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 29th May 2020, 07:40 PM   #1561
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
A lot of things are claimed in the NT, many of which are obviously not true. But that doesn't mean a Historical Jesus didn't exist.
Untrue claims in the NT does not make Jesus a figure of history.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And in the US in 2017, according to official records more people attended Trump's inauguration than Obama's! Just because the numbers were inflated doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Trump is a known liar and a known figure of history.

Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father- a figure of fiction.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Can't you read? Back stories are typically given to fictional characters. The NT does give Jesus a backstory. That doesn't mean he must have existed - on the contrary a suspiciously convenient backstory could be an indication that the character is fictitious.
NT Jesus was born of a Ghost as admitted by Jesus cult writers. NT Jesus never ever had any history. He was a Ghost story.

[
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
By rejecting the backstory, you are weakening your own argument!
Your back story fables do not make any sense. I deal with the written evidence from antiquity. Jesus cult writers admitted their Jesus was a water walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost.
Their Jesus never ever existed.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Yes, I know. But just 'arguing' (ie. asserting without evidence) is not enough. You have to prove your theory. Repeating the same claim ad nauseam won't do it.
You have no historical evidence at all that your Jesus existed or was likely to exist. You simply used the Jesus stories from the orifices of NT authors to fabricate a fictional HJ.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You see, it's possible that despite the obvious fictions in the NT and lack of corroboration from outside sources, Christianity could have been started by a Jew whose name was Jesus - even if nothing said about him in the NT is accurate. For a modern parallel, just look at what Trump's supporters say about him. Then imagine they wrote a book about him - it would be filled to the brim with fiction, but Trump is a historical person.
Based on writings attributed to Josepjus, Tacitus and Suetonius there was no Messianic ruler of the Jews in the time of Pilate or up to at least c 70 CE.

The Jews expected their Messianic ruler c 66-70 CE.

Jesus the Messiah since the time of Pilate is utter fiction.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Your problem is you have identified that the Jesus described in the Bible could not have existed (which is obvious), but you have not shown that a man called Jesus could not have started the religious movement that became Christianity. That is what most people think of when we say 'a historical Jesus' - not a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting being - a man.
Your problem is that you have identified that the Jesus in the Bible could not have existed and have a fabricated some other fictional character from the orifices of the NT authors.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The 'earliest' depiction of Jesus in the Bible is of a man who claimed he was was God's son and did some magic tricks. Later in the story he was put to death, then purportedly resurrected shortly before ascending to heaven - never to be seen again.
Please, please, please!!! I will not be hood-winked by your amnesia or dishonesty.

In the NT, it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.
You believe the Son of the Ghost was really human??
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If you read that story through the eyes of his followers, it's not much different from what Trump's followers might tell you about him (even including being 'chosen by God'). But Trump is a historical figure. Even if all other records of his existence were destroyed and the only writings left were those of his most fervent 'believers', it still wouldn't prove that he didn't exist.
Jesus cult believers stated that their Jesus was born of a Ghost without a human father.

Do You have evidence to show that Jesus was not a Ghost story.

When NT Jesus was walking on water his disciple believed he was a Ghost.

Ghosts were believed to be real beings in antiquity and even up to today.

People in the Roman Empire believed Ghost stories and claimed Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Obviously, and I wouldn't attempt to. But this is irrelevant. Even the most accurate biographies of real people contain errors and 'facts' that could be disputed. How inaccurate does it have to be before we decide that it was not based on an actual person? You may arbitrarily decide that there is no 'there' there, but others don't have to agree. While there is still a possibility that there was a real man behind the stories, you can't justify dismissing it outright. You need to prove that a real person could not have been behind it - even if every part of it is full of distortions, exaggerations and inventions. Otherwise it's no different from claiming Trump doesn't exist based on what his followers say about him.
Inaccurate NT Jesus stories do not make him a likely figure of history.
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Oh dear. You are the one arguing that obvious lies and inventions are evidence that Jesus did not exist. You need to back up that claim with more than just 'because the Bible contains obvious lies and inventions'.
Obvious lies and inventions have always been used to argue against existence. The so-called HJ is a direct product of the lies and inventions from the orifices of NT authors.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul were all obvious lies and inventions. They never ever existed.

Last edited by dejudge; 29th May 2020 at 07:50 PM.
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 29th May 2020, 11:56 PM   #1562
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
First of all, about theheno's contrast between Christians being too little-known to write about or well-known enough to be blamed for a calamity: I see no contrast there. There's nothing at all unrealistic about a group that most people pay no attention to most of the time getting blamed for something, either without most people having any idea what the blamer is talking about or with people recognizing the name even though that name never had much attention called to it otherwise. For the latter, imagine if somebody famous were to try to pin some big bad thing on Quakers or Mennonites or Bahaʼi... or Mormons, outside of a few western states. For the former, consider any of dozens of cults centered on separate individual gurus scattered all around, which are active right now but you haven't heard of and won't until they do something newsworthy. Or, consider Obama & Clinton blaming the behavior of the mob at Benghazi on some video that did exist but which nobody had seen or heard of before. (It's not often admitted by people who don't buy into the conspiracy theories about what happened later, but one doesn't need to buy into those in order to admit the fact that the Obama Administration really did say that, or that it really was thoroughly obscure until they did.)

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No in terms of religion 2) is the one that reflects most of recorded history.
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
How could a religion start without a real human figure as it's central supernatural deity (because Jesus was described as the supernatural scion of God)? Well the answer is that it probably started in exactly the same way as all the hundreds and thousands of other religions started, where the supernatural deity at the heart of the religion never existed at all (although for all of those religions the deity was claimed to be certainly real ... and lots of witnesses claimed to see all of those thousands of deities doing all sorts of things on the Earth and in the skies).

If people thousands of years ago could invent a fictitious god for all those other religions...
But the problem is that they didn't "invent" them. There are at least two massive differences between what normally happens with religious stories and "invention".

1. Gods, and iconic humans of a distant past like Adam or Abraham or Pandora or Achilles, are not suddenly made up all at once by one particular story-teller. Remember, people believe(d) in them, and people don't just believe in a sudden new invention they've never heard of, but they do believe in, and pass on slight modifications of, ideas their cultures already had all along going back thousands of centuries. They evolve age after age, from an essence of nature or such, to gradually getting more & more personified, to getting some other personality trait mixed in that wouldn't have originally fit, to depersonifying back more toward a vague concept of an essence but a slightly different essence now, to shifting over with a new set of cultural paradigms to personify when something else about the tribe's culture or circumstances change, and so on, continuously, from one human lifespan to the next. The changes can be drastic but they take a long time. Nobody gets to just say somewhere along the line "I've just invented a new one, so now you'll all believe this one I just concocted is true" and be taken seriously by people who didn't have such a belief before. That's just not how cultural evolution works.

2. They also generally developed from the sky down, not from the ground up. They're results of the human tendency to either act as if parts of the natural world, like the sky or the sea or trees, thought like humans, or use a hypothetical single representative individual as a stand-in for psycho-social concepts like sin, generosity, agriculture/nomadism, and violence. Their role in a story is, or at least starts out as, to be the sky itself or violence itself or whatever, just in human-like form, and as such, they're not expected to be anywhere near the same place & time as the audience or seem very much like real people the audience would have ever interacted with. Their names are often even simply the word for the thing they represent; Fortuna, for example, is not just the goddess of luck/fate; it's also actually just fate, so when you say "Fortuna" does something to you, you're literally saying luck/fate does it. Enkidu didn't have horns/antlers because somebody just felt like making up a story about a guy with horns/antlers; he had them because pairing him with a king of a great civilization (Gilgamesh) was pairing the civilized and the wild together, so he was not just a guy but a "wild man" archetype, wildness itself (or at least an in-the-wilderness lifestyle) personified, just as a king was his civilization personified. That contrasts wildly with Jesus, who had no particular part of the grand conceptual order of the cosmos to be a bipedal form of.

So the question isn't just whether most religious (or otherwise culturally iconic) characters have been based on real people or not; it's what the alternative origin for them is instead of that, and what role it plays in its culture. And it's normally not just "somebody just suddenly made it up and others immediately fell for it", but something else more gradual, distant, gradual, non-human, symbolic, meta-cultural, and gradual, not just somebody suddenly popping up from nowhere and dropping a shiny brand-new myth on everybody else and talking them into starting a new religion based on it when the audience didn't have any such belief ten minutes before hearing this sudden new story.

Spontaneous invention all at once ex nihilo that immediately actually convinces a bunch of people to seriously believe something they didn't before (not just retell the story for fun) seems to be unprecedented elsewhere. I don't know of a single established example. Where can I find one? Gods and cosmic-icon-type human characters don't count, because of both how long they take to develop and where they develop from. And if Jesus's origin isn't either of those two, then "embellished from one or a few real people" is all I have left, especially given that we have independent documentary corroboration of the presence of precisely the kind of people who would need to have been around for him to get embellished from.
Delvo is online now   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 30th May 2020, 03:00 AM   #1563
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
So, when was Jesus ever a real human?
most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BCE and that Jesus' preaching began around CE 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate his death as between CE 30 and 36.

Quote:
You know that according to the NT Jesus was born of a Ghost yet you claim [by amnesia or dishonesty] that according to the NT Jesus was a man.

Please look at the NT again.

Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Jesus was never human always fiction.
Alexander the Great was the son of king Philip of Macedonia and queen Olympias, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed and provided. I seem to recall that ultimately he was deemed son of Zeus. But, like Jesus, Alexander was human not fiction - merely surrounded by the fiction that coalesced around him.
__________________
“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 30th May 2020, 03:15 AM   #1564
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
First of all, about theheno's contrast between Christians being too little-known to write about or well-known enough to be blamed for a calamity: I see no contrast there. There's nothing at all unrealistic about a group that most people pay no attention to most of the time getting blamed for something, either without most people having any idea what the blamer is talking about or with people recognizing the name even though that name never had much attention called to it otherwise. For the latter, imagine if somebody famous were to try to pin some big bad thing on Quakers or Mennonites or Bahaʼi... or Mormons, outside of a few western states. For the former, consider any of dozens of cults centered on separate individual gurus scattered all around, which are active right now but you haven't heard of and won't until they do something newsworthy. Or, consider Obama & Clinton blaming the behavior of the mob at Benghazi on some video that did exist but which nobody had seen or heard of before. (It's not often admitted by people who don't buy into the conspiracy theories about what happened later, but one doesn't need to buy into those in order to admit the fact that the Obama Administration really did say that, or that it really was thoroughly obscure until they did.)
The fundamental problem with your argument is that you cannot show that any person called a Christian was a believer or follower of the Jesus cult.

It is the continued acts of amnesia or dishonesty that continue to propel the absurd HJ argument.

Again and again, based on writings attributed to those who worshiped the son of the Ghost it is stated that people who did not believe the stories of Jesus were called Christians since the time of Claudius.

Again and again, no non-apologetic writer of the 1st century mentioned any character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Again and again, it cannot be assumed that any mention of people called Christians must be about NT Jesus.

Examine Justin's First Apology.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Justin's First Apology
Quote:
There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him............................................... .... And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art............ And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians.....
http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...oguetrypho.htm

Examine Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.

Quote:
And, 'Many false Christs and false apostles shall arise, and shall deceive many of the faithful.'
There are, therefore, and there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things; and these are called by us after the name of the men from whom each doctrine and opinion had its origin............................... Yet they style themselves Christians, just as certain among the Gentiles inscribe the name of God upon the works of their own hands, and partake in nefarious and impious rites.)

Some are called Marcians, and some Valentinians, and some Basilidians, and some Saturnilians, and others by other name........
There is simply no historical evidence to show that people called Christians in the time of Nero referred to anyone who believed the Jesus Christ stories or that there were Jesus Christ stories at that time.

In addition, the word Christians has been conclusively proven to be manipulated in the copy of Tacitus Annals 15.44.

://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

Quote:
... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ...

In 1902 Georg Andresen commented on the appearance of the first 'i' and subsequent gap in the earliest extant, 11th century, copy of the Annals in Florence, suggesting that the text had been altered, and an 'e' had originally been in the text, rather than this 'i'.[16] "With ultra-violet examination of the MS the alteration was conclusively shown.
How long can this repeated amnesia or dishonesty continue??


Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
But the problem is that they didn't "invent" them. There are at least two massive differences between what normally happens with religious stories and "invention".

1. Gods, and iconic humans of a distant past like Adam or Abraham or Pandora or Achilles, are not suddenly made up all at once by one particular story-teller. Remember, people believe(d) in them, and people don't just believe in a sudden new invention they've never heard of, but they do believe in, and pass on slight modifications of, ideas their cultures already had all along going back thousands of centuries. They evolve age after age, from an essence of nature or such, to gradually getting more & more personified, to getting some other personality trait mixed in that wouldn't have originally fit, to depersonifying back more toward a vague concept of an essence but a slightly different essence now, to shifting over with a new set of cultural paradigms to personify when something else about the tribe's culture or circumstances change, and so on, continuously, from one human lifespan to the next. The changes can be drastic but they take a long time. Nobody gets to just say somewhere along the line "I've just invented a new one, so now you'll all believe this one I just concocted is true" and be taken seriously by people who didn't have such a belief before. That's just not how cultural evolution works.
Haven't you read the NT?

It is claimed Jesus existed from the beginning that he was God Creator.

John 1
Quote:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God 2 The same was was in the beginning with God 3 All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
2. They also generally developed from the sky down, not from the ground up. They're results of the human tendency to either act as if parts of the natural world, like the sky or the sea or trees, thought like humans, or use a hypothetical single representative individual as a stand-in for psycho-social concepts like sin, generosity, agriculture/nomadism, and violence. Their role in a story is, or at least starts out as, to be the sky itself or violence itself or whatever, just in human-like form, and as such, they're not expected to be anywhere near the same place & time as the audience or seem very much like real people the audience would have ever interacted with. Their names are often even simply the word for the thing they represent; Fortuna, for example, is not just the goddess of luck/fate; it's also actually just fate, so when you say "Fortuna" does something to you, you're literally saying luck/fate does it. Enkidu didn't have horns/antlers because somebody just felt like making up a story about a guy with horns/antlers; he had them because pairing him with a king of a great civilization (Gilgamesh) was pairing the civilized and the wild together, so he was not just a guy but a "wild man" archetype, wildness itself (or at least an in-the-wilderness lifestyle) personified, just as a king was his civilization personified. That contrasts wildly with Jesus, who had no particular part of the grand conceptual order of the cosmos to be a bipedal form of.
Jesus cult Christian claimed their Jesus was produced after God came down from heaven and impregnated a Virgin.

Ariistides Apology
Quote:
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel.......
Jesus was developed from the sky.

Last edited by dejudge; 30th May 2020 at 03:19 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 30th May 2020, 03:55 AM   #1565
theheno
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 52
Thanks for the response Delvo. So am I correct in thinking that you accept the generally accepted dates, 33AD, Peter in the 50's, Nero and the fire about 15 years after the epistles? Unlike what I was told earlier, do you think tacitus was speaking about followers of Jesus, or others as dejudge stated? I've just now looked at what tacitus said, Christianity had been checked in Judea but had again broken out there and in Rome, and an immense multitude of them were convicted. Does this mean in about 20 years, Christianity was checked, arose again, spread to Rome and elsewhere, to such an extent that Nero could have an immense multitude convicted? By the way I'm not arguing a point, just trying to understand your thinking, I think I understand the reasoning on the other side of the debate now.
theheno 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 30th May 2020, 04:48 AM   #1566
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Bah! One of these days somebody will dig up the original notebooks used by some of the faithful, as they followed Jesus around and noted down his utterances. The RCC will grab them and on the shelf next to the Turin Shroud they will go.

Well indeed, one day something may turn up that shows Jesus was indeed a real person. Though it seems that countless numbers of people have been looking for evidence about Jesus almost since he was first mentioned in the gospels and letters. And so far, whilst biblical scholars and church leaders say that biblical writing is totally convincing to the point of "certainty", anyone with even the slightest concern for objectivity and reasonable caution can see that the claimed evidence is simply not there.

So, people have been looking for a very long time. But so far there's nothing better than the miraculous gospels and letters of religion.
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 30th May 2020, 05:30 AM   #1567
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BCE and that Jesus' preaching began around CE 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate his death as between CE 30 and 36..
The nativity scenes in gMatthew and gLuke contradict one another and cannot be reconciled.

Marcion's gLuke lacked the birth story. It was likely added by a Catholic redactor mid 2nd century to make the gLuke suitable for orthodox use. In short, there is no history in the birth story of gLuke.

Since gMark lacked a birth story it was unknown to him. So gMatthew invented one. Again there is no history there that can be shown to apply to a real dude named Jesus.

When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.





Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy 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 30th May 2020, 05:38 AM   #1568
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.
And you, along with the others who've been making that accusation repeatedly, know perfectly well that nobody is assuming that, so why pretend anybody is?
Delvo is online now   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 30th May 2020, 06:57 AM   #1569
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,291
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Bah! One of these days somebody will dig up the original notebooks used by some of the faithful, as they followed Jesus around and noted down his utterances. The RCC will grab them and on the shelf next to the Turin Shroud they will go.
The notebooks of the faithful would not be sufficient to prove the veracity of JC's exploits. You would have to have a copy of His personal diary as well. How else would we know about the facts of what the Devil said to Him and His responses?
Luke 4:1-13 for example?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 30th May 2020, 07:56 AM   #1570
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post

When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.


Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk

And you, along with the others who've been making that accusation repeatedly, know perfectly well that nobody is assuming that, so why pretend anybody is?[

So, you say that you are NOT ”assuming they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.”?? You are NOT using anything at all in the gospels as likely or possible truth about Jesus?? Well, then where on earth are you getting what you think is evidence to show that he probably existed??

If you understand why the gospels are so discredited by their constant fictional reporting of Jesus, then why aren't you rejecting those gospels entirely as any sort of credible honest source/witness to Jesus?

Alternatively, if like most of the more sceptical people here who are setting aside the gospels as too discredited to be counted as a source of valid evidence, then what are you using for evidence of a real Jesus?

I am not seeing where the evidence is for a real Jesus that was ever known to any of those biblical writers. And against that I am seeing, and everyone else can surely see, a vast mountain of evidence proving beyond all credible doubt that the gospel writers and the writer of Paul's letters were creating their own beliefs about Jesus from their imagination ... an imagination that was clearly being massively fuelled by their religious fanaticism that was very strongly bound together with Old Testament scripture that had been such a huge influence on everyone in that region since at least 500BC and probably since 1000BC!

But even so, even despite all of that, most of us here who are sceptical or wary about the almost universal belief in a real HJ, are only going as far as saying that (a) we are not convinced that he probably existed (i.e. not to a level rising above 50% likelihood), and (b) that evidence universally claimed by bible scholars, church leaders, and various other people is not remotely as convincing or reliable as they are claiming or believing it to be.

What do you think the actual evidence is for a real Jesus?

Which writers of that time are you counting as a reliable source that had either known, seen or heard Jesus ... or else who reliably named anyone else who was their reliable believable witness to Jesus?
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 30th May 2020, 01:58 PM   #1571
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Deputy Admin
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,422
Mod Warning Please don't bicker or name-call. Concentrate on arguments and don't attack the arguers
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 30th May 2020, 02:11 PM   #1572
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BCE and that Jesus' preaching began around CE 27–29 and lasted one to three years. They calculate his death as between CE 30 and 36.
Scholars use the orifices of gLuke for the birth of their fictional HJ. It was the Son of the Ghost who was born 6-4BCE and began preaching when he was about thirty years or sometime after the 15yh year of Tiberius.

Scholars' HJ was lifted from NT stories about the Son of a Ghost.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Alexander the Great was the son of king Philip of Macedonia and queen Olympias, he claimed to be the son of a god. As a consequence, stories about his miraculous procreation were needed and provided. I seem to recall that ultimately he was deemed son of Zeus. But, like Jesus, Alexander was human not fiction - merely surrounded by the fiction that coalesced around him.
NT Jesus was the Son of the Holy Ghost!!

What was the name of the father of NT Jesus?

Be honest, you can't remember!!!

Matthew 1
Quote:
....That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost..
Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost.

NT Jesus was a Ghost story too.

Last edited by dejudge; 30th May 2020 at 02:12 PM.
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 31st May 2020, 02:32 AM   #1573
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Scholars use the orifices of gLuke for the birth of their fictional HJ. It was the Son of the Ghost who was born 6-4BCE and began preaching when he was about thirty years or sometime after the 15yh year of Tiberius.

Scholars' HJ was lifted from NT stories about the Son of a Ghost.
You seem to have an obsession with “orifices” and “son of a ghost”. But, despite your best efforts "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." Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by classicist and atheist Michael Grant 2004.

I am not a biblical scholar I can only be guided by what the majority of scholars say.

Quote:
NT Jesus was the Son of the Holy Ghost!!
Obvious mythology, just as Alexander the Great’s father being Zeus, the king of the gods, was obvious mythology. But we know Alexander existed – despite the legends that accumulated. And most scholars seem to think that Jesus the man existed also, albeit not in the form as depicted in the NT.

Quote:
What was the name of the father of NT Jesus?

Be honest, you can't remember!!!
Is this a trick question? Joseph. Mary was a naughty girl.

Quote:
Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost.
And suckled by a wolf, if my memory serves me. But scholars have never considered them to be historical figures.

Quote:
NT Jesus was a Ghost story too.
Ya reckon.
__________________
“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 31st May 2020, 05:11 AM   #1574
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
You seem to have an obsession with “orifices” and “son of a ghost”. But, despite your best efforts "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." Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by classicist and atheist Michael Grant 2004.
Again you post more amnesia or dishonesty!! I have not asked you for the names of people who believe Jesus existed. I asked you for historical evidence.

You are obsessed with names of Scholars' but not with the evidence.

It is just ridiculous, completely illogical, to believe NT Jesus existed because you know the names of atheists who say so.

How illogical can you be!!!

You very well know that you must first show the evidence for your HJ not the names of atheists.

The Gospel authors clearly stated their Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending Son of a Ghost without a human father.

NT Jesus never ever existed.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post

I am not a biblical scholar I can only be guided by what the majority of scholars say.
Again, you spout more amnesia or dishonesty!! It is the historical evidence that must guide you not the number of names of people who claim there was an HJ.


Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Obvious mythology, just as Alexander the Great’s father being Zeus, the king of the gods, was obvious mythology. But we know Alexander existed – despite the legends that accumulated. And most scholars seem to think that Jesus the man existed also, albeit not in the form as depicted in the NT.
How illogical can you be?

It is completely absurd to use the historical evidence for Alexander the Great as evidence that the Son of the Ghost existed.

Romulus and Remus were born of a Ghost.

Romulus and Remus never had any history.

Jesus, the Son of the Ghost has no historical evidence.

You cannot and never ever will present any historical evidence for an HJ.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Is this a trick question? Joseph. Mary was a naughty girl.
No, No, No!!! Mary never ever existed. Mary the Virgin, the mother of the Ghost, is a fiction character.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post

And suckled by a wolf, if my memory serves me. But scholars have never considered them to be historical figures.
How did your Scholars prove a negative? Please provide the historical evidence which proved Romulus and Remus did not exist?
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 31st May 2020, 06:03 AM   #1575
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So, you say that you are NOT ”assuming they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.”?? You are NOT using anything at all in the gospels as likely or possible truth about Jesus?? Well, then where on earth are you getting what you think is evidence to show that he probably existed??
I'm not.

I've already said what I think and why I think it. It's right there in my previous posts in this thread. Your lie that I think something I don't think and your pretense that I haven't already said why don't give me much reason to repeat myself as if you wouldn't just lie about it again. If you want to know, you can already read my earlier posts right here. But in that case, it would be rather unlikely that you'd be lying about their contents in the first place, so apparently you don't.
Delvo is online now   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 31st May 2020, 02:03 PM   #1576
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,276
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
The notebooks of the faithful would not be sufficient to prove the veracity of JC's exploits. You would have to have a copy of His personal diary as well. How else would we know about the facts of what the Devil said to Him and His responses?
Luke 4:1-13 for example?

Yes that Luke stuff is hard to take seriously as it was written AD 80–110 and revised a few times after. Luke can't claim to have been given a briefing by Jesus, so must have received a handed down verbal word of mouth account, or got hold of Jesus diary.

Given that Jesus language of preference was English (I have this on authority from my nephew), Luke would have struggled to read it.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 31st May 2020, 06:48 PM   #1577
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,291
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Yes that Luke stuff is hard to take seriously as it was written AD 80–110 and revised a few times after. Luke can't claim to have been given a briefing by Jesus, so must have received a handed down verbal word of mouth account, or got hold of Jesus diary.

Given that Jesus language of preference was English (I have this on authority from my nephew), Luke would have struggled to read it.
Of course there was another entity involved in JC's conversations. Maybe it was SATAN who provided the transcript?

How anyone can take this nonsense seriously continues to boggle my mind.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 31st May 2020, 07:44 PM   #1578
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Isn't Luke the one that starts by saying that it's entirely an attempt to sort out what really happened from scattered and sometimes contradictory word-of-mouth accounts that were being spread at the time?
Delvo is online now   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 31st May 2020, 09:07 PM   #1579
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Isn't Luke the one that starts by saying that it's entirely an attempt to sort out what really happened from scattered and sometimes contradictory word-of-mouth accounts that were being spread at the time?
Maybe it was the angel Gabriel who told the author of Luke what really happened.

Luke 1.27
Quote:
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth
The angel told the virgin that she would be 'overshadowed' by a Ghost and bring forth a son.

You think the angel Gabriel would lie??

By the way, Joseph Smith also got information from the angel Moroni in order to write his Bible stories.
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 31st May 2020, 09:57 PM   #1580
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post

It is just ridiculous, completely illogical, to believe NT Jesus existed because you know the names of atheists who say so.
I have given the names of several scholars and provided quotes, e.g. classicist scholar and atheist Michael Grant 2004: "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."

Your only response throughout has been your unsupported bald assertions: “Jesus, the Son of the Ghost has no historical evidence”. “NT Jesus never ever existed”. “Jesus and Paul are fiction”.
__________________
“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 1st June 2020, 06:07 AM   #1581
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
I have given the names of several scholars and provided quotes, e.g. classicist scholar and atheist Michael Grant 2004: "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."

Your only response throughout has been your unsupported bald assertions: “Jesus, the Son of the Ghost has no historical evidence”. “NT Jesus never ever existed”. “Jesus and Paul are fiction”.

You are doing what most sceptics on this site have warned against hundreds of times in these threads – you are again producing the well known fallacy of “an appeal to authority”. And iirc, you are constantly doing that in almost every post you make here.

It's fine appealing to people who are supposed to be authorities, but you have to quote the evidence which those authoritaties are claiming as their means of reaching their conclusion … you are quoting Michael Grant, but you say not one word of what he is claiming as evidence in order to conclude Jesus existed …

… what is the evidence that you have from Michael Grant that convinces you that Jesus existed?


And by the way, in case people do not know who Michael Grant is, here is a Wiki link to his details -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Grant_(classicist)

Michael Grant*CBE*(21 November 1914 – 4 October 2004) was an English*classicist,*numismatist, and author of numerous books on ancient history.[1]*His 1956 translation of*Tacitus's*Annals of Imperial Rome*remains a standard of the work. Having studied and held a number of academic posts in the United Kingdom and the Middle East, he retired early to devote himself fully to writing.

Grant was born in London, the son of Col. Maurice Grant who served in the*Boer War*and later wrote part of its official history. Young Grant attended*Harrow*and read classics (1933–37) at*Trinity College, Cambridge. His speciality was academic*numismatics. His research fellowship thesis later became his first published book –*From Imperium to Auctoritas*(1946), on Roman bronze coins. Over the next decade he wrote four books on Roman coinage; his view was that the tension between the eccentricity of the Roman emperors and the traditionalism of the Roman mint made coins (used as both propaganda and currency) a unique social record.

As early as the 1950s, Grant's publishing success was somewhat controversial within the classicist community. According to*The Times:
Grant's approach to classical history was beginning to divide critics. Numismatists felt that his academic work was beyond reproach, but some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that "even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit". The academics would keep cavilling, but the public kept buying.
[4]




I'm not saying that Grant is unqualified or a sensation seeker or a charlatan. But what you can see from the above is that his main field of expertise was Roman coins, and on other historical subjects he was regarded as a rather sensationalist writer who perhaps appealed more to popular opinion/readership and was criticised on that basis by his fellow classicists.

But if you think Michael Grant grant is someone who's opinion we should all heed, then what was he offering as the evidence that makes him (and you) think Jesus existed?
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 1st June 2020, 07:34 AM   #1582
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
I have given the names of several scholars and provided quotes, e.g. classicist scholar and atheist Michael Grant 2004: "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."

Your only response throughout has been your unsupported bald assertions: “Jesus, the Son of the Ghost has no historical evidence”. “NT Jesus never ever existed”. “Jesus and Paul are fiction”.
Again, you post more amnesia or dishonesty.

My argument that Jesus was the son of a Ghost is found in sources of antiquity.

Matthew 1:18
Quote:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:35
Quote:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Aristides Apology
Quote:
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel.....
Justin's First Apology LXXVIII
Quote:
And Joseph, the spouse of Mary, who wished at first to put away his betrothed Mary, supposing her to be pregnant by intercourse with a man, i.e., from fornication, was commanded in a vision not to put away his wife; and the angel who appeared to him told him that what is in her womb is of the Holy Ghost.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies XXIII
Quote:
And for this reason it was, that when Joseph became aware that Mary was with child, and was minded to put her away privily, the angel said to him in sleep: "Fear not to take to thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Ignatius Ephesians
Quote:
For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.
Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ
Quote:
As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

Origen's Against Celsus
Quote:
..... let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost....


Eusebius' Church History
Quote:
This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction character, the son of a Ghost, without any history.

Jesus never ever existed.

Michael Grant's Jesus is a fiction character without history and pulled from the orifices of NT authors.

Last edited by dejudge; 1st June 2020 at 07:36 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 1st June 2020, 02:39 PM   #1583
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,502
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
The nativity scenes in gMatthew and gLuke contradict one another and cannot be reconciled.

Marcion's gLuke lacked the birth story. It was likely added by a Catholic redactor mid 2nd century to make the gLuke suitable for orthodox use. In short, there is no history in the birth story of gLuke.

Since gMark lacked a birth story it was unknown to him. So gMatthew invented one. Again there is no history there that can be shown to apply to a real dude named Jesus.

When we know the gospel writers were writing large amounts of fiction we cannot assume they also contain historical truth about some guy named Jesus.





Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
Hardly controversial. It is quite plain that the anonymous gospel authors bashed the nativity crapfest every which way to beyond absurdity. Same thing happens with the resurrection tales. None of them agree either. Not to mention the genealogy of jesus fiasco.
__________________
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 1st June 2020, 03:04 PM   #1584
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 20,502
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
The notebooks of the faithful would not be sufficient to prove the veracity of JC's exploits. You would have to have a copy of His personal diary as well. How else would we know about the facts of what the Devil said to Him and His responses?
Luke 4:1-13 for example?
An interesting passage that presents the god botherers with a long list of questions. Been down that road and eventually, you end up with "mysterious ways" as though that explains anything.

It is akin to the claim that Moses wrote the first five books including describing his own death and burial. Quite the unlikely feat.

The most useful response to the jesus/devil in the desert crap is to ask...
What exactly did the devil tempt jesus with?
jesus is supposed to be god almighty. Bread tempts him? Ruling over the countries he created tempts him? Flying scares him? Really?

The whole account is absurd. "I can give you all of these lands" says the devil. "I already own them says god". How much of a temptation is that?

What would you say if I came to your home and told you that if you bowed before me, I would gift you the widescreen TV that is in your living room right now?
__________________
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 1st June 2020, 07:17 PM   #1585
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,679
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Jesus, the disciples and Paul were all obvious lies and inventions. They never ever existed.
No matter how many times you assert that, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how much of the NT is made up, it still doesn't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist.

Before you can dismiss it entirely, you have to explain why the NT authors felt it necessary to invent a story about a man, and then retrofit godly powers onto him (as is clear from an unbiased reading of the NT). The obvious reason is that they didn't invent him, because the tradition already existed - IOW their predecessors also believed Jesus was the founder of Christianty. Why? Because he (or someone) almost certainly was.

I think your big mistake is in not understanding the culture of the times. If anyone today insisted their church was started by a god in human form, and wrote a book about him that was full of supernatural nonsense, we would rightly scoff. But back then, in that society, it was expected. That is why the NT authors (and those before them) would have gone to such lengths to make the real leader out to be more than he was.

If you want to convince us that the NT authors made up Jesus out of whole cloth, you need more than just a lack of evidence for his existence outside the NT. You need to show evidence that they did not base their writings on any earlier tradition, or you need to provide a reasonable explanation for why they had to make it up.

But if you just keep harping on about "the obvious lies in the NT prove that Jesus never existed" then you are going to look a fool if some evidence turns up. It wouldn't be the first time that a myth turned out to have some basis in fact.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   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 1st June 2020, 09:58 PM   #1586
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
You are doing what most sceptics on this site have warned against hundreds of times in these threads – you are again producing the well known fallacy of “an appeal to authority”.

you have to quote the evidence which those authoritaties are claiming as their means of reaching their conclusion
I am specifically responding to dejudge’s unsupported bald assertion repeated ad nauseam, that “NT Jesus never ever existed” - end of argument. My only point is that the majority consensus of NT scholars believe that he did – albeit if not the wonder-man Jesus of the NT. In short, those in a better position to know than dejudge say that he’s wrong. I think it would be pointless go any further at this stage given that his mind is already very clearly made up.
__________________
“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 2nd June 2020, 12:15 AM   #1587
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
I am specifically responding to dejudge’s unsupported bald assertion repeated ad nauseam, that “NT Jesus never ever existed” - end of argument. My only point is that the majority consensus of NT scholars believe that he did – albeit if not the wonder-man Jesus of the NT. In short, those in a better position to know than dejudge say that he’s wrong. I think it would be pointless go any further at this stage given that his mind is already very clearly made up.

But that was not the point. Not the point by a very long way!

The point is that you are constantly appealing to the claimed "authority" of biblical scholars. But (a) that is a well known fallacy, ie simply not valid as a way of deciding that you are right, and (b) you are never telling us what evidence you think they are producing to claim Jesus was real ....

... what is their evidence?

… what evidence do you think they have to show us that Jesus was real??
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 2nd June 2020, 06:45 AM   #1588
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the people you're referring to are not actually authoritative on the subject.
Delvo is online now   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 2nd June 2020, 07:51 AM   #1589
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,880
Yes, and he just pointed out the cited guy’s main expertise is about the coinage of Roman antiquity. He just also likes to pontificate about the other stuff. Other scholars say those pontifications are basically pop-arch piffle. That’s practically a textbook example.
Lithrael 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 2nd June 2020, 11:25 AM   #1590
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No matter how many times you assert that, it doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how much of the NT is made up, it still doesn't prove that a historical Jesus didn't exist.
No matter what you say cannot contradict my argument that Jesus , the disciples and Paul did not exist.

Jesus was the son of a Ghost so he could not have had any chosen disciples and Paul could not have seen the disciples and the resurrected Jesus.

The NT is a compilation of fiction, forgeries and false attribution with zero historical value with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

Before you can dismiss it entirely, you have to explain why the NT authors felt it necessary to invent a story about a man, and then retrofit godly powers onto him (as is clear from an unbiased reading of the NT). The obvious reason is that they didn't invent him, because the tradition already existed - IOW their predecessors also believed Jesus was the founder of Christianty. Why? Because he (or someone) almost certainly was.
I don't have to make up stories of Jesus they are found in the NT. Jesus was a water-walking, transfiguring, resurrecting, ascending, Son of a Ghost and God Creator from the beginning,.

Jesus never ever existed. Jesus never ever had any history.

The founder of the city of Rome was born of a Ghost [Romulus].
The founder of the Roman Catholicism was born of a Ghost. [Jesus]

People in Rome believed Ghosts [apparitions] existed and could impregnate virgins.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

Plutarch Romulus
Quote:
There was an oracle of Tethys in Tuscany which Tarchetius consulted, and received an answer that a virgin should give herself to the apparition, and that a son should be born of her, highly renowned, eminent for valour, good fortune, and strength of body.

Tarchetius told the prophecy to one of his own daughters, and commanded her to do this thing....
Like Jesus, when Romulus supposedly died his body vanished and day turned into night.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html

Quote:
whereas Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen. ............................ the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night....
Romulus appeared as a Ghost after he was dead and before he ascended to heaven.

Quote:
.........Julius Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven.

But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus." This seemed credible to the Romans..........

The Jesus character is really similar to the myth Romulus.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post

I think your big mistake is in not understanding the culture of the times. If anyone today insisted their church was started by a god in human form, and wrote a book about him that was full of supernatural nonsense, we would rightly scoff. But back then, in that society, it was expected. That is why the NT authors (and those before them) would have gone to such lengths to make the real leader out to be more than he was.
You don't know what your are talking about.

The Jesus story is total fiction. It is just total nonsense that Jews would worship a dead crucified criminal as the Messiah of the Jews.

The Jews were looking for a living Messianic Ruler to rule the known Universe not a dead scarcely known preacher.

If Jesus was not known as the Messiah of the Jews when he was alive then it would be virtually impossible for him to be called the Jewish Messianic ruler when he was dead.

Simon Bar Cocheba was regarded as a Messianic ruler of the Jews until he was captured and killed by the Roman c 133 CE.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If you want to convince us that the NT authors made up Jesus out of whole cloth, you need more than just a lack of evidence for his existence outside the NT. You need to show evidence that they did not base their writings on any earlier tradition, or you need to provide a reasonable explanation for why they had to make it up.
You will never ever be able to present evidence to show that there was an HJ.


Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But if you just keep harping on about "the obvious lies in the NT prove that Jesus never existed" then you are going to look a fool if some evidence turns up. It wouldn't be the first time that a myth turned out to have some basis in fact.
Well, well, welll!!!! I am glad you talk about looking like a fool!! What do you call those who argue for an HJ when no evidence has turned up for at least 2000 years?

People have been looking like fools for thousands of years.

Jesus is coming soon!!!

Look for the scars in his hands, feet and side.

Last edited by dejudge; 2nd June 2020 at 11:34 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 2nd June 2020, 02:13 PM   #1591
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,276
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
An interesting passage that presents the god botherers with a long list of questions. Been down that road and eventually, you end up with "mysterious ways" as though that explains anything.

It is akin to the claim that Moses wrote the first five books including describing his own death and burial. Quite the unlikely feat.

The most useful response to the jesus/devil in the desert crap is to ask...
What exactly did the devil tempt jesus with?
jesus is supposed to be god almighty. Bread tempts him? Ruling over the countries he created tempts him? Flying scares him? Really?

The whole account is absurd. "I can give you all of these lands" says the devil. "I already own them says god". How much of a temptation is that?

What would you say if I came to your home and told you that if you bowed before me, I would gift you the widescreen TV that is in your living room right now?

The absurdity of the whole exchange just screams at you doesn't it? The typical response from the faithful when confronted with it is a garbled "Jesus was man at the time although yes he was God also", sort of thing. Christians have struggled with this trinity BS from the beginning, to explain why Jesus prayed to his father in the garden and then on the cross. Some say Jesus started of as a man and became part of God later but the RCC say he was always there from the beginning.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 2nd June 2020, 03:55 PM   #1592
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The absurdity of the whole exchange just screams at you doesn't it? The typical response from the faithful when confronted with it is a garbled "Jesus was man at the time although yes he was God also", sort of thing. Christians have struggled with this trinity BS from the beginning, to explain why Jesus prayed to his father in the garden and then on the cross. Some say Jesus started of as a man and became part of God later but the RCC say he was always there from the beginning.
They had to make him a god so that he could compete with the other gods around. Jesus being just another prophet wasn't good enough. Even the Caesars claimed to be descended from gods, so Jesus had to descend from God, too. Hence the story of the conception from "a ghost", as dejudge calls it. So much of the NT has all the appearances of ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization. Did some other god raise someone from the dead? Well Jesus did that, too! In spades! Does the old prophecies say that the Messiah would come from Betlehem? Ah...umm... well, actually, the romans had this big census, you see... (we know the rest).

But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.

Last edited by Ulf Nereng; 2nd June 2020 at 03:58 PM.
Ulf Nereng 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 2nd June 2020, 04:02 PM   #1593
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post

But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.
Except Paul wrote first. And for Paul Christ Jesus was a pre-existant divine being.

Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy 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 2nd June 2020, 04:13 PM   #1594
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
Except Paul wrote first. And for Paul Christ Jesus was a pre-existant divine being.

Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
Writing first doesn't necessarily mean being first with the story. Especially in those times.
Ulf Nereng 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 2nd June 2020, 07:39 PM   #1595
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
They had to make him a god so that he could compete with the other gods around. Jesus being just another prophet wasn't good enough. Even the Caesars claimed to be descended from gods, so Jesus had to descend from God, too. Hence the story of the conception from "a ghost", as dejudge calls it. So much of the NT has all the appearances of ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization. Did some other god raise someone from the dead? Well Jesus did that, too! In spades! Does the old prophecies say that the Messiah would come from Betlehem? Ah...umm... well, actually, the romans had this big census, you see... (we know the rest).
There is no ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization of the Jesus story.

It was just fiction after fiction.

Hebrew Scripture has no prophecy of the supposed Jesus being born in Bethlehem in the time of Herod the Great.

Hebrew Scripture has no prophecy that the supposed Jesus would be born of a Ghost and a Virgin in the time of Pilate.

Writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius specifically stated that based on Hebrew Scripture the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler at around c 66-70 CE [not 27-37 CE -not in the time of Pilate.]

There was no prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler in the 1st century.

If Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified before he was regarded as a Messianic ruler then it is virtually impossible for him to be regarded as the prophesied Messianic ruler when he was already dead.

The Jews were not looking in graveyards for their prophesied Messianic ruler.

The Jesus stories are all total propaganda in an attempt to blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng View Post
But here's my question: doesn't all that retrofitting sort of point to there being an underlying reality to it? Someone not a god made into a god, someone from Nazareth moved to Betlehem, someone dead resurrected, a not all that remarkable wannabe Messiah turned into the real deal.
An unknown Jewish Messiah??

Please!!! This is the sort of nonsense that is propagated by HJers to explain why non-apologetic sources did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

If nobody knew Jesus was the prophesied Messianic ruler of the Jews when he was alive then he could not be regarded as a Messiah after death.

The War of the Jews c 66-70 CE was fought because the Jews believed their prophesied Messianic ruler would emerge at that time and conquer the Roman Empire.


War of the Jews 6.5.4
Quote:
But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination......
The writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have destroyed the NT.

Jesus the prophesied Jewish Messiah never ever existed at all.

Last edited by dejudge; 2nd June 2020 at 07:42 PM.
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 3rd June 2020, 02:30 AM   #1596
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
But that was not the point. Not the point by a very long way!
Well it is the only point being made.

Quote:
The point is that you are constantly appealing to the claimed "authority" of biblical scholars. But (a) that is a well known fallacy, ie simply not valid as a way of deciding that you are right, and (b) you are never telling us what evidence you think they are producing to claim Jesus was real ....
As has been commented upon: “the appeal to authority” is only a fallacy if those appealed to are not authorities". If you don’t like the authority I referenced then Prof. Bart Ehrman is another (I could give you a long list): Ehrman (an atheist agnostic) wrote: "He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".

Quote:
... what is their evidence?

… what evidence do you think they have to show us that Jesus was real??
I’m not a biblical scholar nor religious. But the majority of reputable scholars are of the view that the man Jesus existed in the flesh. I am not qualified to assess the evidence, but it behooves us to accept the expertise of those who are so qualified. We do in every other field of professional expertise.
__________________
“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 3rd June 2020, 03:12 AM   #1597
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Well it is the only point being made.







As has been commented upon: “the appeal to authority” is only a fallacy if those appealed to are not authorities". If you don’t like the authority I referenced then Prof. Bart Ehrman is another (I could give you a long list): Ehrman (an atheist agnostic) wrote: "He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". .
And you consider Erhman's appeal to imaginary sources scholarly?



Sent from my SM-T727V using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy 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 3rd June 2020, 05:28 AM   #1598
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Describe what you mean by the phrase "appeal to imaginary sources".
Delvo is online now   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 3rd June 2020, 05:35 AM   #1599
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,490
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
....I’m not a biblical scholar nor religious. But the majority of reputable scholars are of the view that the man Jesus existed in the flesh. I am not qualified to assess the evidence, but it behooves us to accept the expertise of those who are so qualified. We do in every other field of professional expertise.
Again, you suffer from amnesia or dishonesty.

1. All Scholars do not agree that Jesus was a figure of history.

2. Many Bible Scholars worship Jesus as God.

3. Many Bible Scholars preach that Jesus was born of a Virgin.

4. Many Bible Scholars accept the NT as the word of God.

5. Many Bible Scholars are pastors and Bishops of Christian Churches.

6. Many Bible Scholars pray to the resurrected Jesus for their salvation and wait for his coming to go to heaven.

This is a partial list of Bible Scholars of Christian Churches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...lical_scholars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...lical_scholars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...lical_scholars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego...lical_scholars


The supposed HJ is fundamentally a product of Christian belief and teachings of the Church -never ever a product of history.

No-one is behooved to accept the beliefs of Christians as evidence for an HJ.

Last edited by dejudge; 3rd June 2020 at 05:43 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 3rd June 2020, 07:45 AM   #1600
Ulf Nereng
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Norway
Posts: 408
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
There is no ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization of the Jesus story.

It was just fiction after fiction.

Hebrew Scripture has no prophecy of the supposed Jesus being born in Bethlehem in the time of Herod the Great.

Hebrew Scripture has no prophecy that the supposed Jesus would be born of a Ghost and a Virgin in the time of Pilate.

Writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius specifically stated that based on Hebrew Scripture the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler at around c 66-70 CE [not 27-37 CE -not in the time of Pilate.]

There was no prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler in the 1st century.

If Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified before he was regarded as a Messianic ruler then it is virtually impossible for him to be regarded as the prophesied Messianic ruler when he was already dead.

The Jews were not looking in graveyards for their prophesied Messianic ruler.

The Jesus stories are all total propaganda in an attempt to blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.



An unknown Jewish Messiah??

Please!!! This is the sort of nonsense that is propagated by HJers to explain why non-apologetic sources did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

If nobody knew Jesus was the prophesied Messianic ruler of the Jews when he was alive then he could not be regarded as a Messiah after death.

The War of the Jews c 66-70 CE was fought because the Jews believed their prophesied Messianic ruler would emerge at that time and conquer the Roman Empire.


War of the Jews 6.5.4

The writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have destroyed the NT.

Jesus the prophesied Jewish Messiah never ever existed at all.
Quote:
There is no ad hoc retrofitting and post hoc rationalization of the Jesus story.
Personal opinion of no interest to anyone but you.

Quote:
Hebrew Scripture has no prophecy of the supposed Jesus being born in Bethlehem in the time of Herod the Great.
Your addition of "in the time of Herod the Great" is yours only. An addition you make in order to make your assertion true. What's more, there is no need for there to be a clear prophecy in Hebrew scripture about the Messiah for Jews (or any other religious person) to believe that there is. Even worse, numerous wannabe Messiahs have existed over the many centuries since JC and had no problems gaining followers among other Jews, showing that it is perfectly possible to claim a Messiah at any point in time.

Quote:
Hebrew Scripture has no prophecy that the supposed Jesus would be born of a Ghost and a Virgin in the time of Pilate.
Irrelevant. It obviously has no prophecy that there would be a person named Pilate. Nor does it have a prophecy that there would be a person named Vespasian. So what?

Quote:
Writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius specifically stated that based on Hebrew Scripture the Jews expected their prophesied Messianic ruler at around c 66-70 CE [not 27-37 CE -not in the time of Pilate.]
Josephus was eager to shoehorn Vespasian into the prophecies. Others were eager to shoehorn Jesus into them. Do you believe that Vespasian was the Messiah? If not, why not?

Quote:
There was no prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler in the 1st century.
Mhm. There was no prophesied Jewish Messianic ruler in the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries, either. None of which prevented a bunch of wannabe Messiahs from gaining followers in those centuries. The fact that they were all fake Messiahs isn't the point. The point is that it was, and still is, perfectly possible for someone to say "Oh, look! The Messiah has come!" That they were wrong didn't prevent them from making that claim. Just like some gospel writers made claims that a certain Jesus was the Messiah. They were wrong. But that they were wrong is beside the point.

Quote:
If Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified before he was regarded as a Messianic ruler then it is virtually impossible for him to be regarded as the prophesied Messianic ruler when he was already dead.
You have no idea what religious people can make themself believe, do you? Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676) claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam. He still has followers who believe he was the Messiah today!

Quote:
The Jews were not looking in graveyards for their prophesied Messianic ruler.
Pointless assertion.

Quote:
The Jesus stories are all total propaganda in an attempt to blame the Jews for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.
Your private hypothesis, I gather?

How about trying to answer the question I actually asked? Or is it going to be another pointless rant about what some Jews couldn't possibly believe?
Ulf Nereng 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 04:49 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.