Atheists Pressure MI School District to Stop Treating the Birth of Jesus as Fact

[IndigoChild5559]

The point being that what we currently have are not eye-witness accounts.

If I witness an event, I can give an eyewitness account. If I give an account of the events to a friend of mine, and this friend of mine writes it down, embellishes it, and then passes their written account on to you, you do not have an eye-witness account.

You certainly have enough to know that Jesus existed, and that is what this discussion is about.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What evidence do you have that twelve original disciples were martyred? I do not think that that claim is well accepted today. And it appears that you are counting Judas as a martyr. I guess he is the unsung hero of the story.

I don't know if all twelve were ACTUALLY martyred. I said WILLING. Certainly some were that we have records of, such as Peter.

Again, we accept the same level of evidence for so many other historical figures, some considerably less.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My emphases...

Apostles - Wikipedia

Of the twelve Apostles to hold the title after Matthias' selection, Christian tradition has generally passed down that all but one were martyred, with John surviving into old age. Only the death of James, son of Zebedee is described in the New Testament.
​

Please show evidence that the original disciples were martyred. Christian Tradition is not evidence.

Why is a historical record null and void simply because it is written by a Christian? How prejudiced of you!

The book of John is clearly written after the crucifixion of Peter. Jesus is reputed to have said to Peter, "I assure you: When you were young, you would tie your belt and walk wherever you wanted. But when you grow older, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you and carry you where dou don’t want to go." Now I don't actually think Jesus said it. But it is clearly a reference to something that happened before the writing of the gospel.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hardly. I've been told that I'm an agnostic monotheist, so while I'm a believer in God, I possess a highly skeptical mind. If I went atheist, I would still hold this position.


Such as the case where skeptics believed that that the Iliad was entirely made up out of whole cloth... UNTIL we found the city of Troy. Now we must admit that we don't know where the dividing line is between the historical and the myth.

Not at all. I for example find the gospels interesting from a Jewish perspective, as part of the caldron of ideas from which Rabbinic Judaism emerged. There are for example, some links to what became established Oral Law, and arguments in the same tradition as are set down in the Talmud.

At any rate, all of it, the historical and the fiction, is interesting if for no other reason than it became the dominant religion on the face of the earth, all starting with the life of one Jewish man. We Jews have disavowed him because he has been the cause of such great and persistent suffering for us. But if we stop and think about it, he was the most influential Jewish man in history. And if you pull back the layers of legend, all he really wanted to do was teach Torah.

Please accept my apology, for falsely painting you into what you are clearly not.

Mea Culpa-- my bad.

And you do point out an interesting tangent, with respect to Jewish Heritage, and the Christian Mythos. I have always been fascinated with modern Judiasm, myself, and was fortunate enough to hear a series of lectures on the subject, many decades ago, by a well known Jewish Scholar. I wish I remembered his name, Rabbi Shallman? (drat-- I hate getting old).

Not only was he a brilliant story teller? He came highly regarded from a number of sources-- and I got to listen to him speak... for free.

Alas, I think he has since passed away. A loss of a great mind, I think.

I sometimes forget, there are other WorldViews than Genuine Christianity™ . ;D

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Dr. Robert Eisenmann, Cal State Long Beach, an atheist (known mostly for his ground breaking work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, author of "James, the brother of Jesus") He saw Jesus as historical, a kind of religious revolutionary. I had forgotten him. I studied under him. He is quite the brain.

Interesting. I'll have to look him up.

My favorite historian of the subject, is Dr Bart Ehrman. But I must admit, my familiarity with him, is somewhat limited, having only listened to several hours of his lectures (via podcast, TED and on Public Radio).

To be fair, Dr Ehrman is agnostic on the subject of Historical Jesus, at least, the last time I hear him say one way or another.

Like most scholars, he indicates there needs more study, and likely we'll never have definitive proof either way.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You certainly have enough to know that Jesus existed, and that is what this discussion is about.

Well, maybe... maybe not. I think the real Truth of the matter, is still up in the air, and without a time machine?

We'll likely never be sure one way or another.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

My emphases...
Apostles - Wikipedia
Of the twelve Apostles to hold the title after Matthias' selection, Christian tradition has generally passed down that all but one were martyred, with John surviving into old age. Only the death of James, son of Zebedee is described in the New Testament.
Please show evidence that the original disciples were martyred. Christian Tradition is not evidence.​

Previously...

Dr. Robert Eisenmann, Cal State Long Beach, an atheist (known mostly for his ground breaking work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, author of "James, the brother of Jesus") He saw Jesus as historical, a kind of religious revolutionary. I had forgotten him. I studied under him. He is quite the brain.

I wrote about Christian Tradition and asked for evidence. You responded...

Why is a historical record null and void simply because it is written by a Christian? How prejudiced of you!

Did Dr. Eisenmann not teach you the difference between "tradition [that was] generally passed down" and actual evidence?

What "historical record" are you accusing me of being prejudiced against? Who wrote it? When was it written? On what was it based?

 

[ecco]

The book of John is clearly written after the crucifixion of Peter. Jesus is reputed to have said to Peter, "I assure you: When you were young, you would tie your belt and walk wherever you wanted. But when you grow older, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will tie you and carry you where you don’t want to go."

This quote makes more sense if it was Peter speaking to Jesus, warning him of the upcoming crucifixion.

Now I don't actually think Jesus said it.

But it is clearly a reference to something that happened before the writing of the gospel.

No, it is not clearly a reference to anything.


In any case, if Jesus didn't write it, what's the point? Why bring it up?
Someone wrote:

"A friend should always underestimate your virtues and an enemy overestimate your faults."​

What's the deeper meaning of this? Who wrote it? Why?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You certainly have enough to know that Jesus existed, and that is what this discussion is about.

But that wasn't the point I originally objected to. What I objected to was you saying (1) that there is more reason to believe Jesus existed than Socrates and (2) that we have eye-witness testimony of Jesus. Neither is true - do you understand why?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please accept my apology, for falsely painting you into what you are clearly not.

No harm done. It takes time to get to know each other.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, maybe... maybe not. I think the real Truth of the matter, is still up in the air, and without a time machine?

We'll likely never be sure one way or another.

I'm just saying, if you raise the bar so high that we doubt the historicity of Jesus (while still saying that myths and legends grew up around him, no doubt) then you also have to question the historicity of almost every other ancient figure, for whom we lack eye witness accounts. Good heavens, what happens if we doubt the existence of Hillel and Shammai? What would happen to Judaism? LOL

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Dr. Eisenmann not teach you the difference between "tradition [that was] generally passed down" and actual evidence?

What "historical record" are you accusing me of being prejudiced against? Who wrote it? When was it written? On what was it based?

Dr. Eisenman taught that through textual criticism one can discern what is historical and what is embellished.

It appears you are biased against Christian scholars since you state that you cannot trust them to be objective. Some of the best scholars of textual criticism are Christians.

 

[ecco]

Why is a historical record null and void simply because it is written by a Christian? How prejudiced of you!

It appears you are biased against Christian scholars since you state that you cannot trust them to be objective.

You call me prejudiced and biased. You cannot back up either of those assertions.

Where have I said:
A historical record is null and void simply because it is written by a Christian?

Where have I said:
One cannot trust Christian scholars to be objective?

I believe you are in violation of forum rules against making false statements about another's character and ethics.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You call me prejudiced and biased. You cannot back up either of those assertions.

Where have I said:
A historical record is null and void simply because it is written by a Christian?

Where have I said:
One cannot trust Christian scholars to be objective?

I believe you are in violation of forum rules against making false statements about another's character and ethics.

You said:

Please show evidence that the original disciples were martyred. Christian Tradition is not evidence.

By saying "Christian tradition," you are referring to Christian historians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said:

By saying "Christian tradition," you are referring to Christian historians.

No, Christian tradition is not referring to Christian historians. It may be referring to historical Christians, but that does not help your claim.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, Christian tradition is not referring to Christian historians. It may be referring to historical Christians, but that does not help your claim.

He can correct me if I'm offbase, but I'm certain he includes the historian Eusebius in the category of Christian tradition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He can correct me if I'm offbase, but I'm certain he includes the historian Eusebius in the category of Christian tradition.

Not a very good example. When it comes to the history of the western church he was regarded as an apologist, not as a historian:

Eusebius of Caesarea | Biography, Writings, & History

 

[ecco]

ecco:
You call me prejudiced and biased. You cannot back up either of those assertions.

Where have I said:
A historical record is null and void simply because it is written by a Christian?

Where have I said:
One cannot trust Christian scholars to be objective?

I believe you are in violation of forum rules against making false statements about another's character and ethics.​

Please show evidence that the original disciples were martyred. Christian Tradition is not evidence.​

You said:

Please show evidence that the original disciples were martyred. Christian Tradition is not evidence.​

By saying "Christian tradition," you are referring to Christian historians.

So, according to you, asking for evidence means someone is prejudiced and biased. You assert that Christian historians created "Christian traditions". According to you, among these "traditions" are the stories of martyred disciples.

Now, please be good enough to show the names of the Christian historians who studied up on and wrote about the circumstances of the deaths of some of the disciples.

Oh, gee. There I go again, asking for evidence. I guess I'm prejudiced and biased because I don't take the word of a forum poster as reflective of truth.