Did Jesus exist?

[Brainache]

You think Mary did not have a sister called Mary?

You take your Apocrypha at face value!!

When was your Apocrypha written? Is it an eyewitness account? Is supported by non-apologetics?

I use the NT and Apocrypha to expose mythology, forgeries, fiction, interpolations and implausibility.

I never take the NT and Apocrypha at face value like you do--they are not history.

Shame you can't get anyone to agree with you though, isn't it?

I think it's because your arguments are stupid.

If you can fix that, you might have a chance.

 

[H'ethetheth]

You think that Mary had a sister called Mary?

You think Mary did not have a sister called Mary?

Who, Marklar? I don't know about Marklar, but Marklar definitely had a Marklar called Marklar.

 

[tsig]

Who, Marklar? I don't know about Marklar, but Marklar definitely had a Marklar called Marklar.

Which means the HJ was Marklar and that James, John and Paul were all Marklars. Christianity is a Marklar of Marklars forming one part of the great Marklar that we are all Marklared of.

 

[HansMustermann]

Shame you can't get anyone to agree with you though, isn't it?

I think it's because your arguments are stupid.

If you can fix that, you might have a chance.

Actually, I see no flaw with his argument that neither the NT nor the apocrypha are really writing history.

 

[Craig B]

Actually, I see no flaw with his argument that neither the NT nor the apocrypha are really writing history.

What he said was

I use the NT and Apocrypha to expose mythology, forgeries, fiction, interpolations and implausibility.
I never take the NT and Apocrypha at face value like you do--they are not history.

That's different from merely not "writing history". Do you accept dejudge's view that the entirety of the NT was intentionally composed as deceitful fiction in the late second or early fourth century, is forged in its totality, and contains no notices of events in the first century? I agree that the gospels are not "writing history" but dejudge's view goes far beyond that.

 

[Brainache]

Actually, I see no flaw with his argument that neither the NT nor the apocrypha are really writing history.

What he said was

I use the NT and Apocrypha to expose mythology, forgeries, fiction, interpolations and implausibility.
I never take the NT and Apocrypha at face value like you do--they are not history.

That's different from merely not "writing history". Do you accept dejudge's view that the entirety of the NT was intentionally composed as deceitful fiction in the late second or early fourth century, is forged in its totality, and contains no notices of events in the first century? I agree that the gospels are not "writing history" but dejudge's view goes far beyond that.

What Craig B said.

 

[AdMan]

Not yet another thread on this. Really?

 

[Craig B]

Not yet another thread on this. Really?

I know. I forget what thread I'm in, but sometimes I feel moved to comment on dejudge's offerings, wherever they may turn up. They are often inscribed in equal lines, or in some similar poetic form, like incantations; they have a hypnotic repetitive quality, like the chanting of a shaman; and occasionally I become disoriented.

 

[HansMustermann]

Do you accept dejudge's view that the entirety of the NT was intentionally composed as deceitful fiction in the late second or early fourth century, is forged in its totality, and contains no notices of events in the first century? I agree that the gospels are not "writing history" but dejudge's view goes far beyond that.

Not necessarily, but since we know that

A) they continued interpolating it way after the second century, and

B) other than some fallacious criteria, it's impossible to tell for certain which parts are, and

C) whenever those gospels may have been written, they're not even mentioned by mainstream Xians until late 2nd century, when nobody can testify for their contents any more, and

D) we have AMPLE evidence that they had no problem inventing stuff from whole cloth, to get their message across, and

E) the very sandwich structure of Mark, which is the primary source for at least Matthew and Luke too, is not what real biographies look like,

... I'd say at least be circumspect of everything inside. While it may not be ALL forgeries, as long as you can't tell which parts of that "evidence" is tampered with, I'd say treat it all as suspect.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Can't say I'm surprised that there aren't any options such as "probably".

Well, I went with "Probably Not". Since its a multi-choice poll, I selected the only statement that I think bears up to critical thinking.... There's not enough evidence. And then I hedged my bets with the way I've been leaning, of late, and that is that he probably never existed. All told, that's as close to "Probably Not" as you can get. So "Probably" could be a "Yes" and a "Not Enough Evidence".

 

[Craig B]

... I'd say at least be circumspect of everything inside. While it may not be ALL forgeries, as long as you can't tell which parts of that "evidence" is tampered with, I'd say treat it all as suspect.

Agreed. I have already explained, repeatedly and exhaustively, why I think some parts of it are more probable than others, but none of it is remotely certain.

 

[Tricky]

Absolutely. He was doing some yardwork for me just last week.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Absolutely. He was doing some yardwork for me just last week.

He does lots of stuff.

 

[tsig]

He does lots of stuff.

Yep,

As a grower of specialty coffee we understand the importance of bean quality in creating the perfect cup. Our roasts and blends are the result of our passion for creating coffees that present their unique and distinctive character in the cup and were developed after many hours spent in the cupping room. We roast coffees separately and in small batches to a profile that brings out their best aroma, body, and brightness. We hope you love our coffee as much as we do. From the Seed to the Cup, we look forward to hearing from you.


http://jesusmountaincoffee.com/product/brasil-decaf/

 

[tsig]

There are several threads currently active on the subject of Jesus existence.

Here is a summation of the major points, many others have been raised but these seem to be the ones that recur.

(HJ = Historical Jesus MJ = Mythical Jesus)



Pro HJ:

Deny Jesus, deny history. The same methods used to verify Jesus are used to verify most of history.


Academic Consensus: Most professors of ancient history agree on an HJ only a lunatic fringe believe in an MJ.

Christianity: You need Jesus to explain the existence of Christianity

Motivation: Insecure atheists need to attack Christianity by denying Jesus

Anti HJ:

John Frum: proves religions can develop without an actual human founder.

Gospel unreliability: we don't know who wrote the gospels or just when they were written, many of the stories are unbelievable.

Academic bias: most of the professors who advocate the HJ are Christian theologians and teach at bible colleges.

Motivation: Some people have rejected Christianity but still have a soft spot in their hearts for Jesus.

 

[maximara]

There were christians ready to die at the hands of Nero in 43ad, rather than recant and deny Jesus. It seems unlikely that people within living memory of Jesus lifetime would be willing to die for a fictional character. So I conclude there was a Jesus.

Flawed argument as shown by the modern Heaven's Gate cult and many other 'the end is near' cults.

 

[maximara]

There's a joke there somewhere about atheists discussing religion. I can't quite figure out the setup, but the punchline is "bad faith".

"Here lies an Atheist. All dressed up and no place to go" -tombstone

 

[mikeb768]

There are several threads currently active on the subject of Jesus existence.

Here is a summation of the major points, many others have been raised but these seem to be the ones that recur.

(HJ = Historical Jesus MJ = Mythical Jesus)



Pro HJ:

Deny Jesus, deny history. The same methods used to verify Jesus are used to verify most of history.


Academic Consensus: Most professors of ancient history agree on an HJ only a lunatic fringe believe in an MJ.

Christianity: You need Jesus to explain the existence of Christianity

Motivation: Insecure atheists need to attack Christianity by denying Jesus

Anti HJ:

John Frum: proves religions can develop without an actual human founder.

Gospel unreliability: we don't know who wrote the gospels or just when they were written, many of the stories are unbelievable.

Academic bias: most of the professors who advocate the HJ are Christian theologians and teach at bible colleges.

Motivation: Some people have rejected Christianity but still have a soft spot in their hearts for Jesus.

Of course Jesus existed. One of the easier ways to determine this is the following:
Did King Herod (a power hungry and murderous man who was known to have killed off members of his own family) exits?
Do the described actions of this man (Matthew 2, GB Ch7-8) match geographical references and also fit the time period as described in the available text?
Is the prophecy which was mentioned in a book over 500 years prior to the birth of Jesus (The book of Jeremiah) therefore fulfilled with utmost accuracy (Jeremiah 31:15, Matthew 2:18)?

The only way that atheists can deny the existence of Jesus is to deny many portions of history, as already mentioned.

But no one should really be surprised by this, as the majority of atheist are not busy looking for the truth/signs which would point them in the direction of God. Most enjoy operating in the realm of willful ignorance, this is despite the age we currently live in where so much information and knowledge can be found just a few clicks away.

 

[rcfieldz]

He does...

 

[Steve]

Of course Jesus existed. One of the easier ways to determine this is the following:
Did King Herod (a power hungry and murderous man who was known to have killed off members of his own family) exits?
Do the described actions of this man (Mark 6:14-29, Matthew 2, GB Ch7-8) match geographical references and also fit the time period as described in the available text?
Is the prophecy which was mentioned in a book over 500 years prior to the birth of Jesus (The book of Jeremiah) therefore fulfilled with utmost accuracy (Jeremiah 31:15, Matthew 2:18)?

The only way that atheists can deny the existence of Jesus is to deny many portions of history, as already mentioned.

But no one should really be surprised by this, as the majority of atheist are not busy looking for the truth/signs which would point them in the direction of God. Most enjoy operating in the realm of willful ignorance, this is despite the age we currently live in where so much information and knowledge can be found just a few clicks away.

Everybody knows that the internet is the best place to search for Jesus! On a whim I just did a search for Jesus.com - he doesn't even have a website.