Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If Jesus never existed.....

matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 1:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If Jesus never existed then what spurred the religious movement during that time, why did early Christian churches exist? Why would a guy named Paul (Saul), who was predominately orthodox risk his favored lively hood? What motivation or even what desire would any person have at that time to interfere and challenge the current leadership and dictating authorities other than a guy named Jesus did what was said? or at bare minimum existed.

I want to make it clear that I'm not making a claim here, just curious as to what people think. I already understand the argument from a lack of evidence for the existence of Christ. However I think that it is fairly significant to question the idea of a definitive movement or disruption in the main stream basis of religious belief, the existing religious structure was quite secure and authoritative during this period, which is obvious examining the life of Paul and his testimony and the history of Jewish beliefs. So what triggered such a result given that we declare the scriptures a farce?

"There is a lot of perceptional bias and psudoscience on both sides of the historical Jesus where the hypothesis is being used drive every aspect of the research to a predestined conclusion. The sad thing it may not even be the researcher's fault as the very model they use can determine what is "acceptable data"

"The issue of Nazareth's existence in the 1st century is other mixture of confirmation bias and psudoscience with the logic (such as it is) that if Nazareth existed then so did Jesus and if it didn't exist neither did Jesus.

"While it is true there are arguments regarding the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century its existence (or nonexistence) wouldn't prove (or disprove) the existence of Jesus.[60] The existence of Nazareth no more proves Jesus existed then the existence of Atlanta, Georgia is evidence that Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hare were real people."

"Conversely, the non-existence of Nazareth does not prove Jesus didn't exist because there is good evidence that the Nazareth connection may be the result of the misunderstanding of a title such as Nazirite (meaning "one consecrated, devoted"[61]) or that it referred to a clan Jesus belonged to (some translations of Micah 5:2 make it clear that "Bethlehem" is reference to a group of people in Judea not a town so why can't Nazarene be the same sort of thing?)
On both sides the Nazareth argument is pointless and in the end worthless."

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30"36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek, although this has been disputed."

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][28][29][30] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[31][32] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[28] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time " more so than any of his contemporaries " with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[33] Although a small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, the great majority of scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention implausible.[12][26] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[26] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://rationalwiki.org...

And if you believe Jesus could have or did exist but was nothing more than a religious guy, the questions remain the same, why reject the possibility that there is truth to the Gospels about His ministry? Why was Jesus' life so effective if not for the simple fact that He did what was said, both by the authors as well as Paul?
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 2:02:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I see trees of green,
red roses too.
I see them bloom,
for me and you.
And I think to myself,
what a wonderful world.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If Zeus and the Olympian gods don't exist, what spurned the religious movement in Ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Jesus supposedly existed?
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:44:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:25:21 PM, Drayson wrote:
If Zeus and the Olympian gods don't exist, what spurned the religious movement in Ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Jesus supposedly existed?

Alright! right on point Drayson! lol, you can do your own research on that one.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:49:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 2:02:14 PM, bulproof wrote:
I see trees of green,
red roses too.
I see them bloom,
for me and you.
And I think to myself,
what a wonderful world.

Find yourself a mate Bul, or if someone indeed is bizarre enough to have partnered with you maybe it's time to find someone a little more exciting lol! someone maybe capable of occupying some of that time of yours....
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:29:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:25:21 PM, Drayson wrote:
If Zeus and the Olympian gods don't exist, what spurned the religious movement in Ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Jesus supposedly existed?

False analogy, the Olympian Gods have been falsified by the evidence that there is not a Greek temple on Mt. Olympus.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:29:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/9/2014 5:25:21 PM, Drayson wrote:
If Zeus and the Olympian gods don't exist, what spurned the religious movement in Ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Jesus supposedly existed?

False analogy, the Olympian Gods have been falsified by the evidence that there is not a Greek temple on Mt. Olympus.

What kind of Atheist answer is this?

Do any of you read a theist question and address it directly an honestly with reason.

Some Atheist call themselves truth seekers. Is immediately questioning a tangent argument truth seeking?

Matt deserves better.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 7:41:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 7:07:02 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:29:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/9/2014 5:25:21 PM, Drayson wrote:
If Zeus and the Olympian gods don't exist, what spurned the religious movement in Ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Jesus supposedly existed?

False analogy, the Olympian Gods have been falsified by the evidence that there is not a Greek temple on Mt. Olympus.

What kind of Atheist answer is this?

Do any of you read a theist question and address it directly an honestly with reason.

Some Atheist call themselves truth seekers. Is immediately questioning a tangent argument truth seeking?

Matt deserves better.

Thanks Mhykiel, hey don't be converting to Atheism anytime soon lol.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:15:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:49:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/9/2014 2:02:14 PM, bulproof wrote:
I see trees of green,
red roses too.
I see them bloom,
for me and you.
And I think to myself,
what a wonderful world.

Find yourself a mate Bul, or if someone indeed is bizarre enough to have partnered with you maybe it's time to find someone a little more exciting lol! someone maybe capable of occupying some of that time of yours....

You can never go wrong with Louis Armstrong, Matt... :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 8:19:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:58:18 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
If Jesus never existed then what spurred the religious movement during that time, why did early Christian churches exist? Why would a guy named Paul (Saul), who was predominately orthodox risk his favored lively hood? What motivation or even what desire would any person have at that time to interfere and challenge the current leadership and dictating authorities other than a guy named Jesus did what was said? or at bare minimum existed.

I want to make it clear that I'm not making a claim here, just curious as to what people think. I already understand the argument from a lack of evidence for the existence of Christ. However I think that it is fairly significant to question the idea of a definitive movement or disruption in the main stream basis of religious belief, the existing religious structure was quite secure and authoritative during this period, which is obvious examining the life of Paul and his testimony and the history of Jewish beliefs. So what triggered such a result given that we declare the scriptures a farce?

"There is a lot of perceptional bias and psudoscience on both sides of the historical Jesus where the hypothesis is being used drive every aspect of the research to a predestined conclusion. The sad thing it may not even be the researcher's fault as the very model they use can determine what is "acceptable data"

"The issue of Nazareth's existence in the 1st century is other mixture of confirmation bias and psudoscience with the logic (such as it is) that if Nazareth existed then so did Jesus and if it didn't exist neither did Jesus.

"While it is true there are arguments regarding the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century its existence (or nonexistence) wouldn't prove (or disprove) the existence of Jesus.[60] The existence of Nazareth no more proves Jesus existed then the existence of Atlanta, Georgia is evidence that Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hare were real people."

"Conversely, the non-existence of Nazareth does not prove Jesus didn't exist because there is good evidence that the Nazareth connection may be the result of the misunderstanding of a title such as Nazirite (meaning "one consecrated, devoted"[61]) or that it referred to a clan Jesus belonged to (some translations of Micah 5:2 make it clear that "Bethlehem" is reference to a group of people in Judea not a town so why can't Nazarene be the same sort of thing?)
On both sides the Nazareth argument is pointless and in the end worthless."

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30"36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek, although this has been disputed."

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][28][29][30] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[31][32] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[28] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time " more so than any of his contemporaries " with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[33] Although a small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, the great majority of scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention implausible.[12][26] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[26] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://rationalwiki.org...

And if you believe Jesus could have or did exist but was nothing more than a religious guy, the questions remain the same, why reject the possibility that there is truth to the Gospels about His ministry? Why was Jesus' life so effective if not for the simple fact that He did what was said, both by the authors as well as Paul?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would never assert that Jesus as a person never existed. I don't believe the Jesus that the Bible describes ever existed, but there could very well be, and probably was, a man behind what I consider to be a myth. I don't know enough about the history of Jesus to say that he definitely existed, but I have no problem accepting that he did.

On the same note, I accept that Joseph Smith existed, but I don't accept the claim that he was a prophet of the Christian god. Unless you're a Mormon, you share my lack of acceptance of that claim. Assuming you're not a Mormon, take your lack of acceptance of the Mormon version of Joseph Smith and apply it to your Christian version of Jesus. That's my view.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 9:10:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:15:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/9/2014 5:49:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/9/2014 2:02:14 PM, bulproof wrote:
I see trees of green,
red roses too.
I see them bloom,
for me and you.
And I think to myself,
what a wonderful world.

Find yourself a mate Bul, or if someone indeed is bizarre enough to have partnered with you maybe it's time to find someone a little more exciting lol! someone maybe capable of occupying some of that time of yours....

You can never go wrong with Louis Armstrong, Matt... :-)

Satchmo!! :)
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 9:24:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 8:19:12 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:58:18 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
If Jesus never existed then what spurred the religious movement during that time, why did early Christian churches exist? Why would a guy named Paul (Saul), who was predominately orthodox risk his favored lively hood? What motivation or even what desire would any person have at that time to interfere and challenge the current leadership and dictating authorities other than a guy named Jesus did what was said? or at bare minimum existed.

I want to make it clear that I'm not making a claim here, just curious as to what people think. I already understand the argument from a lack of evidence for the existence of Christ. However I think that it is fairly significant to question the idea of a definitive movement or disruption in the main stream basis of religious belief, the existing religious structure was quite secure and authoritative during this period, which is obvious examining the life of Paul and his testimony and the history of Jewish beliefs. So what triggered such a result given that we declare the scriptures a farce?

"There is a lot of perceptional bias and psudoscience on both sides of the historical Jesus where the hypothesis is being used drive every aspect of the research to a predestined conclusion. The sad thing it may not even be the researcher's fault as the very model they use can determine what is "acceptable data"

"The issue of Nazareth's existence in the 1st century is other mixture of confirmation bias and psudoscience with the logic (such as it is) that if Nazareth existed then so did Jesus and if it didn't exist neither did Jesus.

"While it is true there are arguments regarding the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century its existence (or nonexistence) wouldn't prove (or disprove) the existence of Jesus.[60] The existence of Nazareth no more proves Jesus existed then the existence of Atlanta, Georgia is evidence that Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hare were real people."

"Conversely, the non-existence of Nazareth does not prove Jesus didn't exist because there is good evidence that the Nazareth connection may be the result of the misunderstanding of a title such as Nazirite (meaning "one consecrated, devoted"[61]) or that it referred to a clan Jesus belonged to (some translations of Micah 5:2 make it clear that "Bethlehem" is reference to a group of people in Judea not a town so why can't Nazarene be the same sort of thing?)
On both sides the Nazareth argument is pointless and in the end worthless."

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30"36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek, although this has been disputed."

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][28][29][30] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[31][32] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[28] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time " more so than any of his contemporaries " with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[33] Although a small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, the great majority of scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention implausible.[12][26] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[26] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://rationalwiki.org...

And if you believe Jesus could have or did exist but was nothing more than a religious guy, the questions remain the same, why reject the possibility that there is truth to the Gospels about His ministry? Why was Jesus' life so effective if not for the simple fact that He did what was said, both by the authors as well as Paul?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would never assert that Jesus as a person never existed. I don't believe the Jesus that the Bible describes ever existed, but there could very well be, and probably was, a man behind what I consider to be a myth. I don't know enough about the history of Jesus to say that he definitely existed, but I have no problem accepting that he did.

On the same note, I accept that Joseph Smith existed, but I don't accept the claim that he was a prophet of the Christian god. Unless you're a Mormon, you share my lack of acceptance of that claim. Assuming you're not a Mormon, take your lack of acceptance of the Mormon version of Joseph Smith and apply it to your Christian version of Jesus. That's my view.
Okay, however I tend to examine and look at each case by case. Do you think it's unfair to compare one with the other when there are clear differences?
For example, I wouldn't compare Jesus to Joseph Smith and I wouldn't compare the history and the magnitude of Christianity with the Morman religion. The reputation of Jesus and the testimony and witness of His life and works are just on another level. But I can see how a non Christian could judge all religion and "prophets" the same, unfortunately for me that leaves me with zero room to debate anything in our favor :(
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:15:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:29:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/9/2014 5:25:21 PM, Drayson wrote:
If Zeus and the Olympian gods don't exist, what spurned the religious movement in Ancient Greece, hundreds of years before Jesus supposedly existed?

False analogy, the Olympian Gods have been falsified by the evidence that there is not a Greek temple on Mt. Olympus.
Yahweh has been falsified by the fact there is no one sitting on a throne just above Earth.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:16:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:49:28 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 7/9/2014 2:02:14 PM, bulproof wrote:
I see trees of green,
red roses too.
I see them bloom,
for me and you.
And I think to myself,
what a wonderful world.

Find yourself a mate Bul, or if someone indeed is bizarre enough to have partnered with you maybe it's time to find someone a little more exciting lol! someone maybe capable of occupying some of that time of yours....

I don't take advice from children younger than mine.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:58:18 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
If Jesus never existed then what spurred the religious movement during that time
Stories about Jesus.

Why is that so hard for you to consider? The comparison made in regard to Zeus is completely valid. Mhykiel's attempt to fend it off by claiming the Olympian gods have been "disproved" only emphasizes the point! While it's true that the Olympian gods never existed, it's also true that great religious followings grew up around them... and every other god, including Jesus. You believe that Jesus/Yahweh is the only god and all of the other hundreds of gods people have "followed" never actually existed. So why is it so hard to understand that the Christian following is just as likely to grow around a Jesus who never existed?

As for Paul, are you certain he believed in a Jesus which existed on Earth? By some estimations, Paul wrote Hebrews. And Hebrews 8:4 tells us that Jesus didn't exist on Earth. And one of the last times I pointed this out, some dishonest Christian claimed Jesus wasn't seen as a priest. So before anyone tries that again, please look to Hebrews 14:4 where the same author in the same book, tells us Jesus was a "high priest". And once again, Paul is certainly not the first to have thrown away his livelihood, his social connections, his way of life, etc., in pursuit of a god who never existed. Let's remember, even by Biblical claims, Paul never met an Earthly Jesus.

In regard to Nazareth, the new evidence isn't pseudoscience, nor is it even connected to confirmation-bias. It's simply one more bit of evidence against the existence of Jesus, because archeological artifacts show that Nazareth was unoccupied during the time the Bible claims Jesus lived there. Sure, it's possible Jesus existed and lived somewhere else. But either way, it shows the Bible to be wrong. And if all four gospels are wrong about where Jesus lived, then you should give more weight to the fact that the gospel authors never knew Jesus.

As for "most modern scholars of antiquity", it's really not a popularity contest. Most of those who weigh in on the subject happen to be Christians. Should we be shocked by Christian historians who believe a historical Jesus existed? It all comes down to evidence. And when all of the evidence is in and weighed, the level of evidence for a historical Jesus is in the same ballpark as the level of evidence for a historical Zeus. It should be noted that the only historian (I've heard of), who is attempting to utilize an objective methodology to weigh the evidence (Richard Carrier & Bayes Theorem), has shown that objectively, the evidence scores too low to make a determination of historicity. I've mentioned this before, and one Christian (I don't recall which one), tried to attack Bayes Theorem, claiming it was a terrible tool for the purpose. And when I asked why, they didn't know. It was just something they heard.

And again; in regard to Mhykiel and the fact that there are no gods living on Mount Olympus, there's no Jesus in confirmed history either. So in one case you're willing to follow the evidence (a lack of evidence for Gods on Mount Olympus), but reject that Jesus is missing from the confirmed historical record (a lack of evidence for Jesus).

As for Mhykiel and his suggestion that we shouldn't be attacking a "tangent argument", if Jesus never existed, the rest of Christianity is pretty much dead. So it's not really a tangential argument. It's very much a primary argument - the argument which should be settled before any controversy regarding Christianity or the "teachings of Jesus" should be approached. Because if there was no historical Jesus, then everything else Christians believe, dies with the roots of the vine.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:10:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:03:21 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/9/2014 1:58:18 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
If Jesus never existed then what spurred the religious movement during that time
Stories about Jesus.

Why is that so hard for you to consider? The comparison made in regard to Zeus is completely valid. Mhykiel's attempt to fend it off by claiming the Olympian gods have been "disproved" only emphasizes the point! While it's true that the Olympian gods never existed, it's also true that great religious followings grew up around them... and every other god, including Jesus. You believe that Jesus/Yahweh is the only god and all of the other hundreds of gods people have "followed" never actually existed. So why is it so hard to understand that the Christian following is just as likely to grow around a Jesus who never existed?

As for Paul, are you certain he believed in a Jesus which existed on Earth? By some estimations, Paul wrote Hebrews. And Hebrews 8:4 tells us that Jesus didn't exist on Earth. And one of the last times I pointed this out, some dishonest Christian claimed Jesus wasn't seen as a priest. So before anyone tries that again, please look to Hebrews 14:4 where the same author in the same book, tells us Jesus was a "high priest". And once again, Paul is certainly not the first to have thrown away his livelihood, his social connections, his way of life, etc., in pursuit of a god who never existed. Let's remember, even by Biblical claims, Paul never met an Earthly Jesus.


Hbrews 5:7, probably written by Paul, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

So we have Jesus, on Earth, and prayers from Jesus about Jesus' Death (mortal)

In regard to Nazareth, the new evidence isn't pseudoscience, nor is it even connected to confirmation-bias. It's simply one more bit of evidence against the existence of Jesus, because archeological artifacts show that Nazareth was unoccupied during the time the Bible claims Jesus lived there. Sure, it's possible Jesus existed and lived somewhere else. But either way, it shows the Bible to be wrong. And if all four gospels are wrong about where Jesus lived, then you should give more weight to the fact that the gospel authors never knew Jesus.


If one statement about Jesus home town is enough to Falsify all the gospels, then why is it when 1 True empirically true statement in the bible does not make True the whole Bible.

Selective application of logic. False generalization of the entirety from one single point.

As for "most modern scholars of antiquity", it's really not a popularity contest. Most of those who weigh in on the subject happen to be Christians. Should we be shocked by Christian historians who believe a historical Jesus existed? It all comes down to evidence. And when all of the evidence is in and weighed, the level of evidence for a historical Jesus is in the same ballpark as the level of evidence for a historical Zeus.

You mean Socrates, Homer, Troy, Pythagoras, Egyptian building pyramids, etc..

You say Zeus to equate Jesus to a popular consensus that Zeus is purely fictional. But the Truth is Jesus is as much evidence for existence as the ones I mentioned if not more.

It should be noted that the only historian (I've heard of), who is attempting to utilize an objective methodology to weigh the evidence (Richard Carrier & Bayes Theorem), has shown that objectively, the evidence scores too low to make a determination of historicity. I've mentioned this before, and one Christian (I don't recall which one), tried to attack Bayes Theorem, claiming it was a terrible tool for the purpose. And when I asked why, they didn't know. It was just something they heard.

And again; in regard to Mhykiel and the fact that there are no gods living on Mount Olympus, there's no Jesus in confirmed history either. So in one case you're willing to follow the evidence (a lack of evidence for Gods on Mount Olympus), but reject that Jesus is missing from the confirmed historical record (a lack of evidence for Jesus).


False Equivalence and lies. You just admitted that Bayes suggests "has shown that objectively, the evidence scores too low to make a determination of historicity"

Low is not Zero. Bayes obviously investigated some kind of evidence to right up his papers on.

So low or unconvincing evidence is NOT zero evidence, thanks for the deception and obvious contradiction.

As for Mhykiel and his suggestion that we shouldn't be attacking a "tangent argument", if Jesus never existed, the rest of Christianity is pretty much dead. So it's not really a tangential argument. It's very much a primary argument - the argument which should be settled before any controversy regarding Christianity or the "teachings of Jesus" should be approached. Because if there was no historical Jesus, then everything else Christians believe, dies with the roots of the vine.

Agreed. Now can you stop saying Paul thinks Jesus was never on Earth? or will you continue with the rehearsed and rehashed propaganda lies?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:57:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:10:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:03:21 PM, Beastt wrote:

As for Paul, are you certain he believed in a Jesus which existed on Earth? By some estimations, Paul wrote Hebrews. And Hebrews 8:4 tells us that Jesus didn't exist on Earth. And one of the last times I pointed this out, some dishonest Christian claimed Jesus wasn't seen as a priest. So before anyone tries that again, please look to Hebrews 14:4 where the same author in the same book, tells us Jesus was a "high priest". And once again, Paul is certainly not the first to have thrown away his livelihood, his social connections, his way of life, etc., in pursuit of a god who never existed. Let's remember, even by Biblical claims, Paul never met an Earthly Jesus.

Hbrews 5:7, probably written by Paul, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

So we have Jesus, on Earth, and prayers from Jesus about Jesus' Death (mortal)
Where does it say Jesus was on Earth? Some of the pagan gods were never set on Earth yet lived, loved, died, underwent temptation, etc. I think you've assuming too much.

If one statement about Jesus home town is enough to Falsify all the gospels, then why is it when 1 True empirically true statement in the bible does not make True the whole Bible.

Selective application of logic. False generalization of the entirety from one single point.
Seriously? I mean... do you not see how idiotic that is?
"Yesterday, I drove my car to Hawaii, rode on a whale from one island to another, dined with a ancient volcano god who offered to share a virgin with me, resurrected some of the ancient islanders to perform in shows for the tourists, and then flew home on the back of a butterfly. On the way back to the mainland, we stirred up come light currents which may result in a tropical storm within the next two weeks."

Now, does the fact that I drove my car yesterday mean that the entire story is true?

But when you have multiple statements claimed to be the absolute truth of God's word, and one of them is wrong, then how can we conclude any of it to be God's inerrant word? Do you understand now?


You mean Socrates, Homer, Troy, Pythagoras, Egyptian building pyramids, etc..
Not specifically. Each suggestion should be handled case by case, but according to it's own merits as applied to the objective methodology.

You say Zeus to equate Jesus to a popular consensus that Zeus is purely fictional. But the Truth is Jesus is as much evidence for existence as the ones I mentioned if not more.
Which is fine. But the people you mentioned are somewhat less likely to be mentioned than Jesus - especially if any of the biblical claims of Jesus were true. Christians really try to play both sides of the fence on the Jesus historicity issue. They want him to qualify as a mere historical character, but then turn around and insist he was actually GOD! So pick your position. If Jesus was God, there there is a LOT more reason to suggest that he should have been noticed by contemporary historians than if he was just a human lunatic. And if he was just a human lunatic but still able to inject such turbulence into Jewish and Roman politics and religion, there is still a greater likelihood for contemporary historical mention (and not just hearsay), than for the subjects you mentioned.

Once again, Mhykiel, your belief is that Jesus was the single most important human body ever to walk the Earth, and yet when it comes to the lack of historical evidence for him, you're quite happy to compare him to mere mortals. You can't seriously suggest that there would be less reason to notice God walking about and casting miracles, than to take note of a few genius level humans. And again, even if Jesus was just a typical religious nut, if you attribute any of the Jesus story to him, then there is more than sufficient cause to expect a very substantial quantity of historical confirmation, not just post-era hearsay mentions.

It should be noted that the only historian (I've heard of), who is attempting to utilize an objective methodology to weigh the evidence (Richard Carrier & Bayes Theorem), has shown that objectively, the evidence scores too low to make a determination of historicity. I've mentioned this before, and one Christian (I don't recall which one), tried to attack Bayes Theorem, claiming it was a terrible tool for the purpose. And when I asked why, they didn't know. It was just something they heard.

And again; in regard to Mhykiel and the fact that there are no gods living on Mount Olympus, there's no Jesus in confirmed history either. So in one case you're willing to follow the evidence (a lack of evidence for Gods on Mount Olympus), but reject that Jesus is missing from the confirmed historical record (a lack of evidence for Jesus).


False Equivalence and lies. You just admitted that Bayes suggests "has shown that objectively, the evidence scores too low to make a determination of historicity"

Low is not Zero. Bayes obviously investigated some kind of evidence to right up his papers on.

So low or unconvincing evidence is NOT zero evidence, thanks for the deception and obvious contradiction.
I've employed no contradiction. I never said there was zero evidence so you're the one lying. I mentioned one expected evidence for Jesus which resulted in a lack of confirmation, and one expected evidence for the gods of Mount Olympus which resulted in a lack of confirmation.

My point is that you complete dismiss Zeus simply because no evidence was found for him upon Mount Olympus. Yet we have mention of him in the writings of historians (Plato, for one).

If you're fair and equal, we have found evidence showing that Jesus didn't live in Nazareth as the bible claims, just as Zeus doesn't live on Mount Olympus. But in the case of Jesus, you dismiss it and think of excuses. In the case of Zeus you consider it to be conclusive evidence that Zeus didn't exist. But there are other forms of evidence for both. You accept the additional evidence for Jesus, and utterly dismiss it for Zeus, on the basis of the lack of evidence for Zeus on Mount Olympus.

Zeus - Claimed Home: Mount Olympus. No evidence found on Mount Olympus - CONCLUSION: Zeus is a myth. (Despite historical mention.)

Jesus - Claimed Home: Nazareth. Evidence found against occupation of Nazareth - CONCLUSION: Jesus is a true historical character. (On the basis of hearsay mention).

Do you see the problem? You're engaging in special pleading, and a double-standard. You have on standard for Jesus, and a completely different standard for Zeus.

As for Mhykiel and his suggestion that we shouldn't be attacking a "tangent argument", if Jesus never existed, the rest of Christianity is pretty much dead. So it's not really a tangential argument. It's very much a primary argument - the argument which should be settled before any controversy regarding Christianity or the "teachings of Jesus" should be approached. Because if there was no historical Jesus, then everything else Christians believe, dies with the roots of the vine.

Agreed. Now can you stop saying Paul thinks Jesus was never on Earth? or will you continue with the rehearsed and rehashed propaganda lies?

I'm not saying anything about what Paul thought. I'm talking about what he wrote. And (assuming he wrote Hebrews), he tells us that Jesus was a "high priest", and also tells us that had he existed on Earth, he would NOT have been a priest. So you figure it out.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 2:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:10:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Hbrews 5:7, probably written by Paul, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

I need to make a correction and explain. When I read this the first time, I noted the book, chapter and verse, and went immediately to the chapter in the Bible to grasp the entire context of the verse. And what I read was from the King James Version. It says...

(Hebrews 5:7) "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"

You'll note it never says Jesus was on Earth.

When I re-read my response to you I noticed that the verse you presented says, "During the days of Jesus life on earth". So I see where you got the idea that it portrays Jesus on Earth. But that's obviously not what it says in the older English version. They've translated "in the days of his flesh" as "the days of Jesus' life on earth". Yet that's clearly not what it says. And I'm not sure what the original Greek says. (Of course, no one else knows what the original says either.)

However, this serves as a good example of the problems presented when translating assumptions rather than the actual statement. Many pagan gods were flesh-and-blood or possessed the physical qualities of flesh-and-blood beings, yet existed in ethereal realms. And the Jesus story mimics many of these pagan stories in various respects., and may well have mimicked the flesh god in an ethereal realm in one or several of Christianity's early variations. After all, Jesus was a fierce warrior in one, a pedophile in another, a gnostic god, an ascetic, etc., etc. It wasn't until the council of the 4th century that Christianity was narrowed and demanded to be about just one of the many versions of Jesus, and voted to have been a 100% human man, who was also 100% God, and living on Earth.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:12:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

I note that not only can you not substantiate a word of your BS (because it's nothing but lies), but you seem to be so completely threatened by the points I raise that it has caused you to plead with others to ignore me for fear I'll tear more of your silly fairytale to pieces. In fact, it seems completely possible that someone switched your carbon-dioxide exhaust port with your methane orifice.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
heisnotrisen
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:14:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

So please, refute him rather than quibble about the man.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:16:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:14:34 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

So please, refute him rather than quibble about the man.

It would take literally days for me to refute every single historical inaccuracy in his posts, so no thank you. I obviously struck a nerve with what a said though. I think he may be realizing by now how much people who seriously study history are laughing at him and his ilk.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:25:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:14:34 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

So please, refute him rather than quibble about the man.

I've already refuted most of his ahistorical B.S in one of my posts on this topic http://www.debate.org.... Read or don't breed.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:26:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:16:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:14:34 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

So please, refute him rather than quibble about the man.

It would take literally days for me to refute every single historical inaccuracy in his posts, so no thank you.
It would take you far longer just to find one. Otherwise you might try to present one rather than making non-specific disingenuous allegations.

I obviously struck a nerve with what a said though. I think he may be realizing by now how much people who seriously study history are laughing at him and his ilk.
Obviously, you're not in a position to speak for anyone who actually studies history. Once again; unless you can demonstrate the inaccuracies you claim, you're less than worth the time it takes to read your false accusations.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:33:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:25:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:14:34 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

So please, refute him rather than quibble about the man.

I've already refuted most of his ahistorical B.S in one of my posts on this topic http://www.debate.org.... Read or don't breed.

That only links to this thread. Either provide a Post number or just admit that you're lying.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 6:44:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 2:12:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/11/2014 1:10:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Hbrews 5:7, probably written by Paul, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

I need to make a correction and explain. When I read this the first time, I noted the book, chapter and verse, and went immediately to the chapter in the Bible to grasp the entire context of the verse. And what I read was from the King James Version. It says...

(Hebrews 5:7) "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"

You'll note it never says Jesus was on Earth.

When I re-read my response to you I noticed that the verse you presented says, "During the days of Jesus life on earth". So I see where you got the idea that it portrays Jesus on Earth. But that's obviously not what it says in the older English version. They've translated "in the days of his flesh" as "the days of Jesus' life on earth". Yet that's clearly not what it says. And I'm not sure what the original Greek says. (Of course, no one else knows what the original says either.)

However, this serves as a good example of the problems presented when translating assumptions rather than the actual statement. Many pagan gods were flesh-and-blood or possessed the physical qualities of flesh-and-blood beings, yet existed in ethereal realms. And the Jesus story mimics many of these pagan stories in various respects., and may well have mimicked the flesh god in an ethereal realm in one or several of Christianity's early variations. After all, Jesus was a fierce warrior in one, a pedophile in another, a gnostic god, an ascetic, etc., etc. It wasn't until the council of the 4th century that Christianity was narrowed and demanded to be about just one of the many versions of Jesus, and voted to have been a 100% human man, who was also 100% God, and living on Earth.

The writer of Hebrews Spoke of Jesus as a human on earth, not some ethereal realm.

All anyone needs to do is read the whole book.

Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."

Hebrew 2:7 "You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor" Describing flesh blood people.

Hebrew 2:9 "But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

Hebrew 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Read previous verses the children described is mankind.

Hebrews 2:16 "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants"

Hebrews 2:17 "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." completely human in EVERY WAY. That is here on earth like every HUMAN

Hebrews 7:15 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" Judah is a real world tribe.

Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;"

Hebrews 13:12 "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." The real historical city of Jerusalem."

The Writer of Hebrews saw Jesus as living and flesh on this Earth with the rest of humanity before his death.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 8:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 6:44:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/11/2014 2:12:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/11/2014 1:10:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Hbrews 5:7, probably written by Paul, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

I need to make a correction and explain. When I read this the first time, I noted the book, chapter and verse, and went immediately to the chapter in the Bible to grasp the entire context of the verse. And what I read was from the King James Version. It says...

(Hebrews 5:7) "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"

You'll note it never says Jesus was on Earth.

When I re-read my response to you I noticed that the verse you presented says, "During the days of Jesus life on earth". So I see where you got the idea that it portrays Jesus on Earth. But that's obviously not what it says in the older English version. They've translated "in the days of his flesh" as "the days of Jesus' life on earth". Yet that's clearly not what it says. And I'm not sure what the original Greek says. (Of course, no one else knows what the original says either.)

However, this serves as a good example of the problems presented when translating assumptions rather than the actual statement. Many pagan gods were flesh-and-blood or possessed the physical qualities of flesh-and-blood beings, yet existed in ethereal realms. And the Jesus story mimics many of these pagan stories in various respects., and may well have mimicked the flesh god in an ethereal realm in one or several of Christianity's early variations. After all, Jesus was a fierce warrior in one, a pedophile in another, a gnostic god, an ascetic, etc., etc. It wasn't until the council of the 4th century that Christianity was narrowed and demanded to be about just one of the many versions of Jesus, and voted to have been a 100% human man, who was also 100% God, and living on Earth.

The writer of Hebrews Spoke of Jesus as a human on earth, not some ethereal realm.

All anyone needs to do is read the whole book.

Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
You've never heard of an "ethereal world"?

Hebrew 2:7 "You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor" Describing flesh blood people.
And many of the pagan gods were flesh-and-blood gods, living in ethereal worlds... just like some of the portrayals of Jesus.

Hebrew 2:9 "But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
Which says absolutely nothing about Jesus being on Earth.

Hebrew 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Read previous verses the children described is mankind.
"Flesh and blood" is not synonymous with living on Earth.
Dying is not synonymous with living on Earth.
Partaking of flesh and blood is not synonymous with living on Earth.

Hebrews 2:16 "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants"
And who do you think God helps? Does that mean God is living on Earth?

Hebrews 2:17 "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." completely human in EVERY WAY. That is here on earth like every HUMAN
It's referring to having a flesh and blood body, not where that body resides.

Hebrews 7:15 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" Judah is a real world tribe.
Being descended from a real world tribe still doesn't make a god an Earth-bound entity.

Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;"
Once again, the word "world" can refer to metaphysical worlds, ethereal worlds, cosmic worlds, alien worlds, etc. It's not exclusive to Earth.

Hebrews 13:12 "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." The real historical city of Jerusalem."
And I can (and do) also suffer at the gate of the cemetery where my former fiance is buried, even though that's not where I am. It's a mental suffering, not requiring spacial locality.

The Writer of Hebrews saw Jesus as living and flesh on this Earth with the rest of humanity before his death.
And yet, there is nothing in his writings which demonstrates that to be true, and comments which directly state that it is untrue.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 9:06:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 8:29:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/11/2014 6:44:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/11/2014 2:12:25 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/11/2014 1:10:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Hbrews 5:7, probably written by Paul, "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

I need to make a correction and explain. When I read this the first time, I noted the book, chapter and verse, and went immediately to the chapter in the Bible to grasp the entire context of the verse. And what I read was from the King James Version. It says...

(Hebrews 5:7) "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"

You'll note it never says Jesus was on Earth.

When I re-read my response to you I noticed that the verse you presented says, "During the days of Jesus life on earth". So I see where you got the idea that it portrays Jesus on Earth. But that's obviously not what it says in the older English version. They've translated "in the days of his flesh" as "the days of Jesus' life on earth". Yet that's clearly not what it says. And I'm not sure what the original Greek says. (Of course, no one else knows what the original says either.)

However, this serves as a good example of the problems presented when translating assumptions rather than the actual statement. Many pagan gods were flesh-and-blood or possessed the physical qualities of flesh-and-blood beings, yet existed in ethereal realms. And the Jesus story mimics many of these pagan stories in various respects., and may well have mimicked the flesh god in an ethereal realm in one or several of Christianity's early variations. After all, Jesus was a fierce warrior in one, a pedophile in another, a gnostic god, an ascetic, etc., etc. It wasn't until the council of the 4th century that Christianity was narrowed and demanded to be about just one of the many versions of Jesus, and voted to have been a 100% human man, who was also 100% God, and living on Earth.

The writer of Hebrews Spoke of Jesus as a human on earth, not some ethereal realm.

All anyone needs to do is read the whole book.

Hebrews 1:6 "And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."
You've never heard of an "ethereal world"?

READ the whole chapter. It is talking about human beings as well. The world in question is clearly this world. I would say the Greeks have words for Ethereal or Other worlds, and this is not seen in this verse but that would be An Argument from silence, so I did not present it.


Hebrew 2:7 "You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor" Describing flesh blood people.
And many of the pagan gods were flesh-and-blood gods, living in ethereal worlds... just like some of the portrayals of Jesus.


Hebrew 2:9 "But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
Which says absolutely nothing about Jesus being on Earth.

Affirms Jesus was made human like the people living on Earth.

Hebrew 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;" Read previous verses the children described is mankind.
"Flesh and blood" is not synonymous with living on Earth.
Dying is not synonymous with living on Earth.
Partaking of flesh and blood is not synonymous with living on Earth.

Jesus is being said to be exactly like US, to include living on earth.


Hebrews 2:16 "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants"
And who do you think God helps? Does that mean God is living on Earth?
This talking about Jesus helping Abraham's Descendents, Israelite.


Hebrews 2:17 "For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." completely human in EVERY WAY. That is here on earth like every HUMAN
It's referring to having a flesh and blood body, not where that body resides.

He had to be made like Abraham's Descendents Fully human in EVERY way.


Hebrews 7:15 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" Judah is a real world tribe.
Being descended from a real world tribe still doesn't make a god an Earth-bound entity.

That is a stretch even for you. So the tribe of Judah populated so much Jesus ancestors were in this ethereal world and the tales of Jesus and eyewitness accounts are of Him in another world.


Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;"
Once again, the word "world" can refer to metaphysical worlds, ethereal worlds, cosmic worlds, alien worlds, etc. It's not exclusive to Earth.

Hebrews 13:12 "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." The real historical city of Jerusalem."
And I can (and do) also suffer at the gate of the cemetery where my former fiance is buried, even though that's not where I am. It's a mental suffering, not requiring spacial locality.

The Writer of Hebrews saw Jesus as living and flesh on this Earth with the rest of humanity before his death.
And yet, there is nothing in his writings which demonstrates that to be true, and comments which directly state that it is untrue.

You are adding to the words to support your insane position. The account, manner, events, and description of Jesus in Hebrews when read plainly is for a earth walking Jesus.

To claim the world really means Ethereal is not indicated in the scripture it is an adjective added by you.

It means this world. If it was an Ethereal world it would have been one of the heavens.

In fact when I brought up that it says Jesus passed into heaven, from where did he pass from... you said it was another heaven.

So you are speculating and conjecturing that the writer of Hebrews see the universe as consisting of this earth world, a Ethereal world, and a multitude of heavens as well.

You have to add words to make your idea fit. That is not a literal interpretation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 9:31:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 3:16:02 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:14:34 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 7/11/2014 3:07:31 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Can everyone please stop engaging with Beastt? He's shown on numerous occassions that he only cares about pop history, which any ten year old could refute, but which he burys in hollow rhetoric completely unsubstantiated by any histrical fact. Suffice it to say he is utterly wrong about Paul and everything he says. He's probably a satanist or some other weird thing, like a lot of the sad atheists who troll christians here.

So please, refute him rather than quibble about the man.

It would take literally days for me to refute every single historical inaccuracy in his posts, so no thank you. I obviously struck a nerve with what a said though. I think he may be realizing by now how much people who seriously study history are laughing at him and his ilk.

Poor little goo.

You can refute his claim with this.

.

.

.

.
That's right sweety.
FUKIN' nothin.

Go you good thing.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2014 9:08:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 1:58:18 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
If Jesus never existed then what spurred the religious movement during that time, why did early Christian churches exist? Why would a guy named Paul (Saul), who was predominately orthodox risk his favored lively hood? What motivation or even what desire would any person have at that time to interfere and challenge the current leadership and dictating authorities other than a guy named Jesus did what was said? or at bare minimum existed.

I want to make it clear that I'm not making a claim here, just curious as to what people think. I already understand the argument from a lack of evidence for the existence of Christ. However I think that it is fairly significant to question the idea of a definitive movement or disruption in the main stream basis of religious belief, the existing religious structure was quite secure and authoritative during this period, which is obvious examining the life of Paul and his testimony and the history of Jewish beliefs. So what triggered such a result given that we declare the scriptures a farce?

"There is a lot of perceptional bias and psudoscience on both sides of the historical Jesus where the hypothesis is being used drive every aspect of the research to a predestined conclusion. The sad thing it may not even be the researcher's fault as the very model they use can determine what is "acceptable data"

"The issue of Nazareth's existence in the 1st century is other mixture of confirmation bias and psudoscience with the logic (such as it is) that if Nazareth existed then so did Jesus and if it didn't exist neither did Jesus.

"While it is true there are arguments regarding the existence of Nazareth in the 1st century its existence (or nonexistence) wouldn't prove (or disprove) the existence of Jesus.[60] The existence of Nazareth no more proves Jesus existed then the existence of Atlanta, Georgia is evidence that Rhett Butler and Scarlet O'Hare were real people."

"Conversely, the non-existence of Nazareth does not prove Jesus didn't exist because there is good evidence that the Nazareth connection may be the result of the misunderstanding of a title such as Nazirite (meaning "one consecrated, devoted"[61]) or that it referred to a clan Jesus belonged to (some translations of Micah 5:2 make it clear that "Bethlehem" is reference to a group of people in Judea not a town so why can't Nazarene be the same sort of thing?)
On both sides the Nazareth argument is pointless and in the end worthless."

"Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30"36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek, although this has been disputed."

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][28][29][30] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[31][32] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[28] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time " more so than any of his contemporaries " with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[33] Although a small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, the great majority of scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention implausible.[12][26] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[26] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://rationalwiki.org...

And if you believe Jesus could have or did exist but was nothing more than a religious guy, the questions remain the same, why reject the possibility that there is truth to the Gospels about His ministry? Why was Jesus' life so effective if not for the simple fact that He did what was said, both by the authors as well as Paul?

How can a person prove that Elijah the prophet did not exist? If did exist according to christian beliefs. That lets me know that if you have a relationship with his God and not Baal.. Then you can get a free flight to heaven in fire. You dont have to die and be resurrected like christians do...I can choose that route... why do I have to take anything lesser... He was the only human being to not die according to the records that if you dont count enoch. However, he road on a chariot of fire. But the god man had to die and resurrect to be a king. Sound strange to me. However elijah was a man but jesus was a god. Faith and hope is what keep all religions... even if they can not prove the existence of their god they still hold on to the faith an hope of their prophets words.