If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Remember that article claiming that Jesus was a real person? Yeah, about that. Short answer "No", long answer "Noooooooooooooooooooo"   (freethoughtblogs.com) divider line 176
    More: Followup, Jesus Christ, fallacy, Pontius Pilate, valid argument, hypotheticals, Aramaic, Alexander the Great, gospels  
•       •       •

9116 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Mar 2012 at 10:28 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-22 09:07:49 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Marcus Aurelius: The historian Josephus observed that all the messianic cults had died out, except for one, based on Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Jew born to a mother that was impregnated by a Roman centurion. So he was not only a real person, but he had friends loyal enough to cut him down off the cross during a thunderstorm. He laid low after that.

Hearsay isn't any more true when it's historical hearsay.


I'm pretty sure this was a Life of Brian Reference, Beast.
 
2012-03-22 09:21:07 AM

WhyteRaven74: bob_ross: Religious people are idiots, isn't this common knowledge by now? Come on people it's 2012. Stop being effing fools.

Ehrman is an agnostic, and if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.


Well, he certainly claims he's agnostic that's for sure.

I did my undergrad work at UT Austin, and most of the instructors and profs I worked with never treated Jesus as anything other than a myth. The Classicists didn't give his historicity any more shrift than they did that of Hercules or Dagon either. It's certainly true that you won't see those people come out and say, flat out, to a class of freshmen that Jesus is a fabrication, but they were more than happy to show how every claim made about Jesus has obvious antecedents in polytheistic and Jewish lore. And even the resistance to making the "He's a myth" claim has more to do with the fact that historians and classicists just aren't as interested in whether specific religious figures actually existed or not as they are in what the impact of the beliefs and believers swirling around them was on the societies of their time.
 
2012-03-22 09:34:10 AM
Perhaps these aren't mistakes, and just very, very, very badly worded sentences.

The only thing I took away from that article is that the author is an expert on very, very, very badly worded sentences.
 
2012-03-22 09:46:57 AM

TheDumbBlonde: People are actually disregarding the Roman documentation of the man's existence? Really?


One throw away passage from Tacitus referring to hearsay that includes no claim that couldn't be picked out of the Gospels -and is included as a laudable counter-example to Roman decadence in a polemical work, no less- is not exactly evidence of anything real. Do you actually think the Germans were the Proud and Noble Savages Tacitus made them out to be, too? He was a good writer and his histories regarding Rome specifically are generally quite good compared to the biased stuff other writers produced, but Tacitus' writings on non-Romans is all in furtherance of his own goals of rejuvenating Roman society; something he flat-out admits in the works in question. Hell, the man never even left Rome to do primary research; non-Romans were no more than personified moral arguments to him. And lets not forget he was writing more than a century after the supposed events, when the Christian movement was already making inroads within the very educated Greek community that Tacitus would have been most in contact with as a Roman scholar. This sort of critical analysis of sources is basic stuff in history, and that people read his one reference to Christians without any consideration for why he was writing it is pretty ridiculous.
 
2012-03-22 09:50:28 AM

nopokerface: lippenhoffer: FTFA it seems the short answer is: Maybe. Long answer: We'll never knowwwwwwwwwwwww

Yep. And in the 6 sentences I read, this guy both admitted he hadn't read the other guy's book, and lied about what the other guy had said in his article.

So, thanks for the clarification, dude who can't wait one more day for Amazon to deliver!


How did he lie about what Ehrman said in his article?
 
2012-03-22 10:02:06 AM

violentsalvation: WhyteRaven74: if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.

Farking this.


Really? I know a history professor, and he thinks jesus is no more a historical figure than zeus.
 
2012-03-22 10:03:52 AM

Heron: WhyteRaven74: bob_ross: Religious people are idiots, isn't this common knowledge by now? Come on people it's 2012. Stop being effing fools.

Ehrman is an agnostic, and if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.

...It's certainly true that you won't see those people come out and say, flat out, to a class of freshmen that Jesus is a fabrication, but they were more than happy to show how every claim made about Jesus has obvious antecedentspredecessors in polytheistic and Jewish lore...


bah! Stoopid brain.
FTFM
 
2012-03-22 10:06:43 AM

Heron: Heron: WhyteRaven74: bob_ross: Religious people are idiots, isn't this common knowledge by now? Come on people it's 2012. Stop being effing fools.

Ehrman is an agnostic, and if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.

...It's certainly true that you won't see those people come out and say, flat out, to a class of freshmen that Jesus is a fabrication, but they were more than happy to show how every claim made about Jesus has obvious antecedentspredecessors in polytheistic and Jewish lore...

bah! Stoopid brain.
FTFM


Actually, wait, antecedent and predecessor are the same thing.

Bah:
2 X Stoopid Brain
Double Reverse FTFM


Seems like my internal editor is really out to fark with my head today :-/
 
2012-03-22 10:08:29 AM

Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.


Do you really believe this? The one and only text I've ever heard of mentioning anything that might be jesus is from the historion josephus and many peeople now think that even that text is a forgery inserted into his works. There are not hundreds of documents contemporary to when jesus would have lived documenting his existence.
 
2012-03-22 10:20:16 AM

Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.


Isn't Jesus sort of defined as the son of God? Maybe there was a man who had some of the claimed traits of Jesus, ie born on a certain year, died on a certain year, killed in a similar manner, and was named Joshua, but that would just be a question of demographics.

(and no, there wasn't "hundreds" of texts mentioning him apart from stuff written far after his claimed life and death).

It's like claiming that Bob was the son of God and performed thousands of miracles, born in 1935-1940 in either NYC or Jersey City, and died in 2001-2007 in Wilmington. Sure, you may actually find a Bob who fit the latter 2 traits, but the mere fact you found someone who may match some of your claims doesn't give credence to your central claim that someone existed with which this myth was based on.
 
2012-03-22 10:32:04 AM

timujin: 2. He wasn't a contemporary, he wrote his history about 60 years after Jesus supposedly lived


Hmmmmmmmmm. What does that remind me of? It's from some other famous book that is escaping me right now.
 
2012-03-22 10:32:54 AM

TheDumbBlonde: People are actually disregarding the Roman documentation of the man's existence? Really?


Aside from a brief mention by Josephus, there is none. And that by Josephus hardly qualifies as "Roman documentation", any more than this post is "United States documentation".
 
2012-03-22 10:36:49 AM

nmrsnr: Just out of curiosity, is there any other religion or mythology that is based around a supposed historical figure that we accept now as being entirely mythical? Like, is there any question as to the historicity of someone like Mohammed or the Buddha?


Hinduism. Krishna is every bit as real to the Hindus as Jesus is to the Christians. He appeared as the real-live driver of the chariot of the king in the Bhagavad Ghita, for instance. Many other of their gods have appeared as living incarnations (devas & devis).
 
2012-03-22 10:39:28 AM

AdolfOliverPanties: I am impressed that this guy wrote this lengthy retort to Ehrman's article in such short order.


Stock argument, counter-argument. There is nothing new here on either side.
 
2012-03-22 10:41:46 AM

Marcus Aurelius: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Marcus Aurelius: The historian Josephus observed that all the messianic cults had died out, except for one, based on Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Jew born to a mother that was impregnated by a Roman centurion. So he was not only a real person, but he had friends loyal enough to cut him down off the cross during a thunderstorm. He laid low after that.

Hearsay isn't any more true when it's historical hearsay.

Surviving Aramaic documents back up Josephus. Not my words, but rather a friend of mine that knows Aramaic.


Et tu, Marcus?

Loco! (I keed!)
 
2012-03-22 11:00:04 AM

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: nmrsnr: Just out of curiosity, is there any other religion or mythology that is based around a supposed historical figure that we accept now as being entirely mythical? Like, is there any question as to the historicity of someone like Mohammed or the Buddha?

The evidence in favor of his historicity seems to me to be that within relative short order (~50 years) a group of people would have had to make up a person whom they supposedly interacted with, as opposed to creating a historical figure, which is much more common (Moses, Rama, Romulus and Remus, etc.)

John Frum (new window)


that's actually pretty spot on. As I was thinking more on it, John Henry would probably also apply.
 
2012-03-22 11:04:07 AM
but what if Jesus was an extraterrestrial?

you can't explain that
 
2012-03-22 11:10:13 AM

Broom: nmrsnr: Just out of curiosity, is there any other religion or mythology that is based around a supposed historical figure that we accept now as being entirely mythical? Like, is there any question as to the historicity of someone like Mohammed or the Buddha?

Hinduism. Krishna is every bit as real to the Hindus as Jesus is to the Christians. He appeared as the real-live driver of the chariot of the king in the Bhagavad Ghita, for instance. Many other of their gods have appeared as living incarnations (devas & devis).


yeah, but, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bhagavad Gita would be more like the Old Testament, claiming a true history but recorded well afterwards. The New Testament is supposedly a record by people who knew people who were taught by Jesus, only one generation removed from the events recorded, meaning at the time of the telling there could have been people who remembered the crucifixion, or lack thereof. Creating a supposedly real human out of whole cloth within a generation of their existence seems more unlikely than merely exaggerating the exploits of a real person, but it seems to have been done elsewhere.
 
2012-03-22 11:17:04 AM

Nadie_AZ: Just as long as they leave other people alone and don't try to legislate their beliefs and morality.


But that's the problem, they don't. Even when their magic book specifically tells them not to.
 
2012-03-22 11:19:58 AM

falcon176: is this the thread where people who will never move from their stance talk to other people who will never move from their stance and nothing is accomplished


Are you saying that those who are correct should move from their stance just to be fair?
 
2012-03-22 11:23:26 AM

Rent is too damn high: Isn't Jesus sort of defined as the son of God?


Not even close. "Jesus" was the 4 B.C. version of "Bob" (or, if you're Mexican, "Jesus").

"Christ" was the Greek translation of "Messiah" (Hebrew), or "Savior". That's prob what you're thinking of.
 
2012-03-22 11:28:40 AM

nmrsnr: yeah, but, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bhagavad Gita would be more like the Old Testament, claiming a true history but recorded well afterwards. The New Testament is supposedly a record by people who knew people who were taught by Jesus, only one generation removed from the events recorded, meaning at the time of the telling there could have been people who remembered the crucifixion, or lack thereof.


If by "only one generation removed" you mean "within about 60 years", yeah.
 
2012-03-22 11:38:51 AM

Broom: Rent is too damn high: Isn't Jesus sort of defined as the son of God?

Not even close. "Jesus" was the 4 B.C. version of "Bob" (or, if you're Mexican, "Jesus").

"Christ" was the Greek translation of "Messiah" (Hebrew), or "Savior". That's prob what you're thinking of.


I've heard it's possible that Barabbas was also named Jesus, hence the clarification by Pilate.
 
2012-03-22 11:45:01 AM

Broom: Rent is too damn high: Isn't Jesus sort of defined as the son of God?

Not even close. "Jesus" was the 4 B.C. version of "Bob" (or, if you're Mexican, "Jesus").

"Christ" was the Greek translation of "Messiah" (Hebrew), or "Savior". That's prob what you're thinking of.


The Jesus of the Bible, yeah that's what I'm talking about. As I said (which I hope you read), proving there was a man who fit the nonsupernatural characteristics claimed in the bible would be a demographic problem, not much of a historiographical problem.
 
2012-03-22 12:00:09 PM

nmrsnr: Just out of curiosity, is there any other religion or mythology that is based around a supposed historical figure that we accept now as being entirely mythical? Like, is there any question as to the historicity of someone like Mohammed or the Buddha?


Well, Mohammed was pretty recent, and led some military campaigns, so there's little doubt he truly existed. The Buddha, though, is widely taken to be symbolic. In Hinduism, where Buddhism has its roots, it's said that everyone has an inner Buddha, or higher and awakened self. The tales about the experiences of the Buddha are sometimes taken to be metaphors or lessons for everyone's struggle towards enlightenment, and not that of an individual person.

As an interesting aside, there is some heavy overlap with certain christian mystic groups between the messiah and buddha concepts. With them saying Christ is representative of the messiah aspect of each of us.
 
2012-03-22 12:05:58 PM

J. Frank Parnell: The Buddha, though, is widely taken to be symbolic. In Hinduism, where Buddhism has its roots, it's said that everyone has an inner Buddha, or higher and awakened self.


"The Buddha" is Siddharta Gautama, a prince born in 563 BCE. He is fairly well documented, AFAIK. His life as "the Buddha" is mythical, of course.

"An inner Buddha" is not a reference to a single person, so you're conflating two different ideas there.
 
2012-03-22 12:09:35 PM

0Icky0: falcon176: is this the thread where people who will never move from their stance talk to other people who will never move from their stance and nothing is accomplished

Are you saying that those who are correct should move from their stance just to be fair?


I would say that sometimes, these threads accomplish conversions from prior stances. I was raised Catholic and about 10 years ago, my dad gave me a hard copy of the Catholic Catachism. I read it and that started my path of non-belief. I couldn't rap my mind around the insanity that I was supposed to believe in. The funny thing is that, for a lot of it, I didn't even know it was things I was supposed to believe. Anyway, coming into these Fark religious flamewar threads really helped me accept reasoning and rid myself of the 30-odd years of brainwashing.
 
2012-03-22 12:23:50 PM

JerseyTim: If Jesus wasn't real, then who gave us the Constitution?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 550x371]


i43.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-22 12:25:18 PM

Broom: "The Buddha" is Siddharta Gautama, a prince born in 563 BCE. He is fairly well documented, AFAIK. His life as "the Buddha" is mythical, of course.


The title of Buddha just means someone who is awakened to their immortal and divine self, and could be applied to anyone who has achieved that. I think it quite literally means something like "awakened soul" in Sanskrit.

At least that's how it's spoken of in Hindusim. In Buddhism they tend to externalize it, and say it was just the one guy, Siddharta Gutama, as you mention. And everyone needs to follow him to be saved. Another curious similarity with Christian Salvationism.
 
2012-03-22 12:37:11 PM

J. Frank Parnell: In some sects of Buddhism they tend to externalize it, and it may be that one or two sects say it was just the one guy, Siddharta Gautama, as you mention (although most recognize him as the originator and godhead, while allowing others to also reach Buddha status; some sects - Zen, for instance - do not deify Buddha at all). And everyone needs to follow him to be saved in those sects that recognize him as the godhead. Another curious similarity with Christian Salvationism.


More accurate.
 
2012-03-22 12:42:45 PM

t3knomanser: nmrsnr: Like, is there any question as to the historicity of someone like Mohammed or the Buddha?

Socrates isn't a religious figure, but there are questions about his historicity.


I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there. I'm sure you can find one or two fringe scholars who will make this argument but no one believes it.

There are certainly questions whether Socrates said most of the things that are attributed to him (he left no writings of his own.) Plato and others were fond of putting their words in his mouth.

However there is zero question that Socrates was a real person. He was an Athenian citizen of modest means, but he fought in the hoplite army in historical battles, he led a couple of minor military expeditions, he had a nag of a wife and 2 unremarkable sons, he was a commander when Pericles was a young soldier, and his existence was attested to by numerous other historical figures such as Pericles, Xenophon, Plato, and others, and he was definitely put to death by the state in 399 BC.
 
2012-03-22 12:43:16 PM

manimal2878: Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.

Do you really believe this? The one and only text I've ever heard of mentioning anything that might be jesus is from the historion josephus and many peeople now think that even that text is a forgery inserted into his works. There are not hundreds of documents contemporary to when jesus would have lived documenting his existence.


You've never heard of the New Testament? Its a collection of many documented stories of people and their interactions with the guy... Its sorta famous. What are you people looking for, a photograph? his Facebook profile? All we have from that day are the written records...

I have no problem accepting that he existed. I don't (necessarily) believe he was the Son of God, and i presume that there were a few others claiming to be him, as well. Many of the parables in the Bible of his supposed miracles can be interpreted to have a very logical and scientific basis. So... thats what i think.. there was a guy walking around... he had a lot of charisma and fanbase, and he'd do normal, cool stuff, and the stories would get exaggerated, translated wrong, or misunderstood.
 
2012-03-22 12:59:10 PM

Rent is too damn high: Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.

Isn't Jesus sort of defined as the son of God? Maybe there was a man who had some of the claimed traits of Jesus, ie born on a certain year, died on a certain year, killed in a similar manner, and was named Joshua, but that would just be a question of demographics.

(and no, there wasn't "hundreds" of texts mentioning him apart from stuff written far after his claimed life and death).

It's like claiming that Bob was the son of God and performed thousands of miracles, born in 1935-1940 in either NYC or Jersey City, and died in 2001-2007 in Wilmington. Sure, you may actually find a Bob who fit the latter 2 traits, but the mere fact you found someone who may match some of your claims doesn't give credence to your central claim that someone existed with which this myth was based on.


THIS, so much THIS.

A Jesus =/= THE Jesus

A existed, THE has not been proven so much.

Also, my favorite fictional Jesus:

www.profilebrand.com
 
2012-03-22 01:04:51 PM
I honestly don't care about the historical nitpicking. I don't care of Jesus, or the Buddha, or Confucius were all just historical fictions to make moral points. Just like the other two, I like a lot of the things he said, and I try to rise to that concept of morality--even if I fail often.

I'm less concerned with whether the lessons came verbatim from his mouth or were attributed to his myth after the fact. I like the lessons that he tried to impart and use those to try and improve my own personal life--the way I treat people, particularly strangers. At the end of my life, I'm hoping I'll feel good about how I've lived it.
 
2012-03-22 01:12:07 PM

Broom: Zen, for instance - do not deify Buddha at all). And everyone needs to follow him to be saved in those sects that recognize him as the godhead.


I think you mean Ch'an.

And the godhead is normally associated with Krisha from Hinduism. Buddhism has no god/creator, so no godhead. Many asian spiritualities were Atheist several thousand years before it was cool.

Vajrayana Buddhism is the one exception, with them making the Buddha out to be an all-knowing superhuman deity, and that would be closer to the concept of the godhead and theism in general.
 
2012-03-22 01:16:05 PM

WhyteRaven74: bob_ross: Religious people are idiots, isn't this common knowledge by now? Come on people it's 2012. Stop being effing fools.

Ehrman is an agnostic, and if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.


Well yeah - you don't just "walk into any history department" if you don't belong there and just start saying things. If you burst into a history department and say something like "Augustus was a pretty cool guy, eh?" I'm sure that'll get you some strange looks too.

When I took my Early Roman Empire course, the professor mentioned Jesus in passing, noting that any mentions of his existence during his supposed life were sparse and dubious. Sure, Tacitus and Suetonius and maybe one or two others mention some guys once that may or may not be Jesus depending on how badly you want to believe, but those mentions are either poorly corroborated or hearsay (or both).
 
2012-03-22 01:37:46 PM

T.rex: manimal2878: Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.

Do you really believe this? The one and only text I've ever heard of mentioning anything that might be jesus is from the historion josephus and many peeople now think that even that text is a forgery inserted into his works. There are not hundreds of documents contemporary to when jesus would have lived documenting his existence.

You've never heard of the New Testament? Its a collection of many documented stories of people and their interactions with the guy... Its sorta famous. What are you people looking for, a photograph? his Facebook profile? All we have from that day are the written records...

I have no problem accepting that he existed. I don't (necessarily) believe he was the Son of God, and i presume that there were a few others claiming to be him, as well. Many of the parables in the Bible of his supposed miracles can be interpreted to have a very logical and scientific basis. So... thats what i think.. there was a guy walking around... he had a lot of charisma and fanbase, and he'd do normal, cool stuff, and the stories would get exaggerated, translated wrong, or misunderstood.


Wait, you do know that none of the people that wrote those stories of Jesus actually met him right? You do know they're total an utter fabrications based on historical mythology that predates Jesus by thousands of years? In fact, nearly every story is a directly copied from already pre-existing mythology.
 
2012-03-22 01:40:12 PM

nmrsnr: You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: nmrsnr: Just out of curiosity, is there any other religion or mythology that is based around a supposed historical figure that we accept now as being entirely mythical? Like, is there any question as to the historicity of someone like Mohammed or the Buddha?

The evidence in favor of his historicity seems to me to be that within relative short order (~50 years) a group of people would have had to make up a person whom they supposedly interacted with, as opposed to creating a historical figure, which is much more common (Moses, Rama, Romulus and Remus, etc.)

John Frum (new window)

that's actually pretty spot on. As I was thinking more on it, John Henry would probably also apply.


I thought James K. Polk was on Factory Showroom, not John Henry
 
2012-03-22 01:44:25 PM
Just to continue that and maybe clarify.

I don't mean salvation in the sense of being saved by a deity, just in the sense of needing to look to someone else to be saved instead of looking inward and saving yourself. Whether or not the person you look to for salvation is a normal person, or a mysterious entity that may or may not exist, it's essentially the same thing.

The Buddha even said, allegedly:

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

"Find out for yourself what is truth, what is real. Discover that there are virtuous things and there are non-virtuous things. Once you have discovered for yourself give up the bad and embrace the good."

So, to me at least, it seems anyone who believes it's all about him, and blindly believing what he said is the path to salvation, is missing the point entirely.
 
2012-03-22 01:45:10 PM

justtray: T.rex: manimal2878: Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.

Do you really believe this? The one and only text I've ever heard of mentioning anything that might be jesus is from the historion josephus and many peeople now think that even that text is a forgery inserted into his works. There are not hundreds of documents contemporary to when jesus would have lived documenting his existence.

You've never heard of the New Testament? Its a collection of many documented stories of people and their interactions with the guy... Its sorta famous. What are you people looking for, a photograph? his Facebook profile? All we have from that day are the written records...

I have no problem accepting that he existed. I don't (necessarily) believe he was the Son of God, and i presume that there were a few others claiming to be him, as well. Many of the parables in the Bible of his supposed miracles can be interpreted to have a very logical and scientific basis. So... thats what i think.. there was a guy walking around... he had a lot of charisma and fanbase, and he'd do normal, cool stuff, and the stories would get exaggerated, translated wrong, or misunderstood.

Wait, you do know that none of the people that wrote those stories of Jesus actually met him right? You do know they're total an utter fabrications based on historical mythology that predates Jesus by thousands of years? In fact, nearly every story is a directly copied from already pre-existing mythology.


How do these stories predate a man who never existed in the first place, then? You're in confliction, even with your own beliefs.
 
2012-03-22 01:47:49 PM

T.rex: justtray: T.rex: manimal2878: Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.

Do you really believe this? The one and only text I've ever heard of mentioning anything that might be jesus is from the historion josephus and many peeople now think that even that text is a forgery inserted into his works. There are not hundreds of documents contemporary to when jesus would have lived documenting his existence.

You've never heard of the New Testament? Its a collection of many documented stories of people and their interactions with the guy... Its sorta famous. What are you people looking for, a photograph? his Facebook profile? All we have from that day are the written records...

I have no problem accepting that he existed. I don't (necessarily) believe he was the Son of God, and i presume that there were a few others claiming to be him, as well. Many of the parables in the Bible of his supposed miracles can be interpreted to have a very logical and scientific basis. So... thats what i think.. there was a guy walking around... he had a lot of charisma and fanbase, and he'd do normal, cool stuff, and the stories would get exaggerated, translated wrong, or misunderstood.

Wait, you do know that none of the people that wrote those stories of Jesus actually met him right? You do know they're total an utter fabrications based on historical mythology that predates Jesus by thousands of years? In fact, nearly every story is a directly copied from already pre-existing mythology.

How do these stories predate a man who never existed in the first place, then? You're in confliction, even ...


Projection is funny. You are funny.

Do something about that low self confidence. I suggest moving away from organized religion (cults).
 
2012-03-22 01:50:08 PM
You can't be Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is seven feet tall. Consumes the Roman army with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.
 
2012-03-22 02:37:48 PM

Dired: You can't prove a negative of course, but for such a revered figure, the lack of contemporary evidence of anything about him just strikes as odd and unexpected.


It's exceedingly hard to prove the historical existence of my great-great-great-granparents via contemporary accounts too, and that was less than two cenuries ago. When you consider that even according to the Gospels, Jesus was little more than a local regional preacher during the time of his life. His sphere of influence during his lifetime was likely a few hundred people at most, with only a few dozen close associates. He was a local preacher-man executed as a trivial criminal. The revering cam later, and THAT is very documented.

It would be like finding historical contemporary accounts for a back-woods evangelist no one was paying any attention to at the time.

We have the same kinds of problems with Robin Hood, King Arthur, Roland, etc. who were far more recent and purportedly had greater impact on their societies DURING their lifetimes.

Even Boudica, who indisputably exists is largely only referenced by Tacitus, who got it from someone who was there.

So, no. Not very suprising really.
 
2012-03-22 03:00:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: It's exceedingly hard to prove the historical existence of my great-great-great-granparents via contemporary accounts too, and that was less than two cenuries ago.


That's not quite analogous. Poor record-keeping might leave you unable to prove that some specific person was one of your great-great-great-grandparents, but it nonetheless must be true (for obvious reasons) that every single one of your great-great-great-grandparents did indeed exist.

By contrast, Jesus doesn't have to exist. The dubious passages that purportedly mention him may be just as easily be fabrications, mistakes, or even sincere recollections of events that never happened (memory and the senses being as unreliable as they are).
 
2012-03-22 03:16:14 PM

timujin: TheDumbBlonde: People are actually disregarding the Roman documentation of the man's existence? Really?

Please provide a citation to such documentation.


ReverendJasen: WhyteRaven74: if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.

So then, it must be an extremely simple matter to prove beyond doubt.
Right?
/farking right?


Nix Nightbird: Darklemming: Uh... Jesus Christ was a real person. Debate all you want about whether or not he was the son of God, but he actually existed as a human being. The part they got wrong was the timeline of his birth and death. It's now believed he actually died 6 years (6 B.C.) before when it was originally thought he was born.

There's hundreds of non-religious historical texts that mention him or talk about him in practical terms.


Show us one.


This seems like a question of evidence, not opinion. I'm seeing a lot of claims that there's plenty of evidence for historicity and no one is actually presenting it. I don't have a dog in the historicity argument either way, but I would imagine that something prompting a claim like this:

WhyteRaven74: if you walk into any history department anywhere and suggest Jesus didn't exist, you're liable to find yourself being lead away in a straight jacket.


Should be relatively trivial to demonstrate.

Where is this evidence?
 
2012-03-22 03:31:41 PM

JerseyTim: If Jesus wasn't real, then who gave us the Constitution?

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 550x371]


thedilettantista.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-03-22 03:42:23 PM

Biological Ali: The dubious passages that purportedly mention him may be just as easily be fabrications, mistakes, or even sincere recollections of events that never happened (memory and the senses being as unreliable as they are).


Or they may or may not be factual statements. Since we accept many OTHER references in these same sources as factual, albiet secondary historical sources it seems curious that we would be selectively dubious.

If we had the same number of references to a certain man named Beebus existed in Apalachia in 1750, related to an off-shoot of the Quakers known to engage in snake handling before he was killed in a fued, (meaning a few sparse minor references) no one would doubt it.
 
2012-03-22 03:46:11 PM

Jon Snow: Where is this evidence?


Here let me google it for you.

This is an old dance. Someone will refer to this or that source and someone else wil linsist that this or that source doesn't actually count for this or that reason. The Gospels themselves are or are not accepted as historical sources based on bias both ways.

If you are genuinely interested, do the research it's out there. You can then decide on the validity for yourself.

FWIW, 'hundreds' is an over-statement. More like 'dozens of references of various levels of reliability', but that's just my take.
 
2012-03-22 03:47:54 PM

BojanglesPaladin: If we had the same number of references to a certain man named Beebus existed in Apalachia in 1750, related to an off-shoot of the Quakers known to engage in snake handling before he was killed in a fued, (meaning a few sparse minor references) no one would doubt it.


If there were multiple Beebuses (Beebodes?) living at the same time, and people claimed that one in particular had great historical significance, I think that you might see a similar level of skepticism.

Whether there was someone who fit a general profile is a different issue than whether a specific, unique individual existed.
 
2012-03-22 03:52:37 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Here let me google it for you.


I don't bear the burden of proof. I am not making positive claims.

BojanglesPaladin: If you are genuinely interested, do the research it's out there. You can then decide on the validity for yourself.


Sure. I could. Or the people so convinced of their own position that they think anyone doubting it would be institutionalized for being crazy might, you know, actually step up and support their claims.

When I make a positive claim in a climate change thread, I provide citations to peer reviewed studies published in respected, relevant journals. I do this not because other people can't use Google, but because I recognize that if I am advancing a positive claim, the burden of proof rests on me.

I am asking for no more than I demand of myself.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report