Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Did Jesus Exist?

SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 9:04:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

I would say the bible Is the best evidence of the existence of a historical Jesus although the existence of such a man is unknowable and the biblical tales about Jesus could simply be made up or copied from other false religions and false messiahs.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 9:43:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

You squashed my last argument for the existence of Jesus (criterion of embarrassment), but I haven't looked into it since then. What do you consider to be the best reasons for and against?
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
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 9:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

Jesus is a fictional character copied from other fictional charact"rs like osiris and mythras.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 10:51:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 9:43:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

You squashed my last argument for the existence of Jesus (criterion of embarrassment), but I haven't looked into it since then. What do you consider to be the best reasons for and against?

Best evidence for the historical Jesus is definitely the intuitive reading of Paul's statement "James the brother of the Lord".
The reason I am not entirely convinced of that is because many Docetic writings also call James the "brother of the Lord" or even the brother of Jesus, but we know, based on the nature of Docetism, that it can't mean a biological brother.

The best evidence against is that the existence of a historical Jesus doesn't really add any explanatory power. I see nothing that requires a historical Jesus to exist and no direct evidence he did. Of course, this entails weak mythicism, but still mysticism none the less.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 11:22:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

The best reason to reject a historical Jesus is the fact that he was completely unknown by any contemporary historian. It is beyond belief that a person could have had a fraction of the following he is claimed to have had, been the centre of such tumultuous events, and yet no-one noticed him or wrote anything about him until decades later. When they did write about him the story grew progressively more elaborate. This is classic myth-making.

The second best reason is the Pauline epistles. Here is the closest writer (non-historian) in time to the alleged life of Jesus who refers to a Jesus character but essentially knows nothing about an Earthly life for him. Paul's Jesus is a celestial figure in a realm of heaven. My personal opinion is that even the name Jesus is probably always an interpolation in Paul's authentic writings. The mentions of the name Jesus are either later insertions or Paul originally used a different name or a generic name like "Son of Man" for his heavenly sacrifice figure.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 1:49:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

The best reason to reject the idea of a historical man who had any supernatural powers is that stories about men with supernatural powers are all mythical and there is no evidence that any historical person ever had such powers. The bible is no more evidence of the man and his powers than stories of Superman are evidence of Superman being a historical person with supernatural powers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:50:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

SNP, what would you consider the minimum criteria needed to recognise that a Judaic reform activist living in that period was Jesus, and not some other activist?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,131
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:56:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 10:51:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 9:43:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

You squashed my last argument for the existence of Jesus (criterion of embarrassment), but I haven't looked into it since then. What do you consider to be the best reasons for and against?

Best evidence for the historical Jesus is definitely the intuitive reading of Paul's statement "James the brother of the Lord".
The reason I am not entirely convinced of that is because many Docetic writings also call James the "brother of the Lord" or even the brother of Jesus, but we know, based on the nature of Docetism, that it can't mean a biological brother.

I'm not very familiar with Docetism.

The best evidence against is that the existence of a historical Jesus doesn't really add any explanatory power. I see nothing that requires a historical Jesus to exist and no direct evidence he did. Of course, this entails weak mythicism, but still mysticism none the less.

I agree that there seems to be no direct evidence.
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
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:56:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:50:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

SNP, what would you consider the minimum criteria needed to recognise that a Judaic reform activist living in that period was Jesus, and not some other activist?

For me, the name of the person is irrelevant.
If there was a singular, historical figure of any sort in which, ultimately, Christianity is based around, that person is "Jesus".
Now, if it ends up that someone like Atwill is correct (which is laughably unlikely) and Jesus is Caesar, then there is a "Jesus", but I would find it counterproductive to refer to the figure as anything but Caesar.

I would also add that I would exclude it if it is basing it off of Old Testament figures (like the Joshua of the OT), the person must have lived close enough to the rise of Christianity where his followers helped spark the movement, not in the distant past where people eventually reinterpreted their life to form the Christ figure.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:59:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:56:25 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/1/2016 10:51:43 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/1/2016 9:43:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

You squashed my last argument for the existence of Jesus (criterion of embarrassment), but I haven't looked into it since then. What do you consider to be the best reasons for and against?

Best evidence for the historical Jesus is definitely the intuitive reading of Paul's statement "James the brother of the Lord".
The reason I am not entirely convinced of that is because many Docetic writings also call James the "brother of the Lord" or even the brother of Jesus, but we know, based on the nature of Docetism, that it can't mean a biological brother.

I'm not very familiar with Docetism.

Docetism is the view that a purely spiritual/celestial Jesus appeared on earth as somewhat of a phantom. He appeared as if he was human, but was not actually human. He was not born, did not actually die (faked his death in some accounts), and was not human or fleshy. Just a phantom/spirit that looked human on earth.

The best evidence against is that the existence of a historical Jesus doesn't really add any explanatory power. I see nothing that requires a historical Jesus to exist and no direct evidence he did. Of course, this entails weak mythicism, but still mysticism none the less.

I agree that there seems to be no direct evidence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 6:49:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:56:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 4:50:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?
SNP, what would you consider the minimum criteria needed to recognise that a Judaic reform activist living in that period was Jesus, and not some other activist?
For me, the name of the person is irrelevant.
Yes, understood.

If there was a singular, historical figure of any sort in which, ultimately, Christianity is based around, that person is "Jesus".
What if there were more than one historical Palestinian Jew saying (for example) that all men were brothers, and Jews should love their neighbours?

If there were more than one of these, which would you consider to be historical Jesus?

I would also add that I would exclude it if it is basing it off of Old Testament figures (like the Joshua of the OT), the person must have lived close enough to the rise of Christianity where his followers helped spark the movement

There was one to two centuries of such thought in Judaism prior to the attestation of Jesus life, which is why I asked. So it sounds like you're looking for a figure whose martyrdom might have resulted in the self-imposed exile of Jews to Rome, who may or may not have also provided the foundational ideas for Christianity... As opposed to (for example) authors who might have provided the foundational ideas for Christianity but may not have resulted in the exile of Jews to Rome.
ContraDictator
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:20:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Best reason to accept: You can now engage sexually with fellow religious zealots of the Abrahamic sort and furthermore have the approval of their parents.

Best reason to deny: You can now engage sexually with fellow skeptics of the Abrahamic religions.
I tend to fight any opinion, regardless of my agreement or disagreement to it. I believe to only fight opinions that you disagree with is a sign of a weak and rigid state of mind.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:48:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Did Jesus Exist?
There is no evidence in support of that contention.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:09:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:49:49 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 4:56:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 4:50:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?
SNP, what would you consider the minimum criteria needed to recognise that a Judaic reform activist living in that period was Jesus, and not some other activist?
For me, the name of the person is irrelevant.
Yes, understood.

If there was a singular, historical figure of any sort in which, ultimately, Christianity is based around, that person is "Jesus".
What if there were more than one historical Palestinian Jew saying (for example) that all men were brothers, and Jews should love their neighbours?

If there were more than one of these, which would you consider to be historical Jesus?

If there are multiple, then we must ask if there was one that actually inspired Christianity or if Christianity was a group of people who created Jesus by combining these people. If the former, there was a historical Jesus. If the latter, then there was no historical Jesus but Jesus is a character based on different figures.

I would also add that I would exclude it if it is basing it off of Old Testament figures (like the Joshua of the OT), the person must have lived close enough to the rise of Christianity where his followers helped spark the movement

There was one to two centuries of such thought in Judaism prior to the attestation of Jesus life, which is why I asked. So it sounds like you're looking for a figure whose martyrdom might have resulted in the self-imposed exile of Jews to Rome, who may or may not have also provided the foundational ideas for Christianity...

Not necessarily. The historical Jesus might not have been martyred. The key point here is whether Christianity started based off of some figure (and eventually was conflated to become the Jesus we know of today) or if a character was invented inspired by some figure(s). If it is the latter, then it is really hard to say whether that figure could actually count as a historical Jesus or not. I may consider them to be "Jesus", but it would be much harder to affirm that.

As opposed to (for example) authors who might have provided the foundational ideas for Christianity but may not have resulted in the exile of Jews to Rome.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 4:23:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

I think it's more honest, and therefor intellectually healthier to allow the actuality of Jesus of Nazareth to remain a mystery. The honest answer is that we do not know the actuality of Jesus because none of us were there, and no non-mythological evidence exists to illuminate the actuality of him, for us.

I also think it's important to recognize this because it helps us to stay focussed on the message of the story, instead of the historical figure. And I think it's the message of the story that is of far greater significance than the actuality of the historical figure in the story, being used to illuminate that message.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:01:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Of course Jesus exists. It's obvious when you clean your instruments.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:49:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 4:09:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:49:49 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/2/2016 4:56:46 AM, SNP1 wrote:
If there was a singular, historical figure of any sort in which, ultimately, Christianity is based around, that person is "Jesus".
What if there were more than one historical Palestinian Jew saying (for example) that all men were brothers, and Jews should love their neighbours?
If there are multiple, then we must ask if there was one that actually inspired Christianity or if Christianity was a group of people who created Jesus by combining these people. If the former, there was a historical Jesus. If the latter, then there was no historical Jesus but Jesus is a character based on different figures.
I think it likely that Christianity poached pre-existing ideas to create a legend around the hagiography of a real martyr.

There was one to two centuries of such thought in Judaism prior to the attestation of Jesus life, which is why I asked. So it sounds like you're looking for a figure whose martyrdom might have resulted in the self-imposed exile of Jews to Rome, who may or may not have also provided the foundational ideas for Christianity.
Not necessarily. The historical Jesus might not have been martyred. The key point here is whether Christianity started based off of some figure (and eventually was conflated to become the Jesus we know of today) or if a character was invented inspired by some figure(s).
Christianity was not cut from whole cloth by a single figure.

Its thought extended or evolved from that of Hellenistic Judaism, which existed from the fourth century BCE, after the conquests of Alexander the Great, and continued through the second century CE. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Its big centres were in Alexandria and Antioch, but it was also present in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. [https://www.biblegateway.com...]

It's the Hellenisation of Judaism that produced the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament, which also forms the basis of the Roman Catholic Old Testament. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] But it also produced synagogues, a large number of Graeco-Judaic thinkers [https://en.wikipedia.org...], mixed Graeco-Judaic marriages against historical Judaic custom, more cosmopolitan, progressive, outwardly-focused Jewry, and a notion key to Christianity but foreign to earlier Judaism: that of the essential brotherhood of man. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

Both early Christianity and early Rabbinical Judaism drew from the ideas in Hellenistic Judaism, and Hellenistic Judaism was still around in Jerusalem during the time attested to Jesus' life. (See for example, references to the 'Synagogue of the Freedmen' in Acts 6:9 [https://www.biblegateway.com...]) It accounts for why so much of the New Testament draws from ideas known to the Greeks (e.g. everything from Dionysian wine miracles to the myths of the virgin-born, water-walking Zoroastrian saviour Saoshyant.)

So Christianity wasn't just parachuted into Judaism -- it evolved from the same cultural and political forces that had already translated the Hebrew Tanakh into the Graeco-Roman Old Testament. Like Rabbinical Judaism, early Christianity was fragmented, with many competing ideas influenced principally by Hellenistic Judaism, and you can see the influence of those competing ideas two to three centuries later in the large number of Early Christian Church bishops calling each other heretics.

And this is why I suggested that the key criterion is probably not whether there was a single inspirational figure: I think it's pretty clear that there was not, and that Judaic thought was already being reinterpreted many different ways. At the time attested to Jesus, you have writings like those of Philo of Alexandria (25BCE-50CE) for example, syncretising Judaic and Greek philosophies:

We find, then, that in the sacred oracles delivered by the prophet Moses, there are three separate characters; for a portion of them relates to the creation of the world, a portion is historical, and the third portion is legislative. Now the creation of the world is related throughout with exceeding beauty and in a manner admirably suited to the dignity of God, taking its beginning in the account of the creation of the heaven, and ending with that of the formation of man; the first of which things is the most perfect of all imperishable things, and the other of all corruptible and perishable things. And the Creator, connecting together immortal and mortal things at the creation, made the world, making what he had already created the dominant parts, and what he was about to create the subject parts.

The historical part is a record of the lives of different wicked and virtuous men, and of the rewards, and honours, and punishments set apart for each class in each generation. The legislative part is sub-divided into two sections, one of which has a more general object proposed to it, laying down accordingly a few general comprehensive laws; the other part consists of special and particular ordinances. And the general heads of these special ordinances are ten, which are said not to have been delivered to the people by an interpreter, but to have been fashioned in the lofty region of the air, and to have been connected by a rational distinctness and utterance. While the others, I mean the particular and minute laws, were delivered by the prophet.

And as, in my former treatises, I have dwelt upon each of these to as great an extent as the time permitted me, and as I have also enlarged upon all the different virtues which the lawgiver has assigned to peace and war, I will now proceed in regular order to mention the rewards which have been proposed for virtuous men, and the punishments threatened to the wicked

-- Philo of Alexandria On Rewards and Punishments [http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com...]

Here we see Philo of Alexandria doing much the same as Jesus was also attested to do: broadening and reinterpreting Mosaic law for a modern era. And he's a much less dubious figure than Jesus: his life is better attested, he has his own monographs, and is referenced by other chroniclers of the day. I'm not suggesting he 'was' Jesus. My point is to show that this sort of thought was commonly available at the time, and to early Christians Church fathers. So the kind thought attested to Jesus wasn't revolutionary, but commonplace. It had been bubbling along for three centuries since Alexander the Great and had multiple lines of established philosophy.

Early Christian thought then, suffers not from a dearth of possible inspirations, but a rather embarrassing overabundance of them. And this is why I asked what your criteria were, and suggested that perhaps what you want is not some philosophical visionary preaching the brotherhood of man and the broader interpretation of Mosaic law (for there had been centuries of those), but some Palestinian Judaic reform martyr whose romantic death might have inspired Graeco-Judaic faith in Rome.

There may have been one such, but I think it not credible that he did all the miracles he was claimed to do when they're copies of other myths; it's unlikely he said all the things he was claimed to say, when the authors who claimed to have heard him say them are themselves so poorly authenticated and so derivative of one another [https://en.wikipedia.org...]; and regardless, it's even less likely that he said them all first when similar ideas had been around for centuries before him.

I hope that may be useful. :)
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 12:21:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:01:45 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Of course Jesus exists. It's obvious when you clean your instruments.

What does the above have to do with a historical Jesus? The concept of the Logos was developed by Greeks long before the alleged time of Jesus. It was futher developed by Philo of Alexander (a Hellenic Jew contemporary of the supposed Jesus but who never wrote a single word about him):

Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[6] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[33] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[33] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[34]

https://en.wikipedia.org...

As Ruv has pointed out, the ideas which were appropriated by early Christians had been bubbling around in Hellenic Judaism for centuries prior. These ideas cannot be used to identify this Jesus figure since almost everything attributed to him is borrowed.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 1:59:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:49:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Oh, I agree that even if there is a historical Jesus that the philosophy had developed for quite a while, but anyone that is possibly able to be called a historical Jesus is an individual whose life or teachings ultimately caused these ideas, and maybe others, to create a new sect of Judaism that eventually became Christianity.

If no such individual exists, then what exactly is "Jesus" supposed to be outside of a fictitious character, even if a fictitious character that is based on people and ideas, "Jesus" would just be fictitious.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 3:22:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 1:59:40 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:49:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
If no such individual exists, then what exactly is "Jesus" supposed to be
A fictional inspiration and a political excuse for paternalism, colonialism and imperialism.

Jesus is what Jesus does and that's precisely how he's been used.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 3:24:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

No greater being has walked this planet or had such an effect on more people. Who can honestly say anything negative about him? This is coming from a non practicing Christian. He lived, no doubt.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:39:26 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.

But would we expect such? Many fictitious figures of the ancient world who were claimed to be real were never denied but slandered. People didn't have the ability to fact check so easily and most would probably just assume the guy existed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 5:51:06 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:39:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.

But would we expect such? Many fictitious figures of the ancient world who were claimed to be real were never denied but slandered. People didn't have the ability to fact check so easily and most would probably just assume the guy existed.

Except that Paul was writing while contemporaries were still living and said there were 500 (going from memory here) who could attest to the resurrection. The ancient people weren't stupid, they understood the need for evidence. The fact that there are no records by those who would have strong motivation to eliminate Christianity made absolutely no mention of any kind of doubt is strong evidence.

I can just imagine Peter on Pentecost preaching ato the Jews about the Jesus whom they crucified had risen from the dead. And the Jews there went well I have no idea who he was talking about, but let's go get baptized anyway.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 6:06:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:51:06 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:39:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.

But would we expect such? Many fictitious figures of the ancient world who were claimed to be real were never denied but slandered. People didn't have the ability to fact check so easily and most would probably just assume the guy existed.

Except that Paul was writing while contemporaries were still living and said there were 500 (going from memory here) who could attest to the resurrection.

There were 600 people saw a seven headed dragon walking down my street last night, now how can you possibly argue with 600 eye witnesses?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 6:08:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 6:06:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:51:06 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:39:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.

But would we expect such? Many fictitious figures of the ancient world who were claimed to be real were never denied but slandered. People didn't have the ability to fact check so easily and most would probably just assume the guy existed.

Except that Paul was writing while contemporaries were still living and said there were 500 (going from memory here) who could attest to the resurrection.

There were 600 people saw a seven headed dragon walking down my street last night, now how can you possibly argue with 600 eye witnesses?

one by one.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 6:27:13 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 6:08:58 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 6/3/2016 6:06:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:51:06 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:39:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.

But would we expect such? Many fictitious figures of the ancient world who were claimed to be real were never denied but slandered. People didn't have the ability to fact check so easily and most would probably just assume the guy existed.

Except that Paul was writing while contemporaries were still living and said there were 500 (going from memory here) who could attest to the resurrection.

There were 600 people saw a seven headed dragon walking down my street last night, now how can you possibly argue with 600 eye witnesses?

one by one.

Have at it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:38:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 5:51:06 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:39:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 5:02:55 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/1/2016 6:33:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What do you think is the best reason to accept/reject the idea that Jesus existed as a historical figure?

One thing that you don't find are Jewish writings saying wtf are you talking about, who the hell is this Jesus guy? No they don't deny, they slander.

But would we expect such? Many fictitious figures of the ancient world who were claimed to be real were never denied but slandered. People didn't have the ability to fact check so easily and most would probably just assume the guy existed.

Except that Paul was writing while contemporaries were still living and said there were 500 (going from memory here) who could attest to the resurrection. The ancient people weren't stupid, they understood the need for evidence. The fact that there are no records by those who would have strong motivation to eliminate Christianity made absolutely no mention of any kind of doubt is strong evidence.

I can just imagine Peter on Pentecost preaching ato the Jews about the Jesus whom they crucified had risen from the dead. And the Jews there went well I have no idea who he was talking about, but let's go get baptized anyway.

I actually favor Dr. Robert M Price's view on this, that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is a later interpolation.
I can link the article for you if you like.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:23:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 12:21:19 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:01:45 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Of course Jesus exists. It's obvious when you clean your instruments.

What does the above have to do with a historical Jesus? The concept of the Logos was developed by Greeks long before the alleged time of Jesus. It was futher developed by Philo of Alexander (a Hellenic Jew contemporary of the supposed Jesus but who never wrote a single word about him):

Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[6] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[33] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God."[33] Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."[34]

https://en.wikipedia.org...

As Ruv has pointed out, the ideas which were appropriated by early Christians had been bubbling around in Hellenic Judaism for centuries prior. These ideas cannot be used to identify this Jesus figure since almost everything attributed to him is borrowed.

You're missing the point entirely, which is why you think this is a meaningful argument. You think that truth can be stolen. How barren a place to be.

Without salvation, none of this can exist. The beginning and the end.

Of course Jesus exists. It can be witnessed.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,