Reply
Wed 16 Aug, 2006 05:08 pm
A new forum that just opened to discuss the historicity of Jesus.
edit: Link removed by Moderator
I wonder how long the link will last.
My guess is 24 hours...who's got 48 hours? Want to start a a pool?
Your under estimating the power of idiots! Even as an agnostic i say thats the stupidest claim ever.
Hey! There's some good stuff on that website. Like this:
Quote:My boyfriend just told me he doesn't think Jesus really exists <snip> I find it really hard to believe that Jesus didn't exist. Do you think my boyfriend is just trying to get me to have premarital sex with me?
The advice: Don't forget to use the Holy Condom.
EpiNirvana wrote:Your under estimating the power of idiots! Even as an agnostic i say thats the stupidest claim ever.
I assume you have evidence of the historical existance of the putative jesus?
If not, this statement is downright foolish wouldn't you think?
I, for one, have never seen a shred of evidence to support the historical existance of a real flesh and blood biblical jesus.
Doktor S wrote:EpiNirvana wrote:Your under estimating the power of idiots! Even as an agnostic i say thats the stupidest claim ever.
I assume you have evidence of the historical existance of the putative jesus?
If not, this statement is downright foolish wouldn't you think?
I, for one, have never seen a shred of evidence to support the historical existance of a real flesh and blood biblical jesus.
Eyewitness accounts not good enough for you, eh DS?
Perhaps, since you consider yourself to be god, you just don't like the idea of competition.
The Jews, who as a group would historically have had the most to 'gain' by 'proving' Jesus never existed, and who also would be in the best proximity to the evidence etc to maintain such a claim have (strangely) never adopted that strategy.
Hmmmmm. Wonder why?
I would imagine most Jewish rabbis even today would laugh at you if you try to seriously suggest that you don't think Jesus ever existed.
Nice tirade....anywhoo...
I suppose you, 'real life', have some sort of historical evidence of the existance of jesus you would like to produce? I'd love to see it.
Doktor S wrote:Nice tirade....anywhoo...
I suppose you, 'real life', have some sort of historical evidence of the existance of jesus you would like to produce? I'd love to see it.
hi 'DS'
Ever read the New Testament? Eyewitness accounts.
And don't give me that tired 'but that's
in the Bible' routine.
When the books were written, they weren't
in the Bible.
The decision to publish them together in one volume happened years after they were written. Comprende?
---------------------
And btw, why DO you suppose (besides the part about it being a completely unsupportable proposition, that is) the Jews have never taken the position that Jesus never existed?
I heard Jesus was an excellent carpenter. Why do we never see coffee tables made by him?
I find your tired and decrepit argument concerning what 'the jews' would have done to be irrelevant. Two of your 'eyewitness accounts' were probably copied from the other two, which are specious at best, as is any dogma in which a ruling church body has a vested interest.
The bible, to put it bluntly, is bullshit.
Where are the secular accounts? There were many historians and contemporary writers in the times and places jesus would have been, why do you suppose no mention is made? Surely one so controversial as 'biblical jesus' would have been worth at least a passing mention somewhere?
Does not the fact that the jesus myth mirrors many older god man myths in many respects to be suspect? I find it highly plausible, even likely, that the jesus character was mostly created, a compilation of myths and legends of the time.. There may have been a person apon which this character is loosely based, but loosely is probably an understatement.
fairy tales can come true
So what does it prove about what is really true and actually existed that a book called "the bible" claims to have eye witnesses to some event? Why do you feel, therefore, because it's printed in the bible that it must be true? No matter what it says in the bible, that is not bona fide proof anything except someone's literary abilities.
Methuselah is supposed to be 800-900 years of age. Yes, and the thing about Moses tieing his ass to a tree and walking 20 miles into town...now C'MON!
Let's suppose I'm an esteemed author of my day...or better yet a committee of authors and we decide to write a book. They wanted to write about some great stories to guide people with some morals and center these stories around a neat guy who they cooked up so that people would "do the right thing". This neat guy was really charitable and followed a straight and narrow path,...etc. Now where in this fairy tale is there actual proof of Jesus Christ's the supernatural being existence in history?
Doktor S wrote:I find your tired and decrepit argument concerning what 'the jews' would have done to be irrelevant. Two of your 'eyewitness accounts' were probably copied from the other two, which are specious at best, as is any dogma in which a ruling church body has a vested interest.
The bible, to put it bluntly, is bullshit.
Where are the secular accounts? There were many historians and contemporary writers in the times and places jesus would have been, why do you suppose no mention is made? Surely one so controversial as 'biblical jesus' would have been worth at least a passing mention somewhere?
Does not the fact that the jesus myth mirrors many older god man myths in many respects to be suspect? I find it highly plausible, even likely, that the jesus character was mostly created, a compilation of myths and legends of the time.. There may have been a person apon which this character is loosely based, but loosely is probably an understatement.
Since speaking or writing about Jesus was quickly made a punishable offense by the Jewish ruling council --- flogging, jail or worse might be a few of the reasons why nobody had a 'passing reason' to write about Him.
If you wrote about Him, you were putting yourself in for trouble.
Matthew, John, Peter and James were all eyewitnesses who wrote of Jesus. Who are you saying copied from who?
By your logic, the only 'reliable' account of Jesus would have to come from someone who did NOT believe in Him at all -- an 'unbiased' source? Hardly.
Quote:
By your logic, the only 'reliable' account of Jesus would have to come from someone who did NOT believe in Him at all -- an 'unbiased' source? Hardly.
Hardly indeed.
I'd settle for anyone not part of the cult.
btw romans weren't subject to 'jewish law', where are the roman accounts of jesus?
"The Jewish ruling council ? ! ? ! ?"
You just make this **** up as you go along, "real life." Palestine was a Roman prefectory province, a sub-province of Syria. The "Jewish ruling council" to which you refer simply did not exist. The authority of any Jew in Palestine ended at that point at which it crossed a Roman path. For most of the first century of this era, the Jews were plotting to rebel or actually attempting rebellion against the Romans. The suggestion that there were any powerful, controlling Jewish council in Palestine is pathetic and a lie.
Doktor S wrote:Quote:
By your logic, the only 'reliable' account of Jesus would have to come from someone who did NOT believe in Him at all -- an 'unbiased' source? Hardly.
Hardly indeed.
I'd settle for anyone not part of the cult.
btw romans weren't subject to 'jewish law', where are the roman accounts of jesus?
According to Setanta and others, Christians were so insignificant as to be hardly noticed at all by the Romans.
So you really can't have it both ways.
Are they insignificant, or are they important enough that Roman historians should have taken note?
In the first century of our era, Christians did not even call themselves Christians. The Romans knew about Jews, and to them, people you would call Christians were just more Jews. The Zealots were attempting to foment rebellion against the Romans throughout the period in which the putative Jesus was alleged to have lived. There were a few cohorts of Roman troops scattered about in Palestine, to keep a lid on the nut cases. For Pilate to have brought any significant body of troops into Palestine, and particularly into Jerusalem at Passover, he'd have had to have acquired the authority of the Governor of Syria, who had military control of the region. The contention that the putative Jesus was alleged by the Sanhedrin to have been a dangerous rebel who needed to be apprehended and executed by the Romans is highly unlikely, and no record of such an event exists in the records which the Romans kept, and they were damned good at keeping records and covering their asses.
You just make this **** up. There is no external, independantly created and unquestioned record that any such individual existed, and the extraordinary events claimed to have occured, and in particular in Passover week in Jerusalem, alleging an eminent rebellion, is without authorization.
Don't post nonsense about what i do or don't say. I'm more than capable of, and very likely to speak for myself. No, the "Christians" of the first century of this area were not noticed by the Romans--and therefore there are no Roman records of this nonsense, and therefore, Dok's call for a source outside the cult is a significant refutation of any claim that there is an historical basis for alleging that the putative Jesus existed.
Your "logic" is as poor as your historical knowledge--which is to say, non-existant.
Setanta wrote:No, the "Christians" of the first century of this area were not noticed by the Romans--and therefore there are no Roman records of this nonsense,
I certainly would agree with this statement Set, but then you confuse me when you go on to say the following.
Setanta wrote:therefore, Dok's call for a source outside the cult is a significant refutation of any claim that there is an historical basis for alleging that the putative Jesus existed.
If admittedly the Romans paid no attention to the "Christians" of first century Palestine to the point of not recording small incidences such as the existence of some crucified preacher, then Dok's claim of non-existence based on a lack of Roman records is pointless and has no meaning since by your own words the Romans did not take notice of this cult.
Or am I missing something in what you were saying?
Thanks
Setanta wrote:"The Jewish ruling council ? ! ? ! ?"
You just make this **** up as you go along, "real life." Palestine was a Roman prefectory province, a sub-province of Syria. The "Jewish ruling council" to which you refer simply did not exist. The authority of any Jew in Palestine ended at that point at which it crossed a Roman path. For most of the first century of this era, the Jews were plotting to rebel or actually attempting rebellion against the Romans. The suggestion that there were any powerful, controlling Jewish council in Palestine is pathetic and a lie.
The Jewish ruling council would be the Sanhedrin, Set. Of course, they were no longer a factor after 70 CE.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace