There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Except nobody ever attempted to sanitize their stories... The Romans and Greeks never looked to their gods for moral guidance; you worshiped them because they'd curse you and turn you into some sort of pig-frog-bear thing if you disrespected them.
And the demigods' flaws were crucial elements of their stories: Yes, Achilles was a whiny prima donna and Hektor was a good and decent family man, but the point is that none of that means squat in a war - whiny or not, Achilles was a better fighter, and better fighters win wars.

I’m just about to go to bed and now I have images of Piggy, Kermit, and Fozzie in some sort of body horror mashup.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The gospels of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark quite a bit and all three disagree with each other to an extent. In fact so much so that one cannot claim that they are "different viewpoints. They are simply different stories..

It’s like saying Maguire Peter and Garfield Peter and Holland Peter are the same person.

 

[ppp]

What does this have to do with Jesus' historicity? Simple: If Jesus was a completely fictional creation, why add embarrassing or ignoble details to his story that later storytellers would have to either work around or edit out? Why not just make his life perfect from the get-go?

1) To invoke the argument that you are making. No one who was making stuff up would make thing embarrassing on purpose. So the fact that there is some of it is embarrasing just adds to the verisimilitude. [ If I never have to set thru a folksy, aw shucks story again, it will be too soon! ]

2) Local boy makes good appeals to the audience of early Christianity. The people of the land. The common clay. You know.

3) Who doesn't like a good overcoming adversity story?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I can live with legendary.

Actually, legen...

..dary!

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Nor have I. The Trojan war itself is a legendary event, in that there was a city of Troy and probably some sort of trade war that happened with the Greeks, but the specific people might have been Homeric creations... That would make The Iliad "historical" fiction, and The Odyssey its fictional sequel.

 

[TLK Valentine]

1) To invoke the argument that you are making. No one who was making stuff up would make thing embarrassing on purpose. So the fact that there is some of it is embarrasing just adds to the verisimilitude. [ If I never have to set thru a folksy, aw shucks story again, it will be too soon! ]

The problem is that the Gospel writers clearly had no interest in adding details in the interest of verisimilitude -- they were adding details (or more likely, fabricating them completely) to fit Jesus into the pre-existing prophetic structure.

Jesus was, as far as they were concerned, the Messiah -- their goal was to convince the masses of this. Any details they added were meant to make this task easier, not to sabotage themselves.

2) Local boy makes good appeals to the audience of early Christianity. The people of the land. The common clay. You know.

Fun fact: Cleavon Little's reaction wasn't scripted -- Wilder genuinely cracked him up with that line, and Mel Brooks decided to keep it in.

3) Who doesn't like a good overcoming adversity story?

Pretty sure the Jews from AD 70-100 were overcoming plenty of adversity just by staying alive. Jesus was meant to overcome adversity upon his return... which they believed would be soon enough.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I’m just about to go to bed and now I have images of Piggy, Kermit, and Fozzie in some sort of body horror mashup.

And you thought Medusa had it bad...

 

[ppp]

Nor have I. The Trojan war itself is a legendary event, in that there was a city of Troy and probably some sort of trade war that happened with the Greeks, but the specific people might have been Homeric creations... That would make The Iliad "historical" fiction, and The Odyssey its fictional sequel.

You are just making this up. You literally do not know enough to make that judgement. For either work. Was the Iliad even about one or more of the actual Trojan wars? There were several. How do you know that the Odyssey is entirely fictional? They, like the Bible, are all mythologies of various cultures.

 

[ppp]

The problem is that the Gospel writers clearly had no interest in adding details in the interest of verisimilitude -- they were adding details (or more likely, fabricating them completely) to fit Jesus into the pre-existing prophetic structure

?? Huh? That is literally adding details for verisimilitude.

Jesus was, as far as they were concerned, the Messiah -- their goal was to convince the masses of this. Any details they added were meant to make this task easier, not to sabotage themselves.

Pastors, apologists, and conmen add folksy aw shucks stuff to their stories and sermons and pitches all the time. Because it works. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of books of stories and anecdotes that pastors buy for that very purpose.

Pretty sure the Jews from AD 70-100 were overcoming plenty of adversity just by staying alive. Jesus was meant to overcome adversity upon his return... which they believed would be soon enough.

Not particularly relevant

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, legen...

View attachment 79355

..dary!

I was thinking of Barney at the time.

 

[ppp]

Fun fact: Cleavon Little's reaction wasn't scripted -- Wilder genuinely cracked him up with that line, and Mel Brooks decided to keep it in.

Btw ..

 

[leroy]

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?

And then yo went back to your claim that has been refuted multiple times.

But you cant quote the alleged wrong claim , can you?

 

[leroy]

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.

Again this historian doesn't claim to have **other sources** if you think I am wrong, the quote his words where he afirms the opposite.

It is sad that that you dont have the intelectual honesty to admit your mistake

 

[SkepticThinker]

no Idia what a MAGA is,

Make America Great Again.
They are Trump supporters.

But if you show that MAGAS are claiming stuff despite the fact that they have nothing to win and everything to lose, would be evidence that these people honestly think that their claims are true

The MAGAs have been saying Trump actually won the last election. In actuality, he lost the last election.
MAGAs are/were so thoroughly convinced that Trump actually won the last election that they staged a coup where they stormed the Capitol building to stop the certification of the vote. Perhaps you remember that?

They can honestly think their claims are true until the cows come home. That doesn't make their claims true. In fact, their claims are patently and demonstrably false. And yet they still believe them. So, according to the line of logic you're trying to sell us here, they can't possibly be wrong. We now have to believe their story, because they are so thoroughly convinced of it. They couldn't possibly be lying about their claims, because that would cause them embarrassment. Do you see how silly that sounds in a different context?

But all of that belies the point here. How did all of these people come to believe this massive lie? And so quickly? You seem to think it couldn't happen. But here we are - it happened. That's another strike against your claims here.

50% would be the probability assuming that there is no good evidence for nor against god.

Um, pardon?

If you think that the probability is much lower than 50% this would mean that you have good reasons to reject the existence of God.

Yours is not a 50/50 proposition here, because you're claim isn't "some god exists." Your claim is that a very specific version of god exists, a god that comes with all kinds of conditions, caveats and baggage - which tends to drag the probability down quite a bit.

So what are your reasons to reject the existence of God? What is the probability of God given those pieces of evidence?

I haven't ever seen any good evidence that convinces me that god(s) exist.

I don't know the probability for the god you think exists but given all the conditions that come with it, it seems vanishingly small.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So how do you know that they were not witnesses, when even by your admition, you don’t even know who wrote them?

Well, as I said, the person labelled "Luke" tells us that he's telling us a hearsay story.
The rest are written in the third person.

But the better question is, since we don't know who they are, why are you claiming that they are eyewitnesses?

As for the rest you seem to be just bouncing from one position to an other, why don’t you explain to exactly what position are you defending?


1 Paul and the apostoles had a hallucination/dream (they were honest about that) and later Christians added words to his mouth so that it seems that the resurrection was physical?

I asked for direct quotes about resurrection that I'm still waiting on.

2 did Paul the apostles lied about the experiences that they claimed to have had?

3 where they hallucintations that they wrongly interpreted as physical resurections?

4 something else?

I am questioning your claims and how you claim to know them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I´ts worthless according to your own arbitrary and unjustified standards

No, no, they aren't arbirtary and unjustified - quite the opposite. They are well established rules for proper citation.
You've provided a "quotation" that is a red flag to anyone familiar with quote mining and the use of proper citation. There is a reason you don't often come upon such types of quotes in academic papers, because it's recognized as a red flag. These are the plain old boring standards that have been around for a long, long time.

By the way, please provide the exact quote from josephus, where he claims that the census was made in 6AC

I what the exact quote form josephus, if you don’t provide that quote then your argument and all your claims about the census are wrong.

Can you meet your own ridiculous standards?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Luckily this is not a paper

Perhaps you get the point anyway though?

But even more important the quote is not relevant for me, none of my claims falls or stands depending on the accuracy of that quote, if you think the quote is relevant then you are the one who has to look for the original quote.

Then why did you provide it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

there are multiple sites that afirm that gred ludeman dates the creed at 2 or 3 years after the crusifixtion.


some sites have that quote with the ellipses others simply Paraphrase the words of the book.

"Gerd Lüdemann maintains that "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus [...] not later than three years".[16] "
for example this comes from wikipedia



I mean do you honestly think that this erroneous quote could survive without any scholar (or Ludeman himself) noticing that Christians apologist are misusing the quote?

Atheist scholars that disagree with the date, don’t argue that the quote is inaccurate, nor misleading

Yes, I do honestly think that the erroneous quote could survive all this time because I've seen it time and time again with quotes about evolution that are well over 50 years old at this point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's your assumption.

What is?

Did you even bother to read my post.

I read the entire thing. And responded.

I could ask the same of you, given that I've already responded to everything you've typed in this post.

I gave how those people back a little over 2000
Were put to death in the Roman coliseum because they would not denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.

Then I ask..if someone held a knife to your throat.. either you give the lie or you will die
Human nature tells us..rather than die for a lie.. you'll give up the lie.

You've already said this, and I've already addressed it. Why do you think just repeating the exact same thing over and over is going to get you somewhere?

Knowing its nothing more than a lie.
So rather than admit it was a lie.to save their life..
Those people died rather denounce what they saw and heard of Jesus Christ.
So therefore those people either died for a lie knowing its a lie.
Or they died for the truth
But human nature tells us no one would die for a lie knowing factual it's a lie.
So there's lays the Historical evidence of Jesus Christ.
Which you can't handle.
But then...even if you knew the truth..you would denounce it to be a lie..just to save your skin..

You don't appear to know the first thing about human nature.
This is just repetition of the exact same thing. Again.

 

[Thrillobyte]

So what proof of evidence do you have to back up what your saying.
Your called into question by your own questions.
You first have to provide evidence to support what your saying.
Without any evidence of your own
.your question is invalid, void, full of empty words
.

You gotta quote somebody so we know who you're responding to.