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.
It matters not to me. If such a person did exist then there was no comparison to the gospel version. If anything, 'Jesus' was an itinerant rebel rabbi who lost his head for shouting his mouth off. He has no relevance today.
The reason it matters (objectively) is that both theists and anti-theists alike try to use Jesus' existence/non-existence to push their agenda. For the Christians, if certain details about Jesus' death are historical they use these to argue for his resurrection. For the opposite side, being able to argue that Jesus never existed would obviously refute Christianity.
But of course, none of this is half as important as getting on the phone with Ehrman and telling him the *** is up! That blasted Christian spy!! How dare he deny that the church labeling a collection of historical documents "The New Testament" magically renders them non-historical?
It matters not to me. If such a person did exist then there was no comparison to the gospel version. If anything, 'Jesus' was an itinerant rebel rabbi who lost his head for shouting his mouth off. He has no relevance today.
Except that one of the world's most influential religions is based on his supposed life. That gives him relevance.
I would like a (direct) answer to this as well. I watched the debate between Ehrman and Price, hoping to hear a good reason why Paul's letters and/or the gospels should be dismissed, why they didn't meet the standards for history of that time period, etc. But I finished the video disappointed.
I'm almost afraid to even ask how many people here are mythicists...
For me, the BIGGEST mistake atheists/mythicists make is not calling the Christians out on the egregious lies they tell in these public debates. I compile a list every now and then of these lies and I have started threads on some of them. One I can think of off the top of my head is the issue of the 12 apostles and this baloney that "all the apostles were willing to go to their deaths for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus." Mike Licona, who I normally consider a relatively honorable Christian, repeats this lie in every debate he does in his opening statement and not a single opponent has challenged him on it with,
"Mr. Licona, since we haven't got a single word on the lives of the 12 apostles in the historic record, upon what historical documents do you base your assertion that ALL the apostles died for their faith in Jesus????????????
This fabrication gets passed around the Christian community with such frequency that it has become a modern legend and nobody of reputation in the skeptic community ever challenges a Christian debater on it, much like the issue of the two genealogies. If I could debate Licona or idiot Lane Craig I wouldn't miss the opportunity, you can bet.
The reason it matters (objectively) is that both theists and anti-theists alike try to use Jesus' existence/non-existence to push their agenda. For the Christians, if certain details about Jesus' death are historical they use these to argue for his resurrection. For the opposite side, being able to argue that Jesus never existed would obviously refute Christianity.
But of course, none of this is half as important as getting on the phone with Ehrman and telling him the *** is up! That blasted Christian spy!! How dare he deny that the church labeling a collection of historical documents "The New Testament" magically renders them non-historical?
ETA: How the heck is that a bad word!?
Jesus could of existed and still not have been the Son of God or done miracles. Doubt we could ever prove that Jesus never existed however until there is sufficient evidence for him not only existing but also of having died and being resurrected it remains an unproven story.
Not sure why you and Cowboy are so eager to either misrepresent atheism or wishing for us to remain silent, or so it appears. Are the Quran and the Book of Mormon historical documents, 9r the books for Hinduism. If we treat one as a historical document we must treat the others the same. As well as the oral stories of the Cherokee, Blackfoot, Cree and Inuit.
If Jesus did not exist, that is a problem for Christianity but doesn't mean that there is evidence that God does not exist. We already know that the Bible is in contradiction with science and archaeology is some parts.
Not sure why you and Cowboy are so eager to either misrepresent atheism or wishing for us to remain silent, or so it appears. Are the Quran and the Book of Mormon historical documents, 9r the books for Hinduism. If we treat one as a historical document we must treat the others the same. As well as the oral stories of the Cherokee, Blackfoot, Cree and Inuit.
Huh? I never said anyone should remain silent - and I don’t represent atheism (and never said I did), so I certainly can’t ‘misrepresent’ it. I’m an atheist, not an anti-theist, and I only represent myself.
Ah! So again, our level of intelligence just doesn't cut it when it comes to understanding you.
No, your level of KNOWLEDGE is insufficient.
Quote:
No, I don't think I've ever used the word 'supernatural'. Superstition...yes.It is the correct word to describe theism.
Your entire atheism is based on rejecting a supernatural entity despite my repeated assertions that there is no such thing.
Quote:
Look at that TRANS. An 'atheist' defending the gospels.
Judging the historical status of ancient writings using modern standards is the height of silliness. They operated under different mindsets in those eras and literacy was NOT that prevalent.
Quote:
Me! I don't believe that there was a 'historical' Jesus and if there was, he is completely irrelevant today.
Whether or not the Jesus narrative is historically accurate is what is irrelevant. His enormous impact in the spiritual milieu and the evolution of our understanding of God is indisputable whether or not you agree with it.
For me, the BIGGEST mistake atheists/mythicists make is not calling the Christians out on the egregious lies they tell in these public debates.
Well that would be true in either direction.
Quote:
One I can think of off the top of my head is the issue of the 12 apostles and this baloney that "all the apostles were willing to go to their deaths for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus."... If I could debate Licona or idiot Lane Craig I wouldn't miss the opportunity, you can bet.
I find it odd that you assume they haven't heard that objection already. I mean, again, they've debated people who deny that Jesus even ever existed; surely they've heard all sorts of arguments to deny other "facts" they've, as you say, offered in public debate.
On the other hand, maybe the reason none of the scholars they debate ever raise that objection isn't so mysterious. Are you sure it's a good one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Jesus could of existed and still not have been the Son of God or done miracles.
Well, exactly.
Quote:
Not sure why you and Cowboy are so eager to either misrepresent atheism
You will never find a more accurate representation of atheism than "It's the absence of belief in any god" (as I've been saying). So I'm not so sure why you accuse me of this...
Quote:
or wishing for us to remain silent, or so it appears.
Or so it doesn't appear, and you're actually misrepresenting us.
Quote:
Are the Quran and the Book of Mormon historical documents, 9r the books for Hinduism.
To my understanding these books were not written comparably close to the times they describe. Although I for one would have no problem conceding that there may be historical facts in them also, should that be the case (Alexander the Great's biographies were written some 400 years after his death and are still considered reliable). I also wouldn't be surprised to find that any/all of these books weren't originally one document, just as it is for "The Holy Bible" and "The New Testament".
Quote:
If we treat one as a historical document we must treat the others the same.
Now that does not necessarily follow. You would have to apply the historical method and actually look at these documents using the criteria historians use.
Except that one of the world's most influential religions is based on his supposed life. That gives him relevance.
Only to those that believe the stories...and no more relevance than Ganesh or any of the other gods that people firmly believe exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No, your level of KNOWLEDGE is insufficient.
OK Master. I am not worthy!
Quote:
Judging the historical status of ancient writings using modern standards is the height of silliness. They operated under different mindsets in those eras and literacy was NOT that prevalent.
Standard excuse for shrugging off the 'no evidence' problem. The fact is that there were plenty of educated people in the area that your man-god was allegedly operating and they were writing about far less important things than someone walking on water and raising people from the dead. Josephus, Philo-Judaeus (15 B.C.–50 A.D.), Seneca the Younger (4 B.C.–65 A.D.), Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.), Marcus Fabius Quintilian (39–96 A.D.), and Plutarch (49-119 A.D.). Justus of Tiberias, a Jew and a contemporary of Jesus, lived near Capernaum (where Jesus was said to live) and wrote a history of the Jews beginning with Moses and extending into his own times, but never mentioned Jesus. Don't you even wonder about things like that?
Don't you ever wonder why your god-man was only ever found in one desert crap-hole in the Middle East. Do you not wonder why merchants and traders in the area didn't take stories of this magic man back to their home countries and thus we would find the stories of the magic man circulating in other parts of the world?
If Jesus was a man of history, and if Jesus performed any miracles we would suppose many reports from contemporary historians and educated Romans who were in the area at the time. We have comprehensively examined all accounts, and none of then adequately supports the existence of Jesus. On these grounds, and the NEP, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not exist
Quote:
Whether or not the Jesus narrative is historically accurate is what is irrelevant. His enormous impact in the spiritual milieu and the evolution of our understanding of God is indisputable whether or not you agree with it.
As you have been repeatedly told by me and others here, in the first and second centuries, Christianity was an obscure blood sect and had it not been for Constantine (due to the constant ear-bashing from his rabidly Christian mother) making the religion legal and then Theodosius I proclaiming Christianity as the official religion of the Empire in 380 (edict of Thessalonica), that is how it would have lived and died. Christianity didn't get to where it is today because it was true, it got to where it is today because the choice was convert or die.
Except that one of the world's most influential religions is based on his supposed life. That gives him relevance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
Only to those that believe the stories...
Again, Bart Ehrman remains a thorn in your side as you make these sorts of claims. He said precisely what phetaroi is saying here, and he's no theist.
Quote:
Josephus, Philo-Judaeus (15 B.C.–50 A.D.), Seneca the Younger (4 B.C.–65 A.D.), Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.), Marcus Fabius Quintilian (39–96 A.D.), and Plutarch (49-119 A.D.). Justus of Tiberias, a Jew and a contemporary of Jesus, lived near Capernaum (where Jesus was said to live) and wrote a history of the Jews beginning with Moses and extending into his own times, but never mentioned Jesus. Don't you even wonder about things like that?
Even granting for the sake of argument that none of these people mention Jesus (Josephus, if no one else, is disputable), it doesn't erase those mentions that are given, which we've accused you of sweeping off to the side for no good reason...
Quote:
If Jesus was a man of history, and if Jesus performed any miracles we would suppose many reports from contemporary historians and educated Romans who were in the area at the time. We have comprehensively examined all accounts, and none of then adequately supports the existence of Jesus. On these grounds, and the NEP, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not exist
Or that Jesus did exist but did not perform miracles, as the actual scholars maintain. Those who aren't Christians, of course.
Justus of Tiberias, a Jew and a contemporary of Jesus, lived near Capernaum (where Jesus was said to live) and wrote a history of the Jews beginning with Moses and extending into his own times, but never mentioned Jesus. Don't you even wonder about things like that?
Since the Jews rejected Jesus, I would NOT expect any Jew who was NOT a follower to be writing about Him. Yet you reject the writings of those who followed Him as not historical. Catch 22.
Quote:
Don't you ever wonder why your god-man was only ever found in one desert crap-hole in the Middle East. Do you not wonder why merchants and traders in the area didn't take stories of this magic man back to their home countries and thus we would find the stories of the magic man circulating in other parts of the world?
What I wonder about is how such a person from "one desert crap-hole in the Middle East" would have ANY impact on anything, let alone 2000+ years of worldwide impact.
Quote:
If Jesus was a man of history, and if Jesus performed any miracles we would suppose many reports from contemporary historians and educated Romans who were in the area at the time. We have comprehensively examined all accounts, and none of then adequately supports the existence of Jesus. On these grounds and the NEP, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not exist.
Nonsense. There was nothing remotely like the modern day reporting of even local events. It was mostly hit and miss and relegated to fairly prominent people or events.
Quote:
As you have been repeatedly told by me and others here, in the first and second centuries, Christianity was an obscure blood sect and had it not been for Constantine (due to the constant ear-bashing from his rabidly Christian mother) making the religion legal and then Theodosius I proclaiming Christianity as the official religion of the Empire in 380 (edict of Thessalonica), that is how it would have lived and died. Christianity didn't get to where it is today because it was true, it got to where it is today because the choice was convert or die.
The issue is not HOW Christianity got to where it is today. The HOW is a surprising function of myriad politics and societal dynamics over centuries within and across various generations, cultures, and polities. The real issue is WHY would such an insignificant person be the catalyst for such an amazing spiritual phenomenon.
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.
