No historical Jesus

[Boss]

Let's not forget that the vast majority of scholars are the product of Christian seminaries.

Well... yes... usually, people who are Biblical scholars attended Christian seminary. Most people who are Judges went to Law School. Most doctors attended medical school. Unfortunately, there are not a whole lot of Biblical scholars who are Atheists. Not a lot of firemen who are pyromaniacs.

The professions you cite are not based on a mythology of "faith".

Everything is based on a mythology of faith, asshole.

 

[Indeependent]

One or two steps...
Try 2,000 years.

I'll tell you what
You are posting LINKS regarding "newspaper articles" from people who never met Jesus and I'm wasting YOUR time?
I'd like to see ONE piece of papyrus I can get someone to translate.

OP>>>>No historical Jesus


That has been proved and accepted by "qualified" and degreed historians, experts in their field that I have provided in those links. Your homespun and myopic perspectives have been exploded and proven wrong.

Me: Other than a pompous ass historian "making the claim", where's the evidence?
You: A pompous ass historian "making the claim".

Seriously, I need something I can submit for evidence other than TNT or an "eyewitness account" by someone writing a post-mortum article on Jesus in The Roman Times.

Anyway, I'm past bored.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sources outside the New Testament that mention Paul include:

• Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians (late 1st/early 2nd century);
• Ignatius of Antioch's letter To the Romans (early 2nd century);
• Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (early 2nd century);
• The 2nd-century document Martyrdom of Polycarp.

So Paul of Tarsus was a real person who wrote extensively about Jesus and his message.

Now... I have no idea how to maneuver through your minefield of rejection when it comes to evidence... you seem to want some kind of a historical quote from a non-Christian, talking about Jesus in his writings or something? Of course, Paul of Tarsus is about as close as you'll get to that... but you don't accept him because... why again? Oh... he wrote part of the Bible!

The New Testament of the Bible is a comprehensive set of books from people writing about Jesus. It's like the Jesus Documentary box set. But that's not "evidence" for you.

In short, what you have spent days here demanding is that someone change your stubborn mind that refuses to accept evidence of any kind if it contradicts your preconceived belief. Maybe you're retarded and don't comprehend this but no one can ever make you change your mind.

Apparently, you never read The Book of James; Paul never met Jesus. James says Paul was an asshole.
I am already familiar with your long winded style which is why I never respond to your postings.

Uhm... yeah, I'm pretty sure Paul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus.
Yes, he was a total asshole and not a Jesus freak. He was on his way to kill Christians.
You guys would have LOVED Paul in his younger days. He was just like you!

You just proved you didn't read The Book of James.

 

[Esmeralda]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of yet another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

 

[Indeependent]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

 

[Esmeralda]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

 

[Indeependent]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

 

[Esmeralda]

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

His dislike of Christianity is politically based. That was my point.

 

[Indeependent]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

His dislike of Christianity is politically based. That was my point.

I don't get that impression.
I know he's a Liberal but he very often makes religious comments separate and apart from political issues.
In either case, he goes a bit too far for my taste.

 

[OZman]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

 

[Boss]

The Gospels are the sole source of information about a historical Jesus. Everything that we know about Jesus and Christianity depends on that source. Confucius 6th century BC Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism from the Analects “love thy neighbor as thyself. Do nothing to thy neighbor, which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter”. These verses were not original to the gospels. Nobody knows when they were written or who wrote them. The Bible-based religions we now have (Catholic or Protestant) are nothing like the Hebrew religion of the church established at Jerusalem. The practices of this first Jewish church are not practiced by any major religion and they are almost unknown. In its place are doctrines of Christianity, which was begun by Constantine. In Matthew and Mark the Romans crucify Jesus, but in Luke and John it is the Jews who crucify him.

Numbers 23:19 states that God is not a man. God was not born, and God certainly did not die.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were being written in 150 BCE and continued until 70 CE, a period of 220 years. During those years 872 scrolls were written in Hebrew and Aramaic by the peoples of Qumran. The supposed life of Jesus was between 2 BCE and 36 CE (38 years) and the Great Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. These dates are important for understanding the importance of what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed. After scholars completed the translation work on the Dead Sea Scrolls a very important fact was obvious.

Nowhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the name of Jesus mentioned, and Christianity had no support in the translations. The Dead Sea Scrolls challenged the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. The scrolls make no mention of Jesus or that the ‘Jesus message’ originated with him.

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

 

[HaShev]

QUOTE to Boss

You just proved you didn't read The Book of James.

Hell, even James never read the book of James.
:-D

 

[OZman]

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

My intention was to question the validity of some scholarly work, not the existence or non existence of Jesus.
I am neutral on the subject.

 

[Boss]

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

My intention was to question the validity of some scholarly work, not the existence or non existence of Jesus.
I am neutral on the subject.

Validity of evidence is what proof is all about. Now imagine I am a primitive king of a tribe in Africa. I believe in the Gods and have no knowledge of science. You are assigned the task of explaining to me why rain happens. I am ignorant of the physical sciences you try to explain with. Your "evidence" is not validated with me and therefore, can't convince me my Rain God isn't real. You can 'explain' until you're blue in the face, I will never understand until I can find your evidence valid.

The same applies here in reverse. You are unwilling to accept evidence from scholars because you believe their information is biased based on their religious faith. You cannot find the evidence valid. That doesn't meant the evidence isn't valid.

 

[Searcher44]

That the Dead Sea Scrolls don't specifically speak of Jesus is not proof that He did not walk the earth. Don't the scrolls speak of a Messiah? The Scrolls back up much of the Old Testament which also prophesied the coming of Jesus, do they not?

Just curious. Are you really looking to discuss this or is this just another of your Christians are crummy people posts?

The Jesus Christ of the NT resembles in no way the Messiah spoken of in Hebrew scriptures. Different NT authors tried to manufacture stories and "facts" to make that happen, none of them succeeded.

 

[Searcher44]

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

Same for me, my only intent was to question whether a scholars work could be compromised by being a "believer". I am more open to a scholar who has no affiliation.

Again, most scholars agree, religious or not, that Jesus existed. This question emerged long ago among anti-Christians who thunk it up as a good argument against Christianity. It relies on the fact that Jesus was unpopular in his time, and thus, there is not a lot of documented accounts. What few there may have been were likely destroyed by people who wanted to wipe out Christianity in the early days. Christians were hated and despised.. that's why they crucified Jesus.

May be a stretch for an analogy here but if sometime in the distant future, someone was trying to confirm the existence of Malcolm X... wouldn't find any mention of him in textbooks of the 60s or any legislators talking about him or much public record to show he existed. He was a radical and we know he existed but because of who he was, there just isn't a lot of information to prove his existence in the 60s if you're looking back from 2,000 years ahead. Yes, I know, we do have birth records and such, but he wasn't born Malcolm X... so how could anything be confirmed?

Now I don't want to start an argument over Malcolm X, that's not the purpose of the analogy... I am trying to convey the point that Jesus was not a popular figure in his time. This explains the lack of record partially, but the other part is the cleansing of the records of anything Christian which took place after his crucifixion.

Let's say a person called Jesus existed. Let's say he was an incredible teacher.
Let's he had Powers to somehow cure some sick people (like televangelists today claim to have). That still doesn't make him the messiah. "Messiah" is a Jewish term and prophecy and every Jewish scholar I've read said the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah has no corroboration in their scriptures, the OT. The story of Christ in the NT in no way matches the Jewish description or prophecies so the validity of "the Christ" of Christian myth as the Messiah is in truth devastatingly diminished. Thus the portrayal of Jesus as "divine" is gravely damaged and questionable as him being the Messiah is a large part of the story that led to his deification.

 

[OZman]

The same applies here in reverse. You are unwilling to accept evidence from scholars because you believe their information is biased based on their religious faith. You cannot find the evidence valid. That doesn't meant the evidence isn't valid.

I am neutral on the whole Jesus story, I do not deny that he existed I am just not convinced by any recounting of his life. My own interpretation is that he was an Essene/Ebionite.

 

[Mudda]

As a matter of fact, there were several guys named Jesus preaching around the same time. Maybe the bible is talking about the wrong one?

 

[Alex.]

So this is a thread were non-Christians try to deny the existence of Christ? You must be so proud. My point is that this is petty and ignorant. Do something more important with your mind and time.

Not at all.
I can't prove Avraham, Yitzchak or Yaakov existed.
I can't prove Moshe or Aharone existed.
I can't prove King David or his son King Solomon existed.
There are lots of things that cannot presently be proven.
Doesn't make it not true, just improvable at the current time.

No religion is proven by concrete evidence: all religion is based on faith. It is ludicrous for one religion to try to prove the lack of validity in another. All religions are based on faith: they are faith based. For any religious person who bases their religion on the existence of God to try negate another religion is ludicrous: there is no evidence for the existence of god, any god.

I am not a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc. I am not religious at all. Not an atheist, not an agnostic. I am a free thinker: religion is not any part of my make up or world view.

What I object to in this thread is the logical fallacy, the premise that one can object to the validity of another religion when they themselves belong to and adhere to the beliefs of another religion based on things that are not proven with concrete evidence. Judaism and all, ALL, religions are faith based. The premise of the thread lacks logic, in total.

I agree with you until the last paragraph.
This thread and my postings have nothing to do with the validity of Christianity.

I believe the OP is concerned with politics and not religion.

Nope. Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity.
I separate TNT from the atrocities committed by TRCC as TNT does not promote violence.

Indeependent: "Unfortunately Guno is an obsessive hater of Christianity".

As you are, you claim objectivity yet you spew diatribes and blame worthy assignations in your references to Christianity or the teachings of Jesus.

You have not addressed the OP but apply your contrived version of what you wish it to be without a scintilla of proof proclaiming you are an expert without qualification stating you have an advanced degree in a field of study no one has ever heard of yet dismiss true experts in the field who are qualified scholastically, through performance and are recognized as such in their field by their peers.

After your scheme is uncovered and your position is shown to be a sham you get angry and start to strike out at those who oppose your poorly formed and orchestrated derailment of this thread. You simply are not as intelligent, urbane or sophisticated as you make yourself out to be and it shows in woefully obvious manners in almost every one of your posts in this thread.

My position still stands, I have produced several recognized and accepted sources that establish there is a Historical Jesus. Can you respond to this or should I just leave you alone to carry with the aforementioned activity?

 

[jillian]

Well, this thread will no doubt change many Christian minds...

Are the threads on this board intended to change minds?

No, I'd guess most are just to flame and annoy, not unlike what might happen on a grade school playground, and this would be another example.

Why that is, who knows. There are clearly many here who are just hateful and angry and bitter and use this board to express that at every opportunity. The OP is a prime example, daily. We all do it now and then, but he is over the top.

The psychology of partisan ideology is fascinating.
.

it's not just a psychology of partisan ideology. it is what has happened to political discussion over the last 30 years. i call it the limbaughization of discussion. where people think "debate" is spewing the ugliest of garbage. instead of just saying "i disagree" with what that person has to say, insane comments are made. i have people who don't have two IQ points to rub together making disgusting sexually or ethnically abusive comments because they have nothing else to add to a "conversation". the anonymity of the internet simply feeds that. You can't get punched in the face for spew if you're sitting in mom and dad's basement.

what i find amusing is that even where a conversation here starts interesting, and has give and take between people who disagree... some moron will chime in with some vile and ugly comment.

apparently that *isn't* a flame somehow.

 

[jillian]

As a matter of fact, there were several guys named Jesus preaching around the same time. Maybe the bible is talking about the wrong one?

i don't know that that's true... but there were an awful lot calling themselves messiah who thought they could liberate jerusalem. those guys suffered the same fate as the person known as jesus.