:13 PM
Star RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 05:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 05:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  Except the hearsay and the forgeries, of course.

Oh, right - that's most of it. Drinking Beverage

I offer you the similar challenge that I offer to any creationist. Whenever you can offer a more compelling explanation than historicity, you let me know. Your inability to form a a compelling alternative explanation, says a great deal about the weakness of your supposed criticisms.

Pick me! Pick me!

... Oh, you picked Chas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
03-11-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 05:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Pick me! Pick me!

... Oh, you picked Chas.

You already subscribe to historicity, that Jesus was a real person, you just don't buy the messiahship, god-man bits.

"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, 05:19 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 12:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 11:14 AM)Aliza Wrote:  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.

I don't think it's a part of a hidden agenda. Arguing for historicity, is not really connected to arguing for the divinity or even the validity of Christianity. The only reason any apologist or particular christian group involves themselves on that particular topic, is primarily because of the existence and popularity of the fringe mythicist/ahistoricist views among certain segments of our population. The same way biologist might argue against creationist, though the particular validity of theory of evolution, etc.. is not particularly dependent on pointing out the vapidity of creationism.

As you pointed out historical arguments in the long run when ran through consistently create more problems for Christianity, then they solve. It tends to paint a portrait of a man believed to be a messiah, believed to have have been divine, but who was likely none of those things, another messiah claimant who failed miserably, crushed by the weight of Rome. But the movement he inspired was salvaged through a considerable amount of spin by his followers after his death.

Regardless of whether or not there was a preacher named Yeshua, the Jesus described in the Bible is mythical.

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
03-11-2015, 05:23 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 05:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Pick me! Pick me!

... Oh, you picked Chas.

You already subscribe to historicity, that Jesus was a real person, you just don't buy the messiahship, god-man bits.

I think our historicities are maybe a tad more different than you realize. Tongue

Never-the-less, I concede the point. I do think that there is a teeny tiny kernel of truth with the story of Jesus.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: