CDZ Reply to no proof of existence of Jesus

[jwoodie]

The better question here is why does one that thinks he did not exist care?

The basic fact of the matter is that one of faith is going to believe that Jesus existed. The very basis of faith is that proof is not necessary nor even sought - it is personal and the 'proof' for faith internal. For those that do not believe, does Jesus' existence change anything? Not at all. Christianity is still here, it's effects and influence still here and ultimately trying to state Jesus did not exist is an exercise in futility. You are not going to convince anyone that has faith and those that do not have faith are not really in a position to care one way or another.

The only reason that I can see for trying to bring something like this up and defending it (Jesus not existing) would be to throw discredit onto a religion which is, at the very best, nonsensical.

Your post is like proverbial March weather: In like a lion, out like a lamb. First, you ask a legitimate question, but then pollute it with your own anti-religious biases:

The "basic fact of the matter" regarding Jesus' existence is historical evidence, not merely belief or "faith internal." Whether or not you believe Christianity to be "nonsensical" is neither relevant nor particularly interesting.

 

[FA_Q2]

The better question here is why does one that thinks he did not exist care?

The basic fact of the matter is that one of faith is going to believe that Jesus existed. The very basis of faith is that proof is not necessary nor even sought - it is personal and the 'proof' for faith internal. For those that do not believe, does Jesus' existence change anything? Not at all. Christianity is still here, it's effects and influence still here and ultimately trying to state Jesus did not exist is an exercise in futility. You are not going to convince anyone that has faith and those that do not have faith are not really in a position to care one way or another.

The only reason that I can see for trying to bring something like this up and defending it (Jesus not existing) would be to throw discredit onto a religion which is, at the very best, nonsensical.

Your post is like proverbial March weather: In like a lion, out like a lamb. First, you ask a legitimate question, but then pollute it with your own anti-religious biases:

The "basic fact of the matter" regarding Jesus' existence is historical evidence, not merely belief or "faith internal." Whether or not you believe Christianity to be "nonsensical" is neither relevant nor particularly interesting.

You should really try reading that again. I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

That has nothing to do with religious bias.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You should really try reading that again. I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

That has nothing to do with religious bias.

I have to agree with you there.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Neither Josephus or Eusebius were even ALIVE when they allege Jesus was! All they did was repeat stories people told them! They had no idea if it was true or a myth since they NEVER saw him!

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Some GREAT info below on to the utter lack of evidence for Jesus & how other gods like Hercules have very similar stories to Jesus!

Did Jesus exist?

Neither Josephus or Eusebius were even ALIVE when they allege Jesus was! All they did was repeat stories people told them! They had no idea if it was true or a myth since they NEVER saw him!

That line of reasoning, or if you prefer, requirement for establishing veracity, is one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while, even for USMB.

• Do you also think scads of other Biblical characters simply didn't exist because the people who wrote of them didn't personally know them?
• Do you think biographers have to meet the person about whom they write to know that person walked the earth?
• Moses is credited with writing the Pentateuch. Do you think he knew Adam and Eve? Or Cain and Abel? Or Abraham? Or all those other people mentioned in the first five books of the Bible?

I don't know what experience you have with archaeological validation, but clearly it's not enough for you to credibly assert that a Jewish dude named Jesus walked the earth and catalyzed a religious movement based on his very existence and sayings. Josephus and Tacitus tell the same story about the guy. Josephus, a Jew, and Tacitus, a Roman, had nothing to gain by even mentioning Jesus.

As a movement, Christianity wasn't much to speak of when Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus, so there'd have been no point in their inventing him. Heck, Jesus and his earliest followers weren't even Christians; they were Jews who were trying to effect reform within Judaism.

• Christianity in its relationship to Judaism
• Split of early Christianity and Judaism - Wikipedia
  
• Between Judaism and Christianity

One can, in an effort to establish the starting point of Christianity, quibble over when the split occurred in a complete and final form, but there's no mistaking that Jesus and his Apostles saw themselves as Jews. Moreover, such disputation doesn't address whether Jesus existed. One can even consider that maybe people mispronounced or misspelled Jesus' name; however, that still doesn't establish that a person who had a ton of followers didn't exist.

I mean really. It's one thing to worship and follow a deity or whatever that nobody's ever seen. That just wasn't the case for Jesus' disciples/Apostles. They believed him because they knew him. Jesus invented the notion of "god before us as man" and, apparently, he was at least a decent magician or physician, so people bought into his "schtick." Jesus could have been the first guy to figure out CPR and how to use it. Maybe he had smelling salts? Who knows? That part of the story doesn't come down to us; it just looked like a miracle to the people of the day.

(Odds are then as now, a magician never reveals his secret. I'll wager dollars to donuts that a magician who's purporting to be a god isn't about to reveal his secrets.)

Refuting the Jesus Myth

I don't think one need necessarily buy into the holiness, godliness, miracle working, rising from the dead, ascending bodily into Heaven, saying "this" or meaning "that" and all the rest about Jesus, but refuting the notion that the man lived and walked on Earth is just preposterous. I'm sure there's plenty about Jesus that's been embellished and fabricated, but not his mere existence.

I think you are trying to say that because we don't from ancient times have the same sorts of evidence of the existence of certain individuals, they didn't exist. That's just not a credible basis for asserting existence or denying it. If you went to China and asked a 50 people about Mother Theresa and each person said they'd never heard of her, would you then deny she existed? That's essentially the nature of the argument you and Jesus Mythologists put forth.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus.

What? You surely have a reason why you wrote that. Presumably you think it helps prove your point somehow. It doesn't.

Tacitus, the other early writer of Jesus' name, was not a Christian. He was a Roman senator. He lived from around mid first century to early-ish second century AD. Josephus was a bit older and the two men lived contemporaneously. Yes, Flavius Josephus wrote his Jewish Antiquities around 90 AD and Tacitus' mentions Jesus in a text written some 15 or so years later.

I've remarked on your comment because it carries a tone that implies there were hundreds of years or more separation between them. There wasn't. Yes, one of them must necessarily have written Jesus' name before the other, but to talk about some 15-20 years as being material to who came first in the act of writing the name of a minor pain in the Roman's ass -- Jesus -- seems like making a point that has no point, at least in this discussion's context.

 

[jwoodie]

I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

Thanks for the clarification, but you seem to characterize Christians as incapable of rational analysis of historical facts (ergo, because they believe Christ to be devine, they must be stupid). Do you hold Buddhists in the same disregard?

 

[FA_Q2]

I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

Thanks for the clarification, but you seem to characterize Christians as incapable of rational analysis of historical facts (ergo, because they believe Christ to be devine, they must be stupid). Do you hold Buddhists in the same disregard?

*sigh*
STOP reading my posts with assertions you think are there that are not. I have never said any such thing.

Nowhere have I stated that Christians are incapable of rational thought. What I have stated is that Jesus existence is a fact for Christians no matter what another wants to say about his existence and that proof is not necessary in this context. Presenting an argument that Jesus did not exist is nonsensical to someone that accepts his existence on a basis of faith.

 

[jwoodie]

I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

Thanks for the clarification, but you seem to characterize Christians as incapable of rational analysis of historical facts (ergo, because they believe Christ to be devine, they must be stupid). Do you hold Buddhists in the same disregard?

*sigh*
STOP reading my posts with assertions you think are there that are not. I have never said any such thing.

Nowhere have I stated that Christians are incapable of rational thought. What I have stated is that Jesus existence is a fact for Christians no matter what another wants to say about his existence and that proof is not necessary in this context. Presenting an argument that Jesus did not exist is nonsensical to someone that accepts his existence on a basis of faith.

"sigh"
STOP replying to my posts if you are incapable of rational thought. Many people (myself included) "believe" in the teachings attributed to Jesus, regardless of his actual identity. However, there seems to be ample historical evidence that someone of his general description did exist during the time period in question who provided a basis for reciting those teachings. Characterizing them as the equivalent of Greek mythology is intellectually lazy. As I asked before, do you hold the teachings of Buddha in the same disregard?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Presenting an argument that Jesus did not exist is nonsensical to someone that accepts his existence on a basis of faith.

Yes, well, when talking to certain people of faith, one must realize that what is in fact an expression of faith by them is by them perceived as an expression of objective/existential fact. So, yes, I tend to agree with you.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

Thanks for the clarification, but you seem to characterize Christians as incapable of rational analysis of historical facts (ergo, because they believe Christ to be devine, they must be stupid). Do you hold Buddhists in the same disregard?

*sigh*
STOP reading my posts with assertions you think are there that are not. I have never said any such thing.

Nowhere have I stated that Christians are incapable of rational thought. What I have stated is that Jesus existence is a fact for Christians no matter what another wants to say about his existence and that proof is not necessary in this context. Presenting an argument that Jesus did not exist is nonsensical to someone that accepts his existence on a basis of faith.

"sigh"
STOP replying to my posts if you are incapable of rational thought. Many people (myself included) "believe" in the teachings attributed to Jesus, regardless of his actual identity. However, there seems to be ample historical evidence that someone of his general description did exist during the time period in question who provided a basis for reciting those teachings. Characterizing them as the equivalent of Greek mythology is intellectually lazy. As I asked before, do you hold the teachings of Buddha in the same disregard?

You are plainly incapable of discussing something on this topic without a mountain of straw men. I will no longer bother.

 

[jwoodie]

You are plainly incapable of discussing something on this topic without a mountain of straw men.

You are plainly incapable of providing examples to substantiate your fatuous assertions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

Thanks for the clarification, but you seem to characterize Christians as incapable of rational analysis of historical facts (ergo, because they believe Christ to be devine, they must be stupid). Do you hold Buddhists in the same disregard?

*sigh*
STOP reading my posts with assertions you think are there that are not. I have never said any such thing.

Nowhere have I stated that Christians are incapable of rational thought. What I have stated is that Jesus existence is a fact for Christians no matter what another wants to say about his existence and that proof is not necessary in this context. Presenting an argument that Jesus did not exist is nonsensical to someone that accepts his existence on a basis of faith.

"sigh"
STOP replying to my posts if you are incapable of rational thought. Many people (myself included) "believe" in the teachings attributed to Jesus, regardless of his actual identity. However, there seems to be ample historical evidence that someone of his general description did exist during the time period in question who provided a basis for reciting those teachings. Characterizing them as the equivalent of Greek mythology is intellectually lazy. As I asked before, do you hold the teachings of Buddha in the same disregard?

You are plainly incapable of discussing something on this topic without a mountain of straw men. I will no longer bother.

Those that deny Jesus lived are more rare than the people that deny the Moon Landings were real.

There is always that fringe "Elvis is still alive" crowd that will never be convinced other wise no matter what evidence one may present to them.

 

[FA_Q2]

I never called Christianity nonsensical. I called the notion of trying to disprove Jesus to a Christian nonsensical.

Thanks for the clarification, but you seem to characterize Christians as incapable of rational analysis of historical facts (ergo, because they believe Christ to be devine, they must be stupid). Do you hold Buddhists in the same disregard?

*sigh*
STOP reading my posts with assertions you think are there that are not. I have never said any such thing.

Nowhere have I stated that Christians are incapable of rational thought. What I have stated is that Jesus existence is a fact for Christians no matter what another wants to say about his existence and that proof is not necessary in this context. Presenting an argument that Jesus did not exist is nonsensical to someone that accepts his existence on a basis of faith.

"sigh"
STOP replying to my posts if you are incapable of rational thought. Many people (myself included) "believe" in the teachings attributed to Jesus, regardless of his actual identity. However, there seems to be ample historical evidence that someone of his general description did exist during the time period in question who provided a basis for reciting those teachings. Characterizing them as the equivalent of Greek mythology is intellectually lazy. As I asked before, do you hold the teachings of Buddha in the same disregard?

You are plainly incapable of discussing something on this topic without a mountain of straw men. I will no longer bother.

Those that deny Jesus lived are more rare than the people that deny the Moon Landings were real.

There is always that fringe "Elvis is still alive" crowd that will never be convinced other wise no matter what evidence one may present to them.

Sure, every group or belief has those that are die hard followers who will deny or justify the existence of something regardless of the evidence. That has little to do with my statements though.

I do not know how common Jesus deniers my or may not be or how that relates to the moon deniers - the concept warrants little attention.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sure, every group or belief has those that are die hard followers who will deny or justify the existence of something regardless of the evidence. That has little to do with my statements though.
I do not know how common Jesus deniers my or may not be or how that relates to the moon deniers - the concept warrants little attention.

I believe int he 'MArket Place of ideas' and that the general consensus, though not logical proof does act as an indicator of what is most likely to be true.

In this case athiests and Jesus Deniers are about as big a group of losers as one can find on any topic.