There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

It's amazing how critics can make up things. The fact that Mark's account is not a copy of Matthew's or Luke's account only adds to its veracity.

No one made anything up. There are parts of Luke and Matthew that are word for word in Mark. That is how we know that their authors copied that work. Your "three sources" are really only one.

 

[dybmh]

Quite a difference. It is getting late and I will go over later what scholars, historians, and evidence shows about the existence of Jesus. Plus much more is written about Jesus and his appearance in Israel than Johnny Appleseed. I kind of liked the idea when I was in school in that he planted apple seeds all around but what records really are there about him?

Yes, and if Johnny Appleseed was a real person, then...

 

[dybmh]

You don't hear an argument from me. I think all 4 gospels should be dismissed as any sort of credible evidence [Gospel] Jesus was [not] real, RR or no. All credible scholars label them as testimonies of faith, not historical evidence of Jesus. As testimonies of faith, anything goes no matter how wild and wacky the narrative might read, even to talking crosses marching out of the cave. Now there's one you won't find in the RR scale.

Yes! And if there is a god, this is what God intended. Absolute faith.

 

[PureX]

The biblical myths were originally told as literal historical fact, the questioning of which would be considered blasphemy

That simply is not true. As usual, you are focused solely on your biased view of Christianity for your concept of scriptural generation and use. When in fact the old testament scripture were neither written as nor intended to be used as a historical teaching tool. The OT was explicitly written NOT to teach, but to flummox and beguile. To generate a state of awe and wonder and humility within the minds and hearts of the recipients of the stories. Men would gather together and read those stories amongst themseles, over and over, and contemplate the presence a divine being so all powerful and wise that no man dare to even impose a name on it. These were NOT people that pretended to know the mind or history of God. These were people who believed it was their purpose in life to witness the glory of the God of all.

Much later, when Christianity became a governing religion it assembled it's own set of scriptures intended to teach humanity how to think and behave according to it's own assumed authority, and presented those stories as historical facts to people that couldn't know any different. But that era is long over with. And people now days are generally capable of understanding a willful suspension of disbelief as part of the mechanism of story-telling. Retaining, and retelling.

. As recently as a century ago, Scopes challenged the teachings of the church and was roundly rebuked by people who did not consider the creation myth symbolic, but rather, historical fact being challenged by upstart science - the same reaction Luther had to Copernicus.

Biblical mythology is the vehicle for some very toxic ideas about mankind that directly oppose humanistic principles.

Anything can be a vehicle for some very toxic ideas about mankind, ... by mankind, ... that negatively effect mankind.

 

[leroy]

You said, and I quote "You still have to explain why is it impossible (literally your words)" Do you know what literally means?

If those where not your words, then I admit my mistake…..what where your words? Imposisible? Improbable? Absurd? Ridicuouls?............ whatever your words where, can you support the assertion that a census in Judea would have been , impossible, improbable, ridiculous, absurd unlikely or whatever word represents your view?

It appears that you do not.

And no, you have do not to claim a 50% chance of being wrong when it comes to two choices. Reality does not work that way. Last week I bought a lottery ticket. I have not checked the results yet. Since I either won or lost the odds of me winning are 50%. I will seel that to you at a bargain price. How about $1,000.00? I promised to do the same next week and send you that ticket too.

ok do you have any good reason to move the possibility far beyond 50% in favor of Josephus ?

This has been explained to you more than once. The works of Josephus are not the only works on Quirinius. He would only have covered his time in Israel. Others covered his life elsewhere. We know where he was and when.

Ok I failed to adress your imaginary sources………… do you have any non-imaginary source apart from Josephus that confirms that the census was in 6ac?............. you keep repeating that there are other sources apart from Josephus but you haven’t quote any

Sorry, that fails because most of what they report are about Jesus and you have no way of verifying that.

Again, if we consider just the claims in the gospels and acts that can be verified (or falsified) most of them happen to be true….

This is enough to show that the source is reliable …. this is the reaosn why you accept josephus as a valid source.

You do know that the three synoptic gospels can be seen as only one source. And there are indications that the others of John may have gotten parts from Mark as well. You have sources that copy each other and then tell different stories elsewhere. At best you can only call that one source. And a rather weak one at that.

Sounds like a desperate attempt to try to change the topic, because you have been cornered.

It was a client state. That means that it was self ruling. Do you need an article on the client states of Rome?

The relevant point is that the romans made census on client states too, so why assuming that they would make an exception in Judea?

Where did Josephus appeal to magic? I am unaware of that.

multiple times

"Everywhere, celestial voices were heard proclaiming in the midst of the night and throughout the day: 'Let us depart from here!'" (Flavius Josephus, "The Jewish War," Book VI, Chapter V, Section 3).

And yes, he did make mistakes I am sure. How does that help you?

You are trying to disqualify all Luke, because *maybe* he made a tiny secondary and irrelevant mistake with the date of the census……………. By that logic one should also reject josephus ……… so why don’t you?

Do you remember what the purpose of the census was?

I dont know, taxes? information about the state,? control? .............I dont know

 

[PureX]

Why tell me that? It is your fellow religious folk that believe the gospels, and even the whole Bible, is literal history. I suggest you set them straight.

1. religious folk are ALL our fellows.
2. I am not religious.
3. The only thing anyone actually believes when they claim to believe something is that they are right about it. That's just ego talking. Same as when you automatically object to their saying so.
4. Almost no one actually believes that. Suspending disbelief is not the same as believing.
5. I'm setting you straight, instead.

And can you understand that these people are adopting this type of interpretation as much as they are adopting the habit of religious belief?

We humans have other much bigger problems to worry about than a few of us mixing fantasy with history and religion.

Is that right? What ideological importance am I missing?

The fact that you ask (with no intention of accepting any answer you'd get) only exemplifies that why don't get it.

Clean water and safe food is naturally important. Shelter is important. Health is important. The idea that "Jesus saves"? Well, it's important for the ego, and identity, and meaning, but disposable, and replaceable.

It's still missing for you ... that ideological importance. Undiscovered. Denied, in fact, prior to recognition. It's amazing how we humans can perceive something right out of existence like that.

It's worse than not being able to prove the history" of the supernatural bits of the Jesus myth, it's that those elements are implausible.

Plausability has nothing to do with anything. It's a STORY intended to convey an important ideal. It's the ideal that needs to be plausible, not the story that's conveying it.

There is no data, no experiences, no observations of any supernatural phenomenon existing in our universe.

Of course there is. It's called the Big Bang.

It is VASTLY more likely that these elements were invented by humans at a time in history where embellishment and legend was common.

Embellishment and legends are always common. Every event of history has it's share of them. From our own personal moments past to the most momentous cataclisms in human history. All our stories are embellished and made legend. It's why we remember them.

Your comment here is your usual vague misdirection. If humans were uniformly wise, educated, emotionally intelligent, they would be seeking truth accross the board.

No, they would be pursuing honesty, not truth, because they would know that they can't know what is the truth. You keep confusing truth with factual accuracy. But facts are relative. Truth is universal.

Science leads the way in determining what is true about the universe.

No, it really doesnt. It plays a role, but it doesn't lead the way. At least we had better hope it's not.

There is a way for we humans to determine true from false, and many have little interest in knowing what is true.

Facts are only true relative to some other facts. While being false relative to yet other facts. None of this adds up to any truth. This string of facts lead to this conclusion, that string of facts leads to that conclusion. And that's all well and good so long as we don't fall for our own conclusions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If those where not your words, then I admit my mistake…..what where your words? Imposisible? Improbable? Absurd? Ridicuouls?............ whatever your words where, can you support the assertion that a census in Judea would have been , impossible, improbable, ridiculous, absurd unlikely or whatever word represents your view?


ok do you have any good reason to move the possibility far beyond 50% in favor of Josephus ?


Ok I failed to adress your imaginary sources………… do you have any non-imaginary source apart from Josephus that confirms that the census was in 6ac?............. you keep repeating that there are other sources apart from Josephus but you haven’t quote any



Again, if we consider just the claims in the gospels and acts that can be verified (or falsified) most of them happen to be true….

This is enough to show that the source is reliable …. this is the reaosn why you accept josephus as a valid source.



Sounds like a desperate attempt to try to change the topic, because you have been cornered.


The relevant point is that the romans made census on client states too, so why assuming that they would make an exception in Judea?



multiple times

"Everywhere, celestial voices were heard proclaiming in the midst of the night and throughout the day: 'Let us depart from here!'" (Flavius Josephus, "The Jewish War," Book VI, Chapter V, Section 3).




You are trying to disqualify all Luke, because *maybe* he made a tiny secondary and irrelevant mistake with the date of the census……………. By that logic one should also reject josephus ……… so why don’t you?



I dont know, taxes? information about the state,? control? .............I dont know

Oh my. Just dodging the burden of proof and more false claims.

Can you debate properly? That means that you have to at least try to be honest..

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I would believe every word of it and more.

I would think South Park left out a few things.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But what if he went in to the scene and the criminal killed him too? What good would that have done?

He would have died doing his ONE JOB.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What good do you think is accomplished loving enemies?

And God and Jesus are simply hypocritical about it.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Yes! And if there is a god, this is what God intended. Absolute faith.

Faith without evidence, right?

 

[leroy]

Oh my. Just dodging the burden of proof and more false claims.

Can you debate properly? That means that you have to at least try to be honest..

Really, and why don’t you quote my alleged false claims?

I am debating properly; I am supporting my claims and refuting yours. ……

It is sad and disappointing to see how you failed in supporting your claims (and refuting mine) and not having the intelectusl honesty to admit it.

 

[leroy]

. There are parts of Luke and Matthew that are word for word in Matthew and Luke. . That is how we know that their authors copied that work. Your "three sources" are really only one.

Weren’t you saying that Luke and Mathew contradicted each other?

Which one is it? It seems to me that you can’t claim both Plagiarism and contradictions,

• ether they copied from each other –(no contradictions expected)
• or each invented their own story (which wouldn’t be plagiarism)

why not simply going in line with what the majority of scholars who say, Luke had 3 sources Mark Q and L?............ do you have any reason to belive otherwise?

 

[leroy]

You don't hear an argument from me. I think all 4 gospels should be dismissed as any sort of credible evidence Jesus was real, RR or no. All credible scholars label them as testimonies of faith, not historical evidence of Jesus. As testimonies of faith, anything goes no matter how wild and wacky the narrative might read, even to talking crosses marching out of the cave. Now there's one you won't find in the RR scale.

That is funny, woudl you support that claim?

BTW what exactly do you mean by Credible Scholar?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Inanna is an older Mesopotamian deity more similar to Yahweh but did have a death/resurrection.

Inanna can change your gender in a heartbeat but Yahweh is confused when Adam can’t reproduce with other animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really, and why don’t you quote my alleged false claims?

I am debating properly; I am supporting my claims and refuting yours. ……

It is sad and disappointing to see how you failed in supporting your claims (and refuting mine) and not having the intelectusl honesty to admit it.

No, you are making terrible arguments. You are not reasoning rationally. And you made a claim that is false until you support it. Sorry, but once again you only show that all you have are irrational beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weren’t you saying that Luke and Mathew contradicted each other?

Which one is it? It seems to me that you can’t claim both Plagiarism and contradictions,

• ether they copied from each other –(no contradictions expected)
• or each invented their own story (which wouldn’t be plagiarism)

why not simply going in line with what the majority of scholars who say, Luke had 3 sources Mark Q and L?............ do you have any reason to belive otherwise?

Oops, that waw a brain fart on my part. It is fixed now. But, once again, if you were a scholar of the Bible you should have been able to figure out what I meant to say. And the answer was to show that Matthew and Luke were not independent sources. Both of them got most of their story from Mark. They each embellished on their own a bit. And then they also seem to have been copying a still unknown source. And I almost forgot, it looks as if one was copying the other a bit too, but we do not know who. Was Matthew first and did the author of Luke copy from him or vice versa?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is funny, woudl you support that claim?

BTW what exactly do you mean by Credible Scholar?

A credible scholar is one that has published in the primary literature. That is true regardless of the area of study. Apologists very rarely go through the process of peer review. And today one has to be careful. Publishing in predatory pay per publish sources does not qualify one as a scholar. In that case the article has to be well accepted..

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes! And if there is a god, this is what God intended. Absolute faith.

Reading about Josiah at 2 Chronicles chapters 34 & 35, how faithful he was from a young boy, and then later how he died. Very interesting.

 

[Thrillobyte]

Ok, ok, how about Johnny Appleseed? Both a legendary mythical story, and a real person.

Johnny Appleseed - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Johnny Appleseed never claimed to be the divine miracle working son of God. Nor did his appletree-loving disciples. Big difference.