Did Jesus Actually Exist?

@timur,

That would be nice, but then that narrows your categories of acceptable evidence down to one: archeological evidence. But you should know that the kind of archeological evidence you demand for Paul is unavailable for a lot of people who lived in the ancient world. We don't, for instance, have any independent contemporaneous archeological evidence for the existence of Socrates. Do you, then, deny that he existed as well?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe, I understand that one can conceive the myth of Jesus as an atheist conspiracy.

However, usually things are a lot simpler.

Socrates, even though he didn't write anything himself, is a lot more credible than Paul.

Plato, Xenophon, his pupils, and Aristophanes wrote extensively about him.

We cannot find any discrepancy, chronological or otherwise, in the different accounts of his life and philosophy.

2 Replies

@timur,

Quote:

Something similar to this, Joe:

Quote:

The sources for Pilate's life are an inscription known as the Pilate Stone, which confirms his historicity and establishes his title as prefect;

Peanuts... lol

Pilate was an authority, his records will be found in more than one official source.

Find the same with Homer, with Pythagoras, even with Kino Woo emperor of China... no other records but writings.

The requisites of carved stone records asked by timur are simply absurd.

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

Joe, I understand that one can conceive the myth of Jesus as an atheist conspiracy.

However, usually things are a lot simpler.

Socrates, even though he didn't write anything himself, is a lot more credible than Paul.

Joe will respond as he sees fit, but this is open to everyone...and I gotta say:

I'm hoping you are joking here, Timur.

We have actual letters from Paul...and plenty of contemporaneous letters of people about Paul and his influence on the community of his time...and minutes of meetings between Paul and others...

...and you still think the evidence of the existence of Socrates is more credible than the evidence of the existence of Paul???

I'm not suggesting that it the evidence for Paul must be considered more credible (although I think it is)...but certainly "as credible" for Paul as for Socrates.

Your self-serving prejudice is showing.

Like I said...I hope you are just joking.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you are just stirring the pot about things I know you have no real knowledge about.

Your ulterior motives are obvious..

1 Reply

Socrates virgin birth and miracles performed are a dead giveaway. Razz

0 Replies

@timur,

timur wrote:

Frank, you are just stirring the pot about things I know you have no real knowledge about.

You "know" that the way you "know" so many things you assert you know, Timur...which is to say, you do NOT know it.

The reason I know you do not know it...is because I know I do have "real knowledge" of the things about which I wrote.

Under any circumstances....I stand by what I said:

Quote:

We have actual letters from Paul...and plenty of contemporaneous letters of people about Paul and his influence on the community of his time...and minutes of meetings between Paul and others...

...and you still think the evidence of the existence of Socrates is more credible than the evidence of the existence of Paul???

I'm not suggesting that it the evidence for Paul must be considered more credible (although I think it is)...but certainly "as credible" for Paul as for Socrates.

Your self-serving prejudice is showing.

Quote:

Your ulterior motives are obvious..

I have no "ulterior motives" (egad, I hate those kinds of cliche's)...my motives are right out front. I think your reasoning on this issue is abysmal...a function of your bias.

Nothing ulterior about that.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Some people take themselves way too seriously

That's true. You should try and take things with more levity.

1 Reply

@timur,

timur wrote:

Joe, I understand that one can conceive the myth of Jesus as an atheist conspiracy.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that.

timur wrote:

Socrates, even though he didn't write anything himself, is a lot more credible than Paul.

Plato, Xenophon, his pupils, and Aristophanes wrote extensively about him.

We cannot find any discrepancy, chronological or otherwise, in the different accounts of his life and philosophy.

Actually, there are discrepancies about the life of Socrates - indeed, probably more than there are about the life of Paul. But now you're back to saying that contemporaneous writings are sufficient evidence for the existence of Socrates, whereas you won't accept contemporaneous writings as sufficient evidence for the existence of Paul. I'm just trying to understand what standard you're using for your demands of historical proof. Since you're the one demanding proof, I'm somewhat surprised that you seem unable to articulate a consistent standard for what you'd accept as proof.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

That's just a variation of the "I know you are but what am I?" playground chant.

And Oralboy did it first.

1 Reply

The real truth about your boy Jesus . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Hillarious vid... :-)

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

And why do you play such childish games, Izzy? Because it's easier than saying something?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

14 hours, and that's all you could come up with. No wonder you're stealing Oralboy's material.

Stamping your foot, insisting you're right, and calling those who disagree with you all manner of names is hardly the height of maturity.

It's also extremely churlish not to thank me for your Tarot reading, especially after you begged me to do it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

14 hours, and that's all you could come up with.

Sorry to damp your enthusiasm but I don't think of you 24/7.

Quote:

It's also extremely churlish not to thank me for your Tarot reading

Thanks for your wonderfully exact and not in the least self-serving Tarot reading.

You didn't thank me for pointing you to Baron Corvo. If you like Wilde, you will love Corvo.

Tit for tat aside, the discussion is back to what constitutes an acceptable criteria or evidence for the existence of historical characters. The 'agreed' metric (speaking like Fresco now... scary) seems to be the odds of the wandering rabbi vs the pure myth. Is the character Jeebus -- defined as some 1st century Galilean rabbi at the onset of the JC legends -- more likely than not to have existed?

You, Bill and Timur are on the 50/50 line if i understand correctly. Ed is on the less likely than not side. The rest of us, including Joe and Set, are on the more likely than not side.

The differences have to see with how the available evidence is interpreted / accepted or rejected as truth-worthy or not. And nobody can be forced to accept any evidence. So the discussion DOES seem to end there.

Anybody else wants to chip in, or shall we call it a day?

0 Replies

To me, people who deny the existence of Jesus are people with a troubled personality, or just ignorant in purpose.

What is confuse them is the theological side where a person realizes miracles and even is resurrected by some power which is told comes from a god.

Of course, this theological side is just additional, not so what it rules about the existence of Jesus as a person who lived in Palestine two thousand years ago.

However, because this theological side which has been added, is enough for some people to put in their minds that such a person can't exist at all.

This guy Jesus was very smart, and I like smart people. On the other hands, the ones who don't want to recognize his existence are actually playing dumb.

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Some day, religious thinking will make it into the DSM.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You got me searching there. I landed on the wiki page listing the mental diseases from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Including religion in there would be nice, as that would make it the one affliction in there that I could claim not to have... 'Cause I checked the list and am pretty sure I suffer from anxiety, adult antisocial behavior, bereavement, dismorphia, fetishism, histrionism, and of course hypochondriasis... I believe I also suffer from "personality disorder not otherwise specified", an important category.

Joke aside, religion is already in there: V62.89 Religious or Spiritual Problem.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

That's pretty close, but not quite the same as religious thinking. Included in V62.89 Religious or Spiritual Problem is loss of faith. The entry that I'm suggesting is that faith itself is the problem. Wink

2 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

That's pretty close, but not quite the same as religious thinking. Included in V62.89 Religious or Spiritual Problem is loss of faith. The entry that I'm suggesting is that faith itself is the problem.

By that are you referring to the "faith" that theists have in their guesses...or the "faith" atheists have in theirs?

Or do you mean both?

0 Replies

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know