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.
I'm going to keep this thread on topic. I won't be making any excuses or explanations for why I'm doing what I'm doing as I did in Part 1. I'm going to present a series of FACTS. These are uncontested. No scholar disagrees with them that I have found. I'm interested in debating one or more Christians on them: FACT 1: There is no historical evidence for Jesus outside the New Testament[/b]--the New Testament scholars agree being a religious manifesto with fictional characters set within a historical period much like Gone With the Wind being a fictional story set within the Civil War. Any Christians who disagree with this fact? Please tell us so and why. Silence is agreement that this is a fact. I'll give a reasonable amount of time for a response, elaborate on the fact and then move on to FACT 2.
No, silence is not agreement with your views opinions beliefs.
that is not a rational statement. that is not a rational conclusion.
it comes across more as a taunt. as does the title "who is brave enough"
when people do not engage with the very vocal person who is wildly gesticulating on a street corner trying to accost passersby---that silence is not "agreement." Nor is it agreement when people pointedly avoid conversation and discussion with someone at a gathering. certainly anyone can express their views opinions beliefs on a public forum. but when people decline to comment or discuss further, it does not indicate "agreement." and they generally can't be provoked into engaging.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-26-2022 at 08:42 AM..
There is extremely scant historical evidence, which is different and a far lower standard than scientific evidence. It basically hinges on Tacitus and that Pilate stele that was found, which really just establishes that Pilate actually was procurator of Judea in that general time frame and crucified a guy named Jesus (a little like saying someone sent Joe or Jim or Fred to the electric chair).
That Pilate is a real historical character does not rub off on Jesus. Works of fiction reference real historical characters.
So for practical purposes it's fair to say IMO that there's no evidence for a discrete historic person who was THAT Jesus described (and embellished) years later in the gospels. I don't think it's technically correct to say there's no historical evidence, but rather very sketchy historical evidence, and most people really think too highly of historical standards of proof, particularly in the ancient world.
The scholarly consensus on the historicity of Jesus is really just saying that his existence is "least likely to be untrue" when looking at the utter paucity of the total body of evidence. Also, it's a circumspect and safe position to take publicly in a world where much of the funding and tenure for those kinds of historians and archaeologists and academics, come from people with skin in the game.
But here again, to me it is not even the central issue. We know that people don't make water into wine, walk on water or raise the dead, and the only ones claiming that Jesus did these things are not the dispassionate investigative reporters that some believers claim they are. They are religious partisans with different agendas and ideas and emphases about who Jesus is in the context of the overall mythos built up around him, likely at first orally and then captured in writing (including other gospels partly lost to us now). In the context of scholarship about the early church, I'd argue there was no consensus orthodoxy about Jesus that goes back to Jesus himself, whether he was in fact historic or invented. Orthodoxy was not swatting flies of conspiracy from the beginning; it was just competing for the title of orthodoxy, and there's a lot of evidence that they were themselves branded heretical by competing sects, some of whom did not even think that Jesus was corporeal, at least in the ordinary sense.
When you put all of this together it hardly matters who or what Bible Jesus was "based on". It's all campfire stories, ultimately.
Thanks for your reply, mordant because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on this:
"Archaeological evidence of Jesus does not exist."
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We cannot justify the conclusion that just because there is a complete absence of evidence for Jesus that he likely existed, the evidence for him simply disappeared or some other similar cockamamie suggestion.
If there is no evidence for someone as auspicious as Jesus Christ then we have to look elsewhere for why he is so famous. And for that we don't have to look any further than the complete dictatorial authority the Roman Catholic Church wielded over Europe in the centuries since its establishment.
FACT 2: The RCC forced belief in Jesus on the Europeans under threat of death for not believing.
You want to find a reason for why belief in Jesus is so pervasive today, look no father than Fact 2. It's been pounded into our consciousness. Without the RCC Jesus would have disappeared from the scene a few centuries after his myth appeared.
Tacitus and Suetonius et.al. don't count for evidence of Jesus because they don't mention the name "Jesus" just "Christ" and as we now know there were dozens of Christs from that period. three of which we are certain because they are historical figures who were crucified by the Romans:
1. Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.),
2. Theudas (44 C.E.),
3. Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.)
Additionally, the quotes of Tacitus and Suetonius of "Christ" are hearsay written from things Tacitus and Suetonius were hearing from Christians speaking of rumors of a Christ figure that emerged from the Palestine. It's plausible, even likely that when Tacitus and Suetonius speak of "Christ" they are referring one or more of the names above.
Quote:
there's no evidence for a discrete historic person who was THAT Jesus described (and embellished) years later in the gospels.
No, silence is not agreement with your views opinions beliefs.
that is not a rational statement. that is not a rational conclusion.
it comes across more as a taunt. as does the title "who is brave enough"
when people do not engage with the very vocal person who is wildly gesticulating on a street corner trying to accost passersby---that silence is not "agreement." Nor is it agreement when people pointedly avoid conversation and discussion with someone at a gathering. certainly anyone can express their views opinions beliefs on a public forum. but when people decline to comment or discuss further, it does not indicate "agreement." and they generally can't be provoked into engaging.
There is an irony that a good portion of people "wildly gesticulating on street corners" are street preachers.
I had originally wanted to do a Part 2 on this but I'd like to present my additional evidence in the form of a discussion with Christians. The problem has been NO Christian has been willing to step forth and defend their savior god when I extend this invitation to them. So I figure the best way to approach the issue at this point is to just throw it out there as a new thread and see if anyone in the Christian camp is brave enough to take on a friendly debate.
My contention: the Jesus of the gospels is a mythical character pure and simple. History shows he never existed. Any Christians want to contest my claim? Step forth.
Satan and his angels were thrown down to earth. Satan knew the Messiah would come, and he made many copy-cat messiahs/gods, before Jesus came to earth in the flesh. When Satan came to earth, he made copy-cat stories, and promoted gods of stone and wood. These ‘gods’ are really demons, and believing in these gods is the worship of demons.
Many nations have these demonic gods. In Egypt, Isis is a goddess worshiped, as is her consort, the sun god Ra. Isis is the mother of many gods. She also had a son, Horus, who was called divine. One can study about the Norse Gods — Odin, Thor, Balder, Frey, Freya, and Loki; and, Hindu gods, and Greek gods.
We see in the Bible where people worshiped goat and calf idols. In the book of Ezekiel we read about the image of jealousy set up at the gate of the altar Ezekiel 8:5, and 6, to provoke God of Israel to anger. Who but Satan would be behind setting up something to cause God’s anger?
The gods that pagans worship are demons:
1 Corinthians 10:20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.
1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
Too bad Christianity co-opted lots of Pagan traditions to make it more palatable for potential converts. And based on Christianity reigning supreme in much of the world today, I can’t say that’s a bad evolutionary strategy.
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.
But "brave" stands. Let's see if this time I can get some worthwhile responses instead of the usual rubbish. But I'm having my doubts. 
