Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Bill Thompson]

I can understand your desire to brush aside Mainstream Christianity just as easily as Mormonism is brushed aside and debunked, riddiculed, considered absured and silly, etc.. But instead of just one Joesph-Smith-like you have 13. And instead of trying to find a way to weasel out of a death sentence like Smith did by concealing a weapon and using it, you have each one of these people gladly willing to die for being a Christian.

Each disciple claimed to have known and spoke with Christ personally and they each died, more or less, in a different country or region trying to get the new religion kicked off. If it was all a scam, it is unlikely. They had no way of knowing if the other had kept their story straight, if they were all lying. None denounced their faith while they were being tortured, unlike Smith who tried to get out of getting shot by doing that dumbass mason call.

The idea that there is not some living and breathing human being at the cause of the early Christian movement is not a plausible idea. But I understand how fun it is to suppose it is true. I am sure lots of conspiracy theorist get glee and joy out of their suppositions.

 

[Buckyball]

Isn't it odd that Jesus didn't write anything down, nor did anyone who knew him write anything down while he was alive and performing his "miraculous" deeds?

we have mountains of evidence of the existence of Aristotle... Socrates.. Plato... DESPITE the fact that hey lived centuries before the alleged time of Jesus.

It would be false to say, "there is no compelling evidence concerning Jesus's existence". in fact, this is a case where the absence of evidence IS compelling evidence.

The evidence we have (or lack thereof) is consistent with the idea that Jesus did not exist.

 

[Bill Thompson]

And you know this because?

Much worse. We don't even know if they existed.

How did Christianity get kicked off at such far flung regions of the planet if people did not go out there.

No one is burried under the vatican? Hummm.... the conspiracy widens! That sounds all too familiar. That sounds like just about every other conspiracy.

 

[Buckyball]

"I can understand your desire to brush aside Mainstream Christianity"

Rigght, of course. Demanding the sort of evidence we would demand in the most trivial of situations is some "attack" on Christianity now, how predictable.

Funny, when I asked my math professors to "prove" the validity of certain theorems to me, they didn't see it as an attack on mathematics. When I asked my sociology professor to "prove" some trends he purported to be true, she didn't bristle or attack me with ad hominem; she concisely and clearly stated her evidence, which consisted of much more than anecdotal evidence.

When I asked the Pet Store to "prove" my new puppy had a championship bloodline, they didn't act like their feelings were hurt; they produced a pedigree.

You are hurting your own arguments with this behavior.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Isn't it odd that Jesus didn't write anything down, nor did anyone who knew him write anything down while he was alive and performing his "miraculous" deeds?
.

Put the miraculous deeds on the shelf.

Someone wrote down the Q gospel. There was probably an appointed scribe just as Christ said his teachings and that is where the Q gospel came from.

Are we debating the deeds? Wow, what a freaking waste of time this is!? I did not know that we were discussing the existance of magic here. If we are, I have entered the wrong door.

 

[Bill Thompson]

"I can understand your desire to brush aside Mainstream Christianity"

Rigght, of course. Demanding the sort of evidence we would demand in the most trivial of situations is some "attack" on Christianity now, how predictable.

Funny, when I asked my math professors to "prove" the validity of certain theorems to me, they didn't see it as an attack on mathematics.

Dude, what are you talking about?

Suddenly I am supposed to prove something? What are you talking about !?!?!

It is like you picked up a telephone while two people are talking and you are guessing where people stand without hearing the whole conversation.

 

[Buckyball]

" There was probably an appointed scribe just as Christ said his teachings "

ha, just inventing stuff again with no evidence? may I refer you, please, to the first post in this thread again?

I can come up with many explanations for why the Sun rises in the East, many of which include earth-centric universes, flat Earths, and special Gods.

Of course, that's all nonsense without EVIDENCE.

"are we debating the deeds?"

Nope, but the alleged import of Jesus , with or without the miraculous deeds, does make one wonder why there was no mention of him in contemporary historic records. And, since the "historians" you looove to cite ALSO claim that he DID perform miracles, then YOU are the one who made that fair game buddy.

 

[Brainache]

I'm with Bob. I don't give a damn if he did exist. I only care when people state categorically about something that we haven't sufficient evidence. If people said that from the evidence they THINK he did, well fine, I'll shut up. I like Hitchens' argument that there were too many obvious lies about the guy. Like the lie that he was from Nazareth. Why tell that bit of nonsense if you could make it up whole cloth? Some have argued that the entire story wasn't invented together and at some point the scribes had to reconcile the text and had to make decisions as to the best way to do so.

I don't know myself but I'm here waiting for the evidence. Of course the silly little unlettered faith promoting rumors Bill keeps demanding prove something prove absolutely nothing.

The way I've seen it explained as to why it is so difficult to provide the evidence that all those "Jesus was real" Scholars use is: You need to be very familiar with the history and archeology of the ancient Near East, textual analysis and first century Judaism amongst other things to even begin to understand it. When you learn all of that stuff and apply it to the relevant texts, apparently a Historical Jesus makes more sense than the alternatives.

It is a bit pointless asking for evidence when that evidence consists of several thousand pages on paleography and/or the concept of the rights and obligations of Jews living under Imperial Roman law or something.

I have also seen this position described as a cop-out.

I don't know.

 

[RandFan]

How did Christianity get kicked off at such far flung regions of the planet if people did not go out there.

I didn't say NO ONE went. I said we have no way to know if they were the people you think they were.

No one is burried under the vatican?

I've no idea. It's not my job to prove your claim. If there is someone berried there prove it's who you say it is.

Hummm.... the conspiracy widens! That sounds all too familiar. That sounds like just about every other conspiracy.

By your logic Joseph Smith was a prophet of god because it's impossible to lie or have a conspiracy? Widen? NO! A small conspiracy or even one person could have spread the lie.

 

[Buckyball]

"Suddenly I am supposed to prove something? "

Nope, ONE shred of compelling evidence will do just fine. And no, the anecdotal evidence you have presented does not count.

maybe you missed the thread title?

 

[Buckyball]

You don't have to "prove" anything to me. You can just convince me with the weight of the evidence.

So... shoot!

 

[Craig B]

Bill Thompson

Beneath the surface in Rome there are innumerable tombs. The Vatican "Peter" tomb (one of many tombs found under that church) is probably as authentic as the rubbish palmed off on Constantine's credulous mother Helena in Jerusalem as the True Cross, and other such phoney junk. So it's ridiculous to say with certainty, as you do:

Peter is burried under the vatican. I guess he could have lied and made up his imagionary friend, Jesus, whom he claimed to have known first-hand.

because we also read in a guide to holy relics in Rome:

http://goitaly.about.com/od/romeattractions/tp/rome-relics.htm

Saint Peter's Basilica: The "Mother Church" was built upon the tomb of St. Peter, the church's first Pope. St. Peter's Tomb is located directly below the altar in crypt. ...
The Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano is Rome's cathedral, the seat of Christiandom in Rome. ... There are six papal tombs inside. The papal altar is said to contain many relics, including the heads of Saints Peter and Paul ...

But two papal churches = two sets of Peter relics. Makes sense in a strange medieval Christian way.

So Kapyong, your "chicken bones, even bones of two humans - but NO head" was a REQUIREMENT of the pious excavators: http://www.hissheep.org/catholic/the_bones_of_peter.html

There was no skull. This absence of the remains of Peter's head did not disturb Pius XII or the excavators, on the contrary, it actually confirmed one of the great traditions of the medieval church. All those present, the Pope and the excavators, knew that a skull in the basilica of Saint John Lateran since at least the ninth century, was widely believed to be that of Peter. Obviously, the skull had been taken from this grave at some stage in the early medieval period to adorn the parish church of the Pope himself.

 

[RandFan]

The way I've seen it explained as to why it is so difficult to provide the evidence that all those "Jesus was real" Scholars use is: You need to be very familiar with the history and archeology of the ancient Near East, textual analysis and first century Judaism amongst other things to even begin to understand it. When you learn all of that stuff and apply it to the relevant texts, apparently a Historical Jesus makes more sense than the alternatives.

It is a bit pointless asking for evidence when that evidence consists of several thousand pages on paleography and/or the concept of the rights and obligations of Jews living under Imperial Roman law or something.

I have also seen this position described as a cop-out.

I don't know.

I'm not new to any of that. However, my understanding is that the trend among scholars is in the direction that Jesus did not live. For a long time Scholars accepted that Christ said and did the things attributed to him. The trend started to grow against it now the consensus is that little attributed to Christ is true. It takes time for scholars to let go of conventional wisdom. Confirmation bias is a bitch.

Hey, I honestly don't know but if I had to place a bet today it would be that in the not too distant future the idea of a historical Jesus will be as valid as a historical King Arthur.

 

[RandFan]

I can understand your desire to brush aside Mainstream Christianity just as easily as Mormonism is brushed aside and debunked, riddiculed, considered absured and silly, etc.. But instead of just one Joesph-Smith-like you have 13.

And we can't verify they even existed. We have no first hand accounts of them. We only know some people spread the religion like Mormonism. You use special pleading to malign and belittle Mormonism but close your eyes when it comes to the truth of Christianity.

....you have each one of these people gladly willing to die for being a Christian.

Why do you believe that? Why should I believe that? Why should anyone believe it? The Mormon church white washed their history. Why is it impossible for the Catholic Church to white wash their history.

Each disciple claimed to have known and spoke with Christ personally and they each died

HERESAY! You have no proof that your claim is true.

more or less, in a different country or region trying to get the new religion kicked off.

Mormons who claimed to see Jesus and perform miracles kicked off Mormonism all over the world. But you dismiss that using special pleading.

If it was all a scam, it is unlikely.

Mormonism was unlikely? It was a scam? You can't have it both ways.

They had no way of knowing if the other had kept their story straight, if they were all lying. None denounced their faith while they were being tortured, unlike Smith who tried to get out of getting shot by doing that dumbass mason call.

We don't even know what the hell their story was. You have no first hand accounts. You have hearsay of hearsay of hearsay. Funny that you have to attack Smith. The Mormon Church doesn't have that in their history. The Catholic Church had ABSOLUTE control over their history. They could torture and murder their enemies. If the Mormon Church had the power of the Catholic Church and control of kings you would never have heard of Joseph Smiths gun.

The idea that there is not some living and breathing human being at the cause of the early Christian movement is not a plausible idea. But I understand how fun it is to suppose it is true.

Sure it is, it happened all over the world. Mormonism, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Protestants, etc., etc..

I am sure lots of conspiracy theorist get glee and joy out of their suppositions.

By your logic Mormonism proves CT.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

The way I've seen it explained as to why it is so difficult to provide the evidence that all those "Jesus was real" Scholars use is: You need to be very familiar with the history and archeology of the ancient Near East, textual analysis and first century Judaism amongst other things to even begin to understand it. When you learn all of that stuff and apply it to the relevant texts, apparently a Historical Jesus makes more sense than the alternatives.

It is a bit pointless asking for evidence when that evidence consists of several thousand pages on paleography and/or the concept of the rights and obligations of Jews living under Imperial Roman law or something.

I have also seen this position described as a cop-out.

I don't know.

This still requires the bible as a cornerstone given that the bible is the only text that mentions Jesus.

I'm honestly not sure what a pages long report on paleontology and culture of the time is going to add to the discussion when that argument still comes down to assertions that "these people wouldn't just make these stories up out of whole cloth because that's just not the kind of people they were". And we're supposed to believe that, and ignore that for as long as there has been civilization, there has been the con-man.

ETA: And we still have the issue of the primary (and really only) sources are not contemporaries of Jesus. The majority of the authors of the NT never even proclaimed to have actually met the man they're writing about and devoted to. Not exactly compelling evidence, IMO.

 

[RandFan]

Someone wrote down the Q gospel. There was probably an appointed scribe just as Christ said his teachings and that is where the Q gospel came from.

No. Bible scholars do not believe this nonsense.

Are we debating the deeds? Wow, what a freaking waste of time this is!? I did not know that we were discussing the existance of magic here. If we are, I have entered the wrong door.

If the deeds are nonsense then why is it so hard to believe that it is all nonsense? Yeah, the deeds are rather important.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Comedian Dana Carvey (sp?) had a funny bit about what it would have taken for OJ Simpson to be innocent. He went through imitating all the persons who had to be in on the conspiracy to plant evidence and what it would take to pull it off. Dana said "frame OJ? But I like OJ? But, the conspiracy is too good to pass up. Count me in!"

It seems unlikely that a a movement as big as Christianity to have been started without some living person at the heart of it. So many people would of had to had said "sacrifice my life starting a fake religion? But I like my life! But you are right, the conspiracy is too exciting to pass up. Count me in !!".

Another analogy is the moon landing hoax conspiracy. If the moon landings never happened, the Russians would have known about it. Likewise, if Jesus was just made up, the Jews would have blew the whistle on the scam. Instead Jesus is mentioned in Jewish text (albeit not very favorably). I think if the very existance of the man was a scam, the Jews had the means to have figured that out and they would have made an issue of it.

If mainstream historians rally around the idea that the man was entirely a lie, I will like to hear that. For now it seems like an idea on the lunatic fringe.

And RandiFan seems to have a special interest in convincing himself and others. If I had been a Mormon, I might feel the same way.

 

[Bill Thompson]

No. Bible scholars do not believe this nonsense.

Uh huh. You know you are giving me flash-backs back when I was living with a Mormon family and they told me all that they believe. For me to accept Mormonism, a lof of things I had learned over my life from credible sources would have to be a lie such as History, Biology, Genetics, Human Origins... Likewise, for me to buy all the suprising things I have only heard from you, I would have to dismiss a lot of things I have learned. It is another huge pill to swallow. There is no such thing at the Q gospel? Is this what you are saying? The word-for-word exact quotes from Christ that are in all four traditional gospels are just coincidence and Bible scholars all think this way. Wow, dude, that is news to me.

 

[BrianX]

I have argued for some time that it's trivial to assert that there was a historical Jesus. Nobody special, just some guy who moved from cosmopolitan Galilee to uber-Jewish Judea and found that nothing there really jibed with what he'd been brought up with (don't forget, they raised pigs in Galilee -- that'd probably be unheard of in Judea). He found a girlfriend named Maryam and a bunch of friends who agreed with his message of "lighten up and treat each other with respect even if you hate them". Those friends, including his brother (and probably Maryam), were the core of the early Christian church until Paul came along. Said historical Jesus wound up crucified for inciting a riot on the Temple Mount. All of this comes under "sure, why not, Paul probably didn't pull the whole thing out of thin air". There are glimpses of this historical Jesus buried in the Gospels, though since this Jesus was of no particular importance in his life, it's still a "sure why not". I'd guess Paul's church or a Gnostic group was the one that wound up attaching all the Messianic imagery to him.

What I find odd is the necessity of some atheists to prove somehow that Jesus never existed. It's a fool's errand because the existence of a historical personage behind the stories doesn't really make any difference as to whether the doctrine is true or not. Paul Bunyan may have actually existed, may have been a really tall lumberjack, and might have owned an oddly colored pet bull; he almost certainly wouldn't have been an actual giant, and he obviously didn't carve the Grand Canyon. (Please note that I actually don't know anything about the Paul Bunyan backstory; it's just a hypothetical.) It is... fascinating... how people go to such lengths to deny the existence of Jesus when it doesn't even make any sense to consider the question absent actual evidence of fabrication.

I'm an atheist. I believe Jesus existed. I don't think he was God, and I'd imagine the closest thing he ever might have done to a miracle was knowing where the rocks were. He clearly had a few mental issues, which rules out being some avatar of perfection, but a fundamental message of tolerance and social justice made up for that. It's hard to say much more than that, especially since the gospels aren't exactly consistent about the whole story. Proof? No such animal.

 

[Craig B]

Bill Thomson

There is no such thing as the Q gospel? ... The word-for-word exact quotes from Christ that are in all four traditional gospels are just coincidence and Bible scholars all think this way. Wow, dude, that is news to me.

Wow, dude, it's news to me that Q is in all 4 traditional gospels! I thought it wasn't in Mark, and that John gives a very different (NOT word for word exact) account of the sayings and doings of Jesus, and only Matthew and Luke have Q, and they probably got it from a common pre-existing collection of Jesus sayings, and they also used Mark (who knows nothing of the Q material) as a source, and when Matt and Lk depart from these two sources they give different accounts of the same events, like the birth and resurrection stories that Mark also knows nothing about. So no word for word unless they're copying off each other.

And Paul knows practically nothing about any of it, presumably because Jesus never mentioned it when he was talking to him from up in the sky.

That's what I thought, Dude.