The Historical Jesus

[grammar king]

Latest post of the previous page:

grammar King
The pure fabrication of the nativity story indicates that there was likely to be a relatively well-known figure known as Jesus of Nazareth. Otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to have a story to make him born in Bethlehem, just have him born there if you're inventing him from scratch.

My bold.
From my post back in May

It has been archaeologically proven that Nazereth (the town) didn't exist before 300 AD.

I maintain, Jesus is nothing more than a myth.

You got a link to the source? I'm interested in how you can archeologically prove that a place didn't exist at a certain time.

[Nick]

As we have no satisfactory evidence of the divinity of Jesus, therefore whether he, as a man, existed or not, his supposed divinity is largely irrelevant.

Unless I've missed something, surely that should have been ...

As we have no satisfactory evidence of the divinity of Jesus, therefore whether he, as a man, existed or not is largely irrelevant.

Indeed it should. I played around with the post, but didn't edit it properly.

[Marian]

It does to me, take away Jesus and Christianity is dead, a result!
Take away big Mo and Islam would be dead, that would be another good result, would it not?

That would be a good result, indeed. I don't think we can prove a negative so we might be stuck with the SOB but I'm willing to give it a go.

Would it be off topic to ask if you have a plan for the demise of christianity with the disappearance of Jesus?

[Alan C.]

Marian
That would be a good result, indeed. I don't think we can prove a negative so we might be stuck with the SOB but I'm willing to give it a go.

Trying to prove the non existence of a god who is outside time and space, is trying to prove a negative.
Trying to disprove the existence of an allegedly "historic human" isn't as difficult,

Where is the written evidence (written at the time)? There is non.
The Romans were fastidious record keepers, where does anybody mention the Jesus guy? Nowhere, not even the alleged nailing to the cross.

Would it be off topic to ask if you have a plan for the demise of christianity with the disappearance of Jesus?

I have no cunning plan Blackadder but without the Jesus character surely there would/could be no Christianity?
There is not one shred of reliable historical evidence for Mithra Jesus.

[Marian]

Where is the written evidence (written at the time)? There is non.
The Romans were fastidious record keepers, where does anybody mention the Jesus guy? Nowhere, not even the alleged nailing to the cross.

I think you have a point here because there were people during that age (albeit probably not commoners) who were literate. Take Philo Judaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo) who lived at the same time as Jesus and yet strangely enough never wrote a word about him. This Philo dude (I wonder if he liked pastries?) was considered to be the "greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian" of his time but he left out all those supposed miracles, mass gaggles of Jesus followers, Herod's little bit of nastiness with male babies? Something doesn't smell quite right here...

Would it be off topic to ask if you have a plan for the demise of christianity with the disappearance of Jesus?

I have no cunning plan Blackadder but without the Jesus character surely there would/could be no Christianity?
There is not one shred of reliable historical evidence for Mithra Jesus.

Agreed. I suppose the Church might have had vested interest in creating and maintaining such a central figure but since that group hasn't lied, twisted the truth or fabricated stuff, I guess that theory is full of holes...

[grammar king]

Where is the written evidence (written at the time)? There is non.
The Romans were fastidious record keepers, where does anybody mention the Jesus guy? Nowhere, not even the alleged nailing to the cross.

I think you have a point here because there were people during that age (albeit probably not commoners) who were literate. Take Philo Judaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo) who lived at the same time as Jesus and yet strangely enough never wrote a word about him. This Philo dude (I wonder if he liked pastries?) was considered to be the "greatest Jewish-Hellenistic philosopher and historian" of his time but he left out all those supposed miracles, mass gaggles of Jesus followers, Herod's little bit of nastiness with male babies? Something doesn't smell quite right here...
.

Don't forget the zombies after the crucifixion in Matthew. That's one that often gets overlooked.

[Compassionist]

[Lifelinking]

clincher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtjL3FLQ ... _embedded#

[getreal]

This debate has degenerated, somewhat.

Isn't spending time and effort trying to disprove the existance of a man called Jesus a bit of a waste of time? Religious people will either ignore the evidence or wriggle round it. I'm not sure I understand the effort some atheists/agnostics put into trying to disprove Jesus (AFAIK Mohammed's life is a bit easier to authenticate--but I could be wrong).

Just sayin'

[Lifelinking]

Hey, you callin' me a degenerate?

[Alan C.]

getreal
Isn't spending time and effort trying to disprove the existance of a man called Jesus a bit of a waste of time?

With regards to Jesus, there is no evidence, it's up to the folk that claim he was a real guy to provide the evidence (there is non)

. I'm not sure I understand the effort some atheists/agnostics put into trying to disprove Jesus

As I've said in many other threads, Christianity lives or dies on the Jesus myth, if folk could just take in the fact that the Jesus myth is just that.............A myth, Christianity would be dead in the water.

I have asked many times (usualy on fundie forums, but also on here) show me one piece of reputable historical evidence for the guy Jesus.
Go on............ there must be something; he was such a famous bloke.

I get dismayed sometimes by some folk here who profess to be rational thinkers, yet accept the Jesus story without any evidence whatsoever, or indeed even going against evidence to the contrary.

Sorry if I come over as being in a bad mood,
I am.

I would still welcome "evidence" for Jesus though, anybody got any?

[Marian]

Hey, you callin' me a degenerate?

I think getreal should answer in the following way: it takes one to know one...

Isn't spending time and effort trying to disprove the existance of a man called Jesus a bit of a waste of time? Religious people will either ignore the evidence or wriggle round it. I'm not sure I understand the effort some atheists/agnostics put into trying to disprove Jesus (AFAIK Mohammed's life is a bit easier to authenticate--but I could be wrong).

I agree that religious folk will just wiggle round it or just distort it as in this lovely blog I unearthed: http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2 ... fraud.html (I couldn't stand looking on the blog anymore to find one more relevant to jesus)

I like Alan C's contention (even when he's grumpy) that without jesus, christianity would collapse. Of course, liking it and seeing it happen are two different things

I did find this article in the Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/artic ... jesus-time which ought to fuel the fire of the religionists since the newspaper felt compelled to add the 'jesus' component.

I suspect you may be right about mo and I don't think he claimed to be divine either.

Cross-posted with Alan C

[grammar king]

That second link of yours, doesn't that seem to go against the assertion that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus?

[philbo]

I agree that religious folk will just wiggle round it or just distort it as in this lovely blog I unearthed: http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2 ... fraud.html (I couldn't stand looking on the blog anymore to find one more relevant to jesus)

I read the comments on that with admiration for Clostridiophile's lucidity, quality of explanation and extreme patience (even if I do keep want to start singing "Clostridiophile" to the tune of "Consider Yourself"). But you're right to quote it as an example of an extreme: the sort of person who wrote the blog post is one who wouldn't agree Jesus was a myth even if you took a film crew back a couple of millennia and filmed him not being there.

On the other hand, it did lead me (via Clostridiophile's profile page) to a wonderful Romanian atheist posting on youtube: e.g. her demolition of Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.. which was worth the diversionary time. Really must get back to work...

[Marian]

That second link of yours, doesn't that seem to go against the assertion that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus?

You're right, it does but only because the newspaper felt it pertinent to mix the two issues as if they were, pardon the bad pun, gospel. I don't believe that jesus existed so Nazarath holds no significance for me. The paper doesn't question the existence of jesus but writes as if it's truth and therefore implies that the digging may uncover actual proof.
The archeologist in charge of the digging is hardly unbiased; he states openly that he is a christian so me and my cynical eye will be watching the outcome of this very carefully.

I read the comments on that with admiration for Clostridiophile's lucidity, quality of explanation and extreme patience (even if I do keep want to start singing "Clostridiophile" to the tune of "Consider Yourself").

But you're right to quote it as an example of an extreme: the sort of person who wrote the blog post is one who wouldn't agree Jesus was a myth even if you took a film crew back a couple of millennia and filmed him not being there.

What's scary to me is that while this is an extreme example, those types aren't all that unusual at least in the US. You should check out some of the billboards posted in the thread called: Once you've 'had' a deity.

On the other hand, it did lead me (via Clostridiophile's profile page) to a wonderful Romanian atheist posting on youtube: e.g. her demolition of Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.. which was worth the diversionary time. Really must get back to work...

Yes, I have seen her before. Clever and pretty to look at...hmm, which was your distraction

[philbo]

Yes, I have seen her before. Clever and pretty to look at...hmm, which was your distraction

Clever, pretty and with a wonderful accent

You should check out some of the billboards posted in the thread called: Once you've 'had' a deity.

I have.. too flabbergasted to comment, though.

[Trinoc]

On the other hand, it did lead me (via Clostridiophile's profile page) to a wonderful Romanian atheist posting on youtube: e.g. her demolition of Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.. which was worth the diversionary time. Really must get back to work...

Ah ... Romania's answer to Laci Green ...

But really ... inbreeding as an example of thermodynamics ... whaaaat???

[philbo]

On the other hand, it did lead me (via Clostridiophile's profile page) to a wonderful Romanian atheist posting on youtube: e.g. her demolition of Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.. which was worth the diversionary time. Really must get back to work...

Ah ... Romania's answer to Laci Green ...

But really ... inbreeding as an example of thermodynamics ... whaaaat???

That rather cracked me up... What, you think that was supposed to be taken seriously?

[Trinoc]

On the other hand, it did lead me (via Clostridiophile's profile page) to a wonderful Romanian atheist posting on youtube: e.g. her demolition of Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.. which was worth the diversionary time. Really must get back to work...

Ah ... Romania's answer to Laci Green ...

But really ... inbreeding as an example of thermodynamics ... whaaaat???

That rather cracked me up... What, you think that was supposed to be taken seriously?

I thought it was serious, even though she had just said thermodynamics doesn't apply to biological systems (which is also wrong). Most creationists would not understand enough physics or biology to make a detailed criticism, preferring to fall back on their usual sophistry ... but still there is no point in giving them sticks to hit us with.

Her main point is right, though. The presence of an external energy source (mostly the sun) means Earth biology is not a closed system, so the second law of thermodynamics does not apply.

[Marian]

On the other hand, it did lead me (via Clostridiophile's profile page) to a wonderful Romanian atheist posting on youtube: e.g. her demolition of Kent Hovind's PhD dissertation.. which was worth the diversionary time. Really must get back to work...

Ah ... Romania's answer to Laci Green ...

But really ... inbreeding as an example of thermodynamics ... whaaaat???

You mean you guys were actually listening to her words...? Not her carefully crafted video on the bed?

[Nick]

I don't want to worsen your mood, Alan, but consider this: The fact that a group of people believed there to have been a man called Jesus, alive a couple of generations before, is evidence that there may have been such a man. It is not conclusive evidence, (and certainly no evidence whatsoever for any of the claims made about him) but it strikes me as more probable that Jesus existed than that the whole story is without any foundation, and is a work of pure fiction.

We must enlighten christians about the extreme flimsiness of the evidence, and demonstrating that his life was of apparently supreme indifference to the Romans, but trying to maintain the complete non-existence of Jesus seems to me to be neither necessary, nor achievable. I have no qualms with there having been a man called Jesus, just with his supposed life and teachings. The stupidity of believing in virgin births, miracles, rising from the dead and bodily ascension into heaven (all of which are obviously myths) would seem to me to be much more fertile ground for undermining faith, rather than worrying about the non-existence of Jesus. If we could prove the non-existence of Jesus, we'd really be on to something. But we can't.