Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Oystein]

The Resurrection, upon which there is very much historical evidence for its occurrence.

Which?
That would answer the OP.
Weirdly, you forgot to point us to that evidence. Why?

 

[Dayan81]

The Resurrection, upon which there is very much historical evidence for its occurrence.

Do you possess or know of any photographs of the risen-Christ?

Are you aware of any video of the event?

Did the risen-Christ author any writings or journals?

Did anyone who actually witnesses the risen-Jesus write about his experiences?

Not only do we not have any such evidence, but the first Gospel to have been written does not mention Jesus being risen from the grave. All we have at the end of the Gospel of Mark is an empty tomb and frightened followers.

 

[Oystein]

Atheist perspective here:

I don't know a lot about the bible, but from my perspective, people who hold the "Christ myth" view will accept one the following propositions:

1) That Jesus never existed in any sense whatsoever, Jesus is a story which arose out of nowhere or perhaps inspired from earlier religions. I think this is generally called the Christ Myth view.

2) That Jesus could have existed, and details of his life are exaggerated, paranormal events developed from an oral tradition which originated after his death.

I'd view the second view as more parsimonious than the first: that Jesus may have existed and his life is completely lost in myth and legend.

Christ myth explanations suggest that Christ-like concepts existed in oral tradition centuries before Jesus did, and that Jesus is a re-invented pagan god. The subject has been done to death on this forum, and I think the general consensus is that "re-invented pagan god" theories are based on 150+ year outdated scholarship, that most or all pagan deities purported to have been born in immaculate conception and sacrificed for humanity's sins are blatant falsehoods (i.e. earliest source documents for Osiris, Mithra, and other purported proto-Jesus figures do not even closely resemble the Jesus birth/death narratives at all, not even superficially). Since this view is very strongly relies on the that proto-Jesus archetypes ("dying god men") existed long before Jesus, but the archetypes are based on junk science; being a foundational view, the credibility of this position is thrown into question. Christ could very well be a myth, but not for the "pagan prototype" reasons that mythicists argue.

Christ myth view lacks parsimony. There doesn't appear to be prior history of oral tradition to describe Jesus, the sayings attributed to him, and there appears to be handful of credible extra-biblical references to him (will cite on request).

I would tend to be more skeptical of the Christ Myth view than the historical-but-not-magical view.

This.

It is in most cases not possible to strictly prove the former existence of persons of ancient history.

This is also the case for Jesus.
But it is reasonable to accept that the existence of a Jesus who inspired the gospels and everything has significant probability.

 

[Bill Thompson]

convince me that you exist.

 

[Bill Thompson]

There are great stories of struggle and victorious of Mormons also. That is nothing special. Joseph died for his beliefs. Many religious people have sacrificed everything for their beliefs. Nothing unique here.

You, yourself, told me that Smith did not expect that to have happened.

 

[Dayan81]

convince me that you exist.

Does JREF have a habit of providing forum accounts to non-existent entities?

 

[bikerdruid]

The Resurrection, upon which there is very much historical evidence for its occurrence.

no, doc.
there is no historical evidence, whatsoever, for the resurrection.
other than the gospels, please show one contemporary source that verifies the resurrection occurred.

 

[RandFan]

convince me that you exist.

I can't. I can't prove you exist either. I can't prove that we are not in the matrix. So, I guess we can invent whatever fantasy we like or... here's an idea: Our perceptions of reality are consistent. And assuming that the world is at it appears allows us to avoid pain and increase well being, we can choose to accept the world that we see. We can rely on empirical evidence or scholarly study using objective methods for things like history. Cool huh? Yeah, that's what institutions of higher learning, think tanks, scholarly boards and research labs do. In which case we are right back to where we started from. Don't know if Jesus existed. Also, doubt very much that the things attributed to him were done by him.

But hey, look at this way, all of the supernatural claims fall by the wayside as well.

 

[RandFan]

You, yourself, told me that Smith did not expect that to have happened.

And your point? The Bible has many failed prophecies and contradictions. Mormons are great at explaining away things. In fact there are very intelligent college professors who spend full time engaging in Mormon apologetics. But let's be honest, you don't take those anymore seriously than I take Christian apologetics for the very same reason.

 

[bikerdruid]

convince me that you exist.

cogito ergo sum, cogito.

 

[RandFan]

cogito ergo sum, cogito.

That only proves it to. It can't prove it to me because I can't prove you think. You could be a delusion, dream, algorithm, any number of things.

 

[bikerdruid]

That only proves it to. It can't prove it to me because I can't prove you think. You could be a delusion, dream, algorithm, any number of things.

..some days that is undeniably obvious.

 

[RandFan]

..some days that is undeniably obvious.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Resurrection, upon which there is very much historical evidence for its occurrence.

There's really no point mincing words - this is an outright lie, DOC.

 

[Brainache]

I find that whole Jesus Summit very interesting. Hundreds of Historians and Biblical Scholars, not all of them Christian, and even though they dismiss outright the idea of a Mythical Jesus, no two seemed to agree on who the Historical Jesus was, what he said or what he did.

I'd like to see Kapyong's take on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Have you heard of Robert Eisenmann?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eisenman

Main article: James the Brother of Jesus (book)
As far as Eisenman is concerned, James the Just, the individual Paul actually refers to as either "brother of Jesus" or “the brother of the Lord,”[58] is the historical character who exhibits the most in common with “the Teacher of Righteousness" pictured at Qumran and he considers that these events are the ones vividly portrayed in the Habakkuk Commentary. Historically speaking, it is this character who led the “Opposition Movement,” including Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii, and/or Nazoreans - even Ebionites - and who, as “Zaddik" (צדיק), i. e., “the Zaddik of the Opposition Movement,” about whom all these groups revolved until his death at the hands of the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus in 62 CE as described both in Josephus and Early Church literature.[59] For him, the popularity of James and the illegality of the manner of his death at the hands of the Herodians, establishment High Priesthood, and Pharisees in 62 CE set the stage for and possibly even triggered the First Jewish Revolt against the Rome in 66-73 CE - to say nothing of the fire in Rome, not long afterwards which, aside from his probably having set it himself, Nero was reported to have blamed on “Christians.”

For his part, the Jewish historian Josephus makes it clear that those he is calling “Essenes” (as opposed to these same Herodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees) participated in the uprising, willing to undergo any torture or any form of death rather than "eat things sacrificed to idols" or "break the Law."[60] For Eisenman, these “Nazoreans,” (נצרים) “Zealots,” (קנאים) “Zaddikim” (צדיקים) or “Ebionim” (אביונים) were marginalized by a Herodian named Saul (Paul of Tarsus) and the gentile Christians who followed him. This version of Christianity, as it later emerged from a gentile milieu as led by Paul, transformed the apocalyptic militancy of the Ebionite/Essene Zaddikim into a universalist peaceful doctrine. In this manner, Eisenman sees the doctrine of Christianity as largely the product of Pauline dialectic and apologetics. In so doing, Eisenman attempts to recover the authentic teaching of Jesus and/or James from the obscurity into which it seems to have been intentionally cast by resultant orthodoxy. As he puts it at the end of James the Brother of Jesus, once you have found the Historical James, you have found the Historical Jesus or alternatively, “who and whatever James was so too was Jesus”.[61]

 

[Akhenaten]

If you don't value biblical sources, here are facts from non-biblical sources. From the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Norman Geisler and F. Turek. Pg. 223.

Are we supposed to pretend, as you obviously do, that that witless and nauseating collection of vapid apologetics hasn't been shredded every time you've mentioned it?

Why would we do that? Why do you?

All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources. These sources include such people as Josephus, Tacitus, Celsus etc.

No they weren't, and you bloody well know it.

Ignorance of the truth is one thing, DOC, but after the hundreds of times you've been corrected about this nonsense your still putting it forward time after time and claiming it to be the truth is without any saving grace at all. You are lying, plain and simple.

1) Jesus lived during time of Tiberius Caesar.

That's not a fact, DOC. That's just a bare assertion that requires evidence to support it.

I won't ask you if you have any because there's already a few threads in progress where you're demonstrating incontrovertibly that you don't.

2) He lived a virtuous life.

Does that even look like a fact to you?

Really?

This is the kind of meaningless, airy-fairy, platitudinous filler that can be found in every second eulogy ever uttered.

Some well-meaning but totally uninformed idiot will probably even say it about me one day.

3) He was a wonder worker.

And Santa Claus flies all the way around the world in one night on a reindeer-powered sleigh delivering hundreds of millions of toys - every year.

Not only is this far more wondrous than smiting a poor, defenceless fig tree, but there's considerably more evidence for it actually happening.

4) He had a brother {some interpret that as cousin} named James.

So do I.

And?

5) He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.

6) He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

7) He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.

8) Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.

9) His disciples believe he rose from the dead.

10) His disciples were willing to die for their belief.

I think I can cover all of these with one picture.

11) Christianity spread as far as Rome.

So has Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca and Scientology.

Still, I suppose you should at least get a point for this since at least it's a fact, although of what value it is to whatever case you're trying to make remains a mystery.

Even if this Jesus bloke you keep rabitting on about existed, he most certainly wasn't a christian.

12) His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God.

At least they remained polytheist.

Remember these are all facts that can be found in "Non-Christian" independent sources.

Why are there scare quotes around "Non-Christian"? It's not because they were quoting christian sources, is it?

Silly me. Of course it is.

Note: Actually I haven't been able to verify #8 yet. Phlegon talked about darkness and there was some talk of an eclipse but Origen disagreed with him that it was a solar eclipse. So fact #8 is a little confusing and the time line of the eclipse is not clear.

Codswallop.

 

[pakeha]

Sorry, no CNN back then, so we use historical evidence. The writings of Tacitus and Josephus are historical evidence plain and simple.

Hi, DOC.
Could you cite exactly where the writings of Tacitus and Josephus can be quoted as historical evidence?
Thanks!

 

[Bill Thompson]

I can't. I can't prove you exist either. I can't prove that we are not in the matrix. So, I guess we can invent whatever fantasy we like or... here's an idea: Our perceptions of reality are consistent. And assuming that the world is at it appears allows us to avoid pain and increase well being, we can choose to accept the world that we see. We can rely on empirical evidence or scholarly study using objective methods for things like history. Cool huh? Yeah, that's what institutions of higher learning, think tanks, scholarly boards and research labs do. In which case we are right back to where we started from. Don't know if Jesus existed. Also, doubt very much that the things attributed to him were done by him.

But hey, look at this way, all of the supernatural claims fall by the wayside as well.

Why are you and I spending any time at all out of our short lives having this discussion?

 

[Bill Thompson]

And your point? The Bible has many failed prophecies and contradictions. Mormons are great at explaining away things. In fact there are very intelligent college professors who spend full time engaging in Mormon apologetics. But let's be honest, you don't take those anymore seriously than I take Christian apologetics for the very same reason.

What does the existence or non existence of some rabbi have to do with anything you just said?

In case you did not know, there were lots of rabbis at the time of Christ who had said very similar ethical teachings. Jesus had a following because he was younger then those guys, I guess, and probably had charisma. Elvis did not write any original material as well. But that did not stop people from calling him "king".

I do not see any connection between a historic Jesus and Mormonism or Christianity. The fact that you do, tells me that you are not thinking clearly or logically.

i do suspect that since Mormonism was a let-down to you, you feel a need to strike out against Christianity and saying that Jesus Christ never lived is part of that. Am I right?

If I am right, you are like some Russian programmers I know who doubt that the moon missions were real. It is because what that means. The truth is what you make it, for these people and you.

I have to wonder why this discussion is worth any time to you at all. The best reason I can see is that you want to have mainstream Christianity to be as lacking of legitimacy as Mormonism. What better way to show that Christianity is just as much a fraud as Mormonism than to show that Jesus Christ never existed?

I think if you were to be honest with yourself, you would admit I have a point here.

 

[DOC]

Which?
That would answer the OP.
Weirdly, you forgot to point us to that evidence. Why?

If you have a couple of weeks you can read this 500 page thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124603