Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Resume]

Yeah, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel have been known to be untrue.

But I have seen at least two stories on The Discovery Channel that insist that Jesus existed based on first hand historic accounts.

Without studying the issue, and it is not a high priority for me anyway, and given the opportuity to choose between The Discovery Channel and passionate atheists on an internet forum, which do YOU think I would side with since I regard atheism as just another faith complete with its single-minded preachers?

Well, I hope you wouldn't put too much stock in a fifth-rate basic cable venue that broadcasts whatever sells advertising.

 

[Resume]

The story of Jesus is completely different in that we have thousands of accounts giving exact details of His life within 30 years of His crucifixion. In the next 100 years after His death, there are thousands of references to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.

No.

 

[RandFan]

Do you think it strange that every one of the many passages about Jesus' existence is questioned by the skeptics? An objective investigator would conclude that if there were so many testimonies that corroborated each other in minute detail then the testimony must be accurate to a greatt degree.

Bill, what was significant was that there was a movement that belived in a man named Jesus. Please look at the dates of your historians. They WEREN'T even born until after Christ was born. Even if we grant them to you they are in effect reporting on the belief in the man and heresay.

And can you provide some sources rather than copy and paste from an apologist site?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Bill, what was significant was that there was a movement that belived in a man named Jesus. Please look at the dates of your historians. They WEREN'T even born until after Christ was born. Even if we grant them to you they are in effect reporting on the belief in the man and heresay.

And can you provide some sources rather than copy and paste from an apologist site?

If I see a program or read an article that seems believable, maybe I will change my mind. For now, all I have to go on is two TV programs that seemed credible and scientific that insisted Jesus must have existed VS. some atheists on the Internet whom I wonder why they waste their time on such a meaningless pursuit.

 

[Resume]

If I see a program or read an article that seems believable, maybe I will change my mind. For now, all I have to go on is two TV programs that seemed credible and scientific that insisted Jesus must have existed VS. some atheists on the Internet whom I wonder why they waste their time on such a meaningless pursuit.

Truth means something.

 

[Cavemonster]

Yeah, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel have been known to be untrue.

But I have seen at least two stories on The Discovery Channel that insist that Jesus existed based on first hand historic accounts.

I think you might be misremembering these stories. Even within your own references, every historian was born at best only a few years before Jesus was supposedly crucified, so we're absolutely not talking about first hand accounts, that would be impossible.

 

[RandFan]

If I see a program or read an article that seems believable, maybe I will change my mind. For now, all I have to go on is two TV programs that seemed credible and scientific that insisted Jesus must have existed VS. some atheists on the Internet whom I wonder why they waste their time on such a meaningless pursuit.

• Because we care about the truth.
• Because we know that TV is notorious for getting it wrong. James Randi documents many, many incidents of getting it wrong.
• Because there is very good evidence and reason to suppose that Jesus perhaps did not exist.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

The conjecture that Jesus did not exist was popular for about 25-50 years at the end of the last century. Since that time, even the most skeptical liberal historians have admitted that Jesus was a real person.

Rubbish.
Please stop preaching false claims.

There is no current credible scholar who makes your claim.

Rubbish.
You just dismiss those who do (e.g. Price, Doherty) as not "credible".
Perfectly circular.

The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the first century is overwhelming.

Rubbish.
It is scarce and late and controversial.

Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians.

Rubbish.
There are NO historical records of Jesus.
Just LATER records of BELIEF in Jesus.
A great pity you can't tell the difference.

• Tacitus in his Annals (c.115 A.D.) mentions that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Rubbish.
Please READ the posts made here Bill, instead of just ignoring them, then posting nonsense long since discussed.


TACITUS (c.112CE)

Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:

• Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.

• Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)

• This passage is paraphrased by Sulpicius Severus in the 5th century without attributing it to Tacitus, and may have been inserted back into Tacitus from this work.

This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records -
but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.)

... and gives detailed descriptions of Nero’s persecutions — which are also alluded to in several places in the New Testament.

So what?
Nero's persecutions have NOTHING to do with Jesus - why did you bring that up?

The correspondence between Pliny the younger and the Roman Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.) corroborates the New Testament history including the persecution of the Christians under the Emperor Nero.

Persecutions again? So what? No evidence for Jesus in Pliny.


PLINY the Younger (c.112CE)

About 80 years after the alleged events, (and over 40 years after the war) Pliny referred to Christians who worshipped a "Christ" as a god, but there is no reference to a historical Jesus or Gospel events.

• Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.), the first century Jewish historian, makes mention of Jesus,

*Yawn*

JOSEPHUS (c.96CE)

The famous Testamonium Flavianum (the T.F.) in the Antiquities of the Jews is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems :

• the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the devout Jew Josephus (who remained a Jew and refused to call anyone "messiah" in his book which was partly about how false messiahs kept leading Israel astray.),

• The T.F. comes in several variant versions of various ages,

• The T.F. was not mentioned by any of the early CHurch fathers who reviewed Josephus.

• Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

• The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century.

• The other tiny passage in Josephus refers to Jesus, son of Damneus. The phrase "so-called Christ" may have been a later addition by a Christian who also mis-understood which Jesus was refered to.

Recent scholarship has indicated that at least most if not all of Josephus' mention of Jesus authentic.

Rubbish.
The consensus is that it is either :
• tampered with
• completely forged

There is essentially NO scholarly suppport for the beliefe it is totally authentic.

Other references to New Testament figures corrroborate the Christian Gospel writers.

Rubbish.
There is NO historical evidence for the Gospel characters - historical figures added into the story have NOTHING to say about Jesus or the Gospel events.

On The Travel Channel, they mention that John the Baptist's grave was later dug up and the bones were decorated and passed from one leader to the next and are now in a Turkish Museum.

Hahahaha !
Oh wait - you BELIEVED that? wow....

So there is physical evidence of John the Baptist, but you say his first cousin, Jesus is a myth?

Rubbish.
There is no evidence for JtB, OR Jesus.
None.

That is a conspiracy theory.

Rubbish.
You don't know what "conspiracy" even means - but you think you can win an argument by smearing it with this silly phrase.

That goes against Occom's[sic] Razor.

Rubbish.
Occam's (or Ockham, NOT Occom) razor supports a mythical Jesus.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

Ah, so when you are losing, you just call your opponents "retard(s)."
Pathetic.


K.

 

[RandFan]

Turns out ghosts are real. Who knew?

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ghost-lab/
http://www.syfy.com/ghosthunters/

Aliens with anal probes
Psychics
Folks who talk to the dead. If it's on TV then it's true (I mean, they wouldn't lie, right?).

 

[Bill Thompson]

Gday,

Rubbish.
You just dismiss those who do (e.g. Price, Doherty) as not "credible".
Perfectly circular.



Rubbish.
It is scarce and late and controversial.

People who believe jfk shot by the mob say that Posner's book is rubbish. How is this any different?

 

[Bill Thompson]

Turns out ghosts are real. Who knew?

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ghost-lab/
http://www.syfy.com/ghosthunters/

Aliens with anal probes
Psychics
Folks who talk to the dead. If it's on TV then it's true (I mean, they wouldn't lie, right?).

I joke with my son that the Discovery Channel is science for rednecks. Are there any, say, PBS, programs that talk about Jesus not existing? How about The Science Channel?

This is obviously a big deal for you.

It is not for me.

Since you are spending time debating the existence of a 2000 year old rabbi and you insist that he did not exist, I have to conclude you are driven by what you want to belief. There is some sort of "wouldn't it be cool" factor here.

People from Texas are passionate over the belief that organized crime, rather than a fellow Texan blew the brains out of a US president. That belief serves what they desire to be true. This looks like the same sort of thing to me.

 

[Buckyball]

How about this. Why? Why convince you Jesus existed? What benefit is there to be gained either way?

Well, that depends on each person, doesn't it?

I heard he's kind of an important guy to some people

 

[RandFan]

Since you are spending time debating the existence of a 2000 year old rabbi and you insist that he did not exist, I have to conclude you are driven by what you want to belief. There is some sort of "wouldn't it be cool" factor here.

Let's accept your premise for a moment. I'm debunking your claims. And presumably this is you, Bill, debating with me, right?

Okay, I'm spending time debating.
You are spending time debating.

Why? If I'm here to "be cool", why are YOU here? I suppose it's the pure love of Christ or something?

I'm here because I care about the truth. And please note, I didn't fall back on ad hominem. I don't need to call people "retards" (which is real christian. real class Bill) or attack people. I leave that to the theists who are here for pure reasons.

 

[Buckyball]

Asd for Tacitus, he made ONE mention of Jesus which seems to contain no historical insight or any histoprical citation.

As for Nero, Tacitus has been shown to be completely istaken, considering the dates he cites,. there simply were not that many Christians in Judea, much less in Rome, at the supposed time to which Tacitus refers.

tacitus was an imperial author, and he knew when to toe the line.

 

[Buckyball]

<<Do you think it strange that every one of the many passages about Jesus' existence is questioned by the skeptics?>>

Um, if they weren't, then these people would not be skeptics.

i find it a LOT more strange that you focus so much energy on this ad hominem fallacy than you do on providing information which reassures skeptics.

All you can present is anecdotal (and very inconsistent, I might add) evidence, which would be wholly unconvincing even to you if this were any other subject.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Humm, Jesus Christ never existed? I will put studying this on my To Do List right after my job, my family, my health, and trying to start my own business.

Either way, it does not matter or mean anything. Does the nonexistance or existance mean something to you? If something so meaningless has meaning to you, I have to suspect this meaning is driving your belief.

Some few people on an internet forum is low on the cred gague, even if that is somewhat true with The Discovery Channel.

 

[catsmate]

The conjecture that Jesus did not exist was popular for about 25-50 years at the end of the last century. Since that time, even the most skeptical liberal historians have admitted that Jesus was a real person. There is no current credible scholar who makes your claim.

Wow. I assume you'll be providing proof for this assertion? Though I also I assume that anyone who does propound this theory will not meet your "credible scholar" criteria in a classic No True Scotsman maneuver.

The evidence that Jesus lived in Judea in the first century is overwhelming.

Is this some new meaning for "overwhelming" of which I am not aware? I know English is a living language but I was unaware that "overwhelming" had become a synonym for "non-existent".

Jesus was a historical person recorded by Christian, Jewish and pagan historians.

All of these have been dealt with elsewhere. To summarise:

• Tacitus: referred to an element of xian belief
• Pliny the younger: referred to xians
• Josephus: well known forgery

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content.

What a wonderful example of reasoned argument from an xian.

 

[RandFan]

Humm, Jesus Christ never existed? I will put studying this on my To Do List right after my job, my family, my health, and trying to start my own business.

Either way, it does not matter or mean anything. Does the nonexistance or existance mean something to you? If something so meaningless has meaning to you, I have to suspect this meaning is driving your belief.

Some few people on an internet forum is low on the cred gague, even if that is somewhat true with The Discovery Channel.

You still never answered why you are here? Do you imagine in your head that we spend every moment of our lives arguing that Christ never existed? Really?

I think that perhaps your suspicions say far more about you than they do of us.

 

[Bill Thompson]

You still never answered why you are here?

i think of something fun to ask you and I wonder how you will respond. I am a little upset that some of my cousins are conspiracy theory buffs. Since I cannot act out my frusturatoin on them, I redirect to you.

Did Peter exist? If not, who is the first bishop of Rome burried under the vatican?

Did John the Baptist exist? If not, whose skeleton is thought of as him in Turkey?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Do you think it strange that every one of
the many passages about Jesus' existence is questioned by the skeptics?

No.
It is normal and proper to question, check, and evaluate claims - especially religious claims.
What's strange is YOU thinking it's normal NOT to question!

Do you believe the claims of Scientologists without question, Bill?

An objective investigator would conclude that if there were so many testimonies that corroborated each other in minute detail then the testimony must be accurate to a greatt degree.

That's the problem - the DON'T corroborate each other in minute detail at all.

The Gospel stories often differ - especially the birth and easter stories.

The birth stories are 10 years apart in different Gospels. The to-and-fro between Egypt and Bethlehem etc. is completely different.

The genealogies surely are proof of historical accuracy ?
Nope - different.

What about the Last Supper ?
Nope - John has NO formal Last Supper meal.

The crucifixion date ?
Nope - Gospel of John has Jesus crucified the day BEFORE Passover (which is why he has no formal Last Supper.)
Different.

What about the alleged LAST WORDS of Jesus ?
Nope. Different (!)

Lord's Prayer?
Different.
What? The Lord's Prayer? Allegedly taught from Jesus' very mouth unto the ears of the actual apostles, right? Surely that would be accurately remembered word for word, perfectly, right? The famous "oral culture" would ensure it was preserved EXACTLY, right?
Wrong.
Even two Gospels have different versions, the early Christian work the Didakhe has another version - many other MSS have different versions too - many of them. In fact the Lord's Prayer is one of the most VARIANT parts of the entire N.T.

What about the actual WORDS of GOD himself at the Baptism?
Surely they must be known and recorded and passed on perfectly, right, Bill ?
Nope - initially the Gospels had "on this day have I begotten thee". But it later became dogma that Jesus was eternal and from the beginning etc. so that had to go. So the passage was CHANGED to "in thee I am well pleased".
There we see that Christian dogma could have even the words of GOD changed to suit their changing human religious beliefs. This is clearly myths, not history of any kind.

Easter Sunday ?
Anyone who has considered Dan Berker's Easter Challenge :
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/stone.php
will know that the Easter stories are completely contradictory. And they GROW in the telling - from one man to an angel to TWO angels and an earthquake. By the the later Gospel of Peter the story had grown to include an enormous fiery cross that marched out of the tomb behind a triumphant Jesus!


So, dear Reader - there we see the consequences of NOT QUESTIONING.

Bill doesn't seem to question the Jesus stories at all - so he actually seems to believe the Gospels "corroborate each other in minute detail".

But anyone who actually questions - who checks and evaluates with a sceptical eye - will see that the Gospels do the opposite. They CONTRADICT each other - in ways that make it clear it is NOT history, but religious mythology.

Not a "conspiracy" or a "lie" or a "fraud".
But Religious Myths - grand and meanignful stories - true at a deeper level.



Kapyong