35
   

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

 
 
timur
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 08:53 am
@Olivier5,
Neither.

I want you to be honest.

I want you to cease to denigrate my sources, just because you want to win an argument.

I want you to stop twisting my words.

I want you to prove definitely that Jesus existed.





Olivier5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 09:36 am
@timur,
Quote:
I want you to prove definitely that Jesus existed.

Which particular Jesus are you talking about here? The magic son of god or the wandering rabbi?

You can't get what you want till you know what you want.

So define what you mean by "the historical Jesus", and then we can talk.

Define what you would consider a credible academic background on this issue, and then we can talk.

Define what you would consider appropriate criteria for assessing the historicity of dudes such as Thales or Jesus, and then we can talk.

Define your rival hypothesis, i.e. explain who according to you invented Jesus and Christianity, and then we can talk.

But if you think you can keep your ideas hidden, ambiguous and confused, while still shooting at my ideas to obfuscate and muddle the debate forever, think again.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 10:06 am
@Olivier5,
Despite my previous post, where I stated what I wanted, as you asked the question, you didn't change a iota about your highly hypocrite and weasel ways.

You just came back asking for more evidence and definitions, oblivious of what has been said since the beginning of this thread.


The original question was:
Finn d'abuzz wrote:
Did Jesus Actually Exist?



Your first post was:
Olivier wrote:
of course he did exist.


So, you know already who we are talking about.

Additionally, you certainly know at least some indisputable sources that confirms such assertion.

Tell me..
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 10:08 am
@timur,
I know what I mean by "the historical Jesus", but you don't and therefore you will never make any progress. You need to know what you want before you can get what you want.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 10:30 am
@Olivier5,
Weasel away..
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 10:34 am
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRinvW_LJaEwnrV1aTRy8VMrbo1IMRXKhC8jOjGq6eNiH8mLfVe5A
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 10:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
The real ones are a lot scarier.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AeW-m1IPvJ8/UnGHINJFcTI/AAAAAAAAAQM/LxYdlN3pFqg/s1600/stoats_weasels_sml.jpg
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111002222615/disney/images/thumb/6/69/Wiw1.jpg/500px-Wiw1.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 10:54 am
@izzythepush,
Damn...I wish I had found that top one!

Good find.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 01:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I prefer the bottom one, but I've got a thing about old cartoons.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 01:21 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I prefer the bottom one, but I've got a thing about old cartoons.


Yeah...but the top one was better at saying what I was using pictures to say.


Wink
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 02:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
What were you trying to say?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 02:50 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

What were you trying to say?


C'mon, Olivier...you are intelligent enough to figure it out.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 02:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Thanks for the compliment but I don't feel like guessing today.
0 Replies
 
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2014 05:40 pm
@timur,
"So, you know already who we are talking about."

Evidently you don't.

Which Jesus,

answer the question.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2014 10:35 am
Quote:
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by leading scholar of the New Testament Bart Ehrman, author of over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks, in that field of study. In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, and why all experts in the area agree that "whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist."[1][2]

Ehrman examines the historicity of Jesus and includes some criticism of Christ mythicists.

Arguments for existence

Ehrman surveys the arguments "mythicists" have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first mooted at the end of the 18th century. To the objection that there are no contemporary Roman records of Jesus' existence, Ehrman points out that such records exist for almost no one and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from decades later.[1][3] The author states that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul personally knew James, the brother of Jesus.[2] Although the gospel accounts of Jesus' life may be biased and unreliable in many respects, they and the sources behind them which scholars have discerned still contain some accurate historical information.[1][3] So many independent attestations of Jesus' existence, Ehrman says, are actually "astounding for an ancient figure of any kind ".[2] Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones,[1][2] and repeatedly insists that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered by historians or experts in the field at all.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2014 01:09 pm
You have to show us too how much criticism Erhman's book has raised.

Tom Verenna wrote:
One is left to wonder: is there no room left for doubt in the field of New Testament concerning the historicity of the figure of Jesus? Has the field become so static and immovable that to even doubt that Jesus lived is to warrant the label of insanity? And should academic freedom be sacrificed? Should the academy limit a critical position by intimidating and ridiculing those few scholars who do not believe Jesus existed historically into submitting to the consensus of the majority? Or, as Ehrman implies, should scholars who doubt the certainty of historicity be fired from academic posts or just denied work in academia?


Read this, you will see where Erhman is wrong
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2014 01:36 pm
Did Jesus Exist?
Bart D. Ehrman - Huffington Post
03/20/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.

Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands? -- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?

The view, however, founders on its own premises. The reality -- sad or salutary -- is that Jesus was real. And that is the subject of my new book, "Did Jesus Exist?"

It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.

The question is not whether sources are biased but whether biased sources can be used to yield historically reliable information, once their biased chaff is separated from the historical kernel. And historians have devised ways of doing just that.

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the idea that the messiah had to be crucified.

One may well choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the planet -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you -- has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.

Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.
One Eyed Mind
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2014 01:41 pm
@Olivier5,
"In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil"

I hope that pissed off the lunatics for its blunt factual premise.

It's so ******* true, it hurts.

I don't know why we are raising a country on more than 50% who think there's a man in the clouds and more than 50% that don't even know the sun is a ******* star. We might as well have children mortgage our houses; do our yearly taxes, apply us to our jobs, make decisions for our country and so on - that's truly what it has come to today.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2014 01:58 pm
@Olivier5,
Prove it.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2014 02:05 pm
Why discussing the historical existence of Jesus?

Everybody know that this man existed two thousand years ago.

There is plenty of evidence that he walked on earth as a man.

Only sodomites, lesbians, evolutionists, people with an agenda contrary to religion are the ones objecting his existence. These groups reject religion because religion accuses them as dead, incorrect, deluded, perverts, without moral, twisted, wrong, bastards, doo doo, and enemies of what is right.

So, here, in this discussion, the ones denying the existence of Jesus are homosexuals, lesbians or evolutionists, and I guess the majority of them, are homosexuals.

A wild guess.


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 11:25:42