Proof is for mathematics and logic. History is about determining what most likely happened given the evidence. There is simply no other plausible explanation for the evidence other than Jesus' historicity.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
did jesus exist?
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
Proof is for mathematics and logic. History is about determining what most likely happened given the evidence. There is simply no other plausible explanation for the evidence other than Jesus' historicity.
logician
Well-Known Member
Yes there is, it is certain that the gospels were works of fiction, written by unknown authors. That fits the "evidence" far batter than any other theory.
outhouse
Atheistically
circular beliefs they have set up so there is no way out, BUT there way, BY there beliefs, BY mostly second or third or forth and sometimes 10th hand fiction literature, some based off of oral accounts handed down for decades deemed %100 reliable riddled with blatant forgery a few translation error's in the face of a evolving hybrid religion which happens to match many many other religions and cults of the time and from there past,
Exuse me if I dont see it in the same light. Im not alone, far from it.
Exuse me if I dont see it in the same light. Im not alone, far from it.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
What can be proven, without a reasonable doubt, is that a movement with Judaism, which we have multiple attestations, later split away from Judaism. That splinter sect or movement is what we call Christianity. We have more than enough evidence to support this. Especially considering that we had groups, until at least the 4th century, that were Jewish-Christians.
Now if we accept that Jesus did not exist, which simply can not be proven, we still see Christianity starting within Judaism. The earliest writer was a Jew, who never converted to a different religion. We even see him arguing with the center in Jerusalem, which were of the movement that is said to start with Jesus, about Jewish matters. That center in Jerusalem, which we can safely say preceded Paul, were Jewish, yet were of this same movement.
Even the Gospels lend support to the fact that this movement started within Judaism and then, later, a split happened that Christianity emerged out of. The simple fact is that we have more than enough evidence supporting the idea that Christianity began as a sect/movement within Judaism, and later split from Judaism.
What there is no proof of is that Christianity sprouted as a religion out of nothing.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Provide the evidence supporting your stance. The opposition, mainly by Oberon and A_E have shown that the Gospels were not fiction. Thus, it is up to you to, if you want to continue that they are fiction, to show why they are.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Has anyone claimed, here in this discussion, that the Gospels are 100% reliable? Has anyone, in this discussion, claimed that even Paul is 100% reliable? No, they haven't. That is your problem, you are so stuck in your view point that you can't see that there is a distinction going on here.
And again, you keep saying it is fiction literature but you haven't provided any evidence to show that. Do you expect us to believe it simply because you keep repeating it? That's not going to happen. You have to provide some type of argument. Oberon and A_E have done so, supporting the idea that the Gospels are not fiction. They have shown why we should not consider the Gospels fiction, and instead, consider them similar to the genre of lives. At some point, your camp does have to provide some evidence. Up to now, all you've done is repeated the same statements over and over again, and that isn't an argument.
Also, what is the blatant forgery you are talking about?
Finally, since you aren't debating the other points raised, and are simply dismissing them, will you provide a reason at all that a Jew or group of Jews from the first century would invent a failed messiah that is so flawed? I think that should be your first object; to explain why a Jew or group of Jews would invent Jesus. I see no logical reason for it at all, and since no one in your camp seems able to give a reason, I have to assume that it is in fact an illogical position to hold.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Exactly. A god man can't exist but was written about extensively, we have the fiction. No one wrote of an historical Jesus even if there was one.
Considering the masses that believe whatever they're told, there is no need for an historical Jesus to explain the belief, it's ingrained in our culture, it's assumed to be true and has been for a long time.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
A god man can't exist but was written about extensively, we have the fiction. Would you happen to be speaking of Augustus? He was supposedly a god man. His father was said to be a god. He was said to be a god. He was a god man. By your logic, Augustus did not exist.
Also, people did write of a historical Jesus. Just because you close your eyes, does not mean it doesn't exist. The Gospels are examples of people writing about a historical Jesus. Paul wrote of a historical Jesus. And Josephus, a known historian, wrote of a historical Jesus. No one wrote about a mythical Jesus, they all assumed he was historical.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
They believe that the gospel story of a dying and rising Son of God is not fiction, they haven't shown the gospel story to be non-fiction, not by any stretch of the imagination. That was an extremely bad attempt to switch the burden of proof onto those that don't believe as they do.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
You just lost all credibility if you had any to begin with. Please educate yourself about what we have, and how we know what we have, on Augustus Caesar.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
We are talking about the Gospels in general. What genres are the Gospels? That is what Oberon and A_E have discussed in this thread.
You and your camp also haven't shown that they are fiction. The evidence points to the fact that they are part of the genre lives. That is what Oberon and A_E have shown in this discussion. Now, if you don't believe that, it is your turn to show that they fit in a different genre.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
Please reread what I stated. I was simply talking of the literature on Augustus, that in which stated that Augustus was considered god, and that he was the son of a god. Now, do you deny that it was written of Augustus that he was the son of a god, or considered to be a god? If not, then you have to admit that he was in fact considered to be a god man. And the fact that he was written about extensively shows beyond a doubt that during and around the first century supposed god men were written about who were in fact historical.
The rest on Augustus simply does not figure into this discussion. We are talking about simply the literature written on him. Plus, using the logic that you've used here, I could make the same argument that Augustus was a mythical being as well. But we both know that is illogical.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Your argument is fallacious on a number of levels. Mythologies exist independent of non fiction. We don't have any non fictional accounts of Jesus. The comparison is of no merit whatsoever and a very silly one.
I can't believe anyone can make such an argument. An historical figure (Augustus Caesar) becomes legendary, The Son of God becomes legendary, therefore the Son of God is historical. Unbelievable.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think everyone misread the OP.
The question is: did Jesus exit?
The question is: did Jesus exit?
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
It is only fallacious if you don't understand it. Again, my argument isn't that Augustus existed, therefore Jesus existed. That is a stupid argument, and not one I have ever made. My argument is that unless you want to make a special plead to the Gospels, you can't simply rule them out because they have what we call myths in them.
And again, you've never shown that the accounts of Jesus are are fictional. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. The evidence shows that they are of the genre lives. Oberon and A_E have shown that and have provided references. You've provided nothing.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
But wouldn't you agree that it would not be surprising that a pagan religion splintered from it's source. A pagan religion sprouting out of Judaism doesn't surprise me at all.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
But wouldn't you also agree that there are many elements of fiction in the gospel? I'm not saying ("ALL") of it is a work of fiction, rather a good size portion of it can be regarded as fiction. I'm not even sure Oberon is arguing that the gospels aren't littered with fictitious events.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Who are you to say what we believe?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Belief is the only possibility for accepting the gospels as historical accounts. No one has presented any facts, so deduction leads one to conclude that this notion can only be an unsubstantiated belief.