Should we expect secular evidence of Jesus existence?

[dogsgod]

So you've been duped along with the rest of the believers, it's not the end of the world.

 

[Oberon]

So you've been duped along with the rest of the believers, it's not the end of the world.

Oh look we are regressing into the sarcastic responses that don't address any of the difficult questions you can't answer. And here I was hoping for a new strategy. Not actually addressing the questions or admitting you are wrong or don't know what you are talking about, mind you...but at least something new.

 

[Dan4reason]

Many people say Jesus never existed because there is no evidence of his existence in archaeology or other sources. And so I was wondering, should we even expect to find such evidence?
After all, the Romans crucified a lot of people and a lot of people were put to death for blasphemy. So should we expect to find his name in some record perhaps?

Is it reasonable to find a mention of him on a stone tablet or perhaps something else? And even if such a thing was found would people believe he was after all? (That’s probably for another thread…)

I think that the fact that he was the supposed starter of a religion and that there are books about him, and that many specific locations in the gospels do exist is strong evidence that he exists. You should only have to prove his existence if there was some evidence that was brought forward that he doesn't exist.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm not an apologist, so why an unknown author of Acts of the Apostles places Paul in Jerusalem in 44CE is not my problem.

 

[dogsgod]

Let's see, Paul states that his visits were 14 years apart, that would have him in Jerusalem meeting with Peter, James, and John in 30CE. Again, I'm not an apologist so I don't see that as questionable.

 

[Dan4reason]

Let's see, Paul states that his visits were 14 years apart, that would have him in Jerusalem meeting with Peter, James, and John in 30CE. Again, I'm not an apologist so I don't see that as questionable.

Who are you responding to? What point are you trying to make? :sarcastic

 

[Ilisrum]

I'm not an apologist, so why an unknown author of Acts of the Apostles places Paul in Jerusalem in 44CE is not my problem.

Let's see, Paul states that his visits were 14 years apart, that would have him in Jerusalem meeting with Peter, James, and John in 30CE. Again, I'm not an apologist so I don't see that as questionable.

Is that your final answer?

 

[dogsgod]

Who are you responding to? What point are you trying to make? :sarcastic

I was responding to the apologist that posted before your post.

 

[dogsgod]

Is that your final answer?

Was there a question?

 

[Ilisrum]

Was there a question?

C'mon, you know you have it in your heart. You're like the James Patrick Holding of mythicists.

But yes, there's irrefutable proof that Jesus IS real.

 

[dogsgod]

That's by far the best evidence I've seen.

 

[Oberon]

I was responding to the apologist that posted before your post.

Responding by avoiding questions again. Let's try one more time:

What in josephus places James' death at 36 CE?
Why does it matter, based on the pragmatics of the greek, that Paul calls James adelphos kuriou rather than adelphos Iesou?
What is Paul using the genitive construction in galatians 1.19 for if not to identify kin?
Why does it matter if acts and Paul don't line up exactly, when they show (independently of each other) a good deal of agreement, which is pretty par for the course in ancient history?

I'm not an apologist

Sure you are. You are as dogmatically and blindly holding on to your mythicist view as any hardcore believer holds on despite massive evidence to the contrary. That's why you ignore all scholarship and experts and concentrate on blogs, websites, and amateurs.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that the fact that he was the supposed starter of a religion and that there are books about him, and that many specific locations in the gospels do exist is strong evidence that he exists. You should only have to prove his existence if there was some evidence that was brought forward that he doesn't exist.

Oh I think there was a guy on whom He was based, alright, and I believe so do most scholars. He just wasn't The Christ, that's all. In any case, that's not the question the thread poses.

 

[dogsgod]

Responding by avoiding questions again. Let's try one more time:

What in josephus places James' death at 36 CE?

Why? Is there a problem?

Why does it matter, based on the pragmatics of the greek, that Paul calls James adelphos kuriou rather than adelphos Iesou?
What is Paul using the genitive construction in galatians 1.19 for if not to identify kin?
Why does it matter if acts and Paul don't line up exactly, when they show (independently of each other) a good deal of agreement, which is pretty par for the course in ancient history. Sure you are. You are as dogmatically and blindly holding on to your mythicist view as any hardcore believer holds on despite massive evidence to the contrary. That's why you ignore all scholarship and experts and concentrate on blogs, websites, and amateurs.

I guess I'm just blind to the "massive evidence." :bible:

 

[Oberon]

Why? Is there a problem?

Yeah. You said Jospehus does this. He doesn't. Now, I realize that errors in your statements haven't been a problem thus far, so I guess I shouldn't be suprised you don't have a problem with this one either. After all, why would accuracy matter when all you are trying to do is produce enough "evidence" to support your faith?

I guess I'm just blind to the "massive evidence."

Oh look the sarcastic dodge of the questions! That wasn't predicted at all...