35
   

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:35 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Historical evidence needs to be corroborative and consistent across multiple sources in order to gain any level of veracity.

Like I said, There was more than one instance of Jesus being mentioned in historical documents of that era, but it's true that they are rare.

But it's also true that billions of people have lived and died without a trace of having lived on this earth. Jesus was not a prominent figure in the popular historical or political sense. He had only a handful of followers and none of them were prominent figures who you would expect to show up in documents 2000 years later.

I'm sure there were many other people with bigger followings, gladiators, musicians, playwrights, etc. who have totally disappeared from history without a trace.

The fact that we are still talking about Jesus, who many consider a myth, 2000 years later is a kind of evidence in itself.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:38 am
Leadfoot wrote:
So you want to throw out all written historical evidence?

No, I just want to see some.

Mind to point out some historical and archaeological evidence?
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:43 am
Leadfoot wrote:
The fact that we are still talking about Jesus, who many consider a myth, 2000 years later is a kind of evidence in itself.


Do you know what FOAF means?

If you don't know, check it out here.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:44 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
The fact that we are still talking about Jesus, who many consider a myth, 2000 years later is a kind of evidence in itself.

Uh no, actually it's not. But I think Zeus and Thor (and a thousand others) would be pleased to know that their existence is evidenced by the fact that we're still talking about them even today.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:49 am
@timur,
Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:
"So you want to throw out all written historical evidence?"


No, I just want to see some.
Mind to point out some historical and archaeological evidence?

You know how to Google so I'm sure you can find sources. Here is a non biblical source from Tactus:

Quote:
Let’s begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls “probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament.”{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero’s decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . ."
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:51 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
But I think Zeus and Thor (and a thousand others) would be pleased to know that their existence is evidenced by the fact that we're still talking about them even today.

Oh yeah, we're building churches for Zeus and Thor all over the place and billions profess their belief in them.

Like I told timur - Get Real.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 07:59 am
@Leadfoot,
That's all you can come up with?

Tacitus (apparently you don't even know how to write his name) written works are based, long after the supposed facts, on sources that don't exist anymore.

Many of these sources are not very reliable as are many of the inaccuracies in his works.

The simple mention of a name that you immediately link to Jesus is, to say the least, very poor evidence.

Tell me about something tangible.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 08:09 am
@timur,
Quote:
That's all you can come up with?

Tacitus (apparently you don't even know how to write his name) written works are based, long after the supposed facts, on sources that don't exist anymore.

Ri i i i i ght. Tactius just made up that reference to Christ, his crucifixion, his followers,etc out of thin air...

If a typo is enough to invalidate anything I write, I won't waste more time for either of us on this.

I gave you an example. If you want more, do your own research.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 08:30 am
Leadfoot wrote:
If you want more, do your own research.


I did, and, as an aside, I did it extensively.

Nothing I could find persuaded me of Jesus' existence.

But if you are a lot more professional than I am, why don't you provide some indisputable sources?
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 08:54 am
@timur,
timur wrote:
Nothing I could find persuaded me of Jesus' existence.

That's because you have no consistent standard of evidence for establishing the existence of Jesus. In short, you're not persuaded because you're not persuadable.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 09:03 am
Joefromchicago wrote:
In short, you're not persuaded because you're not persuadable.

Mere belief on your part, Joe.

I think I have quite a scientific and reasonable mind.

If the facts are sufficiently in favor of some theory, I'm ready to change my ways.

However, simple assumptions and interpretations are insufficient to do so.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 09:26 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

Joefromchicago wrote:
In short, you're not persuaded because you're not persuadable.

Mere belief on your part, Joe.

Not in the least. Read the link.

timur wrote:
I think I have quite a scientific and reasonable mind.

Not on the this subject.
timur
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 09:31 am
@joefromchicago,
Simple assumptions..

I read the link and in addition I remembered exactly our exchange.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 09:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Oh yeah, we're building churches for Zeus and Thor all over the place and billions profess their belief in them.

Like I told timur - Get Real.

That is real. Your belief in your own choice of god is just as unrealistic. You get real.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 10:37 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

Simple assumptions..

I read the link and in addition I remembered exactly our exchange.

Then you must have also remembered that you will accept evidence for the existence of Socrates that you won't accept for the existence of Paul the Evangelist. That doesn't strike me as terribly scientific or reasonable.
0 Replies
 
Candlelight8
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 11:05 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I'm more worried about whether I exist.
Candlelight8
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 11:21 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
That is real. Your belief in your own choice of god is just as unrealistic. You get real.

Don't dodge by changing the subject. We were talking about the son of God - Jesus. Whether my choice of God is unrealistic or not is irrelevant here. My point was that there are billions who have taken the existence of Jesus seriously. The same cannot be said of Zeus.
It is self evident that comparing the level of belief, interest and involvement in Zeus to that of Jesus is ludicrous and you know it.

Anyone can easily see the evidence of current belief in Jesus, let's see some evidence of the current popular belief in Zeus et al that you claim.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 01:32 pm
@Leadfoot,
First of all the idea that Jesus, or any human, is the direct Son of God is as preposterous as any belief in any deity, so you can give that argument up right there.

Beyond that, there isn't even any really solid historical evidence that a human being filling the description of Jesus even existed. Biblical scholars (people who study this bit of history for a living), can't even come to a consensus opinion on the matter.

Now I'll grant you that the split among "biblical experts" is more like 60% to 40% with the 60% coming down on the side of "yes, someone like that probably existed", but this is a select group of "experts" who have chosen to devote their lives to studying this thing which they want to believe, so they are deeply biased, which means that it's really more surprising that it isn't a 90% to 10% split in favor of Jesus having actually existed. The fact that it's only a 60/40 split in favor of Jesus is still a big loss. If "experts" can't even agree to within a high degree of certainty, then it's clearly a major unknown to say the least.

As an obvious counterpoint, you will find the agreement between historical experts on the existence of various roman emperors or Egyptian kings is far more defined, and those groups aren't even as biased.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 02:55 pm
Tacitus did not mention "Jesus" (Even leaving aside that there was no "J" in the Roman alphabet), nor did he mention "Christ." He mentioned a Chrestus, which is, apparently, good enough for the bible thumpers, who have pretty sloppy standards for evidence. There is a Greek honorific, romanized as Chrestos, which means "the good." This is typical crap evidence. The passage also refers to "Chrestians," and of course, the bible thumpers claim that means Christians. How inconvenient for them that even those whom we refer to as Christians didn't call themselves Christians, neither in the time of Nero, nor when Tacitus wrote his Annales. Furthermore, that account of Nero's behavior is flatly contradicted by the account of Suetonius, who praised Nero for not assigning blame, but seeking to those made homeless by the fire. That is more significant given that Suetonius was highly critical and contemptuous of Nero. Its very unlikely that he would make one quixotic paean to Nero when he spends so much time excoriating him. No Christian writers mention such a persecution until the 5th century, and Origen, Pamphilus and Eusebius--all well-known Christian apologists--fail to mention such a passage in Tacitus, which would have been a clincher for them, if it had been genuine. Many scholars think that the passage was interpolated in the 5th century, and significantly, it is not mentioned in anyone's writings until the 15th century. Finally, it repeats the gross error of calling Pilate a procurator, although there were no procurators as subprovincial governors in that period. The Christian BS artists just suggest that Tacitus made a transcription error from his source--a source no one has ever come up with. Tacitus was a Senator and the governor of the province of Asia, which had the largest population of Christians outside Palestine at that time. We are supposed to believe that one of the Empire's best historian and a life-long Roman official, was clueless about all these things, relying on some mythological source which not only has ever been found, but not even named--yet we are expected to consider such a passage as a knock-down source for this BS.

Bible thumpers are the biggest pack of liars i've ever seen.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2016 06:11 pm
No form of "Jesus," "Iesu," nor anything resembling it is used in the passage.

. . . ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Chrestus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque. igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens haud proinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis convicti sunt.

I've reported your post--that sort of nastiness is no longer tolerated.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 06:05:00