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.
What if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, what if the Red Sea hadn't split open? What if's are useless theoretical brainteasers. I prefer the truth, and the truth is the Jews are not correct, Jesus Christ is the Jewish Messiah and He did come for our salvation.
Sorry, but Jews don't have anything to do with Jesus; he has no importance or place in our faith.
Bart Erhman's book on the historicity of Jesus was panned. Main critique was his constant use of hypothetical sources to "prove" Jesus existed. Just referring to scholars doesn't prove Jesus especially when the vast majority have signed statements of faith precluding them from finding any other conclusion. I'm still waiting for unquestioned facts about the biblical characters I mentioned.
Regardless of opinions by mythicists regarding Ehrman's book, the fact remains that virtually every trained scholar of antiquity believes that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. And that does indeed carry a lot of weight.
As I said, the apostolic church fathers attest to the existence of the apostles who in turn attest to not only the existence of Jesus but to the fact that He is who He claimed to be.
As I also said, some people won't accept any amount of evidence.
Ehrman stated concerning mythicists,
Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing---whether it involves the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth---will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.
Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman, p. 5
And that is true. There are people who deny that man went to the moon. There are people who even deny that there are satellites in orbit around the earth. In fact, there are still people who believe the earth is flat. And no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. And so it is with the issue of the existence of Jesus. Some people simply refuse to believe that Jesus even existed historically.
But the early church did not arise in a vaccuum. The church began in Jerusalem a mere 50 days after Jesus had been resurrected among many eyewitnesses to Jesus' public ministry. The apostles, who deserted Jesus after He was arrested, suddenly turned into courageous men who boldly proclaimed the message of Jesus. And at least some of them were martyred for doing so. Only the resurrection of Jesus could account for the change in their attitude. The theory advanced by some that the apostles had conspired to steal the body of Jesus and then lie about having seen Him risen simply doesn't hold any water. People generally aren't willing to die for what they know to be a lie.
You have the same historical evidence available to you as is available to others. What you do with it is on you. The apostles and the early church provide legitimate historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and contrary to the opinion of some, the fact that the evidence comes from believers in Jesus does not invalidate the evidence. Neutrality is not a requirement for objectivity though you may have been told otherwise. Again, the apostolic church fathers were contemporaries of the apostles, and the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Well, you believe what you want. I consider the historical evidence to be more than sufficient that Jesus not only existed, but that He is who He said He was.
State the historical evidence for Jesus please. I want non biblical evidence. The myth can't prove the myth. You will find zero historical evidence that Jesus was killed under Pontius. That is just what the myth says. The apostles aren't the disciples of the gospels and they can't be used to establish Jesus as their existence is also in question. No evidence Jesus rose from the dead or ascended to heaven, period. No evidence Moses led the Exodus or Noah's family repopulated the Earth. Its funny that the two incompatible genealogies of Jesus list mythical old testament figures (don't you dare say one was Mary's genealogy) hmmm what does that say about Jesus lol. Why do Christians believe the Bible is a book of facts .... it is obviously a book of ancient mythology and no your heart can't make you know it's true any more than it could tell you the name of Abe Lincoln's children
Last edited by mclarksn9; 08-05-2016 at 09:04 PM..
Regardless of opinions by mythicists regarding Ehrman's book, the fact remains that virtually every trained scholar of antiquity believes that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. And that does indeed carry a lot of weight.
As I said, the apostolic church fathers attest to the existence of the apostles who in turn attest to not only the existence of Jesus but to the fact that He is who He claimed to be.
As I also said, some people won't accept any amount of evidence.
Ehrman stated concerning mythicists,
Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing---whether it involves the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth---will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced.
Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman, p. 5
And that is true. There are people who deny that man went to the moon. There are people who even deny that there are satellites in orbit around the earth. In fact, there are still people who believe the earth is flat. And no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. And so it is with the issue of the existence of Jesus. Some people simply refuse to believe that Jesus even existed historically.
But the early church did not arise in a vaccuum. The church began in Jerusalem a mere 50 days after Jesus had been resurrected among many eyewitnesses to Jesus' public ministry. The apostles, who deserted Jesus after He was arrested, suddenly turned into courageous men who boldly proclaimed the message of Jesus. And at least some of them were martyred for doing so. Only the resurrection of Jesus could account for the change in their attitude. The theory advanced by some that the apostles had conspired to steal the body of Jesus and then lie about having seen Him risen simply doesn't hold any water. People generally aren't willing to die for what they know to be a lie.
You have the same historical evidence available to you as is available to others. What you do with it is on you. The apostles and the early church provide legitimate historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, and contrary to the opinion of some, the fact that the evidence comes from believers in Jesus does not invalidate the evidence. Neutrality is not a requirement for objectivity though you may have been told otherwise. Again, the apostolic church fathers were contemporaries of the apostles, and the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Well, you believe what you want. I consider the historical evidence to be more than sufficient that Jesus not only existed, but that He is who He said He was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mclarksn9
State the historical evidence for Jesus please. I want non biblical evidence. The myth can't prove the myth
The majority of historical evidence is from believers as I stated. From the early church fathers and from the apostles. Take it or leave it.
I don't take it. If a god man rose from the dead 1) Why did the Romans and Jews not capture him and attempt to kill him again 2) If not kill him force him to bring to life the dead they wanted resurrected 3) absolutely zero attestation of Jesus outside the New Testament stories. This makes no sense.
I don't take it. If a god man rose from the dead 1) Why did the Romans and Jews not capture him and attempt to kill him again 2) If not kill him force him to bring to life the dead they wanted resurrected 3) absolutely zero attestation of Jesus outside the New Testament stories. This makes no sense.
The ignorance implicit in this post simply evidences that atheists have their own fundies!
Concerning Jesus at least, the only people who deny that Jesus existed are the mythicists. That Jesus existed is acknowledged by just about every scholar of antiquity according to Bart Ehrman who describes himself as an agnostic with atheist leanings. Quoting Ehrman,
Still pushing it are you, despite being debunked so many times it is laughable. Let me explain again for about the 5th time. The Jesus that scholars accept could have existed is not YOUR Jesus. He is NOT the Jesus of the Bible a.k.a Jesus the Christ. IF the Jesus of history existed he was nothing more than an itinerant rebel rabbi who was an outspoken critic of the then establishment. There would have been many such people.
Quote:
As to whether Jesus was who He claimed to be, the Son of God who came to die for the sins of the world, there were many eyewitnesses to His public ministry and who claimed that they saw the risen Jesus after He had been crucified.
Many people have claimed to have seen mermaids or to have been abducted by aliens. It means nothing.
Quote:
And having seen the risen Jesus they were willing to suffer even to martyrdom which at least some of them did.
Many people have died for what they thought was true. What's your point?
Quote:
It is a matter of church record that Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus were all martyred. Not for what they heard about Jesus from others, but because of what they had seen with their own eyes.
We know how the Church lies thanks...and it's for you to show that the church isn't lying.
Quote:
Not many people are willing to die for something they know to be a lie, but because they were convinced they had seen the risen Jesus they boldly proclaimed His Gospel.
Many people have been convinced they have seen mermaids or have been abducted by aliens. It means nothing.
Quote:
And some of the apostolic church fathers, who were contemporaries of the apostles actually knew the apostles. So the apostolic church fathers verify the existence of the apostles who in turn verify the existence of Jesus and that He was who He said He was. And they were willing to die for their proclamation of the gospel.
Confirmation bias
Quote:
There are many people who won't believe no matter how much evidence there is.
Yes...and you're one of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Regardless of opinions by mythicists regarding Ehrman's book, the fact remains that virtually every trained scholar of antiquity believes that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
No they don't. You are simply making it up. The only 'trained scholars' that believe that are Bible scholars. In other words...theologians/believers. There is no evidence whatsoever for any crucifixion of the Jesus character by Pilate and that's without even touching on the fact that ONLY Roman citizens were entitled to a trial or touching on why, if such an execution occurred, someone of Pilate's ranking would be dealing with a two-bit nobody trouble-maker that he didn't even know of.
Quote:
As I said, the apostolic church fathers attest to the existence of the apostles who in turn attest to not only the existence of Jesus but to the fact that He is who He claimed to be.
...and as I have told you numerous times, you are simply relying on confirmation bias.
Quote:
As I also said, some people won't accept any amount of evidence.
You above all.
Quote:
There are people who deny that man went to the moon. There are people who even deny that there are satellites in orbit around the earth. In fact, there are still people who believe the earth is flat. And no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.
...and there are still people that subscribe to patently untrue ancient mythology and superstition - and no amount of evidence will convince them either.
Quote:
And so it is with the issue of the existence of Jesus. Some people simply refuse to believe that Jesus even existed historically.
That's because there is no evidence for it. Not a scrap. Nowt, Nada. Zilch...despite what your historians say.
Quote:
But the early church did not arise in a vaccuum. The church began in Jerusalem a mere 50 days after Jesus had been resurrected among many eyewitnesses to Jesus' public ministry. The apostles, who deserted Jesus after He was arrested, suddenly turned into courageous men who boldly proclaimed the message of Jesus. And at least some of them were martyred for doing so. Only the resurrection of Jesus could account for the change in their attitude. The theory advanced by some that the apostles had conspired to steal the body of Jesus and then lie about having seen Him risen simply doesn't hold any water. People generally aren't willing to die for what they know to be a lie.
You just don't get it do you. They DIDN'T think it was a lie. They BELIEVED the stories just like you do. Your problem is going to be is proving that the stories are true when all the verifiable evidence is saying that the stories are false.
Quote:
You have the same historical evidence available to you as is available to others.
That would be none.
Quote:
The apostles and the early church provide legitimate historical evidence for the existence of Jesus,...
They provide confirmation bias. Are you prepared to accept that the history of Hinduism provides evidence for the existence of the gods of Hinduism?
Quote:
Again, the apostolic church fathers were contemporaries of the apostles, and the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus.
Again, the apostolic fathers were BELIEVERS who were deperate for the stories to be true. Just like you are.
Quote:
I consider the historical evidence to be more than sufficient that Jesus not only existed, but that He is who He said He was.
There is no historical evidence for either...but you've been told that numerous times. You are a classic example of your own words. No matter how much evidence some people are shown, they just won't accept it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The majority of historical evidence is from believers as I stated. From the early church fathers and from the apostles. Take it or leave it.
You mean that the majority of evidence is confirmation bias
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The ignorance implicit in this post simply evidences that atheists have their own fundies!
Still pushing it are you, despite being debunked so many times it is laughable. Let me explain again for about the 5th time. The Jesus that scholars accept could have existed is not YOUR Jesus. He is NOT the Jesus of the Bible a.k.a Jesus the Christ. IF the Jesus of history existed he was nothing more than an itinerant rebel rabbi who was an outspoken critic of the then establishment. There would have been many such people.
A distinction I have always made but which you seem unable to understand. And yet, as it turns out, the historical Jesus is who He claimed to be. God incarnate who came into the world to die for the sins of mankind so that anyone who believes on Him may have eternal life.
Quote:
Many people have died for what they thought was true. What's your point?
As I have repeatedly said, the disciples did not die for what they believed to be true based upon what others have said, but because they were eyewitnesses to what they proclaimed.
Quote:
We know how the Church lies thanks...and it's for you to show that the church isn't lying.
Again, people generally are not willing to die for what they know to be a lie. The disciples were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus.
Quote:
Many people have been convinced they have seen mermaids or have been abducted by aliens. It means nothing.
The circumstances in which the disciples saw Jesus rule out hallucinations, mistaken identity, or any of the naturalistic explanations which have been advanced in an attempt to explain why the disciples believed they saw Jesus. He appeared to both individuals and groups on various occasions. He spoke with them, ate with them, invited them to touch Him.
Quote:
No they don't. You are simply making it up. The only 'trained scholars' that believe that are Bible scholars. In other words...theologians/believers. There is no evidence whatsoever for any crucifixion of the Jesus character by Pilate and that's without even touching on the fact that ONLY Roman citizens were entitled to a trial or touching on why, if such an execution occurred, someone of Pilate's ranking would be dealing with a two-bit nobody trouble-maker that he didn't even know of.
No, I'm not making it up. First of all I quoted Ehrman. Second, the church did not arise out of a vacuum. It began with the disciples who were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus and who were willing even to die for what they knew to be true because they had seen the risen Jesus with their own eyes
By the way, the fact that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilate is stated by the Roman historian Tacitus who regardless of how he came by the information, attests to the fact that Jesus was tried by Pilate which puts the lie to the claim that non-Romans were not entitled to a trial.
The Annals of Tacitus 15:44
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. [Bolding mine] The Annals of Tacitus
While Tacitus does not use the name 'Jesus,' it's obvious that he is referring to Jesus. And Tacitus doesn't say it was impossible for Jesus to have been tried by Pilate because non-Romans weren't entitled to a trial, he simply records the fact that Jesus was crucified at the hands of Pilate.
Quote:
...and as I have told you numerous times, you are simply relying on confirmation bias.
I accept the testimony of the eyewitness accounts.
Quote:
That's because there is no evidence for it. Not a scrap. Nowt, Nada. Zilch...despite what your historians say.
You prove my point which is that some people won't believe no matter what evidence is presented. You deny that there is any evidence and have implied that the historians are either lying or mistaken.
Quote:
You just don't get it do you. They DIDN'T think it was a lie. They BELIEVED the stories just like you do. Your problem is going to be is proving that the stories are true when all the verifiable evidence is saying that the stories are false.
The apostles didn't believe stories about Jesus, they believed what they saw with their own eyes. The same apostles by the way that you in the past have said didn't even exist.
I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand the issue just fine. Of course they believed what they saw, otherwise the apostles would not have been willing even to die for what they proclaimed. And the reason they believed they had seen the risen Jesus was because Jesus appeared to them on multiple occasions, they had conversations with Him, they ate with Him, and they touched Him. Jesus appeared both to individuals and to groups over a forty day period. None of the naturalistic theories which skeptics have come up with can adequately explain these things. The best explanation is that they really did see the risen Jesus.
Quote:
That would be none.
The evidence exists. You choose to deny it.
Quote:
They provide confirmation bias. Are you prepared to accept that the history of Hinduism provides evidence for the existence of the gods of Hinduism?
The early church fathers provide attestation to the existence of the apostles who in turn were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus.
Quote:
Again, the apostolic fathers were BELIEVERS who were deperate for the stories to be true. Just like you are.
As stated, neutrality is not a requirement for objectivity. The testimony of believers is valid regardless of your opinion to the contrary.
Quote:
There is no historical evidence for either...but you've been told that numerous times. You are a classic example of your own words. No matter how much evidence some people are shown, they just won't accept it.
Repeating your denial of historical evidence doesn't make it any more true than the first time you denied it.
Historians accept the fact that there was an historical figure named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God whether or not the historians believe Jesus' claims about Himself. The apostles were eyewitnesses to the fact that Jesus is in fact who He claimed to be.
You refuse to accept the historical evidence and that's on you. Scholars have written books addressing the historical evidence for Jesus as well as for His resurrection.
For instance,
N.T. Wright's 'The Resurrection of the Son of God.'
Michael Licona's 'The Resurrection of Jesus.'
Gary Habermas' 'The case for the Resurrection of Jesus.'
We've had this same discussion before, and this is as far as this present discussion is going to go. Your entire argument is one of denial because you refuse to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus. But, as you've stated in the past, you don't even believe the apostles existed, and you won't accept the attestation of the apostolic church fathers that the apostles did exist. You're immersed in one big denial. As far as you're concerned it's just one big conspiracy on the part of the church.
Again, I accept the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. You don't. It's that simple.
Last edited by Michael Way; 08-06-2016 at 09:07 AM..
If he's your Messiah then that means Christianity is a relatively new religion that is only about 2000 years old and has zero affiliation with the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov...Which would mean that all the editing in the Christian Old Testament means nothing and therefore the prophecies that Christians like to relate to Jesus do not exist...So, if he is a different messiah from the one that is portrayed in the Tanakh, then how can he be the messiah of the Jews?...The Jewish sages are well studied in the Torah, both past and current sages, don't you think that those intellectuals would notice the similarities of the Maschiah and Jesus' life if any existed?...We Jews don't deny his existence as a Rabbi with a following, we deny what the Gentiles turned him into...And if it is all about spirituality, then the Kabbalists definitely would have noticed and commented on it...Can one connect Jesus with what's in the Christian Old Testament?...Sure, but, one cannot connect him with any of the prophecies of Maschiach HaMelech of the Tanakh...In fact, the description and attribute of Mashiach HaMelech that are portrayed in the Tanakh have him born of natural parents, grows, lives and dies in Israel, and in between leads the world into peace, gathers every Jew back into HaEretz Yisrael, moves the entire world to recognize and worship the One True G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov...Which, as one poster around here put it, we Jews are waiting for the Anti-Christ...So, if the attributes and description of Mashiach HaMelech are similar to your Anti-Christ, one of two things is possible, G-d lied when He imparted to us Jews the attributes and description and tasks of Mashiach HaMelech or...Since most Christians like to lay heavy charges of deception to a personified HaSatan, he has deceived the world with the greatest deception ever, that of the Chistian Religion, which most of the world appears to adhere to...There are about 15 million Jews in the world today and about 6.9 billion (and rising) Christians...Now, I am pointing out the religions that claim the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov...
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.
