There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[ppp]

They were real people, not purely mythological characters who never actually existed.

Then you don't mean Mythological. You mean fictional. Mythological characters may or may not be based on real people. As for example, Odysseus may have been a real king of Ithaca who fought in that Trjan War, took a long time getting home, but never encountered any of the magical stuff.

 

[leroy]

I have. And you had no response when I did; Or at best dishonest replies. Instead of going to historical sources, you went to apologists. The reason that I point out that it was Josephus that was the local source of when Quirinius held his census and why is because he was not only the best source for that particular event, the census itself, but also because he is the one historic source that supports the existence of Jesus. Though that work has clear signs that it was tampered with. You lose the argument for secular support for the existence of Jesus Other sources will tell you what early Christians believed, but they do not specially support his existence. To deny Josephus you deny that there was secular support for the existence of Jesus.

All those are very important and interesting poins, but you still havent quote the "other sources" that confirm the 6AD date

Now if you want to see an article about a historian that has personally studied the writings of people like Josephus in their original Latin I give you this rather comprehensive article:

Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels

He, unlike the sources that you have used, has published in various professional well respected peer reviewed journals.

Sorry somebody hacked richard carries site, and removed the part where he quotes the "other sources" that confirm the 6AD date

Support your claim or admit that you can't

"LOL!! The 6 CE date comes from multiple sources"


That is called a red herring fallacy, where you whant to throw irrelevant stuff to disctract me and avoid the claim that you are expected to support.

 

[leroy]

A person who decides what is true about the world using (physical) evidence interpreted according to the laws of valid reasoning

Well there is no ***physical*** evidence for the claim that there are infinite prime numbers...... so as an empiricist do you reject that claim?

.

Tentatively, yes, because the claim is not extraordinary and there is (physical) evidence to support it.

What would be the physical evidence? The text?

 

[leroy]

What does Genesis creation week.
Have to do with.the historical evidence of Jesus Christ

The conversation was related to the resurrection.


The point that I made is that you dont need to grant a 6 day crearion or even that christianity is true in order to accept the resurection of Jesus as a historical fact.

 

[leroy]

It has quite a bit to do with the credibility of the Bible as a whole.

The book that you used to support the census and many of your claims in this thread, also afirms a 6 day creation...... ( The Antiquities of the Jews by josephus

So by your logic , you shouldn't be using that source to support your claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well there is no ***physical*** evidence for the claim that there are infinite prime numbers...... so as an empiricist do you reject that claim?

No, but empiricism is a method for determining what's out there and how it works in order to control outcomes as much as possible. It depends on reason applied to evidence. It is a posteriori knowledge of contingent truth.

Pure reason a priori knowledge of necessary like mathematical truth. It's not empiric because it doesn't derive from experience or evidence. A conscious, intelligent brain in a vat could generate a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. One of the chief arguments against a tri-omni god existing is pure reason. A world that contains gratuitous suffering does not contain an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly loving deity looking over it. But this is not the argument I've been referring to, which is based in the contradictions between Genesis and science, the latter being empirical knowledge.

What would be the physical evidence? The text?

There are archeological artifacts that Philip and Alexander were historical kings and conquerors, although their stories may have been embellished. You can read more here: Letter from Macedonia: Owning Alexander We don't have that for Jesus. He appears on no coin or sculpture, for example:

Is it possible that these people never lived. Is it likely? No, it's very unlikely. That's the difference between an extraordinary, insufficiently evidenced claim and an ordinary, well evidenced claim, and why I tentatively accept one while rejecting the other.

The point that I made is that you don't need to grant a 6-day creation or even that Christianity is true in order to accept the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact.

True, but then what meaning would that fact have if the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist? Your point is conceded. It cannot be ruled out that some agent or some unconscious process somewhere resurrected somebody called Jesus. But why work to establish that? Your purpose is to promote the God of Abraham, who you believe resurrected Jesus, but I've already explained what the fate of that argument will be when you eventually get there. That god has been ruled out. So, you've gotten as far as this line of inquiry can go. Yes, a man might have been resurrected in the past and maybe even the central character of the Gospels, but we have no reason to believe that such a thing which may be impossible happened, and even if it did, it couldn't have been the god of the creation story, who is a fiction like the myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The book that you used to support the census and many of your claims in this thread, also afirms a 6 day creation...... ( The Antiquities of the Jews by josephus

So by your logic , you shouldn't be using that source to support your claims.

No, that is not the case. I need to remind you that you do not appear to understand logic either. You are using a black and white fallacy now. yes, Josephus probably believed the myths of Genesis. So what? He had no scientific education. There is no rational reason to expect him to understand that. But he did live close enough to historical events so that he could gather reliable information for those. He understood how to gather that information. You are making the incredibly foolish error of thinking that because someone was wrong in a totally unrelated area to his studies in local history that he would be wrong in everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All those are very important and interesting poins, but you still havent quote the "other sources" that confirm the 6AD date



Sorry somebody hacked richard carries site, and removed the part where he quotes the "other sources" that confirm the 6AD date

Support your claim or admit that you can't

"LOL!! The 6 CE date comes from multiple sources"


That is called a red herring fallacy, where you whant to throw irrelevant stuff to disctract me and avoid the claim that you are expected to support.

Read the article3. Carrier is a historian and it is loaded with footnotes. He first gives the apologists arguments and then he rips them apart.

I know, reading is hard.

 

[leroy]

No, that is not the case. I need to remind you that you do not appear to understand logic either. You are using a black and white fallacy now. yes, Josephus probably believed the myths of Genesis. So what? He had no scientific education. There is no rational reason to expect him to understand that. But he did live close enough to historical events so that he could gather reliable information for those. He understood how to gather that information.

You are making the incredibly foolish error of thinking that because someone was wrong in a totally unrelated area to his studies in local history that he would be wrong in everything.

I am not makig that error. (The error was yours)

 

[leroy]

Read the article3. Carrier is a historian and it is loaded with footnotes. He first gives the apologists arguments and then he rips them apart.

I know, reading is hard.

Read the article3

I did, reed the article.....Carrier has docens of arguments, but he never claims to have ****other sources*** confirming the 6ad date.

You seem to be the onlyone with acces to that secret knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not makig that error. (The error was yours)

Do you really believe your own bull****?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did, reed the article.....Carrier has docens of arguments, but he never claims to have ****other sources*** confirming the 6ad date.

You seem to be the onlyone with acces to that secret knowledge.

Okay so you either did not read or did not understand the article. Why demand sources?

 

[Windwalker]

Okay man wrote the scriptures.
Now would you be so kind and explain who those men are and from where did they come from.

Well, Paul was from Tarsus in Asia Minor. I believe Mark and Matthew may have been from Jerusalem, and so forth.

You like everyone else..thinks those men are just average men like all other men..

You think scientists are just average men like all other then? If you think Paul was special, do you not think Einstein and Newton were special too?

Which they are not..those men were specially chosen for a task.

You imagine that people like Einstein were not gifted? Think of what we have been able to learn from these special scientists? The very life you live on a daily basis is full of the blessings these special humans have bestowed upon you. Why do you neglect to appreciate them?

So where do you suppose those men came from and who those men are..

Where do all humans come from, and where to their special gifts come from? Maybe the same place those special men you appreciate came from as well?

I know that's totally going to.blow your mind away.
I'll be waiting for your answer.

BTW, regarding "not being there" and knowing what happened, is that really an issue for you? Don't detectives analyze crime scenes and put together the evidence that shows what happened all the time, without them having been on the scene during the crime? Why is it you allow for that, but you don't allow for trained scientists to know how to read the scenes of the natural world and piece together what happened?

That's not a consistent expectation that they can't know if they weren't there. It's not a good argument at all.

I'll be waiting for your answer.

 

[leroy]

Do you really believe your own bull****?

A small summery.


1 You said (or implied) the tha whole bible is unreliable because of Genesis

2 Josephus also wrote the same stories that appear in Genesis, in his book antiques of the Jews

3 so by your own logic, you should reject josephus.


The point, obviously is that your logic is flawed, (not that you ahould drop all the book)

 

[leroy]

Okay so you either did not read or did not understand the article. Why demand sources?

You are just quoting random and unrelated sources, that dont support the claim that you are making, ....no where in the article does Carrier claim to have ***other ****sources confirming the 6AD date.

Why dont you admit that you made up the claim on ***other*** sources confirming the 6 AD date?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A small summery.


1 You said (or implied) the tha whole bible is unreliable because of Genesis

2 Josephus also wrote the same stories that appear in Genesis, in his book antiques of the Jews

3 so by your own logic, you should reject josephus.


The point, obviously is that your logic is flawed, (not that you ahould drop all the book)

No, that was only your misinterpretation. When you do not understand something you should ask questions. You have been told this countless times.

And then yo went back to your claim that has been refuted multiple times. Are you just admitting that you are wrong again and again by bringing up old failed arguments of yours?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are just quoting random and unrelated sources, that dont support the claim that you are making, ....no where in the article does Carrier claim to have ***other ****sources confirming the 6AD date.

Why dont you admit that you made up the claim on ***other*** sources confirming the 6 AD date?

Why don't you just admit that you either did not read or did not understand the source that was linked for you. You demanded a link. I gave you one by a published historian that works in the field that has written articles that appear in the primary literature and has sources listed. You are just in denial at this point in time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then you don't mean Mythological. You mean fictional. Mythological characters may or may not be based on real people. As for example, Odysseus may have been a real king of Ithaca who fought in that Trjan War, took a long time getting home, but never encountered any of the magical stuff.

Technically, if they might be based on real people, the term is "legendary."

Legends are stories which may have been (but cannot be verified as) true, and have become embellished over time.

Myths are traditional stories which explain a natural or cultural phenomenon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Technically, if they might be based on real people, the term is "legendary."

Legends are stories which may have been (but cannot be verified as) true, and have become embellished over time.

Myths are traditional stories which explain a natural or cultural phenomenon.

I can live with legendary.

 

[ppp]

Technically, if they might be based on real people, the term is "legendary."

Legends are stories which may have been (but cannot be verified as) true, and have become embellished over time.

Myths are traditional stories which explain a natural or cultural phenomenon.

Perhaps. The definitions do get fuzzy at the edges - as do all sociological phenomenon. But while I have often heard of King Arthur refered to as a legend, I have never heard Odysseus refered to as such. Nor any of the hundreds of unverified heroes/demi-gods of Ghanaian, Egyptian, Greek, Sumerian or Han mythologies.