ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old 19th May 2020, 11:23 PM   #1401
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
IMO, it is impossible to know if any of these three possibilities is the correct one - we simply do not have enough information to make an meaningful determination.
Entirely fair.
I tend to the view that Jesus is a mythical as Adam and Eve.


Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 11:58 PM   #1402
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Why didn't anyone point out that Jesus did not exist ?

When could they have done that ?
Who could claim Jesus did not exist ?
How could they have known ?
Where would they have lived ?
Why would they do that ?

Everything we know about the alleged historical Jesus comes from the Gospels (there is nothing historical about the alleged Jesus in Paul to disagree with, nor the early epistles.)

When ?
But the Gospels did not become known and discussed until over a century after the alleged Jesus :

All the many Christian writers from every decade 70s thru the 140s show no knowledge of the Gospels or their contents.
The first Christian writer on record to clearly have his hands on something like our Gospels was Justin Martyr in the 150s (although they were not yet named, and his quotes do not always match the Gospels.)
The first pagan writer to discuss and criticise the Gospels was Celsus in the 170s - he called the Gospels fiction based on myths (so naturally his book was burned, only some quotes remain.)

Who ?
Who could have even known that Jesus did not exist ? Only someone who lived in Jerusalem during the 30s, someone who then lived until the 150s to become aware of the Gospels.

How ?
How could you even know someone did not exist ? Only if you knew everyone, and knew everything important that went on in Jerusalem for that entire period (otherwise you might have just missed the alleged Jesus somehow.)

Where ?
The Gospels were not published in Jerusalem. G.Mark was most likely published in Rome, others later in maybe Antioch and Alexandria. Only someone who lived in Jerusalem in the 30s, then moved to those places, and lived until around the 150s - 170s (about 160 years of age at least) would even be able to read the Gospels to begin doubting them.

Why ?
Why would someone from these gullible times which believed everything and anything about all sorts of nonsense - people who almost universally believed whatever someone told them - even imagine that a historical Jesus didn't exist ?

So, to sum up - the only person who could have claimed Jesus did not exist would have been :
  • living in Jerusalem in the 30s, even the 00s as well,
  • was well aware of everything that happened in Jerusalem in those times,
  • lived for at least 160s years,
  • moved to Rome (or maybe Antioch or Alexandria) - or at least lived for a few more decades until the Gospels eventually arrived in Jerusalem,
  • and also someone had a sceptical doubtful mind, while living in a totally gullible world.

The empty set.
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 12:28 AM   #1403
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,500
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
I too go by evidence... the majority consensus among scholars is that the seven Pauline epistles considered authentic are by the same author and that there is no good reason to think they were not written by Paul.
Then let's see the evidence - not 'scholars' telling me I have to believe them for 'reasons'.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 02:44 AM   #1404
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Then let's see the evidence - not 'scholars' telling me I have to believe them for 'reasons'.
I’m not a biblical scholar and I suspect you are not either. So, I guess we can only rely on the expertise of those who are. And modern scholarship in this area relies upon higher criticism and historical-critical methodology.

The seven “authentic” Pauline letters are in all probability by the same author because of the similarity of literary structure and style and the use of a common vocabulary, idioms, common phrases and sentence structure etc. etc. etc.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 04:13 AM   #1405
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Heres the problem with that

We aren't having a debate over something that happened a week from last Tuesday; we are dealing with something that happened - IF it happened - over 2000 years ago. It gets very hard to make definite determinations because there is a lack of contemporaneous, comprehensive and coherent documentation.

On the question of HJ there are, IMO, three most likely conclusions that can be reached, and before I state them as I see them, I need to make it clear that I do not intend for any of them to speak to any of the supernatural or micraculous things attributed to Jesus - I approach this from a purely secular viewpoint as an atheist....

1. There was no historical person called Jesus Christ, and everything we find written about him was fabricated; completely made up from whole cloth, and

2. There was no historical person called Jesus Christ, but the stories about him may have been based on the aspects of one or more peripatetic preachers who were known to have existed at the time, and

3. There was an actual historical person called Jesus Christ, and, being mindful of my clarification above, the Bible and associated writings are an accurate description of his life and times.

IMO, it is impossible to know if any of these three possibilities is the correct one - we simply do not have enough information to make an meaningful determination. I personally tend towards number 2, as is it the option that is the least extraordinary, that asks the least number of questions, and that fits in with what we already do know about those times.


Re. the highlighted bit (and the bit in bold) - as I just explained above in post 1394 ; we actually do have a huge mass of completely undeniable evidence (most would call it absolute "proof") which shows that the gospel stories of Jesus were invented ... the writers were creating myths about a messiah who was believed from many hundreds of years before in OT prophecy. Those appear to be the undeniable facts.

And at that time, Jewish people in that region believed that OT prophecy was a certainty so pure and undeniable that it came from God himself. The coming of the messiah had to be true, because it was a God-given "fact".

Do we have, to use your highlighted words, "enough information" to "determine" that the stories were being created as religious myth intended to fulfil what were believed to the infallible prophecies of God? Well, yes! As just explained in post 1394, we now have an absolute mountain of undeniable evidence that shows those stories were untrue invented myth making about a promised messiah from the word of God in scriptural prophecy.

I think people here (inc. you in that above quoted post) are confusing or conflating the idea of "proof" vs the idea of mere "evidence". We have loads of evidence showing how the biblical stories of Jesus are quite definitely invented myth. That really cannot be in doubt. What we don't have, and what is impossible in any such situation, is literal "proof" that no such preacher named Jesus (or actually, named Yehoshua, Joshua, Iesous) could possibly have existed in any way at all in the 1st century AD.

It's an impossible demand to say that we must show "proof" that no such person could have existed. But if the demand is only that we show evidence that he did not exist (and that's the only credible & realistic demand that anyone could truly make), then there is a huge mass of evidence for that.

Also as I think someone just pointed out above – the burden of “proof”/evidence here is not on any sceptics who say that they doubt the existence of Jesus, it is instead upon those who say he was certainly real (eg almost all bible scholars) and those who say the evidence shows or suggests that he was most probably real (which means a claim of showing better than 50% likelihood).



I am not saying that he did not exist. I am not even saying that the probability of his existence is less than 50%. I don't think it's possible to guess at any percentage. But what I am saying is that the actual evidence that we do now have, is that such stories contain so much myth-making, and are so similar to all the other hundreds & thousands of other religions that are now universally rejected as clearly untrue products of ancient uneducated superstition etc., that now in the 21st century they (the Jesus stories) have to be dismissed as not credible or reliable any more as accounts of actual real events.

On which note, it's also worth pointing out that the Jesus figure we are talking about actually IS the miraculous figure of the bible! There is no other Jesus. A Jesus figure who never performed any of the acts in the gospels, is NOT what was ever claimed to be a living or real person by any of those who produced the stories in the first place. A “historical Jesus” of that kind is an invention from modern-day biblical scholars (ie over, say, that last 200 years) who have slowly come to accept that they cannot any longer accept the miracles as true … and so what they have done in order to keep the possibility of Jesus alive as a real 1st century person who was/is the entire foundation/basis of the religion today, is to simply claim that they can cross out or erase almost every significant thing that was ever said about him! How valid is that supposed to be? How valid is it to completely change the original claim by crossing out almost everything that was described for this person? …

… on what basis are they claiming that it's valid to cross it all out? Well, the basis is that unless they do cross it all out then the stories become untenable and clearly shown as myth-making!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 04:55 AM   #1406
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,264
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
But that's totally backwards isn't it ?
The onus of proof is on the positive claimant, not the other way 'round -
those who claim Jesus existed must produce evidence to convince people,
we don't just believe everything without evidence.
So you think that some bloke existed 2,000 years ago is somehow an extraordinary claim? Good look with that.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Otherwise -
according to your argument that means alien beings are visiting earth now - because there is no clear authentic evidence they are not.
Now you have moved on to the strawman that some bloke existed to the consequence that aliens are house guests? Really?

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
According to that argument that means faeries exist - because there are many stories about them but no clear authentic evidence they don't exist.
Nope. The claim is that maybe some bloke existed. I fail to see what faeries have to do with.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Obviously a silly argument.
Look to thine own.




Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
So what ?
Those ancient gullible people believed in all sorts of stories - including many about gods and god-men and angels and demons and impossible miracles. But no-one ever claimed they didn't exist.
And those ancient gullible had shedloads of itinerant apocalyptic preachers. Wingnuts preaching the end of the world. Hell, we still have them to this day.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Everyone believed in Adam and Eve, and Noah, and Samson and the Tower of Babel etc. - no-one claimed they didn't exist.
False. As a moments thought would inform you.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
So according to your argument that means all those bible characters and stories really existed.
And according to you Jerusalem therefore cannot possibly exist.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
So too Isis and Osiris, Zeus and Hecate and friends, Dionysus, Apollo etc. According to your argument that means they all existed.
Nor does Israel, Gallilee, Bethlehem, Asherah, or any of it exist merely by dint of mention in the holey babble.

Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Obviously a worthless argument.
You really haven't thought this through.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 20th May 2020 at 05:01 AM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 05:32 AM   #1407
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
But that's totally backwards isn't it ?
The onus of proof is on the positive claimant, not the other way 'round -
those who claim Jesus existed must produce evidence to convince people,
we don't just believe everything without evidence.

Otherwise -
according to your argument that means alien beings are visiting earth now - because there is no clear authentic evidence they are not.

According to that argument that means faeries exist - because there are many stories about them but no clear authentic evidence they don't exist.

Obviously a silly argument.

So what ?
Those ancient gullible people believed in all sorts of stories - including many about gods and god-men and angels and demons and impossible miracles. But no-one ever claimed they didn't exist.

Everyone believed in Adam and Eve, and Noah, and Samson and the Tower of Babel etc. - no-one claimed they didn't exist. So according to your argument that means all those bible characters and stories really existed.

So too Isis and Osiris, Zeus and Hecate and friends, Dionysus, Apollo etc. According to your argument that means they all existed.



Kapyong
I was saying that certainty in the matter is not evidence based because the evidence is just not there. If DeJudge were just saying, Jesus probably didn't exist, that is not a particularly controversial claim. I would just say, he's probably wrong. He isn't saying that. He's saying that he is certain that the evidence shows that Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul definitely did not exist. Those claiming either that there probably was or probably was not a real person have loads of evidence to support the claim. None of it is very good.

Deification of actual historical people was a fairly common thing in the ancient past. Its a mildly interesting question as to which gods were based on real people and which weren't and what evidence there is. Lots of ancient people claimed ancestry from some god or mythical hero. Those myths do not prove that those ancient people had no ancestor.

DeJudge's argument seems to be something to the effect of, "the available records of Jesus contain obvious falsehoods therefore there could not have been any person named Jesus that the Gospels are based on nor could Paul or the other characters in the Bible have existed" His argument would also mean that Pontius Pilate did not exist either. That is a fairly silly argument. To apply it to your analogy about aliens. Since there are loads of books about aliens visiting the earth that are obviously false, there can't be any alien life elsewhere in the universe.
Quote:
Obviously a worthless argument.
It would only be a worthless argument if DeJudge wasn't making such a strong claim. He seems to think that Paul and the Apostles didn't exist because the were mentioned in the Bible. Again, like saying that Prince John didn't exist because he was a character in Robin Hood.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What you say is really irrelevant because you have no idea whether or not Jesus existed.
This is easily the most ignorant thing I've seen posted in this thread. Certainty has no bearing on relevance or the truth. The only reason you are so clearly wrong about the existence of Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles is because of your certainty. If you were just as certain that Jesus was a real person, you would still be just as wrong.

Last edited by ahhell; 20th May 2020 at 05:53 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 05:56 AM   #1408
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,466
abaddon - I think you are forgetting something - we know that the foundational character/entity of a religion are made up in every recent religion. For Jesus to have actually been the creator/originator of Christianity would make him the exception. We have no reason to simply assume he may have existed in any form, there is much more evidence against him existing even as a person.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 05:58 AM   #1409
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,204
IMHO there is a spectrum of beliefs about Jesus.
A. Definitely existed, the Gospels are either entirely true or basically true.
B. Definitely existed but just as a human being and the Gospels are basically true but for the miracles.
C. Probably existed as a human man but the Gospels don't tell us much about him.
D. I don't know
E. Probably didn't exist in any form.
F. Definitely didn't exist in any form.

The underlined are unsupported by the evidence. A is clearly false. If you believe B through E, you are reasonable.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:02 AM   #1410
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,466
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
...snip... He isn't saying that. He's saying that he is certain that the evidence shows that Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul definitely did not exist. Those claiming either that there probably was or probably was not a real person have loads of evidence to support the claim. None of it is very good. ...snip...
Just on that I think (but who can be sure) that there is a communication issue with dejudge, what I think they are saying is that we know the characters as described in the accounts we do have did not exist. And we can say that with 100% certainty.

In other words no one turned wine to water, Paul wasn't visited by the spirit of Christmas past (may be getting my ghost stories mixed up).

I then think they are saying that because of that we have nothing that describes these figures, we remove the nonsense and we have nothing left so why do we try to find a way to make these characters "exist".


(I could be totally wrong in my interpretation!)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:38 AM   #1411
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
This is simply not true.

Atheist biblical scholar Dr Bart Ehrman, in a 2011 review of modern scholarship, wrote of Jesus: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

Eminent biblical scholar Dr James D. G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".

Notable classicist Dr Michael Grant wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".

There are very many serious scholars (atheist and theist alike) that say the same. You're flogging a dead horse dejudge.
Just as I expected you will never provide any historical evidence for your Jesus. All you will always do is just list names of people who believe their Jesus lived.

Bart Ehrman, Dr. James D G Dunn and Dr. Michael Grant have never ever presented any historical corroborative evidence for their Jesus. Never ever.

Ehrman is most absurd in his argument for an HJ.

See Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 46.

Ehrman admits
Quote:
" I need to stress we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone- pagan, Jew, or Christian- who was a contemporary eyewitness...
See Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 71.

Ehrman states
Quote:
"The Gospels are filled with non-historical material, accounts of events that could not have happened.
Now, look at Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 74.

Ehrman declares
Quote:
"So too the Gospels. Whatever one thinks of them as inspired scripture, they can be seen as significant historical sources.
He admitted that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus and were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but yet stated that they should be treated as historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth.

How completely ridiculous!!!

There is simply no historical evidence anywhere at all for an HJ so please stop wasting time.

HJ is derived from fiction in the NT.

Last edited by dejudge; 20th May 2020 at 06:39 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:02 AM   #1412
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So you think that some bloke existed 2,000 years ago is somehow an extraordinary claim? Good look with that.

.

Of course people existed 2000 years ago. Of course Jewish religious preachers existed 2000 years ago in that small region of Judea. But that is not evidence that the biblical Jesus existed!

Not only did religious people exist in Judea 2000 years ago, but those same people also invented all manner of untrue stories and beliefs about almost every aspect of their religion. They claimed to encounter flying angels and demons ... they claimed to hear the voice of God ... they claimed to witness countless miracles ... they claimed to see Jesus risen from the dead ... they claimed to hear Jesus speaking ordinary coherent sentences whilst nailed to a cross. People claimed to see, hear, & witness almost everything imaginable when it came to them recounting or preaching their religious faith.

The issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence of a real Jesus ever known to anyone, sufficient to conclude that it amounts to a better than 50% chance that Jesus was real. IOW which writer at that time gave an account of Jesus that is convincing at a level of better than 50% that he had personally encountered Jesus, or else that he named someone else who was trustworthy to greater than 50% when claiming that he had known Jesus.

Or to put that another way – who was it that actually ever encountered a living (or dead) Jesus? And the answer appears to be … nobody! Certainly not Paul, and certainly not any of the gospel writers. And anyone apart from those biblical writers, is even less likely or believable as a source of any personal honest knowledge of Jesus.

What we have is a Jesus who was actually unknown to everyone at the time, except for being “known” to them as a belief taken from their most ancient prophetic God-given scripture.

Last edited by IanS; 20th May 2020 at 08:07 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:11 AM   #1413
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Just on that I think (but who can be sure) that there is a communication issue with dejudge, what I think they are saying is that we know the characters as described in the accounts we do have did not exist. And we can say that with 100% certainty.

In other words no one turned wine to water, Paul wasn't visited by the spirit of Christmas past (may be getting my ghost stories mixed up).

I then think they are saying that because of that we have nothing that describes these figures, we remove the nonsense and we have nothing left so why do we try to find a way to make these characters "exist".


(I could be totally wrong in my interpretation!)
When I asked for clarification, I got:
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am arguing that the character called Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed. In other words, NT Jesus did nothing all, he had no mother, no disciples, did not live at all in the time of Pilate.

NT Jesus is no different to the myth characters found in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.



You cannot answer any of those questions.





Things which do not exist have no evidence of existence. I can only argue that Paul existed when there is evidence and there is none.

And in addition, the Pauline writings are essentially a pack of lies with regards to Jesus and the apostles.


Again, I am arguing NT Jesus never ever existed at all. The NT is complete fction wth regards to Jesus the disciples and Paul. They were all fabricated sometime in the 2nd century.
That seems pretty clearly that there wasn't even a preacher or carpenter named Jesus some 2000 years ago. He also argues that neither Paul nor the Apostles existed, which almost nobody, not even most published mythicists claim. Not just that Paul wasn't visited by a ghost but that Paul didn't even exist either.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 10:40 AM   #1414
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,264
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Why didn't anyone point out that Jesus did not exist ?

When could they have done that ?
Who could claim Jesus did not exist ?
How could they have known ?
Where would they have lived ?
Why would they do that ?

Everything we know about the alleged historical Jesus comes from the Gospels (there is nothing historical about the alleged Jesus in Paul to disagree with, nor the early epistles.)

When ?
But the Gospels did not become known and discussed until over a century after the alleged Jesus :

All the many Christian writers from every decade 70s thru the 140s show no knowledge of the Gospels or their contents.
The first Christian writer on record to clearly have his hands on something like our Gospels was Justin Martyr in the 150s (although they were not yet named, and his quotes do not always match the Gospels.)
The first pagan writer to discuss and criticise the Gospels was Celsus in the 170s - he called the Gospels fiction based on myths (so naturally his book was burned, only some quotes remain.)

Who ?
Who could have even known that Jesus did not exist ? Only someone who lived in Jerusalem during the 30s, someone who then lived until the 150s to become aware of the Gospels.

How ?
How could you even know someone did not exist ? Only if you knew everyone, and knew everything important that went on in Jerusalem for that entire period (otherwise you might have just missed the alleged Jesus somehow.)

Where ?
The Gospels were not published in Jerusalem. G.Mark was most likely published in Rome, others later in maybe Antioch and Alexandria. Only someone who lived in Jerusalem in the 30s, then moved to those places, and lived until around the 150s - 170s (about 160 years of age at least) would even be able to read the Gospels to begin doubting them.

Why ?
Why would someone from these gullible times which believed everything and anything about all sorts of nonsense - people who almost universally believed whatever someone told them - even imagine that a historical Jesus didn't exist ?

So, to sum up - the only person who could have claimed Jesus did not exist would have been :
  • living in Jerusalem in the 30s, even the 00s as well,
  • was well aware of everything that happened in Jerusalem in those times,
  • lived for at least 160s years,
  • moved to Rome (or maybe Antioch or Alexandria) - or at least lived for a few more decades until the Gospels eventually arrived in Jerusalem,
  • and also someone had a sceptical doubtful mind, while living in a totally gullible world.

The empty set.
Correct. Nobody ever lived in Jerusalem as it doesn't exist.
Nobody knew what happened in Jerusalem since it was mythical and didn't exist.
The 160 years thing is a bizarre invention all your own.
Since the holey babble talks about Antioch and alexandria, they cannot exist

Skeptical you are not. Driven by an ideology, quite plausible.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 10:42 AM   #1415
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,264
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Of course people existed 2000 years ago. Of course Jewish religious preachers existed 2000 years ago in that small region of Judea. But that is not evidence that the biblical Jesus existed!
That is not the HJ claim and you know it.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 12:11 PM   #1416
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

That seems pretty clearly that there wasn't even a preacher or carpenter named Jesus some 2000 years ago. He also argues that neither Paul nor the Apostles existed, which almost nobody, not even most published mythicists claim. Not just that Paul wasn't visited by a ghost but that Paul didn't even exist either.
How absurd can you be!!! If Jesus did not exist how could he have chosen 12 disciples in the time of Pilate?

In addition, the writer called Paul is caught lying when he claimed he saw the resurrected Jesus and met at least two apostles when none of them existed.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are all fiction characters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie

Quote:
Thomas L. Brodie, OP (born 1943) is a Dominican priest and writer. He has worked in academia and published scholarly books on Christianity. He supports the Christ myth theory, the theory that Jesus did not exist as a historical figure, that Paul didn't exist, and that a proto-version of Luke-Acts was the earliest Gospel..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer

Quote:
......Starting in 1840, he began a series of works arguing that Jesus was a 2nd-century fusion of Jewish, Greek, and Roman theology.[2]

....... Bauer radicalised that position by suggesting that all Pauline epistles were forgeries, written in the West in antagonism to the Paul of The Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Drews

Quote:
In his 1924 book The Origin of Christianity in Gnosticism, Drews developed the hypothesis of the derivation of Christianity from a gnosticism environment. In Drews's own words (in Klaus Schilling's "English Summary" of The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus):

...........Paul is recklessly misunderstood by those who try to read anything Historical Jesus-ish into it.

The conversion of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles is a mere forgery from various Tanakh passages... [The epistles] are from Christian mystics of the middle of the second century.

Paul is thus the strongest witness against the Historical Jesus hypothesis...John's Gnostic origin is more evident than that of the synoptics. Its acceptance proves that even the Church wasn't concerned with historical facts at all. [emphasis added]

In The Myth of Mary (1928), which reads as Jesus's Family and Entourage Exposed, Drews asserted that all the characters around Jesus were as imaginary and fantastic as Jesus himself.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 02:42 PM   #1417
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Correct. Nobody ever lived in Jerusalem as it doesn't exist.
Nobody knew what happened in Jerusalem since it was mythical and didn't exist.

The 160 years thing is a bizarre invention all your own.
Since the holey babble talks about Antioch and alexandria, they cannot exist

Skeptical you are not. Driven by an ideology, quite plausible.


Who said that Jerusalem doesn't exist? You just said that, but who else ever said that?

Just because Jerusalem exists, that is zero evidence that Jesus existed.

What do you think exists as actual evidence (anything at all) of anyone ever making a credible claim to say that they had met or seen Jesus?

If nobody ever wrote to make a credible claim of meeting Jesus, then all you have as "evidence" is the anonymously written hearsay in “copies” produced centuries later ... and that is just not credible as reliable evidence, and especially not when all of that anonymous hearsay was filled from end-to-end with accounts of miracles & the supernatural, which at that time everyone was only too willing to accept as certain fact (because it was deeply religious & claimed to derive ultimately from the word of God himself), but which 2000 years later is now known to be almost certainly & very clearly, mere religious fanatical invention.

Are gospel stories like that “evidence”? Well they are evidence of how gullible and superstitious people were 2000 years ago. But that's about all. It is clearly not credible as evidence of any real Jesus ever known to anyone.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 03:01 PM   #1418
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That is not the HJ claim and you know it.

If anyone makes a claim to say a HJ existed, then the burden is upon them to produce the evidence. What is the evidence? The gospels? Paul's letters??

Where in any of the gospels or letters does it give a credible account of anyone ever meeting a real Jesus?

Even the people named as the authors of the canonical gospels have since turned out not to be the true authors ... the actual authors are anonymous ... they were anonymous authors repeating hearsay stories of the miraculous and the supernatural.

And Paul's letters also describe belief in a supernatural Jesus who was unknown to the author.

If you believe there is evidence of Jesus shown in the gospels or letters of the bible, then it is evidence of the supernatural … because that is how Jesus was repeatedly and insistently described there.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:20 PM   #1419
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Talking

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Correct. Nobody ever lived in Jerusalem as it doesn't exist. Nobody knew what happened in Jerusalem since it was mythical and didn't exist.
Pardon ?
If that's some sort of bizarre joke, then I don't get it.
Jerusalem obviously DID exist, and STILL exists.
I never claimed otherwise, and I have never seen anyone claim Jerusalem didn't exist.


Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The 160 years thing is a bizarre invention all your own.
In fact I clearly explained that covers the period from the 30s when the alleged Jesus was active, to the 150s (or 170s) when the Gospels became known to the wider Christian community (and then pagan critics a little later.)
Was that explanation too complex for you ?


Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Since the holey babble talks about Antioch and alexandria, they cannot exist.
Bizarre. No connection to my post at all. Obviously Antioch and Alexandria DID exist. Did you read my post in a hurry with your eyes closed ?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Skeptical you are not. Driven by an ideology, quite plausible.
Are you feeling OK ?
Perhaps you need a nice cup of tea and a lie down


Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:33 PM   #1420
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If nobody ever wrote to make a credible claim of meeting Jesus, then all you have as "evidence" is the anonymously written hearsay in “copies” produced centuries later
Yup -
a large collection of writings from many early Christians - and yet NONE of them contain a credible claim of meeting Jesus !


Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.

It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
⦁ No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
⦁ No Jerusalem connection - Paul never connects Jesus with Jerusalem.
⦁ No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
⦁ No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
⦁ No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
⦁ No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.

G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.

G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.

G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.

G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.

Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete."
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.

James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.

Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.

the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
"1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."

Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.

Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had. He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said. Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.

Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did. Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met disciples who met Jesus.

Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.

Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus. Reviews and quotes UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours. The very FIRST to do so.

So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met the alleged Jesus (performing a miracle) - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.

There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone, Christian or not, to have ever met Jesus.

Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:18 PM   #1421
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post

the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
One must take a very good notice of what is claimed in the Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer claimed over 500 persons simultaneously [at once] saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:6
Quote:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep
It simply false that over 500 persons could have seen the resurrected Jesus at the same time.

The so-called Pauline writings do not represent historical accounts of their supposed resurrected Jesus- they are just a pack of lies.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 02:36 AM   #1422
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Just as I expected you will never provide any historical evidence for your Jesus. All you will always do is just list names of people who believe their Jesus lived.
You seem to be confusing the probable existence of a failed prophet called Jesus with the mythical god/man of the New Testament who most probably didn’t.

Quote:
Bart Ehrman, Dr. James D G Dunn and Dr. Michael Grant have never ever presented any historical corroborative evidence for their Jesus. Never ever.
They have all provided good reason to believe the man Jesus existed – i.e. the peripatetic prophet. On the basis of what expertise do you rebut the professional consensus of eminent scholars? Merely sneering at them is not sufficient.

Quote:
Ehrman is most absurd in his argument for an HJ.


Now, look at Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 74.

Ehrman declares

He admitted that the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus and were falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but yet stated that they should be treated as historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth.

How completely ridiculous!!!
Ehrman is not supporting the historical truth of the gospels. He’s an atheist!!! As a scholar he is using their material as the basis of historical-critical methodology. Namely, the investigation of the origins of the ancient texts. His intention is to understand the world behind the texts so as to reconstruct the true nature of the events (as far as possible) that the texts describe.

On this basis he is able to conclude that the man Jesus “certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". A minority of competent scholars such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier disagree but their opinion, whilst interesting, is considered a fringe position.

Quote:
There is simply no historical evidence anywhere at all for an HJ so please stop wasting time.

HJ is derived from fiction in the NT.
Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure? It is reasonable to believe that in a gullible era of magic and miracles a man called Jesus attracted a band of followers, who later passed down tales, which grew in the telling, and ultimately recorded in literary form. Conversely it is not reasonable to think they are true.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 02:59 AM   #1423
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
One must take a very good notice of what is claimed in the Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer claimed over 500 persons simultaneously [at once] saw Jesus after he was resurrected.

1 Corinthians 15:6

It simply false that over 500 persons could have seen the resurrected Jesus at the same time.

The so-called Pauline writings do not represent historical accounts of their supposed resurrected Jesus-
It happens. Group psychology makes it possible. We’ve seen examples of such phenomena in modern times such as the so-called Miracle of Fatima in 1917. A huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the BVM (blessed virgin Mary) and the sun danced around the sky and careened towards earth. Obviously, in reality, there was no such occurrence but tens of thousands believed there was.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 06:30 AM   #1424
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Who said that Jerusalem doesn't exist? You just said that, but who else ever said that?

Just because Jerusalem exists, that is zero evidence that Jesus existed.

What do you think exists as actual evidence (anything at all) of anyone ever making a credible claim to say that they had met or seen Jesus?

If nobody ever wrote to make a credible claim of meeting Jesus, then all you have as "evidence" is the anonymously written hearsay in “copies” produced centuries later ... and that is just not credible as reliable evidence, and especially not when all of that anonymous hearsay was filled from end-to-end with accounts of miracles & the supernatural, which at that time everyone was only too willing to accept as certain fact (because it was deeply religious & claimed to derive ultimately from the word of God himself), but which 2000 years later is now known to be almost certainly & very clearly, mere religious fanatical invention.

Are gospel stories like that “evidence”? Well they are evidence of how gullible and superstitious people were 2000 years ago. But that's about all. It is clearly not credible as evidence of any real Jesus ever known to anyone.
Originally Posted by Kapyong View Post
Pardon ?
If that's some sort of bizarre joke, then I don't get it.
Jerusalem obviously DID exist, and STILL exists.
I never claimed otherwise, and I have never seen anyone claim Jerusalem didn't exist.




In fact I clearly explained that covers the period from the 30s when the alleged Jesus was active, to the 150s (or 170s) when the Gospels became known to the wider Christian community (and then pagan critics a little later.)
Was that explanation too complex for you ?




Bizarre. No connection to my post at all. Obviously Antioch and Alexandria DID exist. Did you read my post in a hurry with your eyes closed ?



Are you feeling OK ?
Perhaps you need a nice cup of tea and a lie down


Kapyong
Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The argument that dejudge is making is basically, parts of the gospels are not true therefore they are all false and Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles could not have existed. The obvious extension of that would be that nothing else mentioned in them could have existed either. A lesson I keep relearning, you can't use analogy or metaphor on the internet. It is basically the equivalent of, the Gallic Wars by Caesar has known inaccuracies, so Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus could not have existed as there was no mention of them elsewhere.

The clearly have some truth and some falsehood. Jerusalem existed, Herod existed etc. The question is how much truth and how much falsehood. Regardless of how fantastic and late they are, the gospels are evidence that Jesus existed. That anyone bothered to right a biography about him suggests he was real. That is by no means definitive, so sure, we can't actually know if there was such a character or how closely he matches the non-fantastic elements in the gospels or not. It is no more certain that there was not a Jesus who preached reform in Judea around 2000 years ago or that there was not. That you or anyone else thinks is probably didn't exist isn't really the issue, that point is debatable. The claim that he definitely did not, that's not really debatable. We can't actually know.

That is a different claim from, if there was such preacher named Jesus, he was not really the same person as described in the gospels. Which, is like your opinion man, but not something that I would argue strenuously against as I am against the notion that there was definitely never any such preacher.

I really don't see why the lack of contemporary writing about Jesus is so compelling to folks. The majority of folks were illiterate at the time and most of the evidence indicates that the christianity was a pretty minor presence for a century or so.

Last edited by ahhell; 21st May 2020 at 06:48 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 07:17 AM   #1425
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
You seem to be confusing the probable existence of a failed prophet called Jesus with the mythical god/man of the New Testament who most probably didn’t.
Which book mentions your failed prophet? The NT mentions a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost called Jesus.

In the fables of the NT Jesus predicted he would resurrect and he did.

It simply false that the NT claimed Jesus was a failed prophet.


Mark 9:31
Quote:
For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mark 16:6
Quote:
And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
Quote:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
Your failed prophet is a recent fiction story manufactured from the NT fables.
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
They have all provided good reason to believe the man Jesus existed – i.e. the peripatetic prophet. On the basis of what expertise do you rebut the professional consensus of eminent scholars? Merely sneering at them is not sufficient.
They all have no historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post

Ehrman is not supporting the historical truth of the gospels. He’s an atheist!!! As a scholar he is using their material as the basis of historical-critical methodology. Namely, the investigation of the origins of the ancient texts. His intention is to understand the world behind the texts so as to reconstruct the true nature of the events (as far as possible) that the texts describe.
Ehrman admits that even the non-miraculous events regarding Jesus were also most likely implausible like the census where Joseph had to travel to Jerusalem, the triumphant entry, the exchange of Barabbas and Jesus.
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
On this basis he is able to conclude that the man Jesus “certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". A minority of competent scholars such as Robert Price and Richard Carrier disagree but their opinion, whilst interesting, is considered a fringe position.
Ehrman claims historians do not deal with certainties but then still argued he was certain his Jesus was in Jerusalem.

In any event, no person, historian or not, has ever presented any historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure? It is reasonable to believe that in a gullible era of magic and miracles a man called Jesus attracted a band of followers, who later passed down tales, which grew in the telling, and ultimately recorded in literary form. Conversely it is not reasonable to think they are true.
Your Jesus is a recent fiction character manufactured from the fables of the NT.

Your Jesus never ever existed.

Your Jesus is completely unknown in all historical writings from the time of Herod the Great to President Trump.

Last edited by dejudge; 21st May 2020 at 07:21 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 11:29 AM   #1426
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,911
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The argument that dejudge is making is basically, parts of the gospels are not true therefore they are all false and Jesus, Paul, and the Apostles could not have existed. The obvious extension of that would be that nothing else mentioned in them could have existed either.

That's not an "obvious extension" at all though is it. No it's not. I am not responsible for whatever Dejudge says here (he can speak for himself). But just because some of us are pointing out that the evidence might now (21st century) show that Jesus did not exist, that says absolutely zero from any of us about Jerusalem not existing!

Lets keep it simple here (because it is simple) - there is all the evidence that anyone could ever want for the existence of Jerusalem. But just because a gospel mentions the name of a real place such as Jerusalem, or the name of a real person such as Pontius Pilate, that is absolutely NOT evidence that what was said about Jesus in those gospels was true ... and in fact, on the contrary, all evidence now known from 21st century education shows that the gospel stories of Jesus were certainly being created as religious myths.


Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
A lesson I keep relearning, you can't use analogy or metaphor on the internet. It is basically the equivalent of, the Gallic Wars by Caesar has known inaccuracies, so Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus could not have existed as there was no mention of them elsewhere.

The clearly have some truth and some falsehood. Jerusalem existed, Herod existed etc. The question is how much truth and how much falsehood.

No that is most definitely NOT the question!

The question is - what genuine evidence is there to show that Jesus was ever known to any of those authors, or known to anyone else at the time, as a real person? And the answer is - precisely none! ... i.e. no credible evidence of anyone ever meeting a real living Jesus.


Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Regardless of how fantastic and late they are, the gospels are evidence that Jesus existed.

No! No, the gospels are NOT evidence to show Jesus existed. What they are evidence of, is religious writers of that time recording their beliefs about a supernatural messiah that none of them had ever actually known! That's their evidence ... it's evidence of unsupported belief in the supernatural ... it's not evidence that Jesus was ever real.


Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
That anyone bothered to right a biography about him suggests he was real. That is by no means definitive, so sure, we can't actually know if there was such a character or how closely he matches the non-fantastic elements in the gospels or not. It is no more certain that there was not a Jesus who preached reform in Judea around 2000 years ago or that there was not. That you or anyone else thinks is probably didn't exist isn't really the issue, that point is debatable. The claim that he definitely did not, that's not really debatable. We can't actually know.

The gospels (and the letters) are not a "biography". A "biography" is a detailed account of someone's life. And a significant feature of those gospels and letters is that they tell us almost no incidental details of the ordinary life of Jesus. Instead all they provide are individual snapshot accounts of impossible miracles ... that's not a "biography".



Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
That is a different claim from, if there was such preacher named Jesus, he was not really the same person as described in the gospels. Which, is like your opinion man, but not something that I would argue strenuously against as I am against the notion that there was definitely never any such preacher.

Well, I have said here literally 100 times or more (across all these HJ threads), that I am not of the "opinion" that he could not have existed. And it's not really a mere "opinion" to point out that almost everything said about Jesus in the gospels & letters is a story of the supernatural, and that whilst at that time almost everyone believed that the supernatural and miracles were absolute fact, today we know that tales of the supernatural and the miraculous are almost certainly pure mythical invention.


Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I really don't see why the lack of contemporary writing about Jesus is so compelling to folks. The majority of folks were illiterate at the time and most of the evidence indicates that the christianity was a pretty minor presence for a century or so.

The reason it is compelling is the same reason why it's so compelling in any legal case. Namely that it has be shown innumerable times in law, that when there is a lapse of many years between the claimed event and a witness claiming to accurately recount the facts of the event, it turns out that the witness is often hopelessly unreliable ... but in the biblical case it's much worse than that, because the witness is writing several centuries later as an anonymous source and claiming that impossible miracles kept happening! ... and that is about as far as you can get from having a reliable or accurate witness.

Last edited by IanS; 21st May 2020 at 11:32 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 03:49 PM   #1427
ahhell
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,204
I think I know what bothers me about this. The case against the existence of a guy name Jesus that is the basis of the mythical Jesus is essentially attempting to prove a negative. Anything beyond, "probably" is just not a reasonable claim. There is quite literally no evidence that he did not exist, no such evidence can really exist(aside from a an actual confession from the creator of the stories.) Those that claim that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that no Jesus existed, should explain why those that study the history and region almost all agree, Jesus probably was a real person. Not just christian and muslims, atheists do to. Its not dissimilar from denying AGW. The vast majority of relevant experts agree, but it snowed last month so I don't believe them.

Those that insist the burden of proof is on those that think he existed, ok, I guess but the burden isn't that high if the claim is just, "there was probably a wandering preacher named Jesus around 2000 years ago." There clearly were guys named Jesus, there were clearly a number of similar preachers, so what's so hard to believe that there was a wandering preacher named Jesus who said stuff similar to what Jesus is alleged to have said? The Jefferson Bible was a thing. Basically the Gospels stripped of the supper natural and most everything but the things Jesus supposedly said.

The basic narrative just isn't that extraordinary. A guy started preaching a message that pissed of the powers that be and they had him killed. His followers were all a bit surprised that it all ended so ignominiously and made up a very convoluted story to justify their continued belief. It was a time when real mortal people were occasionally deified, so that's not all that out of the ordinary. It was a time when almost nobody could read and write, lack of records isn't all that out of the ordinary. Its not all that different from the 7 day adventists. Its a church that remains after a preacher's end time prediction failed.

This version isn't pulled out of nowhere, its the version that exists in the Gospels once the supernatural is removed.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
The reason it is compelling is the same reason why it's so compelling in any legal case. Namely that it has be shown innumerable times in law, that when there is a lapse of many years between the claimed event and a witness claiming to accurately recount the facts of the event, it turns out that the witness is often hopelessly unreliable ... but in the biblical case it's much worse than that, because the witness is writing several centuries later as an anonymous source and claiming that impossible miracles kept happening! ... and that is about as far as you can get from having a reliable or accurate witness.
Meh. If I say I was mugged 10 years ago, that's not so hard to believe. I f I say I was mugged 10 years ago by that guy over there. Well, nobody would convict that guy over there, but not many folks would say that was evidence that I was never mugged, even if I said that guy was a wizard who mugged me using magic, especially if I live in a culture where lots of folks believe in wizards.

Last edited by ahhell; 21st May 2020 at 03:56 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 05:17 PM   #1428
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Are you guys missing the point on purpose? The argument that dejudge is making is basically...
Are you ignoring these points on purpose ?
My posts have nothing to do with dejudge's idiocy.
I answered YOU, and some others.

Instead I have posted on some issues such as your claim that someone would have protested that Jesus didn't exist. I showed there could be no such person. You ignored that completely.

I pointed out there is no evidence against faeries and leprachauns. That was ignored.

I pointed out there was almost no tradition of scepticism about wild stories from those times. Ignored.

I pointed out how not one single Christian out of the dozens of early believers ever claimed to have met Jesus. You ignored that too.

I pointed out that everything we know about the alleged historical Jesus comes from the gospels - which were not mentioned by any early writer until mid 2nd century, over a century after the alleged events. You also ignored that.

You ignore critical evidence, but keep repeating faithful, but false, claims - like the gospels being biographies.

Not so.
Actual biographies (e.g. like Plutarch from the same period) :
  • tell who the author was,
  • tell us his sources,
  • and DESCRIBE the person in subject sections - i.e. his birth and parents and childhood, his education, his career, major events.
The Gospels are NOT biographies at all, as anyone who has read a Life of Plutarch would easily see. They do NOT describe the life of Jesus.

In fact, the Gospels are narratives which tell a STORY - a central character, with followers, progressing through several episodes until a grand climax.

No idea who the authors were, no sources, no description - but a STORY.

Nothing like a biography at all.

But we can be sure this faithful false claim of the Gospels being biographies will be endlessly repeated by the faithful.

Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 05:30 PM   #1429
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Post

Another quick point, that IanS has mentioned IIRC :

The gospel stories in G.Mark (the source for the alleged historical Jesus) can be traced back to the Old Testament - the NT episodes are a re-telling of stories from the Tanakh.

An excellent analysis of that can be found here :
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html

E.g. much of the crucifixion story is adapted from Psalm 22.
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GM...tml#15.p.21.32

Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2020, 07:47 PM   #1430
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
I think I know what bothers me about this. The case against the existence of a guy name Jesus that is the basis of the mythical Jesus is essentially attempting to prove a negative. Anything beyond, "probably" is just not a reasonable claim. There is quite literally no evidence that he did not exist, no such evidence can really exist(aside from a an actual confession from the creator of the stories.)
Your position is quite absurd.

The author of Genesis did not confess that his creation story did not happen yet people still claim the Jewish God does not exist and did not create the universe.

When did the author of Gebnesis ever confess that Adam and Eve did not exist?

When did the author Genesis admit the story of Noah was completely fabricated?

Your argument is total nonsense.
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

Those that claim that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that no Jesus existed, should explain why those that study the history and region almost all agree, Jesus probably was a real person. Not just christian and muslims, atheists do to. Its not dissimilar from denying AGW. The vast majority of relevant experts agree, but it snowed last month so I don't believe them.
Your argument is still absurd. There is no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth. Non-existence matches no evidence. All characters which have been deemed to be non-existent do not ever have any evidence.
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Those that insist the burden of proof is on those that think he existed, ok, I guess but the burden isn't that high if the claim is just, "there was probably a wandering preacher named Jesus around 2000 years ago." There clearly were guys named Jesus, there were clearly a number of similar preachers, so what's so hard to believe that there was a wandering preacher named Jesus who said stuff similar to what Jesus is alleged to have said? The Jefferson Bible was a thing. Basically the Gospels stripped of the supper natural and most everything but the things Jesus supposedly said.
Again, you spout more logical fallacies!!!

You want people to believe your made up Jesus existed without any historical evidence.

If you strip some of the fiction from a fictitious character you are still left with fiction.

Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

The basic narrative just isn't that extraordinary. A guy started preaching a message that pissed of the powers that be and they had him killed. His followers were all a bit surprised that it all ended so ignominiously and made up a very convoluted story to justify their continued belief. It was a time when real mortal people were occasionally deified, so that's not all that out of the ordinary. It was a time when almost nobody could read and write, lack of records isn't all that out of the ordinary. Its not all that different from the 7 day adventists. Its a church that remains after a preacher's end time prediction failed.
Your story is fiction and derived from the fables in the NT. You have no historical evidence whatsoever to support your made up Jesus.

Your Jesus is far worse than NT Jesus.

Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
This version isn't pulled out of nowhere, its the version that exists in the Gospels once the supernatural is removed.
Your Jesus is fake fabricated whole cloth from known NT fables.

Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

Meh. If I say I was mugged 10 years ago, that's not so hard to believe. I f I say I was mugged 10 years ago by that guy over there. Well, nobody would convict that guy over there, but not many folks would say that was evidence that I was never mugged, even if I said that guy was a wizard who mugged me using magic, especially if I live in a culture where lots of folks believe in wizards.
If you claimed you were mugged and had no evidence then people may believe you were lying and convict you of obstruction of justice.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 12:33 AM   #1431
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,027
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Which book mentions your failed prophet? The NT mentions a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending son of a Ghost called Jesus.

In the fables of the NT Jesus predicted he would resurrect and he did.

It simply false that the NT claimed Jesus was a failed prophet.
Jesus supposedly said: “...there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. “— Matt 16:28.

AND: Jesus was reported to have told his disciples,

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

— Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32

He was wrong, wasn’t he? In short, a failed prophet as I said.

Quote:
Ehrman claims historians do not deal with certainties but then still argued he was certain his Jesus was in Jerusalem.

In any event, no person, historian or not, has ever presented any historical evidence for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that people believed in the existence of Jesus and Paul. And re the latter there are seven epistles attributed to him. So, it’s untrue to say there’s nothing.

Quote:
Your Jesus is a recent fiction character manufactured from the fables of the NT.

Your Jesus never ever existed.
The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”

So, what is your answer?
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 05:09 AM   #1432
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by Senex View Post
I've often encountered arguments against my opinion Jesus never really walked the earth. It's surprising the animosity I have had by people who I do not believe are religious. It's odd.
That shouldn't seem odd. The question of whether Jesus was a human being who "really walked the earth" is not a religious one, but is purely an issue of historical evidence. You say the evidence is not convincing but most other people believe it is quite plausible. Whether Jesus was a manifestation of God in human flesh is the religious issue, but nobody is making that assertion as far as I can see.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:23 AM   #1433
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,466
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Jesus supposedly said: “...there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. “— Matt 16:28.



AND: Jesus was reported to have told his disciples,



"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."



— Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32



He was wrong, wasn’t he? In short, a failed prophet as I said.







Nevertheless, there is evidence that people believed in the existence of Jesus and Paul. And re the latter there are seven epistles attributed to him. So, it’s untrue to say there’s nothing.







The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”



So, what is your answer?
Scientology is a well documented recent one, foundational teachings entirely pulled out of Hubbard's arse.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:42 AM   #1434
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Jesus supposedly said: “...there are some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. “— Matt 16:28.

AND: Jesus was reported to have told his disciples,

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

— Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32
When did your Jesus actually tell real disciples those things?

You seem not to understand the difference between fiction and historical accounts.

The claim by NT writers that Jesus predicted that he would be killed and resurrect on the third day has nothing whatsoever to do with history it is just a fable that people believed was true.

1 Corinthians 15:17
Quote:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
The belief that Jesus resurrected was fundamental for the salvation of Jesus cult Christians.

By the way, people today still expect Jesus to return to earth.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Nevertheless, there is evidence that people believed in the existence of Jesus and Paul. And re the latter there are seven epistles attributed to him. So, it’s untrue to say there’s nothing.
I asked you to present historical evidence for Jesus and Paul not for belief.

Authors of the Epistles also believed Satan, angels, the God of the Jews and Adam existed.

2 Corinthians 2:11
Quote:
Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.
Galatians 1:8
Quote:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Romans 3:29
Quote:
Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also
1 Corinthians 15:22
Quote:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Thessalonians 4:16
Quote:
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”

So, what is your answer?
You seem to be not aware of the multiple fiction stories of Jesus or Christ that were made up from whole cloth.

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...eus-book1.html

Quote:
1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.]

These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein.

By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.
The NT was not the only writings riddled with lies, vain genealogies and falsification of Hebrew Scripture.

The Jesus story is a product of "craftily-constructed plausibilities" - never history.

Last edited by dejudge; 22nd May 2020 at 07:47 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:49 AM   #1435
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Scientology is a well documented recent one, foundational teachings entirely pulled out of Hubbard's arse.
Very true, but Hubbard's orifice exists, and therefore so does Hubbard. If Christianity was pulled out of the orifices of Jesus or Paul, and it exists, then probably these persons existed as well. Like Scientology, Mormonism is suspected of being a scam designed by a charlatan, but Joseph Smith did exist, and his religion, whether sincere or fraudulent, is testimony to that fact.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 07:54 AM   #1436
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That shouldn't seem odd. The question of whether Jesus was a human being who "really walked the earth" is not a religious one, but is purely an issue of historical evidence. You say the evidence is not convincing but most other people believe it is quite plausible. Whether Jesus was a manifestation of God in human flesh is the religious issue, but nobody is making that assertion as far as I can see.
1.People believe it is not plausible that there was an HJ.
2. There is no historical evidence whatsoever of a human character who was worshiped as a God by Jews in the time of Pilate or at anytime up to the 2nd century.
3. The Jesus character was fabricated.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 08:04 AM   #1437
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Very true, but Hubbard's orifice exists, and therefore so does Hubbard. If Christianity was pulled out of the orifices of Jesus or Paul, and it exists, then probably these persons existed as well. Like Scientology, Mormonism is suspected of being a scam designed by a charlatan, but Joseph Smith did exist, and his religion, whether sincere or fraudulent, is testimony to that fact.
If it was not pulled out of Jesus and Paul's orifices then what??

Paul persecuted what was pulled from his own orifice??

1 Corinthians 15:9
Quote:
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
You seem not to understand what fiction, forgeries and false attribution are.

The stories of Jesus and Paul are fiction as clearly seen in the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and Epistles and the authors are all anonymous or falsely attributed.

Last edited by dejudge; 22nd May 2020 at 08:25 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 01:48 PM   #1438
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
Post

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
The question was “Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?”
Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Adam and Eve ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Noah ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Samson ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Moses ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Solomon ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Harry Potter ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Bacchus / Dionysus ?

Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth the totally fictional Zeus and friends ...

Human beings write fiction, for all sorts of reasons.
Surely you know that ?


Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 02:20 PM   #1439
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,330
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
It happens. Group psychology makes it possible. We’ve seen examples of such phenomena in modern times such as the so-called Miracle of Fatima in 1917. A huge crowd gathered to view the predicted appearance of the BVM (blessed virgin Mary) and the sun danced around the sky and careened towards earth. Obviously, in reality, there was no such occurrence but tens of thousands believed there was.
So, now you admit that you believe in miracles.

The so-called miracle of Fatima must be propaganda it could never have happened.

Nobody who lived in 1917 could have identified a character called the Blessed Virgin Mary who supposedly lived in the time of Pilate.

How can you be so gullible???

Was Paul looking in the sun when he met Peter and James? He was blinded by a bright light when he heard a voice but saw no-one.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2020, 03:04 PM   #1440
Kapyong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,005
... some further thoughts on that :
"Who and to what end would make-up from whole-cloth a totally fictional figure?"

The answer is : we don't know.
So what ?

We will (almost certainly) never know who wrote those ancient stories, nor why they wrote them. But so what ?

What's the argument ?
That we don't know who wrote a fictional Jesus, nor why - therefore Jesus cannot be fictional ?

Makes no sense does it ?

We do not know who wrote the original Adam and Eve story, nor why.
We will never know.

But that has no bearing at all on the story being true history, does it ?

So too -
we have no idea who wrote the seminal Gospel of Mark, nor why. Which has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

What we DO know, and what DOES bear upon its truthfulness is :
  • the gospel episodes are crafted from previous Tanakh stories,
  • G.Mark shows structures of literature like chiasms,
  • it is a religious story about a divine being,
  • it has no sources and no witnesses,
  • it appeared long after the alleged events, and far away,
  • its author is unknown.
Clear and significant points AGAINST it being biographical history.

While the arguments FOR it being biographical history amount to little more than tradition, faith, and belief.


Kapyong
Kapyong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.