Did Jesus Actually Exist?

The scientists found no contemporary evidence. Their conclusions carry no more weight than anybody else's.

@BillRM,

Timur says I misrepresented his sources. But he listed as pro-myth people who are in actual fact not doubters. I call him a liar. He calls me a liar, but I proved my point by doing my own research. That's you guys main problem: you shoot from the hip without ever checking your sources... A foolish thing to do on such a polemic topic.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

But what about Jesus and his Pigeons!

https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/23138/95942/f/621588-smart-pigeon-picked-jesus--head-0.jpg

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Ok so your point is that history is not a science?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Ok so your point is that history is not a science?

Not by the normal meaning of a field of science that allow for the creation of theories and then the checking of those theories by repeatable experiments.

Kind of hard to set up the city/state of Rome and by varying one factor or another see how the results changes and if the changes match your theories.

Quote:

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Not by the normal meaning of a field of science that allow for the creation of theories and then the checking of those theories by repeatable experiments.

I happen to agree with that.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Your refusal to act with any decency whatsoever says a lot about you.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

OMG,

PLEASE,

TELL US - THE PUBLIC - WHAT'S INDECENT.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I don't like people spreading obvious lies. Sorry if that ruffles your feathers.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Your refusal to act with any decency whatsoever says a lot about you.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I tell you what decency is, izzy. Decency is when there is a minimum of respect for existing sources. Decency is when you accept that you know less than reputed historians. Decency is not listing the Jesus Seminar and other scientists who do NOT doubt a historical Jesus, pretending they are, ie not lie about real scientists. Decency is not listing fake 'scholars' and not linking up to crap conspiracist websites.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Louis Feldman is one ot the greatest living, if not the greatest living Hellenist and expert on Titus Flavius Josephus. I have more than once pointed to his 1984 publication in which he points out that the majority, more than three quarters, of modern scholars consider the alleged Jesus passages in his histories to be in part or entirely interpolation. Not only have you ignored that entirely, you continued long after i first mentioned it, to peddle the Josephus interpolations as evidence.

I know that reasoning and logic are not your strong points, so i'll explain to you that by your standard, which you just elucidated, that makes you indecent.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If the question were whether or not there were some religious loony running around Palestine 2000 years ago named Yeshua who was haranguing the people about the kingdom of god, i'd say that was a no-brainer. For more than 600 years, from the end of the Babylonian captivity to the expulsion of the Jews from Palestine by the Romans in the first half of the second century, there was always at least one loony named Yeshua loose and belaboring the population with his mystic bullsh*t.

That was indeed the question, Set, and indeed the answer IS a no brainer. Thanks for your contribution to the debate.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Louis Feldman states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged"[122] Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.[123] Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ (Book X, Chapter 17), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.[92]

92. Eddy & Boyd 2007, pp. 128–130.
Feldman & Hata 1987, p. 56.

124. 'Josephus, Judaism and Christianity by Louis H. Feldman, Gōhei Hata 1997 ISBN 90-04-08554-8 pages 55–57

125. Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei. Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-08554-8. page 56

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

According to Wikipedia, Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

BillRM and Merry disagree.

I think they full of sh*t, but so what?

This is a thread to allow them the opportunity to go off on a tangent and not derail another very interesting one.

Have at it.

Guess what, you only got one eye and olive engaged. But thanks all the same.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

According to Wikipedia, Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

BillRM and Merry disagree.

I think they full of sh*t, but so what?

This is a thread to allow them the opportunity to go off on a tangent and not derail another very interesting one.

Have at it.

When you say "Merry," I assume you have me in mind. I don't believe I have ever suggested that I think Jesus never existed. In fact, I have frequently argued that it makes no historical sense to me to suggest the opposite. The only thing that I have suggested is that the historical Jesus likely bore virtually no resemblance to the Biblical Jesus.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

None of this learned discourse addresses the anthropomorphic dubiety that is the belief in fairy stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You don't know what decency is, you've sunk to a real low. I'm still agnostic on this subject, but you've definitely lost this argument with your gutter tactics. You're just like Oralboy with your kneejerk hysteria.

I won't be bothering with you any more.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No, that was not the questyion--it's just the weasel positon you're taking because you cannot accept tta you would be wrong.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Wikipedia has become completely unreliable as a source for any questions regarding christianity, expecially with regard to the historicity of the so-called Jesus. At the very beginning of your linked text it reads "Last edited 11 days ago by Elizium23." Click on that link and you can see the endless back and forth as the article is edited by christian vandals and then restored. The term vandalism has in fact recently been used in the page history. Your Wikipedia quote is completely unreliable.

1 Reply

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know