Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have posted those videos Ad nauseam. They are not credible proof of anything.
The primary pieces of evidence in the case against the existence of Jesus are in fact the Gospels themselves. Perhaps you need to study those "scared" gospels very carefully.
Quote:
A small messianic cult (one of many) arose in Jerusalem and the surrounding area that worshiped a heavenly messiah named Jesus some time in the early 1st century. Someone called James was likely the leader of this movement. This was a small explicitly Jewish cult that had little significance and was not widely known. Someone called Paul became a convert to this movement and began proselytizing about it to both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles) throughout the Mediterranean region. Up to this point "Jesus" was universally understood by the cult's followers as a heavenly messiah, uncorrupted by the material world, not an actual human being. Some time during the First Jewish-Roman War, most likely shortly after the Siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 CE, some follower of Paul wrote an allegorical story that cast "Jesus" as the protagonist in a fictional narrative about the Jews, which portrayed the Jews as having brought the destruction of the war upon themselves. This story is what we now call the Gospel of Mark. The Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke were both based on an intermediate expanded version of Mark, which has since been lost. The Gospel called John descends from the Synoptic narrative in some way, with the inclusion of additional literary elements as well.
Every single narrative about Jesus, canonical and non-canonical, descends directly or indirectly from the Gospel called Mark, making this fictional story the single point of origin for all belief in a real human Jesus. By the end of the 1st century the belief that the Gospels were "true" accounts of events that had really happened was common, as was the belief that Jesus had been a real person. Belief in a "real life Jesus" arose solely from the Gospel stories themselves. From the late 1st century through the early 3rd century there was widespread confusion over who Jesus was and whether or not he had ever actually existed on earth as pre-Gospel beliefs about Jesus were reinterpreted in the context of the Gospel narratives.
By the early 2nd century interest in the Jesus cult grew, largely as a product of the Gospel stories, which were exciting and of particular interest to the non-Jewish population following the First Jewish-Roman War as the Jewish Diaspora spread throughout the region. From the 2nd century through the 4th and 5th centuries (and beyond) many additional stories were written about various figures from the Gospel narratives, such as Mary and the so-called twelve disciples. These stories were themselves a mix of concocted fiction, mythology, and urban legends. Indeed many of these later stories, written by former pagans, incorporated elements of local pagan mythology. After the religion gained prominence in the 4th through 6th centuries, many stories mythologizing martyrs and early church figures were concocted. All of these fictional stories, from the Gospels through to the martyrdom tales, were "historicized" by "scholars" who believed that they were all true and wrote histories based on these stories as if they were authentic records of real history.
So the reality is that it's not just that "Jesus did not exist", the reality is that the majority of early Christian history is fabricated. For example I would say that we actually know nothing more about Peter, a key figure in early Church "history", than what was recorded in the letters of Paul, and it's highly doubtful that "Peter" had anything to do with the founding of the Church in Rome or that he even lived beyond the early 1st century. Peter was, most likely, simply a follower of James, whom Paul had associated with in Jerusalem in the early 1st century and really played no role whatsoever in the development of the religion beyond whatever role he played in the small Jewish cult's activities in Jerusalem. The "Peter" of importance to "Christian history" is just a fabrication based on the Gospel narratives.
I do think we can conclude that a few of the figures from the Gospel narratives and early Christian history were "real people", or at least based on real people. Those include Paul, James, John, Peter, Barnabas, Pontius Pilate, and Herod. John the Baptist may or may not have been a real person, it's difficult to determine, but impossible to rule out. However I would say that the authentic letters of Paul are the only somewhat reliable sources of information about individuals from the early Jesus movement, and everything else written about such figures was knowingly or unknowingly based on fabrications and misinformation.
What is important to understand about this is that such "fabrications" were not at all unusual at the time. After all, virtually all of these fabricated stories were produced by the same culture that created a rich mythology encompassing literally thousands of gods, demigods and heroes, and in which mythologizing the lives of real people was commonplace. It is critically important to differentiate, however, the origins of the Jesus cult, the Jesus narrative, and later Christian narratives and beliefs. The Jesus cult and early Gospel narratives are highly Jewish in their origin, with increasing pagan influences only coming later as the religion was adopted by Greeks and Romans from the 2nd century on.
The remaining question of course is why or how, then, did Christianity spread and become the dominant religion of the Roman world in the course of a few hundred years? This is a much more complicated question, and one that I don't think anyone today can fully answer, but at a high level I think there were two main avenues: The religion gained prominence both among a certain class of powerful "intellectuals" and among the poor, for largely different reasons. First let's address the "intellectuals". The belief that the Gospels held the key to predicting the future was extremely powerful among certain intellectuals and leaders. This belief stemmed ultimately from a misunderstanding of the literary allusions in the Gospels, which were interpreted as "prophecy" by early Christian apologists. These early Greek and Roman Christians believed that the Gospels proved that the Hebrew scriptures could predict the future, and they saw the "prophetic fulfillment" evidenced in the Gospels as "proof that the religion was true." This was a compelling factor among people in positions of power. Military leaders, governors, and even emperors were literally persuaded to believe that the Gospels provided solid proof of prophetic power, and that they or their Christian advisors would be able to use Christian and Jewish scriptures to predict the future. Of course the ability to predict the future was seen as the ultimate source of power by Greeks and Romans, who had long been fascinated with the notion of prophecy.
The other major factor that contributed to the early spread of Christianity was appeal of the religion to the poor. Judaism had a long tradition of sympathy toward the poor and dispossessed. This is very likely because the Jews were a relatively poor and dispossessed people living amongst very powerful and successful empires, such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, etc. The Jews were subjects or slaves of many of these empires at various points in their history. As such, Jewish religion dealt heavily with suffering, poverty and dispossession, unlike the religions of the more successful and powerful cultures that surrounded them, whose religions tended to espouse power, triumph and domination.
The Christian movement happened to come along at a time when poverty and unrest were on the rise within the Roman empire, and this movement, with its strong messages of support for the poor and dispossessed was appealing to the growing numbers of poor and dispossessed peoples of the region. Furthermore, and very importantly, major changes were taking place within the Roman army at this time. The Roman army was becoming increasingly filled with the ranks of the poor, immigrants, and men with families. As such, Christianity was particularly popular among the soldiers of the Roman army. As the rank-and-file of the Roman army became increasingly Christian, this put pressure on military leaders, and ultimately emperors, to embrace the religion. So basically, Christianity appealed to the poor more than many of the traditional religions of the region, and the Roman army was increasingly populated by the poor. In addition, the Christian promise of heaven and appeal to suffering and martyrdom proved useful to military leaders.
The idea, however, that Christians were heavily persecuted during the first few centuries of the religion's history is highly dubious. The reality is that if Christians were in fact heavily persecuted the religion would likely never have gained prominence. The stories of widespread Christian persecution during the first through third centuries are later fabrications that were concocted largely after the religion had actually gained dominance.
Furthermore, religion was viewed as something of a "lucky charm" by most people at the time, especially within the military. People frequently switched religions and the gods that they favored based on perceptions of related military success. As such, it was common among those in the military to adopt the religions or patron gods of people who were successful on the battlefield. Military successes by Christian warriors led to the conversion of other warriors, not so much because of any particularly Christian beliefs, but simply because, "So-and-so won a battle and So-and-so was Christian, therefore his god must be strong and helpful, so I'll worship that god too so I can be protected and successful in battle."
Christianity was more rapidly adopted by the Roman army and the armies of surrounding civilizations, such as the Visigoths, than it was by the civilian population. Christianity gained its dominance though this military avenue, basically rising up through the military from the foot soldiers to the officers and ultimately up to the emperor. Leadership had two compelling reasons to embrace Christianity: both their belief in the prophetic power of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and its widespread popularity among soldiers. Given the fact that the Roman empire by this time had essentially become a military dictatorship, the dominance of Christianity within the military had profound implications for the Roman population as well as the development of Christian institutions.
Politically, Christianity became revolutionary and a means of overthrowing the entrenched Roman aristocracy. As Christians gained political power they used sanctuary to encourage slaves of pagan owners to convert. Both Christians and pagans held slaves, but slaves of pagan owners who converted to Christianity could escape to churches and gain their freedom. This undermined the wealth and power of pagan aristocrats. In addition, as Christians gained political power they changed the laws to allow only Christians to inherit estates, they cut off funding to pagan temples, they de-funded libraries, and fought wars against non-Christian Romans. The Christian revolution of the 4th through 6th centuries was somewhat similar to the 20th century communist revolutions in its forcefulness, its use of propaganda, and in the manner in which it redistributed wealth from the aristocracy to the state by appropriating the property of pagan aristocrats and turning it over to the church and government.
So let's begin at the beginning and see how this all got started.
Matadora, you refused to even look at the videos and therefore your opinion doesn't merit any attention. Almost no credible scholar or historian (all of whom you dismissed as ignorant) who studies in the area denies that Jesus existed. And frankly, a person who persists in the myth of the mythical Jesus in light of the historical evidence for His existence, is beyond ignorant.
Matadora, you refused to even look at the videos and therefore your opinion doesn't merit any attention.
Now you are lying. I certainly did look at them and I stand my ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Almost no credible scholar or historian (all of whom you dismissed as ignorant) who studies in the area denies that Jesus existed.
You need to use your common sense. People who go onto become a bible scholar is the most biased person you will find. They would never get a job in a theological setting if they speak out against the historical myths.
Here is a well educated scholar that is not afraid to speak out against the ignorance. It has to start somewhere.
In books like The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Price challenges biblical literalism and argues for a more skeptical and humanistic approach to Christianity.
In 2010, he debated James White, arguing against the reliability of the Bible.
In 1999, he debated William Lane Craig, arguing against the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.
And frankly, a person who persists in the myth of the mythical Jesus in light of the historical evidence for His existence, is beyond ignorant.
Any person who touts to believe the bible but yet has no clue that is clearly does not support the myths you are touting is indeed the ignorant one. I suggest you do a better job of studying that bible you believe in...you don't even know what it says...but yet you believe it. Now that's the ultimate ignorance.
''Save your YouTube videos as I already know how to conduct research. You are not going to teach me anything...I know I am dealing with a biased bullheaded intellectually dishonest human.''
No, you did not watch them. You have no credibility Matadora.
''Save your YouTube videos as I already know how to conduct research. You are not going to teach me anything...I know I am dealing with a biased bullheaded intellectually dishonest human.''
No, you did not watch them. You have no credibility Matadora.
Pretty lame Mike. Yes I said that to you on 03-22-2016.
However, I looked at those videos a few days ago in comparing it to my links posted in this thread as well as what Robert M. Price says.
You have no credibility. You have lied and pull cheep tactics like this.
What's new...you bible literalist are all known to pull these disingenuous tactics. That's all you can do...you have nothing worthy or credible to post so you pull cheap shot disingenuous tactics. It's business as usual with bible literalists.
''Save your YouTube videos as I already know how to conduct research. You are not going to teach me anything...I know I am dealing with a biased bullheaded intellectually dishonest human.''
No, you did not watch them. You have no credibility Matadora.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Pretty lame Mike. Yes I said that to you on 03-22-2016.
However, I looked at those videos a few days ago in comparing it to my links posted in this thread as well as what Robert M. Price says.
You have no credibility. You have lied and pull cheep tactics like this.
What's new...you bible literalist are all known to pull these disingenuous tactics. That's all you can do...you have nothing worthy or credible to post so you pull cheap shot disingenuous tactics. It's business as usual with bible literalists.
No, Matadora. You did not look at them. The evidence that you did not is that when I stated that you refused to even look at them, instead of simply stating that you later looked at them which is something no one could be expected to know, you simply called me a liar. And now that I have produced your statement that you would not look at them you make this show of indignation and make more scathing accusations, the purpose of which can be only to deflect away from your own disingenuousness.
As I said, you have no credibility, and I have no intention of continuing with this discussion. Again, it is the hallmark of stupidity to deny that Jesus even existed historically when the historical evidence is that He did. But you believe what you want, or need to believe. Okay, that's it, we're done.
Yes Jesus had a body After the cross which He could walk through walls , appear and disappear , as His Body before the Ascension was in a transition state , as He still was not glorified yet ............In Isaiah 53: 10 which is God prophecy for Jesus to come says ``he shall see His seed and prolong his days `` which is the resurrection of Jesus ..........This sacrifices of Jesus is the corner stones for the foundation of Christianity , and if Jesus never died and was raised from the dead then Christianity would never had started and Christ Holy Spirit would not be in the earth today with believers
The evidence that you did not is that when I stated that you refused to even look at them,
That was your evidence from 03-22-2016. It's not going to hold up today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
instead of simply stating that you later looked at them which is something no one could be expected to know, you simply called me a liar.
What do you call it when someone is lying about something you did? You are a liar in stating that I did not look at those videos when I certainly did. I looked at them and compared them with the Price in my links and Robert M. Price.
I stand my case and I put forth my evidence as to why. It's clear that you have not studied the bible as you claim. If you did you would see the clear discrepancies and it would be blatantly obvious as it is to many that there was no Jesus and there certainty was no ridiculous resurrection.
If you disagree then make a case vs. playing disingenuous games.
You have zero credibility as most here can clearly see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Jesus even existed historically when the historical evidence is that He did.
Again, it is the hallmark of stupidity to make such a claim when the historical evidence does not exist. Also the gospels that you claim to believe make it very clear that he did not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
But you believe what you want, or need to believe.
Clearly this is how it works in your world...it's not how it works in mine. I look at evidence to gain my understandings about subjects. I don't just blindly believe in anything as you clearly do.
Mike555, Matadora - You will not prove anything thousands of years removed from the events.
As the Scriptures indicate, these are issues to be taken by faith... not by proof.
And yet DRob, there is valid historical evidence not only that Jesus existed, but that He was resurrected. And for those persons who have doubts, the historical evidence can make the difference as it did for New Testament scholar Gary Habermas who engaged in an intensive study of the evidence and in the process became a recognized authority on the resurrection of Jesus. It is no coincidence that the very foundation upon which Christianity is based, the resurrection of Jesus, also has the greatest amount of historical evidence to support it.
For those people who don't care to concern themselves with that historical evidence, and instead just take it on faith, that's fine. But some people want evidence. And that evidence exists. And I am solidly in support of providing that evidence for those who may benefit by it, as I myself benefited by it.
I won't ask you to view the video below, but I present it since it is a lecture by Habermas whom I referred to above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
